Talk:Breast/Archive 2

(Archived as of Dec 22/2006)

Random Question

I have a question about the nude images on wikipedia. Who provides them? Do random people just takes pictures of themselves naked and put them on wikipedia? (If you're wondering, I don't find nude images offensive)

Propriety of Image

Forget morality, whether it's porn or not, and all that. What matters, first and foremost, is that it is A) Not work-safe and B) Illegal to view in some places. There should be an image, but a line drawing, diagram, picture of a statue, basically anything but a photo or photorealistic image is more appropriate. --anonymous

Wikipedia can't adjust its rules to particular foreign countries and so on. It's hard to please everyone. The current picture doesn't intend to arouse as it's not shown in a sexual context, so it can't really be classified as erotic, but rather informative. -- Jugalator 02:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

What about a not work-safe tag?

Even if it is illegal in some countries, wouldn't you just have to delete it on that country's launguage's page? Even so, I doubt it's illegal in UK/Australia/Canada. But perhaps put a NSFW tag to keep minors out.

How would a NSFW keep minors out? It would probably attract them. Also, if it's not-safe-for-work, why are you looking at the Wiki article on breasts at work anyway?

Last time I checked, medical textbooks didn't have "NSFW" written on every other page.--RITZ 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pics

I noticed most (or all) the pics are of white women's breasts... Isn't that undesirable given we're supposed to have a global point of view? Pics of, Asian, black, Latina etc. breasts would be a step forward (tho replace existing pics, wikipedia is not a gallary). Mikkerpikker ... 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this was covered as being tokenism in the Racism bit. You'll have to find that yourself I'm afraid, since I'm new here and don't know how to do stuff like that, but I hope this helps you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Damuna

Breasts of The World

I agree with the poster above.

Wikipedia should endeavor to create a library of breast pictures from every ethnic group imaginable. A sort of "It's A Small World" of titties.

Based on the documentary, "Journey of Man" http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html

We should create, "The Journey of Mammaries."

From the nipples of Nepal to the boobs of Bangladesh. The tits of Turkey to the areolas of The Andes.

Let's get a United Nations email directory and send the message: People of Earth... show us your tits!

There are thousands of ethnic varieties of soft, fleshy womanhood to explore. We should endeavor to preserve these for the future of humanity.

For future generations.

For our children.

Tastefully, of course.

NiftyDude 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem, errr, enthusiastic enough to be able to get us some varied pics... Mikkerpikker ... 14:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I speaking with tounge-in-cheek.

While I do think it would be nice to have a cultural diversity of breasts in the article, I'm not going to go out and put together a video montage of naked breasts set to the "It's a Small World" song. Or perhaps, "We are the world... these are our boobies..." NiftyDude 16:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

† See, I think that's a neat idea Hizrael

Gender Bias

So I took a look at human penis size an lo and behold there is not ONE illustrative picture there, as opposed to the multiple pictures on this article. Seems a bit biased to me. Pschemp 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to post penis pictures if you'd like.

Start here:

• Google Image Search: Jeff Gannon (safe-search is off)

Remember: It's not pornographic (or gay) when Republicans do it.

Speaking of gender bias, why are only [b]female[/b] breasts included in this article?

NiftyDude 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

oooh...good point. If I had a penis or male breasts, I'd take pictures and post them. Its best if these types of pictures have a clear history and have been volunteered by wikipedians though. You seem to be male. Go for it!Pschemp 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree too, and have said so here. -Barry- 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this article should really include the anatomical differences between male and female breasts. Pretty much everyone knows that guys have nipples, but not many people are aware that guys have smaller, less developed versions of all of the other anatomical structures that female breasts have, can actually lactate if their hormones are sufficiently out of whack, and can even rarely get breast cancer.

Agreed. It's weird to compare mature and young at the top, and never show male breasts. As far as the functionality of male breats, some male to female transsexuals have produced milk due to the hormones; the necessary parts are there.

Pictures that are Needed

Ok based on the complaints I think we need to a make a list of what is needed (and what is not) for pictures and then agree and act upon it:

• Male Breast: at least for comparison.
• Breast of other colors: I’m not the only one that thinks this page has got a racist problem here
• Size range: the only picture showing a breast size other then the rest is disputed? What wrong with you people, it should be the other way around; more variation is needed to represent an accurate profile of what breasts are.
• Animal Breast: why not? Again good comparison

Feel free to expand the list and comment.

Come on people get your dicks out of the floppy drive and start taking this article seriously, try to edit the article with wiki in mind rather then your gonads!--BerserkerBen 19:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

These feel like good ideas to me, although you should watch your words and accusations. As for sexism: A problem is often to find GFDL-compatible pictures, even moreso if we are to have a diverse racial, gender, size and species coverage. Focus is obviously given to female breasts as these are not vestigal and logically most interesting to document from an encyclopedic perspective. As for racism: see above. It is most likely a "problem" that the largest Wikipedia reader population is caucasian and photographing their or their spouses breasts and I doubt you need to look for more controversial causes than these. Come again if you found out an image was voted down simply because it was a photograph of asian breasts.

As for your non-aggressive comments: I do believe that they're good ideas though, especially the part about size range. Racial differences are covered in at least one image in the current article. Since male breasts are vestigal traits I find them less important from a documentary perspective, but could of course be covered in just one picture. As for animals, that could be useful for an additional section in the article, although then again, we need to find properly licensed imagery that focuses on mammals' breasts. -- Northgrove 12:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree here that there are more varieties of breasts that are needed to be pictured. I call on people to get more pictures up there of breasts of other varieties: more variety in sizes (they all look to be approximately the same size except for the larger ones - where are the natural smaller breasts?), male breasts, more variety of breasts from different ethnicities, etc. User:Svartulfr1 06:57 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How many tits do you really need to know what a tit looks like? You people are just horndogs XD 72.145.178.67 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits on culture

Changed the statement that "some cultures...forbid the public display of breasts"etc. Redundant considering earlier in the same section this is stated in the sentence "many cultures consider... display indecent." Instead I changed it to religions, and lumped in christianity to even things out a bit and make it a more inclusive category (subsection under "culture" for "religions" recommended). I also added that public breastfeeding is okay. Source for Islam's allowance of public breastfeeding: is here.

For Christianity: Here

Angrynight 10:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Breasts1 and breasts4 images are missing

The images named breasts1 and breasts4 seem to no longer exist, but the code is still present and messes up the article. I assume the code should be removed, but I figured I'd ask. Not sure when it happened. -Barry- 16:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that western should be removed "some western cultures" when discussing a bias for larger breasts, as it is common also in Asian and African cultures 柱 05:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Sexual Records

Can someone familiar with the topic of anatomical records see if there's anything worth merging from this article to here? Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Racism

Why are all the pictures of caucasians?

No, seriously, why use multiple boob pictures to "illustrate their differences" for "educational reasons" and then completely fail to illustrate any kind of differences at all?

Yeah, it's obvious that you sad nerds are just using this as an excuse for some titillation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.L.K. (talk • contribs) .

We can only use photos that are GFDL compatable which limits what can be put into articles. If you can upload some better photos or find some on commons [1] or get permission then please do so and replace the photos with better ones.--Clawed 10:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your breath. It's obvious "M.L.K." is just using this as an excuse to feel superior. :P Kasreyn 11:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, i was clicking random article and found the page. And you guys are a little eccessive about you "pornography" theorys! I'm 11 years old and my eyes have not burned out! If this were hard pornography or somthing then they'd need a warning. I'm 11 and i lived. If i were 8, then how should i be able to touch-type? my point here is that "human knowledge" and "human knowledge not concerning the human body" are very different- Daniel_123

Well, I would say M.L.K. is a little excessive. Most of the rest of our editors realize that photos of natural human anatomy are quite appropriate at an encyclopedia that is not censored for minors. Kasreyn 17:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your eleven and you have a problem. HINT: DON"T HIT RANDOM UNLESS YOU CAN STOMACH WHATEVER MIGHT COME UP.

Please don't attack others here, especially not a child. Refer to WP:CIVIL. I personally enjoy randomly surfing Wikipedia and I think more kids ought to. You do have a point about Wikipedia's content, but Wikipedia is clearly an adult encyclopedia. The original poster's parents are the ones who should be making such decisions, not you or I. Please don't yell at people like that in the future. Kasreyn 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 oh that wasn't yelling that was just to distinguish the hint. I apoligize if it appered that i was yelling

† And at the same time, let's get away from referring to white people as "Caucasian". We really should save that term for the peoples of the Caucasus Mountains of Asia. Just using that term actually can be considered bias and/or cultural imperialism. But yeah, we need more color (and I didn't say black) in here.

Racism?

Why are there no breasts of color? I see three photos of white breasts, but none of color. Wombdpsw 04:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have access to images which meet Wikipedia's standards as regards copyright, feel free to upload and add them. Frankly, it's very hard to find images of any kind of naked body parts which haven't been ripped off of some porn website. If you can find some, and they're decent quality, by all means, improve the page!  :) Kasreyn 05:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Because they look awful Cuzandor 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make racially offensive statements at Wikipedia. It is not tolerated. Refer to WP:CIVIL and try to be more responsible. Kasreyn 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not "racially" offensive, maybe offensive but not "racially". Cuzandor 18:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You admit that it's offensive. That's a good first step. But I don't understand why you don't agree that it's racially based. When Wombdpsw said "breasts of color", did you think he was talking about breasts that had been painted green or blue? Or were you aware he was talking about the breasts of black women, asian women, hispanic women, and so forth? To say that the breasts of women of other races "look awful" is certainly racially based. Kasreyn 20:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I just think those fat breasts with huge dark areolas look ugly. For example: ((image removed - spam site)) . This "white or black or hispanic lol" and "ppl of color lol" thing from USA means nothing to me. Cuzandor 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, though it would behoove you to express them with a bit more tact. Regardless, Wikipedia cannot discriminate over images on such a subjective basis. Kasreyn 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But they look awful, don't they? Cuzandor 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how either of our personal opinions could possibly matter. Kasreyn 04:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

White men say a lot of words with no meaning, but maybe the article should include ugly breasts too 201.23.64.2 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

THIS STATEMENT ABOVE IS JUST AS OFFENSIVE AND RACIST...WHERE ARE YOU KASREYN?

