Saturday, December 17, 2016

CENSORED!?! Part 2

Eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil,
"They chewed and licked
until their whole bodies were drenched
in the juices, until the sweetness coursed
through their blood, until it pierced the DNA."
(Lines from CHANCE & CHOICE)
~To see details of the censored book, type CHANCE & CHOICE in the SEARCH bar @ Or click here for a direct link to the author page where you can place an order. Release date is March 3, 2017. If interested in buying, please pre-order now and help meet goals for advance sales which ends January 13 and will determine press run.~ 
The cover artwork of the book depicts Adam and Eve in "sexually suggestive actions" according to Facebook's criteria for buying a boost (ad).  

Facebook's response to my appeal of the boost rejection:

Thanks for writing in.
Your ad was disapproved because the image being used in the ad implies sexually-suggestive actions (ex: bending over sexually, sexually-suggestive focus on certain body parts, caressing body parts with tongue, lips, or mouth). Ads with a sexual undertone are not allowed. This applies even if your underlying product is represented by the image (ex: lingerie, condoms, sexual health books).
The current post remains published, but isn't running as an ad. If you'd like to boost your post, you'll have to recreate it with a policy-compliant image and boost it again.
Was this helpful? Let us know
Have a great day.

My response to Facebook:

The response does not explain why a post I boosted just last week with the very same image was accepted. The response does not clarify which details of the offending image fit the criteria you list. . . . Is it Adam's hand on Eve's breast? But I do not dispute that the image is sexually suggestive. I am arguing that your criteria is too restrictive to meet the standards stated in a supreme court decision defining "obscenity" as having no "redeeming social value." Your response does not at all address the concern about the Adam & Eve story itself being always interpreted as sexually suggestive and associating sexuality with evil. The image points to that association.  I believe that association should be made explicit and questioned in terms of redeeming social value.  Looking at that standard and in the context of the whole post, I believe any reasonable person would find the image to have redeeming social value. Please provide a higher level of judgement at Facebook that I can appeal to.  Hopefully a real human being that can respond to the specific image in the specific context of the whole post.

This morning I watched UNSLUT on PBS: Bonnie Erbe, TO THE CONTRARY.  I feel like I have been slut shamed by Facebook. It's surely neither intentional, nor personal. All the more reason to resist it, intentionally. Slut shaming has been going on likely since long before the story of Adam and Eve was even written, but the written story, codified in the Bible, made slut shaming such an intrinsic part of our cultural heritage we do it without even being aware of intending it.  We need to become aware.  We need to question our automatic association of Eve's/woman's sexuality with evil and with the knowledge of good and evil. 

No comments:

Post a Comment