Talk:Buttocks

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Please replace File:Backtowel2.jpg with File:Female butt 66.jpg. It doesn't have a towel. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss first to see if there is consensus for this. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason to change it; the other pic is not very sharp focus.  Chzz  ►  16:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a picture change for the female buttocks should be reconsidered. There's an obvious disparity between the two. The male buttocks is completely neutral and I think it might even be a computer generated image (I am bad at determining such things). The female buttocks is this sort of artfully posed-and-lit photograph. It should be changed to a more neutral image--the disparity between the two makes this photo seem like it would be better suited to the Buttocks Fetishism page. Carogriffin (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kjm18, 27 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} For "apes and humans, including" (Line 1) read "apes and humans, and"

Kjm18 (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done SpigotMap 13:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"safe target for corporal punishment"

I think this line should be removed. Corporal punishment on the buttocks could be mentioned somewhere in the article but it is misleading and controversial to have it in the main introductory paragraph. The way it is now it implies that this is one of the natural functions of this body part, which is obviously absurd. Someone please remove this line! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.216.35 (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It may seem to you "obviously absurd", but it has been a widespread view in the past. The buttocks have often been described as "the place provided by nature" for caning, spanking, etc. It's not that this line needs removing, it's that it needs to be attributed to a source. I will find one. Alarics (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it at least needs some clarification: what, exactly, is meant by "safe target?" Caduon (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It means the place where the punishment can be applied without doing any damage, compared with striking the head, hands, feet, etc. which might cause injury. -- Alarics (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a bit odd to me, though, that the use as a "safe target for corporal punishment" is placed ahead of "plays a role in sexual attraction". The functionality of the buttocks seems to be slanted towards corporal punishment first, sex a distant, dubious second by this sentence. Sexual attraction to the buttocks seems to me to be hard-wired into humans by biological imperative, but the structure of this sentence seems slanted towards a sadomasochistic perspective. I would like to respectfully suggest that the sexual role be stated first and a bit more strongly, and the corporal punishment aspect downplayed and moved a little deeper into the article.

The current implication is that the spanking aspect is "natural" and the sex aspect is "cultural", when in fact the opposite appears to me to be logically the case. Boxing the ears was used frequently as a minor punishment in the past, also, but the article on ears doesn't list this ahead of the hearing function, which would be the equivalent if the pattern used in this article were applied there also.

I think there's too much corporal punishment fetishism in this article and not enough fact. It definitely damages the quality of this article, in my opinion. Blue Bulldog (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree: I think the sexual aspect and the corporal punishment aspect are both equally important cultural facts that vary in detail from culture to culture. It has nothing to do with sadomasochism. However, to meet you part way I have reversed the order of the mentions in the lead. I have also deleted some speculative and unsourced stuff from the body of the article which looked rather like WP:OR. I agree more sources would improve the article. I don't think there is any fetishism. Corporal punishment is about domestic, educational and judicial punishment as routinely practised for thousands of years in numerous cultures: any fetishistic element to it is marginal by comparison. People nowadays too readily read sex into everything. I take your point about boxing the ears, but I don't think boxing the ears has ever been anything like as mainstream or as frequent as corporal punishment applied to the buttocks. For instance, boxing the ears has never been an "official" punishment, as far as I am aware. -- Alarics (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

i think the "safe target" should be mitigated by "relatively safe target" or the like as certainly any amount of overzealous corporal punishment anywhere on the human body could result in permanent damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.223.11.231 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no need, because it can be taken as read here that by "corporal punishment" we mean ordinary moderate corporal punishment as it is generally practised. If it was anywhere near as "overzealous" as to cause permanent damage, it would have ceased to be merely corporal punishment and become brutality or worse. -- Alarics (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Sexual aesthetics of the buttocks vary considerably from culture to culture, from one period of fashion to another and even from person to person"

I think the article overplays the cultural effect on what people consider to be aesthetic, beautiful or attractive buttocks. Especially from male perspective, buttock's roundness (versus somewhat more sharp lines of men's buttocks) and waist-to-hip ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio) seem to have biological component (a sign of healthy, fertile partner) that contribute to the perceived attractiveness of the female buttocks.

Related sentences referenced from the article include "Many cultures have also used them as a target for corporal punishment, and for some cultures they play a role in sexual attraction." and "However, the qualities that make buttocks beautiful or well-formed are not fixed, as sexual aesthetics of the buttocks vary considerably from culture to culture, from one period of fashion to another and even from person to person." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpetrell (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

badonkadonk isn't just a female buttocks, tho it's certainly predominantly applied as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.223.11.231 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Acceptable for print"

The synonyms section uses "acceptable for print" numerous times. Any word for buttocks is acceptable to print in Western countries because we don't have censorship and we are long past the days of people thinking words like "arse" and "ass" are swear words. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed one of the two examples of this. The other seems to be talking about fanny being acceptable in print historically, which seems less wrong. The whole section is poor and needs a rewrite with actual sourcing, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead images

I think the lead images should be changed back. The first one has been digitally altered too much that it looks unnatural and the second one has a towel. LittleJerry (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

These two images that I just reverted to again have been the long-standing images because they are of better quality. I've noticed that you have swapped better quality images for lower quality/less appealing images more than once and are usually reverted. Perhaps that is something to think about? I agree that the first image looks somewhat fake; I thought it was fake (a computer image) when I first looked at it last year, but it is of better quality than the male buttocks image you put up there. If you can find a male buttocks image that is similar to the long-standing one, but more real-looking, then I'll be fine with removing the former. But the female buttocks image is fine -- great lighting and everything. The towel is at the very end of the buttocks, and does not obscure it.

