I don't like how one has a g-string and the other doesn't. The g-string covers the gluteal cleft. They both should be bare. [[Special:Contributions/69.179.62.189|69.179.62.189]] ([[User talk:69.179.62.189|talk]]) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like how one has a g-string and the other doesn't. The g-string covers the gluteal cleft. They both should be bare. [[Special:Contributions/69.179.62.189|69.179.62.189]] ([[User talk:69.179.62.189|talk]]) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Can you find a suitable photo please, rather than deleting one without replacing it. [[User:Gillyweed|Gillyweed]] ([[User talk:Gillyweed|talk]]) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Can you find a suitable photo please, rather than deleting one without replacing it. [[User:Gillyweed|Gillyweed]] ([[User talk:Gillyweed|talk]]) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The two pics don't pair well when one has a g-string. Mine as well have only one pic then. [[Special:Contributions/69.179.62.189|69.179.62.189]] ([[User talk:69.179.62.189|talk]]) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
== New Picture ==
== New Picture ==
Revision as of 01:06, 21 January 2008
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Buttocks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
While the first picture that appears on this page is of the buttocks, I believe that it is an unnecssary illustration because it is obviously not in place to inform the reader of what the buttocks is.
The story of Sodom has nothing to do with the buttocks so I removed the lines related to it. I also removed the lines about Rome and Greece as they admired what they considered perfect human form both male and female and they did not admire the sexual acts related to the buttocks in any special fashion. - 24.7.186.1819:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the text "However, the wide-spread use troughout time and cultural space, even when the victim is not bared as fetishists generally prefer, tends to point rather to the pragmatical considerations, while some sexual arousal in the inflictor is probably secundary." added on July 5 to the reasons for choosing the buttocks as a target because it should not be there.
Saying that spanking is done out of a sexual fetish is a reason often made by those against spanking for why the rear is chosen as a point of punishment. While I agree with the user who added in the text that it was an unlikely reason, it should not be added to the list of reasons simply because the user did not agree with it.
I also agree with user Cadr's decision to remove the second picture and think the first should probably be changed to one less artistic and more anatomical. 69.3.92.105 8 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
Brazilians' bounty of booty should be noted as should the common (and healthy) marken for ass centric pornography. EG: booty talk
This text discusses corporal punishment in length, evenwhile there is an article for that, in itself. I think the corporal punishment stuff should be moved where it belongs. I would also move it, if it wasn't as extensive a part of the article.
Buttock/ass/whathaveyou has a lot of implications, and there's content to be created of it. However, spanking does not contribute significantly to it. It should be dealt separately, so that I (we) could get around to dealing with the real subject.
Which is nice and fun. ;)
This article is needlessly critical of spanking.
Shouldn't there be a link here to the Gluteus Maximus article? Also, I'm fairly sure the muscle's main purpose is to pull the femur back, as when a person stands up or climbs up, something that is never mentioned here. Not complaining about the social and psychological discussion, though. <:)
Just arrived here, out of sheer prurience, via the Articles_which_lack_sources category. The choice of images seems more than a little sexist. What about examples from anatomy texts or classical art? RayGirvan06:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I like the pictures but to be fair there should be - at least - pictures for both genders. A drawing might be more appropriate for an encyclopedia though. --82.141.48.4 20:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need multiple pictures of guy's asses?! There's one female regular one, but why show the "hairy" male picture as well as the "shaved" picture? Is this gratuitous?!--164.107.92.12002:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wording?
"Early in the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz, Uncle Henry is holding the gate open for Miss Gulch, and at a seemingly appropriate time he lets it go, and it swats the disagreeable old lady in the fanny... emphasized by a musical "thunk" on the soundtrack's underscore."
Although this may be written in US English, I still think that the word "fanny" should probably be changed to somethine like "butt", or even "behind". From the page "Fanny":
" Fanny is also a slang American English word for buttocks and an impolite British English sexual slang word for the female genitalia (perhaps a corruption of the word vagina)."
The first picture isn't even a very good one (no offense to the source). If you're going to have a picture of a butt, it should be just a butt, not a g-string or tatoos etc. If this is inappropriate, go with a drawing or classical depiction. Steve.
Well, as we all know, there are now two pictures of butts in the beginning of the article, one of a man, and one of a woman. However, the picture of the male's butt is colored, but the female butt is black and white. I think, if it can be done, the second picture should be replaced by the same picture, only in color. I'd say that would make it fair, just my two cents.
The male butt in the beginning of the article is (according to the article itself) uncharacteristically hairless. Perhaps it should be replaced with something more representative of the average hairy male butt?
-Anon. March 8 2007
huh?! how are we on the topic of sexism and racism over the issue of butts?!
How come we have a picture of a woman who doesn't even HAVE an ass? She's like the skinniest girl you could possibly find.
New image
I tried to address people's concerns with this photo. It displays different races and both sexes equally. A colour photo is available, but I thought that a black and white one would be more suitable. -4micah23:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, but a B/W photo sort of ruins the idea of including different races in the first place... The color differences get murky... =S 81.232.72.5313:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to me all the butts look the same now. Why are many used in the first place? To be politically correct or because there really is anatomical differences besides the color? I appreciate your effort though, I just question the need for it as for what additional information it gives us, especially in B/W. -- Jugalator22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It gives us no useful information whatsoever. In fact, it may be misleading, since people may attribute the pictures to be indicative of each group of people.
The caption on the Romanian image seems a bit strange as the image is certainly of more than just buttocks. Is that image really a good illustration of buttocks, or just cheesecake? I think we may be showing our systemic bais here. Kaldari21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary Sexual Characteristics
Speaking of the buttocks being "hot", shouldn't there be something about how important the butt is as a secondary sexual characteric? Maybe a link or something. The article does discuss some of the sexual nature of the bum, but it seems like it keeps getting more and more censored. That is, except for that hot picture- NEW JACK 26 Feb 2006
While the buttocks is a sexual attractant for many, it isn't a secondary sexual characteristic. It doesn't change appreciably during puberty and there is nothing to differentiate a male one from a female one.--Lepeu199920:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um. I think there are a lot of butt fans that would disagree. Female butts are a world-of-different from male butts! Zebruh02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The differences are minor and not often apparant when all you're seeing is the butt itself. There was a (since) deleted photo on this article that showed 4 butts, 2 male, 2 female in B&W. They were totally non-descript as to which sex was which. I'm not saying that butts aren't sexy - I believe they are. What I'm saying is they're not a secondary sexual characteristic. Secondary sexual characteristics are not present prior to puberty. Butts are.--Lepeu199919:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but neither are part of the Buttocks per se and are thus beyond the scope of the issue. Butts are sexy in the same way that nice legs are sexy, but neither are secondary sexual characteristics--Lepeu199914:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the buttocks is indeed a secondary sex characteristic. The buttocks of females becomes thicker and fattier following puberty. Also, there is much research to suggest that the padding of the female buttocks developed as a stimulant for males. 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Lepeu1999 is only partially correct; the buttocks are not secondary sexual characteristics per se (both males and females have them, after all). According to the Secondary sex characteristic article, secondary sex characteristics are traits (not having a direct reproductive function) that distinguish the two sexes. In human females, secondary sex characteristics include widened hips and increased fat deposits in the buttocks, thighs and hips. So the differential development (which are "appreciable changes", in females) of these areas during puberty creates secondary sexual characteristics. In other words: butts are indeed sexy, in case anyone wasn't clear on that point. Oh, and by the way "buttocks" is the plural of "buttock". MarkBrooks05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Male buttocks image
Can someone please change the picture of "Male Buttocks"? While it may be a realistic portrayal, it seems rather unsightly.
I fail to see how? Is it just because they are male buttocks, or do you have any suggestion for a better image? 惑乱 分からん12:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's not a good picture. The lighting is not good and it just looks like a polaroid someone took and posted for a thrill. There is already another buttocks picture above it. Finally, yes it's male. The fact is that more people find female buttocks appealing and unoffensive than male buttocks. Also it is fully nude whereas the above isn't. This nudity serves no purpose in this case. Howdybob18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as quality goes, if you have a better picture of nude male buttocks, feel free to use it instead. The picture was taken specifically for use at the German Wikipedia article linked to this one (de:Gesäß), not "for a thrill". The picture above it is of female buttocks, which are quite different from male buttocks. NPOV requires that both sexes be represented. The fact that it is fully nude is a point in its favor: a neutral illustration of any body part must be nude in order to show what the body part actually looks like. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of the guy is OK, it's better than the statue. Not exactly a beautiful photo, but it's neutral, not incredibly in-your-face and sufficient. 惑乱 分からん23:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
all the above arguments pro are true (the lack of Donatello appreciation left aside; still Michelangelo's David is probably impossible to beat) and relevant; the only way to do perhaps functionally better would be to zoom in more closely (even more true for the female one), though the esthetical loss might be greater; historically male nude is actually more accepted; remembering a media controversy concerning (female) modell stereotypes, one might consider deliberately adding less well-formed, boy/girl(ish) buttocks Fastifex09:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader of the male buttock image has replaced it with a newer, lighter, and cleaner image. Angr (t • c) 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep the Michelangelo. The greatest (male) butt of all time is found on Giambologna's "Rape of the Sabine Women," which stands in Florence at the Loggia dei Lanzi near the Palazzio Vecchio. This from a major butt connoisseur. I first heard about it in high school, and have admired it ever since. 66.108.105.2114:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the image of naked male buttocks again. While it may be something most of us don't want to look at, it's no more offensive or less appropriate than the image of naked female buttocks. It seems to run against the NPOV policy to call the male pic offensive and to remove it while leaving the female pic in its place. For the sake of NPOV, i believe both images should stay. Robotman197404:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fistful of Questions, please read this policy. Even if the image of male buttocks was somehow offensive, that would not be a justifiable reason to remove it from the article. I must admit, I don't understand what you mean by "Avoid political correctness", that statement seems to contradict your whole point. Could you clarify that please? I would also like to ask you why you haven't removed the image of female buttocks as well. Both images depict the same amount and style of nudity, yet you find only one of them to be offensive. Can you explain precisely why that is? I will add the image of male buttocks to the article again now. Robotman197405:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of male photo
I am yet to see any explanation as to the removal of the photograph of male buttocks. There have been multiple reverts over the past couple of days, with some people putting it back and others removing it.
I have no strong feeling in either direction about the quality of the photograph, and cannot see any more wrong with this photo than the female one opposite it. The latter is perhaps more controversial, as it has been suggested above that the photo was edited to remove the genitals, resulting in a physically impossible gap between the legs. The angle of the male photo suggests that such editing would not have occurred. I do believe that the male photo is of encyclopedic quality, but I am going to refrain from reverting or adding it back in until the person(s) removing it have had an opportunity to explain their objections.
If no response is forthcoming on this talk page in reasonable time, I will re-insert the image. Any subsequent attempt to remove it from the article without prior discussion on this talk page will be deemed vandalism. --AliceJMarkham05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an attempt at discussion over this issue. That can be read above (about ⅔ down). I have added the image once more, and any further comments I have to make will be made in this section of the talk page. Robotman197406:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I didn't notice that more discussion had been edded to the old section above before starting this new section. I've moved it to be a sub-section. --AliceJMarkham20:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typology Request
Would be there an expert coverage of "Size, shape and composition"? Also concerns of the fashion industry. BTW, the anatomy section is too thin.--Connection21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first photo looks a bit overly photo-touched...also, why the need to change the images so often?
The previous one of the tanned butt was perfect
Biblical buttocks
The inclusion of references of buttocks from the bible is totally innapropiate. Buttocks are mentioned in lots of books and All of these things cannot be listed, thus the most sane alternative is to list none of them. It is an article about the buttocks, not about all of the books buttocks are in. Dean randall09:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As often, the Bible is interesting as a rare source from early time; if you read it attentatively and unprejudiced, you'll find this section is not a cheap attack on religion but no les to the point then any other section Fastifex07:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buttocks are not a subject to which the Bible is relevant (as far as I know :). Should every article contain a list of Biblical and Church Father references to its subject? – Smyth\talk16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's back. Anyway, I think that if this section is in the article then it definitely needs more context. I'm personally an inclusionist (this doesn't mean everyone who uses this university computer is that I'm editing from), but I'm not really sure why the religious references to buttocks? It feels a little odd, and so perhaps needs more context? Best, --164.107.223.21704:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the removal of this picture and am borderline on putting it back, particularly given the profanity in the descripton of the edit where it was removed. If someone has a better picture, by all means put it here. In the meantime, I've moved the male picture to the right side as the page didn't look right as it was. --AliceJMarkham22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most artistic pictures of a butt, more than the sculpture, and should be in the article because of what it says about assthetics.24.154.173.5005:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bring back
Bring back the hot sunbathing image of the girls' buttocks! Its so much better than this guy's ass..eerr I mean, it is so much more in accordance to Wikipedia's goal in representing a variety of butts. .....Please?--67.183.132.4910:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wtf is that hairy man's rear end on there for, that's retarded. useless it looks like this article is a joke Shaddix 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) sorry for not signing i don't know how to use this thing xD Shaddix19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At what point does a topic like this become such a target for vandalism that it ceases to be editable by people without registered accounts? Talshiarr22:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures
Are these actual photographs or edited one or 3D modeled? They look too... perfect to be real. Also the male one seems slightly off (smaller than I would expect), but I haven't looked at too many buttocks so I might just not know. Anyway, if they are edited, I think it should be noted. If not, well, congradulate the respective models on their surprisingly prestine rears. IMFromKathlene03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I wholly agree that the listing of Pop Culture nonsense needed to be trimmed back, was annihilating the entire section necessary? How can anything given as a pop culture reference in any article not be free of such "purges" if everything was deemed useless waste here? Lists of song titles and every obscure film reference are unnecessary but that wasn't all that was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talshiarr (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the pop culture section completely removed? Seemed like the act of a POV-pusher who is opposed to its obscenity and its trying to censor it.
And at the same time, an extremly disgusting and unattractive picture of a male buttocks remains at the top of the article. I find the image visually abrasive, but I keep getting reverted when I try to remove. Please, let's stick with attractive pictures, or not use any at all.Fistful of Questions00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are already sections (above) in this talk page to discuss both of these issues. Please use them rather than starting a new one. --AliceJMarkham01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fistful, their is not one damn thing wrong with the male buttocks photo. The fact is may be unattractive is an opinion not a fact. If it is removed again it will taken as vandalism.Stralia18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. You cannot have 100% subjective opinions. Some images are generally unattractive and offensive, and it would be wrong to tolerate having to look at the image. Others have argued in favor of removing the image before. Fistful of Questions13:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea: Why dont all of you arguing each take a picture of your own ass's. The post them on WIkipedia and then have all editors vote for which one to use. 75.109.100.8618:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. etc. this is not a trolling website. Fistful, I agree that some pictures my not be attractive still this an article about the buttocks and we need a picture of male as well as female. And like stated above male buttocks are not offensive, and if they were that is not grounds to remove the image. Wikipedia is not censored. I agree also that any one who removes it will be be charged with vandalsim. Edge865 [[Proud To Be A Wikipedian]] 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a few changes, mostly in layout. I also removed the following bit of code: <br style="clear:both;"> - I saw no difference to the article once that was removed. If it was needed somehow, can someone please put it back and explain here what it does? Thanks. Robotman197413:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In African culture big bottoms r a sign of beauty, but in Euro culture bottoms the smaller the better until recently, this needs to be added a cultural section. also the sexual relationshop with bottoms from a pycho perspective--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ)01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the cultural perceptions of the buttocks should be included. And while we're on the topic, could that guy's butt be flatter? Goodness, it looks like he sits on his back. Get a pic of a curvy butt please
On the simple english wikpedia, my idiot bruther put wikpedia can F off loads of times on the buttocks article. If any people who work for wikipedia see this, please believe it was my brother. Cros my heart and hope 2 die. I like wikpedia. I'd nver put that rubish on it Thanks.
Female Picture
The photo is representative of a female buttocks. The photo shows the difference between the female buttocks and the male buttocks in regards to shape. This illustrates the differences in bone structure and fat distribution between the male and female. The buttocks is an anatomical part of the human body and the differences between the male and female structure are important in understanding physiology of the human being. For example, wider hips and the corresponding wider buttocks aid in the caring of the fetus during pregnancy; a major biological function for mammals. Although various degrees of hair will surround the buttocks during periods of human development, I do not consider this hair growth as a primary aspect of the buttocks. Talk of buttocks hair should be included in the verbal body only, and we shouldn't be looking for photos which make people confortable about their own buttocks. The male photo is representative of a male buttocks, but does not reflect my exact shape. Please return the female photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.228.124 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get another photo of the Female buttocks. The male buttons is from a normal size male yet the female photo is from a slightly overweight woman so can we have some consistently please? - Mike Beckham04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this picture should be restored because it has attracted popularity elsewhere and is a really artistically pleasing photograph (the other one with the tattoos, not os much). Anyway, check this link to see what I mean: see the pic of the month at this site, which happens to be the image previously on this article! Sleepy best, --164.107.223.21705:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THat image is a good example of butts in media and butts being used in an artistic, touching way. It would be great as a standard image, but her skin colour doesn't seem standard at all. It looks like she is dead JayKeaton10:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed earlier in this talk page, this image has been in and out of this article numerous times in the past and was removed from the article after discussion about the fact that it has been edited to remove the female genitals, which would otherwise be visible part way down the diamond shaped gap at the top of the legs. It may be very artistic but it is not representative of real anatomy and hence does not belong in an article on a human anatomical feature. An unedited version of the same photo may be acceptable. :) --AliceJMarkham13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but we don't need to see female genitals, which are kind of unsightly anyway, in this article, so, even if edited out, not much of a loss . . . --164.107.223.21704:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was meant in a sarcastic way... :) Ontopic, I'd agree with AliceJMarkham. Wikipedia isn't censored so why should this article be? It's not like the absense of genitalia puts extra emphasis on the buttocks displayed, if anything it moves the attention away from the article because something is "missing" which looks odd. FelisLeoTalk!07:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, when you click on the female picture, does it have the title 'ass' and the male picture 'buttocks'? Should there not be consistency between the sexes, or are only women an ass?
It doesn't matter what an image is called, although it is good if it at least describes what the image is of. And it is of an ass. Anyway it looks like finding an original of that photo that hasn't been anatomically edited is impossible, so we might want to start thinking about finding a picture that hasn't been censored, as in a totally new picture to replace that one. We can't just remove parts of her body, it is unnacceptable, it makes the picture unhuman, it is like a fantasy picture of a mutant, and us making people think it is a real life picture is incredibly misleading. JayKeaton23:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we remove this? It adds nothing and almost realms upon niche fantasies. I have no problem with naked photos etc... that add something but this does not - Mike Beckham05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly does seem superfluous. Could whomever posted it at least explain the purpose for doing so? It is interesting that you have complaints about the female butt images being possibly demeaning, or exploitive, and this and that and then someone comes right along and posts this--I'm intuiting that it's someone that was upset about the allegedly exploitive female images and now wants some type of "revenge". Just stop the petty "ass" gender bickering, if that is indeed what's going on. Anyway, this image does seem gratuitous (possibly exploitive)and probably should be removed. 24.137.100.12615:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that this image is probably not needed. I still have yet to figure out what's up with the Biblical and Church Fathers' references! Why are they pertinent to this article specifically? --164.107.223.21723:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the buttocks are a prominent feature of the wrestler so it may be of use to an article about buttocks. Also it the person in that photo appears to be an athlete, so it demonstrates what the buttocks of a person in very good health looks like, so we could add a photo of saggy buttocks to show what the ass of someone who is in relatively poor physical condition looks like in contrast. JayKeaton23:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then according to your reasoning, a stripper's butt should be shown as it too is a "prominent feature" in such an occupation. I would be interested in knowing how you would react if this were a female wrestler's butt being so gratuitously put on display. Tell me that and stay fashionable(;-]). 24.137.100.12616:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a photo of a strippers butt, then it would be a welcome addition to this article. I fail to see how my reasoning doesn't equally apply to a strippers butt... do you have something against strippers? Are strippers somehow not suitable for encyclopedias? JayKeaton19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this photo is redundant. There is already a picture of male buttocks, and there is nothing in the article that talks about how the buttocks "are a prominent feature of the wrestler", therefore it isn't illustrating anything in the article, which is what images are for. I can understand having pictures of buttocks in varying levels of fitness, but there are no photos of "saggy" or atrophied buttocks, so that argument is sort of called into question. I also believe this photo might be borderline exploitative, unless the wrestler was fine with a close-up of his butt being distributed freely. For these reasons, I'm removing the photo. Feel free to re-add it if you have reason to (but explain please). -kotra19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's now been re-added twice into the article since kotra's removal, the second with a rationale (kind of). I won't revert it again, 3RR and all that. ~Eliz81(C)07:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted Image:Butt33.jpg for deletion. The photo really adds nothing to the article. Also, there really can be a case made that the photo exploits the wrestler in the photo and males in general. Wrestling is an honorable sport. A wrestler's buttocks (or anyone else's buttocks for that matter) shouldn't be used as potential fodder for people to ruminate disturbing fantasies. I think some (if not most) people will know what I mean. Wikiman8621:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
calli-what?
