Is it obscene?
Facebook created quite a ruckus in recent weeks after it removed pictures of women nursing their children from users’ accounts. According to Facebook, the deletions were in accordance with the company’s policy prohibiting members from uploading any content deemed to be “obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit.”
As Facebook swells beyond 140 million members, regulating content on the site becomes more difficult. Barry Schnitt, a spokesman for the company, said banning nudity was a clear line to draw.
“We think it’s a consistent policy,” said Mr. Schnitt. “Certainly we can agree that there is context where nudity is not obscene, but we are reviewing thousands of complaints a day. Whether it’s obscene, art or a natural act — we’d rather just leave it at nudity and draw the line there.”
But nursing mothers remain indignant about a policy they say needs to be re-evaluated. “It’s highly offensive to mothers and babies to be lumped in as true obscenity,” said Stephanie Knapp Muir, who helped organize a Facebook group called “Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding Is Not Obscene!” The group’s description questions, “What about a baby breastfeeding is obscene? Especially in comparison to MANY other pictures posted all over Facebook that really are obscene.”
What’s your take: Should Facebook ease up when it comes to pictures of nursing mothers, or are they a form of obscenity that Facebook should continue to ban?














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top97 Comments to “Is it obscene?”
My question is, who on earth thinks it’s a good idea to post pictures of women breastfeeding to a public social network site?
Facebook drew a line, and they’re sticking with it. If every group feels like they have the right to haggle with Facebook’s admins about what’s okay or not, then the headaches multiply. I’m not sure that pictures of breastfeeding are obscene, but I can understand why they shouldn’t be on facebook (I certainly don’t want to see them there.)
Report comment to moderator
The breast feeding is not being lumped with obscenity, but it is rightly being lumped with nudity, which is against policy.
Report comment to moderator
KBells is right — it’s nudity. The company needs a bright line, and it has one. This is selfishness on the part of the nursing mothers. If you want your friends to see your breasts, email them the pictures. Why does Facebook have to make it easy for them? It’s just a few clicks in their address book.
Report comment to moderator
Help me out here, breast-feeding mothers: what would be your motivation for publishing these sorts of photos of yourself?
I need not be convinced of the value of breastfeeding; our three children were breastfed. My wife, however, is a modest woman who would not publish photos of herself with anything uncovered that would normally be covered in public. I’ve seen many tasteful portraits of mothers and babies where, for instance, a sleeping babe lies on her mother’s bare shoulder, but I do question the value of publishing a picture that shows enough to make it clear that the photo was snapped while the baby was being fed. Am I missing something?
Report comment to moderator
Gah, that last sentence opens me up to all sorts of ribbing. Go ahead, we all need a (tasteful) laugh! My point, however clumsily worded, was that there are some beautiful things that the world does not need to see.
Report comment to moderator
I agree, RR.
A few of my out-of-town friends have blogs (like many of us), and one of them recently posted a picture of the mother breast-feeding their newborn. It was not obscene, and it is a tender moment I guess. But why would you want a picture of that moment on the world wide web???
Report comment to moderator
RR,
You are right about the ribbing, I’m trying to restrain myself, laughing out lous, but restraining my typing
I have nursed seven babies and while it is a very good thing I still did it discretely. Can’t imagine why anyone would want a picture of that on the web or even passed around. The comic “Zits” had a funny take on this yesterday.
Report comment to moderator
I recently saw a photo of my nephew’s wife large with child and pretty bare. She had a tattoo that was no longer identifiable. I happened to be at another person’s house and saw the photos there. I wonder if they do realize that some people they do not want to see these photos are going to see them. Some photos are only to be shared by those closest to you and anytime they are posted on sites like facebook, that is no longer the case.
I agree with facebook on this one. I breastfed all my children and do not think it obscene in the least, but facebook has to have some standard. It is not an undue hardship for people to personally email photos like this to their friends or family.
Report comment to moderator
Public breastfeeding has always been associated with women who are radicals – in the same category as bra burners and Mardi Gras breastbearers. Christians, both men and women, are called to modesty. Even though feeding a child is perfectly natural, a woman’s breasts belong to her husband, and he’s the only one (other than the baby) who should see them.
Report comment to moderator
While breastfeeding is a good idea, and I believe a woman has the right to discretely feed her child in public, allowing such photos on a public forum like Facebook opens a can of worms. What is to stop pornographers from putting a baby to the breast of every model just to make the photos acceptable?
Report comment to moderator
Breastfeeding is a beautiful thing and not obscene in the least as we all agree. Mothers are generally discreet in public using a cloth or going somewhere private.
But I have also seen some “liberated” women baring a breast in public in crowded areas almost daring anyone to challenge them. There is something slightly obscene about their attitude.
I am glad that Facebook is making an attempt to keep the site clean. That is one reason more and more people are flocking there. It is a relatively safe place to keep in touch with family and friends.
Report comment to moderator
As a mother who breastfed there are just women out there who are militant and want what they want their way. Lighten up. I once had on a business suit and fed my child in the middle of a restaurant with no one knowing. I slipped the jacket off and put it around my shoulders. I was also sitting in the corner of a booth. It can be done.
Report comment to moderator
It is nudity. The FB folks have the right to set their standards which users click a box to ACCEPT when they begin as users. I’m supportive of breastfeeding but the so-called “lactivists” are an agenda-driven bunch.
And as others have noted, pictures are seen by a multitude of onlookers (some of whom may be sicko fetishists). I assume to the extent that they are able FB wants to exclude or minimize the fetishist presence.
Report comment to moderator
#10 I suspect there are some things even so-called models won’t do.
Report comment to moderator
#6 What was the Billy Joel lyric? “Leave a tender moment alone!”
Report comment to moderator
As far as I know, content is usually removed after another user reports it. Maybe these women need to get friends who don’t report them.
Report comment to moderator
#13 “Lactivists”. That’s rich!
Report comment to moderator
Another breastfeeding mom chiming in: I feel the same as many who have posted. I know there is nothing obscene about the process of feeding my child even if done in public. I just wonder about the desire to publish pictures about it on the web. I read a related article recently that said it was photos where the “nipple or areola” could be clearly seen that were removed, not all photos of breastfeeding mothers. So this even more presses the point that they’re just holding to their “line” (nudity) which I support their right to do.
BTW, this next comment steps away from the “publishing photos” aspect to the more general “nursing in public” aspect (and I type it thinking of Kim in #12 above) — while, I, also can nurse very discretely in public as you describe, Kim, I have a friend who just cannot. She’s a large woman with large “nursers” (sorry guys) and if she wants to feed her child in public some flesh is going to show. Should she be banned from nursing in public? I don’t believe so. People will just have to deal with it in that situation, IMHO.
Report comment to moderator
Kim, I agree. I fed my baby in public and even in church. If done properly it is seldom even noticed. I notice someone else usually because I did it myself.
Bianca, that was my mother-in-law’s husband’s excuse for not taking her to a doctor. No doctor should see her naked. (She once took a greyhound to get to the hospital to have a baby. That busdriver took pity on her and drove blocks out of the way to leave her at the door of the hospital.) I believe this idea is also prevalent among many Muslim groups. Are you sure you want to go this far?
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue if your friend is large and cannot be as discreet as others no problem. It’s not like she isn’t trying to be discreet but just whipping it out for everyone to take a gander at. They also make cloths especially designed for breast feeding mothers that help a lot. I never had any but I saw them.
As I have stated before, if I could get production going again I would pump for the Women’s and Children’s hospital that is near here.
Report comment to moderator
On the other hand, these photos aren’t out for the world to see. If I post a picture on FB, the absolute widest security setting is for everybody in my network (usually a city or school) to see it. Most of us have our security set much tighter than that–only “friends” (which requires acceptance by both people involved) or “friends of friends”, which is the setting I use.
I’ve seen many of the photos in question, since they can be found on the page of the group the women founded. Bikinis show more on most women, I assure you.
FB can, has, and should set its own standards to which the members should abide. I just don’t think these photos are of nudity, any more than beach pics are.
Report comment to moderator
Security settings are important, Cameron, but they’re still only as sound as the discretion exercised by the most foolish of your FB friends. All it takes is for one person to cut and paste a photo into an e-mail (I assume this can be done in FB) and it’s outside your circle of trust (Robert DeNiro fans take note).
Report comment to moderator
RR,
True.
Report comment to moderator
~~This post may cause consternation and is not meant to offend.~~
Breast feeding while covering up is fine. People offended by someone such as Endyblue mentions are the ones with the problem, not the large woman. She should be encouraged to feed her child and cover up as best she can. I think part of the problem with public breast feeding is the American fear of the naked body, perhaps due to our Puritan heritage. There is nothing wrong with the naked body, if there were, then God created something evil, and we know that is not true. No, the “sin” is what one does while naked, or what another perceives from seeing a naked body. Since we cannot control what others do, and Jesus warns us against being a stumbling block, we should not be naked in public, nor post photos of ourselves naked in a public forum where someone may be offended. But if a woman inadvertently is exposed while breastfeeding (the little ones do move their hands around, after all), she is not sinning. Anyone who takes offense should just let her be. Am I clear on this?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron, I personally think a lot of beach pics are nudity! But no, a woman who is actively feeding her baby is covered by the baby, and that isn’t nudity.
Now, I have a member of my extended family who had twins, and seemed to think that was a wonderful excuse for exposure. One time when I was a teen her family came to visit me, and though I was in the nursery and didn’t see it, according to my mom she gave my pastor a little more than he was expecting to see in prayer meeting–he looked her way when the baby wasn’t actually using the equipment and his eyes got big in shock. My sister and I got quite embarrassed at what our brother saw quite a few times during the visits we made with that family when the babies were little–my sister learned to sit between our brother and this relative just to block the view a bit. So breastfeeding can be immodest, if done incorrectly, and pics could be immodest as well.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.,
I agree that a baby covering the mother isn’t nudity, and I agree that the pics (like beach pics) could go either way, which is why I would prefer that FB handle the pictures on an individual basis, rather than a lump category. They remove some bikini pictures, but leave others, for example.
Report comment to moderator
lol … Just a week ago this same crowd was crying about censorship and freedom of speech when the topic was NBC choosing not to have Ann Coulter on anymore.
You guys (religious conservatives) are supposed to be about unchanging principles, but really, you shift stances with every turn of the breeze.
When someone chooses to limit something you like, it’s evil censorship. When they’re limiting something you don’t like, it’s right on.
Report comment to moderator
I notice that no one has point out that the act of lactation is considered a genre of the porn industry.
While I agree with breastfeeding, and am even okay with it in public, I think that fact that some men are turned on by the very act of lactation should at least get some women to rethink their position on this issue.
I put it to you women, knowing that breastfeeding/lactation could turn some random guy on, do you still hold the same support for these Facebookers?
Report comment to moderator
I’d agree that Facebook as a private entity has a right to set its standards where they want. But of course its private users have a right to petition and complain about Facebook in an effort to have the policy changed.
A large part of the problem is this: Facebook has not told these women, “any pictures showing nudity are prohibited.” It has told them “any pictures deemed to be ‘obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit‘ are prohibited.” Facebook has, in effect, told these women that breastfeeding is either obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, or some combination of those three.
And it’s not. Cultures throughout history have celebrated the breastfeeding-mother image. Churches from the medieval period have featured images of Jesus at Mary’s breast, with varying amounts of skin exposed.
And Cameron makes a good point. Pictures of scantily-clad women which are clearly sexual in nature Facebook leaves up, but they take down sweet and pure pictures of a nursing mother showing only the skin of one breast and the tiny sliver of areola not in the baby’s mouth.
It reflects a generally unhealthy view of human life and sexuality, in my opinion. In the same vein as selling 8 year olds hot-shorts with “tasty” on the a** while simultaneously prosecuting teens as child pornographers for sending each other naked photos.
Report comment to moderator
John Grasping,
I don’t see anyone arguing that women should “let it all hang out” on Facebook, so I don’t quite see your point.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – my point is not “letting it all hang out” is the only thing that turn these guys on. It is a mental reaction to seeing the act performed. Just as a normally-wired guy is turned on by women fully clothed in a tight dress with no cleavage showing, so these guys are turned on by lactation itself.
It isn’t about how much you show in this case, but what you are doing.
And i am not saying this is your fault. It is the Fall first and men’s second, women’s last. But it is something to think about.
Speaking for myself – one of my first steps towards my fall into porn addiction (which I am kicking with help) was seeing women breastfeed. Even when I couldn’t see anything. Believe me, the mind wanders and imagines.
Report comment to moderator
John- The male mind is able to “wander and imagine” at the slightest hint, so your argument is weak. Perhaps we need to be like the Taliban and force women to wear the burka in public, since we males have no self control when iot comes to lust. [/sarcasm]
Report comment to moderator
It depends on the photograph.
People’s minds can always wander, even from photographs of the most innocent things. But that does not mean that all possible photographs of breastfeeding moms are OK.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G–I’m not sure I understand your comparison.
As Christians, we strive to not be a stumbling block, right? I agree that the act of breastfeeding may turn some men on–or make it hard to ignore one doing it in public. I myself never felt comfortable nursing in public, but that’s just me. Personal example–my husband was leading a bible study at a friends home (couples study with about 8 other husbands and wives) when one of the wives decided to whip it out and breastfeed her baby; no cloth, just bare…My husband, just like I imagine most other men, had a hard time not focusing on it. It made him stumble and lose his words. That Bible study was over the moment she decided to share her “sweet moment” with the rest of the room.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not making an argument. I’m making an observation. I’m not even arguing against public breastfeeding. I just wanted to know other people’s reactions, knowing that fact. I have not opnion of my own, and am trying to formulate one actually.
I was just tossing in my two cents, and making an observation based on personal experience. There is no way the experience of one individual can constitute and argument. I know that.
Report comment to moderator
John GFTW – I appreciated your insight. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron writes: “…which is why I would prefer that FB handle the pictures on an individual basis ….”
That’s the problem. You would have a company making subjective decisions. They are far safer from lawsuits by establishing a standard and sticking to it. This isn’t censorship or a First Amendment violation. Facebook is not the government.
These women have other ways to post their pictures, just as Anne Coulter has other ways to get her views out to the public, so if NBC had wanted to ban her, it could have. It never did.
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour – 34
You wrote: “That Bible study was over the moment she decided to share her “sweet moment” with the rest of the room.”
I can see it now, you paint a visual which would make the men I know very uncomfortable, not to mention the women.
None of my friends ever breast feed their babies in public. In fact where we live, (Southern CA) the people we know wouldn’t think of nursing in public. I might add we live in a large city, many restaurants, etc., we probably see two at the most per year who nurse in pubic, its always looked down upon. There are often lovely ladies rooms with sofas and coffee tables which are set up like living rooms separate from the other part of the bathroom – thats where women nurse.
Report comment to moderator
I breast fed all three of my kids.
With the first, I would go out to the car when out and needed to breast feed.
With the second and third, I would *occasionally* stay in the restaurant if I could cover reasonably well. (i.e. a dark restaurant, back in a booth, with a blanket available.)
I made a firm rule with the second and third children that — in my own home with just my family present — I would not run and “hide” but breast feed as discreetly as possible.
I would NEVER, EVER have breast fed a baby in a bible study group, in church, or anywhere in public where I couldn’t have been so discreet as to be virtually unnoticed. Even with non-immediate family, I would leave the room and do it in a bedroom.
It is not that there is anything wrong with breastfeeding, or babies, or a “natural act.” But sex is a a “natural act” too, as is relieving myself, and I don’t do either of those things in public either.
Report comment to moderator
The problem, though, is that the people who are activists on this issue don’t seem to even TRY to understand the other side. So, when a woman just “whips it out” and does NOTHING to try to be discreet, the rest of us are just supposed to sit there, suffer in silence, and be “tolerant.” Never you mind that she’s making the vast majority of the room uncomfortable. HER rights are more important than anyone else’s. And, if you dare to look or say anything, she will confront you in a militant way, and — should the restaurant or church or theater or whatever try to help — they will be confronted with militant, sign-wielding women and a news campaign claiming they are anti-baby and anti-woman.
Sigh
Report comment to moderator
Interestingly enough, TRS, the woman that did the nursing at Bible study has that very militant personality–if not, I may have had the “nerve” to have said something to her!
I know this has already been said, but I still don’t get why in the world any woman would want to post pictures of herself breastfeeding?? Really…it’s quite different that nursing in public!
Report comment to moderator
#27 SteveG “lol … Just a week ago this same crowd was crying about censorship and freedom of speech …”
False analogy. Is bearing one’s breasts a 1st Amendment issue?
Report comment to moderator
I think that shoud be “baring” …
Report comment to moderator
19 – KI, I don’t consider a medical exam the same issue, especially in an emergency situation. A woman should seek out a woman doctor if she can, but this isn’t always possible.
Report comment to moderator
MomOfFour: My point is simply that photographs are a form of expression. Your example, while an interesting story, isn’t germane because anyone who stumbles across a photo on the Internet they don’t want to see can just click away, close the browser, go to another page. It doesn’t cause any confrontation or disrupt anyone’s study group.
There was thread around a week or two ago about NBC deciding it would no longer welcome Ann Coulter on as a commentator. The reaction among most of the conservative Christians here was that NBC was limiting her free speech, censoring a point of view and reflecting their liberal bias. (Yes I know, none of those arguments really hold up under examination, but that’s what was said.)
Now we have Facebook choosing to ban all photos of women breastfeeding babies and the reaction among most of the conservative Christians here is that they are doing the right thing.
One could easily conclude that Facebook is limiting the freedom of speech of women who want to, through a photograph, convey a message about the acceptability of breastfeeding. One could conclude that that FB is censoring a point of view and reflecting a bias.
And it seems to me that if one were truly concerned about freedom of speech … as opposed to freedom of only the speech they approve of … the same ones who spoke against NBC then would be speaking against Facebook here.
A lot of discussion in this thread is about women who whip out a boob on the subway with no regard to the feelings of those around them. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is photographs on the Internet which, like the channel on your teevee, you can change in a second if you don’t want to see what’s on.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: False analogy. Is bearing one’s breasts a 1st Amendment issue?
You have the right to bare arms …
But actually, yeah, it is. Well, photographs of such anyway. If a woman strips off her shirt in the park and people have no choice but to see, whether they want to or not, we’re seeing an illustration of the maxim “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”
But if we’re talking about a woman stripping off her shirt inside her house and putting a photo of herself online, where people who want to look can do so and those who don’t want to don’t have to, well that’s a very different situation.
