Talk:Breast/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

WTF?

When did wikipedia turn into a porn site? Seriously if I was looking this up for health at school I would be suspended or something.

Wikipedia IS NOT A PORN SITE. this is just the womans.....breasts. if you think if its bad, then why are you even looking at this artical? :O

I think your teachers would understand that an article about breasts has pictures of them.

Qtoktok 21:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats with people being so immature about this? It's a part of the human anatomy, it's not "porn". People get so outraged when the slightest bit of nudity is exposed these days, even in a proper context.

I'd have gone with a single drawing. I wouldn't want a librarian or teacher seeing me reading a page with a gaggle of breasts on it either. -Barry- 05:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree! A underaged child can look upon this article and witness pornography! THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE MARKED WITH A RATING SAYING THAT CHILDREN UNDER 18 ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR VIEW!

I really hope you're kidding, as or you just made me roll my eyes as far back as they go.

Get a hold of yourself. This is a Wikipedia breasts article. If a picture of breasts is going to be shown anywhere, it’s going to be shown here. They are as human and as natural as anything else and should be displayed openly (On the site) to educate.

[sarcasm]It's pornography! The nipples should have black bars over them in case kids under 18 accidently see them and get traumatised.[/sarcasm]

This is very strange to me. From my cultural/social point of view, I'm astonished you find these images "disturbing". I just don't understand it,what could possibly be wrong with these images?

You should know full well there are websites out there that show material hundreds of times worse then this without any warnings at all…

Somebody cite the wikipedia policy that renders this complaint nonsense, I can't remember what it is.--Hawkian 04:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT. Kasreyn 09:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm speechless that not only this came up, but that the picture was removed because of it.

Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. The images serve to illustrate the article. I have re-inserted them. Period. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 16:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice boobs dude, who are they belong to? 0.0 (I bet everyone here are men.)

The picture has a little watermark on it and seems to be an ad, and besides that there appear to be zits on the tits. I'd advise finding a better pic.

Which image are you talking about? I don't see one which looks that way in the article. Kasreyn 23:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought for a picture to be pornograhic in nature, they have to be sexually explicitm these pictures of breasts are simply showing part of the human anotomy, with no sexual conatations (that I can see). I don't think it would be inappropriate for a minor to see them,

Actually, there are no concrete ie., objective definitions of pornography or obscenity that I am aware of. They are entirely subjective and based on local community standards, which is why it is entirely unacceptable to censor Wikipedia based on them. This is an encyclopedia for the whole world and can't pander to local tastes.

Though I have to say, this is my favorite definition of pornography:

"Pornography: Name given to any sexual literature someone is trying to suppress. Most normal people enjoy looking at sex books and reading sex fantasies, which is why abnormal people have to spend so much time and money suppressing them." -Alex Comfort, "The Joy of Sex".

Kasreyn 14:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry If I'm digging up an old topic, but there's 5 picture on this page. Do we really need 5? a couple at max, Wikipedia isn't censored, but nor is it a porn site. Hole in the wall 19:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

People keep coming in here and saying that and none of them ever explain what they mean by it. What do this article's images have to do with pornography? There have been many editors who come to this talk page to complain that not enough variety of different breasts (ie., races, sizes) are displayed. Given the frequency of such comments, I'd say that consensus here leans towards adding more pictures, not removing any. Also, note that Wikipedia is not censored. Kasreyn 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I said Wikipedia wasn't censored. And thats a fair point. Hole in the wall 19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly understand the concern about things like pictures of breasts on a screen while researching at school, etc...
And I certainly agree that people shouldn't be 'surprised' by things like nudity. If a person didn't know what a 'rimjob' was and decided to look it up, or didn't what 'bukkake' was and decided to look that up, it'd definitely be inappropriate to ambush them with graphic illustrations. However, since 'breast' is a part of common english, it isn't like they don't know what they're looking up. And, there is a valid encyclopedic value in depictions that are tastefully done. (as I believe most of the included pictures are)
As for the cluster of several pictures, I understand how one might think it was excessive or unnecessary. However, if this were an article on "automobiles", you'd expect to see a wide array of pictures showing different styles. That is much the case here. I feel it's warranted.
However, I do think that the very first image should probably be removed, as that is redundant with another picture a bit farther down. There's a picture of a pregnant woman's breasts, and then a picture of a woman breastfeeding. The breastfeeding one is topical for "Function", but a pregnant woman's breast is (unless I'm mistaken) similar enough to the breast of a woman who's just given birth that I think it's somewhat redundant. So, personally, I'd suggest removing that first one. (However, since I haven't learned how to deal with images and layout here yet, I won't be doing that myself; so I guess it's up to you whether you choose to accept my suggestion or not) Bladestorm

Repetition / bias

Repetition in the sections on shape/size and function, both of arguments on purpose and about cosmetic surgery. Is cosmetic really so common in 'developed' countries to say that many women undergo surgery? If this statement is made I really think it needs to be backed up with some numbers.

Google Answers thread about how common implantation surgery is:

In America in 2004 there were 264,041 known breast augmentation procedures.

Source: http://www.plasticsurgery.org/public_education/2004Statistics.cfm

Purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a strong evolutionary argument that indeed breasts are used to attract women. Human females have very large breasts relative to other female species including primates. Why are they so large? It is not necessary for feeding. A small breast is as good as a large one. This the only reason for the abnormally large size is to attract men. This is the evolutionary argument and it is fairly strong since human females are very unique in having such large breasts.

Breasts are used to attract women? *laughs* JONJONAUG 19:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'curved breasts to feed flat-faced infants' theory does not explain why human breasts are enlarged permanently and not just during the nursing period. Sensible knave

It would take a more extreme change to make breasts so much larger within nine months. Maybe it's easier to make them that way permanently.

I think larger breasts also allowed our noses to grow longer to warm the air in cold climates and to filter out the dust in the desert, and whatever noses do.

Even in areas where breasts aren't covered, I'm sure men prefer firm breasts and associate saggy ones with malnutrition and old age, and associate small ones with being less feminine. -Barry- 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a theory that during the early development of the human species men sought lactating women for supplemental nourishment during seasonal or winter famine; and that women maintained their milk supply throughout most of their adult lives. Women store fat easier than men, women have slower metabolisms than men, and women can initiate lactation independent of pregnancy or childbirth. This theory embraces the metabolic differences between men and women and gives a lone male hunter a practical survival reason for keeping and protecting a woman in the wilderness. It ties the details of lactation, bonding, fertility, pregnancy, miscarriage, childbirth and infant mortality into the overall survival equation. It promotes the notion that Adult Breastfeeding is a survival tool unique to our species, and is more about survival instincts and male-female bonding than it is about sexual gratification or fetish. It also explains why human females have enlarged breasts, why men are attracted to female breasts, why lactation promotes infertility, why women often have too much milk after childbirth, and why the emotions generated within Adult Nursing Relationships are so powerful. See Milk Fetishism to learn more. Mlklvr 19:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Those silly theories and hipothesies are likely BS. Is "evolution" something like a holy god who decides what to do and why do it? I don't think so and it obviously is not. Cuzandor 21:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

† Actually, that's a pretty accurate description, Cuzandor. Evolution is a pretty powerful thing, if you have the sense enough to believe in it. Nature decides what should stay and what should go, and for whatever reason. Basically, it begins as a mutation that survives, while the inefficient die out, or are replaced by the new. If you graduated high school, you should have learned about natural selection already. While the above theory is a little bit out there, there are societies that are relatively unchanged that have been proven capable of lactating independent of pregnancy, mainly tribes in the Amazon Rainforest, Deep Africa, Indonesia, and New Guinea.

But I do believe that evolution would explain the size and shape of human breasts. There isn't really a need for them to be as large as they are, because small-breasted girls can feed their children just as easily as large-breasted girls, so evolution would be a good explanation. Think about it: humans haven't changed much since we began. We were dumb and superficial then, and we're dumb and superficial now. All Western guys like them big (and no one please start with the statistics, we all know there's a good chance that women had a very big say in them, or they chose against them because of stereotypes about big breasts), and there's no real reason other than that they just look good. If humans did not look good, with how superficial we are, we would have surely had a more difficult time finding mates. Hizrael

Anatomy

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

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

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

Tits

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

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

I think 'tit' is a vulgar variation on the word 'teat'.

There's nothing vulgar about it: it's a completely legitimate word. What you mean is that vulgar people use tits, but that teat is in less frequent use outside of animal husbandry and so more acceptable.

Nuttyskin 03:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished links

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

Interesting that you say that, for my experience (in the UK) is very much the opposite. --Khendon 22:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That IS interesting. Jimaginator 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Think about it- how much more do you hear about Breast cancer than prostate cancer? Qwert11 08:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that you mention it, I do hear more about breast cancer than prostate cancer, but I wonder what the relative percentages of death from the two diseases are. In addition, men can die from breast cancer, but women cannot die from prostate cancer, which could be a factor. Jimaginator 12:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

Please don't revert without discussion. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the size, shape, and composition section, the images should likely be changed to reflect breast size, shape, and have a diagram of the composition. The diagram is shown above, so that's taken care of. The sizes should be illustrated in this section, at the very least.

New Image

File:Fraus breasts.jpg

Breasts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

New vote option...

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

Discussion of full frontal nudity

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

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

Just put in hotter pictures of breasts and we'll all be fine...

Report?

This shouldn't be here, considered pornography, but, it's open, right

Image:Artemis breasts.jpg

This fantastic picture used to be in the article but it seems to have been removed. Anybody know why? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It can now be seen in the Artemis article. Personally I think it fits there better. Can't really see what it has to do with breasts in particular; isn't the statue more about illustrating Artemis than the breasts? -- Jugalator 02:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of Artemis, the Artemis article says the 'multiple rounded chest proturbences' are now known to represent bull testes (I'm assuming they're supposed to represent some kind of fertility talismans or trophies from sacrifced bulls, but that's pure speculation), and the Ishtar and Inanna articles make no references to statues with multiple breasts. The point is that I think the comment about fertility goddesses depicted with numerous breasts should be removed unless someone can come up with an example of a fertility goddess who was actually depicted with numerous breasts.

i don't even know what the heck that's a picture of. this article is about human breasts, and there are far more better pictures than this. Joeyramoney 22:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Studies??!!

Some studies have shown that bare breasts can elicit heightened sexual desires from men and women.

Do we really need to say there are studies? Isn't this common knowledge? Or does it mean something other than the obvious thing it sounds like? Nickptar 21:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

it struck me as quite interesting that they cause arousal in most women. in fact, is there a reference for that? i'm kinda curious. Joeyramoney 22:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to put my body on the line for science, and participate in such a study. Tell me when and where; I'll be there. --RITZ 15:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's great! We could use a volunteer... (kidding):] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Power level (Dragon Ball) (talk • contribs)

Bra "must be worn"???

"In order to support the breasts adequately, a correctly sized bra must be worn" ... The claim that bra-less breasts aren't properly supported should be made if this sentence is to be kept!

Why the 1973 reference?

In the "Size, shape and composition" section, there is the following sentence: In the United States of America, 427,574 such surgeries were performed in 1973[2]. What's so special about this number or this year that we can't mention a more recent statistic? And as an aside, shouldn't the link come after the period? rWd 19:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The figure was added after someone pointed out that a number would help put the sentence about cosmetic surgery in context. As far as i know there's no particular reason for that year, it just happened to be an easily available statistic. What might be best is last year's figure, and say an average annual number for each decade, or which year were there most operations done (is it increasing year on year?)... if anyone has those figures to hand? Spute 21:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't even find 1973 statistics on the linked page. I changed it to:

The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery found that 334,052 breast augmentation procedures were performed in 2004 [3]. Barry 15:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection

I'm unprotecting the article. Nine days is far too long; this article will always attract vandalism, but editors just have to deal with it (except in cases of major surges in anon vandalism). Superm401 - Talk 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the harm in not allowing anon submissions for this article if it is prone to vandalism? SallyB 07:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

03breasts-.jpg removal

Lalalulu, I must say I don't understand why this image was added. I have several objections to it.

• First, it is too large, and breaks up the page.
• Secondly, it wastes space showing the woman's face and lower torso. A horizontally cropped image, like the three images above it, would be more appropriate. Focusing on only the anatomy in question will reduce the possibility of the reader becoming confused.
• Thirdly, it's redundant. We already have several images of breasts. We need to avoid "image creep".
• Fourthly and most importantly, the breasts in that image are fake. This is the article on breasts, not implants. Of course, we could add a section on fake breasts, and that image would be appropriate there (assuming it were also cropped down as detailed in #2 above).

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. If you don't object, I will be removing the image. Thanks, Kasreyn 17:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• 5th, it's obviously a copyrighted image of soft-core pornography, despite Lalalulu's claim that it is released into the public domain. I've gone ahead and removed it.

--71.235.103.52 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Representative images

To add my two cents worth to the image debate... I think the current picture propogates the idea of the existence of 'perfect breasts', which in reality very few women actually have. Don't get me wrong, i think the image on the page is fine for what it's there for, but these perfectly round, perky and relatively small breasts are not representative of the variety of appearances seen in real breasts.

That's why i added a link to www.007b.com, which having been removed twice, i'll give up on - I would agree it is in a way an inherently biased page to link to, but it was the best i could find. Googling for images will always result in a biased sample (mainly of porn and breast enhancement photos), and i feel that Wikipedia is a suitable place to emphasise diversity, and perhaps the best way to do that is by linking an external site.

Maybe the link i chose was not ideal, does anyone know of any others? Spute 22:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You have my vote, I found the link rather informative. Description with each photo explains effects of child birthing on breasts. --Kim Nevelsteen 17:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, as it happens. Informative and not biased towards porn - Pete C ^✍ 18:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Aren't the pics which have been added to show diversity all in the B-C cup size range? They hardly show any variation at all, and as such are fairly pointless to have on this page.

What's needed if this is to have any value is a range from say AA to HH.

The average cup size nowadays is 36C, and at a guess i'd say all those images are smaller than that.

Photo Debate

I think having a single photo is OK, but showing a variety of different types is really too much. It states there are all types and sizes in the article, we do not need to see several of them (which are not all that different anyway).

Disagree. It's good to show the extent of variation, for whatever percentage of the readership doesn't realize it already. ~~ N (t/c) 00:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Kind of agree. Current collection of photos are hardly different from each other. I'd suggest either changing the pics to genuienly show diversity: a range of sizes (and not just 32B-34C, which is hardly a range), shapes, skin colours, or just having one "average" picture at the top of the article. I do think it's important to show variation, but the current pics don't do that, and must be changed. Spute 15:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that, if the intent is show different types, then at least make them different.

I concur as well, but all the pictures that are there now have been submitted by people taking a picture of their own breasts. The question is where are you going to find free images of a diverse set. --None-of-the-Above 05:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The variety of photos is good encyclopedic content. I'd expect it in, say, an encyclopedia of medicine. — Phil Welch 04:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that more people have added pics, there is a good variety - much more so than when i commented above that they all looked the same, Agree with Philwelch that the pics now add encyclopedic value to the page. Spute 07:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I came across this article while in RC patrol reverting vandalism. Beyond of the obvious poor taste of some of these images (that is my POV, anyway), I have placed three of these photos on WP:IFD for various reasons, including copyvio and dubious "self-made" and "PD" tags. You can wait to the decision on the Vote for deletion, if you wish, but I would recommend deletion from the article now. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 03:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Due to potential copyright violations, the images should be removed from the article until the IFD is resolved. Please do not reinsert them. Ingoolemo ^talk 03:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume "PD" means "public domain"? I don't understand on what grounds some of these images are being rejected when they were posted as being released under the GFDL. What would count as evidence for or against them being legitimate? What constitutes the dubiousness of the "self made" and "PD" tags? Seems to me that this will be used, because some people are personally or religiously uncomfortable with them, as a justification for censoring the display of human body parts that would be standard in an encyclopedia or medical book, since surely there are Wikpedia editors who would post "self made" images but not want to identify the subjects or photographers to protect their privacy, and since we can't have existing copyrighted images, then it will be very difficult to post such images. For example, the penis article has two photos of a penis that don't say who took the photos. It's probably the penis of some Wikipedia editor or her/his friend. Should all such images be eliminated because the people don't want to be identified? Seems to me it would make more sense to believe that these are self-made and in the public domain unless someone writes in and demonstrates that they are copies of existing images. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

One image was uploaded by User:SS Goku, and I suspect that the images on ifd were all uploaded by the same people. I consider it reasonable to suspect that SS Goku is the same person as User:Son Goku360, who uploaded three pornographic images which have since been deleted. For this reason, I am less willing than usual to treat the images with good faith. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That's an almost fair reason to dismiss the photo uploaded by User:SS Goku, on the basis of a similar user name (although that could be coincidence, perhaps you have sufficient previous experience of him/her to suspect it's suspicious). This is definitely not a fair reason to delete the other photos though. I agree entirely with Jeremy J. Shapiro, these should be taken as genuine self-made public domain images, unless someone has evidence they're not (i.e. a porn mag with the same pictures in, or similar)? It was me that made the request for a variety of pictures showing different breasts, who is to say that someone didn't just genuinely agree with me, and think that a picture of their own breasts would help?

I also entirely disagree with the point about the "poor taste of some of these images". Why are some of them distasteful and others not? I notice some have been left alone. Is it that small breasts are OK, but large breasts are pornographic? The reason the gerneral consensus on this page is for a variety of images to be shown is precisely to show that breasts, in many sizes, are normal, and i for one admire anyone brave enough to put their own pictures on display - it's understandable that they wish to remain anonymous, and administrators should take into account the context before deleting imagess with very little evidence of copyright violation. Spute 09:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I now agree that the photo uploaded by User:SS Goku is not self made, having done a bit of looking for actual evidence. looking at SS Goku's contributions Special:Contributions&target=SS+goku i note that he/she has also edited pages for a number of porn models, inclusing Milena Velba. By comparing the Image:Breasts14.jpg with this one Image:Mile3.jpg (uploaded by User:SS Goku to the Milena Velba article and this one from an external site [4], it is noticeable that the freckles in the cleavage and veins across the breast are in the same positions. These are the same woman, and as it seems very unlikely (from comments User:SS Goku made when uploading her photo) that he/she knows this woman and 'self-made' pictures of her, it is a copyright violation and should be deleted immediately. I think some evidence should be required before deleting the other pictures though. Spute 11:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note that my point of these images being of poor taste, is my POV. I cannot imagine that in the article about testicles having 5 pictures of man's balls for "comparison" purposes and to show "that man's balls come in many sizes", would be accepted as encyclopedic. The only reason for the inclusion here is because the overwhelming majority of editors are male and WP suffers from a systemic bias in this respect. That has noting to do with religion or frontal nudity (you can check my gallery, I am a digital artist that paints nudes as well) You may agree or disagree with me, but that is not the reason for their deletion. Their deletion is based on coyvios and the vewry likely possibility that these are not "self made" or pd images. Let's remove them, then investigate. You can vote at WP:IFD ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 15:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologise if I'm wrong here, but from what you wrote above it appears that your point of view has to a certain extent prejudiced your decision to delete pictures without evidence.

The breast page as it is currently is not representative of breasts, as it only contains pictures in the approx 32B-34C size range. Very large and very small breasts (that is those outside the range displayed since deletion of the 'suspect' pics) are common, and also look significantly different to the 'average' breasts. The impression that they are freak-ish, 'distasteful' or not worthy of public display is already encouraged in much of the media. Wikipedia, as an educational site, is well placed to dispel these myths, and to present representative images. Encyclopedic content is added by showing diversity, since there is such a range, and not many opportunities to see 'normal' breasts. A google image search for example, will bring up mainly surgically enhanced breasts and pornography. The question of whether several pictures adds to the encyclopedic value of the page has been discussed on this page.

I would also refute any allegations of sexism here. If someone can demonstrate that value is added to the testicles page by having a range of pictures, and a discussion taken up, then i would not stand in their way.

There is proof that User:SS Goku's pictures were copyright violations, and it only took a few minutes to find. Censoring the other pictures on suspicion does not seem to be in any way fair. Can we not simply accept that they are self made images, in the absence of evidence to the contrary? Spute 15:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have already expressed that find these pictures and the way that they are presented, to be of very poor taste. That is my personal opinion. There are ways in which the subject can be pictographycally presented that does not look like porn or demeaning to women. My decision to place these images on IfD is related to the fact that one of them was copyrighted, and another one was uploaded by a user with a history of pornography uploading. We can certainly find images that are within WP guidelines and present them in a manner that is not demeaning. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 17:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that it would be helpful to this discussion and to its practical outcome is if you could articulate more explicitly exactly how you perceive these as porn-like or as demeaning to women. When I first read this article, one of the things that I most liked about it was that these photographs DIDN'T look like pornography, which tend to be super professional looking, retouched photographs of women's breasts, often in a provocative pose or context, OR like medical textbooks, where the photographs look clinical and depersonalized, but rather they looked like regular, realistic, everyday photographs of regular women's breasts in everyday contexts, which don't magnify or cosmeticize them or or glamorize them or portray them as sexual objects but look more like everday snapshots of live women (who are not being provocative). A sure sign that they're not pornographic is that in most pornographic photographs of women's breasts (e.g. Playboy and Penthouse, both of which I have looked at and which for present purposes I'm taking as the cultural norm of pornography) they are both large and "gravity defying", i.e. jutting strait out from the body, whereas the ones displayed here were either small or, if larger, somewhat pendulous. I admit that, precisely because they look so everyday, they're not very good, professional-looking photographs, which is the main thing I like about them because for me that's one of the features that guarantees that they're not pornographic: no pornographer would put out into the world such poor-quality photographs, that just look like everyday snapshots of real women, because there would be no market for them (although I suppose there's SOME market for anything and everything). I haven't talked with many women about this article, but one I did talk with (who hates pornography) didn't mention anything about perceiving pornography in the article. So I don't immediately see the porn or demeaning aspect except for possibly one thing, which that there's a way in which taking any part of a person's body out of the context of the whole body and the whole person that is somewhat depersonalizing, and I'm wondering if that's perhaps the thing that is creating that feeling of "demeaningness" in those who perceive it that way. The only way around that would be to put in photographs of women's entire nude bodies, perhaps with an arrow pointing at their breasts or something like that. And I suppose that would be a reasonable solution as well. Anyway, given that various things are in the eye of the beholder, I do think it would help this discussion if those who perceive the photographs as demeaning or pornographic would explain precisely how and why. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, thank you for your comment and note that I don't disagree with you in principle. In fact, I intend to research some good quality pictures that can present this subject in an elegant and non-demeaning manner. I already found a couple of images in commons that once I crop and color correct them, I will add to the article. It may take a few days. Now, if you really want to know why it is demeaming to women ... ask a women! Show the version with the 5 photos to your mother, sister, wife or daugther and hear what they have to say. Then show them the testicle article. You may be surprised at their comments! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add my $0.02. I'm a gay man, so that might make me somewhat neutral as I have neither a personal nor sensual bias in regard to breasts. I think that the general style of photo in question is a good addition to this article. Obviously, specific ones that are of questionable copyright status should be removed, but I agree that if there's no evidence that a specific photo violates a copyright, it should be kept. I don't think a non-pornographic visual description of the wide variety in shapes and sizes is offensive or demeaning in any way. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a variety of photos would be a good inclusion as it would give a more realistic portrayal of the range of real breasts than most online (usually pornographic) photos do. For the record, I would also support the inclusion of a similar set of photos in the testicle article (which overall is not as long or in-depth as this one), for the same reasons. --Icarus 18:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

An additional reason I think that the inclusion of a range of images of breasts, penises, testicles (I certainly support Icarus3's point about testicles), and the external genitalia of women (i.e. labia and clitoris when visible) is that there are such differences among all of these organs among different people, and many young people, especially in adolescence, tend to be pre-occupied with whether their primary or secondary sexual characteristics are "normal", and they also tend to be oppressed by the social norms and ideals about these things if they differ from the norms or ideals. Having a range of photographs about these body parts could really perform a valuable educational function for young people who consult these articles on Wikipedia, as many are likely to do, by reassuring them that their particular breasts, testicles, etc. are really fine as is. This is also why feminist books about the female body often have a variety of pictures of women's breasts and external genitalia, because women feel under such pressure and oppression by the social ideals and norms about these things. I think that it is a bit harmful and misinforming if Wikipedia has only one or two images of any of these sex-related body parts, since they're bound (especially in an encyclopedia) to suggest implicitly a norm or standard for those parts. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Your argument and Icarus' has made me think about this issue. I agree that a variety of pictures would be a useful addition. I would just offer this: the way that these images were cropped and displayed was what I found demeaning. Not the fact that there were photos of breasts. Maybe it is just only my artistic sensitivities... Nevertheless, I am still looking for good quality images to add to the current two. If you find any PD image, pls let me know. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Added a couple of images I found in commons. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Found this image at commons: media:Wet T-Shirt.jpg that may be suitable for the "cutural status" section. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 04:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the previous photo gallery was demeaning. I also think that we should have a wide variety of breasts. The breasts we have displayed now are rather limited in terms of variation in terms of overall size, shape, and areola size. I can easily imagine some sort of medical book or encyclopedia of human anatomy having a similar gallery. Although perhaps we should (once we have a wide enough variety of images again), set up a separate section of the article for a gallery instead of presenting them inline? — Phil Welch 06:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I am not opposed to a variety of images, jut to the way they were displayed. What is there is what I found in commons. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, for us naturally insensitive people? ~~ N (t/c) 16:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, all of the current and recent ones are white, and we really should have ones representing at least the major racial/ethnic groups. Jeremy J. Shapiro 14:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I could not find any of these in commons or in en.wiki. Maybe looking on the some of the health.gov sites will be necessary. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your recent contributions and flexibility in this discussion. But so far you have not articulated the criterion or principle according to which you are judging certain images to be offensive or inacceptable. What this means is that you are setting up your own personal taste as the arbiter of this issue, which means that you are, perhaps unintentionally, defining yourself as the dictator of this Wikipedia article. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm lecturing you here, but Wikipedia can only work, and we can only make progress on issues, if we can have rational public discussion about the content and style of articles, which means being willing to put forward the principles and reasons for our proposals and action. If one person simply says, "I don't like such-and-such" and won't articulate the principle behind their preference, but continues to edit or revert things based on this preference, discussion can't move forward and progress on the article can't occur, and that person is then making themselves, even if unintentionally, the dictator of that article. And then that leads to "edit wars", repeated reverting of articles, etc. I appreciate your willingness, stated above, to think flexibly about the images, and your statement that the basis for your action is your "artistic sensitivities." But all of us have artistic sensitivities, and clearly they differ among us, and clearly no one of ours can dictate the content of the article and the images displayed in it. I suspect that there is some rational or state-able criterion or principle behind your artistic sensitivities, probably a good one or one that others would either accept or at least be influenced by, and if you would say what it is, we could make progress in coming to a common understanding about the images. Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I will attempt to explain what I mean: the original five pictures were cropped and displayed in such a way as to depict woman's breasts as objects rather that as a part of a human being's anatomy. Look at the painting by Manet. It clearly show breasts on a person. Look at the female torso image, that works well too. Nevertheless, this is only my very subjective POV, and should not dictate how the article should look by any means. So go ahead, and find other images that may be suitable and are not copyvios. I have done as much as I could already. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 16:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There should obviously be at least one image of a full torso & head (if not body), but this is not an article on the female form. It's about breasts. It should show a variety of different breasts, and to insist on showing the whole upper body while doing so would take up an inordinate amount of space. ~~ N (t/c) 18:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I have done as much as I could with this article, that I came across by chance while reverting vandalims. I leave the article in the capable hands of editors that have created and maintanted it before me. If you ever need my assistance in color correcting, cropping and positioning the images you find so that they all look better together, please drop me a line on my talk page. Thank you for your patience with me and my POV≈ jossi fresco ≈ 18:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Jossifresco, I found your point about whether breasts should be shown in the context of the body that they're part of to be a very helpful and clarifying contribution to the discussion. Should help with our getting clear about the criteria we are or should use (as in N's point). Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Having followed the discussion on this talk page and taken it quite seriously, I have uploaded a new version of an earlier photo that shows breasts with a wider view of the person's body, which should remove the aspect perceived by some as demeaning, and added it to the page -- I believe that it adds genuinely to the range of variation. I cannot identify the subject (or photographer) to protect her privacy. Because it is a personal photograph, it cannot and will not be found, comb the Net as you will. I don't know what else will count here as evidence of non-copyrighted, non-commercial, and non-pornographic status. Seems to me the burden of proof needs to be on those who claim that it has any of those statuses. DGiovanni 06:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking over the current "Size and shape" section, I just realized that this is one of the few articles on Wikipedia that looks like it's vandalized even when it's not. The breast-insertions to the point of saturation in totally random distributions around the section come across as totally unprofessional and exploitative; most articles demonstrating a series of examples of breast shapes should put them all in a horizontal or vertical line-up (or, if we really want to go all-out with the examples, a gallery in the vein of the one at the bottom of images of Jesus), or would only include one or two images. I'm all for breasts, but making things look properly professional and meaningful is important whenever possible. -Silence 06:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

They were in a straight vertical line until a few weeks ago, then people started futzing around with them for various reasons. I don't think that there's a common sense of what would count as a properly professional design. Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree.I think they should show different breast there so you know different breasts are normal. P.S. Check out my user page please.

Gemini531 02:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Gemini531

Graphic of breast cross section

Image:Breast(mentor10).png has a label "Ducts" which I think should be "mammary gland" or "lobule of mammary gland". I was going to change it, but the image appears to be copyrighted and we can't use it at all. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better graphic? AxelBoldt 18:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The image at the top

While I don't have any problem with the images of nudity, I'm not sure I like the image at the top (Image:Breasts4.jpg). It might fit in with the other variations of breasts later in the article but it feels out of place at the top. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

From past experience, I can tell you that your reaction won't lead anywhere unless you are articulate and explicit about your reactions. This is an area where people's feelings and reactions are so personal and idiosyncratic that unless we have a very articulate discussion, it's impossible to arrive at agreement about anything. so please explain why you feel that it is out of place -- that will move things forward. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's out of place at the top because the breasts are too small and undefined to be used as model female breasts. It would be good as one of a variety of photos to show variation, but not alone to represent female breasts.

Male breasts should be shown on top too, if any are to be shown.

And there are too many photos of similar breasts. Some should be replaced with different looking breasts, or else some should be removed.

-Barry- 21:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Would someone at least swap the picture at the top with either the first or last one under size, shape and composition, and resize them as needed?

-Barry- 20:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Image:Weibliche-brust.jpg might be a little bit better at the top since it is somewhat closer to a hypothetical average. Is it ok if I switch the two? AxelBoldt 22:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's ok with me. I'd do it myself, but I don't know all I have to know about images here yet.

-Barry- 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's OK with me, too. I think that both Image:Weibliche-brust.jpg and Image:Breastsincontext.jpg are in the average B-C range, although it doesn't seem as essential to me as to others that the initial picture be average, since one of the problematic consequences of all such averages is to make non-average people feel weird or abnormal, as someone pointed out much earlier on this page. I do think it's fine to make the change, but I'd like us to do it with awareness. I'm more concerned that so far all of the breasts on view here are white. Jeremy J. Shapiro 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The lack of color/race variation doesn't bother me as much as the lack of male breasts. Breasts aren't limited to protrusions, you know. All men have them. No surgery needed to find them. There must be a ton of public domain pictures of bare chested men.-Barry- 23:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Slang terms

The 'Terminology Section' currently reads

"There are many slang terms for the breasts. The terms boobs, tits, boobies, cans, rack, hooters, knockers, headlights, funbags, milk duds, twins, melons, and jugs are commonly employed, though are generally considered derogatory or vulgar."

I note that Body parts slang has now been deleted, personally i don't see why, particularly when List of sexual slang is still up, but that's a separate discussion. If people want to re-start that article, can i suggest they take up that discussion themselves, rather than adding an endless list of slang terms here.

How about this for the terminolgy section, any way:

"The words 'boobs' and 'tits' are two of the most commonly used English slang terms for a woman's breasts, though a great many more exist. The reasons for using these informal terms are varied, and include euphemism and baby talk used to a feeding infant, as well as derogatory or vulgar comments. Wiktionary has a list of such terms."

That maybe isn't perfect, and i'd welcome any suggestions for how to improve it, but the current section just seems to invite people to pointlessly add to the list, with phrases which seem inappropraite here and would be much more at home at the deleted Body parts slang page or on wiktionary. What do people think? Spute 16:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree both here and with regard to all of the anatomical and sexual articles that generate these never-ending lists of slang words that tend to make the articles seem less like encyclopedia articles and more like opportunities for people to act out a need to rebel against the forces of sexual repression in their own psyches. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How many pictures do you need?

How many pictures of breasts do you need on this page? Are you guys begging fifteen year olds to come here, no pun intended, and jerk off?

We've already had this discussion here, i.e. about the importance of giving a sense of the variety of breast sizes and shapes rather than the impression that there is some normative size or shape of breast. Actually in my personal view even now the article is erring on the side of underrepresenting this variety, but at least we've established the basic idea. And Wikipedia does not have a policy of trying to prevent people from masturbating while reading its articles. Furthermore, a brief search on Google shows that there are over a half million images of breasts on the Web. People looking for them will not be affected by what's in Wikipedia. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what Jeremy J. Shapiro says. If you want pictures of breasts to masturbate to, there's plenty of more suitable sites than wikipedia. In answer to the orginal question - i'd say about five is an appropriate number of pictures. They should however display a much greater range of size, age, ethnicity, etc. than the current 5 images do. I hope someone can add more diverse pictures (not copyright violations). Spute 10:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, whilst there may be justification for having six pairs of breasts up there (and i was one of the main people arguing that point), since there's not such huge diversity, perhaps having such a gallery building up isn't helpful, and maybe it even discourages addition of more diverse pics because there's no room to add any more. Should we remove Image:Breasts4.jpg and Image:Breasts2.jpg? I don't see that the article would lose much, since they're very similar in size/shape/skin colour to other pics on the page. Spute 17:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If I thought there was any chance of the edit sticking, I'd just have one drawing and no photos, but I think there would be more agreement over eliminating either Image:Breasts2.jpg or Image:Weibliche-brust.jpg because they're similar. The problem is that they're both of similarly poor quality and I don't know which one to cut. One has too much shadow and the other is poorly framed. -Barry- 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a shame there isn't a better range of pics to choose from, but i can't agree that one drawing is in any way sufficient. I'd support losing Image:Breasts2.jpg though, on the basis of poor framing and similarity to other pics. Spute 20:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that those of us who work on this page do a little self-psychoanalysis or personal self-reflection with regard to what psychological/emotional/sexual/aesthetic needs, fantasies, and fixations, as well as what personal experiences and beliefs any of us have that affect what photographs are displayed in the article at all and in particular which one is displayed as the lead photo. Because it seems quite interesting and unusual that people keep on changing these photos around. Earlier today Spute changed the lead photo on the grounds that the one he/she put there was more average or typical, whereas I believe that the prior one was more average and typical, based on the data that over the past generation the average female breast size has gone from a B to a C, and the one there now looks like either a B or in-between B and A, whereas the previous one, Breasts1205.jpg, looks to me like a regular C. But I didn't revert it, because I realized that there is something fishy or suspect going on here, I don't mean with Spute particularly, but rather with everyone who changes these pictures around, because I believe that our personal attachments and feelings are affecting our choices here as much as is the encyclopedic part of our minds, and that if I change it or revert it, someone else will come along in two days and revert it or change it to something else. There is a major body of psychological literature that points to breast fixation as the original and primary fixation of the human species, and I suspect that people's personal histories play a big role in what they think should be the photos on Wikipedia. And I'm sure that each of us believes that his/her feelings about the average or normative breast is right, based on some combination of experience, fantasy, and information. So I have two thoughts and suggestions. 1) How about making the experiment of rotating these photographs, e.g. one per week, as an attempt to attend to the full range of beliefs and fantasies that affect this article? 2) People keep on complaining about the poor or limited set of existing photographs. I think that's a simple consequence of the fact that Wikipedia is fairly new and there haven't yet been enough people to volunteer to put into the public domain self-made photographs of breasts and other body parts for use in Wikipedia articles, and I'm sure that eventually there will be. So I think that eventually that problem will take care of ourselves. But in the meantime, we might want to encourage people we know to volunteer such photographs as a contribution to Wikipedia. Clearly some or all of the current photographs were obtained in that way. In conclusion, I just want to say that although I don't think that this Talk page is the place for people to make personal revelations about their sex lives and sexual and body fantasies, I do want to encourage all of us, at the moment we're altering the photographs or the article, to at least, inside ourselves, pay attention to and acknowledge to ourselves what is driving us. Jeremy J. Shapiro 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent points, articulately expressed as usual, Jjshapiro. My moving the pictures round was more so the "C cup" breasts were in the size 'gallery', which prior to that move was all A-B, which made it almost completely pointless. If we actually stop to think sizes, as you did, then considering the full set:

Image:Breasts1.jpg A | Image:Breasts2.jpg A | Image:Breasts4.jpg A/B | Image:Breastsincontext.jpg B | Image:Weibliche-brust.jpg B | Image:Breasts.jpg B | Image:Breasts1205.jpg C

Sorry that's a crude way of putting it, but it shows up the ridiculous fact that Breasts1205.jpg are (probably) the largest breasts of any picture here, when as Jjshapiro points out above they are in fact just about average for the population - I absolutely agree there, and didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It makes sense to me though to put an average for the page pic at the top away from the others, so that real diversity is shown by direct comparison of the adjacent pics in size/etc. (i should perhaps have stated that in my edit summary). Of course if all the pics were representative of the real variation, then the "average", of this article would automatically be the true average.

Good points about our motivation for us all to bear in mind, and i'd support both of your suggestions. Spute 09:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My take on feminism

I changed "furthermore" to "in addition" in the first paragraph, because I felt "furthermore" using an adverb was implying that the usage of "breast" as mammary tissue was gaining its meaning from the tissue's proximity to the ventral torso. Adverbs have a way of linking perception with state. If we actually examine "breast" as well as what we want it to mean, we find that breasts a)hold a position in stimulating people sexually in ways the "ventral torso" does not, and b)the structure of the breast goes beyond simply sitting on the ventral torse, extending peninsulae into the armpits, which anatomically and socially are independent of the ventral torso. Using "in addition" creates a seperate anatomical category for breasts without creating any social problems. I'm still mad about the whole "Tao" thing, but I don't think anyone will argue with my ability to analyze the female form. lol

Get some better examples of breasts

Please... I beg you.

-- I second that!

Define "better", please. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Larger Breasts

I absolutely agree that diversity in pictures is required, but i'm uncertain how we know who owns copyright of these images. If anyone knows these are OK ,then a couple should be added. I'd suggest the pics on breast should be restricted to pre-op natural breasts though, with surgically altered examples on breast augmentation and breast reduction.Spute 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we need pictures of bigger boobs to help illustrate the idea of bigger boobs being a desirable trait in most cultures.

Giving size in top photos

The atypically small breasts are again being used for the top photo and I tried changing the caption to "Smaller than average human female breasts" but it was reverted back to "Human female breasts." Either breasts within one cup size of average should be shown or it should be mentioned that they're not average. I think a b should be shown for sensitivity reasons, but a c would be fine because it's supposedly the new average. An a isn't appropriate without explaining that it's smaller than average or mentioning the cup size in the caption, and if a size is mentioned in the caption that's more than one cup size away from average without explicitly saying it's smaller or larger than average, then a list of cup sizes from smallest to largest should be put in the first paragraph. -Barry- 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as the word "atypical" implies deviation from the norm. A B-cup does not define the norm, it's the average. If you were to look at the tag of every woman's bra walking down a busy street right now, you wouldn't find that the majority have B-cups. Rather, you would find a variety of sizes that fall within the A to D range and occasionally some that fall outside of it. Anywhere from A to D is a normal sized breast. Samantha543 14:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Number of photos?

Are all the photos really necessary? I am by no means prudish or breast-hating, but 8-10 pictures of the subject of any article seems excessive. tregoweth 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out Gray wolf, I'm sure there's 8-10 pictures of gray wolves there. — Phil Welch 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the photos should be a little better organized and more variation, like have breast of OTHER then Caucasian or light skin women!, show a larger range of sizes, etc. maybe some animal breast (udders) while your at it! --BerserkerBen 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to the city Brest

Is it really necessary? Seems kinda silly to me.

Not silly at all - it's a common misspelling, and there are often disambig links to mis-spellings. I'm going ahead and restoring it, as there was never any good reason for removing it. In fact I'm pretty certain that a large percentage of English speakers when looking for a French city named Brest would spell it Breast. ENpeeOHvee 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I certainly don't see the harm in putting in a disambig link. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good one. I remember first hearing (not reading) about this city named Breast; I was probably about 12. If I'd had Wikipedia handy, I'd have gone looking for Breast. (well, I did that anyway, but you know what I mean.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugly Breasts

They shouldnt be showing these ugly ones, they should show jessica Albas one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackietang33 (talk • contribs) .

I don't see what's ugly about the breasts in the images on this article. In fact, there's been some here who have said that we've been giving too much time and attention to breasts conforming to certain common standards of beauty, and not enough attention to their real variety. Remember, an encyclopedia is supposed to report on the world as it really is, not the overly-perfect fake world on television. Additionally, I have a hard time imagining we could find a fair-use image of Ms. Alba's breasts to use here. Furthermore, it wouldn't be good practise anyway, even if we had such a fair-use image; it would be unprofessional and we'd likely get sued. Kasreyn 09:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the breasts at the top of the article look nice, but that's just my opinion. Everyone's got their own preferences. I think to whatever extent possible, the photos of breasts on this page should try to reflect the diversity of human breasts in the world. Different ethnicities, ages, sizes, pregnant and non-pregnant, natural and with implants, etc. Maybe even male breasts...

Anyone can have pictures taken of themselves and upload them to the Wikimedia Commons - and it they release the photos as GFDL then they can be used anywhere appropriate on Wikipedia. You can see what's currently in that category.... ENpeeOHvee 00:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion topic does not deserve comment.--71.225.68.213 02:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins: request protect

Half the edits to the article are anon vandals. The other half are Tawkerbot reverts. Could an admin please protect this page from anon editing for a week or so, long enough for some positive edits to get through? Kasreyn 22:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion. Any admin out there that can help us? SallyB

So done. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you SallyB