Can we get rid of "callimammapygian"? This is not listed in wikidictionary or any other common dictionary, and since it's off topic besides, doesn't add to the discussion. Please? Who agrees?
The picture of the nice lady's arse/lady's nice arse
Much as I like looking at it, I don't think it has a place in Wikipedia as it has been edited to remove the genitalia. Just imagine a Martian coming to earth and wanting to find out about female buttocks - he'd come away with a pretty odd idea of female anatomy if that picture was all he had to go on. Surely we can find a better pic that hasn't been edited? 86.133.242.18515:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A wikipedia page dealing with human anatomy should NOT have parts of the human anatomy doctored out. Why not use photoshop to add a zebra tail to her while your at it? I agree that this image should not be used as it is misleading JayKeaton23:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i have removed that picture maybe 2 times during the past maybe 6 months, but someone kept adding it back. I have removed it again. I think some wiki media admin should delete that photo for good. Xah Lee01:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the only reason I ask is beacause I myself have had pictures taken of me while I was naked, and in the pictures showing my arse you can see a little bit of my penis hanging in the background, which in this article you cannot see with the guy.TeePee-20.713:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone most definately needs to put back a picture of a girls arse though. How about a picture of a Latina's arse this time? Maybe someone like Vida Guerra or Keyra Augustina. TeePee-20.713:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheek Flex
A man, after months of ass workout, will be able to flex his buttocks independently of each other to achieve a bouncing effect between the cheeks. A woman cannot do this, regardless of the time spent exercising her buttocks. I believe this merits mention in the article.209.29.87.1107:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah.....your "belief" makes me chuckle. Then why not give a honourable mention to the young women who flap and bounce their buttocks in those spring break and hip-hop videos?
Male image removed
I've removed the male image - it's a terrible image. It's obviously been photoshopped in at least 4 places - right above the Gluteal cleft, in both horizontal gluteal creases, and between the legs (presumably to white-out testicles). I wanted to illustrate the article on the horiztonal gluteal crease, and couldn't find a usable image in this article. I've put the female picture which was previously used back into the article. Raul65402:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, it does look like it has been photo shopped quite heavily. I do not see how we are meant to educate people when our photos have been edited so they do not reflect reality. Especially on an anatomy article. JayKeaton17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Equality required
I restored the female picture so that the genders are equal. There should be both a man's and a woman's buttocks represented in this article if it doesn't want to be sexist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laernaes (talk • contribs) 12:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic image of the woman's buttocks
I can't remove this as there is no edit tab. Here's what I worte on the talk page of the image:
What is this doing on Wikipedia??
I have no objection to photos of nude people. I DO have an objection to this photo, which has been manipulated to remove the woman's vagina. How on earth can this be considered encyclopedic when it doesn't show an anatomically correct image? I am going to remove it form the pages it is linked to. 81.151.230.188 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This image HAS NO PLACE ON WIKIPEDIA - it is non-encyclopedic 81.151.230.188 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you claim that the vagina (vulva is the correct term here) has been removed from the photograph when the vulva would not be visible from the back in the first place? Are you referring to the lack of visible labia? If so, then perhaps the model simply had smaller labia that aren't neccesarily visible from the back. Asarelah (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the articles history there has been some to and fro over the featured buttocks. I'm guessing mainly because they are the buttocks of the editor uploading them. To me it seems wrong - Wikipedia isn't about self-promotion. However Gerr butt is clearly going to continue forcing his buttocks on us, so I'm going to leave it to others to decide which buttocks they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaffertape (talk • contribs) 04:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
