Facebook under fire; breastfeeding pics.

[JamesSD]

I don't find people who post them any more self-absorbed than bloggers or people who post... oh, whatever--pictures of their ceramic plate collections or star wars figures--on the Internet. Actually, I'd put nursing pictures, as having inherent value, over those things... but that's me.

I can certainly agree with you on that. End of the day, I'm highly indifferent about all three.

 

[SensualCealy]

This is absolutely crazy!!!

I want to start a petition to have National Geographic remove from all of its books, the naked women in Africa, the animals humping, and all the little ones all over the world running around with absolutely nothing on!

If a woman is breast feeding and anyone says it is sexual in nature, it is that person themselves that articulate it in a sexual manner. It is as natural as giving birth! Been done since before the birth of Christ, maybe the sexual under tone for absolutely everything in life should be looked at more carefully and start going back to the basics.

Now I have never been to Europe so don't be giving me a hard time, but it is my understanding that breast feeding is even more common there then in North America, so is nude beaches, does that turn our children into warped human beings? I would hope not, I would hope it shows youngsters that you should be proud of your body and desensitize themselves to "Oh my gosh, those are boobies!"

C

 

[Pure]

only in america, sensual c.

iirc, parents have been busted for having pics of naked 3 year olds (theirs) in photo albums. kids at the beach. crime: child porn.

i agree with 3113. to point out that breast feeding is sometimes next door to masturbation is not the kind of PR needed in fight Facebook or other censors. the 'lactivists' should be saying, "it's pure and natural. only obscene, or even sexual, to dirty minded censors." (i bet they are; not 'i came hard while nursing.' hmmmm... so the nursing websites should look look like the 'beautiful agony' website.)

 

[3113]

Certainly in our culture, with the prevalent attitudes, it would cause ire. But the fact is that oxytocin, the same hormone that causes orgasm/uterine contractions and which are brought on through nipple stimulation (among other things) is also the "love/trust" hormone. It's the thing that causes us to feel love... a great deal of it is released during orgasm... it's also released in great quantities in BOTH baby and mother during nursing. Love and sex are inextricably linked for women in that way, biologically and psychologically. Mothers NEED to fall in love with their babies and nature uses a sex hormone to get the job done. That WE dissociate the two is our preogative. Nature doesn't differentiate.

Hey, I'm not arguing the chemistry with you. Evolution did a very good job with us, no doubt, no contention. You're absolutely right about women, love and sex. But that lecture ain't gonna fly with angry males on talk radio or in a restaurant where they're demanding that the woman seated at the next table take the baby someplace private.

I don't dispute the facts. I dispute that they make any difference at all in an argument which is based entirely on appearance and what people in our culture relate to that appearance. Aka, no sex in public so if there's even a hint that this has to do with sex than it shouldn't be in public.

 

[Pure]

otoh, 3113, there are any number of ads that show a face that is ecstatic, possibly orgasmic'; there is the famous scene of faked coming in When Harry Met Sally. i think of a scene in the stall of a washroom, when there are moans and a woman comes out, straightens her clothes, heads off..

our culture has it both ways.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In a breastfeeding pic, isn't the nipple bit kinda covered? So it's no more skin exposure than a deep cleveage or a low cut bikini. What criteria for obscenity is there? Unless the one doing the sucking is an adult, I don't see what the fuss is about.

Most babies leave most of the aureola uncovered, when nursing

 

[3113]

otoh, 3113, there are any number of ads that show a face that is ecstatic, possibly orgasmic'; there is the famous scene of faked coming in When Harry Met Sally. i think of a scene in the stall of a washroom, when there are moans and a woman comes out, straightens her clothes, heads off..

our culture has it both ways.

