Talk:Breast fetishism/Archive 1

message: "Many adult film and pornography stars have capitalized on this cultural phenomenon by having their breasts enlarged to implausible sizes."
Unless we're talking about Zena Fulsom here, the sizes aren't implausible - the breasts really are that size.
:But not usually on women that thin: what we have in (large) breast fetishism, in the context of Western culture as a whole, is the collision of the matronly paradigm of female beauty (large breasts being indicative of motherhood, increased weight, and the fuller figure) with the modern cult of perpetual nubility (looking teenaged). It's still putatively based in the selection-for-mating theory of attraction, but unites two exemplars from opposite ends of the body-mass index.
:Nuttyskin 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another minor nitpick 

message: Not everyone with a breast fetish prefers large breasts; many prefer them on the smaller side. I've noticed an increasing trend in this direction in the past five or six years. I think something should be mentioned about this. -Branddobbe 04:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's already mentioned and it looks like it was on 20th April so perhaps you missed it. On that note, the article probably should be re-written. At the moment, it goes extensively into large then later mentioned other preferences. It might be better to discuss preferences first then go into the large breast phenomena. Nil Einne 05:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not all large

message: O.K. this must mean, outside of u.s. and japan, there are something more popular than boobie. I love to know what it is. Punani doesnt count as fetish btw.Vapour
:The arse. That is, ass, butt, buttocks, rear, tush, tuchas, hiney, derriere, fesses, culo. Specifically women's buttocks, for although gay and bi men also appreciate them, the most typical taste in masculine rears is the bubble butt, whereas the presence of adipose tissue (or otherwise) makes for a rather more varied distribution table as to taste in feminine booties. In Brazil, the national enthusiasm for as bundas ["ash boondash"] - the truly magnificent Brazilian arse, for which Copacabana is justly famous - is completely and utterly normalised, and even invites comment from that country's most distinguished intellectuals. And they are a huge sucsee with men, and SEX with men!
:Nuttyskin 22:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As the most common sexual fetish[1] among men in American and Japanese culture 

message: I have done some significant reworking of the article including the following:
* I order some content and created separate section. I am not sure the section titles are the best we can come up with.
* I modified some content for accuracy or NPOV. I improved the mention the mention that not all men prefer large breasts and moved it to a more better location. 
* The sentence that described the puffy nipple fetish as somewhat controversial was inaccurate when it seemed to imply that adult puffy nipples where rare. I change to reflect that while not common they is still a significant number of adult puffy nipples out there. I left the claim of it being somewhat controversial though I think this should be sourced as I have not heard much discussion if any regarding controversy over puffy nipple fetishist though I can imagine it could exist.
Some areas for further improvement:
* Some claims in the article could use citations such as linking to surveys showing large breasts as indeed preferred by many men in western countries.
* Info should be added regarding preferences for medium sized breasts and those who have no size preferences (though they may preferring natural breasts over fake.) Added some survey and study results on breasts size preferences would be nice. 
* I think a mention of cleavage fetishism should be added.
* Add a picture representing a common object of breast fetishism such as publicity photo of Pamela Anderson, for example.
--Cab88 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reworked 

message: As was recently linked on digg, keira knightley experienced this first hand. Will that do? --84.144.73.38 15:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for magazine's requiring c-cups 

message: I was rather surprised that an article about breast fetishism made no reference to mammary intercourse, or "tit fucking" as it's often referred to.  Should there be mention of it here?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.208.80 (talk • contribs) 
:It seems like a valuable addition, I see no reason for exculsion. --Daniel Olsen 06:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, that should be included and with pictures. - AbstractClass 16:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammary intercourse? 

message: I'm going to start work on a section delving into the reasons why breast fetishism is so paramount in the particular cultures. It's fairly important to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesimo (talk • contribs) 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section proposal- Why did this develop? 

message: Maybe it is vandalism, but I cannot understand how a list of countries, and bizarrely, the "home counties" (counties around London) can be relevant. EdX20 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic Areas? 

message: May I know why?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TopfreeAction (talk • contribs).
:Please see my other post. --StuffOfInterest 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topfree Action removed...? 

message: This sentence is overly complex... cumbersome too.
:Although it is unusual for heterosexual males in Westernized culture not to consider female breasts as objects of sexual attraction, breast fetishism may be experienced by any member of a society.
Does this topic even deserve its own entry?  Why not include it in the generic "sexual fetishism"?  Isn't attraction to breasts (albeit in Western culture) too commonplace to be called a fetish?
The sentence was my accommodation of the psychological nonsense of the 'breast fetishist' diehards of wikipedia- browse the history of the article to see the previous incredulous exchanges of facts and edits.
...and in answer to your questions-
1)Yes, as a kind of anthropological/consumerist phenomena (see fetish), and consequence of moral relativism. 2)Because it's not a fetish in the clinical sense (see partialism, sexual fetish and paraphilias). 3)The frequency of aesthetic preferences is not an accountable condition for  prescribing the 'fetish' term.
194.112.32.101 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous 

message: I tend to disagree strongly with this article having 0 images. I do however thing we need to choose wisely. My recommendation would be to have an "image morphing" subtopic which mentions the website http://bearchive.com which has been around for 10 years now and relates exactly to this topic. I think we should include two photos 1. And unmorphed photo 2. and morphed photo to show one of the key elements of breast fetishism, the digital manipulation of an image to increase breast size.
Breast Expansion Archive --99.247.65.238 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd take just a few seconds to look, Joie de Vivre has a LOT of edits, VERY frequent edits. I can't think of an image that would really apply to this article at the moment. If you can, feel free to suggest one. I know there's no censorship, but I don't see how pictures of breasts apply to this article. Bassgoonist 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: some like the slightly smaller breast,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.243.41 (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: not to be an ass, but this all reads like a bunch of pseudo-intellectual nonsense to me. seeing breasts sexually violates someone's right to self-realization? we sublimate the urge to see breasts as sexual objects by making a fetish of breasts as sexual objects? supernatural qualities? it's a reaction to feminism? 90% of this article is meaningless babble. --dan 06:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if this were a complex issue, i would agree with you. in my estimation, this article is largely crap. it's asserting things that are either opinion or just make no sense. if you disagree, feel free to cite sources explaining, for example, that "the belief that a sexual desire for women and their breasts needs to be legitimized derives from an unresolved (except for the psychiatric solution) ethical contradiction between the primitive or biological urge to perceive breasts as inherently sexual objects, while realising the urge is against a categorical imperative in which the human right of all individuals to self-realization (e.g. regardless of age, race, physical appearance etc.) will be abused if the urge (itself) is realized. The result of this unresolved contradiction is the sublimation of the biological urge". that is a lot of kant/freudian mishmashed psychobabble. i'm not saying the topic itself is bad, simply that the article is. --dan 02:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If these sentences are self-evidently 'not true' (crap) according to you, then what do you propose as the simplification? Where are your sources for refutation or for contribution? Regardless of that- my problem with this article is that; breasts should not qualify as objects subject to a sexual fetish, because (i) the breasts of human beings are not remote objects like for example "a shoe", breasts are part of the whole monoistic substance that is a "person", and (ii) this wholeness includes the fact that humans are inherently sexual beings, thus invalidating the idea that breasts as objects can be part of a special sexual relationship.194.112.32.101 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably help to introduce some quotes or references from an expert on fetish who could help a general reader understand the difference that makes something a fetish rather than just an interest. Also biological mating information and cultural information showing why there is some logical infatuation with breasts would also help. Benjiboi 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should not wait around in such a state for an "expert on fetish" to come along. Debating every unsourced drool in this article won't lead to a better article. / edg ☺ ★ 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily disagree that everything removed deserved to go including references and wikilink but I'm not in the mood to battle with the two of you so will excuse myself to work on other articles. 13:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've updated the article with sourced information.. to clarify the different concepts and provide reading material for further expansion. I think they answer some of your points.194.112.32.101 19:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd pretty much forgotten about this (just happened to notice an edit to "Talk:Breast fetishism" in "My Contributions", I'm so glad that's public). I just wanted to make clear that I, like Dan, was not concerned about the topic -- I was concerned about the content. Even if it had been free of parenthetical side references and needlessly complex sentence structure, it was uncited, appeared strongly to be original research, and in many cases did not make sense. While I still think the article perhaps strays into unprofessional territory with its oddly specific comments about the US and Turkey, at least it's germane to the topic at hand. Persuter 21:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this serious? 

message: I have removed a particularly dubious piece of text (claiming that enjoyment of breasts by men in the USA is infantile) which had as its only "citation" the same quote repeated. --HarmonicFeather (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added my source for using the statement in the form of a link (see references section), however the details of Haskell's statement needs dates, title of literature or interview etc. Redblueball (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced text 

message: ...are not arbitrarily linked. Could we make sure that the addition of links to pornography subjects, categories, models etc are used with references that explicitly mention a correlation between the attraction for breasts and breast fetishism... this article has a history of unsourced and passionate opinion (understandably). Redblueball (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fetishism and pornography

message: There was a lot added to the article yesterday that seems to be unsourced WP:OR. What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz  20:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the added material also appears in the Spanish version of the article.Ewawer (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I've made some amendments, kept some of the ideas, and left the section on "Specific interests". The section needs condensing, and clarifying, but I think we should at least give some clear examples of types/culture... as your edits already suggest. Redblueball (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a machete was used and not pruning scissors. For example, the pic of the porn actress may be relevant as presenting oneself to pander to the breast fetishists. Furthermore, if it wouldn't be for the breast fetishists, there wouldn't be much pornography around.Ewawer (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some art from the classical era could be considered porn by contemporary standards yet does not have its focus on breasts exclusively. Similarly; in contemporary porn not all porn featuring models with small breasts or large breasts - as in the case of Kelly Madison - is an example of Breast fetishism. Perhaps, the fact that she has large breasts (therefore more apparent) produces thoughts of a fetish for large breasts, but I would not agree that her work is the most refined example to illustrate the article. The article concerning herself mentions Juggs magazine - I think this is worthy of note. In terms of porn models and BF, perhaps the nature of the subject is such that fetish porn is more coherent while the models are producing softcore porn (ie; excluding genital contact) with an explicit reference to breasts as in the case of Danni Ashe or Milena Velba. I've often heard it said that the films of Russ Meyer are concerned with the fetish for large breasts, but I tend to think the films were about other things. Perhaps the point about Meyer is that his films made the interest in large breasts more popular and the exploitation for entertainment more culturally acceptable. However, Danni Ashe, Milena Velba, and the films of Meyer refer to the fetish for large breasts and all the associated clichés of types of movement; bouncing, jiggling, squeezing etc, but the article does not need to exhaustively list every possibility within the popular large breast genre of entertainment, or for that matter the fetish for small breasts, or breasts with big areola, or the puffy genre of entertainment... I think the article should be describing what BF is outside adult entertainment from California, and acute breast worship/devotion (rather than a ordinary appeal), why "bigger" is more popular (is this a kind of modern virtue symptomatic of fetishism?), and whether this fetish is a product of a patriarchal society, and whether non-western culture has its own manifestations. Redblueball (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OR]] 

message: No move Some food for thought: the rationale behind this move request was based on the assumption that breasts are inherently sexual objects, and therefore, attraction to them cannot be described as fetishism. It is arguable that, objectively, breasts are no more sexual objects than feet, hands, or any other body part not directly related to conception, and that in Western society, breasts have been normalized as sexual objects. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: I'm a heterosexual, American woman, married to a man, who has had a breast fetish since elementary school age.  Recently, in my 30s I met a woman age 40, also married to a man, who says she only recently has had a breast fetish, not her whole life.  Both of us seem stimulated by breasts as a visual, and enjoy fantasizing about touching and kissing breasts, as well as having ours touched and kissed.  Viewed as a very sensual experience in a sexually-turned-on way, though recognizing breasts existing for their purpose to nurse babies, as we've both done.  For me, without direct breast stimulation, or watching images of breasts, or men or women fondling women's breasts, I don't get turned on.  Have no idea how this started at a pre-puberty stage in my life.  I believe it is a fetish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahloves2write (talk • contribs) 10:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Females with Breast fetishism 

message: Except for one source that says one gay man views himself as a breast fetishist, we don't have any sources which address the topic. Unless we can find some sources this article should be stubbed.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: This article assumes Elizabeth Gould Davis is an expert. ...I think that speaks for itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.80.201 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth Gould Davis 

message: This article smells of bias and original research right now. I added a section from the article on Cleavage to try to add some neutrality and other viewpoints, but there are still heavy overtones of "what all feminists think" throughout. It also suffers from vague and misleading language ("some authors," "some think," "has been attributed," etc.).
Chaosdrone (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV/Weasel 

message: The Willendorf image should not be used at the top - the Venus of Willendorf and Venus figurines articles discuss contemporary scholarship that proposes that these figurines may have been erotic art - or religious fertility symbols, or simply just stylised self-portraits by women with no mirrors. -- Callinus (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Willendorf

message: Without any caption at all, that picture of a woman's bosom right in the beginning of the article seems to be there for nothing but ogling.191.177.95.237 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to ask Callinus about that. Per the Willendorf section above, he's the one who changed the lead image. Well, after I reverted an IP who changed it. Anyway, per WP:Pertinence, editors should keep in mind that lead images do not always have to be authentic with regard to what they appear to be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the IP editor. Image is not illustrating anything useful. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  02:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I agree with its removal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncaptioned picture of breasts

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Breast fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927075821/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified