Demi did it, and then Britney did it; they bared there all in photos that graced the covers of magazines and sold millions. So how in the world could a tasteful picture, capturing one of the most beautiful times in a woman's life now be deemed inappropriate to share with family and friends? Pictures of mom-to-be, Angela Hurst, were recently banned from the site and she is confused as to why.
"The picture was a bit of fun and not at all seedy - all my 'bits' were covered.
"I had a lot of messages from people, particularly women, saying how much they loved it.
"It was something nice to remember my pregnancy by and was not sexual - and if Demi Moore can do it, why can't I?"
Indeed why can't you!? Facebook stands by its "no nudity" rule, which is why her pictures were removed. But should a pregnant belly (with all other "bits" covered) really be considered nudity. If you do a search on Facebook of strippers, celebrities, or half the population of teenage girls you will see more tits and ass then one person could handle. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't post my big ol naked belly on Facebook for the world to see (I think it's kind of personal) but I agree that Facebook should not be censoring other women from doing so.
Do you think tasteful pregnancy pictures should be removed from Facebook?
Calling out B.S. from Boyland,