babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
Facebook Removes Photo of Pregnant Woman’s Painted Breast and Belly
Do you find this photo offensive? Facebook does.
Facebook has proven time and time again that they consider photos of breastfeeding to be inappropriate by removing them from their site. Breastfeeding advocates have continually argued – both in response to Facebook’s nude photo policy and in the world at large – that in the context of feeding a child, breasts should not be considered sexual objects. That seems irrefutable. Additionally, when seen up-close in person or in a photograph, a woman’s breasts are usually minimally exposed while feeding a child. Sometimes less so than in your average (and societally acceptable) cleavage shot. Which makes considering breastfeeding “nudity” seem ridiculous.
Facebook’s community standards specifically state, “We have a strict “no nudity or pornography” policy. Any content that is inappropriately sexual will be removed. Before posting questionable content, be mindful of the consequences for you and your environment.” And today they proved that their definition of nudity is even stricter than ever thought. Earlier this afternoon, a photo of a beautifully adorned pregnant belly was removed from the site because – evidently – it involved unacceptable nudity in the form of a painted breast.
Babble’s social media manager, Andrea Zimmerman, posted the photo in question (above) to our Facebook page a few hours ago, and it received several hundred views before it was deleted by Facebook without warning. This has happened once or twice before to photos on Babble’s account, and Facebook has responded by sending a message warning that if their guidelines are violated too many times, the account will be deleted.
What I fail to understand in all of this is why Facebook is concerned with eradicating their site of pregnancy body art when they seem to have no problem with allowing users to be spammed by photos of “fuck me” high heels and the latest basketball kicks.
If, based on the wisdom of the US Supreme Court, we are supposed to know pornography when we see it, I’m telling you – this photo of a pregnant woman’s body covered in giraffes ain’t it. (Unless you’re really into animal porn, I guess. But even then…) Conversely, I’m fully clothed in my cover shot, accentuating my breasts in a manner that is clearly suggestive (you know, in a post-feminist, empowered sort of way), and it’s pretty damn sexy. So what gives, Facebook? When will you begin to respect the sanctity (pun intended!) of women’s breasts and stop disrespecting our feet?
To see more Incredible Pregnancy Body Art click here!
Go Back To Strollerderby
46 Comments
Katherine commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:36 pmWow. That is alot of paint.
Chelsea commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:41 pmI’ve seen people post porn on their fb’s! Are you fn serious??
yvette commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:42 pmI have seen more sluttier pictures of chicks on fb then anywhere else, yet they delete that picture? I know that it must be reported before it’s deleted (I think) but seriously, it’s not insulting. If they can have a pic of a girl (in the same way) covered by only paint of their fav football team, why can’t there be a picture like this up?
LuLu commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:43 pmI dont understand how this photo is offensive. But yet there are women out there with their body parts barely covered that are okay for facebook? People pay too much attention to the detail of the BODY rather than the detail of the ART. If it offends you, then DON’T look at it. Just because you are a Debbie Downer doesn’t mean that the next 154215 people are too! Didn’t their mama’s teach them that if they didn’t have anything nice to say, to not say anything at all? That applies here! Not everyone is going to like the same thing as everyone else. It’s what makes us so diverse and able to live in the same space together. People have grown so ignorant as of late. Ridiculous.
Laura Lough commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:44 pmThough I agree that photos like this are in no way pornographic and shouldn’t be considered offensive by anyone, I think its a mistake to link this incident with issue of breastfeeding photos being “offensive”. This is not a breastfeeding photo and so their is neither a child blocking view of the breast nor the clear reason for the breast being revealed. In this case the photo is very tasteful but it does violate the facebook restriction on nudity. Though you may argue that FB’s rules are unfair it is your choice to post on FB and as such you read and follow their rules. The breastfeeding photo issue is different because, in my opinion at least, breastfeeding photos are not usually “nudity” in that generally only a portion of the breast (not the nipple) is visible. Banning breastfeeding photos while allowing photos of women in small bikinis or underwear is unjust because the rule is being applied differently in different cases.
In this case we would have to look and see if FB bans all photos of nude bodies “clothed” in body paint (a situation that many do not consider true nudity). A brief search of FB shows MANY full frontal photos of body art that have not been removed. So the question is, does body paint make a body no longer “nude” in the eyes of FB or does FB choose to apply its rules only in certain situations?
meganne commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:45 pmso why is it ok for them to remove this picture when i have seen plenty of other photos of mothers breastfeeding and actual birth pictures showing everything on facebook?! i think facebook needs to get their priorities straight….smh.
Jennifer commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:45 pmOK so this makes no sense… I currently am looking at a fb page with at least 3 or 4 pic of mothers breast feeding and they have been up for at least a few days if not weeks… Breast feeding is not PORN!!! IT is nothing but natural! There is nothing sexual about it!
Liz commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:47 pmI’ve seen A LOT worse on FB, however I think if her breasts were covered, it would actually be a nicer photo.
Krissi commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:47 pmOh stuff like this can be deleted but there’s pictures of females damn near nude and that can stay up? ridiculous!!!!
Samira commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:48 pmif you weren’t staring at it you’d think she was clothed and not only that but I don’t find it offensive at all at least its not the pics I’ve seen on face book before of a naked 500 pound woman sitting on some 50 pound man but that seems to be ok I don’t get it either but there ya have it facebook is retarded and I’ve been seriously debating whether or not to just delete it the past few days
Jo-Anna commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:49 pmI saw this photo this morning on FB and I thought it was amazing. Not for one second did it cross my mind that it was in any way sexual. I’m dumbfounded (and completely offended) by FB’s decision to remove it.
Jo-Anna
Rachael commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:50 pmWOW!!! I find it very artistic & beautiful. Shame on FB & Zuckerberg’s team. I have soooooo many more offensive things than this!!!! Kuddos to you all for posting it in the first place :)
Hayley Stevens commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:51 pmGorgeous paint job! Not offensive at all! And like another poster stated – there are TONS more offensive pics posted daily! UGH
Jordan commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:52 pmIt’s unfortunate they don’t see the beauty in breastfeeding. Possibly they were bottle feed and have deep seeded roots of anger that these photos bring up. Who knows, but all in all I DON’T find that photo offensive. Beautiful is more the word I would choose.
Savannah commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:55 pmhttp://snuminen.blogspot.com/2012/01/you-know-whats-really-sad.html This is the blog I wrote on the subject! It’s ridiculous the double standards that facebook has.
Alison commented on Feb 07 12 at 2:56 pmStupid Facebook. They really need some moms on their board.
I really love your line, “If, based on the wisdom of the US Supreme Court, we are supposed to know pornography when we see it, I’m telling you – this photo of a pregnant woman’s body covered in giraffes ain’t it.”
nicole commented on Feb 07 12 at 3:00 pmI agree. You cant really see anything. She is covered in paint. What really gives?
Marjorie Mura commented on Feb 07 12 at 3:00 pmWhy is this offensive it is a work of art . Why can a man do this and no one cares. Isn”t this a double standard?
monica masukusa commented on Feb 07 12 at 3:00 pmBABBLe thats a wonderful,brilliant and artistic picture,a celebration of your sites’ work,the celebration of the female anatomy in its glory as a source of life and nourishment 4 the offspring of man,thank u 4 the pic its amazing,we love babble and breastfeeding.
Jo commented on Feb 07 12 at 3:26 pmI don’t see the problem with it, it’s beautiful, now if it had been MY pregnant belly I could understand!!
Amanda commented on Feb 07 12 at 3:34 pmActually, I’m guessing it was users themselves who reported the photos (i.e. Angela’s friends, or Babble’s Facebook followers) because THEY found them offensive. Facebook doesn’t look into a photo unless a user has reported it as offensive. It simply took action based on those reports, and some employees made the mistake to delete some breastfeeding photos (human error) thinking they were against the policy, when they actually are not. It is NOT Facebook’s policy to delete breastfeeding photos. That is not the kind of nudity that the ‘report’ mechanism is intended to remove, but rather pornography. If you wrote Facebook directly and addressed this issue with them (which I’m guessing you didn’t, and just vented about it on your blog), they would have put the picture back up and rectified the problem. Stop blasting Facebook on your blog without giving them a chance to rectify the issue first. That message they shoot back to you as a warning is an automatic response to YOUR friends or followers complaining about your pictures. They didn’t go out of their way to victimize you. Oh, and just for full disclosure, I am not only a breastfeeding mother, but I have been to Facebook’s Austin office, and I’ve breastfed my child MANY times AT THEIR OFFICE, IN THE OPEN. Everyone there was extremely supportive. So suck it :) Pun intended!!!
