Talk:Breast

Continued image discussion

Recent discussions archived here

• 
  Weiblich-brust
• 
  95C

I have to say the Image:Weibliche-brust.jpg image seems of lesser quality, and is darker. Do you see what I mean? I don't think it would be a good lede. Atom (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• 
  95C
• 289
  289

I think this is a good example of why most editors prefer a real image over a graphic illustration, and this is an excellent illustration. Atom (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

95c has a touch of Contrapposto about it; whereas 289 does not, being straightforward thereby complimenting the formal tone of the nature of an encyclopaedia. Redblueball (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, a little tiny bit of contrapposto doesn't ruin it. Its still better than an illustration. Asarelah (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Contrapposto is a style that appeals to our emotions and sense of beauty. We don't use emotional appeals in text so why illustrations? Redblueball (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree to those statments. But here is one of my own: The breast is a holy thing that should not be taken for granted. It should be loved and cherrished, and adored by all that view them. The breast is a marvel of creation and should not be conceled. If women decide to show them off, they should be allowed to go topless wherever and whenever they want to. Many other countries have nude beaches and regular beaches that allow them to go topless. Why don't we have the same? There are factors that would show that maybe Canada isn't ready for this drastic change, mainly because it turns guys on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Connery (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So, you are saying the image is too artistic because she is leaning a bit to the left? The image still beats the drawing. The drawing is sterile, and the image is alive, it shows slight variation in breast size and nipple/aereola shape. Realistic, not artifice. Atom (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

95c alludes to the use of a style (contrapposto) that 289 does not possess. The lack of "aliveness" in 289 is because of the artist's use of generality to suggest that a description of breasts cannot be specific and include all the realistic variations of women's bodies. The purpose of encyclopaedia articles is to summarise knowledge, not present individual cases, and within the scope of various meanings attributed to breasts - it is of curious importance to attach an inevitable incidence from this scope as an illustration to the introduction... thereby creating an oxymoron of a specific image illustrating a general passage of text in a general article. More curious while there being a more innocent alternative - 289. Redblueball (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see it as an artistic image. (I asked if that was your perception) Contrapposto" just means that the pose is one where the subject is relaxed with weight on one foot. I don't see how the particular pose of that picture distracts from the topic in any way -- nor does it seem (to me) to add "emotional appeal". I hear your opinion. In my opinion one can learn the most from seeing a real example, and not a sterile drawing. Your point that we should avoid special cases is well taken, hence my working description of a good image to include "subject should be average, rather than unusually small or unusually large, should have neither tattoos or piercings, the image should not indicate disease." That should not be extended to mean that we should work to remove any and all unique characteristics from an image for it to be a good lede for this article. In fact the "average" person is not symmetrical, and each breast is different, so having such an image shows the normal case. The more images and examples of the topic we have, the better idea that an interested reader gets of the topic. Also, the more that people see images of normal human anatomy in normal context, the less they will be biased to perceive the topic as erotic or pornographic. As you point out there is great variation, and space for but one lede, we want something that is a fair representation, and not a perfect one. Its purpose (a lede) is primarily to offer, at a glance, an idea of the topic of the article, and an image such as 95C succeeds at that well. I admit that 289 succeeds at that, but it still begs the question (for me) of why someone would use a rendition of a real topic when there is a real image available. Atom (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For once, I am in agreement with Atomaton. The contrapposto is really not a major issue. Even if this image is slightly flawed, it certainly beats the blurry, weirdly angled one we have now. We simply don't have a perfect image, and we have struggled like hell to get people to even consider to changing it to a better photograph, let alone getting anyone to concede to an illustration. The contrapposto is barely even noticable, I didn't even realize it was there until you pointed it out. Its a tiny flaw in an otherwise excellent picture. Asarelah (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify :- images, sketches, photographs, contain elements of style; style being a concept realised by (for example) posing a model in a particular way. This realisation (by way of contrapposto) is used as a method for connecting (asking, appealing?) to a viewer's sense of beauty and their emotional faculties. In the case of drawing a comparison between a stylistic property (the pose) from all stylistic properties present in images 95c and 289 - the latter image cannot be confused with a product of an artist concerned (either intentionally or unintentionally) with implementing a style (contrapposto) that makes an appeal to our emotions. Becuase 289 does not contain this type of stylistic endeavour within its complete set of stylistic properties, and for the sake of rejecting emotional appeals in the text of articles, and for the sake of images following the style of the text, then image 289 gains one mark (imo) from the critical pool of all possible marks shared between 95c and 289. Now, Asarelah, if we are to reach a consensus then we need to be critical of all images (for the benefit of the article), not just those we don't prefer, right? Redblueball (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, obviously, but that still doesn't mean that we should reject the photo for the illustration. We should simply replace the blurry picture we have now with 95c, contraposto or no contraposto, and put out a request on commons for a superior photo. I still believe that we should at the very least switch to 95c for now, as it is obviously superior to the current picture, and then return to the talk page to debate its relative merits against the illustration. Sound reasonable? Asarelah (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no apparent consensus for this change, Asarelah. See Talk:Breast/Archive 5#Survey on lead image. Make certain there is consensus before changing the image again. Dreadstar † 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. We should leave the current image, and see if we can find a better image than 95c. After some period of time, we can start a consensus discussion on either a new image, or 95C if there is interest. There is no hurry to do anything quickly. Atom (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute as much to this discussion as I did previously. I'm recovering from laproscopic gall bladder surgery, so my Wiki use will be more erratic. Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up. Asarelah (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why: rope breast bondage.jpg is on the page? None of the detailed pages e.g. Breast bondage or breast fetish have a similar picture on them, so why is it needed in the main article? Why not but Clothed_breast_bondage.jpg on the main breast page and rope breast bondage.jpg on the page of the Breast bondage page? Why does someone with breast bondage need some red thing in the mouth? Is this always the case? Why is a picture named rope breast bondage.jpg described as Fetish breast binding? Isn't breast bondage as in the photo name clearer? Why is the breast bondage photo included only in the english version? --stvienna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.126.215 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I love this entire debate just for its hypocrisy. People are complaining about images of breasts being too sexual, only to have each taken down in turn. These are all images of white women, some of them no more sexual than an example in a medical book. Meanwhile, the picture of the young, attractive African girl striking a demure pose that, to me, looks sexual, is pretty much ignored. No, it's their culture, it's perfectly acceptable they'll say, ignoring the fact that there are many parts of Europe where nudity is acceptable. And what of the image of the African girl? Would the context change if it we were to learn it was an African American dressed like this in a chaparral in California? 76.170.109.79 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This brings up a concern that I have. I do not mean to be a 'PC police' by any means, but I am concerned at the fact that almost every model on the page is light-skinned, save for one model who is included explicitly as a part of non-western views on breasts. It seems to me that the article would benefit from the greater inclusion of models who are not white, not only as examples of non-western views or as tokens. On a separate issue, and one of much less importance, I would note that this article is about breasts as a whole, and yet seems to focus almost exclusively on human breasts, showing the breasts of no other species. I'm not bringing this up out of any animal rights activism or allegations of speciesism, note, just a technicality. I understand that we are anthropocentric, being humans, and that female humans have some of the most noticeable breasts in all mammals, but shouldn't we include a picture or two of non-human breasts? --97.112.49.34 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New image for consideration

Here is an image I produced. It should meet the criteria. It is clinical, and not erotic, no face, shows both breasts, from the front, no contrapposto, no piercings or tattoos the subject is middle aged, and not "too young" or "too old", or "too thin" or "too large", normal with no disease indicated. Frankly I like the current lede better. I'm open to criticism, and can produce another image with necessary changes. My personal criticism is it should have improved lighting. Atom (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The model is fine (for the reasons you've already mentioned). I think the execution of the photograph needs tweaking though. I guess the most obvious change would be the elimination of the blur by steadying the camera and using the self-timer (if the camera has one). Also, if the model moved forward from the wall/backdrop by about three to four feet then this could eliminate some of the close-ness and the cast of the shadow on the wall. There may also be a bit of an issue with focal length because of the proximity between you... perhaps moving further apart may make it easier to move to a length of about 50mm rather than a shallower length that may make the subject follow the curve of the lens. And adopting a slightly lower viewpoint might be useful (if we're looking for perfection). As it is... for me - the image is cropped too tightly, but I guess can be corrected easily if it's a post production decision.

In regards to your preference, I think a front-on approach creates a sense of flatness which the current lead does not possess, so perhaps then - there's something in the current leads favour. If you have a patient model it may be worth trying a few different shots with the model rotating 10 or 20 degrees to her right - and with natural light illuminating the front of her body. The light available at about 90 minutes after dawn or 90 minutes before sunset is particularly complimentary. Redblueball (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, perhaps I'll try some alternative shots incorporating some of the suggestions. This image was intentionally blurred by post processing, and the lighting improved from what was even worse than what is shown. My thought was not to use this image for the article, but to stimulate conversation on what would be ideal. This particular model was used for the reasons indicated above. I'm not sure that I can obtain the presice lightning of your preference, however. Atom (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're using Flash, turn it off, the lighting seems off, Also, if you can, try pulling away a bit from the subject, so we have some boarder around the chest; it looks a little too tight.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the photo self taken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhoi.pakfa (talk • contribs) 11:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a great picture for the lead. Asarelah (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is of poor quality (blurry and overexposed). The current lead is much better. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The current lead is far more blurry. Asarelah (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing blurriness with depth of field. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

i dislike it as a man i find it blurry and kinda blurry and also the shadows take away from the actual picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nave123 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Drop

Good point Peter. Drop does make it sound as if they are dropping off...LOL. However, ligament elongation has nothing got do with aging although this can happen with time . Ligament elongation can happen in even young women, so saying this is a result of aging is not accurate. I'd like to find like to find another word for sag,too... which is just too,too not technical...and aging should be removed as a inacurracy. LOL ...still laughing about "drop".(olive (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

sexist focus

Why are there mostly female pictures and pictures of humans? That's not all a breast can be. YVNP (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the talk page. Scroll up and find Talk:Breast#male breast Asher196 (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fetish breast binding.

Hi all, Great article(I love boobs, like most male's.) All the pictures are very tasteful except for the one on breast binding. I would not care if my young son saw all the other pictures. It does not add anything to the article and may be better placed under the bondage section. Would anyone like to discuss this further? I would recommend deleting the picture. --Yendor72 (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when did children and what's suitable for them to see affect the content of encyclopedias? Honestly, Wikipedia is not censored, and this picture adds information to the article (like the role of breasts in sex and fetish) just like the picture under "Sexual role". I understand your concern, but if we move the picture to the bondage page- next thing we'll delete it, next thing we'll delete pictures of breasts because there is always someone offended by everything. Before you'd know it, half of the pictures on Wikipedia would be gone. The picture is also very vague, and really as non-sexual as a picture of a woman in bondage could possible be, I don't think it would scar children since they probably wouldn't even realise what it is. --BiT (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole breast fetish issue could be addressed with a short description and a link. Having the weird photograph with the gagged woman serves to bring up strange undertones, not to help the reader understand what a breast is. I recommend that the photo be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.158.79 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you're just being prudish. The article isn't just about helping the reader 'understand what a breast is' but about their role in society, sex, status, culture, et cetera. BodvarBjarki (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

image caption

there is an image caption that reads "In Western culture, it is acceptable for breasts to be partially uncovered." Acceptable? What workplaces, community programs or schools find that acceptable? I am going to re-write the caption. Kingturtle (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How many women walk around all day in turtle-necks? The vast majority of womens' shirts expose cleavage i.e a 'partially uncovered' breast. 90.217.141.226 (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Image is broken

No matter what I revert to, its broken . JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the image by adding Width=300px. Not sure what caused the problem originally; the problem seems to be in the image itself, not the infobox, as other images work fine in that position (and the infobox works fine everywhere else it's transcluded); furthermore, the image works fine outside of infoboxes. I don't see anything recent in the file history over at Commons, so I have no idea what would have caused it to suddenly stop working. I don't think the problem is really solved, this was just a quick fix; people at WP:VP/T or maybe WP:GL. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a technical error on the page

The blood supply to the breast is not the posterior intercostal arteries. I would be the anterior intercostal arteries.

Reference: CURRENT Diagnosis & Treatment Obstetrics & Gynecology, 10th Edition by Alan H. DeCherney and Lauren Nathan

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishpenner (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Heightened Sexual Desires From Men

The article reads " Bare female breasts can elicit heightened sexual desires from men " but it does not say the equal unbiased opposite " Bare male breasts can elicit heightened sexual desires from women " this should be added to correct the, likely accidental, sexist overtone of this article.

Female breasts would excite a man a lot more than the vice versa

There is no difference in sexual nature from a male or female chest, especially between a male who has Gynecomastia and a female it is only a socially brainwashed opinion that a female breast is inappropriate.

There is no scientific nor logical reasoning behind this "cooties" opinion. sorry for the rant.. human ignorance and childishness is one of my pet peeves. 71.112.220.78 (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The article also fails to mention that the sight of bare female breasts can elicit heightened sexual desires from (bisexual or lesbian) women, if we really want to split hairs over the issue. Xmoogle (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a qualifier added. Breasts are not considered sexually exciting in all cultures. Asarelah (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Reassessment for WikiProject Medicine

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Wonder

Hi, I wasn't aware that wikipedia allowed such 'expliicit' content. Also, maybe it's just my imagination but, there seems to be a large amount of images on this page when you compare it with most pages. I mean, I'm not complaining!, but it does seem quite, well, juvenile? --Jefuab (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If you find it juvenile that's because of your own pre-conceptions and social conditioning. 90.217.141.226 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. The pictures add to the article and present the subject in a responsible, clinical, educational way. (I do wish the lead pic was different, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms and I've unsuccessfully argued my point into the ground on the talk page archives). Asarelah (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jefuab on this one. Though I have to say that most are austhetically pleasing their usage does seem a bit over the top and indiscriminate. Unless someone is living in some alien world I don't think an introductory picture is necessary to illustrate what a breast is. Most readers would probably be looking for more more information on the function and structure and on conditions affecting the breast. Most of the pictures could probably be moved into more specific articles, the completely out of place inverted nipple picture jumps to mind. Is there really a need for a gallery when the same could be said for most of the pictures in it? Biofase (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for years. The answer is the same; there's no reason why this article shouldn't have a photo in the lead, just as other exterior anatomy articles do. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, I am not against a photo in the lead. There is one good reason though, there's no agreement on what photo should be in the lead. If there is one it should be more general and at a more regular angle. Biofase (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the redirect?

Why does the article for Oppai redirect here? I can't find any information on whatever Oppai is or why it should be related to breasts. Padillah (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Google says that Oppai is Japanese slang for a woman's breasts. Asarelah (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't that be stated in the article? I don't think it's quite appropriate to simply "take" the article and not tell the reader why this is where they ended up. Padillah (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If they were already typing the word "Oppai" into the search, then they probably know what it means already. Asarelah (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Then how do you explain me? I was looking for what a username meant and ended up here. If I were left to my own devices I'd still not know. Padillah (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to redirect Oppai to the relevant entry in Wiktionary instead. Asarelah (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for including this info as a separate section or into already existing section in the article of breast.Feel free to edit it if needed , but it's good and has to be included!

It is good to adhere several basic rules to maintain your bust in shape.

To do:

1.To stand upright.

2.To wear comfortable bra that does not press close your chest. If the shoulder-straps mark on your back you must release them at all cost or get a new bra.

3.To massage your breasts with cold water. Thus the blood circulation is being stimulated and the skin tones and tightens.

4.To wear a special sport bra when you work out.

5.To avoid sleeping in free-faller position so not to be pressing down your breasts.

Not to do:

1.Not to be doing abrupt moves while you sport because thus you risk to damage the tissues maintaining the breasts.

2.Not to be staying on the beach for long without sun-protecting cream.

3.Not to be carrying heavy weights.

4.Not to press too hard when smearing your body with toilet milk. Making light circular moves is sufficient for the cream to be absorbed.

5.Not to be folding heavy bags so not to be pressing your breasts towards your body.

6.Not to stand for too long in a hot tub.

7.Not to make experiments with your weight.

8.Not to deprive of proteins in your diet.

9.Not to be sorry for your breasts are such as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Sage (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

While we appreciate the help, WP is not a how to guide and we shy away from giving advice. Padillah (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

menstral cycle

Shouldn't it be included that during the menstral cycle, breast tissue is briefly created and dies, increasing risk of cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean. Breast tissue is continually created and dies even between menstrual cycles as it is with all the tissue in the body. Haven't seen any reliable study that shows this can increase the risk of cancer and don't think it can be reliably tested at all, remember verifiability. Biofase (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging to antipsychotics

I suggest tagging to the Antipsychotic page under the section titled "Breastfeeding". It seems like it would be appropriate, since it's talking about a possible side effect of the medication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketpop (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

fixing sentence fragment in function section

Hey, someone seriously needs to fix the last paragraph of the sexual role section of the function section. It includes a sentence fragment and then a sentence that makes no sense. I don't see why this page is protected or I'd fix it myself (I'm sure there's some silly 8th-grade reason), but as it is I hope some editor will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.182.113 (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Surgically Altered vs Natural

The breast in the image with the caption "The breast of a pregnant woman" has been surgically altered. You can see the surgical scar along the bottom crease and halfway up the exterior side of the breast. This type of scar is typical of augmentation scars. Can we please get a non-surgically altered breast (i.e. a natural breast) for this picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.206.25 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a scar, it's a bra mark. We've been through this many times before. Dreadstar ☥ 22:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)