I have no objection to an image of 'breast of color' as you are suggesting, but wouldn't we then be calling it Tokenism?

I've made that point here before. It would not be possible to have exactly proportional representation unless we had hundreds of images, so we could represent proportions with differences measured in single percentage points. Since of course we can't have hundreds of images on the page, we're not going to be able to make it perfectly representational. Representations of the four or five most populous races is about the best we can hope for. Note that the need for such representation does not allow for any weakening of WP policy on copyright and free images. Kasreyn 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Superior image

I've recently found this image at Wikimedia. It's a closeup of a breast showing much better detail than the three small images on this article. Specifically it also shows nipple tumescence in detail. As the article on the penis takes time to show flaccid and erect states, my feeling is that an illustration of the erect state of the nipple is worth showing in context at least once.

Plus, it's a very artistic and high quality photo of a very lovely example. Kasreyn 04:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think there should be a "comparation" picture like the d*ck article 201.23.64.2 06:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no pictures available of the same woman with un-erect nipples. It could be compared to a photo of a different woman, whose nipples are not erect. Thing is, we already have plenty of those. Kasreyn 07:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the image as the first image in the article. I strongly feel that the first image should be a photograph and that there should be an image "above the fold" (visible on page load) for information purposes. If anyone disagrees with the inclusion of the above image, please reply here. Kasreyn 22:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not keen on that picture, because it's clearly a surgically enhanced breast (as well as the unnatural shape, there's also an obvious surgical scar). I agree with the plus points above, but i think the introduction and maajority of the article should primarily be about natural breasts. Not that ther's not a place for discussing surgery on here too, but it doesn't strike me as being a good introductory pic.Spute 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the reddish line beneath the breast or the bluish one along its side? Kasreyn 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe these breasts are natural. I went to the flickr user's page to check for copyright and there are other photos and I believe she is natural. SallyB 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my opinion as well. Kasreyn 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a scar too, not the kind they use to insert implants but some to alter the shape, like Spute said Cuzandor 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Spute's comment messed up the threading. I was agreeing with SallyB, not Spute. They look real to me. Kasreyn 23:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The line along its side looks a scar, the one underneath is just a mark from a bra underwire (or that's how it looks to me). Maybe it is real, but it looks fake to me. Spute 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As I am the original photographer of this image, I can assure you that this is a natural breast. The "scar" is due to her bra being removed a minute before or so. Inferiz 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought it was. Thanks, Kasreyn 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I should ask you: we at this page guessed from other images in your photostream, but perhaps you could state more clearly. Was the model pregnant at the time of the photo being taken? Because if not, I need to change the caption in the article. Kasreyn 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she was pregnant at the time, around 20 weeks. If needed, I can crop other photos of her pregnacy, but I think this one is a excellent choice... Inferiz 09:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's not a scar then i was wrong. She's wearing a terribly badly fitting bra if that's wear the underwire lies though. Please, get her to find a bra that fits.Spute 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Size, shape and composition Section

I think we need to display a wider range of breasts and from women of different backgrounds. How do we go about getting decent images not just those someone ripped from pornography? SallyB 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you got your magical ability to look at a photograph of breasts and determine it was taken for pornographic purposes. I'd love to have such an ability myself. None of the images on this page have any information on their image pages linking them to pornography that I see. All are presented tastefully. No sexual paraphernalia are visible.

More seriously: whatever original purpose the photos were taken for cannot have any relevance. Only their current content can matter. In the article on feet, a photo of a foot would be informative and educational. How about adding the same photo in the article on foot fetishism? Would the very same image suddenly become pornography? Images are images. People get aroused for their own personal reasons, which are entirely unpredictable. It's not our job to try to anticipate those reasons.

I do agree, however, that a wider variety could be displayed. Perhaps images could be found and added of the breasts of women of other races - though that risks opening up the can of worms labelled "equal representation" - and I don't think we're likely to find photographs of Ainu or Eskimo breasts. All we would be capable of would be representing three or four of the most populous races. Kasreyn 04:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

agree, but why did you remove Brst-Lrg01.jpg? Surely that was exactly the kind of pic that should be added... I know the size/quality's not great but it's a start. People may well be embarassed to post pics because it looks like wikipedia has (so far) only accepted B/C cup Caucasian breast pics... it's always going to be a bit difficult to be the first 'different' one. Spute 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We definitely need some African and Asian breasts. The big white breast bias here is quite ridiculous. pschemp | talk 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, do you think they are different?Cuzandor 03:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

pschemp, you are pretty. why not a pic of yours? :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.133.139 (talk • contribs) .

Because they are large and white obviously. We have plenty of those already. pschemp | talk 21:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

wow... look what i caused. the photos of this page appear to be legitmate. i was more referring to the photo I removed. i think the large necklace was one indication as well as being cropped. regardless, i was hoping we could represent some diversity without going overboard. Let's not be silly here.SallyB 04:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not being silly, but really, as it stands the article is a bit racist, and I agree, we can have diversity without going overboard.

