(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	chibikaijuu 2006-05-20 06:38 pm UTC (link)
	The blanket rule is "no sexual content" not "no nudity". I'm sure they'd allow an icon of a famous nude sculpture. "...we require that your default userpic not contain anything too explicit. In particular, icons which are graphically sexual or violent in nature tend to be inappropriate for default userpics." (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mookie 2006-05-20 06:41 pm UTC (link)
	But then this goes back to hardvice's default icon which contained nudity (and it was art, if not famous) without any sort of sexual connotation. I'm thinking that they're defaulting (no pun intended) back to the "too explicit" part of that rule. (Reply to this)(Parent)

smut_queen
2006-05-20 06:43 pm UTC (link)

Re-read. The blanket rule is 'anything too explicit'. Sexuality & violence are brought up as examples.

I keep saying this and no one is listening: if it's not appropriate for me to have a picture of my boobs on an icon, it's not appropriate for me to have a picture of my boobs with a baby attached. Context isn't being attacked here.

If people want to get irate about something, there are a ton of REAL issues that should be dealt with, instead of everyone wasting their time whining about a site enforcing their own damn TOS.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mookie 2006-05-20 06:44 pm UTC (link)
	Damn straight. ~~Let's attack the real problem - those onesies at Target advocating formula over breastfeeding!~~ (Reply to this)(Parent)

chibikaijuu
2006-05-20 07:28 pm UTC (link)

But with the baby attached, you generally can't see the nipples, and that's usually what counts as "explicit". Hence, pasties-version Bea (which is infinitely more hilarious).

Of course there are more important issues - this just happens to be the one under discussion. (However, I do think the inability to view breasts as anything other than sexual *is* a worthwhile issue.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lessis 2006-05-20 08:08 pm UTC (link)
	Depends, looking at some of those breastfeeding icons I definately saw nipple and in others I didn't. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

chibikaijuu
2006-05-20 08:28 pm UTC (link)

In which case, I would begrudgingly admit that it could be considered "too explict". The icon in question, however, seems to contain a baby smushed up against an unidentifiable lump, which is only recognizable as a breast because of the context.

(My personal opinion is that a still image that isn't obviously sexual won't hurt anybody, but then I'm a member of an arts group that regularly takes kids as young as 10 to galleries and films where rather worse than breastfeeding is depicted. I understand that LJ could get in legal trouble if somebody made enough fuss about minors and "porn", though.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	iwanttobeasleep 2006-05-20 08:43 pm UTC (link)
	If I get a guy/girl to suck on my nipple, is it then appropriate? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	chibikaijuu 2006-05-20 08:47 pm UTC (link)
	That's explicitly sexual, as most adults don't get their nutrition from breastmilk. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	darkrose 2006-05-21 12:33 am UTC (link)
	Tell that to Atanielle... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sadisticferret 2006-05-21 01:01 am UTC (link)
	Argh, now I'm having flashbacks to that really bad J/7 breastfeeding fic. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	april_hurst 2006-05-21 01:34 am UTC (link)
	OMG. Extended breastfeeding is TOTALLY NATURAL! It's WRONG to wean children before they are ready! If my son wants milk while we're waiting in line to register to vote, dammit, I'm not going to deny him what should be every child's right! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	tao_tao 2006-05-21 05:52 pm UTC (link)
	Win! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	shaggydogstail 2006-05-21 01:23 am UTC (link)
	Is that a question about icons, or were you looking for volunteers? (Reply to this)(Parent)

shaggydogstail
2006-05-20 09:00 pm UTC (link)

If people want to get irate about something, there are a ton of REAL issues that should be dealt with, instead of everyone wasting their time whining about a site enforcing their own damn TOS.

I think the point is that a lot of people (myself included) don't believe that a breastfeeding icon contravenes the TOS at all. The idea that you can breastfeed in the workplace but not have a tiny picture of someone breastfeeding on your computer at work strikes me as absurd.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

smut_queen
2006-05-20 09:12 pm UTC (link)

And MY point, which everyone seems to be missing, is that breastfeeding isn't the issue under attack. No one is censoring BF. No one is saying it's evil. Livejournal is saying, "Well, we ask people with boobs on their icons to not make them their default icon; we can't really have a double standard for people who have boobs & babies."

It's not censoring. It's not prejudice. It's not sexism. It's a website asking that people adhere to the TOS they agreed to when they signed up.

End. Of. Story.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

shaggydogstail
2006-05-20 09:23 pm UTC (link)

Did I say that breastfeeding was under attack? I absolutely did not. LJ's rules on icons don't make one whit of difference to women actually breastfeeding.