Only in romantic comedies

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Most babies leave most of the aureola uncovered, when nursing

Depending on the size of the areola in question of course... or how dark it is... mine are big but pale pale pale pink, almost invisible (unless I'm very aroused, or just out of a really hot shower )

I can certainly agree with you on that. End of the day, I'm highly indifferent about all three.

but if it's naked pictures of women, say, masturbating... then you're interested? *grin*

I don't dispute the facts. I dispute that they make any difference at all in an argument which is based entirely on appearance and what people in our culture relate to that appearance. Aka, no sex in public so if there's even a hint that this has to do with sex than it shouldn't be in public.

But like Pure said about "having it both ways," my point is that it IS sexual... there are lots of things that are sexual that we pretend aren't. And lots of things we make sexual that aren't sexual at all. (Pure's example comes to mind... I keep remembering those shampoo commercials where women were practically orgasmic while washing their hair...) While the argument might not "fly" with Howard Stern, I don't really care to argue with him about it. I'd rather point out that the cultural bias itself is the culprit... frankly, we're repressed, which is why nursing in and of itself could be even thought of as titilating.

maybe the sexual under tone for absolutely everything in life should be looked at more carefully and start going back to the basics.

I think this is, actually, the answer. To start acknowledging and accepting the sex in all things sexual...

unfortunately, I don't see it happening in MY lifetime... *sigh*

so keep making your arguments, 3113... that's probably all anyone is going to hear.

 

[Guest]

immoral

Believe me, Selena, when people call breast feeding "obscene" they aren't thinking about the woman getting turned on. Likewise, those in favor of breast feeding would be doing themselves no good at all to point out that women have orgasms while breast feeding. That would *certainly* make it seem like something that ought not to be done in public.

What is immoral, is that children be given substandard food from boxes because their mothers are uncomfortable feeding them, or raised too unassertive to tell others to f*** off.


Humanity loses, whichever angle you use to analyse this.

There.

I step down from the soap box.

Maharat

 

[jomar]

Another (lesser known?) angle

Well, if we're going to ban breastfeeding pictures, I must insist we ban all pictures of babies and toddlers playing and bouncing on daddy's lap. I can tell you from experience that a good percentage of those daddy's are getting wood.




Seriously, it's a bit horrifying the first time it happens, then you come to terms that it's not a sexual act/relationship with your child, but the body does what the body does under stimulation. So you do what a responsible adult should do and get on with loving your kid, appropriately.

 

[Pure]

family photos. charges.

i believe this is the case i heard about, but it's hard to find info on.

http://www.militarycorruption.com/michaeldunlop2.htm


THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY SEEM

Capt. Michael Dunlop and his wife Kendall were portrayed by the press as the lowest form of monster. Investigators inferred the young couple were photographing and exploiting their own children - boys aged 3 and 5 - for "porn" purposes. Why, how low can one go?

We were told that - hold your breath - 1700 explicit "images" were confiscated from the Dunlop's computer, as well as "dirty magazines" and, shudder to think, "sex devices." Get out the rope! Let's string them up.

But wait! After the dust had settled on the media circus and the screaming headlines (ours included) had subsided; after the sensational radio and TV reports had been broadcast far and wide, the TRUTH started to leak out.

MilitaryCorruption.com didn't have our own C.I.'s (confidential informants) "on-scene" for this particular story, as we do in most cases, so that made us dependent on sometimes unreliable sources. And when the Air Force and local cops want to make something bigger than it is, they can usually count on the local media to splash the headlines.

The many thousands of you that read our initial story (see "related stories box" below), saw where we reported the Dunlops had been arrested on two counts of second degree "criminal sexual contact" - a first degree felony; taking photos of minors in sex acts; use of one's own children in "obscene acts," a first degree felony; and two counts of child abuse; a misdemeanor.

The couple were both jailed on $100,000 bail and whispers started that the Dunlop boys were "acting out" sex acts they allegedly saw their parents perform or taught them to do for the camera. All of that is false or misleading.

IF ANY "CRIME" COMMITTED, IT WAS
"TRAUMATIC" INTERROGATION OF KIDS

You take any little children that young in age and "interrogate" them for hours on end, ask them leading questions, and try and put words in their mouths, you're going to be able to indict a ham sandwich. In this case, the five year-old allowed as to how his parents took pictures of him without his clothes on.

