This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
2005
While the first picture that appears on this page is of the buttocks, I believe that it is an unnecssary illustration because it is obviously not in place to inform the reader of what the buttocks is.
The story of Sodom has nothing to do with the buttocks so I removed the lines related to it. I also removed the lines about Rome and Greece as they admired what they considered perfect human form both male and female and they did not admire the sexual acts related to the buttocks in any special fashion. - 24.7.186.18 19:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
there are many names for the buttock:ass, butt rear and so on.
I removed the text "However, the wide-spread use troughout time and cultural space, even when the victim is not bared as fetishists generally prefer, tends to point rather to the pragmatical considerations, while some sexual arousal in the inflictor is probably secundary." added on July 5 to the reasons for choosing the buttocks as a target because it should not be there.
Saying that spanking is done out of a sexual fetish is a reason often made by those against spanking for why the rear is chosen as a point of punishment. While I agree with the user who added in the text that it was an unlikely reason, it should not be added to the list of reasons simply because the user did not agree with it.
I also agree with user Cadr's decision to remove the second picture and think the first should probably be changed to one less artistic and more anatomical. 69.3.92.105 8 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
Brazilians' bounty of booty should be noted as should the common (and healthy) marken for ass centric pornography. EG: booty talk
This text discusses corporal punishment in length, evenwhile there is an article for that, in itself. I think the corporal punishment stuff should be moved where it belongs. I would also move it, if it wasn't as extensive a part of the article.
Which is nice and fun. ;)
This article is needlessly critical of spanking.
Shouldn't there be a link here to the Gluteus Maximus article? Also, I'm fairly sure the muscle's main purpose is to pull the femur back, as when a person stands up or climbs up, something that is never mentioned here. Not complaining about the social and psychological discussion, though. <:)
Just arrived here, out of sheer prurience, via the Articles_which_lack_sources category. The choice of images seems more than a little sexist. What about examples from anatomy texts or classical art? RayGirvan 06:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree, I like the pictures but to be fair there should be - at least - pictures for both genders. A drawing might be more appropriate for an encyclopedia though. --82.141.48.4 20:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
picture
the front picture is out of place. PhatRita 16:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree butt good, legally useable anatomical drawings of the buttocks are surprisingly hard to find. - 24.7.186.18 19:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
the picture is highly inappropriate and therefore I removed it
I think that all articles on the human/animal body need a picture. --66.218.17.100 02:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need multiple pictures of guy's asses?! There's one female regular one, but why show the "hairy" male picture as well as the "shaved" picture? Is this gratuitous?!--164.107.92.120 02:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the picture of the women buttocks should be replaced with one of these due to it being of better quality:
Women Buttocks with towel.
This one might be too artistic for the perpous of the illustration but it's still better than the current photo.
Side view but the buttocks isn't very visible.
My favorite for this article would be the first buttocks with the towel. What do you guys think? - 18:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Wording?
"Early in the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz, Uncle Henry is holding the gate open for Miss Gulch, and at a seemingly appropriate time he lets it go, and it swats the disagreeable old lady in the fanny... emphasized by a musical "thunk" on the soundtrack's underscore."
Although this may be written in US English, I still think that the word "fanny" should probably be changed to somethine like "butt", or even "behind". From the page "Fanny":
" Fanny is also a slang American English word for buttocks and an impolite British English sexual slang word for the female genitalia (perhaps a corruption of the word vagina)."
How about it? Allthesestars 19:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
"Bith buttocks"?
What are "bith buttocks", as captioned in the picture? Joyous (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Bith are a race in Star Wars with a head that has some resemblance to a particular object . . . [1]. Fixed this. -Ethan0 02:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
One is quite enough. Only because it seems this reasurrance will be necessary, allow me to point out that there is only one picture of a hand on the Hand article, only one picture of a cheek on the Cheek article, and only one picture of lips on the Lip article. These examples are not the only ones to be found; do not try to suggest that there should be a male and female version of everything. 74.185.249.234 (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's an abundance on the Internet... =S 85.226.122.222 21:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The first picture isn't even a very good one (no offense to the source). If you're going to have a picture of a butt, it should be just a butt, not a g-string or tatoos etc. If this is inappropriate, go with a drawing or classical depiction. Steve.
