Or, we could just accept that our bodies are not something we should be ashamed of.
Isn't it a bit weird how you cannot show a couple of nice boobs on a news site, but you can show a man who's had his legs blown off by a bomb and is lying in his own blood slowly dying? Which is more obscene/offensive/likely to cause upset?
In the US or Australia you'd rarely see a man who's just had his legs blown off by a bomb, unless it was fictional. News organizations are loathe to show actual violence during wars.
That was really my point. Sort of. My point was also that in order to have a policy you have to nail down something that is un-nail-downable, like defining obscenity.
There is nothing inherently obscene about breasts. Actually breasts are a funny case because in some places it was always OK to see them, while in others it wasn't. Genitalia are almost universally banned (& we don't often encounter issues with public childbirth so it's not the same sort of issue). There isn't anything you could describe as 'rational' about the bans.
Anyway, normally we eyeball it in the day to day, make a policy for laws & try to avoid the area where definitions get fuzzy.
If you feel so inclined there are all sorts of things you can do to dance around the definitions. Cover only the areola. Show a slow zoom-out shot of an areola starting with individual cells. Let the regulators decide where the shot needs to stop zooming out.
Breast feeding is an issue at the core because it is very inconvenient for mothers of young infants to be banned from public breastfeeding. They either can only go out only for short periods of time or need to go & sit in the bathroom to nurse. That's not nice.
Isn't it a bit weird how you cannot show a couple of nice boobs on a news site, but you can show a man who's had his legs blown off by a bomb and is lying in his own blood slowly dying? Which is more obscene/offensive/likely to cause upset?