Nipplephobia – Facebook and beyond

The latest scandal around Facebook’s ban on images of nursing mothers, which show a glimpse of the areola or nipple, only presents us with the latest case of nipplephobia – an extreme panic reaction at the view of the female nipple (to my knowledge the male nipple fails to exert such power). Facebook’s action was a misguided enforcement of its obscenity standard, as nipples in themselves are not obscene, whether they are used to feed a baby or not.

Marguerite Gerard, The Breastfeeding Mother (19th C)

Marguerite Gerard, The Breastfeeding Mother (19th C)

Obscenity infolves a sexually explicit act. Simple nudity – with no intended sexual overtones – is not obscene no matter what some fevered imagination can project onto it. Seeing nursing as a sexual act is quite perverse on the part of Facebook, yet not an isolated one.

The centuries-old tradition of representing a mother—be it an ancient goddess, the Virgin Mary, or a 17th century Dutch housewife—nursing a child did not stop officials at an airport outside Newburgh, NY, for instance, from removing a painting of a nursing mother by Shawn Dell Joyce a few years ago. An airport spokeswoman, responding to passengers’ complaints, proclaimed that breast-feeding is “a controversial issue all over the world.”

Hardly “all over the world,” but certainly in the U.S., where federal legislation has been required to protect women’s right to breast-feed (however only on federal property). States have also enacted legislation clarifying that breast-feeding is not an “obscene act,” “lewd touching,” or “immoral conduct.” Such legislation is necessary because, in the U.S., the public apparently associates the female breast almost exclusively with sex and lewd behavior.

The flash of Janet Jackson’s breast on television catalyzed a tellingly disproportionate decency panic: Congress immediately debated increasing FCC indecency fines; to play it safe, NBC cut a glimpse of an elderly patient’s chest from an ER episode; and all TV networks introduced a delay in the airing of live events so that no more unruly breasts could traumatize sensitive viewers.

Just about a year ago drawings by Lubbock, TX artist Lahib Jaddo that were banned from being shown at the city-financed Buddy Holly Center included one of a woman nursing an infant.

Facebook, a privately owned site, has the legal right to impose whatever standards they want, but the public character of the use of the site, and social networking sites in general, ensures those standards have consequences in the public sphere. Behaving as if any glimpse of a female breast is indecent, even obscene, has the unfortunate effect that it actually convinces many to view the body and its most natural and innocent actions (such as breast feeding) as somehow shameful and embarrassing. As a result nursing mothers get hostile looks when they feed their babies in a park or restaurant.

Who has an interest in making the human body an object of shame? We find one answer in religion. Another one is suggested by former top model and media activist Ann Simonton, who, back in 1984 stated, “If women’s breasts weren’t hidden in shame or seen as obscene and wicked, how could Madison Avenue, pornographers, movies and television profit from their exposure?”


About Blog of the National Coalition Against Censorship

Blogging Censorship is where National Coalition Against Censorship staff weigh in on the censorship issues on their minds.
This entry was posted in Svetlana Mintcheva: Author and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Nipplephobia – Facebook and beyond

  1. Mark says:

    Western society is becoming sick indeed by insisting the human body is shameful; something that must be hidden from view. It’s of interest to note that Islam, Christianity, and communism share the similar trait of the need to squash that which is normal and natural.

  2. mike brown says:

    The simple state of being without clothes, naked, is not shameful if you read the Thesis on “Love and Responsibilty published by the late great Pope John Paul and indeed the bible does not promote that being naked is shameful, it is the interpretation by others wanting to squash that which is natural and normal that is shameful and if you have seen the sight of 1200 naked cyclists and skaters in Central London last June and indeed in many cities this June with full Police cooperation and no public complaints (search for Worls Naked Bike Ride) its obvious that double standards are being used and we should resist those that think of us as shameful or indecent.

  3. elvishspate says:

    FACEBOOK is updating its policies. Now is the time for comment on this ridiculous areola censorship issue.

    GO to:

    POST this:
    Rights and Responsibilities > Safety > #7: “You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” I ask that you reconsider classifying images of a woman’s areola as “pornographic.” A woman’s areola is NO MORE pornographic than a man’s. Treating it like it is reinforces negative sexual stereotypes and gendered inequality. YOU are a part of this inequality, Facebook, as long as you enforce removal of pictures of female areola. Your poor choice to censor the female areola is not in keeping with progressive court rulings (like the 1972 California Supreme Court ruling that “nude is not lewd”) or police policy (like the New York City policy whereby showing your areola is treated equally between sexes/genders.) Please update your policy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s