Mama2011 commented on Feb 07 12 at 3:34 pmThis is not offensive! I find this super beautiful!!
Kacee commented on Feb 07 12 at 3:55 pmWhile it’s not “offensive,” nudity is nudity and I’d rather not be forced to discuss things with my son because he looks over at my computer. Or my daughter. Tasteful pregnant nudity is still nudity and against the rules. Shame on you for having a hissy and trying to bend the rules to suit you.
Kacee commented on Feb 07 12 at 4:00 pmIt’s not FB’s job to judge whether nudity is tasteful or artistic or beautiful, that’s my job as a parent and as a consumer. I know many people who think breastfeeding is not pretty, not beautiful, and not tasteful. My sister in law gets grossed out to the point of gagging from seeing a baby eat or drool…the slobber gets to her stomach. Everyone is different and is entitled to their opinion, but it’s not FBs job to have an opinion on the matter.
Logan commented on Feb 07 12 at 4:04 pmOh for the love of our dear God. This must be one of the most elegant pregnant body paints out there…how could they remove this?! yet, porn is all over the place floating freely. I have reported some pornographic photo’s myself, and yet, found them floating around for weeks, no one has taken action.
luna laplant commented on Feb 07 12 at 4:15 pmno freaking way :/
they are perverted to think of it that way
Alison commented on Feb 07 12 at 4:18 pmKacee, what kind of discussion are you envisioning with your son? Here’s what I can imagine:
Him: “She’s naked and pregnant and painted!”
You: “Yep”
Him: “Weird”
You: “Yep”
End scene.And FB does judge. So far this is their judgement:
Naked drunk college girls = Hell yeah
Nude artistic pregnant shots = Ew, gross
Breastfeeding moms= Sick!That’s what everyone’s issue with this is.
Debbie commented on Feb 07 12 at 4:30 pmIts not really nudity. Plenty of facebook allowed clothing (celebrity dresses come to mind) show underboob, no different for the underboob part of the photo. The nipple is completely covered by paint, you can see neither color nor detail (at least no more detail than one could see in other facebook acceptable outfits, such as a woman in a tight light colored shirt on a cold day). Again, this is not nudity. Recently, facebook also deleted a photo and issued a similar warning to another poster for posting a tastefull (not grusome (sp?)) picture of a placenta. I am not impressed with facebooks censorship. Can anyone say “Big Brother”.
Rachel Kerola commented on Feb 07 12 at 4:30 pmThis beautiful! Enough said.
Cdbf commented on Feb 07 12 at 4:32 pmBeautiful and extremely NON-offensive.
Amanda commented on Feb 07 12 at 4:34 pmIve seen worse in peoples profile pics. And i loved these pictures and even shared them with my prego friend!
Jennifer commented on Feb 07 12 at 5:04 pmWhile I think this photo is beautiful, I’m with Laura and Kacee. It is nudity. I think this is more of a question of whether body painting counts as nudity or not (I personally belief it does but that’s just me). It is not a breastfeeding picture and there is no baby obscuring the breast. It surprises me that nobody mentioned that she is nude below the waist too! I do not personally find this photo offensive and I would not care if it were on facebook and my 8 year old daughter did see it when I opened this article (for the record, she said hm, creepy. I wouldn’t do that. lol. But it was no big deal). But nudity is nudity.
Jennifer commented on Feb 07 12 at 5:09 pmI would have no problems with Facebook removing these photos (or breastfeeding photos) per policy if, as many others have stated, the rules were applied in an even-handed manner. It is ludicrous while so many of us have seen overtly sexual and offensive matter on Facebook (which we choose not to report, because of freedom of speech) that stays, while a tasteful nude image is deleted because of a single report. Personally, I think the rules should be exercised across the board, or else a better system should be put into place that takes into account that some people may simply be more easily offended, and could have instead chosen something else, whether it be to unfriend a person who consistently posted pics they didn’t like, choose not to follow a Facebook page for an individual or company that posted pics they did not like, etc. I have many friends who are into sci-fi/fantasy/etc. and can say that my news feed is regularly filled with images much more graphic than this one.