Racist may be going a bit far. I think it just reflects the contributors backgrounds as well as some unconscious prejudice. There is also the problem with availablity. I'd consider taking photos of my breasts but like yours they are big and white. :P SallyB 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I second Sally. Do you really think it's overt racism?Anont 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What's this about "large and white"? I wouldn't say any of the current pics display particularly large breasts. That's actually the main misconception i wanted to challenge when i created the "size, shape, composition" section... this idea that C cup breasts are large. In fact, it's just about average. What we need is a range of say AA-HH cup sizes, this idea that breasts exist in sizes A,B,C and D is perpetuated enough elsewhere... everytime someone uses 'DD' as a synonym for 'unbelievably massive', it's ridisulous, and wikipedia should represent true diversity. Spute 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

HH? Surely those are fairly rare. I've only met one woman with natural H cup breasts in my life. Is it really needful that we show the entire range of all possible sizes? Kasreyn 01:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Really not that rare at all. I don't know the statistics, but over DD is very common. Spute 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They are common in fake breasts, not real ones.Jance 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC) What planet do you live on? Very common? Why don't you approximate a percentage of the populace. SallyB 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with SallyB. I wouldn't know firsthand about frequency world-wide, as I've only been outside the United States once. But I've traveled a great deal within the United States and one of my favorite pastimes is people-watching (and, frankly, admiration of the world's feminine beauty). The average for (natural, of course) breasts seems to be somewhere between B and C, tending toward C. D's aren't particularly rare, nor are A's. Breasts over D in size are hard to find. Many C through E's are fake, since these seem to be the sizes women aim for in getting breast implants. I have no way of knowing how many C's through E's I've seen that were not natural (except for the cases when the implant is so bad it's obvious through clothing), so this skews my observations. Extremely large cup sizes are vanishingly rare regardless; I'm guessing not many women outside of the pornography industry opt to have implants to increase their size to F's or higher (heck, even E's is a stretch of the imagination), since on all but the largest frames they would be disproportionately large. Of course, note that these are nothing but recollections of observation and not real data. What we really need is some medical study on actual measured - not reported - cup sizes of a wide cross-section of races and ages. Kasreyn 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish i had statistics to back this up, but i don't - only my own observations. I agree that we need a medical study, but i've not found such scientific evidence online. It's commonly stated though that average is a C cup, but also that 75% of women wear the wrong size bra (too small), so i'd say that the true average is more like D, and that means there must be a lot of women above D. Which there are, all over the place. Anecdotally, you only have to look at the recent success of [Bravissimo, a UK-based lingerie shop set up to cater for the above-DD market (they don't sell anything smaller than a D cup), which is rapidly expanding, and has gone from one store to 12 stores around the UK (as well as a successful internet business) within the past 5 years. Spute 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that big breasts will sag more than smaller ones? Cuzandor 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you define "more sagging". how do you measure it ? Spute 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

computer teacher's perspective on the "pictures of boobs" debate...

During the 2005-2006 school year, I was the computer teacher at a small K-8 parochial school in the United States. It was because of content like the pictures of female breasts in this article and the nudity article that I was compelled to switch to websites like yahooligans in the classroom. As was noted by a previous poster, "having a range of photographs about these body parts could really perform a valuable educational function for young people..." I agree 100%, but the laws in my state...:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/aclu/co_16.htm

The rest of my post will assume that you have read the information from the above website. Had I allowed a student to view the breast article, I might have been protected by the statement, "...serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Showing nude pictures is acceptable in SOME sex education classes in the United States. HOWEVER, there is undeniably a tremendous taboo in the USA when it comes to allowing young people to view nudity. Furthermore, the definition of sexually explicit material can differ from community to community.

Therefore, I propose a compromise. I recommend that wikipedia continue to provide the pictures of female breasts, but with an added layer of protection for children, parents, teachers, and others. Is it possible to replace each picture with an empty frame. Then users could just follow the link below the frame to find the picture...? The pictures would still be available, but not as obvious to "innocent" children whose parents might object to nudity on wikipedia. Also, male breasts should be included in this article. Or, a separate article should be created. Discuss please. Gobbles414 04:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I still say a single, small drawing should be used. There are many other Wikipedia articles that are worse though. The rule about Wikipedia not being censored for the protection of minors is stupid. It's not suitable for grade school. -Barry- 05:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why that policy is stupid. As Mark Twain famously said, "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it." Censorship, in my opinion, is what is stupid. It is sad that Americans vote for censorship laws, but Wikipedia certainly has no compelling interest in observing them. Kasreyn 07:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer does not lie with wikipedia. Find or create a mirror of wikipedia content and censor it to your needs.--Clawed 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, we cannot comply with such requests. Wikipedia has the goal of providing a free and high-quality uncensored encyclopedia to the entire world. It cannot be limited by the local taboos and cultural myopia of any nation (and I say that as a fellow American). Prevailing American attitudes towards nudity are indeed a terrible shame, but the only hope is for those attitudes to change. Wikipedia is not censored for such reasons. Although, I must say you made your request far more politely than most people who ask that the images be hidden. Best wishes, Kasreyn 07:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians can change almost all of the guidelines and policies. -Barry- 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we can, and if you want to try to start a movement to change that policy, you're welcome to do so. I don't think such a proposition has even a miniscule hope of success, but perhaps it would be illustrative of just how firm the consensus is on the not-censored policy. Best wishes, Kasreyn 07:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No wikipedian wants to hurt kids. I could probably add a common sense qualification to the not-censored-for-minors policy without it being reverted. Then editors to articles like this might have a little more leeway. I assume there's already some more detail to the policy, but I don't feel like searching for it right now. Anyway, four photos as opposed to one drawing doesn't do all that much more educating, especially if parents and teachers will be hiding the page from kids. -Barry- 08:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whose common sense? Several cultures are more strict than yours, and may feel that common sense warrants censoring any image of a female. (See also Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.) And obviously, not all wikipedians will agree that exposing a child to an image of breasts constitutes 'hurting children'.

