Which Community Does Facebook Live In? The Living Blog

David Toussaint
Authored by
David Toussaint
New York Guyd/Features Writer
December 2, 2013
11:11 a.m.

Today’s Update: 1/19

This is a goodie. Last year renown photographer Tom Bianchi released a photo book of Fire Island Polaroids, an amazing collection of actual restored photos taken from 1975 to 1983. Not only was it a gorgeous sentimental look back, it was a reminder of AIDS and all that we’ve lost. I did a feature on Tom for GuySpy on his remarkable book, as did countless other writers. A few days ago, GuySpy’s very own Jorge Gallegos posted one of the pictures on Facebook and was promptly banned for thirty days. Obviously, if you look at the revolting photo, below, you can see why…

photo

Well I never! is that man’s underwear see-through? is that hose phallic? Is that an amazing reproduced artistic photo of a long-lost period of time that should be preserved for future generations? You know, kind of like this Facebook-approved photo, below.

181406_423528171012965_1216965006_n

Now THIS should be saved for posterity. And come to think of it, it kind of looks like it was shot with a Polaroid too.

No word from Facebook yet, so please keep sending me your banned photos.

Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook…

Today’s Update: 1/7

Brand New Year, Brand New Bans. This one comes from GuySpy’s former Man of the Month Brent Ray Fraser, who shared a plethora of photos that Facebook banned him for posting. Six photos, six bans, to be exact. First a three day ban, then a week ban, and then, as he says, “the months kicked in.”

Let’s look at Mr. Fraser’s “artistic” photos, shall we…

1579881_10153666960695076_91481429_n

Tee-hee. Okay, it’s a bit raunchy, but what I’m thinking is, “How come I couldn’t get booked on that flight?”

1608481_10153666960615076_1967501591_n

Here we have Brent re-creating Madonna’s “Future Lovers/I Feel Love” concert opener with a bit of “Girl Gone Wild” thrown in. I’m only surprised Lady Gaga didn’t do it. But banned?

1552894_10153666960780076_1327406755_n

We know Brent has hair in BOTH places, but as for banning? Ho-hum.

1543812_10153666960815076_135129450_n

I love the naked statue in the garden… oh, wait, that’s Brent. He looks nippy not pornographic.

1533381_10153666960765076_1936402521_n

I call this one Star F*** cause we don’t see more. Oh, but Facebook thinks we see way too much. Next…

1579873_10153666960675076_275562077_n

Truly amazing. Brent is wrestling with himself. Lucky dog. But not so lucky in regarding bans. Ah, Brent, you gotta post more stuff like this, below. It’s funny and wholesome and oh so cute.

734737_517316724957700_564546774_n

I know, right? Hysterical. Especially as the tagline reads “You’re not gonna get away from me, bitch.” Go show it to the kids after you’re finished reporting Brent. Oh, and as usual, let’s leave with another wholesome Facebook image. Just to start the New Year on the right note.

1239416_606075406114165_1377415392_n

No word from Facebook, so keep sending me those banned photos.

And if you want to see more of Brent, hit him up at www.BrentRayFraser.com. (Just keep it hush, hush.)

Today’s Update: 12/30

Almost time for the new year, which means it’s time for some more Facebook selfie love, and hate. Aaron Heier sent me this banned photo of himself, which landed him in “Facebook jail” for 72 hours. Next to the pic he posted the hashtag #toiletselfie. Sigh, he really is one sick SOB. Be prepared: You may need to run to the john after witnessing this vulgarity…

IMG_7983

Thank goodness that got flushed down the site’s tubes! Just to bring you back to new year love, let’s end with another amateur and Facebook-acceptable photo, this one tasteful, subtle, and certainly something for the kiddies.

602713_513998108622895_1828675435_n

Unlike Aaron’s tasteless shot, this one truly deserves the Thumbs Up, especially as the caption next to it read, “Share if you want to fuck her!” The Facebook police are really taking care of their community, aren’t they?

No word from HQ, so keep sending me your banned photos.

Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook…

Today’s Update: 12/28

Holiday season is upon us, so maybe that’s why the Facebook peeps were feeling extra sensitive. Once again, Michael Stokes was banned for 30 days after someone reported this photo, below. 