Out of 1700 supposedly wicked and wanton "images" confiscated by the Guam cops, sicced on the couple by the Air Force OSI, was two charming photos of a younger boy "nursing" at his mother's breast. It turns out the photo was snapped back in Texas, long before the Dunlops were transferred to Guam. Duh! That kind of messes up the jurisdictional issue, doesn't it? Woo! Hoo! A total of four - that's right - just four photos could even be considered questionable, and each pose can be adequately explained, if one is willing to listen.

However, the instigator of this witch hunt, we have learned, is an unstable and vindictive person who contacted Air Force authorities and filled them "full of bull" about what was supposedly going on in the Dunlop home.

Remember the awful porn magazines and "sex devices?" They were found by the rampaging cops put away, out of sight of the youngsters, in a bedroom closet.

Here are the FACTS as we know them:

(1) - There was NO "child pornography" or pictures of children engaged in sexual acts.

(2) - There was absolutely NO "child abuse" or even signs of it.

(3) - NO bruises, welts or scars were found on either youngster.

What there was, was: (Hi, Bill Clinton - we know you read us.)

(1) - Just four pictures the authorities could bitch about, all of a parent and (at the time) two-year old child. So who are the real "perverts" here?

(2) - An unstable female's testimony - a woman who has spent a brief amount of time in the Dunlop home - and may have an axe to grind.

(3) - After the lengthy and upsetting police interrogations, both boys became ill (got diarrhea) and soiled their clothing. Who are the real "tormentors" here?

In a police transcript, parts of which were leaked to us by sources other than the Dunlops, one boy says his father "doesn't wear clothes" at home, but the rest of what the young boy said: " . . .Dad wears his work clothes at home" was not included. See, changes the meaning 180 degrees, right?

It must have been frustrating to the gendarmes when the three year old could not and would not "corroborate" his older brother's "taken out of context" statements. After all, they both live under the same roof! Wouldn't their stories jibe?

ALL FELONY CHARGES DROPPED AS
SENSATIONAL "CHILD-PORN" CASE FIZZLES

Well, as of press time, the felony charges have all been dropped and the Dunlops - deeply traumatized by the ordeal they have gone through - are back home. The case is far from over, however, as the family's name and reputation has been destroyed forever. Neither adult ventures into town (Agana) where gossip is still at fever pitch. We don't necessarily blame KUAM-TV and the Pacific DAILY NEWS for the sensationalistic coverage. After all, it wasn't their fault. They were depending on the Air Force and local cops to be accurate and truthful.

As for Capt. Dunlop's military career, that's pretty much over no matter how this case turns out. He already is facing mounting legal bills. His children, whom he and Kendall love dearly, need to be returned to them as soon as possible. If anyone has been "harmed" in this incident, it has been them. But NOT by parents who adore them. By a "system" out of control and a "politically-correct" mentality that seems to say "guilty until proven innocent."

 

[jomar]

It's a shame they can't sue.

 

[Pure]

similar cases?

jomar, have you-- or anyone--heard of cases like this?. i think i saw an example in a tv drama (which may have drawn from reality):

the woman took (apparently innocent, non sexual) photos of her daughter naked (some genital exposure) on the beach, age 5. she took them to a developer; he called police, who arrested her when she went to pick them up.

 

[jomar]

jomar, have you-- or anyone--heard of cases like this?. i think i saw an example in a tv drama (which may have drawn from reality):

the woman took (apparently innocent, non sexual) photos of her daughter naked (some genital exposure) on the beach, age 5. she took them to a developer; he called police, who arrested her when she went to pick them up.

I have heard of other (non-military) cases involving similar innocent childhood photos. If memory serves, one was a professional photographer (woman?) who took some artsy but innocent pics of her child and got in trouble. I'd have to search for it to make sure, but don't have time this moment - have to go to work

It's a frightening thing, I'd think most parents have such pics of their kids.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

jomar, have you-- or anyone--heard of cases like this?. i think i saw an example in a tv drama (which may have drawn from reality):

the woman took (apparently innocent, non sexual) photos of her daughter naked (some genital exposure) on the beach, age 5. she took them to a developer; he called police, who arrested her when she went to pick them up.