In any effect, I think you'll find that most wikipedians oppose censorship. Period. -- Ec5618 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire issue of children is irrelevant. See Wikipedia's content disclaimer. It is made clear that Wikipedia's mission is to document all human knowledge, and that images and content may be found which are objectionable to some. Therefore it is made clear that Wikipedia is not intended for children but for an adult audience. It is impossible to adopt any local community's standards of "decency" without violating standards in another community somewhere in the world. Therefore, if any censorship were imposed, the logic of the situation would demand complete censorship to avoid offending the lowest common denominator, resulting in an encyclopedia empty of information. The disclaimer makes it sufficiently clear that such images may be found at any time without warning on Wikipedia, and it is also made clear that Wikipedia cannot prevent even worse images from being added by vandals, at least momentarily. If there is a problem, I'd say that the disclaimer should be a little more prominent on the main page. Beyond that, this entire section is moot. You are proposing altering the founding goals and structure of the encyclopedia. For that, I would recommend you contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Cheers, Kasreyn 08:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many guidelines that preclude documenting all human knowledge. The content disclaimer says "Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted."

I think it's universal common sense that we should publish what would be least objected to if it provides essentially the same information as the alternative and if the alternative is likely to be censored or considered inappropriate by many people. Yes, that leaves room for interpretation, which is good. I'd use my common sense.

I'm not an anarchist or libertarian or even much of a liberal, and I don't like the "anything goes" vibe that I get from much of Wikipedia. I heard that Jimmy Wales is a libertarian and that most editors are young, which might explain how things are here. Don't think that Wikipedia's openness means it represents the kind of information that the general public wants.-Barry- 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right in pointing out that it would be presumptuous of us to pretend we know what the public wants; so that being the case, isn't it wiser to err on the side of over-inclusiveness rather than under-inclusiveness? If we include too much, people can simply hit the back button or look away, but if we include too little then we disappoint our readers.

I would also agree that, information content being equal, the less potentially offensive of two images is probably the wiser choice. But I don't feel that a line drawing carries as much information content as a photograph, plus the potential offensiveness of a photo of a breast, in my opinion, is so low that it doesn't warrant such an exchange. In general, though, your principle holds true and is good encyclopedic practise. Kasreyn 09:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What is universal common sense?. In the UK topless woman are shown on page three of the sun newspaper. When I was in school movies that contained nudity and sex scenes where shown my English classes. I do not see how photos of breasts in this article can be seen as anything other than educational.

It is not completely "anything goes" on wikipedia - as long as it is encyclopaedic it can be included. Censorship and being minimally objectionable are not defining charactistics of an encyclopaedia but reporting verifiable facts in a neutral point of view is. --Clawed 09:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! This is obviously still a very controversial subject! I read two comments that represent the most opposing points of view on this topic.

"The entire issue of children is irrelevant... It is impossible to adopt any local community's standards of 'decency' without violating standards in another community somewhere in the world..." AND "...it's universal common sense that we should publish what would be least objected to if it provides essentially the same information as the alternative and if the alternative is likely to be censored or considered inappropriate by many people."

In my opinion, both of these positions have merit. Should Wikipedia automatically yield to cultures and governments? Of course not...! Then we'd be in a situation where "controversial" topics like democracy and human rights couldn't be discussed. I don't think that any reasonable Wikipedian would want that kind of censorship. However, we should show some sensitivity for as many points of view as possible. For example, the number of Muslims who would have a problem with pictures of uncovered female breasts is probably huge -- it is more of a cultural taboo that I religious one, I have learned. So we're just going to say to Muslims, "Sorry, we're not going to respect you're right to learn about female breasts within the context of your own cultures because you're Muslim!" My question is, WHY CAN'T THERE BE A MIDDLE GROUND? Some possible compromises include:

• A children's version of Wikipedia. This was discussed years ago at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Childrens'_Wikipedia

• Duplicate the article and replace pictures with diagrams in one of the two articles. Then make a redirect that gives readers a choice

• My original suggestion... keep the pictures linked to the article but hidden until the appropriate link is clicked on

• Place any controversial pictures at the bottom of the article and place a warning at the top of the article (similar to a spoilers warning)

Gobbles414 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Or we simply accept that we are not in the business of deciding what is and isn't offensive. Placing "any controversial pictures at the bottom of the article" simply isn't feasable, as anyone can be offended by anything. I, for one, don't like to be treated like a child (as per the Mark Twain quote above). If images offend you, please configure your browser to hide them. Don't expect Wikipedia to censor itself.

