Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    Facebook Removes Photo of Pregnant Woman’s Painted Belly

    Do you find this photo offensive? Facebook does. Do you find this photo offensive? Facebook does. Facebook has proven time and time again that they consider photos of breastfeeding to be inappropriate by removing them from their site. Breastfeeding advocates have continually argued - both in response to Facebook's nude photo policy and in the world at large - that in the context of feeding a child, breasts should not be considered sexual objects. That seems irrefutable. Additionally, when seen up-close in person or in a photograph, a woman's breasts are usually minimally exposed while feeding a child. Sometimes less so than in your average (and societally acceptable) cleavage shot. Which makes considering breastfeeding "nudity" seem ridiculous.

    Facebook's community standards specifically state, "We have a strict "no nudity or pornography" policy. Any content that is inappropriately sexual will be removed. Before posting questionable content, be mindful of the consequences for you and your environment." And today they proved that their definition of nudity is even stricter than ever thought. Earlier this afternoon, a photo of a beautifully adorned pregnant belly was removed from the site because - evidently - it involved unacceptable nudity in the form of a painted breast.

    Babble's social media manager, Andrea Zimmerman, posted the photo in question (above) to our Facebook page a few hours ago, and it received several hundred views before it was deleted by Facebook without warning. This has happened once or twice before to photos on Babble's account, and Facebook has responded by sending a message warning that if their guidelines are violated too many times, the account will be deleted.

    Related: The many faces of labor - 25 powerful photos of women giving birth

    What I fail to understand in all of this is why Facebook is more concerned with eradicating their site of pregnancy body art when they seem to have no problem with allowing users to be spammed by photos of "fuck me" high heels and the latest basketball kicks.

    If, based on the wisdom of the US Supreme Court, we are supposed to know pornography when we see it, I'm telling you - this photo of a pregnant woman's body covered in giraffes ain't it. (Unless you're really into animal porn, I guess. But even then…) Conversely, I'm fully clothed in my cover shot, accentuating my breasts in a way that is clearly suggestive (you know, in a post-feminist, empowered sort of way), and it's pretty damn sexy. So what gives, Facebook? When will you begin to respect the sanctity (pun intended!) of women's breasts and stop disrespecting our feet?

    - By Carolyn Castiglia

    For 35 creative and hilarious pregnancy belly art designs, visit Babble!

    MORE ON BABBLE

    10 celebs who breastfeed in public (and we have the pics to prove it!)
    29 things you should NEVER say to a pregnant woman
    The most age-inappropriate toddler gear (what were they thinking?!)
    What EVERY woman should do before having kids
    The 12 creepiest, weirdest baby shower cakes...EVER

    Babble | Babble.comStay connected. Follow Babble on Facebook and Twitter.

     

