Grandma says state fair contest rejected breastfeeding photo for 'nudity'

[Bear Dale]

A grandma is furious after a state fair rejected her breastfeeding photograph entry for a contest.

A woman is furious after an Idaho state fair rejected a photo of her daughter-in-law breastfeeding her newborn from a photography contest, claiming that “nudity” is inappropriate.
Stacy Coleman entered three photos of her grandchildren into contests at the Western Idaho Fair, held in Boise, Idaho from Aug. 16 to 25. According to the Idaho Statesman, Coleman is a truck driver and asked a friend to submit her photos for her as she was on the road. She was “dismayed” by what followed.
The news outlet reported that the friend who submitted on Coleman’s behalf texted the grandmother to say that a staff member who was collecting entries told her, “I don’t think we can allow this one,” with regard to a photo of Coleman’s daughter-in-law, Elizabeth, breastfeeding. He consulted with other fair employees who agreed that they needed to be “cautious” about body parts.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/gran...181640895.html


What can be more natural than a human baby feeding? Especially a newborn nursing right after birth.

[ricktas]

I suppose it all depends on the conditions of entry. If there were clauses that distinctly dis-allowed certain types of entries, then fair enough, as everyone else had to abide by those rules. But if it was just a 'moral' judgement without basis in the rules, then the entrant has every right to be peeved.

[bobt]

I checked out the image, and as far as nudity is concerned it's about as far from evocative, provocative or erotic as you could go! Barely nudity at all (pardon the pun).

It is an ongoing issue and one that I feel needs to move with the times. There is so much nudity everywhere today that it hardly rates a mention and it's no longer concealed in public places as it once was. Children see nudity quite regularly, and with virtually uncontrolled access via their devices there's not much we can do to prevent that. It's odd to censor it in artistic forums when it is so freely available. The "good taste" rule is, to me, sufficient.

Coincidentally, i was about to post a couple of photos here that I'm about to enter in a club competition, just for comments on possible versions. However, I decided not to as it might contravene the rules here. Rather than get into a hassle i just didn't post it, but it's a pity.

[farmmax]

I had a look at the image, and personally I wouldn't even consider nudity when looking at it. It is a shame someone felt it was inappropriate. Facebook probably would reject it

[ricktas]

I checked out the image, and as far as nudity is concerned it's about as far from evocative, provocative or erotic as you could go! Barely nudity at all (pardon the pun).

It is an ongoing issue and one that I feel needs to move with the times. There is so much nudity everywhere today that it hardly rates a mention and it's no longer concealed in public places as it once was. Children see nudity quite regularly, and with virtually uncontrolled access via their devices there's not much we can do to prevent that. It's odd to censor it in artistic forums when it is so freely available. The "good taste" rule is, to me, sufficient.

Coincidentally, i was about to post a couple of photos here that I'm about to enter in a club competition, just for comments on possible versions. However, I decided not to as it might contravene the rules here. Rather than get into a hassle i just didn't post it, but it's a pity.

Bob, as long as it does not show genitalia, we are fine with it under our rules. We just do not allow vaginas and penises.. so as long as you have covered those, please post the photo. Even a strategically placed proverbial leaf, will do just fine

And the reason for this is that we have quite a few members under 18 years old, so I don't want to end up on the receiving end of a legal issue.

I had a member a couple of years back, complain to me about a photo on the site that had bare breasts. The PM conversation went back and forth, until I decided to advise her that the site is what it is, it is privately owned, and that our rules are fair, and she agreed to them when joining, including the nudity rule we have, and that we are not breaching any laws, so perhaps the site was not the best one for her. She still argued that I needed to remove the photo. Instead I removed her.

Our rule:

Because our members are of a wide age range we have to take this into consideration regarding this topic. We will allow tasteful, mature, artistic nude photography, as long as no genitalia is visible, and the poses are not sexually suggestive. No full frontal below the belt shots.

On the 'sexually suggestive' part. Australian Law says you cannot pose a person who is a minor, or someone (who is an adult) in a way that could be perceived as them being a minor, in a sexually suggestive way. We would not remove photos of adults in sexually suggestive poses, however we do reserve the right to remove something that could be perceived to breach the laws of Australia.

[ameerat42]

(From link.) What an obscure, non-story!

- Oh, of course! - Yahoo!!

Overheard from staff at [a certain on-line "news" monger]...
Hey, Joe. Give us that long scraper, will yer.
There's a bit of junk at the bottom of this pertater barrel that we can use on the front page

[Bear Dale]

Its not just a Yahoo story AM.

I find it interesting that Idaho is an Open Carry State, meaning that citizens can openly and visibly walk around carrying loaded assault rifles, but nursing mothers must keep their breasts holstered.

[ameerat42]

Ta, BD.
There's no hope for the world!

Equally -
There's no soap for [the great un-washed]!

- It's too early for much else

[bobt]

Bob, as long as it does not show genitalia, we are fine with it under our rules. We just do not allow vaginas and penises.. so as long as you have covered those, please post the photo. Even a strategically placed proverbial leaf, will do just fine

Well ... I'll post them in another thread because I'd like some feedback, and i have to enter them in a couple of days!! If there's a problem, someone can just delete them. I'll go and re-size and upload them.

[Geoff79]

I’m assuming it’s not the pic in the Yahoo link, as there’s no nudity in it? Where do you view the rejected entry?

[Bear Dale]

Thats the photo that was rejected Geoff.

[Geoff79]

Thats the photo that was rejected Geoff.

Wowser. Really? Even though there is not even any actual nudity in it at all? That’s a little ridiculous.

[Bear Dale]

Wowser. Really? Even though there is not even any actual nudity in it at all? That’s a little ridiculous.

Very puritanical isn't it, there's not even cleavage, its a newborn baby.

[John King]

USA is inhabited by many extremely conservative and 'religious' people (zealots ... ).

[ricktas]

USA is inhabited by many extremely conservative and 'religious' people (zealots ... ).

and yet they make most of the world's porn.

[William W]

I suppose it all depends on the conditions of entry.

I concur. And that's the alpha and the omega of it.

Briefly, it appears the competition has had the same rules since at least 2014.

The Grandma, whilst she might disagree with the rules, has no cause to be up in arms because her image was rejected for not complying with those rules to which she agreed, when she admitted her photo.

***

Western Idaho Fair – Photography Competition Rules

“8.ADDITIONAL RULES: Exhibitors are requested to read the General Rules of this Fair. Department Rules supersede General Rules.

“Special Photography Department Rules
§ No nudity or suggestive nudity of any kind (including children and babies)”

REF: {LINK}

In the image it is obvious that the left breast of the woman must be unclad for her to be breast feeding the infant: that is, “suggestive nudity of any kind”.

Hence the image was disqualified under the rules of the competition to which the Photographer agreed when entering it.

It is irrelevant whether or not the Photographer believes those rules are right or wrong, she has no case to bring against the judges for enforcing those rules.

WW

[Mark L]

"Stacy Coleman entered three photos of her grandchildren into contests at the Western Idaho Fair, held in Boise, Idaho from Aug. 16 to 25. According to the Idaho Statesman, Coleman is a truck driver and asked a friend to submit her photos for her as she was on the road. "
So Stacy didn't actually enter their photos to the contest? A friend did. Surely you can't enter photos that aren't yours

[William W]

"Stacy Coleman entered three photos of her grandchildren into contests at the Western Idaho Fair, held in Boise, Idaho from Aug. 16 to 25. According to the Idaho Statesman, Coleman is a truck driver and asked a friend to submit her photos for her as she was on the road. "
So Stacy didn't actually enter their photos to the contest? A friend did. Surely you can't enter photos that aren't yours

Yes, I picked up, on that point too: but I thought it better to address the media hyperbole with the facts of entry rules.

WW

[landyvlad]

By enter she probably just means 'took it there for her'.

Anyway my concern is this-

Anyone who thinks that a photo like that is unacceptable nudity or in any way provocative has some psychological problems that need attention...

[Bear Dale]

By enter she probably just means 'took it there for her'.

Anyway my concern is this-

Anyone who thinks that a photo like that is unacceptable nudity or in any way provocative has some psychological problems that need attention...