And yes, I understand you are talking about some sort of "middle ground". But surely, no censorship is easiest. Let's leave the rest to personal responsibility and maturity. -- Ec5618 21:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting summary. I'm flattered that you find my comment worth mention. So far, not many editors have weighed in, and so I think the consensus hasn't changed. All of your specific suggestions have been made before (typically at Sexual intercourse and Circumcision but occasionally here as well), and have never gained consensus in the past that I've seen. However, it appears there was recently a lively debate on this topic at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, dealing with the nuances of censorship and pragmatism involving censorship at Wikipedia. Perhaps someone there could help you more than I can. Best wishes, Kasreyn 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this issue is STILL CONTROVERSIAL!! Its just BREASTS for godssakes! Only in America would this article recieve that kind of negative attention....--67.183.132.49 10:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion of images applies to numerous other articles, most of the sexology and sexuality oriented. I have begun a discussion of the broader topic on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines to have people participate in working on a guideline consensus (not a policy, or rules, as that hasn't been possible in the past). Having a consensus of people who have hashed this out and agreed on some guidelines will help in the future to combat against the types of problems we have had in the past. (Prudish people pushing their POV, Trolls trying to create controversy, Vanity images, etc.) Of course it won't be a solution to all problems, and they will still need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but there really isn't a need to rehash the entire barrel of pickles on every image on every sexuality based page, and then again when someone tries to change an image. Atom 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Link wording: http://www.007b.com/breast_gallery.php

I removed the word "normal" there, not because I feel the breasts shown at the site are not actually normal, but just because I'm a bit leery of any appearance of supporting any particular site's POV. After reading through the site's text, there are several claims which appear to directly contradict this article's claims. Of course, that's not really important when considering that their images are fine, so the link should remain.

The site makes some interesting points, but ultimately fails to recognize that complete de-sexualization of the female breast goes against their purpose as a secondary sex characteristic (per our article). Additionally, they make a very bizarre distinction between "mature" breasts and other breasts; their definition of "mature" breasts is, apparently, the breasts of women who have undergone pregnancy and breastfed their children. This would mean that, in their view, childless old ladies have "immature" breasts. To my knowledge there is no such distinction made by anatomists or doctors, so the site does appear to be pushing a rather odd, but probably harmless POV. Which is why I'd rather avoid using their descriptive adjectives. Kasreyn 10:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Asymmetry

The text "It is typical for a woman's breasts to be unequal in size, particularly whilst the breasts are developing during puberty. Statistically it is slightly more common for the left breast to be the larger." was labeled {{citation needed}}, and I'm guessing this refers to the second sentence. The article I added (abstract available at [2]) confirms the "generally accepted clinical impression of left-breast volume dominance". A newer article is An Objective Evaluation of Breast Symmetry and Shape Differences Using 3-Dimensional Images, which also gives some fun figures (left larger than right in 62% of the cases, precise measures, and so on), no one has cited it (yet), so I didn't add it. -- Woseph 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to see more pictures of breasts.

Spelling Error

I have found a spelling mistake in the article, but am unable to fix it myself.

In the article there is a bit where it says this:

"A long term clinical study showed that women with large breasts can suffer shoulder pain as a result of bra straps [1], although it shoiuld be stated that a well fitting bra should support most of the breasts' weight on the back strap rather than on the shoulders."

"Should" is misspelled there, could somebody please correct it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Damuna

"Male breasts"

Is this vandalism? :P I would assume so but edits have gone by without its removal and I guess it could have some pertinence. Should it be removed, nevertheless? Evan1109 01:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that was not vandalism. Discussion above stated that there should be an image of male breast, along with other variations. Therefore I posted one. Just because it is not a fully developed breast, does not mean it is not a breast. Svartulfr1 08:36 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't they get a picture that doesn't look like some dude took it to put on wikipedia for kicks? I mean it isn't the most attractive male "breast" i have ever seen in my life... but still it should be a picture that has less of a "is this supposed to be here?" appeal. At least in my opinion.--Tobyw87 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles
Click here

Apparently only well-endowed young white girls have breasts. Bias? Rmhermen 04:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This comes up all the time. I have attempted to cut down on the addition of new images of this kind (white). Other editors and I have repeatedly asked all editors who can to add free (ie., legally usable) images of breasts of other races to the article. I personally don't have any access to such images and I don't know of any on the WM or WP servers. If one were uploaded which was appropriate for the article, I would be the first to add it. Suffice to say that the ball is in the court of those who have the ability to obtain such an image. Kasreyn 10:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Some religions require that women always keep their breasts covered. For example, Islam forbids public exposure of the female breasts. Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism has similar rules prohibiting exposure

