?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Wed, Dec. 31st, 2008, 12:01 pm
Not the Nipple!

Facebook has drawn a line in the sand by removing any photos it deems obscene, including those containing a fully exposed breast, which the site defines as "showing the nipple or areola." The main groups fighting back are breastfeeders. They've, somehow, collected a bunch of the banned images http://www.tera.ca/photos6.html as well as some others from their other causes.

I personally don't find them obscene. Sure, some of the photos which were pulled are not fun to look at, but obscene?

Obscene (according to MW)
1: disgusting to the senses : repulsive
2 a: abhorrent to morality or virtue ; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity
2 b: containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage
2 c: repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles
2 d: so excessive as to be offensive

Hmm.. I wonder which definition they claim it falls under? Replusive? Didn't god create man in his image... so no human form should be repulsive. Designed to incite lust or depravity? That sort of speaks to what god intended them for... who amongst us as the wisdom to guess at god's intent?

Of course, I don't believe in god so those arguments just don't hold. It really just seems to be cultural thing. There are(or were) plenty cultures which allowed nudity without a total moral breakdown. Ours seems stuck on this whole nudity is bad thing. I don't understand why men can walk around topless but not women. I see why some women might not want to.. I understand running topless can be painful. I don't see how that holds up to legal challenges.

What happened to equal rights?