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

[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.