Report comment to moderator
Xion- many would see baring breasts as a Free Speech issue. In fact, there are groups that argue women should be allowed to go topless at beaches, since men are allowed to.
Report comment to moderator
“While I agree with breastfeeding, and am even okay with it in public, I think that fact that some men are turned on by the very act of lactation should at least get some women to rethink their position on this issue.”
Add feet, legs, leather, and anything else you can imagine. FB is privately owned, and if people don’t like the rules they can go elsewhere.
Report comment to moderator
To answer the question, “Is it obscene?”
No. Not at all.
Report comment to moderator
It is possible to feed in a manner so as to be discreet.
It is not in anyway obscene – it is completely natural.
It is, however, something that isn’t really appropriate for fully revealed public viewing.
Other bodily functions are natural too, but also not appropriate for public viewing.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG is right – y’all are being “selective” in your support of censorship. For example, if Facebook decided to ban all photos of anti-abortions protests or all depictions of Christian symbols, I’ll bet y’all would be raising a huge ruckus.
There are more than a few Americans who think any woman who isn’t covered in a full burka is obscene. Will Facebook comply with their demands?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Watch the wide, sweeping generalizations. I don’t remember being for censorship in this issue. I have to abide by FB’s rules or go elsewhere, but I definitely disagree with them.
If a woman can bottle-feed in public, I don’t understand why a woman can’t discreetly breast-feed. Hiding in a bathroom? No, thanks.
Report comment to moderator
51. Do you think anything should be censored?
Report comment to moderator
NBC is part of the free press. They are also a private company. They have the right to invite or disinvite anyone that they want. However, they claim to be objective and free of bias. They claim to cover all sides of an issue. They claim to be in favor of “equal time” for liberal and conservative views. It wasn’t a legal issue that people objected to, as far as I know. It was the hypocrisy of NBC, who have not banned Michael Moore or other famous liberals.
Facebook is privately owned. They are not part of the press. They have the right to set rules that they think will best support their objectives. Others have the right to use their service or not, and they realize that the niche that they are filling is a kid-friendly social networking service.
If people want to put pictures of themselves on their own webpage that they pay for, then those pictures are mostly immune from censorship.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells,
If it’s legal, no it shouldn’t be censored.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Even in the private domain?
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A: It was the hypocrisy of NBC, who have not banned Michael Moore or other famous liberals.
When was the last time you saw Michael Moore appearing on any of the major news networks? The last I recall was during the 2004 campaign season. I don’t think anyone has declared a specific decision to no longer invite him, but he does not seem to get invited much.
And NBC has plenty of conservative guests and hosts. As I said in that earlier thread, it’s entirely possible to advocate and defend conservative points of view without being deliberately and obnoxiously offensive, as Coulter is.
Report comment to moderator
this is an issue??
Report comment to moderator
HRW-
It shouldn’t be, but it’s what Random calls Evangelical Porn.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, Michael Moore was just a random example I threw out there.
What’s you opinion, then, of Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, Al Franken, and Jon Stewart? I’ll bet you won’t be consistent.
Report comment to moderator
Facebook can do whatever it wants, and the people who use Facebook can choose not to use it. I don’t like Facebook’s decision, but it’s their call.
Other women breast feeding in public has never bothered me, but I still never understood why anyone would WANT to breast feed out where everyone could see. Then I had a baby who ate every 2 1/2 hours in a 15-hour period and who took almost an hour to eat at times. She’s past that phase now, but slinking away into a side room every single time I needed to feed my baby when we were out wasn’t an option. We live 45 minutes from our church, so even if we only did go out only for church services, I would still have had to feed her in front of people at some point.
To those of you who think breast feeding mothers should hide: to compare feeding my child to going to the bathroom is pretty offensive. Motherhood is isolating enough; insisting that a woman go away every time she feeds her child or that she just not spend time in public until the baby is older makes it far worse. I’m not the lonely woe-is-me type, either. I do use a nursing cover, but my daughter hates it. I have to wrestle with her already, and she’s only three months old. There may come a day when I can’t use a nursing cover with her.
Report comment to moderator
55 – translation – government’s God, so if they say it’s okay then it is. If they say it isn’t, then it isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Noam,
If you can’t win a small battle against a 3-month old, I hate to see what’s going to happen when she’s 3 years old or 16 years old.
Cover! It is a question of modesty. It simply is. No one (except Bianca) told you that you can’t breast feed DISCREETLY in public. I do think that the vast majority are offended by mothers who “whip it out” and make little effort to be discreet.
This, from a mother of 3 who breast-fed all of them until they were over one year old. I certainly did manage to get out of the house (and mine fed AT LEAST as often as yours does) and I’m large chested.
You may not have to go “hide” in the bathroom, but you do need to do whatever you can to be as discreet as is possible.
Report comment to moderator
A private company policy against nudity has nothing to do with government censorship.
Steve #27,#46 and Anlir #51 apparently want the government to step in and force Facebook to allow people to post nude photos.
And neither of you have explained how nudity is “speech”.
Report comment to moderator
TRS: I got the distinct impression from some comments that even nursing in public at all (with or without a cover, discreetly or indiscreetly) was akin to using the restroom in public. Perhaps I am mistaken. I also think that some women are so skilled at discreet nursing that it’s less noticeable when they DON’T use a nursing cover, as a cover just shouts, “Hey! Over here! Baby eating!” If it ever gets to the point that she won’t nurse with one on, and I can’t master discreet nursing without a cover, I will nurse her in private. I prefer modesty over my own convenience, but I don’t think nursing without a cover necessarily equals immodesty.
Also, there is a difference between physically wrestling with a flailing infant and training and disciplining an older child or baby. She’s going to get stronger for a while before she’s of the age to be disciplined. For what it’s worth, she’s an enormous baby–over ten pounds at birth and very strong. Short of taping her arms to her sides, there’s not much I can do. She won’t nurse when she’s swaddled; I’ve tried it.
Report comment to moderator
Noam – 65
How often do you need to feed your child? Most babies don’t need to be fed every hour or two.
