Talk:Breast

Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the Breast article. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and the images used to illustrate the subject matter are necessary for the quality of the article. Please refer also to Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer. Off-topic discussions, including discussions about the acceptability of images of nudity on Wikipedia, serve no constructive purpose in improving the article, and may be removed. Thank you for your understanding.

Discussion of images for this article can be found at Talk:Breast/sandbox. We want to have images that add quality to the article, and not have a collection of random images. Please do not add or remove images from this article without discussion with the other contributing editors of the article.

Archives

1 2 3

Template:Sexology-project-guidelines-notify

Child Pornography Vilolation

Legally in the United States Child Pornograpy is ILLEGAL and needs to be removed and by US law u have to have a disclaimer before showing pornography who ever posted picture could face legal action may or may not and i am requesting that this article be looked into by wikipedia's legal team.

Without Prejustice, 65.34.119.91 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

well, Wikipedia does have a disclaimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer) And, unless you can prove that the image in question is A) pornography, and B) underage, you have no footing in court.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Honeymane, whether or not Wikipedia has a disclaimer does not relieve it from following the law. If the wikipedia disclaimer said "vandals are liable to be executed" that would not make such executions legal. Thus if wikipedia is hosting child pornographic or copyright material in the United States it is legally liable for it. That said the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. One must prove the young lady's breasts are aged below the vintage of consent to have a valid accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilsachs (talk • contribs) 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, those crazy Americans. I see no violations here. --Mathew Williams 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing people forget, is that the law is always above any disclaimers or company policy's. E.g. if a shop says we do not take goods back, but the law states they have to then the shop is in the wrong and you can pursue the matter further; or if a shop says our policy is to sell cigarettes to over 12's, but the law states 18, once again the business is in the wrong and action can be taken. No company or business can surpass the law, no matter what. They can write all they want, but if it is not in harmony with the law, it is dismissed without a second look in court or legal disputes. So it doesn't matter what wikipedia has written in their disclaimer, if it is against the law, the matter can be pursued. And yes, Wikipedia cannot verify the age of the female in the picture, and bearing in mind in Europe and the US to upload or allow nude pictures without the personal verification of the subjects age is illegal and against the law, the picture should be removed unless someone can get the female to verify her age in writing. So 65.34.119.91 has a point. I hope this clears matters up, and I will personally write a letter to wikipedia in regards to this article, or request ISP's banning this article. --78.86.117.164 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Young woman breast image should be removed

I believe that this may not be legal in some states including in California if this young woman turns out to be a young girl and its a felnoy CALIFORNIA CODES PENAL CODE SECTION 186-186.8. Also many of these image have images of peoples breast. Did they release permission to show their breast? LOL. Just wondering if this is an issue of ownership. Like in girls gone wild they do a background check on each person and I believe they sign away their rights. Some of the girls were not even legal age. Wikipedia doesn't do background check on these images. It says on Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act "2257 Regulations (C.F.R. Part 75)), part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to attain proof of age for every model they shoot, and keep those records on hand." This information is not open with public domain images. I just think Wikipedia should just be more careful so they don't get sued or challenged legally so maybe old women or mature images maybe okay but not young woman.Getonyourfeet 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

with all due respect sir, what the hell are you talking about?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Honeymane do you always have to be a dick? Never mind it’s a rhetorical question. Getonyourfeet, I would have to say that's not for the editors of this page to decide and probably should be handled by wikipedia legal council or discussed at the village pump policy discussion page and then set as wikipedia policy before editors could start requesting images be deleted for the reasons you mention. If you are familiar with Florida law (servers are in Florida so California law may not apply) and know for a fact that a law is being broken I would say that you contact an administrator for additional help. Most likely the issue has been brought up before and discussed to great lengths so someone else may be able to point you in the right direction for an answer on why the images do not violate a law you may be questioning. --I already forgot 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you forgotten the rule about no personal attacks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.97.168 (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

…Sexually explicit?! I second Honeymane’s comment. —xyzzy_n 10:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing wrong with the female breast. Its purpose is to breastfeed infants. It's only considered a sexual body part in countries that make it out to be, when in reality it is no more sexual than legs, lips, the booty, etc. or any part of my body

