I missed the first part. I want the guy to answer flat-out how many other publishers actually offered on his book and such. I hate "debaters" like him who just state their opinions as though they're fact.
Jim's doing great. I'm hoping that "Teresa" on hold is TNH. :-)
Susan, I am an attractive woman who has nursed in all kinds of places all across the US, and I have never ever--in years of public nursing--been propositioned by an adult wanting to breastfeed. Neither have I heard from any of my breastfeeding friends that they have ever been propositioned. (And I would have heard.) I don't for an instant believe your anecdotal evidence.
People have fetishes about all kinds of things. Judging by a Google search, far more people--vastly more--are into feet as a fetish than are into breastfeeding as one. By your reasoning, then, images of feet are pornography and should be banned.
Pixxelpuss, I don't believe you saw my earlier response.
It means "people with a certain characteristic are treated differently". With this policy, everyone is being treated the same way.
No, they aren't. Women with larger and darker areolae are treated differently. They would have to cover up the breast entirely to show a picture of "breastfeeding."
You're right in that I shouldn't have said breastfeeding is not considered "naked" by law (because that's not legal terminology); I should have said that it's not considered "indecent exposure." Indecent exposure is defined as "intentional exposure of part of one's body (as the genitals) in a place where such exposure is likely to be an offense against the generally accepted standards of decency."
I understand your stance: that pictures which show areolae, even when depicting breastfeeding--which is perfectly legal in public and is not considered indecent exposure!--are not appropriate as default icons because the general public might see them. It does not make the slightest bit of sense.
To say "pro-breastfeeding" is to take two completely seperate issues - whether breastfeeding is acceptable and whether default icons can have visible nipples in some cases - and present them as the same issue.
You were specifically talking about the moms who are complaining about this, Idonotlikepeas. Many of those moms are not "pro-naked-breast." Breastfeeding is not "naked" by law. (And actually, yeah, the TOS does say it goes by "law.")
It is more difficult for some women, yes, but it's no more discriminatory than saying, for instance, that even women with excessively large breasts must still cover them in public when not breastfeeding (despite the fact that this requires them to spend more on specialized clothes).
Again, you're comparing nudity to breastfeeding. Your prejudice is clear. Breastfeeding is not indecent or nudity, and yes, the policy does discriminate based on skin color, whether you like race coming into it or not.
Nevertheless, the image of the post-clothing-removal naked body, without the original context, would still be considered inappropriate in that same physical location the next week.
Yet again, this is because public nudity (or public depictions of it) is not lawful. Breastfeeding is not considered public nudity.
I did a poor job of phrasing my last comment. Let me clarify that I am sure Mr. Bryan would in no way approve of cops arresting or ticketing a nude victim.
The quote is from here, for those who want to see it in context; I was simply using the same analogy he used.
And regarding the nude victims...
I'm unaware of a law specifically making a provision for victims who are nude. Let's say that a woman is kidnapped, assaulted, and left dazed on the street. A total asshole cop, I suppose, could probably technically ticket her--you know, applying Doug Bryan's rule comparing breastfeeding mothers to speed violators: "sometimes you end up catching someone who is in fact a very law abiding citizen, but who just happened to be driving over the speed limit"--but no cop would ever do that. (At least not here. Women in other countries are sadly not so lucky and are routinely arrested for being violated.) Because the fact is still that nudity is against the law. Thus, yes, pictures of the woman nude would still violate the law.
But breastfeeding is not against the law. Breastfeeding is not considered indecent exposure, and it's not considered nudity. Thus, there is no reason at all why pictures of breastfeeding would be considered indecent.
There are two positions here: that naked breasts are OK in default icons in some cases, and that they are not. If you have a neutral term that I can use to describe the first camp which does not conflate it with unrelated issues (pro-breastfeeding, for instance), I'll be happy to adopt it.
"Unrelated issues"? You have got to be joking.
You're arguing that some breastfeeding images are fine for default icons, but others aren't, based solely on skin color and areola size. Two moms could be nursing the same-size babies in the same position, the same distance from the camera, and one with pale skin and/or small and undifferentiated areolae would be acceptable while one with darker skin and/or large areolae would not. That's discriminatory.
Idonotlikepeas, your whole argument revolves around the argument that breastfeeding pictures are inappropriate. I disagree, and I haven't seen a scrap of evidence, from you or anyone else, to back up that assumption. (There are many reasons besides nudity, btw, for why it might be inappropriate to show pictures of accident victims, and while no one can help when someone becomes a victim, the direct witnessing of someone in the process of dying is, again, far more traumatic than seeing a picture of it; it's that traumatic effect [along with privacy issues, etc.]--even lessened, through a photo-- that keeps newspapers from showing those victims.)