Lots of cases like this exist, Pure. Lots and lots of them.

I've been involved with parent's rights groups and have talked, firsthand, to families who have had a child die in foster care by an abusive foster care parent after being taken away for something like this. And they have no recourse against the state or workers--they are all immune to prosecution.

The state can take your child with little or no evidence, and won't give the child back until it's been "proven" that you did no harm. Backwards, isn't it? Seems strange that, in our country, the "innocent until proven guilty" thing wouldn't apply, but in these cases, it doesn't.

The courts have decided that the child's welfare is more important than a parent's rights, so in these cases, children are taken away from allegedly offending parents until those parents have their names cleared, or they are convicted. The problem is, in these cases, the burden of proof is not reasonable doubt (98%), it's preponderance of the evidence (50%) and only a few state in the union allow jury trials. Most are decided by trial judges who are in CPS' pocket. It's a very corrupt and twisted system. The foster system pays foster parents to adopt kids. The incentives are to keep kids away from parents, not to reunite families. The other problem is that 99% of these cases are "settled." It's a version of a plea bargain... basically, most parents will do anything to get their kids back, and they agree to jump through CPS' hoops in order to do so, rather than wait (6 months, up to a year) for a trial in order to have a judge or jury clear their name. But by signing a plea, they have essentially admitted guilt... most parents don't realize this when it happens. They just know (because it's what CPS and the court appointed attorneys tell them) they're doing the thing that will get them reunited with their child the fastest.

I personally knew a woman who had 11 children taken from her by CPS. Originally, four children were taken because her house was "dirty." Because CPS kept adding more and more and more hoops for these parents to jump through (parenting classes, therapy, etc) they ended up being in noncompliance and had their rights terminated. Once their rights were terminated, they weren't "allowed" to have any more children--if they did, the state could petition to have the child taken. They went into hiding and had more children. Eventually, someone turned them in. Three more children were taken. They went into hiding again... on it went. Eleven children. The last one (age 2) was killed (beaten to death) in his foster home. Somehow I think this kid would have been better off in filth than dead, but hey, what do I know, right? :x

The things they are taking kids away for are insane nowadays. Not just "dirty" homes or "possible child porn" (kids in the bathtub pictures) are being brought into court, but spanking cases (not severe abuse... but a swat on a child's bottom), parents using physical self defense against a physically hostile teen, even talking about "adult subjects" in front of children (family finances are considered adult, by the way) is considered harmful, even just by being poor... they claim you're neglecting your child's basic needs. Parents who don't take their kids to the doctor for colds or the sniffles, or even if you fail to obtain a pediatrician, has been used to constitute medical neglect. Just owning pornographic material, even if it's under lock and key, has been classified as environmental neglect.

The horror stories I could tell you are too numerous to count... the system fails, over and over and over, both the children it's meant to protect and the children who never needed their protection in the first place...

 

[Pure]

i have a good friend who is a foster parent, and things here are opposite to what you describe.

kids are RARELY taken permanenty, unless dad's hannibal lecter.

often kids got to relatives who are as neglectful as the parent.

childrens services accepts nominal efforts, like signing up for a parenting class. they're looking for a way to return the kid.

there are many empty foster homes is light of this pendulum swing.

i think one has to find a middle ground. i agree with taking kids where there's clear and serious abuse.

oh, and by the way, the 'gay' thing is handled well by child welfare: gayness is not an issue and there are gay foster parents.

===

we did have a spanking case. Christian family. mild spanking. it went to court and the family won, but they had hard times at first..

the system fails, over and over and over,

well, before the system, lots of kids killed. still a majority of kids killed are killed by parents. it's no different than the problem of policing.
there are abuses but i don't like the absence of police, at all!.

