Facebook and nursing
You're great, you really are. Thanks to you, I've reconnected with my high-school classmates, college roommates and all of my ex boyfriends. I can see where my globetrotting cousin lives now and check out photos of the kids of co-workers from a decade ago, without even having to pester them. I can send hi's and hello's to friends old and new without bothering to update the emails in my address book.
So it was with surprise and dismay that I read in my local paper today that you've made it a policy to remove user-posted images of women breastfeeding their babies. Just a few clicks over the internet told me that lactivists have been up in arms about this since September of last year. The Facebook group, "Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene", born out of that outlash, is over a year old, and even though it now has over 54,000 members, you still continue to classify breastfeeding photos as obscene content.
Facebook, I breastfed each of my three children (yes, even the twins) for their first fifteen months. Let me tell you, nursing breasts are in no way sexually obscene. Or even sexual. Just ask my husband. Swollen, veiny mammaries? Huge, leaky nipples covered in sores from unsuccessful latching attempts? Are you kidding me? Motherly, yes. Natural, yes. But sexual — well, you'd have to be into some pretty weird stuff to be getting your kicks from that.
Apparently one of your spokespersons has clarified that the sitedoes allow breastfeeding photos as long as they don't show a fullyexposed breast. So why remove breastfeeding photos, since the nursingbaby's head ought to be covering a portion of the mom's boob anyway? Television networks regularly feature women's bare breasts with nipplesfuzzed out (and I'm not talking about ads for Girls Gone Wild; justcheck out any episode of Dr. 90210). Your site even allows profile pictures of women in scanty bikini tops. Surely a mother's breast with a baby latched onto it rates higher onthe decency scale.Continued on the next page