OMG! OMG! It’s a lactating breast!

Access is denied notice on a notebook

I know, I know; what was I thinking?

Here I am, a 56 year old woman, old enough to be a grandmother (hint to my married and engaged children!) and I violated the standards of Facebook by heading a post about lactation with a picture of …

[Stop reading now if you are easily offended. Cover your children’s eyes. Gather your strength]

… a lactating breast.

Oh, the horror! No wonder that I’ve been banned from Facebook for 24 hours. I should have realized that infants and children might have seen that picture and who can bear to think about the consequences of that.

The post in question was Babies are dying because breastfeeding advocates are lying written to highlight the small but rising death toll that has resulted from breastfeeding advocates lying about the benefits of breastmilk and demonizing formula, apparently a trivial problem in comparison with the serious problem of people being exposed (full frontal!) to lactating breasts.

You can view the picture here. Shocking, isn’t it?

I’ve changed the picture and I’ve appealed the ban, but I’m not particularly hopeful.

I realize that Facebook relies on algorithms to police it’s photos and I imagine that real nipples are verboten. Obviously we don’t want Facebook to become cluttered up with porn, but it does raise an interesting question: why is a female breast inevitably construed as pornography?

We have a real problem as a society if we say we want to encourage breastfeeding but then we turn around and ban all images of the female breast as inevitably pornographic. Which is it? Is breastfeeding a beautiful gift that a mother can give a child, or is it something so perverted that it must be hidden from children and everyone else?

Breasts are inherently sexual. I know that, but that’s not a bad thing. Sexual is not the same as pornographic and we should be mature enough as a society to realize that.

  • jerry

    nowRead this ecowatches… Here’s a Blog


  • MaryJBullock

    nowRead this skepticalob… Here’s a Blog


  • Liz Leyden

    To be honest, between the lactating breast picture and the candy penises a few days ago, I’m starting to reconsider reading SOB at work.

  • Renee Martin

    It’s only OK to show breasts if they are there to stimulate males. Otherwise, its just not ok. This is why you can post filthy pics but not BF pics, and why men can consume a ton of porn but be anti public BF.

  • ST

    A while back I saw a very disturbing video on a stranger’s Facebook (I had surfed there through some mutual friends, and my phone app was on autoplay). It was a toddler being beaten (and he died from his injuries, according to Google). It haunted me for a month. Even thinking about it again is extremely disturbing to me. At the time, I reported the video. It seemed pretty sensible to me that it violated their TOS for violence, you know, aside from basic human decency. I got an email a few days later saying they investigated it and found it was a-okay for Facebook. Really??! But my good friend who had a photo marked only for her “friends” to view of her breastfeeding in a MODEST shirt, no less, was removed? You can watch a child be beaten to death but we simply cannot allow you to see a baby being nourished! Nope!
    Female breasts are so wrapped up in controversy. I don’t get it. I mean, I can use my hand for a hand job, isn’t that uh pretty sexual? And don’t get me started on the mouth! Breasts don’t even DO anything sexually. They’re just there. I’ve always said, we’re the most evolved species, surely we can distinguish between when something is for sex, when it’s serving its biological purpose, etc. But apparently we can’t.

    • Ugh, I’m sorry you had to see that.

  • Courtney84

    I haven’t been much for the comments section for the past year or so. Toddler, gestating, rare a free hand for typing. Why can’t I see who up voted a comment any more? Perhaps I’m just technologically inept and can’t get it to display?

    • Mattie

      If it’s the same issue I get then it’s just buggy, sometimes it shows sometimes it doesn’t, sort of seems to be about whether you manage to hover the cursor on the right one pixel and disqus feels like working 🙂

    • KeeperOfTheBooks

      Are you on a computer or a phone? On my computer, I can hover the mouse cursor over the up arrow and see who upvoted.

  • carr528

    OT, but a FB friend (who is deep into the woo) “liked” this article.

    All I have to say is that if I had gotten a “letter” like this before I had taken my baby for his two month visit, I’d have one less friend. Why do people feel the need to butt into other’s decisions? Thanks, but I want to make sure my kid doesn’t have to suffer from polio, diphtheria, rubella, pertussis, or any of the other vaccine preventable diseases there are.

    • Kq


    • Chi

      Oh yeah cos praying for mothers and babies worked SO well before medical technology when they were dying in droves…

      …oh wait…

      *eye roll*

      EDIT: Also that post is a major scorer on the anti-vaxx bingo card.

      Autism: check
      “I’ve done my research”: check
      Claiming something is a vaccine injury risk when it isn’t (in this case SIDS): check
      Failed math by counting combination shots as individual shots: check
      “Lack of safety studies”: check

      Seriously I’ve got a bingo and I’m only halfway through that drivel.