Hah! Then, African/Oceanic boy, say to your girlfriend you're not touching her breasts anymore, instead touching her legs! LOLOLOL -- Euyyn

Can someone explain in plain english what this is all about? 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no way to know, as getonyourfeet's original post makes no sense. Under US law, one cannot "sign away" any rights of any kind. He may be referring to personally identifiable images, but since these images are not personally identifiable, I don't see the problem there. As they're also obviously images of fully-developed postpubescent breasts, I also don't see where there could be a concern over pedophilia. If somehow (which I doubt very much will ever happen) we were to learn the actual age of one of the models of these photos, and the age was low enough to cause a legal problem in Florida, which is where WP's servers are sited, then I think something would probably be done. But I don't see how we've failed in any way to do the right thing on this page. The images here are informative without being prurient; exactly what is called for in an encyclopedia article. Kasreyn 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Source of Breast pic If you look at the upload summary in Wiki Commons for the image in question, you'll see that the original source was from a Flickr account here. If you look at some of the other pictures in the collection, it seems pretty obvious that the woman is not "underage." It appears to be a German couple who had a baby together recently and posted pictures of the mother throughout the pregnancy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware, as I'm the one who added the image to this article. What puzzles me is why the descriptor "pregnant" (as in, "a photo of a pregnant woman's breasts") was removed from the image caption. I've been offline for some months, you see. Was it determined to be an unimportant or frivolous detail? Kasreyn 22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember that for a long time, the caption indicated the woman was pregnant; I have no idea why it was removed. It should be restored. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not the image in question, OhNoitsJamie - it's the one just under "Changes" about half-way down the article. Ciotog 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I didn't read the debate close enough...I didn't realize there were two "pregnant" breast pictures. I don't see how a California law is applicable to Wikipedia (especially since there's nothing about the picture that suggests that individual is underage). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing people forget, is that the law is always above any disclaimers or company policy's. E.g. if a shop says we do not take goods back, but the law states they have to then the shop is in the wrong and you can pursue the matter further; or if a shop says our policy is to sell cigarettes to over 12's, but the law states 18, once again the business is in the wrong and action can be taken. No company or business can surpass the law, no matter what. They can write all they want, but if it is not in harmony with the law, it is dismissed without a second look in court or legal disputes. So it doesn't matter what wikipedia has written in their disclaimer, if it is against the law, the matter can be pursued. And yes, Wikipedia cannot verify the age of the female in the picture, and bearing in mind in Europe and the US to upload or allow nude pictures without the personal verification of the subjects age is illegal and against the law, the picture should be removed unless someone can get the female to verify her age in writing. So 65.34.119.91 has a point. I hope this clears matters up, and I will personally write a letter to wikipedia in regards to this article, or request ISP's banning this article. --78.86.117.164 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)--78.86.117.164 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the matter with you?

There is a big notice saying discussion of whether the picture should be allowed is available at the given link and then the first thing you do is write a heading saying breast photo not allowed.... Jesus, some people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.38.111.126 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Brief question...

I'm feeling a bit perverted even asking this...but why are all the breasts of pregnant women? 4 pictures on here, 2 pregnant, one drawing...why not go the whole nine yards? Srsly. Lulzatron 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it has to do with the fact that the primary purpose of the female breast is that the mammory gland produces milk for babies. And milk production begins when a woman is pregnant. I remember reading somewhere that male breasts can produce milk in certain situations.