I can't speak for either Islam or Orthodox Judaism, but I was brought up a Catholic and I'm certain that, while there's a deeply conservative vein running through Catholicism that would strongly disapprove of it, there is no Catholic doctrine which forbids display of female breasts. Nuttyskin 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a general, often unspoken social understanding that the public display of female breasts is unacceptable throughout western / anglophone countries. It has partially to do with the dominance of Christianity in those lands, but there are other contributing factors as well. There isn't any specific Catholic dogma requiring it that I'm aware of; it's simply understood without being written. Kasreyn 06:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'm thinking of strongly traditional Catholic countries like Spain? Where topless beaches are the norm. Fishies Plaice 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There's American Christianity and there's European Christianity. After so many centuries of inquisitions and crusades, the Europeans have learned to be a little more relaxed about dogmatic interpretation. I suppose after a few centuries of radical evangelist leadership, America will also weary of it. Kasreyn 11:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We are quicker than that. It has only taken six years for us to grow weary of it. BTW, not that it matter to me, but doesn't the Catholic church consider America to be "too liberal", and europe to be more conservative in following their dogma? Atom 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Purpose - minor point

I have heard (but unfortunately do not have a reliable reference) that one function of human breasts is to help women to carry infants safely, by cushioning the skull which is under-developed in new borns. Can anyone find a confirmation of this? Peter Grey 02:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIC, the breasts do not carry the infants. Their primary goal is for nursing. UBeR 22:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah they're used for nursing and some other things I can't remember.--SUIT⁴² 03:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not the whole infant, just the head, when carried in the arms. Peter Grey 05:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Mature" breast

I have removed the photo near the top of the article that purported to be the breast of a "mature" pregnant woman. I don't know who put it there, but I presume that it was done in direct response to the other photo which was entitled the breast of a "young woman".

• We know that the other photo is bonafide, because its source says so, says that it is a "young" woman, says that she is pregnant and emphasises the changes due to pregnancy. Moreover, the clinical signs indicate that it is indeed the breast of a pregnant, young woman.

• The removed photo hhas been lifted from Flickr. There is no written indication as to whether the woman that the breast belongs to is young or old, pregnant or a virgin (although, come to think of it, the two may not be mutually exclusive). The most pertinent comment is that the underwire mark should have been removed by the photographer.

• The appearance of the breast did not support its description in this article. The breast in the removed photo had the appearance of belonging to a young female, rather than one that might be termed "mature", either in years or through childbearing. It didn't look like the breast of a woman who had given birth. And if it was indeed the breast of a woman who might be termed "mature" in years (shall we say 35-60) (rather than young or "aged"), then it was in remarkably good shape and had dropped remarkably little for a largish breast.

• Concerning the phto of the young pregnant woman, I have pushed it further down the page, into the paragraph that describes breast function and where the enlarged nipples, and so on, are relavent to the information adjacent.

• I have put in its place a nice pic which was in the area of shapes and sizes. The size of the photo was significantly different to the others and I thought it was superfluous at that point. It is, however, a nice, dare I say "normal" photo, in the sense that it represents breasts in the way that many people usually see them- not feeding a baby, not with heightened eroticism, not clinically, but in the context of one's mirror, a bedroom, a bathroom, a change room or any other such situation. More than 50% of us (people, that is) see female breasts every single day in these contexts without perceiving them clinically or erotically.

The thing that I like about the leading photo is that the breasts could be nicely interpreted in an aesthetic, clinical or erotic sense, depending upon ones viewpoint, or they could be just ones own breasts in the bathroom.

As for the one I deleted- It was a beautiful photo of beautiful breasts. Sorry to be so ruthless, but let's deal with accuracy.

--Amandajm 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's the other way round. Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg had been there a long time as an introductory pic. the woman did happen to be pregnant at time, but that's not the main point. The main reason it was chosen as the intro pic is simply that's it's the best pic available. It was MotherAmy who introduced the "mature" label in the caption in order to justify the comparison with her own pic, Image:Breast and nipple changes during late pregnancy.jpg, which she called "young" and pregnant. I've now rearranged the pics. There's nothing wrong with either, and both do have a place.

Can i suggest that people don't try to change the main intro pic without discussing it first. There's been a lot of discussion about it, as you can read on this talk page, and we'd just about reached a consensus. That's not to say it can't be changed to something other than Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg, but let's talk about reasons first, please. Spute 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I went back to Flickr to check out that image and observed that there are other pics of the woman who owns the breast, who indeed is pregnant, although the pic of the breast in particular doesn't say that. It's certainly a great photo. It was the interpretation without solid evidence that worried me- but in I hadn't looked quite far enough. I like the current arrangement of pics.

--Amandajm 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Brassieres

There needs to be better coordination between this page and the Brassiere page. There is a lot of overlap. Some material was shifted here the other day, which I don't mind, as long as the link is clear, but it is sitting a little awkwardly in its current position (size and shape). Understanding normal breast maturation is critical for understanding brassieres. Mgoodyear 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As an editor who has added a fair a bit to both the brassiere and breast pages, i'd agree that as the 2 articles are getting to be more comprehensive, they are meeting in the middle and a bit of overlap is emerging. We should indeed coordinate the two better, so as not to add info to one which is really about the other. Spute 20:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

When I have finished updating the bra article, I might turn to that! As long as the links are clear, so that the reader can draw an argument from one to clarify the other.

