Talk:Breast fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Images[edit]

I tend to disagree strongly with this article having 0 images. I do however thing we need to choose wisely. My recommendation would be to have an "image morphing" subtopic which mentions the website http://bearchive.com which has been around for 10 years now and relates exactly to this topic. I think we should include two photos 1. And unmorphed photo 2. and morphed photo to show one of the key elements of breast fetishism, the digital manipulation of an image to increase breast size. Breast Expansion Archive --99.247.65.238 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I have reverted the inclusion of images of breasts, on the grounds that images of female breasts do not impart encyclopedic knowledge of the psychological phenomenon of breast fetishism. Joie de Vivre T 12:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • What are you doing, following me around and correcting everything I do you "think" might be wrong....how long have you been on Wikipedia and how many edits have you under your belt?--Lord Balin 03:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If you'd take just a few seconds to look, Joie de Vivre has a LOT of edits, VERY frequent edits. I can't think of an image that would really apply to this article at the moment. If you can, feel free to suggest one. I know there's no censorship, but I don't see how pictures of breasts apply to this article. Bassgoonist 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Images of breasts describe aesthetic choices made by an artist or photographer. Unless the artist has stated implicitly that he/she is expressing their experience of the psychological phenomena of 'breast fetishism' then the image(s) should be withheld. However, if there is a serious case study on the existence of 'breast fetishism' and which employed visual media, then a sample could be used.
some like the slightly smaller breast, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.243.41 (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Geographic Areas?[edit]

Maybe it is vandalism, but I cannot understand how a list of countries, and bizarrely, the "home counties" (counties around London) can be relevant. EdX20 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


'twas ironic. For BF to be a serious proposition (or fetish) it needs to reveal how it is exclusive. Before my ruthless edit, we were pointing and assembling blindly at 'National borders' as the only proof (which was sure to fail).

How is this a fetish?[edit]

Don't all men like breasts, isn't this natural?Al-man53 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's natural - there's certainly nothing wrong with it - but not all men (gay ones, for example) and not even all straight ones, actually like breasts, never mind fetishize them. There are even people (particularly referenced in Sade, though isn't everything?) who actively hate breasts. Not me, I might add :)
Nuttyskin (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it partly may be a cultural thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.151.84 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fetish, since I've noticed that I don't seem nearly as attracted to them as my peers, I've always believed it's because I've got another fetish. In any case, I think have agree with the poster above me, it must be a cultural thing. I haven't seen breasts emphasized as much in European media as in for example American or Japanese, meaning probably that it isn't as widespread here in the States. Nederbörd (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But FETISH is a cultural distinction of what deviates from the norm, it doesn't matter whether cultural or natural, its a norm as such. Breasts are not emphasized in european media as much as US or japanese media because sex is not emphasised as much in european media but i don't think you are right about that at all: have you ever heard of the Sun newspaper?. Atypical was such a wrong word for this article, its definitely not atypical.80.189.74.185 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't make an edit like this one I reverted again, IP. The WP:Lead is clear about both ways that the term breast fetishism is used. And we go by the WP:Reliable sources for such content, not personal opinion. If you want to know why this article is titled Breast fetishism, all you have to do is look at the discussions about it lower on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Should be clearer that it includes both the atypical and the typical then. Why introduce the article with the 'atypical' paraphillia and make the whole article about the non-paraphillic. At least this demands more information on atypical fetishism. 80.189.74.185 (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

How is the current lead not clear enough that the term breast fetishism refers to the atypical and the typical? As for why begin with the atypical definition, well, as you know, fetishism more often refers to atypical aspects. It makes sense to get the atypical definition out of the way first, and then go into the typical aspect, and the debate aspect. Yes, the article needs expansion on the atypical sense of the word. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Topfree Action removed...?[edit]

May I know why?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TopfreeAction (talkcontribs).

Please see my other post. --StuffOfInterest 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous[edit]

This sentence is overly complex... cumbersome too.

Although it is unusual for heterosexual males in Westernized culture not to consider female breasts as objects of sexual attraction, breast fetishism may be experienced by any member of a society.

Does this topic even deserve its own entry? Why not include it in the generic "sexual fetishism"? Isn't attraction to breasts (albeit in Western culture) too commonplace to be called a fetish?


The sentence was my accommodation of the psychological nonsense of the 'breast fetishist' diehards of wikipedia- browse the history of the article to see the previous incredulous exchanges of facts and edits.

...and in answer to your questions- 1)Yes, as a kind of anthropological/consumerist phenomena (see fetish), and consequence of moral relativism. 2)Because it's not a fetish in the clinical sense (see partialism, sexual fetish and paraphilias). 3)The frequency of aesthetic preferences is not an accountable condition for prescribing the 'fetish' term. 194.112.32.101 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced[edit]

Except for one source that says one gay man views himself as a breast fetishist, we don't have any sources which address the topic. Unless we can find some sources this article should be stubbed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've redrafted the introduction, and found a source (see article). If it (the concept) is not self-evidently true or illuminating, then we must (as you say) find more sources. 194.112.32.101 13:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 194.112.32.101 14:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the reference to Elizabeth Gould Davis harms the authority of the article. She was a librarian with extreme views about the innate genetic superiority of the female. Her one book was a collection of an amateur's speculations, rather than a serious scholastic study. 210.54.73.162 (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be useful to research material dealing with the indifference men show to breasts in many tribal cultures - the Himba in Namibia for example. It's difficult to accept breasts as being sexual when such an obvious divide in attitude occurs naturally. Similarly, I'm not aware of any other male mammal that re-enacts suckling in its maturity - it seems to be a uniquely Western thing, and most pronounced in the US. Good for you for attempting this. 210.54.73.1 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Breast fetishism in the West may be a form of conditioned response, similar to that which Pavlov observed in his dogs. Since the breasts are normally covered, but exposed during sex, the notion Western men have that breasts are sexual could well arise from association. How such associations evolve would be a function of culture and history, and there's plenty of evidence from the past that other parts of a woman's body, which are not sexual in function, have been considered sexually arousing by men if normally hidden from view.210.54.73.224 (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

is this serious?[edit]

not to be an ass, but this all reads like a bunch of pseudo-intellectual nonsense to me. seeing breasts sexually violates someone's right to self-realization? we sublimate the urge to see breasts as sexual objects by making a fetish of breasts as sexual objects? supernatural qualities? it's a reaction to feminism? 90% of this article is meaningless babble. --dan 06:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, half the sentences in the first section don't make any sense at all. "Breast fetishism[1] is the attribution of powerful or supernatural qualities to the concept of perceiving breasts as signs of human sexuality." I mean... what?! There are far too many nouns in that sentence. I think this is supposed to be a joke. --Persuter 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions, exclamations of nonsense and the invoking of percentages, are not particularly useful contributions to a complex issue. Instead, consider explaining the conceptual history, contemporary signs, demographics, modes of acquisition etc. Also - remember neutrality. 194.112.32.101 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

if this were a complex issue, i would agree with you. in my estimation, this article is largely crap. it's asserting things that are either opinion or just make no sense. if you disagree, feel free to cite sources explaining, for example, that "the belief that a sexual desire for women and their breasts needs to be legitimized derives from an unresolved (except for the psychiatric solution) ethical contradiction between the primitive or biological urge to perceive breasts as inherently sexual objects, while realising the urge is against a categorical imperative in which the human right of all individuals to self-realization (e.g. regardless of age, race, physical appearance etc.) will be abused if the urge (itself) is realized. The result of this unresolved contradiction is the sublimation of the biological urge". that is a lot of kant/freudian mishmashed psychobabble. i'm not saying the topic itself is bad, simply that the article is. --dan 02:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If these sentences are self-evidently 'not true' (crap) according to you, then what do you propose as the simplification? Where are your sources for refutation or for contribution? Regardless of that- my problem with this article is that; breasts should not qualify as objects subject to a sexual fetish, because (i) the breasts of human beings are not remote objects like for example "a shoe", breasts are part of the whole monoistic substance that is a "person", and (ii) this wholeness includes the fact that humans are inherently sexual beings, thus invalidating the idea that breasts as objects can be part of a special sexual relationship.194.112.32.101 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It would probably help to introduce some quotes or references from an expert on fetish who could help a general reader understand the difference that makes something a fetish rather than just an interest. Also biological mating information and cultural information showing why there is some logical infatuation with breasts would also help. Benjiboi 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article should not wait around in such a state for an "expert on fetish" to come along. Debating every unsourced drool in this article won't lead to a better article. / edg 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I heartily disagree that everything removed deserved to go including references and wikilink but I'm not in the mood to battle with the two of you so will excuse myself to work on other articles. 13:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjiboi (talkcontribs)
I've updated the article with sourced information.. to clarify the different concepts and provide reading material for further expansion. I think they answer some of your points.194.112.32.101 19:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd pretty much forgotten about this (just happened to notice an edit to "Talk:Breast fetishism" in "My Contributions", I'm so glad that's public). I just wanted to make clear that I, like Dan, was not concerned about the topic -- I was concerned about the content. Even if it had been free of parenthetical side references and needlessly complex sentence structure, it was uncited, appeared strongly to be original research, and in many cases did not make sense. While I still think the article perhaps strays into unprofessional territory with its oddly specific comments about the US and Turkey, at least it's germane to the topic at hand. Persuter 21:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


