Hell hath no fury like a lactivist scorned...

[rj_anderson]

I'm not one of the people affected by this particular ruling, and I'm not generally inclined to bite the hand that feeds me (in this case, LiveJournal), but I do agree with the principle behind the thing. So, I'm linking to a post about a recent userpic controversy, and you can make of it what you will:

PRESS RELEASE: Popular Blogging Site Restricts Use of Breastfeeding Photos

There seems to be a massive flying double standard going on, considering the crass sexuality displayed in a lot of LiveJournal icons that aren't being affected by the ruling. Given the choice of having my children see a photo of a nursing mother with one or both breasts exposed, and having them see some of the vulgar and exploitative icons that float around LJ on a regular basis, I'd pick the nursing mother any day. Who exactly is LJ trying to protect in this case?

Comments

[katinka31.livejournal.com]

Bizarre, isn't it?

[ljrags.livejournal.com]

*scratches head*

Makes no sense. WHY?

[penwiper26.livejournal.com]

TF?

That is so screwed up.

[pgoodman13.livejournal.com]

They're high. They've gotta be.

[apis-mellifera.livejournal.com]

My only problem is that the real issues seem to be the inconsistent and sometimes off application of the TOS by LJ Abuse--a problem which has been brought to light by Nipplegate, but certainly wasn't caused by it.

If the breastfeeding community were working that angle, I think they'd be getting a lot more traction outside the breastfeeding communities. I've taken a peek at the press release, and it looks like that they are starting to work that angle, but it may be too late to change the perception that this is a bunch of hysterical females flipping out because they can't have pictures of their boobs on a non-public website.

[apis-mellifera.livejournal.com]

Off should be odd in the first line there. Fat fingers.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

There seems to be a massive flying double standard going on, considering the crass sexuality displayed in a lot of LiveJournal icons that aren't being affected by the ruling.

Uhm, it seems to be saying that the LJ management wants to no visible nipple/aureola in *default* icons, not in all icons everywhere.

It's still a restriction, but it's not a total restriction as nursingbydesign seems to imply. You can still have breastfeeding icons as your non-default icons, as many as you wish, or naked or tasteless icons if you prefer those -- so it might be being made into a bigger problem than it is.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I know that, but there's a principle involved. Either breastfeeding pics are vulgar and inappropriate or they aren't. Saying that it's okay to use them for regular icons but just not for default icons makes no sense unless the LJ management are deeming bf'ing pics as offensive/obscene and putting them in the same category as sexually explicit pics, which is just wrong, IMO.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Some could be, I suppose, or rather not worksafe. But it makes more sense to me to judge them on an individual basis rather than assume all bf icons are offensive.

[infiniteviking]

*grimaces at evil double standards*

Grr.

[sabrinanymph.livejournal.com]

I saw this a few days ago on my friendslist and it did make me frustrated. There are a number of even default usericons that are far more offensive to me than would be a picture of a mother breast feeding, aureola showing or not! And as has been pointed out numerous times, how large an aureola is can depend a lot upon the skin tones of the woman in question.

I do agree with someone above, however, that said they need to be working the inconsistencies in LJ's abuse team more. To me, that's the real heart of the problem. When LJ went to a site that was purchased by SixApart, SixApart needed to start forking out the dough for real abuse people, not volunteers, because volunteers unless they are extremely professional are going to be cliquish, and more importantly are going to change from time to time. What one group says is okay, another group might not say is okay, and so you start having inconsistencies and people get (rightly) pissed off...

[camillofan.livejournal.com]

*adds "lactivism" and "lactivist" to list of new words learned from RJA's blog this week*

(wish I'd known them when I was lactivating lactating)

[--kali--.livejournal.com]

This is why there needs to be some serious changes within Abuse. But I have issues around that department anyway.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If there is one prejudice that makes me rabid, it is that against breastfeeding in public. It is not only the most natural and human thing in the world, it is, to me, such a visible expression of life-giving love in action, the nearest thing to a miracle you will see in your life. And people who allow pornography forbid this. It really makes me see red.

[(Anonymous)]

It is rather hypocritical. You go right ahead and bite that hand! There's other blogs. --Debbie

[babelmira.livejournal.com]

Such a strange ruling, but then we have forgotten what a body is actually meant for. It's not just for looking pretty, it has a functional use as well.

I'm glad I live in a country that has recently made it illegal to stop a woman breast feeding in public.

[auditrixlectrix.livejournal.com]

Insane.