Mgoodyear 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the breast maturation referred does not have much to do with the Tanner stages. However since it has been raised, I added it to the general links Mgoodyear 04:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Size, shape, etc.

I've had a go at a tidy up of this section. I thought a bit of rearrangement of the text was in order, since the section had expanded so much. I've tried to make things more logical, but if anyone's got any better ideas, please improve it. One loss is the gallery of breasts in a column. It was me who introduced that, but i'm not convinced it was useful with the current pictures. It was intended to illustrate diversity, but never really had the required full range of sizes, ages and skin tones to do that on its own. Perhaps it makes more sense to put examples spread throughout the text as i've tried to do now? Spute^Talk 22:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not a huge fan of illustrations in an encyclopaedia, unless they really add a lot, or say something that cannot be be easily explained in words. With an online version, it is easy to link to places where are such photographs such as 007 or Encuesta.

When you change subject headings or subsume text into another section, links from other topics - in this case brassiere, no longer work! I had not objected to text being shifted here from there because I could create that link!

Mgoodyear 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My sincere apologies about changing the headings without considering links, i hadn't appreciated that you'd linked to individual headings. I'd offer to fix it, but i'm guessing you already have. Sorry about that.

As for the question of pics, i think that the inclusion of photos and other illustrations within article pages is crucial, and is an important part of how wikipedia works. Sites like 007 are clearly biased, and it is not sufficient to link to such places. Good, non-copyrighted pictures need to be presented in context, from a neutral point of view, and the best way to do that, it seems to me, is the obvious, established way, from within wikipedia itself. Spute 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pics

Why is the featured pic a PREGNANT woman's breast? Is this the article on lactation? How stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.194.114.227 (talk • contribs) .

The featured pic was decided on after a long debate, and just happens to be the best picture we were aware of. The caption states that the breasts belong to a pregnant woman because the woman was indeed pregnant when the photo was taken, so the caption just adds some info. If anyone (perhaps the person who posted above?) has a better intro pic, please suggest it here. Spute 21:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As the person who originally added the image (at least, I'm pretty sure I was), I wasn't even aware at the time that the woman was pregnant; no one was. A more sharp-eyed editor than I noticed what he felt were signs of it in the appearance of the breasts (perhaps am OB/GYN?), and so we contacted the original creator of the image at flickr, and he confirmed that the model was pregnant at the time, so we added the note for completeness's sake. It really doesn't make a lick of difference to anyone (that I'm aware of) that the woman is pregnant; it's not particularly visible. The only reason I seized upon the image originally was that it was high-quality, well-focused, showed extremely good detail on the nipple, and above all, was tasteful. I think this last quality is the reason the image has kept the top spot for so long. It walks the tightrope between those who want the images here to be very sexless and clinical, and those who want them to look like something out of a porno. This one is neither. Kasreyn 06:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This photo does not appear realistic - it does look like a 'model' with fake boobs, imho. No, it isn't porno, but it still is not encyclopedic. Again, look at penis. Is there any reason this article needs a lead photo, where that one does not? That one has an anatomical model, and then futher in the content of the article, images that represent what is in the discussion.Jance 06:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction picture

I have found a far better introduction photo for this page. After reffering to the picture in question, if you believe it should not take the place of the original photo, I suggest .....you consult a local physician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by THEBLITZ1 (talk • contribs) .

Another suggestion

Hello all! I don't normaly edit anatomy articles and, after browsing through the article, I came up with a new section. I propose a section about the inclusion of breast physics in video games. It could sight how breasts went from the "mono-boob" to the independantly moving breasts today. It could be a type of pop-culture section on the article. I even found an article on another site about the history of breast physics. As a gamer, it is obvious to see that moving boobs in games nowadays are important to some gamers. Plus, with the way games are going now, pretty soon it seems like breasts will become their own character. Anyway, I won't add anything to the article without any feedback and will draft up a section in my sandbox. I really think that a more non-medical look at how breasts are seen in the world would be good for the article. So, if anyone else has an opinion on my idea, I'd like to hear it. Thank you. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this article looks very good as it is. The article is informative, and tasteful. The editors have done a good job here! Jance 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not the most prolific contributor to this article, but I think I can speak for the others when I say, thanks for the compliment.  :) Kasreyn 23:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

surgery of the breast

A contemporary position of the surgical community re. breast surgery in teens was added to the end of this paragraph. Not much exciting or controversial. Extraneous commen re. silicone neuteredDroliver 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not a contemporary position. And, it is contrary to what the FDA in the US recommends. The previous paragraph was sourced and accurate. Dr. Oliver, you really need to stop deleting what other editors write without explanation. Many surgeons do not agree with the 18 year age, and evidently the FDA does not either. You are not the sole arbiter of Wikipedia content on breasts or breast implants.Jance 06:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you will re-read the statement, nothing was mentioned re. silicone and the ASPS position on teen augmentation (echoed by the other professional societies in the world BTW) is linked to. Also keep in mind that it's exactly one nation that has adopted the recomendation on the 22 yo. That's really a subject for other entries which we've both been working on. Please re-read the contribution as it is religiously vanillaDroliver 03:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)