IMG_1993FLATWM

Holy Homo No-No! Religious imagery is a touchy subject, so if you think this photo truly needed to result in another 30-day suspension for Stokes, God bless your soul. However, before you hit the nail on the head, check out this lovely photo, below, that Facebook finds completely acceptable.

545446_538132332867724_1530106066_n

I think this photo just screams family and acceptance and tolerance and joy to the world, don’t you?

Before we say goodbye again, here’s another photo that, as you can see, was reported, and was found perfectly acceptable. Yep, it measures up!

FBnotremoved

No word from Facebook yet, so send me those banned photos.

Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook…

Today’s Update: 12/21/13

It’s been slow with the holidays and all, but my friend Linda Patricia just sent me this banned photo, courtesy of Diane Andrea. Ms. Andrea got banned from Facebook for three days after posting this glaringly offensive male body shot. 

1488424_220937784744903_1081920701_n

I know, right. And it’s Christmas, people!

But wait, to counter this repugnant piece of porn, Michael Stokes sent me a different kind of body shot, one that he reported to Facebook headquarters. They wrote back that it meets their community standards. And, obviously, you can see why it’s so different from the above, disgusting image…

1501900_10152134688903781_810956086_n

Now THAT is the kind of headless sexy butt in your face artistic imagery that I want to show to the kiddies. Right after their gingerbread cookies and milk.

Oh, and no word from Facebook, people, so keep sending me your photos.

Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook…

Today’s Update: 12/11/13

Once again, we have a couple in today’s Living Blog update. You might have seen these guys before, as they are the husband comedy team Dick and Duane. But have you ever seen them in a photo THIS scandalous? 

mirror neck crop

Hey, hey, hey: I only report the news, I don’t block it like Facebook does. Dick told me that, not only was this photo removed, but their individual profile pages taken down as well. They had to plead to get them reinstated. If you’re aghast at seeing these two buffed men in jockstraps, well, I can’t blame you, as it is rather risqué for us decent American folk.

So to make you feel a bit more patriotic before we say goodbye, I thought I’d post a pic of a woman that Facebook thinks embodies the good old fashioned U.S. Of A. No one at Facebook Headquarters has any trouble with this lady’s obvious social media skills.

1235113_641835322505839_511940373_n

No word from Facebook yet. Keep sending me those banned photos…

Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook…

Today’s Update: 12/8/13

This update concentrates on love. The love of two men. Many comments on this blog have said that the double standard Facebook has in regards to the photos of men and women is not homophobic, but rather, sexist.

There’s truth in that – men are not to be objectified; women are. And our society is uncomfortable with semi-naked men. However, let’s look at today’s blocked photo, a shot of Jesse Jackman and his husband, Dirk Caber. 

1382872_569030979830924_904481892_n[1]

Disgusting, right? I mean, they’re kissing. And they’re men. And they’re hugging. And they’re men. And they’re wearing clothes. And they’re men. And they’re married. Is the blocking of this photo sexist?

Now that you’ve witnessed that abomination of Satan, let’s end with something all-American-wholesome and Facebook-friendly.

1012122_403251349784006_788020969_n

She just SCREAMS All-American values to me…

Keep sending me those banned photos…

Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook…

Today’s Update: 12/4/13

Here’s a trio of pics of Andrew Christian model Colby Melvin that were all blocked from Facebook. 

Said Colby: 

My photos are not pornographic, I’m of age, not nude (penis lines I can kind of see, but are they also monitoring for nipples showing in bikinis or camel toes?). These pictures are important because they are like my portfolio for my modeling career. Myself among MANY others use facebook to promote ourselves. Also, how are the statue of David and breastfeeding even close to the same level. Men must be depicted as inanimate objects, but women just need to cover their nipple? This is inarguably sexist. 

Here are the three photos of Colby that were removed:

1377275_550745754996295_1378979038_n

SCANDALOUS!

Now this one…

CM #3_0001

OMG, BUM RUSH!

And this one…

CM #3_0046

SWEET JESUS! 

This last one is quite, ahem, impressive, and I’d be kidding if I said I didn’t think it was about one big oral sensation. But should it be banned? Before you answer, take a look at this image, below, that Facebook approves of.

IMG_1268580510967

Speaking of one big oral sensation….

Colby added that he was locked out of Facebook for 24 hours because of his above photos. He, too, read the Community Standards, and he, too, is unclear as to what is considered acceptable.

So what do you think, people? Is Facebook being fair, or is there a double standard? No word from their people yet, so please keep sending me your banned photos.

Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook…

Today’s Update: 

Yep, we found another banned photo, this one by esteemed photographer Rick Day: that would be the photo on the left. 

Please share this, tweet this, and send me your banned photos (and images of women that have not been banned).

And no word from anyone at Facebook yet. 

–David Toussaint

jamiefacebook

Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook…

After Michael Stokes was banned on Facebook for posting a photo of Alex Minsky, the messages of support were amazing – minus the Social Network people, who’ve yet to respond to my email.

Together, Stokes and I decided on a new project: An ongoing blog comparing photos that have been banned (often including a Facebook suspension for the post-ers) next to images that Facebook has no issues with.

If you have any photos of men that have been removed from Facebook, or if you have any sexual images of women that you’ve noticed have never been removed, please send me an email at David@GuySpy.com.

No, we don’t want a revolution: We’re just tired of homophobia and double standards.

We all use Facebook: Let’s make it an equal opportunity site.

Here’s today’s double image.

facebook2

Whatcha think? Is the left image deserving of removal? And the right image just dandy?

Send us your feedback, or email me at David@GuySpy.com.

 Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook…

And we are already updating. This morning, the photo on the left was blocked from Facebook.

FBcompare

Do we have a problem?

Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook…

Comments

newbie71
newbie71
4 months, 3 weeks ago

The hypocrisy is blatant. Google “Facebook nudity” and you’ll find “Nude Selfies 18+” to be the result second from the top. Nobody can pretend that this is obscured, and the content sure isn’t artistic.

Anonymous User
Michael (Guest)
4 months, 3 weeks ago

What a bunch of crap! I am so tired of Faceboook removing artistically done shots of male models/fitness models/bodybuilders. It’s a serious double standard.

andrewkelpin
andrewkelpin
4 months, 2 weeks ago

We live in a society where what is right and acceptable is dictated by straight, 25-45 or so, men. Whatever these men find okay to see, everyone should see. Like above, if you go onto facebook, you will see straight men posting naked women and gawking at them, no problem. The moment a naked man is posted, a straight man will do all within his power to get the pic removed and the poster banned. It’s a sad hypocrisy, but that is just how society works.

Anonymous User
aaron (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

why post anything with killing in it and say that’s great. but sex, and love or the human body exposed. well it’s like someone has thrown acid in your childs face. WTF. haters get over the hate, and let all us happy people live.

Anonymous User
Red (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

I don’t think it is totally about homophobia, I think it is more the issue that it is ok for women to be exploited and be sexually objectified, not so for men.

However there are pics and video’s on FB that are much much worse than these two and they are still ok……..see Roast Busters debacle!

Anonymous User
Missy Schwarz (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

its ridiculous and a reverse double standard

Anonymous User
susan (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

That’s bullshit. Facebook is apparently run by 12 year old boys who were bottle-fed. The grotesque females with plastic tits and fat asses are ok but the mens’ pics aren’t? Good luck changeing their “standards”.

Anonymous User
Jay (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

The muscular dude is just in a pair of underwear that actually might suggest he is not a eunuch but the woman is sporting massively fake breasts and dressed like a porn star. I like women but those huge fake boobs are not attractive.

Anonymous User
Kyle Michel Sullivan (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

It’s happening with most of the multi-national companies. Amazon, Kobo and Barnes & Noble banned self-published books of erotica as well as books published by small authors, but let books with far more intense content alone because they were published by big name publishers. BDSM is fine so long as it’s in “50 Shades of Gray” and incest is cool when it’s “Flowers in the Attic.” Same for Facebook — sexualize women is cool, but if you show anything of a man’s that you could see on any beach in the country, they freak out. It’s like they’er in the 50s.