 

[lisa123414]

Fifteen or sixteen years ago, when I was at the beginning of the breastfeeding phase of my life, there was a case in New York state. Let me digress a little and explain to the unenlightened, that breastfeeding can be a very stimulating activity. Some infants latch on and feed as though their lives depend upon it (bit of humor there, eh). It hurts, it makes your toes curl, it makes your uterus contract, and surprisingly it also sometimes can, make the nursing mother quite aroused. Getting back to New York, the mother in question was quite disturbed that this activity should get her aroused so she called the social services department in her city to talk to someone about it.

To make a long story short, they took away her child, she spent the next 18 months taking the city to court to get her daughter back. All she did, was to tell a public official that breastfeeding made her aroused, and she was concerned about it.

Breastfeeding is so misunderstood. I use to breastfeed in public places because the only alternative was the ladies room. A public bathroom is full of germs and smelly, I did not think it was a good place to hang out with my infant. I got some flack for doing this, but the alternative is to stay at home. At the time, I felt like, although I was not happy about some of the looks I got, it was a completely defensible and proper activity, and that maybe it would help people see that it really was not such a scandalous thing.

It probably did not work, as the folks who did look and notice what was going on probably thought “how disgusting, there is another broad whipping it out in public.

 

[Vermilion]

I think this site makes the point beautifully!

x
V

 

[Pure]

thank vermilion! isn't it odd how the men get to decide about breasts: when to show (lots of times, e.g. topless shows, topless waitresses) and when it's suddenly discusting.

we had a related case her in Canada. a woman, Gwen Jacobs, thought the ban on breasts in public was wrong, and one summer walked about her town, shirtless (this town of course would have strip joints with such displays).

when she charged, she argued discrimination, since men could go shirtless. AND ithat breasts were not necessarily sexual (i suppose the argument for topless beaches). she won on appeal.

how much follow through? not much, but if the woman chooses to bare, she can't be arrested.


http://www.fcn.ca/Gwen.html [basic story]

http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news/article/112115 [follow up with Gwen]

 

[Vermilion]

thank vermilion! isn't it odd how the men get to decide about breasts: when to show (lots of times, e.g. topless shows, topless waitresses) and when it's suddenly discusting.

we had a related case her in Canada. a woman, Gwen Jacobs, thought the ban on breasts in public was wrong, and one summer walked about her town, shirtless (this town of course would have strip joints with such displays).

when she charged, she argued discrimination, since men could go shirtless. AND ithat breasts were not necessarily sexual (i suppose the argument for topless beaches). she won on appeal.

how much follow through? not much, but if the woman chooses to bare, she can't be arrested.


http://www.fcn.ca/Gwen.html [basic story]

http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news/article/112115 [follow up with Gwen]

How interesting, I was particularly fascinated by this bit...

After a very public trial, Jacob was found guilty of this criminal offense and fined $75. The judge didn't take seriously her claim that women's breasts are simply fat tissue and no different than men's. The judge explained that a women's breast is "a part of the female body that is sexually stimulating to men both by sight and touch". He therefore deduced that it was appropriate to restrict their public exposure.

If this is the case then they'll have to start making all men cover up the backs of their necks and their forearms because I find those "sexually stimulating to me both by sight and touch".
Tchuh.
x
V

 

[Stella_Omega]

How interesting, I was particularly fascinated by this bit...


If this is the case then they'll have to start making all men cover up the backs of their necks and their forearms because I find those "sexually stimulating to men both by sight and touch".
Tchuh.
x
V

A woman I know was part of a film set-construction crew. Some crews are used to women on the site; this one, evidently was not. The foreman came up to her, and told her, half-seriously, that the guys had asked that she not wear shorts, (In 90+ degree weather) because her legs were distracting to them. She told him "Tell them to keep their shirts on, then, because all these bare chests just get me soo hot." The subject never came up again.

Finally, who posts pics of themselves breastfeeding on their profile? Is the act of having a child that all consuming?

Uh... yes, dear, it is.
Trust me on this.