    15 comments

    • Richard  •  San Francisco, California  •  3 months ago
      To some of the comments here. If you are offended by this picture, why did you come to this site to see it.
    • k8blujay  •  3 months ago
      Man, I'm wondering what the previous commenters would have said if Da Vinci or Michelangelo or any of the renaissance artists had posted their artwork on facebook today... While I'm not trying to equate this particular portrait to the works of the latter, my point is... a naked human body isn't always erotica... which pronography is. And if it's getting you all hot and bothered, then perhaps you need to get laid more often or watch actual porn so you can discern the difference between the two.
      • k8blujay 3 months ago
        Sorry, meant former when I said latter...
      • Runa 3 months ago
        Well, Michelangelo had a lot of his work censored after his death by scandalized artist-priests. Almost none of the clothes in the Sistine Chapel are his own work. So it's not like the modern nudity scandal is a new thing.
      • Nic 3 months ago
        A person is not a painting or a statue. I don't necessarily agree that non-pornographic nudity should be censored; however, FB is well within its rights to have a no-nudity policy and the fact is that this photo violates that policy- and that this wouldn't be news if it wasn't a pregnant belly pic. Nobody said it was disgusting or offensive, simply that this case isn't comparable to breastfeeding pics. And "violating the sanctity of women's breasts"? Puh-leeze.
    • Joe  •  3 months ago
      What do you wear to work? Let that answer guide your impulse to show more of yourself than society-at-large wants to see. Public space isn't your living-room.
    • Joylynn  •  3 months ago
      Umm, If you are showing so much of your body that you would be arrested at, say, the mall then you are probably violating Facebook's or anyone else's nudity policy.
    • dan  •  Karlstad, Minnesota  •  3 months ago
      Although I do think this is one of the most beatiful works of art I have ever seen....I don't think it is facebook appropriate. I can see why facebook took it off.
    • Evee  •  Salt Lake City, Utah  •  3 months ago
      A naked pregnant woman is still a naked woman. They have a no nudity policy. Why are you suprised? If she had on some underware, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had on the skimpiest of skimpy bikinis, they wouldn't have taken it down. No nipples...no crotch shots. This picture has both. I get that pregnancy is beautiful, but naked is naked. And Facebook says no naked.
    • Nic  •  3 months ago
      She's not breastfeeding or wearing clothing, so technically it is gratuitous nudity. And if she wasn't fully shaven it would be a full-on pubes shot- the fact that we know she's shaved proves she's showing a bit too much. Not everything is an attack on parents, and this photo has nothing to do with breastfeeding. If she wasn't pregnant, no one would be surprised or have anything to blog about. Pregnancy does not make a woman a goddess who is above all the rules governing mere mortals.
    • V  •  3 months ago
      This is a beautiful photo... but without a little cropping on the top and bottom, I don't think it's Facebook appropriate. I think they're trying to avoid what happened with Myspace. A little concession here and there eventually led to full-blown smut on the website. Gorgeous artwork, though.
    • ANL  •  McAllen, Texas  •  3 months ago
      yes the pregnant form looks pretty, however i would NEVERr have posted a nude picture of me with my two past pregnancies...its indecent and weird for your facebook friends. my parents would be really upset if they saw a picture like this on my facebook. i would take a picture like this and save it for myself. remember everything that you post online can come back and haunt you later in life.
      • LBC 3 months ago
        Indecent? I think not.
    • LBC  •  3 months ago
      This is why all censorship is bad censorship.
    • Impressive_girl  •  3 months ago
      I'm more concerned as to why hypocritical Shine blatantly uses the "f" word in this article, yet censors all cuss words in their users' posts....
      • k8blujay 3 months ago
        It's because no one at Shine authored this article, Babble did... if they had authored it using the Yahoo platform it would have been censored too.
      • LBC 3 months ago
        Plus it's a lot easier to control the profanity in the authors' posts than in every single comment on every single news and shine article. Have you SEEN some of the comments on Yahoo News or Yahoo Shine? They're disgusting enough already.
    • Ann  •  3 months ago
      Facebook isn't disrespecting the sanctity of breasts; it's rules are incredibly straight-forward. If you knew how to set your privacy settings and block offending users, you wouldn't need to see the latest pair of basketball kicks and f*** me heels. If you don't like the rules, get the heck off Facebook. You don't get special treatment just because you're a mother, especially on the internet. If that's a tit, it gets deleted. End of story. Deal.
    • Hope  •  Norfolk, Virginia  •  3 months ago
      Here's the thing they allow this this every hoochie is going to be exposing themselves in the name of empowerment and art. The issue is not the belly it's the breast Facebook has a clear policy on exposer it'is a blanket policy. Not to mention not everyone wants to see your breast or is comfortable with it. If you don't like it don't use facebook plain and simple
    • Fort Myers gal  •  Fort Myers, Florida  •  3 months ago
      The photo violated Facebook guidelines, and it was removed. If they allowed certain amounts of nudity under certain circumstances, it would be a nightmare to have to decide on a case-by-case basis about what constitutes "appropriate" nudity. From their company's standpoint, I completely understand the blanket policy regarding inappropriate content is in place, and frankly necessary. That being said, I have no problem with the photo (wouldn't do it myself, but more power to the chick willing to bare all). If you don't like Facebook's policy, then delete your account.
    • E  •  Jersey City, New Jersey  •  3 months ago
      If it was just the belly showing in the pictures then I can see why all the upset, but the woman was naked, and nudity violates their policy.

    Join us on Pinterest

    DAILY SHOT VIDEO

    We apologize. An error has occurred. Please try again.