Anyway, if the next thing to do is to take this dispute to WP:RfC or some other form of WP:Dispute resolution because you will continue to edit war over the pictures you want as the lead images instead, then I am up for that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the image which has been in the article for quite a while...

...and this is the image LittleJerry is attempting to change it for.

The editor LittleJerry has been attempting to change the image again, without consensus to do so -- and he should stop until he has a consensus to change. Here are the two image:

Personally, I prefer the current image, which is clear (not blurred) and clean, as opposed to the suggested change, which is washed-out so there is partically no skin tone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I saw your revert days ago and agree. Why not use the more attractive pictures? The current pictures are the more attractive ones, in addition to being clear. Like I stated to LittleJerry: If you can find a male buttocks image that is similar to the long-standing one, but more real-looking, then I'll be fine with removing the former. But the female buttocks image is fine -- great lighting and everything." Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the reason the current image can't be seen here is that it's not approved for use on this page. I've put in a request on MediaWiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I never thought about images needing approval for talk pages. Thanks for clarifying. You did a good job on cleaning up some parts of this article, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous "Seat of Learning" theory should be removed unless a citation is forthcoming

I believe that the "seat of learning" theory on this page should be removed unless there is a specific citation to support it. The phrase "There are, in various cultural traditions, expressions like "seat of learning" which refer to the preferential paining of the posterior in a submissively bent and exposed position." seems to me to be ludicrous fiction by someone fantasizing about corporal punishment.

"Seat" has often been used to mean "the place where something is located" or "the spot where something exists" and has nothing to do with spanking, caning, or whatever other fetish the writer of this sentence has. You can easily find such phrases as "the seat of power", referring, for example, to a capital city. This is not because the capital is a place where powerful people are spanked, but because it is the place where power "sits", i.e. is located. The "seat of war" is the geographical location where conflict is taking place, and again has nothing to do with spanking fantasies. "He is sifting out the hearts of men before His Judgment Seat" is not a lyric from De Sade.

A pipe or other fixture that is firmly held in place by cement, mortar, glue, mountings, etc. is said to be "seated". There is the phrase "seat of consciousness" ... in short, there are so many uses of "seat" in a non-spanking context, and the term "seat of learning" so patently belongs to the same series of ideas as "seat of war/power/consciousness/judgment" that I believe this sentence is indefensible in the absence of an authoritative, verifiable source; that it should be removed forthwith, and that attempts to reinsert it without authoritative sourcing should be viewed as vandalism and result in locking of the page. Blue Bulldog (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain, an expression like "applying the board of education to the seat of learning" used to be quite a common expression but it is meant to be humorous, using "seat" as a deliberate double entendre. It recognises the meaning of the word that you have set out, but it also means the buttocks. You have missed the joke, but the sentence you deleted was, arguably, inappropriately facetious in a serious article, so your action in deleting it was, as it happens, correct. There are already serious references to corporal punishment elsewhere in the article, as there should be. -- Alarics (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This "seat of learning (or education)" should not supplant the human mind, which is of course, the primary seat of consciousness and learning. As Auntie impressed forcibly on my juvenile understanding, my brain (the seat of my mind) sat on ONE end of my spine, and I sat on the other. She tried to reason with the top end of my spine as much as she could but when that did not work, she had recourse to the other end: "The SECOND seat of learning". A well-placed succession of hard slaps was her appeal to that fully denuded seat, and it dutifully sent the message on to the FIRST seat of learning". The result was that that fervent messages of repentance and promises of improvement were made in a most enthusiastic and sincere singing voice. These appeals to the Second Seat certainly worked, and the First Seat learnt valuable lessons thereby which still hold me in good stead today. Notthere (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please remember that the talk page of an article is purely for discussing how to improve the article. -- Alarics (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Slang

If butt is to be included as an alternative name, then bum should be too. For me, and other people speaking European/Commonwealth English, butt is the end of a cigarette (well, ok, or fag end I suppose). I don't mind removing the slang, but if the US term is there, the European/Commonwealth one should be too. - Francis Tyers · 10:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think it is better that no slang terms are included. This is an encyclopaedia after all. - Francis Tyers · 10:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"an incompetent or ignorant person is sometimes called a 'dumbass', and an annoying person a 'jackass'"

This whole section discussing Am. English colloquialisms with "ass" in them has to be cleaned up, but this sentence is particularly egegrious; the person writing it clearly forgot or maybe never knew that "ass" also means "donkey," and thus words with "ass" in them don't all refer to the buttocks. While "dumbass" is debatable—etymonline.com seems to imply that the "ass" does indeed mean "buttocks" in the same way as "hardass," "tightass," etc.—"jackass" definitely means "male donkey" and has nothing to do with the buttocks. (If it did, what does "jack" mean?)

I agree and I have removed it. -- Alarics (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Images

Aren't buttocks private? These photos should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champalto (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Arse, not 'ass'

It is the word, arse, which is Anglo-Saxon and over a thousand years old. 'Ass' is an Americanisation of it, probably because it is considered more discrete being the name of a beast of burden. In English (as opposed to 'American English') the word 'ass' refers only to the animal.