You might feel inconvenienced by nursing your child in a bathroom in public, or a bedroom at a friends home (if there are men and women at the same gathering) but it is OFFENSIVE when women start nursing in mixed company –
I also agree with many here who have posted – those who nurse are very militant when anyone even looks at them wrong, as though displaying one breast is just fine, after all “my baby is hungry” –
Strange how the public display of nursing breasts in public is observed in areas which claim to be conservative in many ways, and yet in southern CA, its almost never done, – California being a liberal state – very interesting!
The conservative façade is becoming more apparent in this thread -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
As I said in my first post, she used to eat every 2.5 hours but is past that phase.
I don’t just feel inconvenienced by nursing my child in a public bathroom. Public bathrooms are filthy, no matter how clean they look.
If I’m with people who feel uncomfortable with women nursing (even with a cover), I will go in another room. I don’t like it, but I’ll do it.
That does not mean that I believe it to be intrinsically offensive. When going into a separate room isn’t possible, am I to believe that I am sinning by feeding my daughter? Our family just made a seven-hour trip to see my husband’s family. Some of those people are very old and unable to come visit us. It is unlikely that they will live much longer, and they wanted very much to meet the baby. My daughter refuses the bottle, no matter what we do. This means that there were, at times, no realistic options for feeding the baby, shorting of sitting in the car, burning expensive gas (it was very cold) and hoping no one would look in the windows. Would our Creator make such a basic and time-consuming part of life a sin to do anywhere but in private?
Report comment to moderator
I forgot to add that she now eats every three hours.
Report comment to moderator
Noam,
I’m wondering how we all survived not feeding children in public, what I am guessing is ALL the babies where I live aren’t being fed, – I’m not trying to be sarcastic, its just a fact –
If you are visiting ‘old people’ as you said “Some of those people are very old” they must have lived in homes of some sort, it would seem you could either feed the baby in a bedroom – were you always out in restaurants for hours on end?
YOU WRITE: “Public bathrooms are filthy, no matter how clean they look.”
I don’t agree with that comment at all. I have been present and watched as the bathrooms were cleaned, often sitting on the sofa talking on my cell phone, they aren’t filthy at all. Let’s face it, if the bathroom is filthy then so is the restaurant, and so is the store, so why would you take your baby there in the first place? I certainly wouldn’t, I wouldn’t eat anywhere where the bathroom was filthy.
Report comment to moderator
I was speaking of the seven-hour drive down, during which my daughter had to eat twice, not the visit itself. I mentioned the relatives’ ages and physical conditions to head off the argument that we could have just had them come visit us or waited until our daughter was done breast feeding.
I worked in a (very clean) restaurant for almost ten years. Trust me, the bathrooms are crawling with germs; there is only so much the staff can do during the day to keep it clean. Of course they’re clean immediately after someone has cleaned them, but that only happens a few times a day. Can you honestly tell me that you would willingly eat in a public restroom? Unless I somehow manage to both avoid touching any door handles or locks and avoid touching my baby’s face or hands (she chews on them constantly), it’s extremely unsanitary to feed my daughter in a rest room. I’m far less paranoid about germs than most people I know, and even I wouldn’t do that to my baby.
Again, why would our Creator provide us a way to feed our children that requires such ridiculous amounts of maneuvering to do without sinning? Except for the last couple paragraphs (I don’t feed my baby in public as any kind of protest, and I do it with a nursing cover, though it’s not easy), this page (www.loveyourbaby.com/public-breast-feeding.html) is a good explanation of our society’s views on public breast feeding and its effects on breast feeding mothers.
It’s best for a baby to breast feed for at least a year, but hardly anyone does it in this country. So you’re partially right; women survive not breast feeding in public, but breast feeding doesn’t survive. In fact, the US has one of the lowest breast feeding rates in the world even though we’re among the most developed countries and even though breast milk far exceeds formula in quality. For a while, women in this country were discouraged from breast feeding period. Even though it is now encouraged, some of that stigma remains, and the oversexualization of women’s breasts doesn’t help.
Again, I don’t breast feed in public to make a protest. I’m not militant. I don’t go out of my way to offend others’ sensibilities, whether I agree with them or not. I try not to make others uncomfortable. But it’s silly to bend over backwards and sideways and underneath to completely hide something that is such a basic part of life. I have seen women nursing in public who bare far less skin than even a modest v-neck shows. It is possible to position child and shirt or shirts in such a way that nothing shows. If I’m wearing a nursing cover and feeding my child, there ought not be an issue just because someone may be uncomfortable by what is going on under there. Should I bind my breasts, too, because someone may be uncomfortable because of what he or she knows is under my shirt? How far do we take the stumbling block argument?
Report comment to moderator
Noam
My mother nursed us, of course I don’t remember it, however I do remember as I grew, becoming 4 or so, that women excused themselves and went to the bedroom to nurse. They never did it in front of men, other than their husband or small sons.
As for my experience, women did/do nurse, they just don’t make it public. Maybe its just southern CA, perhaps we are just to conservative – the movie industry is our neighbor, the beach is just a skip away, but yet women don’t nurse in public – in fact I asked my husband when the last time he had witnessed a woman breast feeding in public, his answer? – maybe two years- Another interesting fact, women and their husbands go out to dinner (good restaurants) all the time here, they bring their infants with them, they shop in the malls, etc, they are everywhere, yet the women don’t nurse in public.
As far as your comment —- “Even though it is now encouraged, some of that stigma remains, and the oversexualization of women’s breasts doesn’t help.” —- Womens breasts have always been a sexual attraction, it didn’t just happen in the past 10 years, its ALWAYS been a focus ask any man- LOL, they will laugh at the question with glee, if not ‘hoot’ out loud. If beasts weren’t a focus men wouldn’t look at them-
I’m not buying your claims about bathrooms being filthy – if everyone who used a public bathroom became contaminated, then they in turn would bring all those germs to their handbag, everything they touched in stores, everything they bought and brought home, all the germs they touched that someone else had handled after visiting the ladies room, not to mention the interior of their cars, steering wheel etc. Your arguement doesn’t make sense – I’m very careful when using the ladies room, I bring the paper towels to the door and open it, instead of using my bare hands – however this would not preclude my touching something someone else had touched in the china department who NEVER washed their hands to begin with, or the seat in a restaurant where they had just sat, then touch my food, butter my roll, all with my hands which have just become contaminated, LOL –
I’m beginning to see how conservative we really are in Southern CA, what an eye openner!