      *eye twitch* I made the mistake of reading some of the comments.

      NEVER read the comments.

    • Megan

      “The problem is that most doctors receive very little training in the science behind vaccines in medical school or on an ongoing basis. ”

      Ugh. This shit pisses me off. Did she sit through my immunology/infectious disease lectures with me? No. Give me a break. These people are so arrogant to think they know more about vaccines than physicians. Merck didn’t teach my lectures but I bet Joe Mercola taught them…

      • The Bofa on the Sofa

        It’s funny how much the woo loons know about what doctors learn or don’t learn, considering that none of them went to med school.

        • Roadstergal

          You can get decent – hardly comprehensive, but decent – understanding of vaccines in a first-year immunology course.

          Which none of these people bother to take.

          • sdsures

            Nah, they just ask Dr Google.

      • demodocus

        We had a whole unit on viruses in biology and diseases caused by viruses in health class in high school. Nothing compared to med school courses, of course, but they’re making it sound like doctors don’t even remember standard high school freshmen courses.

    • DelphiniumFalcon

      Ugh… All of the “God has spoken though me!” stuff is just…ugh.

      Maybe God is saying, “I gave you the intelligence to create microscopes with glass and electrons, decipher germ theory, modify the genome of an organism and THIS is what you do with it?”

  • Gatita

    Breasts are inherently sexual. I know that, but that’s not a bad thing. Sexual is not the same as pornographic and we should be mature enough as a society to realize that.

    Oh, we can’t have THAT kind of level-headed thinking.

  • toni

    Dr Amy would you mind doing an ip check thingy and confirming that I, lower case toni, and another user also called Toni are not the same person. I agreed with her on some small point and now she/we are being accused of using me as a sockpuppet. the conversation is just below on this page. TY

    • Amy Tuteur, MD

      You are two different people with two different IP addresses. Since you were here first perhaps she can add an initiail or a number to her screen name.

      • Toni35

        Will do! And thx for clarifying that Doc!

  • FortyMegabytes

    I will admit, when I saw the photo I winced, because I knew what was going to happen: someone was going to report, it was going to get taken down, and you were likely going to be banned.

    You’re new to Facebook, I know, so you still have to learn the pitfalls. One of them is this: anyone can report your posts, and Facebook likes to err heavily on the side of taking anything down that’s even mildly offensive.

    I strongly agree that societal norms have to change. However, Facebook is not a public place; it’s a privately-run organization. And just as you have the right to remove anyone’s post here, so they have the right to remove any post they want to remove. Fair’s got nothing to do with it.

    Your strength, Dr. Amy, is in your words. Let them make your points and power your message. Don’t worry so much about the peccadilloes like whether someone will find an image offensive; it’s not worth the energy, in my opinion.

    I do think the text of your post is worth reposting once you get back online because it was a good post.

    • Courtney84

      I think there are comments down thread about it, but I was kind of surprised the photo was banned. I reported a cartoon of a person and an animal having sex where the penetration was visible. It was not in violation of the terms of service. I recognize it was animated, but I used to work at a video store that rented X-rated cartoons. It was blatantly pornographic, but it was OK.

    • KeeperOfTheBooks

      I dunno. Recently, a friend had a jackass post a video of someone throwing live chicks into a meat grinder on her page. She (naturally) reported it. Per Facebook, that doesn’t violate their terms of service, and they wouldn’t take it down. Which hey, that’s their right…yet that isn’t offensive, while this is?! Yes, I know they’re different topics, but there’s something seriously wrong with those standards.

    • KarenJJ

      I think it’s a bit of a cop-out when the excuse “it’s a privately-run organisation” is used. Being a privately run organisation doesn’t give you the freedom from criticism of your actions, nor does it absolve you of legal obligations. Privately run organisations exist within society and society still should hold them accountable. Dr Amy is a “privately run entity” and she wants to use the photo.. Facebook is a “privately run organisation” and they don’t want to post it. Just because Facebook is bigger doesn’t make them more right in whether it is too offensive for people to see.

  • Mishimoo

    I didn’t mind the leaky photo. As silly as it sounds, I’ve had pretty severe hang-ups about my breasts for years and it was nice to see a nipple that looked exactly the same as mine (minus the milk, that is).

    • It’s a pretty nipple, no need to fret over it. And I’m hugely superficial so I’m speaking from an objective viewpoint.

      • Mishimoo

        As much as I don’t want to get into the whole porn/advertising-causes-unrealistic-expectations thing, I do think that a lot of my concern about them not looking ‘normal’ does stem from the standard media offering of hard nipples on perky breasts.