Breasts are also a visual signal of sexual maturity - hence they form during puberty. It's probably not a stretch, by any means, to note than in many societies they are a visual stimulus for male attention. The milk producing tissue is a relatively small portion of the breast compared to fatty tissues that create the volume. It's common sense that breasts have more than one function. That said, the photos of pregnant women do a perfectly good job illustrating the topic so why worry about it? Mattnad 16:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nooooo! Puaaaajjj!!! -- Euyyn

I did a little math. According to this article, the average american woman has 2.09 children in a lifetime, and lives for about 80.82 years. Assuming a 9 month term, this means that a typical american woman spends 1.93% of her life pregnant. What about the remaining 98%? Ghostwo 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

...or, to put that last figure in another perspective, approximately 1 out of every 52 women are pregnant right now. DonkeyKong64 (Mathematician in training) 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet poster

What's the soviet poster trying to show? I don't find any relation between it and any part of the article. -- Euyyn 07 March 24 - 14:54

It discusses breast health/disease prevention. The Russian says something like "Are you taking care of your breasts? Harden your nipples with daily washing in cold water". Atom 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What the f is that supposed to do? Joie de Vivre 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself! What does hardening your nipples have to do with health?!

It has nothing to do with health! Ranger1991

In Soviet Russia, health has nothing to do with you!! Sorry, couldn't resist. As far as I can see, it's just in relation with the topic it's nested in. I'm not sure why hard nipples are a good thing, but it's important to remember that it was created in the 1930's--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"In Soviet Russia, health has nothing to do with you" haha XD brilliant. --BiT 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe split article between general and gender-specific?

I'm wondering why the article titled Breast deals only with human female breasts? I mean, sure, they are much more interesting than goat breasts or Dave and Dan's breasts, but for NPOV purposes, could we not just give human female's their own breast page? Ideas? Rhetth 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Human males are mentioned in the lead, and I can't think of anything more that could be said about them. It would probably be good to add a section about non-human breasts (for example discussing apes, monkeys, elephants and other animals with breasts), just like the "sleep" article has a section on non-human sleep. Ciotog 04:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This already exists; this article is about humans only, because we're the only ones with this sort of mammary gland. The article on the glands talks more about them as a whole. Or, at least, it should.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all mammals have breasts, it is a definition of the group: mammals, mammary, breasts. Both the males and the females have breasts in all mammals I have ever studied. All men have some glandular tissues in the many patients I have evaluated over the many years of my career. There is already a male breast specific section called Gynecomastia which goes into the male specific issues. Separating out men from the basic Breast entry makes no sense since breast are common to both, just to different degrees. --Plastic Surgeon 11:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think some would argue that udders aren't breasts. As for us being the only one with this sort of mammary gland, the article is "breast" not "the particular sort of mammary gland that only humans have" :)

The main difference between us and other mammals that have "breasts" instead of "udders" is that human female breasts stay relatively large even when not lactating. Do you think a section on non-human breasts would detract from the rest of the article? Ciotog 22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to the question

As to Ciotog's comment, for the amount of non-human-female breast info in relation to the entirety of the article, I can't see how it is enough to support this article as a general breast article rather than specific to females. To Honeymane's comment, this article is not about humans only, despite the article's 3rd sentance. That the article is entitled 'breast' not 'breast (human female)', it kind of contradicts itself. My question was, shouldn't we seperate the human female info from the general breast info which is common to all mammals? So basically, I'm proposing either changing the name of this article to 'Breast (human female)' and keeping the general breast info for the 'Breast' article. And lets try not to go utterly off topic.. Thanks. Rhetth 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Breasts are unique, or semi unique, to human females. If you wish to talk about mammary glands in general, such an article exists.

All breasts are mammary glands, but not all mammary glands are breasts. Udders are not breasts, but are udders, for example, but they are mammary glands.

Very few mammals have breasts but all have mammary glands.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you said it, breasts are semi-unique to human females. Yet fowl, primates, and other mammals have breasts, and men have breasts (even breast cancer). While there is some of this information about men and other animals in this article, it takes up less than 10 sentences. We should split the artile not because of how it is currently written, but because, in principle (NPOV, encyclopeadic inforation), 'breast' is a topic pertinant also to male humans and other animals. Just because you don't know about them, doesn't mean that the information doesn't exist. So we should change the article to a general breast article and give either links to the respective specifc breast articles (Breast (human female), Breast (human male), Breast (fowl), &c) or create alternate sex/species sections (Female, Male, Animal kingdom), such as Ciotog proposed. My 2c. Rhetth 11:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that you continue to come up with these silly arguments? Fowls are birds, they don't even have mammalian glands, and, like so many words in the English language, the word breast has multiple meanings, such as "1. a) The superior ventral surface of the human body, extending from the neck to the abdomen. B) A corresponding part in other animals." Which is what the breast of the fowl is.

