Talk:Cultural history of the buttocks

Buttocks fetishism/Buttocks eroticism

I do not see how moving Buttocks eroticism to Cultural history of the buttocks is "more accurate." The article is about sexualization of the buttocks, and so naming it that would have been a better move. User:Handcuffed likely should have left it titled Buttocks fetishism. His reason for moving it from that was that the article "[c]onstitutes such a widespread phenomenon that it's not necessarily a 'fetish.'" But if one looks at the dab page for fetish, it currently says "Sexual attraction to objects, body parts, or situations not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature," and an attraction to the buttocks has been argued as being not "sexual in nature" (and sometimes as a paraphilia) since the anus is not a sex organ (no matter that it is used as one). However, the dab page points to the Sexual fetishism article for the definition of "fetish" that we are talking about and that article's lead says that "Arousal from a particular body part is classified as partialism." So I don't know how "fetish" is supposed to be defined. What I do know is "Cultural history of the buttocks" is not the right article title for material that is only detailing sexual attraction to the buttocks. I'll ask one or more editors to comment on this. 31.193.138.200 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

31.193.138.200, thanks for the invite. Posting to a wiki project (sexuality, arts, etc.) might get a wider response than posting to specific editors. Also, please be aware that you'll have more credibility as an editor once you set up an account.

The pelvic proportions are sexually dimorphic among humans, so an interest in this feature could be explained as mere heterosexuality (among men, at least). As a result, I wouldn't consider it a fetish, and so support the first move. Regarding the second move, is this going to develop into an article mainly about art, mainly about eroticism, or somewhere in between? There isn't a wrong answer to this. If somewhere in between, we should try to think of a title that is somewhere in between too. Aligning the page with the appropriate wikiproject also wouldn't hurt, assuming there is a consensus regarding which wikiproject that would be. (Multiple projects is also an option.)BitterGrey (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I was unsure about what to title this; as you say, "fetish" isn't really accurate, "eroticism" is more relating to art, and "sexualization" (which I had considered, but it seems to be a rare term). I think "cultural history" is the best way to go since much of the cultural history of the buttocks has been related to its sexualization. As well, it leaves room to expand the article, and I was thinking a series of articles on the cultural history of body parts would be interesting. Handcuffed (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have broached this subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, but it's not a high-traffic project and requests there for editors to comment in a discussion are usually ignored. Moving on: BitterGrey, though I'm sure that you are not, I have to ask are you suggesting that attraction to the buttocks is something only found in males? Or just that the aspect of pelvic proportions is something that may have been passed down in men as part of the evolutionary reproductive process (something to make men more appealing to women)? And, to the both of you, regarding "fetish," it actually is an accurate description of this topic when going by reliable sources that define "fetish" to mean a sexual attraction/arousal to/by a body part. Partialism is just an aspect of "fetish," so seeing the Fetishism section at the end of this article describing a "buttocks fetish or buttocks partialism" as "a condition wherein the buttocks becomes a focus of sexual attention"...when this entire article is about focusing sexual attention on the buttocks...is odd. That section also says that "Pygophilia refers to sexual arousal caused by the buttocks," as though sexual attraction is all that different from sexual arousal in this case (or usually that different anyway), and when it's just an alternate name for buttocks fetishism. All of the similar articles - Anal eroticism, Breast fetishism, Foot fetishism, Underwear fetishism, etc. - are all titled "fetishism" or "eroticism." I'm mainly asking, "Why should this article be any different?" Looking at sources defining sexual fetishism, it doesn't seem that one has to have an obsession with a body part in order for the attraction to classify as a fetish, although that appears to be the more accurate description of what a fetish is. And, yes, having an obsession with a body part can be classified as a paraphilia, but not all fetishes are paraphilias, and some normal attractions to body parts (the breasts or buttocks, for example) are only classified as paraphilias if they cause "significant psychosocial distress for the person or ha[ve] detrimental effects on important areas of their life."

As an aside, I also don't see how "eroticism" relates more to art. 31.193.139.40 (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any signs of unwillingness to discuss better title ideas, but can't think of any at the moment myself. As for partialism, the DSM groups it as "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified (302.9). This means that, at least according to the APA, it and fetishism (302.81) are separate.

While paraphilias are more common in men, I don't see why a non-paraphilic attraction to male rears would be absent among some or many heterosexual women. BitterGrey (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, my previous comments in this discussion were noting the popular definition of "fetish," which includes body parts, because, like you say, Bittergrey, the DSM-IV-TR distinguishes fetishism from partialism. And so does the ICD-10. Looking at the Sexual fetishism#Diagnosis section, it says "Furthermore, it must be noted that according to the ICD, an addiction to specific parts or features of the human body and even 'inanimate' parts of corpses, under no circumstances are fetishism, even though some of them may be forms of paraphilia. And "According to the DSM-IV-TR, fetishism is the use of nonliving objects as a stimulus to achieve sexual arousal or satisfaction. (This only applies if the objects are not specifically designed for sexual stimulation (e.g., a vibrator)."

So then I ask why do we have all these articles about body parts with the word "fetishism" in their titles? Is it because the term "fetishism" has generally come to include body parts? Or is it that "fetish" is somehow a little more distinct than "fetishism," but the terms are almost always used interchangeably? The matter was briefly discused at Talk:Sexual fetishism#Semi protected and definition. To be clear, for these articles, it's okay to mention that fetishism commonly refers to an attraction to body parts, but, per WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions, we shouldn't have the article titles include the word "fetishism" when the medical sources say that they are not fetishism. Based on the authoritative medical sources distinguishing fetishism from partialism, all these articles should have the word "partialism" in place of "fetishism" (or even "eroticism"). This article should be titled Buttocks partialism, like it once was. Turns out that Handcuffed was also the one to move it from that title to its fetishism title.[1] We can debate if a sexual attraction to/arousal by the buttocks is fetishism, but it can't be debated that it's partialism. The high-quality medicals sources call it partialism. And, remember, partialism is not always a paraphilia. One thing I want to point out (mentioned in the linked discussion on the sexual fetishism article), however, is that the DSM-5 proposal for Fetishistic Disorder does not distinguish between fetishism and partialism. Criterion A says: Over a period of at least six months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from either the use of non-living objects or a highly specific focus on non-genital body part(s), as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors. 31.193.132.76 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that this article has information relating to the buttocks in culture outside of partialism; for example, "In Japan, large buttocks are considered vulgar". I think a lot more could be added to this end; for example, history on Saartjie Baartman. As well, I don't think partialism nor fetish is the right term for the almost universal sexualization of the buttocks that occurs in so many cultures. Similarly, I don't think "breast fetishism" is an apt term for the societal obsession with women's breasts. These words describe individual conditions, and I think using them to characterize a much larger phenomenon is incorrect. A fetish is when a person is, say, obsessed with feet to the point where they require them to get off; this is something different.

If you really want it moved, you could always hold it to a vote at WP:RM. Handcuffed (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for the late reply. I've been preoccupied with a situation in my personal life and somewhat on Wikipedia, brought on by an ordeal that has concerned my sibling's Wikipedia account. From what you're saying, I understand that you want this article to be about the general attraction (and related non-attraction) to the buttocks, how, in most societies, people are generally sexually attracted to the buttocks, instead of only being about a sexual interest with an exclusive focus on the buttocks. In that respect, as broached before, your Buttocks eroticism title fits better than the current title. Another thing is that going by the first two medical definitions of fetishism listed higher, your definition of "fetish" is wrong. Even if we go by the popular definition of "fetish," your definition is half wrong because people who say they have a fetish for something don't usually need that something to "get off." For them, it's just a part of the body that they favor more than other body parts. Some sources describe fetish to include sexual attraction to body parts period, whether a primary focus of sexual attraction or not. The way you are describing fetish is the disorder definition of partialism, and I've said before that partialism and fetishism don't have to mean "disorder." There are critera for these things to be considered disorders.

I'm not going to press any further for this article to have the word partialism in its title, since it is about more than favoring the buttocks over other body parts, but I still say that your current title is not the best. I may take you up on your offer to try and have it moved by community consensus, but that will have to wait. In the meantime, for the part in the Fetishism section that says a "buttocks fetish or buttocks partialism" is "a condition wherein the buttocks becomes a focus of sexual attention," I'm going to change "focus" to "primary focus" because, as pointed out before, this whole article is about the buttocks being the focus of sexual attention. 31.193.139.40 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Illustrations

Just wanted to say "Yeah!" for including photos of both genders. I see a lot of aversion to male nudity on Wikipedia and I'm glad to see this article overcame that negativity. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sexualization of the buttocks

"Sexualization of the buttocks has occurred throughout history, especially of the female gender."

To me this reads as a nonsense statement. The buttocks clearly had an attractant function in mating from the beginning of the human species and before, in related primates. So, to speak of "sexualization" as some kind of ongoing social process is to use meaningless jargon to describe a non-existent process. And "throughout history"...! The fact of the buttocks as sexual attractant was there well into pre-history. Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get into the theory of evolution here, but you would have to voice your disagreement with the one who wrote the book (Cultural Encyclopedia of the Body) that is the source given for the sentence -- that is if it actually does come from the book. I did a search at the google books listing for it, and I couldn't find it. The part that I have a problem with is "female gender". Female is the sex; the gender is feminine -- and that's how it's worded in the book. So, that's what I'm going to change. How about changing it to: "Sexualization of the buttocks has occurred since the beginning of the history of mankind, especially of the feminine gender."? --Musdan77 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly alright to include this in the article as a quotation, properly cited, but it is entirely unsuitable as the lede for the reasons given, not to mention that a quotation, especially an uncredited one, would always be unsuitable for that purpose. Heavenlyblue (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not a quotation. Not only couldn't I find it verbatim in the book, I couldn't even find it as a paraphrase. That's why I offered a rewording suggestion. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sexualization does occur as an ongoing social process and the meaning, content context and cnceptualization of the eroticism of even an evidently sexual part of the body is not the same in each culture or historical period

Completely agree with heavenlyblue. The first paragraph fails to deliver the right message and the overall article lacks crucial information that is necessary to understand the topic throughly; maybe not because the first statement isn't accurate, but because it has no ground for mention. Not only are you centering the topic towards one particular sex (when it has an evident sexual significance for both sexes) right from the beginning, but you're completely undermining the whole nature of the topic itself. An useless and incoherent statement if presented as the opening of an article. The part where they speak of the male gender lacks proper reference (Particularly the part where it mentions "many women" —for what reason? how? —, the word "many" is unfortunately unclear and the Homosexuality reference gives a whole ground of discussion and explanation) and its shortness is almost hilarious, not surprisingly since the opening statement. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Some problems with this article

1. The gif in the history section appears more pornographic than informative.
2. This article is skewered far too heavily towards the male perspective, the sexualization of men's buttocks by women is dismissed of in a single uncited clause: "men's buttocks are considered erogenous by many women"
3. The following passage: "[the male buttocks is] eroticized in gay male circles. Much of gay male sexuality centres on anal intercourse and penetration, so the buttocks are eroticized in that sector due to their proximity to the anus and the genitals." is moderately offensive and jarringly clinical.
4. The discussion of race in the pornography section is inappropriate, although a discussion of race is necessary on this topic.

Anyway, I think I'm going to address these problems at a later date, I hope to bring this article up to GA status (which will be a very uphill battle to fight), but the societal ramifications of this topic are numerous and important. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Beetlejuicex3 (talk · contribs), your contribution history (the way you edit) is the same as Cali11298's editing style. Throw in the fact that you clearly are not a WP:Newbie, your Beetlejuicex3 account was created hours after Cali11298's latest WP:Sock was caught (documentation here), your need to "bring this article up to GA status," then it's even likelier that you are Cali11298. Cali11298 has recently been WP:GA-focused. After recently getting caught, with the combined efforts of Yunshui, JzG (Guy) and myself, do you think it's wise to show up at a sexual topic...if you are Cali11298? You know that I edit sexual topics. Do you think it's wise to edit just like Cali11298 does, if you are Cali11298, considering that I've used that editing style to repeatedly catch him? And if you are going to state that you are not Cali11298, then which previous Wikipedia editor are we to believe you to be? Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 (talk · contribs), I'm very familiar with how Wikipedia works, I used to be very involved with Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Beetlejuicex3 , I only recently started editing on Wikipedia which is why I decided to post in the talk section before making any changes. I don't know what you're talking about with this other person, but there are legitimate problems with this article. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Beetlejuicex3 (talk · contribs), I'll eventually start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation on you since you want to sit here and deny, deny, deny. I am not interested in talking about problems concerning this article when a WP:Sock is essentially staring me in the face. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 (talk · contribs) my wiktionary page was last modified in January 2013. This isn't a sock puppet account. I don't understand why you think it's so hard for a new user to pick up on the jargon and style of wikipedia editors? I am new to wikipedia, that's why I went to the talk page first. Have I done something to offend you? Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary did not give you the Wikipedia skills that you clearly have; Wiktionary is an entirely different form of editing, as compared to Wikipedia. Stop WP:Pinging me. I will take care of you eventually, sooner than later. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What Wikipedia skills do I CLEARLY have? I made a list in a talk page, and then used the visual editor tool to clean up some political articles???? Do you think that takes THAT much skill? My Wiktionary account proves that I'm not a sockpuppet, I've had an account with Wikimedia since 2011. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Beetlejuicex3 Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Popular culture

I am reintstaing the section, much of which is very well sourced. It can probably be edited for stricter pertinance and sourcing in a few cases, but I can't see how the removal of the entire section improves the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Read our policy on Biographies of living persons.. It wasn't "well sourced", in fact most of it are one source mention to tabloid garbage, which Wikipedia is not. Do not readd until BLP is met, which is multiple reliable sources discussing why the person buttocks is notable, NOT tabloids. Prevan (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not a BLP - and sources such as major interviews on Dick Cavett are not tabloid. Remove the tabloid stuff and leave the legtitimately sources info, then! We are supposed to provide info, not censure it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not edit warring to reinstate once a day a large section of an article that has been there for some time, while it is being discussed. It is edit warring to keep removing it without duscussion here. Please stop doing that. You have been told elsewhere that (1) we should discuss this here and let others comment and (2) that the section per se is relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the page for a week. The song list seems kind of dumb, but I don't care about it because it was not a BLP violation for Kleuske to re-add it. It's inclusion/removal from the article is subject to normal discussion here on talk page. But I cannot believe that anyone thinks a "the following celebrities have had their butts mentioned in the media" section belongs in any article on WP. Ridiculous. This list has zero benefit in explaining "the cultural history of the buttocks". Unreferenced names clearly, unambiguously violate BLP, and reinstatement is probably blockable. But even referenced names are undue weight given to primarily sleazy tabloids, which is also a BLP violation. Also very poor article writing. I also cannot believe someone said above BLP doesn't apply to non-biographical articles. It most certainly does. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed, sort of. Again, a 'buttocks in popular culture'-section is not out of place, but this isn't very informative and oddly lopsided. Popular culture is not restricted to music or the last 50 years. Kleuske (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @SergeWoodzing: and @Prevan: : This is where you chime in. I agree with Floquenbeam that the list is "kinda dumb" (sorry), it's is too lopsided and no improvement. Kleuske (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a list of celebrities who's buttocks have gotten media attention is fully warranted in an article dealing with culture. It is not a question of if something is "dumb" which is a non-empirical question. As the article stands there is reference to the fact that individual's may find buttocks erotic or interesting but there is no reference to collective cultural conversations, popular culture touchstones, or even specific "famous" buttocks. I think this ignores how culture functions today, wherein these celebrity touchstones are the basis of media conversation. The section is warranted though absolutely should be edited and better cited to provide more clarity rather than simply removing it because the topic seems "silly" to an individual editor. It may be "silly" but it is part of our contemporary social world. Furthermore, in this article about culture much of it has been removed and replaced with evolutionary biological theories. This is important but perhaps not comprehensive. (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2017.

I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. So the consensus seems to be the list goes (Floquenbeam and I object, no one is insisting) and a 'buttocks in popular culture'-section is desirable, but (again) a long list of people with nice butts seems a) not terribly informative and b) more or less a random pick. The text deleted did not state who selected it, why it is famous and who thinks it's a nice specimen. It has to be better than that. Merely stating that X, Y and Z have nice butts, doesn't suffice. Kleuske (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That leaves WP:BLP-issues raised by Prevan.

The following sources are used:

1. Riordan, Teresa (26 September 2007). "Oh, That Darling Derrière". Slate. Retrieved 7 August 2011.</ref>
2. Roberts III, Thomas L.; Weinfeld, Adam B.; Bruner, Terrence W.; Nguyen, Karl (2006). ""Universal" and Ethnic Ideals of Beautiful Buttocks are Best Obtained by Autologous Micro Fat Grafting and Liposuction". Clinics in Plastic Surgery. 33 (3): 371–394. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2006.05.001.
3. espn.com
4. Article in Los Angeles Times 2012-04-25
5. Article in the Huffington Post May 7</ref>
6. newnownext.com
7. usmagazine.com
8. usatoday.com
9. newnownext.com
10. mediaite.com (sic)

Are they reliable enough? For instance: Oh, That Darling Derrière (Slate) mentions only "unflattering beach photos of Jennifer Lopez's dimpled posterior" and a slide show (which I can't access for some reason or other). The second is a plastic surgery journal, and I doubt famous butts are extolled upon. The article is behind a paywall, so I can't actually check. The HuffPo article is about a man who's proud of his butt, which was "allegedly voted [...] 'Best Butt On Primetime.'" Christoffer Meloni is sourced as having a nice ass, but whether that's RS is up for debate. At the least, this mention should be in the form "According to X, Y has the nicest butt in baseball"

The section, as it was, had not so much a WP:BLP-issue, having a nice butt is hardly contentious, but a WP:V and WP:RS issue. Most of the famous posteriors mentioned are completely unsouced (Coco Chanel, for one) and that makes the section an "anybody's pick"-list. I am against reinstating the paragraph as it was. I am not opposed to a section on popular culture, but it has to be better than that. Kleuske (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

On this point I agree- we should remove any celebrity without a proper citation, without citations from reputable sources, and with citations that do not prove "notability." To be clear, "notability" does not mean they are "nice butts." That evaluation is entirely subjective and wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The burden of proof is on whether or not they are publicly noted in culture. Sources such as ESPN, US Magazine, Slate, and Huffington Post are very mainstream, not niche blogs, and indicative of "notability" by the definition that "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources). They contend only that these buttocks are notable, not "nice." If the "notability" of celebrity buttocks are acknowledged on well-established and cited media sources that is probably indicative that they are part of "culture" in a meaningful sense. This is being contested by editors on the basis of: "is this too silly to write about?" "are these buttocks really that nice?" "Is ESPN a sleazy tabloid?" I think this is unfair and perhaps due to personal views on the meaningfulness of this cultural subject. If a source such as Huffington Post is seen as unreliable in regards to cultural conversations we would have to reevaluate many articles on this basis and I have serious concerns about what is considered proper burden of proof within this article. --User:joem1011 (I am editing this to note this comment was added 20:10, 30 March 2017)

To be clear, my own opinion is that it is not really OK to list any specific person, regardless of the quality of the source, under a description "The buttocks of many celebrities have become famous, including:". It's demeaning to a living person, while providing no actual encyclopedic benefit to the reader. Knowing that readers of ESPN Magazine think Celebrity X has a nice ass is not useful info. I've asked at the BLP noticeboard if I'm off base here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think we need this type of list, as it has very much potential of being a gossipy BLP issue. Trying to get an idea, I google news searched on Kim Karadashian (probably the most famous example of late) and a lot of it is around plastic surgery or if it is fake or real, etc., none of which I would consider acceptable for an encyclopedia, even if it reading en masse across a lot of sources. It very much gets into gossip all over the place. On individual celeb pages, there might be reason to discuss it (particularly if the celeb has talked directly about the situation), but we shouldn't force a list on this page just because we seem to have sources. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps then it is more helpful to discuss celebrities in other ways that could at least acknowledge this phenomena of "famous buttocks" is happening. For example, the article on [2] could be referenced. Similar types of information exists. I think, as it stands, there is not enough indication that this type of discussion around celebrities is even happening. I think this is a weakness of this article. I think it is important for an encyclopedia on "culture" to include information on this subject matter. I do not know how you presented this list to the BLP so I cannot speak to it. I clarify, once again, we are proving "notability" in the sense of whether or not it has significant coverage- which is a neutral observation and not inherently "demeaning." (talk) 7:51, 5 April 2017 (UST)

Personal opinions, rather than well sourced, in some cases very highly publicized, information, and a subject overly sensitive to some, has led to considerable censorship in this article. That is not (not) what we are supposed to be doing here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Pornography section

This section desperately needs expanding. The first sentence states that buttocks are emphasized in porn. This is followed by one more sentence about stereotypes of black women. One does not necessarily lead to only the other and unless we want to leave the reader thinking that all porn only features black women, more needs to be said. It goes from the general to the very specific and more examples need to be brought in. I have no idea where to find sources on this but if someone is more involved in this area (ahem) then perhaps they could add more or at least provide some sources to move forward. I came here as a reader (following a BLP noticeboard post) and found that section jarring. freshacconci (✉) 14:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"Ass man" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ass man. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 21#Ass man until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Failed to provide a complete general view towards the topic

Starting with the first paragraph, the article lacks a great deal of information and perspective. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Main illustration problems

The main illustration has no cultural significance and no informative significance. A random picture that says absolutely nothing and seems rather erotic. The article suggests a great development of the topic throughout history and culture, and yet fails to deliver a proper image to the reader when it has supposedly so much representation. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please fel free to suggest an improvement. This has been fixed some time ago. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Funny, because I don't see images of the posterior as "erotic". Perhaps this is an issue with your cultural perception? Next thing you know, you'll want to put pants on piano legs. There's no end to it. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Your sarcasm and personal slurs are objectionable. Stick to topic: lay off getting nasty. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I can see how you view it that way, but it was intended as humor. I am frustrated by the poor quality of this article. I am currently writing about cultural history in an altogether different topic, but I came here to see how others wrote about it. I am very disappointed. This article primarily focuses on sexual fetishism and evolutionary theories while neglecting and relegating the majority of the cultural history to passing mention. This is a pretty bad take. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Not about cultural history

Looking deeper at the page history, I see that indeed, this is not an article about cultural history, it's an article about buttocks eroticization and fetishism. It's quite dishonest to present this topic in a way that it isn't written simply by changing the title. Looking even closer at the sources, I am unable to find the material that is claimed. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In these mnatters I can agree with you. Perhaps you'll be able to rewrite it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Most of the editors who were highly active in the area of sexuality are no longer active. Given that we have multiple topics at work here, I am not sure how to proceed. Generally when I run into a problem like this, I like to have the input of relevant experts for consultation. My first thought is that we are dealing with the primary topic of pygophilia, and I'm fairly convinced that's what the page history shows prior to the article title move. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Helen B. Fisher

Biological anthropologist Helen B. Fisher said that "perhaps, the fleshy, rounded buttocks attracted males during rear-entry intercourse".

Talk about bad quoting. That is not what Fisher wrote. In context, on pp. 95-96, Fisher is writing about breasts, not buttocks, and she's musing, not citing any known facts. She writes, "Perhaps the breasts mimic the fleshy, rounded buttocks that attracted males during rear-entry intercourse."[3] In fact, the person who added the changed quote to the article ignores Fisher's overarching point: "Big breasts and buttocks appear superfluous". At this point, I think it's safe to say that nothing in this article is accurate, not even the title, and should either be redirected or deleted. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That "the breasts mimic the fleshy, rounded buttocks that attracted males during rear-entry intercourse" is surely the standard view in the field, and has been for a very long time. Quite how one would obtain "known facts" on the point I don't know. Proposals for an experimental protocol on a postcard please.... So your conclusion seems unsafe. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Uh, "voluptuous"?

"In humans, females generally have more round and voluptuous buttocks, caused by..." we should have page numbers in the source citation so we can check if that whole paragraph is legitimately sourced and if the author really used horny words like "voluptuous". SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)