        • Yeah, +10 to Slytherin if it’s an absurdly perky C cup with northward nipples.

          • Nick Sanders


          • As breast implants settle, the nipple will rise. Not freakishly or anything, but having very large but also perky breasts is usually a tell-tale sign of them having been augmented.

          • Who?

            Or of the owner being vv young and precociously well developed.

          • Those won’t necessarily be the subject of advertising directed towards, say, lactating mothers, though.

          • Roadstergal

            A friend of mine worked at a high-end machine shop where they had plenty of pictures of exactly those slightly strange-shaped northward-nipple boob gals, and he would sigh and point out the u-shaped scars underneath.

            Generally speaking, most of the run-of-the-mill hetero/bisexual guys I’ve known like boobs. Just… boobs. I have A-cups, and they get plenty of attention (and I can run marathons as a bonus).

            Tangentially, my dad and mom worked at Dow (and met there), and he had a silicone breast implant for a while just hanging out in his home office. We’d all use it as a stress squeezy.

          • DelphiniumFalcon

            I think my Australian friend explained it best to me when I was a young teenager:

            Guys like handfuls. Small handfuls, big handfuls, as long as they fit in the hands you have a happy man.

          • Who?

            So long as they are real. I can’t stop staring at fake breasts, it’s a kind of disbelief meets horror thing. And why do women who so obviously want a super low bmi add all that weight? Can’t be good for their osteoporotic backs and necks?

          • One of my friends got breast implants to one of those nonsensical G or H or whatever letters and they look quite nice on her. Like Dolly! It’s jarring but it’s rather meant to be, she’s into the plastic look. My only beef is when that standard (to a lesser extent, of course) is homogenized.

          • Who?

            I guess at G or H she’s looking for stares, fair enough. The ones that get me are women my age (50+) or older, with all body fat mercilessly exercised and dieted off and these perky boobs. It messes with the usually otherwise elegant line of their clothes, too. So long as they’re happy w them I guess.

          • demodocus

            I think Dolly’s are natural, poor thing.

          • Nah, she’s very open about having breast implants. It’s cool, she’s one of my favorite icons. 😉

          • demodocus

            Ah. Well, its not the first time Mom gave me incorrect information. Sadly, my Gs are natural. I’m fat, yes, but I was in DDs before I got pregnant. Haven’t nursed him in 7 months, but still… ugh.

          • Oh noo O:

          • DelphiniumFalcon

            A woman in the congregation I grew up in had breast implants that were….not well done. She always wore these paper thin shirts with no bra and her nipples were…very prominent. All the time. And one pointed forward and one pointed right. It was REALLY awkward.

            If you’re going to augment, please, please, please find an experienced doctor with a good portfolio. Don’t end up with lazy eye boobs.

            And natural DDs are bad for your back. I had perfect posture before I hit puberty. Adding something that’s not naturally supported by muscle and tissue? I’d look like Mr. Burns.

  • Megan

    This is why I hate FB… Ok, ONE of the reasons why I hate FB.

  • MLE

    First you’re a rabid pro formula shill*, now you’re a perv shoving pictures of milk-leaking breasts in our faces? I can’t keep up.

    *mentioning that formula ain’t poison qualifies as rabid status

  • toni

    I think it is a bit different when there’s no baby attached and it’s actually dripping milk haha. doesn’t bother me but some are bound to be squeamish about that and not want to see it. but I’m pissed that that was taken down while the grisly vine video I reported of a man falling on to a railway track and being ran over by a train a few months back did not violate fb’s standards. Infinitely more distressing than a leaky flippin breast

    • Guested

      I feel like the breastfeeding on facebook argument started at “You can’t even see anything because the baby is in the way” and is slowly morphing into “Anything having to do with lactation is OK, sexy isn’t” and although I am completely OK with nursing in public and posting whatever photos that you want, I don’t feel like the first argument is internally consistant with the second position, and it is hard to reconcile “It doesn’t matter because you can’t see anything” with “It doesn’t matter what you see because lacatation”
      That is where I come to a weird place about the full frontal breast photo. I don’t feel that bare breasts are shameful, but facebook’s terms of use prohibit them unless there is a kid attached. I can’t show photos on my non-lactating boob and you are not supposed to post naked art, and it isn’t about necessity or sharing a moment, it was just a boob that happened to have a drop of breastmilk on it, and it was posted to attract attention to an article. There was no scientific, practical, or social reason for it to be there and it was within facebook’s rights to remove it.
      I do not think that their policy is correct, I really don’t care if my world has more nipple in it, I think the bias agains women’s chests is frankly bizarre, and it isn’t like the nipple ban keeps my newsfeed free of mostly naked women, but I don’t get to make the rules and per the rules that picture was in violation.