What I did say, was that banning the use of breastfeeding default icons was absurd, since you can actually breastfeed in public. If the act itself isn't 'too explicit' for public consumption, how can a picture of it be? It just doesn't make sense.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	iczer6 2006-05-20 10:18 pm UTC (link)
	Look LJ owns the sites, so LJ makes the rules. If they want to make a rule saying 'no JRock stars in icons' or 'no anime characters in icons', or 'no icons of people fondling panties' then they can. It might be a dumb move, but they can do it and the users will need to either suck it up, or go to a different site. (Reply to this)(Parent)

lessis
2006-05-20 11:14 pm UTC (link)

I don't think they're actually even saying "no breastfeeding icons" some-one reported the icon in question as too explicit, lj_abuse looked at it and said "yeah it is." It's possible that another breastfeeding icon(with a different picture as the base) will be reported as too explicit and lj_abuse will say "no, it's not" It's pretty much a case by case basis. Another thing which makes this whole uproar insane.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	frequentmouse 2006-05-21 01:23 am UTC (link)
	Actually, though, it makes the result of the LJ abuse action more likely to create wank and resentment: if some BF icons are OK and some are not, and the call is up to the individual LJ Abuse team member, then the appearance of unfairness and resulting customer dissatisfaction will be greater. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

lessis, 2006-05-21 02:23 am UTC

$like phonics only not really: ff ; fractured.$

smut_queen
2006-05-21 12:06 am UTC (link)

You, and several other people in this post & at the original posts which sparked the wank, have essentially been saying, "It's okay that these icons feature nudity, because it's in the context of breastfeeding."

What I've said, numerous times, is that the context is irrelevant. If LJ says no boobs, then NO BOOBS. It doesn't matter who is sucking on them. It doesn't matter where you're allowed to breastfeed. What matters is that LJ owns the site and LJ makes the rules.

What. Is so difficult to understand about this?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

chibikaijuu
2006-05-21 01:01 am UTC (link)

Nothing. The point is that LJ needs a better, and more consistent, description of what is and is not allowed as a default icon. If they disallow nudity and explicity sexual content, fine, no uncovered boobs. If convienent text, filters, or pasties counts as covered, so does a baby's head.

Yes, LJ owns the site. Yes, LJ makes the rules. However, the rules aren't clear and are essentially only enforced should a user choose to report someone's icon, usually not *because* the icon breaks TOS, but because said user dislikes other user and has found a way to get them in trouble. If painted Bea Arthur tits and this particular breastfeeding icon, in which the breast is a mysterious lump that only becomes obvious as a breast with context, are against TOS, then I would expect every single reported user with a default icon containing nudity or bare breasts (or, apparently, partially covered breasts), whether photographic, painted, drawn, computer rendered (2D or 3D) or sculpture, artistic, pornographic, or just matter-of-fact, to be requested to remove it. This does not seem to be the case.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - iwanttobeasleep, 2006-05-21 05:08 am UTC

shaggydogstail
2006-05-21 01:21 am UTC (link)

Except that the rules don't say no boobs, nor do they mention nudity, they say no overly explicit images. Context is usually deemed relevant when considering whether or not an image is excessively explicit, which is why art teachers can show schoolchildren pictures of Botticelli's Birth of Venus, but not snapshots of topless strippers and why classical nude statues are commonplace in city centres, but you wouldn't get planning permission for a latex model of Miss Whiplash.

Since the rules don't mention nudity or partial nudity, I think it's reasonable to argue that images which are generally acceptable in public view should not be restricted.

What matters is that LJ owns the site and LJ makes the rules.

Of course, LJ can do whatever they damn well please. Doesn't mean I can't bitch it if I think they're being unreasonable. (After all, bitching about stuff is second only to porn on the great list of What The Internets Are For.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

mookie
2006-05-22 10:49 pm UTC (link)

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now and finally I know what has been bothering me.

The idea that you can breastfeed in the workplace but not have a tiny picture of someone breastfeeding on your computer at work strikes me as absurd.

I'm not so sure that breastfeeding is necessarily allowed in the workplace, to be honest, for the very simple reason that children are not allowed in the workplace. Nor are spouses or anyone that is not employed by the company, and if you stop by for a visit you stay in the visitor's lobby or the parking lot.

Yes, there are exceptions, and no, not every workplace has the same environment. That being the case, however, one blanket statement does not fit all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2006-05-22 05:17 pm UTC (link)
	it's not appropriate for me to have a picture of my boobs on an icon, it's not appropriate for me to have a picture of my boobs with a baby attached. Applauds what do you want to bet that the people pitching a fit about this are the same ones who were against J. Jackson? (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -