Talk:Breast

From Academic Kids

Contents

1 Purpose

2 Anatomy

8 Discussion of full frontal nudity

9 Report?

10 Image:Artemis breasts.jpg

[edit]

Purpose

The real evolutionary purpose of women having breasts is to attract the male of the species.

That's not proved, it's only a hypothesis.

Yikes! Is this from the same person who brought us the sexual dysmorphism and plygamy comment?

Oops, forgot to sign it. Of couse it's Taw speaking. You mean which dimorphism comment ? This about chromosomes in insects ? Polygamy comment is me. Unfortunatelly I can't find references to polygamy material right now, will do it later. Taw.

It is commonly assumed by biologists that the real evolutionary purpose of women having breasts is to attract the male of the species

I think that the breast has only become sexualised in certain societies, particularly in parts of the Western world. In most societies in the world the female breasts are not considered sexual at all. Therefore men in these western societies have been brought up thinking of the breasts as sexual, probably helped by the fact that the same societies that have made the breasts into a sexual object keep the breast covered for modesty, making men more curious about something that is forbidden. Therefore what parts of the body people are attracted to can be affected by social factors and not just purely biological urges. I wonder which part of the world these biologists come from? --Cap 12:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You guys have it backward. Boobs were evolved to feed kids. Men evolved into being attracted towards boobs (thus increasing the likelihood of having kids with a good mom). --CJWilly 11:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mammary glands evolved to feed infants. The exact shape and size of the breast is thought by some anthropologists/biologists to have evolved to visually simulate the buttocks and therefore sexually attract men. 163.1.159.21 20:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Anatomy

Is this an anatomical description of human breast or breasts in all mammals. We should probably indicate which. --rmhermen

The "super bowl halftime controversy" link. I don't know whether to leave it or cut and paste to "Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense". Philwelch 17:54, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'd cut it out, but I'll wait for some comments here. — Sverdrup 09:26, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Tits

Is there any reason we use tit, instead of breast (the title of the article) to describe the breasts through out this article? I don't know any place in the world where tit would be considered more social acceptable of a word than breast, and since it seems that breast makes more sense, and is the scientifically accepted word, I'm going to replace all there instances. — マイケル ₪ 15:17, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears it was vandalism. I've converted it back. — マイケル ₪ 16:00, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Unfinished links

I would urge that the articles on diseases of the breast be completed. Women's health issues tend to receive much less coverage as compared to men's, and Wikipedia is a good place to reverse this trend. I wish I had the expertise, but I don't. "I'm an engineer, not a doctor!" (With apologies to Dr. Leonard McCoy). jimaginator

[edit]

Image

Please don't revert without discussion. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 18:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok: here's your discussion. You're running for ArbComm, and you believe that to be a valid illustrative photograph for this article? All seriousness aside: the article is about the breast, not the entire body, and not necessarily the *female* breast. You may not like our opinion, Sam, but clearly neither Tregowith nor I are prudes nor do we dislike pictures of naked women. That picture simply isn't appropriate to this article. Crop it down to just the breast, and you'd at least have an argument (though I think you'd still lose)... but IMHO, right now, it looks like a 14 year old trying to slip one past his teacher on a technicality. Baylink 19:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe you shouldn't revert without discussion, but this picture is just plain wrong. First of all, we already had a perfectly good picture of a breast. There was no need to add an obviously much more explicit image of a "breasted woman". Seriously, you probably wouldn't be able to qualify this as artistic nudity either. The pose can easily be interpreted as "provocative". Finally, look at any medical book (I have the Merck Manual here right now), and you will see that they do not display a nude woman, most parts exposed, as an image for a breast. It is always cropped down to just the breast. Please remove the picture or crop it. Ambush Commander 20:22, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I find your argument terrifically unpersuasive. Do you have any specific reasoning, other than your own opinion, and a medical manual? This image was removed from Woman, with general consensus, mainly due to being overly breasty. I see no reason to waste a perfectly good image (brought over from the German wiki Woman article (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frau)). This seemed an article that could use a such a photo. I happen not to like chopping out images of breasts alone, but that is done on the other wikis (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sein_%28anatomie%29). Again, what is your reasoning against this image (and without mentioning my ArbComm election, please). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 20:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me think up of more reasons then. You commented that the people at "Woman" complained that this woman was too "breasty", and therefore you decided if it couldn't be posted there, well, it portrays breast very well, so why not move it over to the breast page! Secondly, you believe a photo would do the article well. You admitted to being slightly prejudiced against chopping out images of breasts alone. Let's see... hmm... what I would have to say is that the same way the "Woman" article argued that it was too "Breasty", one could argue that this is too much "Woman". After all, the actual breast only consists of, er... 10% of the image. This isn't my only reason, but I'd like to hear your response. Ambush Commander 21:09, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm on the removal side as well. It's a nice picture, but I think the reasoning of Ambush Commander and Baylink is sound. The picture doesn't seem at all necessary here. Euphoria 21:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I created List of big-bust models and performers, and I thought the photo was inappropriate (hence my revert). —tregoweth 22:19, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

So shall we revert? Ambush Commander 23:46, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Because this image is likely to be controversial, I think it would be best to remove the image for now and discuss it here first; if we get a consensus to use it, then we can restore it. — Matt Crypto 00:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't usually look at this article, but I thought I'd throw my $.02 into this discussion. The article is about breats, not women as a whole. The nude woman is not particulary attractive, but even if she were, it would still be inappropriate for this article. If the image were trimmed to just the breasts, it would be fine (IMHO). But an entire nude woman is just plain inappropriate and unnecessary in this article. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:48, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe a warning on the picture might work? Rickyrab 00:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be the problem here, they seem to simply not like the image and/or any image of a full nude. W as many people as have taken a stand against the image, I believe it best to respect the current consensus. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 01:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's the controversial image here, if anyone needs it for reference in the discussion. Rickyrab 01:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All other disputes aside, who thought "breasty" (in the photo caption) was an acceptable encyclopedia term? -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Me. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 01:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe all your breast are belong to us? ;) Rickyrab 02:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My question is, where would consensus deem this image appropriate? I happen to think this image is better than none, on pages where it is relevant. The german wiki is full of nudity. We have some provocative images, but only on obscure pages. The policy is extremely broad in what it allows, and the Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images poll is clear cut in favor of allowing anything encyclopedic, w no particular guidelines. So my question is, where would the frau image be appropriate, on the english wiki? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 11:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nothing comes to mind. Something about lighting and photography, perhaps, but one could surely come up with better illustrations for that than this image. So, nowhere, I guess. I must confess I'm a little confused by your eagerness to use this image - not every photograph in the world is going to be necessary or useful in an encyclopedia. Are you saying we should use "provocative" pictures (i.e. ones with naked people) whenever possible, just because we can? Perhaps that should be added to the editing guidelines. :) -leigh (φθόγγος) 13:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

PS. I really don't think the nudity was the main objection to the use of this image for breast - it's that, well, it's not a picture of a breast. That's like using image:superman.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:superman.jpg) for the boot article. -leigh (φθόγγος) 13:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I simply felt that since it had been removed from one page, that I should find another place for it. I'm pro-image, having often found an article lacking due to lack of image. Also, I thought this was a nice photo (apparently few agree). But whatever, its not a big deal, and I'm not trying to enforce a pro-nudity POV or anything. I'll respect the current consensus here, and and move on to other things. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 14:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm seeing what I regard as some very problematic reasons given here as to why the image Sam Spade provided is thought inappropriate for "breast". That it isn't a picture of "a breast" is particularly inexplicable. Breasts are part of people, and the image shows a person whose breasts are particularly prominent. It's a very nice picture in my opinion, and I'd need to see some good reasons why this was not regarded as appropriate on purely encyclopedic grounds. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:24, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

If anyone wants to continue this discussion, Sam has also posted this image to Teat, and I need someone to back me up at Talk:Teat. (I'm not saying I dislike the photo; it's just Not Appropriate.) —tregoweth 19:18, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

New Image

Missing image
Fraus_breasts.jpg

Breasts.

I've cropped the old breast image to make it more appropriate for this article... Feel free to add it to the article.

Well I supported Sam Spade and thought the original picture was fine, but this cropped down image does seem somwhat more relevant to the topic and is better than nothing. Thanks and I hope we all agree to keep it. -CunningLinguist 11:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the full image and even the cropped image. I think it is a false representation of the average female breast. I feel that in order to have a more neutral image, we should go for a picture of the more average size breast. I am sure Wiki does not want to feed image stereotypes about large breasts. Women are daily bombarded with body image deflating messages, including ones that they are not a true woman if they are not full breasted. Small and average breasted women are often made to feel obsure or less than the large chested woman. I also feel that the crop of a pic should pan from the shoulders to the waist. It would make the pic look more proportionate. CiaraBeth 15:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I vigorously oppose this line of reasoning. The purpose of the wiki is not to promote a politically correct concept of body size. This article is about the breast, and we need an image which represents the breast, not your concept of what is best for a womans self image, or what is most average, etc... A full breast is more representational than a flat one. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 12:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is the average size of female breasts, then? --Khendon 13:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with CiaraBeth. Here in East Asian breasts of that magnitude are singled out and placed in a specific classification in, say, the Japanese porn industry, where they are known as "Gigantic Breasts" (巨乳), itself a kind of objectification not very fair to women who have them. Even in Europe those breasts are larger than most. A good solution, in my opinion, would be to create a gallery in Commons: showing a range of female breasts/nipples/aureola/pigmentation/etc, as well as male ones (both typical and ones with gynecomastia). This particular cropped image is, in any case, not all that good (crooked). 206.149.212.104 08:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

New vote option...

...added to Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. All those who think we shouldn't be creating blanket rules for censorship of Wikipedia, feel free to vote with me. — マイケル ₪ 03:12, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Discussion of full frontal nudity

Hi: Wikipedia is beginning to be peppered with photos that belong in "Playboy" etc. No moral person can accept the possible consequences of this development. Please express your views at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia? [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Nudity_.28full_frontal.29_pictures_in_an_encyclopedia.3F) Thank you for giving this matter your serious attention! IZAK 12:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your definition of morality may differ from someone elses. I consider myself quite a moral person and I do not see how a picture of a nude human being, done tastefully and in the case of Wikipedia, with the purpose of using as a reference tool is immoral. I urge everyone to keep censorship out of Wikipedia! -CunningLinguist 11:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hear hear. As I said on woman, I'll decide for myself what is and is not moral, thank you. Cheers, Timbo ( t a l k ) 22:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit]