It's all over social media, often with #stopcensoringmotherhood. There are even news stories about it. Motherhood is being censored - pictures are being deleted, accounts are being terminated...why does the world hate mothers?



At first, I was able to rally with my fellow mothers on this one. It was infuriating that innocent pictures of happy mothers and their children were being unnecessarily attacked. The more I thought about it, though, the less sense it made. Why would companies like Facebook indiscriminately target mothers, of all people? What was their real motivation behind this supposed "censorship" campaign?



A closer look at the culprits shows they have one thing in common (and no, it's not breastfeeding). Each terminated account was deleted over a picture of a naked or semi-naked child.



This isn't exactly a huge revelation - it's been addressed and each time has been dismissed with the idea that people are "sexualizing" these pictures. The horrible people that are reporting these images are just sexualizing a perfectly innocent child. It's their problem.



A look at the COPINE scale, a therapeutic ratings system used to classify levels of child sex abuse images, would say otherwise. It was developed through years of research into paedophilic picture collections. Its purpose is to "emphasise the potential sexual qualities of a whole range of kinds of photographs (and other material as well) not all of which may meet obscenity criteria." (source) The first three levels of the scale cover exactly the type of picture you might see on your average social media page.



Level 1: Indicative - Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.

Level 2: Nudist - Pictures of naked or semi-naked children in appropriate nudist settings, and from legitimate sources.

Level 3: Erotica - Surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness.

morally incorrect. If there needs to be further proof that the "innocent" pictures posted are not so innocent, I suggest you listen to this amazing story from This American Life . In Act 3 of the show, the report is on pedophiles - how they think, if they want to stop - and it really is eye opening. The story follows a group of young men that have formed a support group of sorts, to help people, like themselves, that are attracted to children. One of the premises of their group is that they believe that sexualizing a child is morally wrong. The problem is, there are only eight of them - the majority of pedophiles don't hold the same stance. It may be illegal, but many of them don't see it asincorrect.





Pedophilia isn't just something some "disgusting" people choose to do. It's a sickness - these people are, for some unexplained reason, attracted to children. So, when you're posting the innocent picture of your topless toddler on Instagram, for them its akin to a grown man seeing a topless woman. If we look at in terms of a similar problem, alcoholism, it would be like placing a drink on the table in front of a known alcoholic and then telling them not to drink it. Except the drink is your child. Some will have the self-control to look away - others won't. It's not just "their problem." It's our choice not to present them with it in the first place.





After hearing all of the evidence, there's still a chance to think, "Well, this won't happen to me. This won't happen to my child."





When I was thirteen years old, I was home alone when the phone rang. It was an older man, who told me that he was my mother's uncle "Fred." I wasn't sure of any of the names of my mom's uncles, so I told him she wasn't home, but I could have her call him later. "Fred" continued to talk to me. He asked me innocent questions about myself, which at the time I assumed were appropriate for a "long lost great-uncle" conversation. He asked me if I liked going to the mall. He asked me if I wanted some money to buy something at the mall...and then my mom pulled in the driveway. I told him she was home, and he hung up.





I remember my mother telling me she had no Uncle Fred. I remember thinking about what that meant. It was an innocent enough conversation, but something about it just made me feel violated. There was something wrong with the deception, the false intimacy. It was horrifying. I remember crying a lot.





My parents put a security system on the phone, so whoever called would have to state their name beforehand. We're sure to this day that "Fred" was a pedophile, and I am so glad that my mom came home when she did. Who knows where that conversation would have led.





If instead of a phone call, I had discovered this stranger had "innocent" pictures of me from when I was a child - pictures that my mother had posted publicly online - I can't imagine how I would feel.





Before you go thinking that I've never posted a "questionable" picture of my children, I can tell you now that I'm definitely guilty of it. After researching the subject, though, I can tell you wholeheartedly that I have no problem with taking each and every one of those pictures offline.





We want to believe that our children's innocence is inherently protected, because they're children - the sad truth is, though, it's not. It is our job as parents to protect them. We shouldn't leave it up to Facebook or Instagram to terminate our accounts because of an if-y picture of our children. Censoring motherhood should be our job. There is nothing wrong with keeping the sacred, private moments of our lives private - and, in the end, our children will thank us for it.







