Breastgate: 8 Images Anyone Can See On Facebook… But The 1 They Won’t Let Us Post

Social Media 13 Comments

Yesterday, we ran an inspired story about photographer Laura Dodsworth’s art and social project, Bare Reality, which showcases 100 un-airbrushed photographs of women’s breasts and explores how the participants feel about their breasts. As with all of our stories, we posted this piece to our Facebook page, knowing full well it was just a matter of time before the social media’s censors would take it down.

After just 12 – 15 hours of being live, Facebook did exactly as we expected and this is the notification we received, “We removed the post below because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards.” They then further clarified exactly what we had done to violate their policy…

FB nudity notice

While we’d love to shake our finger only at Facebook over this, they do not act in a complete vacuum when they take posts like ours down. This is step 2 in a process that first involves a Facebook user notifying them that a page has posted something “offensive.” Nonetheless, they shamefully (and admittedly) ignore context when it comes to breasts and nudity, which is a convenient loophole and leaves a page like ours virtually defenseless in getting the “offending” post republished.

In working through our obvious frustrations, we decided to do some informal research on just how stringent Facebook’s “Community Standards” are when it comes to breasts. In doing a basic Google search, using terms like “Facebook boobs” and “Facebook tits” (“Facebook breasts” rendered the fewest results), it is very clear that Mark Zuckerberg and his minions are not completely anti-mammary glands.

In fact, you can find breasts ALL over his social networking site, and they are the sole focus of countless facebook pages, especially when they are perfectly round and perky, jacked up in bustiers, lathered in soap, and/or being gently fondled by their rightful owners (who also happen to be making pouty faces).

“So why did the non-salacious image of Laura’s art project breasts set off alarm bells? Plain and simple… blame it on the nipple!”


Image from Laura Dodsworth’s Bare Reality project that was removed from the Women You Should Know Facebook page.

On every “breast specific” page we scoured, one thing was consistent with their boob shots… they don’t show nipples or do their darndest to cover them, allowing only the slightest edge of areola to peek out in many shots.

So while Facebook continues to be plagued by pages that show porn, violent and graphic images, depictions of animal abuse and heinous crimes like beheadings, they’ve decided that the world would be a much better place if it was devoid of female nipples. We would love to have been a fly on the wall in that “Community Standards” meeting.

PS – Before anyone throws the typical “prudes” barb, don’t bother. We’re not asking for the more salacious images to be banned, we’re just asking for Facebook to be consistent in its haphazard policy when it comes to showing women’s breasts. Based on what we saw, it’s both depressing and laughable that “bare” is the litmus test by which Facebook judges a breast shot as being offensive enough to remove from a public page.

8 Images Anyone Can See On Facebook

At the risk of offending, we felt compelled to share some visual highlights from our research (these are the very tame ones). Please take special note of the names of the Facebook pages the images are living on right now, and the captions that accompany several of them. Based on the below, clearly NIPPLES are the root of all evil (sarcastic sigh).

Note: We spared you from the Facebook user profile pic we found of a woman bent over, pulling her G-sting away from her body, so her entire vulva is visible. In case you’re curious… that user is a man.






Boobs world



Giving credit where credit is due… the “Sweater Meat” image above was posted to the Facebook page Just Nipples, with the clever caption, “Look at those protruders!!”

  • Lori Day

    I bow down to you ladies! This is masterful!

  • Even algorithms are sexist. But since Facebook is dependent on ads; aside from the naughty words these images are a perfect fit for the sexist advertising of some of the bigger purchasers of online ads are perfectly happy with. Pornography just shy of X-rated. Just how beer companies and sports franchises like it.

  • Norma

    Somehow I’m not surprised by this facocta nipple filtering.

  • lonecitizen

    @hisshadow ur right if gathered correctly what u meant.. those adverstises pay for the space on here … too “Advertise” never thought of it really till now =]

  • Michael Connolly

    They are a faceless organisation who don’t respond to individual contact… it takes mass outrage in media and by doing breast feeding sit-ins etc outside their corporate headquarters…. I am a Naturist FB page owner and I have been banned at times for showing too much skin.

    I have got off very lightly, other Nudism pages have been removed completley without appeal for showing artistic nudity or linking to non porn nudity.

    Myself and other Nudism pages have been trying to get the subject of unfair censorship brought to other’s attention, The Terra Cotta Inn Clothing Optional Resort and Spa even manged to get on TV when their page was removed… we are using the hash-tag #FacebookMustchange on Twitter and Facebook to try to publicise this issue.

  • All-Nudist

    It’s actually surprising that your search found only such tame photos. You want nipples? Oh BOY can you find nipples (and everything else) on FB! FB abounds in graphic pornography, full frontal nudity, man-boy love groups, violence and everything else the internet has to offer. Many of these Pages have been repeatedly reported yet remain unscathed. How could that be?

    Our guess is that FB’s $1/hour Bangladesh ‘moderators’, being seriously deprived of options to see skin in their country and unable to afford computers of their own, preserve the porn pages for their viewing pleasure while at work. Removing the innocent photos of legitimate Pages ‘justifies’ their role as ‘moderators.

    FB, of course, doesn’t care. Most of their billion subscribers don’t want to see ANY nudity, and automatic removal of such images upsets very few of them. Breastfeeding moms, cancer survivors, naturist Pages, etc comprise only a tiny portion of users. Screw ’em unless too much publicity is raised, and most folks don’t have the resources to accomplish that.

    Our FB Page was suspended a few times over the years (removed completely recently for undisclosed reasons) and, considering that we do NOT post nude photos on FB, it’s pretty obvious that the first step after someone reports a posting is an automatic reaction by FB’s computers. Sometimes an option to appeal is offered, usually not, and never have we received a response to an appeal.

    It’s interesting to note, however, that FB is becoming more creative in the canned notices they send to ‘abusers’ such as you. Most of the time they never even told us WHAT we did to upset someone!

    Now that you’ve had photos removed, expect more serious action in the future. We suggest you create a backup Page using a different profile and encourage your current followers to ‘like’ it in the event that your current Page is disabled. We did, and that’s what a lot of folks are doing now!

    • But should some @$$hat post a picture of an abused, injured or even dead child to farm for “Likes” you will be told that the image doesn’t violate “community” standards. Which leads one to wonder what “community” is fine with dead and abused children but terrified of female nippes?

      Oh, right. Americans. Americans are fine with dead kids and terrified of female nipples.

  • Pingback: Facebook Censors Women’s Voices |()

  • Pingback: Facebook Censors Women’s Voices | Christmas Celebration Ideas()

  • Mindy Camado

    Covering the nipples doesn’t guarantee it won’t get deleted, as you can see. But I have a couple of very devoted FB censors that have a thing for me.
    My favorite was when I shared a photo someone else posted, I was banned for 30 days, and the post remains on Facebook… to this day!

  • Mia
  • Tori D. Betz

    I just don’t think pornographic images should be on Facebook. If you want to go look at half naked women, they HAVE websites for that. I don’t care if the nipples are covered or not. I can enjoy a naked woman as much as the next person but when I’m on my gothic fashion page I don’t want to have to scroll by 50+ pictures of nongothic naked women. Same on my own news feed. I come to Facebook to socialize, not fap.