What does this mean?[edit]

"The reverence and theorising shown to breasts also appears in the science of modern society, as claimed in an ill-conceived proposal that "breast fetishism" is an example of a contagious thought (or meme) spreading throughout society[14], or perhaps more reasonably but none more patriarchal than the British zoologist and ethologist Desmond Morris, who in the 1960s proposed in The Naked Ape that the evolution and design of breasts is primarily for influencing human sexuality through signalling (see Biosemiotics), rather than serving an exclusive maternal function."

This sentence complex and confusing. Moreover, how is the idea of human breast size being related to biosemiotics "patriarchal"? Postmodernist BS adjectives aside, how would "contagious thought" (a purely social phenomenon) cause the existance of human breast size in the first place (a phenomenon of natural selection)? Assuming that human breasts developed to unusually large proportions (compared to other primates) long before mass media had influence on people, then something other than a mere "cultural fetish" must be involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.192.16 (talk) 13:55, November 16, 2007

not a disorder[edit]

lets look into the quoted reference: Diagnostic criteria for 302.81 Fetishism (cautionary statement) A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the use of nonliving objects (e.g., female undergarments).

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

C. The fetish objects are not limited to articles of female clothing used in cross-dressing (as in Transvestic Fetishism) or devices designed for the purpose of tactile genital stimulation (e.g., a vibrator).

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association

so, it is specifically said it is non-living object. thus, whoever put this, put it in bad faith.

the other quoted book can be easily checked on google books. it turns out that it ALSO says that breast is secondary characteristic and is not a fetish. thus, whoever put this, is deceiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.179.17 (talk) 11:14, December 1, 2007

As I mentioned (on my talk page); the inclusion of "body parts" as subjects of fetishes is not resolved in the literature on clinical fetishes (or within cultural/ethnographic contexts). You are quite right to point out that the DSM-IV mentions "nonliving objects" as the exclusive subject of fetishes, however, my attribution of the DSM-IV as a source to verify the phrase "breast fetishism" as a disorder, was a mistake on my part, and no such act of "bad faith" as you claim. It is quite true that a fetish for breasts may be a sexual disorder if not explicitly written in the DSM-IV. (see following quotes):
"... modern diagnostic criteria exclude body parts from the definition of fetishism. DSM-IV denotes a separate category of "partialism" (exclusive focus on parts of the body) under '302.9 paraphilia not otherwise specified.' Similarly, ICD-10, although not specifying partialism, would allow for classification under 'F65.8 other disorders of sexual preference.'
"As most authors include body parts as fetishes, I will follow a similar principle in this text and will include partialism."
D. Richard Laws, William T. O'Donohue. 1997. Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. Guildford Press. ISBN 1572302410. p.77
Now, if "breast fetishism" is correctly sourced in a cultural context, but the phrase is used incorrectly to imply a clinical condition (correctly known as a "partialism" or breast-partialism) then the article should be split and the clinical context moved to its own page e.g. Breast partialism.
194.112.32.101 13:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What I'm understanding here is "breast fetishism" may be simply a non-clinical vernacular (or mistaken) term meaning breast partialism. If so, perhaps this article should be renamed to the more correct term, with a redirect from Breast fetishism to the new location. I don't think there is enough distinction between the two to support two different articles. Also, this article is currently a little short to split. Perhaps sections can be made for As a disorder and In cultural context? (Just guessing at names here.) / edg 14:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Splitting the article would be the correct procedure, but the context of Breast Partialism is barely referenced and is more of a reasonable possibility rather than an explicit term, however the psychosexual/clinical context of Breast Partialism provides the origin of the cultural context of Breast Fetishism, but to locate Breast fetishism at Breast Partialism would be a misrepresentation of the established use of Breast fetishism.
So, I suppose the logical step would be to show (in one article) how the two concepts influence each other, and find a neutral location for both contexts (and maybe Breast expansion fetish). The page "Breast (disambiguation)" does not reveal any areas currently suitable except the "Cultural status" section in the Breast article itself.
194.112.32.101 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
'Breast fixation' seems like a clean, generic term to describe this. It can include disorders without necessarily connoting it, and its free of the sensationalism that made a misnomer like 'breast fetishism' so widespread in soundbytes. 'Breast fetis' fails to meet the definition of 'fetish', as noted above the breast is body part, an erogenous one at that. Since its also the erogenous zone nearest eye-level and visibly responds to sexual stimuli, associating it with sexuality would seem more natural than abnormal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.111.27 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In retrospect, even the term 'breast fixation' should get no more credence than 'penile fixation'. Do a search for those words and you'll find that it's not a paraphilia, but an example of poor manners. 74.176.156.231 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed unsourced text[edit]

I have removed a particularly dubious piece of text (claiming that enjoyment of breasts by men in the USA is infantile) which had as its only "citation" the same quote repeated. --HarmonicFeather (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added my source for using the statement in the form of a link (see references section), however the details of Haskell's statement needs dates, title of literature or interview etc. Redblueball (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fetishism and pornography[edit]

...are not arbitrarily linked. Could we make sure that the addition of links to pornography subjects, categories, models etc are used with references that explicitly mention a correlation between the attraction for breasts and breast fetishism... this article has a history of unsourced and passionate opinion (understandably). Redblueball (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Bakunyu[edit]

Bakunyū is clearly a regional form of breast fetishism, so rather than keeping the Breat fetishism article for English speaking countries and discussing the same topic for other countries under articles with foreign titles, these should be in the same article. --Gronky (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bakunyū is without secondary sources, or sources that mention Bakunyū as a relation to breast fetishism. Also, if Japanese culture does not subscribe to fetishism to any degree then this should be respected. Until these issues are addressed, I see no reason to merge Bakunyū with a sourced article like Breast fetishism. Redblueball (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. How do we check if a culture subscribes to fetishism or not? I've never heard of this concept.
Since this article is about people who really like breasts, and there's a section on some people in the USA really liking breasts, when I saw a separate article about some people in Japan really liking breasts, the merge seemed patently obvious. Why isn't it? --Gronky (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"Checking" would involve reading about Japan and Japanese culture, and considering if the western psychoanalytical movement (Freud's fetishism) has had any impact. The westernising of Japan began 40-50 years after the west conceived of psycho-sexual fetishism, and there's no guarantee that every part of western culture has been adopted: this link to a summary of an article written in 2003 gives a brief idea of the situation of western psychotherapy in Japan. Post-modern theories may yet yield some references to BF in Japan, but I'd be surprised if they weren't from sources writing from the anglo-american or continental tradition.
For one to "really like" breasts is not enough to invoke a fetish. "Fetishism" to my knowledge is used to describe either a primitive state of a society or a psychological disorder relating to a religious worship or fixation on types of material objects. Claims that a fetish for breasts is a human right, natural, sophisticated, or aspirational misrepresents the concept of fetishism - fetishes are necessarily primitive or a disorder, for the love of things (breasts) is so commonplace that it does not need to be addressed unless the love has something unusual about it. Bakunyū then; is probably just what it is - a style or theme of a Japanese fiction relating to breasts, not a western fetishistic phenomena. Redblueball (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
People use the term fetish in a general sense (incorrectly). Someone who really has a fetish, rather than an storng interest, requires that kind of stimulation in order to reach sexual satisfaction. Atom (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR[edit]

There was a lot added to the article yesterday that seems to be unsourced WP:OR. What do other editors think? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the added material also appears in the Spanish version of the article.Ewawer (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The additions are mainly unsourced. The attributed sources are very weak. Some of the information has reappeared from a previous version of the article - info that was removed because it was unsourced - the Spanish version probably originates from this considering the old EN WP article is all over the internet. The ad infinitum list-making approach to describing the fetish has also reappeared. And, without reputable sources producing a correlate; there is no reason to believe that the content of the images describe breast fetishism. According to the article's recent history.. the additions made by the editor are numerous and are not easily undone, but I support a complete revert. Redblueball (talk)

As the person who is responsible for the recent expansion in the material, I would like to say that on reflection I think some of the material goes beyond the needs of the article. At the same time, the material before the expansion was too limited and did not, in my opinion, deal with a fetish at all. I would suggest that the inappropriate bits be deleted, without a wholesale reversion of all the material. Most of material, especially the proper citations, are worthwhile. I also agree that the listing of fetishes are not appropriate as they suggest sub-categories of the fetish. Perhaps I can start the pruning. At the same time, if anybody knows of an actual source for the matters noted, please quickly put them in before all the material is lost.Ewawer (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made some amendments, kept some of the ideas, and left the section on "Specific interests". The section needs condensing, and clarifying, but I think we should at least give some clear examples of types/culture... as your edits already suggest. Redblueball (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a machete was used and not pruning scissors. For example, the pic of the porn actress may be relevant as presenting oneself to pander to the breast fetishists. Furthermore, if it wouldn't be for the breast fetishists, there wouldn't be much pornography around.Ewawer (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Some art from the classical era could be considered porn by contemporary standards yet does not have its focus on breasts exclusively. Similarly; in contemporary porn not all porn featuring models with small breasts or large breasts - as in the case of Kelly Madison - is an example of Breast fetishism. Perhaps, the fact that she has large breasts (therefore more apparent) produces thoughts of a fetish for large breasts, but I would not agree that her work is the most refined example to illustrate the article. The article concerning herself mentions Juggs magazine - I think this is worthy of note. In terms of porn models and BF, perhaps the nature of the subject is such that fetish porn is more coherent while the models are producing softcore porn (ie; excluding genital contact) with an explicit reference to breasts as in the case of Danni Ashe or Milena Velba. I've often heard it said that the films of Russ Meyer are concerned with the fetish for large breasts, but I tend to think the films were about other things. Perhaps the point about Meyer is that his films made the interest in large breasts more popular and the exploitation for entertainment more culturally acceptable. However, Danni Ashe, Milena Velba, and the films of Meyer refer to the fetish for large breasts and all the associated clichés of types of movement; bouncing, jiggling, squeezing etc, but the article does not need to exhaustively list every possibility within the popular large breast genre of entertainment, or for that matter the fetish for small breasts, or breasts with big areola, or the puffy genre of entertainment... I think the article should be describing what BF is outside adult entertainment from California, and acute breast worship/devotion (rather than a ordinary appeal), why "bigger" is more popular (is this a kind of modern virtue symptomatic of fetishism?), and whether this fetish is a product of a patriarchal society, and whether non-western culture has its own manifestations. Redblueball (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Move?[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move Some food for thought: the rationale behind this move request was based on the assumption that breasts are inherently sexual objects, and therefore, attraction to them cannot be described as fetishism. It is arguable that, objectively, breasts are no more sexual objects than feet, hands, or any other body part not directly related to conception, and that in Western society, breasts have been normalized as sexual objects. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • breast fetishism to sexual interest in breasts. This is not a sexual fetish. Sexual fetishism is refers to the sexual interest in nonsexual objects (e.g. "feet"), and the breasts are sexual objects. Hence the title is inaccurate. Voortle (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Voortle (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Prior to the last batch of edits by one editor - the article was completely sourced and referenced (see here)... anyway... even the current article has legitimate sources which are clearly in opposition to your opinion! Redblueball (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If a breast fetish exists, then so does a vagina fetish. If course, as those objects are sexual, they're not sexual fetishes, hence the terms "breast fetish" and "vagina fetish" wouldn't be accurate. On the other hand, "foot fetish" is accurate as feet aren't sexual. Voortle (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I've added reference to this common argument and its response in the lead of the article. Redblueball (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wanting to add the word sexual to the title under the idea that the article is not sexual does not seem to make any sense. Basically, there are two aspects to the word sexual, one for reproduction and functionality, hence breasts solely for the purpose of breast feeding, the other for play, specifically sexual play and enjoyment, summed up as fetish. Men are typically attracted to a woman's legs, breasts, hair, face or other physical parts, they say a man is a leg man, for example, if that is what he is attracted to in a woman. A fetish takes it a step farther, toward the kinky side - if you use a feather it is erotic, if you use the whole chicken it is kinky, or, as Woody Allen said, "Is sex dirty? Only if it's done right." 199.125.109.102 (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Breast fetishism" is the most common name for the subject of this article. The term may not be entirely technically correct (and this should be reflected in the article), but a reader is much more likely to search for "breast fetishism" than "sexual interest in breasts". Jafeluv (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Additional comment. Oh and by the way, not all sexual interest in breasts is breast fetishism. Otherwise there would be about 3 billion breast fetishists. Jafeluv (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose (And knock it off, Voortle. At most one of your past 50 suggestions was at all constructive.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Breasts are not a sina qua non of sexual reproduction. Any sexual interest in them is therefore a fetish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since "breast fetishism" is the more common term. It is a sexual fetish in that the sexual interest goes beyond the typical. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 04:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. When Man started to walk upright, the breasts became a part of the sexual appearance of women. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Females with Breast fetishism[edit]

I'm a heterosexual, American woman, married to a man, who has had a breast fetish since elementary school age. Recently, in my 30s I met a woman age 40, also married to a man, who says she only recently has had a breast fetish, not her whole life. Both of us seem stimulated by breasts as a visual, and enjoy fantasizing about touching and kissing breasts, as well as having ours touched and kissed. Viewed as a very sensual experience in a sexually-turned-on way, though recognizing breasts existing for their purpose to nurse babies, as we've both done. For me, without direct breast stimulation, or watching images of breasts, or men or women fondling women's breasts, I don't get turned on. Have no idea how this started at a pre-puberty stage in my life. I believe it is a fetish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahloves2write (talkcontribs) 10:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Gould Davis[edit]

This article assumes Elizabeth Gould Davis is an expert. ...I think that speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.80.201 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/Weasel[edit]

This article smells of bias and original research right now. I added a section from the article on Cleavage to try to add some neutrality and other viewpoints, but there are still heavy overtones of "what all feminists think" throughout. It also suffers from vague and misleading language ("some authors," "some think," "has been attributed," etc.).

Chaosdrone (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Breast fetishismBreast partialismPartialism is defined as "a sexual interest with an exclusive focus of a specific part of the body." Sexual fetishism is defined as "the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation." This article should be moved to breast partialism because it refers to sexual arousal due to breasts, which are a body part. Handcuffed (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP:COMMONNAME ; breast fetish (185khits) ; breast fetishism (9khits) ; breast partialism (1.5khits) ; 65.94.45.160 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above - it may not fit the technical definition of a fetish, but it fits the more common use definition of something you happen to like sexually. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If you look at standard definitions of fetish, they commonly include non-sexual body parts as well as inanimate objects. Cambridge Dictionaries Online: a sexual interest in an object or a part of the body other than the sexual organs; Merriam Webster: an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression; Random House (via Dictionary.com): Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation; Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary: an object or bodily part whose real or fantasized presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression. olderwiser 14:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Fair enough. Bkonrad, you bring up good points. Handcuffed (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Willendorf[edit]

The Honorable

The Willendorf image should not be used at the top - the Venus of Willendorf and Venus figurines articles discuss contemporary scholarship that proposes that these figurines may have been erotic art - or religious fertility symbols, or simply just stylised self-portraits by women with no mirrors. -- Callinus (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Uncaptioned picture of breasts[edit]

Without any caption at all, that picture of a woman's bosom right in the beginning of the article seems to be there for nothing but ogling.191.177.95.237 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Callinus about that. Per the Willendorf section above, he's the one who changed the lead image. Well, after I reverted an IP who changed it. Anyway, per WP:Pertinence, editors should keep in mind that lead images do not always have to be authentic with regard to what they appear to be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the IP editor. Image is not illustrating anything useful. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep. I agree with its removal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breast fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)