      • toni

        I’m not surprised at least one person didn’t like and reported the picture but personally I feel like it was ‘sciencey’ enough to be fine i.e. if you looked up lactation in an encyclopaedia that might be the picture you would find. I assume breasts depicted in an old master painting would be allowed? I could be totally wrong but I think most people can differentiate between something salacious/pornographic and something that is just a tasteful or informative picture. I was thinking about something like this the other week when I had a couple of friends post pictures of their children in the buff. I thought some of the pictures one of them posted were very inappropriate (newborn baby boy spreadeagled on a hospital warmer and on his mum’s lap) The photos were set to ‘public’ and I made a comment that she should change the settings to just family or remove them as her son will likely in the future not appreciate having his newborn swollen genitals viewed by god knows how many people online. She was pretty pissed at me and said it was hypocritical because I had recently ‘liked’ a picture of another friend’s toddler who was naked from behind in nothing but a pair of wellies. I feel like that was totally different though. It was cute and didn’t show anything more than you’d see in a pampers’ commercial.

        • Kq

          I feel quite strongly about not posting my kids junk. A few nekkid baby/toddler butt shots, sure, but no one needs to see his penis without his consent.

          • Courtney84

            I’m with you butt cheeks are OK up until a certain age, but the full frontal nudity always seems wildly inappropriate to share on the internet from where I sit. The internet is forever. Also even though it doesn’t directly harm my child the thought of someone with disordered sexual attraction to children ogling my child makes my skin crawl and my stomach turn.

          • Kq

            Baby butts are cute and asexual. I wouldn’t post a naked butt pic now (he’s 4) not because it’s sexual but because he’s old enough to be aware of private parts being private, and old enough to be embarrassed. He doesn’t love the few naked butt pics I posted of him as a baby as it is – but he does kind of “get” that babies have different rules.

            Now if he’d just let go of the front of his pants in public…

          • momofone

            Good luck! My son is eight and we are still working on the please-don’t-adjust-in-public thing.

    • I know a piece of shit who uploaded a picture of a Middle Eastern child whose head was torn to pieces by an explosion because “that’s what you get for being a towelhead” and facebook didn’t take it down.

      • toni

        oy. fking depraved.

        ‘We remove graphic images when they are shared for sadistic pleasure or to celebrate or glorify violence.’ from fb community standards page. But they tend to leave graphic pictures/videos if they were posted for the purpose of ‘raising awareness’. the video I reported was shared because my friend (well, weird second cousin through marriage) thought it was hilarious, that was obvious by the comment he posted along with it. not to start a discussion about suicide or staying safe on railway platforms or w/e.

  • While I respect their right as a private entity to use whatever ridiculous censorship rules they want, I’m also free to comment on how fucking stupid it is and how dumb it is that the most powerful social networking tool to have ever existed is complying by meat space’s standards.

  • sdsures

    I wonder if FB would ban pictures of moms breastfeeding their kids and the kid is wearing a “Boobie Beanie”? The design could be augmented to show a whote spot in the centre of the nipple!

    • Mattie

      actually I do believe that boobie beanies were actually banned at one point, because ‘logic’ SMH there’s so much FB doesn’t ban, except racism, sexism, homophobia/transphobia and a whole load of other offensive stuff

  • Sarah

    Has anyone let TAP and Gina know? I trust they’ll be demonstrating on your behalf!

    • attitude devant

      Haven’t you heard? Gina seems to be off the internet. Radio silence since Sunday when she had a rather public meltdown on Twitter.

      • Sarah

        I admit I hadn’t!

        • attitude devant

          Best rundown is on GOMI.

          • Amanda

            Is it in the Forums? I’m trying to find the deets!

          • attitude devant


          • Cobalt

            Please link!

          • attitude devant

            The forums go back several years. Go to the most recent page (it’s like 238) and look for the fun starting May 31. It is epic. (and kinda sad. she’s a mess)

          • Cobalt

            How do people live like that?

          • Mishimoo

            I really hope her kids are okay.

          • momofone

            For some reason I couldn’t edit my comment, so I deleted to start over. I think she is really in trouble.

      • namaste863

        Not that there isn’t a certain amount of entertainment value to this, but obviously going off of her head meds was a baaaaad idea.

      • Megan
        • Megan

          And apparently this is in her TOS:

          From her TOS:
          existing memberships or affiliations with known troll sites and/or accounts or stalker sites and/or accounts) your membership will be suspended and you will be given the opportunity to explain. At that time, you must submit valid photo identification to be considered for continued membership. We are fair, but vigilant, and do not suspend accounts without reason. For clarity, we must be able to identify you as a real person. If we cannot, your account is in jeopardy.

          So you can be a member so long as you don’t disagree with her and if you do, your membership will be suspended and you’ll be doxxed. Wow. Just wow…

  • Ellen Mary

    Make no mistake, the contractors are often in THIS country AND a real human had to review it to trigger a 24 hour ban, I suspect.

    • Ash

      An editor of Wired magazine used to be a contractor for content review and has done a few articles about the topic. Per recent reports, it seems that in order to lower costs, the jobs have been moved outside North America.

  • Ellen Mary

    There is the whole ‘free the nipple’ campaign. Because male nipples are acceptable. It is true that if enough people report an image, FB has to look at it BUT a real human looks at it, and to remove you for 24 hours is DRACONIAN. I have reported *wildly* offensive sites, so offensive that I can’t even write out the page titles and nothing is done. So to not only remove it but ban you for 24 hours definitely clearly reflects a bias against lactation.

    • Maya Markova

      Facebook seems to have quite arbitrary policy in this respect. They had taken down a parent for posting pictures of his baby with anencephaly. I understand that a major malformation can shock some viewers, but someone has to bring them the breaking news that malformations do happen. The parent asked, “Why can every other parent post a photo of his newborn on Facebook and I cannot?”

    • Sullivan ThePoop

      I reported a death threat and Facebook told me it wasn’t against their TOS.

      • Mishimoo

        Some of my friends have had the same issue, it’s ridiculous.

  • Inmara

    I can speculate that society is not ready to accept breast as non-sexual object because all other particularly sexualized body parts are considered offensive if demonstrated outside of sexual context (like, showing bare butt as an offensive gesture). So, those evil breasts which are used to feed innocent babies are really driving some people crazy, and Facebook policy is just manifestation of this confusion.

    • Cobalt

      That’s true, but so silly. Breasts don’t even make the top 5 body parts used sexually in my experience, and 2 out of the top five are exposed ALL THE TIME.

  • Toni

    Forgive me if I’m misremembering, but haven’t regulars on this blog (possibly including you, Dr. Amy) been rather vocal about ridiculing those “lactavists” who complain when facebook takes down their photos of their children nursing? Because, like it or not, breasts are viewed as “private” parts, at least in our culture, and you have no “right” to post pics that violate facebook’s TOS?

    Pot, kettle, have you met?

    • Ash

      You are right that there is a post (can’t find it right now) supporting that FB has the right to delete whatever they want given that they are a private website.

      There’s also this

      Supporting that FB should allow photos of breastfeeding women&infants. I believe that FB has changed that policy.

    • yugaya

      Find me a comment where I’ve anywhere at any point in time ridiculed any woman for breastfeeding in public and I’ll apologise to each and every lactavist I come across on social networks and in real life for the rest of my life.

      That’s right, you can’t, because you are not “misremembering”, you are insinuating that the ridicule which is reserved for breast supremacists is the same thing as shaming mothers for feeding their children.

      Intellectual honesty you have not met yet.

      • Toni

        Umm… where to begin….

        First – I don’t recognize your user name, so I don’t know that I would call you a “regular” (unless you used to post under another name and changed it, but, whatever). Second – you are misreading what I wrote – I didn’t say any one here ridiculed a woman for bfing in public. I said I’ve seen women ridiculed for complaining when facebook took down their nursing photos. HUGE difference. facebook is not “public”. It is a private social media website with TOS that you agree to when you sign up.

        Reading comprehension you have not met yet.

        Let me know when you do finally meet – I’ll be glad to chat with you then.

        • attitude devant

          umm, look at Discus, Toni. Yugaya is here all the time. And English is not her first language (although her English is so excellent that we’ll forgive you for not being aware of that), so your rather snippy comments about reading comprehension are, in this instance, quite rude, particularly since your original post is not a model of clarity.

          • yugaya

            Heh, if anyone checks my posting history they will see that I get “I never said that” feedback from people like Toni all the time.

            Anyhow, attention regulars and Big Formula Shills, no one dare ridicule Occupy Breastfeeding fb page for saying that the complains that they received over this image were just “another breastfeeding picture complaint”:

          • Toni

            And her rather snippy comments about intellectual honest are…. what then?

            She was bitchy to me, I was bitchy back. OMG someone was bitchy on the internet…. I’ll alert the media.

            If my post was unclear, fine… ask for clarification. Don’t accuse me of intellectual dishonesty if you don’t even know what I’m talking about.

          • yugaya

            – Your “bitchy” comment is the first one in this thread. Unless there is something seriously wrong with my reading comprehension and your comment was merely about your memory problems and was typed in good faith, I would definitely say it was “bitchy”.

            – Intellectual dishonesty is a type of logical fallacy that happened in that comment. “Pot, kettle, black” actually conveys exactly the same message.


          • Toni

            It’s “bitchy” to point out that here Dr Amy is complaining about getting her wrist-slapped for posting a photo of a naked breast on FB (a violation of their TOS that she agreed to when she opened her acct) while in the past I have seen others ridiculed for complaining about the same damn thing? Okie dokie then.

            Dr. Amy fucked up. She is free to post whatever pictures she wants here on her blog. But FB’s TOS are apparently different than whoever hosts her blog. Someone either reported the image she put on FB or it was picked up as inappropriate by automated image recognition – either way, TPTB on FB deemed it inappropriate and took it down and penalized her. Now she’s complaining about it. Much the same way “lactavists” complain when FB takes down their nursing photos. Now, not everyone here thinks FB *should* take down nursing photos, but again, I never said they did (hah! I’ll beat you to it!). But when women have complained about those photos being taken down it does get pointed out (by some regulars – again not YOU specifically, dear) that FB has the right to remove pics that they deem a violation of TOS. You agree to TOS, you must follow it. Dr. Amy agree to TOS, she must follow it.

            Or join occupy breastfeeding and try to get FB to change the TOS, lol.

          • Toni

            So I looked at her Disqus profile. She’s been posting here since March of last year. She may be “regular” now, but she’s only been around here a year. You, otoh, have been posting here since August 2012. I recognize your screen name. I did not recognize hers.

            Why is my not “recognizing” her the main focus of this conversation?

            Oh yeah, cuz it distracts from the actual conversation….

          • attitude devant

            Toni, YOU are the one who started out a comment by saying she wasn’t a regular. YOU brought the issue up.

          • Toni

            All I said was I didn’t recognize her screen name (sorry I haven’t been much of a “regular” for about a year now…. tho I’ve followed Dr Amy’s writings since the old Homebirth Debate website), so I wasn’t referring specifically to her when I mentioned “regulars”.

            But what does this whole side argument have to do with anything anyway?

        • Jocelyn

          Hahaha. Yugaya’s “not a regular”? Would you say that I’m not a regular either?

          • me

            I recognize your user name, so yeah, I’d call you a “regular”. But whether or not one particular “regular” is actually a regular or not is kind of a moot point. Is Yugaya “most of the regulars”? Or just one specific regular that chose to take personal offense to what I wrote?

          • attitude devant

            Toni, please stick to one name. Thanks.

          • Toni

            Sorry, switched devices and didn’t realize “me” was still in memory on my laptop. My apologies – not trying to be confusing.

          • attitude devant

            But you have used ‘me’ here before and now you’re using Toni. What were we saying about intellectual dishonesty?

          • Toni

            You aren’t allowed to ever change your user name? Is that part of the TOS of Dr Amy’s blog?

            Oh, wait, I never agreed to any TOS anyway, lol.

          • attitude devant

            Sometimes people do, but they typically will put their previous name in parentheses for a while. And usually people register with Discus. Another part of intellectual honesty.

          • Toni

            Why do I have to open a disqus acct to post here? Since when is that mandatory? How is it “intellectually dishonest” to post as a guest becuase you don’t want an acct?

          • yugaya

            Darn, I keep forgetting that there is a number of comments per day/post quota to fill before one is allowed to feel like a regular.

          • MegaMechaMeg

            I know who you are! Can this be a movement? The I Know Yugaya march!

        • yugaya

          ” I said I’ve seen women ridiculed for complaining when facebook took down their nursing photos.”

          Nope, you said regulars on this blog have ridiculed “lactavists” who complained about facebook taking down THEIR photos of THEIR children nursing – ie you’ve said that regulars on this blog ( which includes me since this is the only blog where I comment) have ridiculed women who were breastfeeding and posting that on facebook. Facebook content that you are describing is public, but apparently you missed the memo on that.

          No one has ever reported any of my naked pictures that I uploaded into a private album that only I can view, and facebook has not removed those images. Nor has it sprang into action to remove my saved porn albums which are also set to private and are there for my eyes only.

          But please do go ahead, teach me about reading comprehension some more while simultaneously explaining how facebook posts viewable by others are – private. :)))

          • Toni

            “Nope, you said regulars on this blog have ridiculed “lactavists” who
            complained about facebook taking down THEIR photos of THEIR children
            nursing – ie you’ve said that regulars on this blog ( which includes me
            since this is the only blog where I comment) have ridiculed women who
            were breastfeeding and posting that on facebook.”