The fact of the matter is that even if you did create an article about 'Primates breasts' it's likely just to be deleted very quickly. If not because it's non-notable, for it's lack of references. There is reason that their is a mere 10 sentiences on the topic; there is nothing to discuss. In addition to this, Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to subtopics within the article, hence vetoing making sections.

However, in the interest of being fair, you should create the said articles on a subpage of your Userpage, and then see how much information you can really dig up, and if any of it warrens a article.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly? Just because something seems silly, is it for you to decide? One of the effects of wikipedia is to allow people to learn about other people's perspective on a topic. If you think it's silly an therefore it shouldn't be included, well how does that help things? Just because there is 10 sentances now on a subject, does that make it forever moot? If it's been recently and it failed, then so be it. But let's try to stay above the fray, and not let our emotions get the best of us. Hey, I hate to see an article be overridden with extraneous sections, just like everyone else, but you can't disregard something before you even give it a chance, especially just because you feel its silly. Cheers, Rhetth 00:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously fake breasts

I'd like to know why the first image of the allegedly "pregnant woman's breasts" have a huge breast implant scar along the bottom of the breast? how about changing that to "artificially enhanced female breast," or better yet, get an unaltered breast in there instead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by King Mongo (talk • contribs) 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

take a thread, take off your top, now press it tightly against your breast tissue. Use something to hold the thread there all day.

Come home, remove the thread, and notice the mark it left on the tissue. It's not a scar, it's a mark left from a bra. This picture :was probably taken moments after the bra was removed, giving the flesh no time to 'bounce' back, so to :speak.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty much true 72.181.80.237

whoa that was scary --AnYoNe! 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Breasts and Sexual Attractiveness

This article has a lot of excellent support for the functional aspects of breast but I think more could be done on the role they play in women's sexual identities, and another function as a signal to men. The "Cultural Significance" sections touches on this but seems too limited: the content focuses more on how breast are about fertility, or how some societies squelch female power. These are oft discussed themes, but there's an elephant in the room that nobody's written about. This article completely ignores how men and women fixate on breast for their sex appeal. Mattnad 21:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Breast Image Refresh

Changed top image to refresh this article BigBoris 11:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted, please see the note at the top of this page and discuss on Talk:Breast/sandbox as requested. Vsmith 11:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

scn interwiki

Message for administrators. Please add the scn interwiki link: scn:Minna (senu dâ fìmmina). One of the scn adminisrtators. User:Gmelfi.--Gmelfi 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 12:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What is questionable about these edits?

I made some edits which were reverted, and I don't understand why. This was removed from the section on art and culture, where I thought it fitted in well with other legends:

The legendary tribe of Amazons bared their breasts, and in some accounts removed one breast to allow better combat and archery.

I disambiguated ptosis to ptosis (breasts); I made subject and verb agree in number; etc. The edit summary stated that mine were questionable edits and reverted them, and I do not see why. BrainyBabe 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Swap of photos

(Removed discussion to sandbox page, where I should have started this thread in the first place. BrainyBabe 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

"Plastic surgery" picture has no plastic surgery

The picture of breasts got moved to the plastic surgery section and given the misleading caption "Closeup of female breast with implant and visible scar."

There are no details of plastic surgery on the original photo source's page (flickr), in fact the photographer claims they are "real" (as opposed to augmented). There is no "scar" visible on the breasts, all that can be seen is the indentation left by a bra underwire.

I would edit this shocking mistake out myself, but you don't let not-logged-in untermensch like me edit this page any more; instead, you let editors like "cruzlee" add nonsense to the page because all logged-in editors are infinitely better than not-logged-in ones. 86.131.190.225 17:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, untermensch... I do wish to explain how I made this mistake however. Back when I moved the picture, the caption didn't state anything about pregnancy. Because more people aside from me made the remark that those breasts seemed a little to round to be real, I did the only right thing that sprang to mind. I just didn't think of how an underwire could also make such a mark, which is indeed a more 'insightful' explanation. Furthermore, by all means feel free to create an account, because your input is appreciated.--Cruzlee 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this breast has an implant or scar BigBoris 00:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the image shouldn't have been moved at all, I reverted those changes.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Causes of breast size

Have there been any studies into what causes some breasts to grow much larger than others?

Uh, yeah. Genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.209.200 (talk) 20:02, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

And pregnancy, and weight Mattnad 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And Phthalates, which may increase the change of abnormally early puberty. According to this article http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000909/fob3.asp--Cruzlee 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And the effects of other hormones including birth control pills. Mattnad 17:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Better Pics

I think this page needs to get better pictures of breasts like from porn stars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.193.61 (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Um. No. I doubt that would happen--$UIT 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A Typo in the Breast Article AND Help for a Wikipedia Orphan

So, i was looking on wikipedia to remind me of the name of a certain part of the breast because i think my friend has a lump there- not cause i'm perve! it's the part of the breast that extends into the armpit and its called the "Tail of Spence." (with a c) In the wikipedia article its called "tail of Spense" (with an s) and its highlighted in red, meaning, "no link!" however, i googled it, and google was like "are you sure you didnt mean "Tail of Spence"? with a c? and then when i googled that, it led me to the wikipedia article that DOES exist, on the "Tail of Spence"! And behold! that article is tagged as an orphan, oficially sad, because there are no links to it. could somebody fix this? i think editing the "breast" entry is off limits, plus i am not web savvy enough. i think the typo needs to be fixed, and a link created to the correctly spelled "tail of spence" (with a c) entry. thats all. thanks! Warm182 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. --AliceJMarkham 00:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks, Warm182, for bringing this to our attention. Please feel free to be bold and jump into the Wikipedia swimming pool! Leave a message on my talk page if you want any help. BrainyBabe 13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think you'll find that they couldn't fix it because of the article's semi-protection. Their action by bringing it to the talk page is the correct thing to do under the circumstances. They created their account at 04:31, 9 September 2007. When their account gets to 4 days (I think) old, they will be able to edit semi-protected pages. Oh, and I'd like to thank them for pointing out that article because it is relevant to mastectomy and breast prostheses articles and possibly others in that general direction. --AliceJMarkham 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

About the so-called 'young' breasts.

Apparently people have been complaining about a picture of a supposedly 'underage' womans breasts... Two things.

A. Yes, Wikipedia is hosted in The United States (and 3 or 4 'technically commonwealths' :-) of America. But a picture of (I'll guess those breasts in the top picture are MAYBE from a 16 year) a 16 year olds breasts for use in medical/informative literature and information doesn't exactly constitute child pornography....

Seriously... look in a book on anatomy or one of many books. Notice the pictures of naked babies???. Yeah... it's not child pornography and not defined as 'underage' because it's used for informative and medical purposes without an intention to sexually excite. Yeah yeah yeah... that picture of breasts can excite someone (it sorta excites me). But most anything (shoes, books, people, whatever) can 'excite' and 'arouse' people.

So before we go on a OMG ZXOMG UNDERAGE CHILDPORN NO PREJUSTICE I CAN'T SPELL AND AM A LITLE FJRSGJER crusade... Note that pictures of nudity are often used (outside wikipedia) in medical, anatomical, and otherwise informative literature and media.

B. While it's questionable... seeing if that photo IS below 16. Whether the person could have given consent and/or this, that blah blah blah. Note that for EVERY picture of someone on Wikipedia the consent is not 100% guaranteed. And that really shouldn't matter anyway since it's only a picture of the mammary glands and no really identifying features (birthmarks discluded. But women don't normally go around topless and if they did these accusations of child porn wouldn't have been brought up in the first place.)

So that's my little bit of information on these supposedly 'underage' breasts. So please... unless I'm wrong (and if I am correct me with decent spelling/grammar). Then the topmost picture of t3h b00bs are fine. Nateland 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)