It follows the no-nipple rule, though. I'm actually not sure whether the FCC would let it on television or not.
And as we've already established, the FCC doesn't have a "no nipple" rule. The case I cited earlier clearly illustrates that hardvice's icon would not be allowed. Absolutely nothing you have cited backs up your opinion that breastfeeding photos are inappropriate even though the act itself isn't.
And your switch to calling us the "pro-naked-breast moms" is insulting.
By "that," of course, I mean the ability to post breastfeeding icons even if they happen to show nipple--the acknowledgment that pictures of breastfeeding are not indecent or inappropriate.
I have no experience whatsoever with LJ Abuse, Idonotlikepeas. I haven't said a thing about them. The last bit I mentioned isn't about the original complainer (though I still maintain that LJ isn't following the FCC guidelines, because an image of a bare-breasted woman with twirling pasties, as on his default icon, which y'all have deemed okay, wouldn't be allowed by FCC standards), but about the continuing targeting of breastfeeding moms. LJ can't possibly be unaware that that's happening, and they're just going along with it, allowing it.
As for us saying that's all we want, hell, that's what we've been saying all along. It's just that no one seems to be listening.
What if there were a risk that you would be unable to get public emergency medical treatment if you had to be unclothed? Breastfeeding moms constantly face people telling them that nursing a baby is inappropriate in public, that they need to go somewhere else. Thus the desire to see breastfeeding normalized through presenting positive images of it.
In this specific case, there would have to be either an internal policy change or (preferably) an actual exception in the ToS that said "an image of a bare breast is not considered inappropriate so long as it is engaged in the act of breastfeeding" or similar.
This is all the breastfeeding moms want, Idonotlikepeas. They want to be able to show images of breastfeeding even if they happen to have large or dark areolae. It would be so easy for LJ to make this change, and yet they refuse. Breastfeeding moms are being deliberately policed and targeted by members of other communities, and LJ is allowing it.
Dorothy, as I understand it, it would be fine to have a blow-up sheep sucking your nipple in a default icon even if you are a woman--as long as your areola doesn't show.
Dave, that's one of the most useful comments I've seen in this thread.
Pixxelpuss, it's certainly not legal to participate in a sexual act in public, which is my point. The doctor's office analogy absolutely is not valid because it's not okay to walk around nude in public, so of course it's not okay to display pictures of yourself nude in public. It is okay to nurse in public.
Idonotlikepeas stated, But if you were in the doctor's office, and someone took a picture of your naked body, that picture would not automatically become decent and appropriate for display in all circumstances simply because it was entirely appropriate for you to be naked in that situation in the first place. Then he got snippy when I pointed out that the situation was nothing like breastfeeding because a doctor's office wasn't public and asked, How precisely is that relevant? I was trying to illustrate that a representation of an act isn't automatically more acceptable than the act itself, and that changing the context of an act changes whether it's appropriate.
I'm honestly astounded I'd have to explain this. If something is not acceptable to do in public, of course it's not acceptable to display a picture of it being done in "all circumstances." It's not going to be okay to display a picture of you naked in all circumstances because it's not okay to be naked in all circumstances. That is one of the more utterly ludicrous arguments I've seen.
As for the law vs. community standards, I disagree and sincerely doubt that you're backing your opinion, which you state as though it's fact, up with any real data.
Actual acts that are "inappropriate" are considered far worse live, in front of you, than pictures showing the same act. (You can readily think of any number of examples of this, but I'm not going to spell them out lest someone think that I'm comparing breastfeeding with an inappropriate act.) If an act is appropriate in public, a picture of the act is appropriate in public. It is not inappropriate or indecent. People keep saying that banning the picture isn't the same as saying the act isn't appropriate, and that's BS. The act has more power than the picture, yet the act is fine. Exactly what examples can someone offer me of any other act that is acceptable in all circumstances in public and yet isn't acceptable to see a picture of?
Darkrose, I did not at any point say "LJ hates breastfeeding mothers!" Your post is phrased such that it looks as though you are quoting me in that regard. Please be more careful.
Saying it's "not appropriate" instead of "indecent" is just playing with words, Relly.
And now I need to go to bed.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 1 |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 26 |
| 2005 | 8 |
Total: 36 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Deanna Hoak:
Show all comments by Deanna Hoak.