Meagan commented on Feb 07 12 at 5:21 pmI agree with the commenter who says this is not a good parallel to bf photos. This is a beautiful photo, yes, artistic yes. However paint is not clothing and Facebook has a clearly defined policy on nudity. It doesn’t say nudity that is pornographic, it says nudity OR porn. So it doesn’t matter if the image is sexual, is still breaks terms and services. Personally, I don’t want Facebook making a value judgement on what is or isn’t porn: a clear “no nudity” rule makes more sense.
As for the patchy enforcement, I suspect it’s an inability to keep up rather than selective enforcement. I’m not a huge fan of Facebook myself, and I wouldn’t have an issue with my son seeing a painted naked lady, but I see no issue with Facebook following their terms.
Denise commented on Feb 07 12 at 5:31 pmI find this picture fine, I have seen worse on fb !!! This is a woman who is carrying a baby and showing the beauty of its affects on her body. There are so many thing that are “”offensive “” on Fb it seems odd to me they would ban this.
LG commented on Feb 07 12 at 7:37 pmIt seems to me that Babble posted this pic on Facebook to stir up publicity. Obviously, the artist is talented, but why the hell is a giraffe on this woman’s body? I don’t get it! Whoever posted the pic knew full-well that the pic would be flagged and removed. And it is NOT a breastfeeding pic — that requires the baby to be OUTSIDE the womb. @@
lam commented on Feb 08 12 at 12:06 amJust one more reason not to facebook.
LMN commented on Feb 08 12 at 12:38 amWhy do people need to put pictures of everything they do up on FB? I don’t understand why there would ever be a picture of a woman breastfeeding on FB. I am a woman and I am certainly not offended by breastfeeding, or by this picture; however I am concerned that people are starting to share too much of their personal lives on FB. No one cares about a picture of you breastfeeding, giving birth ect. Stick to showing them to people who actually want to see them and stop posting them where everyone from your family members to your coworkers have to see them.
Dan commented on Feb 08 12 at 5:58 amI think this is one of the most beautiful works of art I have ever seen, but I can see why fb took it off. However that being said, fb should take care of all of the other porn stuff that filters across my wall on a regular basis, and make sure these dumb kids are posting adult pictures on their sites.
Rosana commented on Feb 08 12 at 11:14 amI think it is a beautiful portrait but unlike you or me, FB is a company that has to care about what other users think. NO picture is removed unless a user reports it as offensive. So, somebody with a sick mind thinks that the picture is sexually offensive and therefore, removed. Pff!!
Linda, T.O.O. commented on Feb 08 12 at 1:36 pmDo people not know how to set their facebook pages up so that only their friends can see their photos?
Val Payne commented on Feb 08 12 at 7:34 pmActual conversation with my five year old daughter (happened two minutes ago):
Punky Bear: That mama has giraffes on her belly.
Me: Yes, she does.
Punky: You need giraffes on your belly.
Me: I do?
Punky: Yep, giraffes are swesome.
Sanriobaby =^.^= commented on Feb 08 12 at 8:19 pmThis is just a beautiful picture to me, nothing more. I see nothing obscene or inappropriate in the least and it clearly celebrates the beauty of a pregnant woman. What I do find inappropriate is the numerous pics of half dressed teens that look like they are advertising their “services” on thier FB pages. Why doesn’t FB remove that trash instead?
connie bayless commented on Feb 08 12 at 11:59 pmI totally agree with facebook, not the stomach but the breast is not appropriate. I also think the the flthy language should be banned. As far as breast feeding goes, I believe a women should cover her breasts when feeding in public. It’s gross to see them. I’m not a prude I just think somethings are not to be seen or done in public.
Jessica commented on Feb 09 12 at 11:43 amThis woman looks like a goddess:) Beautiful pic all the way around!!
Human commented on Feb 12 12 at 3:14 pmYet we can go to a nude beach or wear skimpiest of skimpy bikinis and nobody bats an eyelash …
And ludacris can sing about nipples and mammary glands on public radio …
Very backwards.
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Lori Garcia 
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
46