Report comment to moderator
—-
I must admit, (covered) public breast feeding is pretty common around here (southern Wisconsin). So I’m not coming from the same place you are.
—-
You do wash your hands after using the restroom, especially if you’re about to eat,no? If not, I’ll buy your argument. If so, why? I know germs can’t be eliminated from my life, and I know a certain level actually helps develop a good immune system. That doesn’t mean I’ll eat in the middle of a public bathroom.
I know breasts are sexual. That’s why I said “OVERsexualized”. They have become so sexualized that their use as feeding instruments has become secondary and unimportant. Many other parts of the body are sexual, too–lips, neck, decolletage, legs–, but their “sexualness” (I just made up a word, I know
) becomes greater or lesser depending on context, and we don’t ask that they be hidden when they’re being used for their primary purposes. Furthermore, even breasts’ sexualness diminish, say, at the pool. Even modest bathing suits fit pretty snugly, but most people realize that in order for a woman to be able to swim practically and well, she needs such an outfit. Why not make the same concession for women who feed their children and don’t even reveal as much as a modest bathing suit?
Report comment to moderator
Noam – 72
YOU WRITE:
“You do wash your hands after using the restroom, especially if you’re about to eat,no? If not, I’ll buy your argument. If so, why? I know germs can’t be eliminated from my life, and I know a certain level actually helps develop a good immune system. That doesn’t mean I’ll eat in the middle of a public bathroom.”
Yes I wash my hands after using the bathroom, – your question is ridiculous, I posted #71 —- “Your arguement doesn’t make sense – I’m very careful when using the ladies room, I bring the paper towels to the door and open it, instead of using my bare hands – — clearly I wash my hands, or I wouldn’t be concerned with bringing the paper towels to open the door. LOL
No one serves food in the middle of the ladies room, but they certainly bring their infants their to ‘change their diapers’ – thats what the changing tables are for, or are you against those too – what do you do if YOU need to use the ladies room? do you leave your infant outside? Yes women use the attached lounges to feed their infants, and the changing tables to change their diapers.
Clearly Wisconsin, or where you are from is much different than where I live. If you ever visit the area in which I live and then make a practice of nursing in public, you will most likely get very negative glances and remarks, it’s just not accepted.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A; What’s you opinion, then, of Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, Al Franken, and Jon Stewart? I’ll bet you won’t be consistent.
Have any of them suggested that women whose husbands died in the 9/11 attacks are “enjoying” their deaths?
Have any of them said that conservatives consistently take the side of American’s enemies?
Perhaps most important, do any of them EVER appear on news shows to offer commentary? Stewart and Colbert have their own shows (on Comedy Central, not NBC), Maher did get thrown off of ABC and has a show on pay cable, and Franken’s political commentary has come more often in book form than TV.
Report comment to moderator
Xion at #64: Steve #27,#46 and Anlir #51 apparently want the government to step in and force Facebook to allow people to post nude photos.
You’re just not ever going to break that habit of putting words in other people’s mouths, are you?
Of course I have not said or thought any such thing. I’m just amused at the weather-vane behavior of those who claim to hold to unchanging principles.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G, you didn’t say if you approve of them.
I’m not going to defend Ann Coulter’s arguments. I’m only going to point out that unless you condemn people on the left who use sharp sarcasm and invective, you are inconsistent.
I’m also going to point out, again, that it’s NBC and the other networks that set the bar in this argument. They claim to present both sides and to be against censorship of any kind. If they admitted their bias, they could cancel Ann Coulter or anyone else with no hypocrisy.
Report comment to moderator
Noam,
For what it’s worth, my sister has nursed all five–very discreetly. In her living room (with her boys sent to their room) she’ll nurse without a cover, and I never see any flesh at all. So she’s one of those who’d probably do better nursing without a cover. But she commented on the fact that men don’t notice when women nurse. They simply don’t even see it. She gave two examples. One, she was nursing in an area of her church set aside for that, and she was wearing a dress in which she couldn’t be discreet (she had to pull down the top), but she thought oh well, it’s just women in here; the door tells men not to come in, and she’d never seen a man in there. A man came in, and she was horrified, but kept the baby on her for modesty. He walked all around, chatted with people, and left–and the other women told her, “Don’t worry, he didn’t even notice what you were doing!”
Second, she said the few men who do seem to notice do so because their own wives nurse and they sort of “know what to look for.” But she said that on a couple occasions they’ve gone somewhere and been there for several hours, and as they drive home her husband says, “Isn’t the baby hungry by now?” and she’ll tell him she nursed him twice while they were there–he didn’t even know it. She said once her husband went up to a mother with a baby in a park and spoke to the woman, and when they left she asked him if he’d noticed the baby was nursing (knowing he wouldn’t have talked to the woman if he had noticed), and he hadn’t noticed. She said that if her husband, who’s used to seeing a nursing wife, doesn’t notice, the average man surely doesn’t notice a discreet nurser. In fact, my sister once nursed at an outdoor family gathering (with thousands of non-family members there as well); she really had no choice, since the event had no enclosed area other than port-a-jons and it was summer and too hot to nurse in a car. She positioned me on one side of her, her husband on the other, but she would have died of shame if any of our brothers had noticed. (We have a VERY modest family, in which she has never dared hint to our brothers how her babies get fed.) None of them noticed, and she knew they wouldn’t but she was scared anyway.
Honestly, this idea that feeding one’s baby is inappropriate because men might have a problem with it is sickening to me. Yes, be as modest as you possibly can. But God is the one who “invented” breasts as a means to feed our babies, and that is their primary purpose. If a man simply cannot deal with a discreet woman, it really is his problem and not the woman’s. Yes, she should be careful, but again, I feel no call to cover everything but my nose and eyes for the possibility of evoking lust in a man–we simply cannot modify all of life for the mere possibility that a man will be turned on. If a man wants me to be covered to the ankle because ankles turn him on, I’ll avoid contact with that man in the future but I won’t cover to the ankle for him.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle: Steve G, you didn’t say if you approve of them.
I’m not going to defend Ann Coulter’s arguments. I’m only going to point out that unless you condemn people on the left who use sharp sarcasm and invective, you are inconsistent.
Obviously I wasn’t clear enough. I don’t think any of the people you named can hold a candle to Coulter in the deliberately-offensive department. So it’s not an equivalent comparison. All four of them together are not as offensive as Coulter.
And lest you think that it’s a matter of ideology, let me add that I would not say the same about any other conservative commentator except Michael Savage. Name any other one you can — Michael Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, etc. — and I will tell you that I probably disagree with them on most issues, but I don’t think any of them are going out of their way to deliberately offend and insult people.
Coulter has built a career on doing exactly that.
I’m also going to point out, again, that it’s NBC and the other networks that set the bar in this argument. They claim to present both sides and to be against censorship of any kind. If they admitted their bias, they could cancel Ann Coulter or anyone else with no hypocrisy.
And again, this is a poor argument. NBC has not said that they will no longer have conservative guests. In fact they frequently do.
Unless you are going to take the position that Ann Coulter is the sole defender of the consevative position anywhere on the airwaves, then the assertion that by no longer welcoming her NBC is somehow shutting out the conservative perspective is completely wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl — We actually agree. Men don’t notice. Its a non-sexual activity. Context is everything. If breastfeeding is a stumbling block how long until the burkha arrives?’
And Xion — where’s the nudity — I looked at Facebook and all I saw was children being fed.
Report comment to moderator
In a pornographic world, the reason breastfeeding is offensive is not that it shows flesh. It’s offensive because it’s sexual, in the true, reproductive meaning of sex. Nursing a baby makes an explicit connection between breasts and babies and what sex is ABOUT.
The modern puritan boggles at such vulgarity and demands a discrete curtaining, as around piano legs.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.,
Well said.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Cheryl D.
Victoria, I am having serious trouble wrapping my head around the idea that a restroom is just as clean as the rest of a public building. When toilets flush, fecal bacteria and other delicious things go flying into the air. The walls and floors of bathrooms are crawling with what the toilet sprays onto them. Of course some of that makes its way into the rest of the building, but in no way are a bathroom and a dining room the same in terms of cleanliness.
As for changing my baby, I take her into the bathroom, I put my changing pad on top of the changing table. I put the baby on the changing pad, change her, wash my hands, wipe her hands, and leave. I am not understanding how cleaning off my child’s rear end is akin to sitting on a toilet and wrestling with my child to get her fed, arms and hands flying everywhere. I don’t know if you’ve ever breast fed. Perhaps you have, and your child or children was or were just calm. But mine flails, and I know this is not uncommon. It’s a miracle she’s never launched herself head first into the floor. Breast feeding is not always a neat, calm, easy business.
Now, I’m not trying to be snarky here, but did you read the rest of my arguments?
Report comment to moderator
#75 SteveG You’re just not ever going to break that habit of putting words in other people’s mouths, are you?
The problem is that you don’t follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion. When I try to lead you there you cry foul. So then we have to back up and take baby steps.
Did you or did you not say in #46 that nudity on FaceBook is a 1st Amendment issue? So then are you or are you not saying that FaceBook is in violation of the 1st Amendment?
Feeding children is not a 1st Amendment issue. Breasts on FaceBook is not a 1st Amendment issue.
We are not being weathervanes on freedom of speech. You are. What I am after is consistency. You say it is OK for certain people to express their beliefs and worldview in public places but if Christians do then somehow it violates “free speech”. That is inconsistent. You even admitted it! And then justified it! And now you accuse us of it!
Report comment to moderator
Noam
I have read what you have to post, we disagree – there is no reason to continue this endless diatribe –
I hope you have a wonderful Sabbath –
Report comment to moderator
Xion: The problem is that you don’t follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion. When I try to lead you there you cry foul. So then we have to back up and take baby steps.
If it will help you understand the fairly simple ideas I’m trying to communicate, then I’m all for that.
Did you or did you not say in #46 that nudity on FaceBook is a 1st Amendment issue? So then are you or are you not saying that FaceBook is in violation of the 1st Amendment?
I did not.
What I said was that photographs involving nudity are free speech under the First Amendment. I did not say anything about Facebook.
To break that down: The First Amendment pertains to government censorship. It does not obligate a private business to facilitate the speech. I think Facebook is within its rights to ban any type of content they choose to on their service, just as a TV network is within its rights to make editorial decisions about who they will give airtime to.
My statement was in direct response to your question about whether baring of breasts is a Constitutional issue, and what I said was:
But if we’re talking about a woman stripping off her shirt inside her house and putting a photo of herself online, where people who want to look can do so and those who don’t want to don’t have to, well that’s a very different situation.
Note that “online” does not equal “on Facebook.” She can set up her own Website, or use a service that has established different policies than Facebook.
You said:
Feeding children is not a 1st Amendment issue. Breasts on FaceBook is not a 1st Amendment issue.
On Facebook specifically, no, it’s not. But the right in general to include nudity in visual art without government restriction is.
I didn’t bring up the First Amendment, you did. My only point originally was to contrast the condemnation of NBC with the applause of Facebook when both are arguably choosing to limit speech. As private businesses, they are both within their rights to make such policy decisions. But the inconsistency of people on which to applaud and which to criticize struck me as an irony worth pointing out.
We are not being weathervanes on freedom of speech. You are. What I am after is consistency. You say it is OK for certain people to express their beliefs and worldview in public places but if Christians do then somehow it violates “free speech”. That is inconsistent. You even admitted it! And then justified it! And now you accuse us of it!
Again, you invent things I didn’t say. I have never said — NEVER SAID — that if Christians “express their beliefs and worldview in public places” it violates free speech. Never, and you really should retract that slander.
The only thing I have ever said that comes anywhere close to that involves the use of public funds — taxpayer money — to facilitate a government-sanctioned expression.
Quick example: The city council votes to allow a religious-themed display on the city hall lawn: Not acceptable because it is the government endorsing a particular religious view.
Or
The city maintains a public park and a local preacher uses it to preach to everyone within earshot: Completely appropriate, because the city is simply making a space available for any legal use.
I would say that my actual positions are not even close to your caricature of them.
Report comment to moderator
Obviously I yet again screwed up the italics tags in the post above, but I trust you can sort out what’s mine and what is quoted from Xion.
Report comment to moderator
Bathrooms? Hey, Larry Craig, the Republican from Idaho, has decided not to contest his dirty bathroom arrest in Minnesota. Guilty as charged.
Report comment to moderator
I am a breastfeeding mother of four. I am an avid WORLD reader and a Reformed Christian. I am also a member of that Facebook group. When I first joined, I was determined to add my own picture; I just haven’t gotten around to it yet. I can give an answer to the question that so many on this thread have posed: Why would a modest breastfeeding mother choose to post such a picture? There is a stigma in this country (see most of the thread above, or particularly remarks #38 & #73), and I think many breastfeeding mothers want to help overcome that by conveying a message about the acceptability of breastfeeding.(#45) I am neither a radical nor a bra-burner(#9), and I’m not advocating “breast-baring.” Certainly God provided this way for us to feed our children(#70), and I would like to see it be more accepted, more normal and straightforward. If more women are seen modestly breastfeeding in the daily course of life, in public, and on Facebook, maybe the climate in America would change and maybe young girls coming up would be more inclined to make this choice.
Report comment to moderator
JJJ-there is NOT a stigma in this country on breastfeeding. Every commercial, every doctor will encourage that breastfeeding is best for the baby. It’s the working mom syndrome/convenience that has made moms switch to bottle-feeding. And tell me, how does showing a picture of you breastfeeding encourage me to get on the front line of the “breast-feeding in public rights” parade? If anything, it turns me off.
Cheryl–I disagree about men not noticing when women nurse. Or else wherever you live is COMPLETELY different from where I am. I think the men are probably just pretending they didn’t see (I’ve been know to do that myself).
The sexual part–doesn’t scripture often mention to the husbands to be satisfied with their wife’s breasts? Yes, He did create them for feeding our children (and He did a perfect job), but He also created them for our husbands. I’m certainly not willing to share any part of “mine” (sorry…) with any other man; I’m not willing to put up a stumbling block for some other woman’s husband. Are you??
Report comment to moderator
I certainly don’t know what most men think about seeing a woman breast-feeding, but from what I have read in women’s magazines, for many men it is anything but sexually stimulating, even to see their own wives breastfeeding.
As for the men I do know, my husband thought I was silly to worry about keeping what I was doing covered when I had to breast-feed our baby in public. And when my father-in-law moved in with us shortly after our second son was born, I initially felt awkward feeding him where I normally did, in the living room, when my father-in-law might come through and see us, but apparently any awkwardness I felt did not show. And as it clearly did not bother my father-in-law I became comfortable with it, and he commented later how glad he was that I didn’t have any problem with continuing to breast-feed even when he was around. That’s not exactly in public, of course, but I initially felt the same concern I would have regarding any man other than my husband.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry folks, after reading my last paragraph, I may have gone a little overboard. I’m sorry if I offended anyone–I didn’t mean to it come out quite the way it did. I only meant to encourage us not to be a stumbling block!
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour,
As I think I’ve mentioned, I come from a VERY modest family–to the point of parnanoia in several members. A number of years ago a member of my extended family was diagnosed with breast cancer, and it was shocking to hear the word “breast” in my family. I keep myself well covered. I don’t have children, so breastfeeding hasn’t been an issue I’ve dealt with personally, but I think the reaction of “no man should ever have any inkling that a woman is feeding her baby, lest it turn him on” is just as much overreaction as “no woman should ever walk barefoot lest it turn on a man” or “women must cover themselves to the wrist and ankle.”
I guess part of the issue for me is that modesty isn’t “primary.” It’s a means to an end–the end being sexual purity. Thus, if a house catches on fire and someone runs from it naked, the person will not be tried for public nakedness, because life trumps modesty. The same with a woman who’s rushing to the hospital and gives birth on the way. Even if a stranger attends the birth, no one says the woman was being immodest–life trumps modesty. A breastfeeding mother must do everything she can to be discreet…short of letting her baby miss a meal. Again, life trumps “modesty.”
I really think our oversexualization of breasts has brought us out of balance on this issue. Yes, breasts are sexual–but they’re also the means God gave us to feed our children. Just about any body part can be sexual–must we cover them all, even our eyes? In many cultures, hair is sexual, but we think nothing of letting ours down and keeping it uncovered. People would think we were insane if we declared that women could never eat in public because some men find mouths sexual–and yet I’m sure many men do. (The Muslims would say this, I imagine, but Christians don’t.) How can we declare that it’s better to let a baby go hungry, or to feed it in a bathroom stall, than to feed it where there’s a possibility a man might happen to know what’s going on (even though he sees nothing)?
It seems to me that godly women are responsible to be modest in our attire and in the way we carry ourselves, in how we speak and what we do…and beyond that not worry about what people think. In other words, if I’m dressed modestly and I walk modestly, talk modestly, etc., and a man looks at me and lusts, that simply is not my sin, it’s his. If a baby is hungry and his mother feeds him discreetly and a man happens to know what she is doing and has a problem with it, it is his problem and not hers. She has sinned neither against her husband nor against the man. To acquiesce to our oversexualized culture and say that breasts are only sexual and thus must never be used for feeding babies is to slip further in our anti-child culture.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: I certainly don’t know what most men think about seeing a woman breast-feeding, but from what I have read in women’s magazines, for many men it is anything but sexually stimulating, even to see their own wives breastfeeding.
I can’t speak for all of us, but for me there is nothing sexually stimulating about it. While I think Kwerna’s implication that us libertines just don’t like being reminded that breasts are connected to reproduction in addition to (Kwerna might say “instead of”) pleasure is pretty silly, it is true that there’s nothing erotic about breastfeeding. (For me, anyway.)
Like many other body parts, breasts have more than one role in human experience, and those roles don’t need to intermix.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD–let me clarify. I don’t have a problem with public breastfeeding DISCREETLY…maybe we are just misunderstanding each other. 8*) I have put a blanket over me while nursing at an indoor playground in a mall (however in smaller situations or a sanctuary, I will go to a different room). I don’t think twice about seeing a woman with a blanket over her. My problem is with women who want to share it ALL with all of us.
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour, that helps. Except for one relative, I’ve never been in a position to see a woman nursing indiscreetly, and I rather assume we’re all talking about using discretion. But some on this thread are pretty much saying even that isn’t enough.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!