Will Your Left Eyeball Fall Out If You See A Little Flesh?
Facebook is protecting its users from getting all hepped up and hot at work with shots like this bit of "porn" -- a premature baby having breakfast.
More on this from the Puffington Host.
P.S. For much of human history, people were pretty naked and kids knew when people were having sex. Despite this horror, we've managed to soldier on.
In an age when you can be 12 and not have to hunt for your dad's hidden girlie mags but simply get on your nearest device and google up people doing unspeakable things with each other and just about everything in the animal kingdom, Facebook is really offing photos of mommy feeding her baby? (And yes, thanks, so you don't have to mention it, I'm aware that it's a private business.)
via @Popehat
And the utter moral horror of National Geographic when I was a kid: NEKKID NATIVE BOOBIES!!
(And I still recall my great-grandmother yelling at my parents for letting us see "adult magazines" like National Geographic. . .)
She would have vapor-locked at a Victoria's Secret Catalog, but by that time, had bad Alzheimer's, and thought it was 1942. . .
Keith Glass at November 12, 2014 7:30 AM
Well, I certainly agree that Facebook shouldn't have even bothered to "review" it, but the bigger question is: Who is the idiot that reported it?
gharkness at November 12, 2014 7:37 AM
I will add one comment... for those of us who have to deal with restrictive Web surfing policies at work, it would be nice to have an opt-in censoring mechanism. If they go through your Web cache and find something like this in it, you could be in trouble even though you had no intention of looking for any such content. (Actually, a bigger problem in that regard is banner ads, but...)
Cousin Dave at November 12, 2014 7:43 AM
Is violence still okay? I don't want to step afoul of the latest trends.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at November 12, 2014 10:35 AM
Oh man! Now my left eyeball has fallen out and rolled under the desk so I can't find it.
Snoopy at November 12, 2014 11:44 AM
Dagnabit Amy, that was my good eye! ;->
Ben at November 12, 2014 11:54 AM
I don't do "social media" per se (beyond leaving cavalier opinions on Amy's blog and PHP boards), but doesn't facebook only show you what people you've "friended" or "liked" are posting -- and doesn't it provide ways to filter certain people out if you don't like what you get from them? I mean, come on, this amounts to people demanding Facebook protect them from their own poor choice of virtual-friends and likes. Why not just take responsibility and defriend / unfriend / whatever them, or filter their messages out? I could understand FB providing a courtesy "personal bits" tab for photo-uploads so that people could check the "no personal bits" box in their filtering preferences. That seems reasonable. But, honestly, I like a little titilation in my day. It reminds me I'm alive.
David at November 12, 2014 1:11 PM
While the story the photo tells is all positive, I think whoever posted the photo is an over-sharer.
DaveG at November 12, 2014 3:22 PM
That poor little baby, with his nose tube.
That poor boob, it does look as though it is suffering.
Porn? You have to be fucking kidding me.
Pirate Jo at November 12, 2014 6:21 PM
Random thoughts:
1) The parents were told a 28-week-old preemie probably wouldn't live? 28 weeks?!? Unless we are missing something from the entire story, that's…well, ridiculous. 28 weeks is not miraculous survival territory. It's not even micro preemie territory. It's "yeah, we save these babies all the time, not really a big deal" territory, at least with Level III/IV NICUs. And "severe brain damage"? For a 28-weeker?!? Again, unless something is missing from this story, this is a pretty damning indictment of the British health-care system. Even the most hardcore cost-benefit analyst in the U.S. would find saving the average 28-week-old preemie to be a good investment (in terms of "dollars spent on survival vs dollars likely to be generated by a future taxpaying citizen" thinking) after assessing the average outcomes of high-level NICUs. The survival of a two-pound baby without other major health issues besides prematurity should not be extraordinary in the First World -- my parents' neighbors have two former one-pounders running around their home.
2) I'm impressed that that tiny creature could nurse without a nipple shield -- most preemies just can't suck that effectively on bare flesh at first. I bet that mom was, in fact, jumping for joy.
3) Whoever reported her to Facebook is an awful, awful human being who has no shred of compassion or decency.
marion at November 12, 2014 8:38 PM
First, that baby is older than 28 weeks as evidenced by lack of any sort of breathing equipment and only having an NG tube in place. Baby may have been born at 28 weeks though. My newest son was born at 30w2d and came off CPAP at 8 days old. I got to attempt breast feeding at 9 days old. Of course, have no suck ability at all if they are under 32 weeks gestational age, so his nursing amounted to his nipple being shoved into his mouth (where it took literally his whole mouth) and him just kind of licking at what dripped out. He's now at 35w4d gestational age and still trying to learn to coordinate the suck-swallow-breathe process before he can go home.
I second what marion said. I think the story on the baby is full of crap on many levels, a lot of details are being left out, and/or their hospital is crap in terms of care.
BunnyGirl at November 13, 2014 4:06 PM
I just read the article and saw the pictures of her and the baby. The one of her posed in the chair would not be possible with a baby the age they are saying. Baby has no head control whatsoever at that age, yet baby is reclined at an angle where its head would just flop backward and is not being given any head support (you can see this by hand/arm placement in the photo). NICU staff is very strict on positioning and care of babies, especially feeding positions.
BunnyGirl at November 13, 2014 4:24 PM
Hardly. Whoever reported her was protecting the rest of us: boobs emit death rays.
Jeff Guinn at November 13, 2014 4:31 PM
Which explains why you back the TSA handling them…
Radwaste at November 14, 2014 7:21 AM
@"First, that baby is older than 28 weeks as evidenced by lack of any sort of breathing equipment and only having an NG tube in place"
BunnyGirl, you could have at least read the HuffPo article that Amy linked. From the very first and second paragraphs:
"Emma Bond gave birth to her daughter Carene 12 weeks before her due date" ... "After 12 days, Bond learned that she would be able to breastfeed her newborn"
Also, it is entirely feasible that the doctors may have had other additional reasons that they might not have expected the baby to live. You think every premature baby has only its premature-ness as the sole problem? Highly doubtful.
The mother could also not have known the photo would cause a big uproar.
So I'm taking this story at face value.
Lobster at November 14, 2014 10:39 AM
Leave a comment