# Talk:Bikini

I've got two suggestions. First is that it is, imho, poor practice for the first picture to NOT show the subject of the article. The 1st image here is of a 2-piece, but not a bikini. I don't argue that it might help to show a two piece, although I don't think that's likely but I see very little reason for the image to be so old (1935?? why?) and worse, the publicity photo was most likely passed through the censorship processes of those times. That is, it isn't even representative of what was common in that era. Remove that picture, use the 2nd image for the 1st, and if thought useful, show a more modern 2-piece. As an aside, "primarily worn by women" seems wrong to me - although I guess a male in costume in bikini isn't impossible. I suppose it might be hard to find a source which states it's almost exclusively worn by teenage and adult women. (I'm sure there's some younger girls suited up in them, but it's gotta be quite rare (or am I being parochial?)) Second, it is stated that the two piece was worn in "classical antiquity" - that's a period of 1300 years! Surely Wikipedia can narrow it down more precisely? This article seems besotted with the art of that period which shows women in a top and bottom. I don't understand why. Especially since the article is clear that the roots of the bikini are NOT traced to them. As an aside, the evidence of women wearing 2 pieces of clothing, similar to a two piece, for playing sports that the above mentioned claim apparently comes from is a bit dubious. I doubt anyone would claim that prior to that no women wore breast-supporting clothing tops and underpants? I think it's too much of a stretch to claim any top-and-bottom set of clothing is a "two piece". I'm also a bit bothered by the lack of mention of sunbathing as another common reason women wear bikinis. The well-known uses of bikinis are swimsuits, sunbathing attire, (competitive) body display, and likely (OR) waitresses/servers at various eating and drinking establishments. Is there any reason to not mention that in the lead?  Finally, I also question whether two (?) pieces of material (not necessarily fabric) covering ONLY the areolas qualify for inclusion in the bikini category. They'd be "pasties" as far as I'm concerned. So, citation please. Oh, also, the last picture in the article CLAIMS to show bikini tan lines - it doesn't. That is, the tan lines it shows are indistinguishable from those a lot of 2-piece suits would produce.98.22.50.44 (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I can see how the first image might not be the best there. It doesn't have the shape most people associate with bikinis in the modern day, and it predates the official launch of the bikini. I'll move it to the history section. If the picture of tan lines are consistent with bikini tan lines, it's probably a good enough illustration. The rest of the objections are probably just semantic issues. Several decades after the bikini was released, the definition of the term seems to have broadened. Whether the Roman clothing is really a bikini seems to be in debate, but people casually call them bikinis anyway. "Bikini variant" doesn't seem to have a strict definition that's definitive. Leangle30 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Regarding your second point, that phrasing was added by me two years ago. Although bikinis are marketed to women, anyone can wear one.  It does sound a bit awkward in wording, though.  I'll just take it out.  Useight (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Although men can wear bikinis, it still rare. So, in fact, bikinis are primary (but not exclusivelly) worn by women and girls. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
It seems the approach being taken right now is to just avoid classifying its gender or which gender primarily wears them. Leangle30 (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Current definition is correct. Bikini-style male bathing briefs is common, but wearing ordinary bikinis by men is rare, and bikinis as minimum intended for wearing by women (or girls), or I am wrong and bikinis are for everyone? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Actually, somebody already edited the article to remove any reference to women in the definition. Reading your comment, I'm starting to wonder if Useight's edits were the result of confusion between a "bikini" and bikini-style swim briefs (as far as I know, the latter aren't commonly worn by men in all regions, such as North America).
I'm guessing there's a consensus to edit the definition again to say that they're for women in some way. For those who have never heard of a bikini before, this would help explain why the rest of the article focuses on women. Would there also be a consensus to call them "women's" swimwear? I'm thinking if a man wears a bikini, most people would consider it crossdressing.  Leangle30 (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I think same as You. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
My edits were not the result of confusion.  While marketed to women, bikinis are not for women.  They are for whoever purchases one.  It is a two-piece swimsuit.  Adding pigeon-holed qualifiers is not necessary.  Useight (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah! Vermin Supreme wears a boot on his head, so boots are not footgear! The Russian army uses tampons and sanitary pads as wound care,[1] so calling them feminine hygiene products should also be deleted. Anything can be used for anything, so the half of the Wikipedia that says what something is for should all be deleted! Sing it, brother! --GRuban (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I will not be engaging in a conversation composed of sarcastic Reductio ad absurdum.  Useight (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
No reductio about it. The garment is designed for the female anatomy, in exactly the same way as a boot is designed for the foot, or a tampon is designed for the ... yeah. The fact that one can buy it and use it for something else does not mean that stating its intended purpose is not a crucial part of the article. Arguing otherwise is ... ad absurdum.--GRuban (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Let me be more explicit.  I'm discussing who uses an item.  You, instead, are discussing how the item is used.  I have no interest in such a discussion.  For example, a person can buy a ladder not for climbing but rather for balancing it on their chin as part of a circus act.  Absolutely.  And, in fact, Ladder even says "commonly used for climbing or descending", thus leaving the implication that it could be used for other purposes.  But, again, not my present concern.  Ladders are primarily marketed to men and primarily used by men (admittedly, me saying this is WP:OR, as I have not looked for sources).  Yet I would take issue if Ladder said something the effect of calling ladders "men's construction equipment" or what-have-you.  Bringing it back to this article, I have no problem with it having "commonly worn by women" just how a ladder is "commonly used for climbing or descending".  "Designed for women", like you described it, is also acceptable.  My concern is if there is text that states, explicitly or implicitly, that the item is (or must/should be) used by a specific subset of people.  As the author of WP:LETITGO, I have said my piece, have nothing more to say, and will let other people weigh in so a consensus can form.  Useight (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)