Anonymous User
gbr (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

That is because a pic of half naked/naked men is offensive and detrimental to the dignity of men; while a pic of a half naked/naked woman is ok and allows to increase the traffic of users, hence more money. And most of the people deciding about those topics are men (straigh men). When a lot of people asked them to remove pics of beaten women or pics that incited and justified violence and rape against women and ban the groups/people who posted them, FB answered that those pics didn’t violate their rules and if you were disturbed by them you should not look for them.
The problem is not the naked man/woman in the pics. I don’t mind them, I can appreciate beauty in men and women; but while pics of naked men usually highlight the beauty of the men, pics of naked women are just there to sell women as sexual objects/sluts, so some horny idiot can get off watching them. If you look for artistic photos of naked women you will see they are totally different from the ones you find on FB and other places.
The people at FB and other sites are justa bunch of self indulgent hypocrites …

Anonymous User
Kelly Simmons (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

All the photos of men are tastefully done-not sleazy like the photos of the women!!!

Anonymous User
Jessi C (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

What about this pile of garbage?

Anonymous User
Jessi C (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago
Anonymous User
Mitzi (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

These women all look like they are about to burst. Not very appealing. The men – much more tastefully don.

Anonymous User
Zach (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

While I completely agree with the ethics of the matter (being that this is blatant hypocrisy) Facebook is technically private business (publicly traded, but a private business) so the proprietors and majority share-holders have the right to dictate how materials on the site are handled.

Ethically I completely agree that their “decision making process” is pretty bankrupt.

-Zach

Anonymous User
yasmina milovanovic (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

Mark Zuckerberg and Cohorts probably suffer from penile disfunction and seeing these amazing men brings out their insecurities and anxieties…my guess for not banning the female anatomy would be coz they get sum small comfort in wanking to these women for even the slightest erection to make them feel manly…:)

Anonymous User
Michael Muscles (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

Facebook needs to hear it! F in hypocrites!

Anonymous User
Marc Pasquinelli (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

Clearly, objectifying women is fine, but not men. If it is true these decisions are made overseas, I think we’ve found the root of the problem, if in that culture men are considered more sacred than women.

Anonymous User
Kial (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

This is blatant homophobia. Facebook should do something about it, or they may just end up with a civil law suit against them, some people could take grave offence to something like this.

Anonymous User
John-Paul Gibbs (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

Another site to put your faith into facebook you FAIL

Anonymous User
Arthur R Jaronik (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

Just more homophobic nonsense-it’s OK to display females partially nude, but guys HORRORS! It might “turn” so-called straight men in to “queers”!

Anonymous User
Emmie (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

The biggest reason for the inconsistency in Facebook nudity takedowns is user complaints. The censors aren’t monitoring every image that goes up; they are responding to complaints from other users. The more complaints an image receives, the more likely they are to take it down, while other raunchier photos fly under the radar because no one bothered to report them. And then when images are reported, each individual request goes to one of the employees responsible for judging whether the image violates ToS. The guidelines are the same, but each censor will interpret based on their own biases, some of which are bound to be influenced by the ratio of female to male nudity in our media.

Anonymous User
trajan (Guest)
4 months, 2 weeks ago

Apparently there are a lot of guys with tiny dicks working at Facebook.

Anonymous User
jdboy (Guest)
4 months ago

Seriously, how much would it cost Facebook to hire more people to accurately review every reported photo? And maybe they should hire people who aren’t afraid of the male body. Who live in a culture where male partial nudity is acceptable. There are naked, blatantly pornographic photos of women all over Facebook.

Anonymous User
Azar gebeil (Guest)
4 months ago

Who ever is making decision to remove the homo oriented photos is OBVIOUSLY a homophobe. Very obvious

Anonymous User
Edward (Guest)
3 months, 2 weeks ago

I think we should bombard facebook with reports of female nudity and offensive poses, till they get the message – I did this as a test on an unfortunate artist that I liked. I just filled out the form and preto, he removed the photo – a naked female ass – now the forms fb has you filled our are too simplified and doesnt allow any comments about contents other than check boxes. Also there is no way to have fb users rise to the artist’s support before fb takes action

Anonymous User
NCSilverBear (Guest)
3 months ago

It’s the “christian” far right who have large groups who do nothing but search Facebook and complain en masse when anything depicting “homosexual” is found. We need to do the same to them. Facebook responds to numbers and money.

Anonymous User
NCSilverBear (Guest)
3 months ago

PS: thanks for posting the banned photos. They were great!