Pretend Breast Feeding and Facebook

Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:01 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/lauren-ferrari-banned-facebook-breastfeeding_n_1709928.html

This is a varient on several topics we have discussed on here before.

Summary for non-clickers: A woman posted a photo of her five year old DD pretending to breast feed her 2 year old DD on FB. She captioned the photo "she says she's nursing her baby." The photo has been removed and the woman who posted it banned from FB for seven days. A detective from the crimes against children unit interviewed for the article described posting the photo as "poor parenting" stating that you never know where that type of photo could end up once it is on-line. The mother maintains that it was appropriate imaginitive role play for her children's ages and that there was nothing wrong with sharing the photo with friends and family.

WDYT?

ETA: The photo is included in the article. The kids are lying next to each other. The five year old has pulled up her shirt and the two year old's mouth is covering her sister's nipple.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:38 pm

That picture is not appropriate, not because of what they were pretending to do, but because of how it looks and the fact that has been stated in the article, that anyone could get ahold of it and this honestly a perverts dream. There is nothing wrong with breastfeeding or pics of it or kids knowing about it, but this pic should not be on FB and IMO the mom should explain to her daughter breastfeeding is for moms and their children, not sisters, keep your mouths off of each others nipples.

Mommy to twins
http://ifashley.blogspot.com
[/url

Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:56 am

I think my problem with the whole situation is that she was banned. It's Facebook's prerogative to remove the picture and I agree that I wouldn't want a picture like that, innocent though it may be, to be public knowledge if the children were mine. However, I think that taking the picture down and saying, "Hey, dufus, there are bad guys out there," should suffice. Banning her turns it into the ordeal. She needs educated on using a bit of common sense, but not punished.

3 angels, Ashley, Elijah's twin Alison, and Baby October.

Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:06 am

I am all for BF and promoting and even have a picture of my three year old BF his glow worm. How in the hell could she not see an issue with this picture? First thing I thought of when I saw it was kiddie porn, not breastfeeding your sister.

Stephanie, mom to:
Steven, 3-23-07
Seth, 4-08-09
Samuel, 16 w 6 d, 6-9-11
Shane, 5-25-12

Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:08 am

She was only banned for a week. I think after all the mess she has made of it she should be banned permanently from FB. She clearly cannot handle it. FB is supposed to be a fun way to keep in touch with people and now she is blasting inappropiate pics of her kids all over the news. FB is a free service that no one is entitled to and unfortunately there are a lot of people who live and die by it and take it way too seriously. People airing their dirty laundry, posting inappropriate stuff and freaking out=you don't get the gist and it's probably not for you. The fact that she is allowing news stations to continue to use the photo means that she doesn't get it at all.

Mommy to twins
http://ifashley.blogspot.com
[/url

Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:30 am

She was only banned for a week. I think after all the mess she has made of it she should be banned permanently from FB. She clearly cannot handle it. FB is supposed to be a fun way to keep in touch with people and now she is blasting inappropiate pics of her kids all over the news. FB is a free service that no one is entitled to and unfortunately there are a lot of people who live and die by it and take it way too seriously. People airing their dirty laundry, posting inappropriate stuff and freaking out=you don't get the gist and it's probably not for you. The fact that she is allowing news stations to continue to use the photo means that she doesn't get it at all.

I was coming over to this post to type something similar. In the video linked here, it seems she is totally clueless.

Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:44 pm

She was only banned for a week. I think after all the mess she has made of it she should be banned permanently from FB. She clearly cannot handle it. FB is supposed to be a fun way to keep in touch with people and now she is blasting inappropiate pics of her kids all over the news. FB is a free service that no one is entitled to and unfortunately there are a lot of people who live and die by it and take it way too seriously. People airing their dirty laundry, posting inappropriate stuff and freaking out=you don't get the gist and it's probably not for you. The fact that she is allowing news stations to continue to use the photo means that she doesn't get it at all.

I agree that she still doesn't get it, but getting banned made it a bigger issue than it started out as being. It wouldn't have been nearly as big of a spectacle if she hadn't have been banned. I'm the poster queen for making fun of people who complain about what Facebook does, but it's still my opinion that banning her was an extreme measure and gave the whole thing more sensationalism than it had otherwise.

3 angels, Ashley, Elijah's twin Alison, and Baby October.

Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:51 pm

She was only banned for a week. I think after all the mess she has made of it she should be banned permanently from FB. She clearly cannot handle it. FB is supposed to be a fun way to keep in touch with people and now she is blasting inappropiate pics of her kids all over the news. FB is a free service that no one is entitled to and unfortunately there are a lot of people who live and die by it and take it way too seriously. People airing their dirty laundry, posting inappropriate stuff and freaking out=you don't get the gist and it's probably not for you. The fact that she is allowing news stations to continue to use the photo means that she doesn't get it at all.

I agree that she still doesn't get it, but getting banned made it a bigger issue than it started out as being. It wouldn't have been nearly as big of a spectacle if she hadn't have been banned. I'm the poster queen for making fun of people who complain about what Facebook does, but it's still my opinion that banning her was an extreme measure and gave the whole thing more sensationalism than it had otherwise.

It was only a spectacle because she made it one. I doubt FB alerted the media that she posted that picture. Also, you have NO idea what type of person someone really is by reading their FB. For all the company knew, she could be some kind of pervert and they have to protect themselves. A normal adult would be banned for a week, deal with it, return to FB, gripe to their friends about it or maybe just decide not to use the free service at all. A normal adult doesn't call the media over a one week FB ban for a dumb judgement call that was her own fault. She was given an adult time out and she had a tantrum instead of thinking about what she did and not doing it again.

Mommy to twins
http://ifashley.blogspot.com
[/url

Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:33 pm

She was only banned for a week. I think after all the mess she has made of it she should be banned permanently from FB. She clearly cannot handle it. FB is supposed to be a fun way to keep in touch with people and now she is blasting inappropiate pics of her kids all over the news. FB is a free service that no one is entitled to and unfortunately there are a lot of people who live and die by it and take it way too seriously. People airing their dirty laundry, posting inappropriate stuff and freaking out=you don't get the gist and it's probably not for you. The fact that she is allowing news stations to continue to use the photo means that she doesn't get it at all.

I agree that she still doesn't get it, but getting banned made it a bigger issue than it started out as being. It wouldn't have been nearly as big of a spectacle if she hadn't have been banned. I'm the poster queen for making fun of people who complain about what Facebook does, but it's still my opinion that banning her was an extreme measure and gave the whole thing more sensationalism than it had otherwise.

It was only a spectacle because she made it one. I doubt FB alerted the media that she posted that picture. Also, you have NO idea what type of person someone really is by reading their FB. For all the company knew, she could be some kind of pervert and they have to protect themselves. A normal adult would be banned for a week, deal with it, return to FB, gripe to their friends about it or maybe just decide not to use the free service at all. A normal adult doesn't call the media over a one week FB ban for a dumb judgement call that was her own fault. She was given an adult time out and she had a tantrum instead of thinking about what she did and not doing it again.

Let me rephrase what I've been saying: Yes, the spectacle was hers, but if all they had done was to remove the photo, they wouldn't have given her much ammo to turn into an ordeal. I'm not saying that I think she's justified in posting the pic or in crybagging about the action Facebook took. In general, if a person posted a pic that was questionable, but not blatant, I think it's overkill to ban the user. For instance, posting a picture of a mother nursing her baby could be questionable. Posting a picture of a woman nude on a stripper pole is blatant. The former should warrant that FB would remove the picture with a warning if that would be their choice. The latter - because of its blatancy - should warrant a ban. As stupid as it was of her to post the picture, they have no reason to believe that she was malicious in doing so, therefore I don't think a punishment is necessary. That's separate from how I feel about her having had the lapse in judgement to have posted it to begin with and the even bigger lapse in judgement to then share it on an even bigger scale via the media. I won't even post a pic of me sharing a cute kiss with my dh. I won't post pics of my dd with a bare butt. Both are far outside of what I'm willing to share. My opinion isn't at all that sharing the picture is benign. And I'm also all for FB doing whatever they feel is appropriate. I still disagree that banning her was warranted. Is it the end of the world? Should it make or break a person? Is it anything more than an annoyance? No to all.

3 angels, Ashley, Elijah's twin Alison, and Baby October.

Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:55 pm

She was only banned for a week. I think after all the mess she has made of it she should be banned permanently from FB. She clearly cannot handle it. FB is supposed to be a fun way to keep in touch with people and now she is blasting inappropiate pics of her kids all over the news. FB is a free service that no one is entitled to and unfortunately there are a lot of people who live and die by it and take it way too seriously. People airing their dirty laundry, posting inappropriate stuff and freaking out=you don't get the gist and it's probably not for you. The fact that she is allowing news stations to continue to use the photo means that she doesn't get it at all.

I agree that she still doesn't get it, but getting banned made it a bigger issue than it started out as being. It wouldn't have been nearly as big of a spectacle if she hadn't have been banned. I'm the poster queen for making fun of people who complain about what Facebook does, but it's still my opinion that banning her was an extreme measure and gave the whole thing more sensationalism than it had otherwise.

It was only a spectacle because she made it one. I doubt FB alerted the media that she posted that picture. Also, you have NO idea what type of person someone really is by reading their FB. For all the company knew, she could be some kind of pervert and they have to protect themselves. A normal adult would be banned for a week, deal with it, return to FB, gripe to their friends about it or maybe just decide not to use the free service at all. A normal adult doesn't call the media over a one week FB ban for a dumb judgement call that was her own fault. She was given an adult time out and she had a tantrum instead of thinking about what she did and not doing it again.

Let me rephrase what I've been saying: Yes, the spectacle was hers, but if all they had done was to remove the photo, they wouldn't have given her much ammo to turn into an ordeal. I'm not saying that I think she's justified in posting the pic or in crybagging about the action Facebook took. In general, if a person posted a pic that was questionable, but not blatant, I think it's overkill to ban the user. For instance, posting a picture of a mother nursing her baby could be questionable. Posting a picture of a woman nude on a stripper pole is blatant. The former should warrant that FB would remove the picture with a warning if that would be their choice. The latter - because of its blatancy - should warrant a ban. As stupid as it was of her to post the picture, they have no reason to believe that she was malicious in doing so, therefore I don't think a punishment is necessary. That's separate from how I feel about her having had the lapse in judgement to have posted it to begin with and the even bigger lapse in judgement to then share it on an even bigger scale via the media. I won't even post a pic of me sharing a cute kiss with my dh. I won't post pics of my dd with a bare butt. Both are far outside of what I'm willing to share. My opinion isn't at all that sharing the picture is benign. And I'm also all for FB doing whatever they feel is appropriate. I still disagree that banning her was warranted. Is it the end of the world? Should it make or break a person? Is it anything more than an annoyance? No to all.

I get what you're saying, but I don't disagree with Facebook for banning her for a week. It says in their policies that if it is something of questionable nature and not just nudity, they ban the person while they investigate it. That picture could so easily be misconstrued as child pornography I think it is great that they are taking it very seriously because like I said, she says she's just a mom whose kids are playing pretend, but how on earth does FB really know that? Weirdos use FB for things all the time and I'm glad that they don't mess with that.

Mommy to twins
http://ifashley.blogspot.com
[/url

Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:34 pm

I pretended to breastfeed stuffed animals as a child. My aunt openly breastfed my cousin, so I was used to seeing it. I do agree it wasn't such a good idea to post the picture, even thought it's not as disturbing as I imagined it would be.

Brentley Peyton

Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:51 am

these are young children and no one seems to think that the roleplay was inappropriate. Few seem to think that mom taking a picture of the roleplay was inappropriate. Sounds like you think the issue was posting the picture for others to see. Would you think it ok for her to email the picture or send it by phone to the grandparents? father? aunts and uncles? close family friends? Because to a lot of people using the facebook privacy settings to only allow certain people to see what you post makes them feel safe about posting pictures of their children. They might not otherwise post any pictures or information about their children online. The mother was not selling the picture to perverts. She was sharing her children's childhood with people she knew.

******************************************************
my nephews: Alec, Jackson, Elijah, Hayden, Eric, Atreus, Nicholas, Isaac, Samuel
my niece: Rubie

Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:10 pm

That picture is not appropriate, not because of what they were pretending to do, but because of how it looks and the fact that has been stated in the article, that anyone could get ahold of it and this honestly a perverts dream. There is nothing wrong with breastfeeding or pics of it or kids knowing about it, but this pic should not be on FB and IMO the mom should explain to her daughter breastfeeding is for moms and their children, not sisters, keep your mouths off of each others nipples.

agree