            Sorry – you still aren’t quite there, hon. I said *some* of the regulars here (not YOU specifically, btw) have ridiculed those who have complained about facebook taking down their nursing photos. I didn’t say the regulars here ridiculed nursing. I didn’t say they ridiculed nursing in public. I didn’t even say that the regulars here ridiculed women for posting nursing photos on FB in the first place. What I did say is that I’ve seen refulars here ridicule women for thinking they have the “right” to post those pictures on FB.

            Whether a photo is public or private is not the issue. Facebook is not a “public place” in the sense that you have to sign up and agree to abide by their TOS before you can use their site. It’s not the same as sitting on a park bench. You agree not to post inappropriate content. I’m not saying that a nursing pic is inappropriate (I don’t think it is), HOWEVER a lot of women have run into FB deleting their nursing photos because they were deemed “inappropriate” (or pornographic or whatever). Now, yes, setting your picture so it can only be viewed by you (“private”) means it will never be deleted (since no one can see it). Allowing others to see it may make it “public” in one sense, but the point is FB *itself* is not “public” – it is a privately owned and operated website and you must agree to abide by TOS. That is the distinction I was making – it has nothing to do with your personal FB acct’s privacy settings. Again, reading comprehension is failing – I never said publicly viewable photos are private – I said FB is NOT “public” – it is a privately owned and operated website and your user acct can be suspended or revoked if you violate TOS (just ask Dr. Amy, lol).

          • yugaya

            “Sorry – you still aren’t quite there, hon. I said *some* of the regulars here (not YOU specifically, btw”

            Here we go again, this is what you said:

            ” but haven’t regulars on this blog”

            I see no word *SOME* anywhere in there.

            Do carry on, it is getting hilarious.

          • Toni

            “Haven’t regulars” is equivalent to “haven’t some of the regulars”. Otherwise it would have to be stated as “Haven’t ALL of the regulars”. I know English isn’t your primary language (now), but “some” is implied there. Just FYI.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            OK, you only meant “some,” which doesn’t include yugaya.

            Can you please tell us who it is you are referring to? Got some examples? I’m curious.

          • Toni

            I wish I did. There have, unfortunately, been numerous changes to the format of this blog over the past few years (and I think a host change as well). When I pull up the entry Ash linked to below, it says there are “0 comments”. Obviously there were comments (I’ve never known an SOB post to get “0 comments”, lol, especially any having to do with bfing!), but I can’t view them now.

            Perhaps I could if I had a disqus acct, but I really don’t care that much. Seems to me the majority (or at least a very large, and vocal, minority) of contributors here looked at FB taking down nursing photos as (and I’m obviously paraphrasing here): “it’s against their (FB’s) TOS, you (the women complaining) agreed to TOS when you signed up w/ FB, someone, somewhere saw your photo and found it offensive and reported it, and FB was well within their rights to delete it. Too bad, so sad.”

            Well, if the thought process is that FB gets to decide what is and is not allowed, then that applies to Dr Amy as well. She violated TOS. She got her wrist slapped. She’ll survive 😉

          • Ash

            I believe the older posts were imported from a time when this blog didn’t use Disqus–thus, no comments.

          • Toni

            That makes sense. Too bad tho.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Perhaps I could if I had a disqus acct, but I really don’t care that much.

            If you don’t care so much, then why’d YOU bring it up in the first place? YOU were the one who started this by accusing folks here of acting a way, and now that you got called on it, you don’t care?

          • Toni

            I don’t care enough to open a disqus acct. I don’t like disqus (I was rather disappointed when Dr Amy started using it).

            So…. Bofa (and I recognize you from several years back, so I would be talking about you when I mention “regulars”, lol). What is your opinion? Is it okay for FB to take down photos of mothers nursing their babies? Do you think it is inappropriate or pornographic? What about the picture of a breast, with no baby attached, being squeezed and expressing a drop of milk that Dr Amy posted? Is it okay for FB to take that down?

            Personally I find it funny that Dr Amy is complaining about her pic being taken down – just because a breast happens to be lactating doesn’t mean it is no longer a breast. And while I don’t find breasts (or visible nipples) offensive, personally, I can see where some might be offended by the pic Dr Amy selected. It wasn’t a pic of a mother nursing her baby; it was a picture of a breast, fully exposed. So, really, the women who have complained about FB taking down relatively innocent pic of their children nursing have a point. Dr Amy doesn’t really have an argument here. The photo was a bit over the top. Did she deserve to be banned for 24 hours? I don’t agree with that part of it. But FB taking the photo down? Yeah, they were within their rights to do that.

          • Roadstergal

            I do remember some comments over the image of the girl with the flower circle thing on her head BFing her kid on the floor in front of a formula stand, but I think the issue was less with her BFing and more with a: the staged, attention-whorey nature of the photo and b: the fact that she was in the path of traffic and would have particularly impeded anybody disabled trying to get through.

            Also, I vaguely remember a kerfuffle about some water birth activist complaining that the artificial butt of one of the Kardashians was on a magazine cover while a picture of a naked butt during a waterbirth was removed from FB. M’self, I was in favor of the latter staying up, as the turd floating around in the water was a great anti-waterbirth argument…

          • KarenJJ

            That’s what I remember. It’s the staged narcissism and the image over substance. To be honest anyone showing pictures of what their kids eat usually make me roll my eyes because it’s usually some paleo nonsense or some expensive thermo-mix creation.

          • yugaya

            *regulars* does not equal or carry the implied meaning of *some regulars*

            “Politicians are liars.”
            “Regulars on this blog have been rather vocal….”
            “Lactavists are obnoxious.”

            Hey, I’m not saying with those statements that ALL of them are like that, only *some*. :)))

          • toni

            that’s how I read it. “haven’t regulars on this blog..” means haven’t some regulars on this blog whose names I cannot recall done such and such. “Haven’t presidents in the past lied under oath?” is not asking did every single one lie under oath

          • Toni

            Precisely. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but I was not attempting to accuse ALL the “regulars” (however we want to define that rather ambiguous term) of having the same opinion.

          • yugaya

            Hi Toni/toni/me. :)))

            Nice move there replying to your own comments, but you might want to diversify the screen names a bit if you want to make it look more plausible.


          • Toni

            The toni with a picture is not Toni/me. Sorry. I don’t post my picture in blog comments. Not comfortable with it.

          • yugaya

            Yeah, sure got it. It was a case of a totally random toni with a picture replying to Toni with no picture and me-Toni was just a glitch.


          • Toni

            I’m sure Dr Amy can look at IP addresses and point out that you are completely off base. But don’t let that stop the ad hominem – it’s easier to accuse me of being dishonest than it is to actually address the point I made.

            I understand completely 🙂

          • yugaya

            Oh I understand – I have two different internet providers in my flat. Depending on which network/device I’m on, I’m a totally different person too.

          • Toni

            Whatever you say.

            Do you care to adress my actual argument? Or are you too busy attacking me?

          • toni

            I think we are also in different states which I think you can tell from an IP address. bit bummed I’m now ‘random toni’ lol. I’ve posted here for years

          • Toni

            lol. I’m not very active in the comments anymore, but I do still read the actual blog entries.

            Now I remember why I stopped bothering with the comments…. it’s exhausting dealing with these people, lololol

          • Toni

            You’ll note that the other “toni” has an established disqus acct (so it’s not “Toni/me” opening one today and then using it to post here), whereas I post as a guest.

          • toni

            it’s just a coincidence, yugaya. i am the British-Indian lower case toni who lives in FL. I think Toni/me is from Oregon or something

          • Gozi

            Or in my case, confusing. ..

  • yentavegan

    Bring back the Lactating Breast!

    • Amy Tuteur, MD

      Maybe we should start a campaign. How about this hastag:


  • Roadstergal

    Think of the children!

    (Oh, wait, you do.)

  • Gozi

    You expect THIS society to be so mature to know the difference between sexual and pornographic? Ha Ha Ha, surely you jest!

    BTW, I have given my mother 6 grandchildren, but she seems kind of ho hum about them sometimes.

  • Charybdis

    OMG!! What is WRONG with you!?!? We as a society are SO not ready to see full frontal, lactating breasticles on Facebook. It’s NSFW for one and heavenly only knows how many pairs of innocent eyes will be scarred for life by the image of a pinkish-brown eye shedding a single milky tear? Oh, the humanity!! Perhaps if it had been sideboob only or if the nice lady had a boob ornament (aka baby) on covering the nipular area, it might have been okay. Although I think the Dr. Amy haters may feel as if they have won a round…Dr. Amy got banned from Facebook for 24 hours!! Yay for our side! /end sarcasm.

    Seriously folks, let’s all grow up and exhibit some maturity. Is that too much to ask?

    • KeeperOfTheBooks

      This is the Internet. That’s much too much to ask.
      Much, much too much.

      • MegaMechaMeg

        FartsFartsFarts. #INTERNETMATURITY

        • Gozi

          Love it

    • Who?



  • Trixie

    I bet anything that a lactivist reported you just to be mean.

  • The Bofa on the Sofa

    Yeah, that’s Facebook policy. However, doesn’t it need to be reported to be caught?

    • Ash

      Some images are reviewed by Facebook contractors (usually low paid employees developing countries) but I do not know if there is a certain degree of automated image recognition as well. I would not be surprised if the algorithm could detect something that looked like breast and then it got pushed to the humans who review it.