Talk:Breast/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Propriety of Image 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pics

message: 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)
replies: text: You seem, errr, enthusiastic enough to be able to get us some varied pics... Mikkerpikker ... 14:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breasts of The World

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor edits on culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Breasts1 and breasts4 images are missing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[List of Sexual Records]] 

message: 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  or get permission then please do so and replace the photos with better ones.--Clawed 10:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Because they look awful Cuzandor 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  It's not "racially" offensive, maybe offensive but not "racially". Cuzandor 18:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  But they look awful, don't they? Cuzandor 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how either of our personal opinions could possibly matter.  Kasreyn 04:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Racism? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Do you mean the reddish line beneath the breast or the bluish one along its side?  Kasreyn 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's my opinion as well.  Kasreyn 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Superior image 

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

message: 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 , and I'm guessing this refers to the second sentence. The article I added (abstract available at ) 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)
thread_title:  Asymmetry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Religion

message: 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)
replies: text: AFAIC, the breasts do not carry the infants. Their primary goal is for nursing. UBeR 22:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah they're used for nursing and some other things I can't remember.--SUIT42 03:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not the whole infant, just the head, when carried in the arms. Peter Grey 05:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose - minor point 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Brassieres

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  surgery of the breast