Venn Diagram of Site Metrics: Readership of The Unnecesarean »
Thursday
Feb022012

A Victory for Activists™: Censoring the Glory of the Belly

Share 

 

I had planned to post something substantial today but this is so much better.

I re-posted (from here) this glorious photo series of bellies to the Facebook page. Bellies… they’re so beautiful. I revere them. You should, too.

 

Here’s where shit gets weird (because there’s nothing weird so far). People on our Facebook page reported the post to Facebook and it was removed. The reason was (I kid you not) because Facebook will not allow breastfeeding photos but will allow naked men to mock black-and-white photo shoots of pregnant women staring blankly into the ether.

 

Justice served!

 

 

 

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (8)

These are so funny! I find them equal parts hilarious and squicky. I can't stop thinking about them tucking their junk back.

February 2, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterBonnie

I'm confused. Facebook removed it when your subscribers reported it? So, they don't allow this or breastfeeding photos? Or was there a crucial typo made

February 2, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterguest

I'm baffled. If it was removed, then...they didn't allow it.

February 2, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJ

I think you meant, Facebook WILL allow breastfeeding photos but will NOT allow naked men to mock black-and-white photo shoots of pregnant women staring blankly into the ether.
Joke officially ruined :(

February 3, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterHAHA

I think what she is saying is that this picture was posted and was left untouched by FB until a bunch of sanctimonious twatwaffles reported it because they were upset that Facebook would allow this photo but not pictures of breastfeeding. The "justice served" indicates the irony of people upset that their pictures are being censored due to prudes reporting breastfeeding areolas as "inappropriate" turning around and reporting other pictures out of spite. So while it was *eventually* removed because of complaints, it was originally allowed.

sigh

February 3, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSarcasm 101

Sarcasm 101 for the win. Collect your prize at the door.

February 3, 2012 | Registered CommenterJill

I am so glad a blog space exists where we can all explore these important issues and have meaningful conversations.

February 3, 2012 | Registered CommenterJill

Actually it IS a win for activists. Because reporting stupid photos that obviously should'nt be removed shows up the faulty bots that do FB's dirty work and draws more attention to the issue. And it doesn't really hurt your FB page to have the photo removed, either.

February 3, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNotThatKindofActivist

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>