At least one more picture in the beginning, one of a female butt, just to be fair. 68.38.242.66 06:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as we all know, there are now two pictures of butts in the beginning of the article, one of a man, and one of a woman. However, the picture of the male's butt is colored, but the female butt is black and white. I think, if it can be done, the second picture should be replaced by the same picture, only in color. I'd say that would make it fair, just my two cents.
The male butt in the beginning of the article is (according to the article itself) uncharacteristically hairless. Perhaps it should be replaced with something more representative of the average hairy male butt?
-Anon. March 8 2007
sick, how about move the male butt and add a curvy black butt? racial and female inclsusion all in one?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
huh?! how are we on the topic of sexism and racism over the issue of butts?!
How come we have a picture of a woman who doesn't even HAVE an ass? She's like the skinniest girl you could possibly find.
New image
I tried to address people's concerns with this photo. It displays different races and both sexes equally. A colour photo is available, but I thought that a black and white one would be more suitable. -4micah 23:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, but a B/W photo sort of ruins the idea of including different races in the first place... The color differences get murky... =S 81.232.72.53 13:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, to me all the butts look the same now. Why are many used in the first place? To be politically correct or because there really is anatomical differences besides the color? I appreciate your effort though, I just question the need for it as for what additional information it gives us, especially in B/W. -- Jugalator 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It gives us no useful information whatsoever. In fact, it may be misleading, since people may attribute the pictures to be indicative of each group of people.
Questionable Connotation?
Why did someone put "Indraneels" in place of "buttocks" in the Connotations section? -- Bendybendy 19:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Romanian image
The caption on the Romanian image seems a bit strange as the image is certainly of more than just buttocks. Is that image really a good illustration of buttocks, or just cheesecake? I think we may be showing our systemic bais here. Kaldari 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Secondary Sexual Characteristics
Speaking of the buttocks being "hot", shouldn't there be something about how important the butt is as a secondary sexual characteric? Maybe a link or something. The article does discuss some of the sexual nature of the bum, but it seems like it keeps getting more and more censored. That is, except for that hot picture- NEW JACK 26 Feb 2006
While the buttocks is a sexual attractant for many, it isn't a secondary sexual characteristic. It doesn't change appreciably during puberty and there is nothing to differentiate a male one from a female one.--Lepeu1999 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Um. I think there are a lot of butt fans that would disagree. Female butts are a world-of-different from male butts! Zebruh 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The differences are minor and not often apparant when all you're seeing is the butt itself. There was a (since) deleted photo on this article that showed 4 butts, 2 male, 2 female in B&W. They were totally non-descript as to which sex was which. I'm not saying that butts aren't sexy - I believe they are. What I'm saying is they're not a secondary sexual characteristic. Secondary sexual characteristics are not present prior to puberty. Butts are.--Lepeu1999 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe more in appearance than function, though... (although there is a huge difference between the prostate and the vaginal wall (which, btw, really deserves its own article ^,^)). 惑乱 分からん 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Granted, but neither are part of the Buttocks per se and are thus beyond the scope of the issue. Butts are sexy in the same way that nice legs are sexy, but neither are secondary sexual characteristics--Lepeu1999 14:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the buttocks is indeed a secondary sex characteristic. The buttocks of females becomes thicker and fattier following puberty. Also, there is much research to suggest that the padding of the female buttocks developed as a stimulant for males. 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Lepeu1999 is only partially correct; the buttocks are not secondary sexual characteristics per se (both males and females have them, after all). According to the Secondary sex characteristic article, secondary sex characteristics are traits (not having a direct reproductive function) that distinguish the two sexes. In human females, secondary sex characteristics include widened hips and increased fat deposits in the buttocks, thighs and hips. So the differential development (which are "appreciable changes", in females) of these areas during puberty creates secondary sexual characteristics. In other words: butts are indeed sexy, in case anyone wasn't clear on that point. Oh, and by the way "buttocks" is the plural of "buttock". MarkBrooks 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Male buttocks image
Can someone please change the picture of "Male Buttocks"? While it may be a realistic portrayal, it seems rather unsightly.
I fail to see how? Is it just because they are male buttocks, or do you have any suggestion for a better image? 惑乱 分からん 12:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, it's not a good picture. The lighting is not good and it just looks like a polaroid someone took and posted for a thrill. There is already another buttocks picture above it. Finally, yes it's male. The fact is that more people find female buttocks appealing and unoffensive than male buttocks. Also it is fully nude whereas the above isn't. This nudity serves no purpose in this case. Howdybob 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as quality goes, if you have a better picture of nude male buttocks, feel free to use it instead. The picture was taken specifically for use at the German Wikipedia article linked to this one (de:Gesäß), not "for a thrill". The picture above it is of female buttocks, which are quite different from male buttocks. NPOV requires that both sexes be represented. The fact that it is fully nude is a point in its favor: a neutral illustration of any body part must be nude in order to show what the body part actually looks like. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The photo of the guy is OK, it's better than the statue. Not exactly a beautiful photo, but it's neutral, not incredibly in-your-face and sufficient. 惑乱 分からん 23:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
all the above arguments pro are true (the lack of Donatello appreciation left aside; still Michelangelo's David is probably impossible to beat) and relevant; the only way to do perhaps functionally better would be to zoom in more closely (even more true for the female one), though the esthetical loss might be greater; historically male nude is actually more accepted; remembering a media controversy concerning (female) modell stereotypes, one might consider deliberately adding less well-formed, boy/girl(ish) buttocks Fastifex 09:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The uploader of the male buttock image has replaced it with a newer, lighter, and cleaner image. Angr (t • c) 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You can keep the Michelangelo. The greatest (male) butt of all time is found on Giambologna's "Rape of the Sabine Women," which stands in Florence at the Loggia dei Lanzi near the Palazzio Vecchio. This from a major butt connoisseur. I first heard about it in high school, and have admired it ever since. 66.108.105.21 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the image of naked male buttocks again. While it may be something most of us don't want to look at, it's no more offensive or less appropriate than the image of naked female buttocks. It seems to run against the NPOV policy to call the male pic offensive and to remove it while leaving the female pic in its place. For the sake of NPOV, i believe both images should stay. Robotman1974 04:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Robot, your correct. A image of a mans butt is no more offensive than a womans. Also: Wikipedia is not censoredStralia 04:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong, it is more offensive. Avoid political correctness.Fistful of Questions 04:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Fistful of Questions, please read this policy. Even if the image of male buttocks was somehow offensive, that would not be a justifiable reason to remove it from the article. I must admit, I don't understand what you mean by "Avoid political correctness", that statement seems to contradict your whole point. Could you clarify that please? I would also like to ask you why you haven't removed the image of female buttocks as well. Both images depict the same amount and style of nudity, yet you find only one of them to be offensive. Can you explain precisely why that is? I will add the image of male buttocks to the article again now. Robotman1974 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Removal of male photo
I am yet to see any explanation as to the removal of the photograph of male buttocks. There have been multiple reverts over the past couple of days, with some people putting it back and others removing it.
I have no strong feeling in either direction about the quality of the photograph, and cannot see any more wrong with this photo than the female one opposite it. The latter is perhaps more controversial, as it has been suggested above that the photo was edited to remove the genitals, resulting in a physically impossible gap between the legs. The angle of the male photo suggests that such editing would not have occurred. I do believe that the male photo is of encyclopedic quality, but I am going to refrain from reverting or adding it back in until the person(s) removing it have had an opportunity to explain their objections.
If no response is forthcoming on this talk page in reasonable time, I will re-insert the image. Any subsequent attempt to remove it from the article without prior discussion on this talk page will be deemed vandalism. --AliceJMarkham 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been an attempt at discussion over this issue. That can be read above (about ⅔ down). I have added the image once more, and any further comments I have to make will be made in this section of the talk page. Robotman1974 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I didn't notice that more discussion had been edded to the old section above before starting this new section. I've moved it to be a sub-section. --AliceJMarkham 20:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Typology Request
Would be there an expert coverage of "Size, shape and composition"? Also concerns of the fashion industry. BTW, the anatomy section is too thin.--Connection 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The first photo looks a bit overly photo-touched...also, why the need to change the images so often?
The previous one of the tanned butt was perfect
Biblical buttocks
The inclusion of references of buttocks from the bible is totally innapropiate. Buttocks are mentioned in lots of books and All of these things cannot be listed, thus the most sane alternative is to list none of them. It is an article about the buttocks, not about all of the books buttocks are in. Dean randall 09:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
As often, the Bible is interesting as a rare source from early time; if you read it attentatively and unprejudiced, you'll find this section is not a cheap attack on religion but no les to the point then any other section Fastifex 07:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It adds nothing of substance to our understanding of the subject - in other words, it's trivia. Guy 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Buttocks are not a subject to which the Bible is relevant (as far as I know :). Should every article contain a list of Biblical and Church Father references to its subject? – Smyth\talk 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's back. Anyway, I think that if this section is in the article then it definitely needs more context. I'm personally an inclusionist (this doesn't mean everyone who uses this university computer is that I'm editing from), but I'm not really sure why the religious references to buttocks? It feels a little odd, and so perhaps needs more context? Best, --164.107.223.217 04:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
black and white image
the black and white image has too much empty white space. —ptk✰fgs 17:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Also, the hands are obscuring the buttocks, so this is not really the best image to illustrate the subject. Ne1ls 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the removal of this picture and am borderline on putting it back, particularly given the profanity in the descripton of the edit where it was removed. If someone has a better picture, by all means put it here. In the meantime, I've moved the male picture to the right side as the page didn't look right as it was. --AliceJMarkham 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the most artistic pictures of a butt, more than the sculpture, and should be in the article because of what it says about assthetics.24.154.173.50 05:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Bring back
Bring back the hot sunbathing image of the girls' buttocks! Its so much better than this guy's ass..eerr I mean, it is so much more in accordance to Wikipedia's goal in representing a variety of butts. .....Please?--67.183.132.49 10:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
wtf is that hairy man's rear end on there for, that's retarded. useless it looks like this article is a joke Shaddix 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) sorry for not signing i don't know how to use this thing xD Shaddix 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't help but agree. The other two are fine, but that one is just repellant in comparison.Talshiarr 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism magnet
At what point does a topic like this become such a target for vandalism that it ceases to be editable by people without registered accounts? Talshiarr 22:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
Are these actual photographs or edited one or 3D modeled? They look too... perfect to be real. Also the male one seems slightly off (smaller than I would expect), but I haven't looked at too many buttocks so I might just not know. Anyway, if they are edited, I think it should be noted. If not, well, congradulate the respective models on their surprisingly prestine rears. IMFromKathlene 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
J-Lo they ain't, for sure. Wahkeenah 04:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Pain in the neck
I removed the bit about "pain in the neck" being a polite euphemism for "pain in the ass" in the Connotations section. If anyone can find a reliable source for this, please put it back. MarkBrooks 11:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Cruft purge
While I wholly agree that the listing of Pop Culture nonsense needed to be trimmed back, was annihilating the entire section necessary? How can anything given as a pop culture reference in any article not be free of such "purges" if everything was deemed useless waste here? Lists of song titles and every obscure film reference are unnecessary but that wasn't all that was there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talshiarr (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 December 2006
You choose which ones are significant. All of them seemed equally trivial to me. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Two issues with this article
Why was the pop culture section completely removed? Seemed like the act of a POV-pusher who is opposed to its obscenity and its trying to censor it.
And at the same time, an extremly disgusting and unattractive picture of a male buttocks remains at the top of the article. I find the image visually abrasive, but I keep getting reverted when I try to remove. Please, let's stick with attractive pictures, or not use any at all.Fistful of Questions 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There are already sections (above) in this talk page to discuss both of these issues. Please use them rather than starting a new one. --AliceJMarkham 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Fistful, their is not one damn thing wrong with the male buttocks photo. The fact is may be unattractive is an opinion not a fact. If it is removed again it will taken as vandalism.Stralia 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. You cannot have 100% subjective opinions. Some images are generally unattractive and offensive, and it would be wrong to tolerate having to look at the image. Others have argued in favor of removing the image before. Fistful of Questions 13:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In looking at your user boxes I can now tell why you would like that image of the male buttocks.Fistful of Questions 13:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea: Why dont all of you arguing each take a picture of your own ass's. The post them on WIkipedia and then have all editors vote for which one to use. 75.109.100.86 18:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
75. etc. this is not a trolling website. Fistful, I agree that some pictures my not be attractive still this an article about the buttocks and we need a picture of male as well as female. And like stated above male buttocks are not offensive, and if they were that is not grounds to remove the image. Wikipedia is not censored. I agree also that any one who removes it will be be charged with vandalsim. Edge865 [[Proud To Be A Wikipedian]] 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have an attractive butt. I photo mine for the article. 75.109.100.90 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Recent edit
I just made a few changes, mostly in layout. I also removed the following bit of code: <br style="clear:both;"> - I saw no difference to the article once that was removed. If it was needed somehow, can someone please put it back and explain here what it does? Thanks. Robotman1974 13:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
sex use
arctile dose not talk about the use of the butt museles in sex (1253) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.138.203.139 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Bottoms and culture
In African culture big bottoms r a sign of beauty, but in Euro culture bottoms the smaller the better until recently, this needs to be added a cultural section. also the sexual relationshop with bottoms from a pycho perspective--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the cultural perceptions of the buttocks should be included. And while we're on the topic, could that guy's butt be flatter? Goodness, it looks like he sits on his back. Get a pic of a curvy butt please
On the simple english wikpedia, my idiot bruther put wikpedia can F off loads of times on the buttocks article. If any people who work for wikipedia see this, please believe it was my brother. Cros my heart and hope 2 die. I like wikpedia. I'd nver put that rubish on it Thanks.
We should also note that all the pictures on the article are currently white. If we could try to include some skin tone diversity, that would be good. --97.112.49.34 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Female Picture
The photo is representative of a female buttocks. The photo shows the difference between the female buttocks and the male buttocks in regards to shape. This illustrates the differences in bone structure and fat distribution between the male and female. The buttocks is an anatomical part of the human body and the differences between the male and female structure are important in understanding physiology of the human being. For example, wider hips and the corresponding wider buttocks aid in the caring of the fetus during pregnancy; a major biological function for mammals. Although various degrees of hair will surround the buttocks during periods of human development, I do not consider this hair growth as a primary aspect of the buttocks. Talk of buttocks hair should be included in the verbal body only, and we shouldn't be looking for photos which make people confortable about their own buttocks. The male photo is representative of a male buttocks, but does not reflect my exact shape. Please return the female photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.228.124 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we get another photo of the Female buttocks. The male buttons is from a normal size male yet the female photo is from a slightly overweight woman so can we have some consistently please? - Mike Beckham 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this picture should be restored because it has attracted popularity elsewhere and is a really artistically pleasing photograph (the other one with the tattoos, not os much). Anyway, check this link to see what I mean: see the pic of the month at this site, which happens to be the image previously on this article! Sleepy best, --164.107.223.217 05:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
THat image is a good example of butts in media and butts being used in an artistic, touching way. It would be great as a standard image, but her skin colour doesn't seem standard at all. It looks like she is dead JayKeaton 10:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As discussed earlier in this talk page, this image has been in and out of this article numerous times in the past and was removed from the article after discussion about the fact that it has been edited to remove the female genitals, which would otherwise be visible part way down the diamond shaped gap at the top of the legs. It may be very artistic but it is not representative of real anatomy and hence does not belong in an article on a human anatomical feature. An unedited version of the same photo may be acceptable. :) --AliceJMarkham 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but we don't need to see female genitals, which are kind of unsightly anyway, in this article, so, even if edited out, not much of a loss . . . --164.107.223.217 04:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that was meant in a sarcastic way... :) Ontopic, I'd agree with AliceJMarkham. Wikipedia isn't censored so why should this article be? It's not like the absense of genitalia puts extra emphasis on the buttocks displayed, if anything it moves the attention away from the article because something is "missing" which looks odd. FelisLeoTalk! 07:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Why, when you click on the female picture, does it have the title 'ass' and the male picture 'buttocks'? Should there not be consistency between the sexes, or are only women an ass?
Hello! Please be sure to sign your posts. Thanks! --164.107.223.217 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what an image is called, although it is good if it at least describes what the image is of. And it is of an ass. Anyway it looks like finding an original of that photo that hasn't been anatomically edited is impossible, so we might want to start thinking about finding a picture that hasn't been censored, as in a totally new picture to replace that one. We can't just remove parts of her body, it is unnacceptable, it makes the picture unhuman, it is like a fantasy picture of a mutant, and us making people think it is a real life picture is incredibly misleading. JayKeaton 23:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, the color of the skin is pale because of the white illumination. And also, this image looks beter than the one in the article. I recommend that we put it in the main article instead of the current one. And if someone find a better one, he/she can replace it. Don't you think ? --Alex 8194 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I like this pic, it pleases me in ways that would be inappropriate to go in to here. 12.186.37.41 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we remove this? It adds nothing and almost realms upon niche fantasies. I have no problem with naked photos etc... that add something but this does not - Mike Beckham 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This certainly does seem superfluous. Could whomever posted it at least explain the purpose for doing so? It is interesting that you have complaints about the female butt images being possibly demeaning, or exploitive, and this and that and then someone comes right along and posts this--I'm intuiting that it's someone that was upset about the allegedly exploitive female images and now wants some type of "revenge". Just stop the petty "ass" gender bickering, if that is indeed what's going on. Anyway, this image does seem gratuitous (possibly exploitive)and probably should be removed. 24.137.100.126 15:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that this image is probably not needed. I still have yet to figure out what's up with the Biblical and Church Fathers' references! Why are they pertinent to this article specifically? --164.107.223.217 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
But the wrestling butt is so nice. I would like to have sex with it. --164.107.223.217 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the buttocks are a prominent feature of the wrestler so it may be of use to an article about buttocks. Also it the person in that photo appears to be an athlete, so it demonstrates what the buttocks of a person in very good health looks like, so we could add a photo of saggy buttocks to show what the ass of someone who is in relatively poor physical condition looks like in contrast. JayKeaton 23:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Then according to your reasoning, a stripper's butt should be shown as it too is a "prominent feature" in such an occupation. I would be interested in knowing how you would react if this were a female wrestler's butt being so gratuitously put on display. Tell me that and stay fashionable(;-]). 24.137.100.126 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Stripper's butt! What an awesome idea! I'll get right on it... Uploading the picture, I mean. Sid 05:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have a photo of a strippers butt, then it would be a welcome addition to this article. I fail to see how my reasoning doesn't equally apply to a strippers butt... do you have something against strippers? Are strippers somehow not suitable for encyclopedias? JayKeaton 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this photo is redundant. There is already a picture of male buttocks, and there is nothing in the article that talks about how the buttocks "are a prominent feature of the wrestler", therefore it isn't illustrating anything in the article, which is what images are for. I can understand having pictures of buttocks in varying levels of fitness, but there are no photos of "saggy" or atrophied buttocks, so that argument is sort of called into question. I also believe this photo might be borderline exploitative, unless the wrestler was fine with a close-up of his butt being distributed freely. For these reasons, I'm removing the photo. Feel free to re-add it if you have reason to (but explain please). -kotra 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It's now been re-added twice into the article since kotra's removal, the second with a rationale (kind of). I won't revert it again, 3RR and all that. ~Eliz81(C) 07:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've submitted Image:Butt33.jpg for deletion. The photo really adds nothing to the article. Also, there really can be a case made that the photo exploits the wrestler in the photo and males in general. Wrestling is an honorable sport. A wrestler's buttocks (or anyone else's buttocks for that matter) shouldn't be used as potential fodder for people to ruminate disturbing fantasies. I think some (if not most) people will know what I mean. Wikiman86 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
calli-what?
Can we get rid of "callimammapygian"? This is not listed in wikidictionary or any other common dictionary, and since it's off topic besides, doesn't add to the discussion. Please? Who agrees?
The picture of the nice lady's arse/lady's nice arse
Much as I like looking at it, I don't think it has a place in Wikipedia as it has been edited to remove the genitalia. Just imagine a Martian coming to earth and wanting to find out about female buttocks - he'd come away with a pretty odd idea of female anatomy if that picture was all he had to go on. Surely we can find a better pic that hasn't been edited? 86.133.242.185 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
A wikipedia page dealing with human anatomy should NOT have parts of the human anatomy doctored out. Why not use photoshop to add a zebra tail to her while your at it? I agree that this image should not be used as it is misleading JayKeaton 23:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
i have removed that picture maybe 2 times during the past maybe 6 months, but someone kept adding it back. I have removed it again. I think some wiki media admin should delete that photo for good. Xah Lee 01:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't remember the image exactly but how can you tell it's been edited do you have the original? TeePee-20.7 13:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I mean the only reason I ask is beacause I myself have had pictures taken of me while I was naked, and in the pictures showing my arse you can see a little bit of my penis hanging in the background, which in this article you cannot see with the guy.TeePee-20.7 13:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone most definately needs to put back a picture of a girls arse though. How about a picture of a Latina's arse this time? Maybe someone like Vida Guerra or Keyra Augustina. TeePee-20.7 13:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheek Flex
A man, after months of ass workout, will be able to flex his buttocks independently of each other to achieve a bouncing effect between the cheeks. A woman cannot do this, regardless of the time spent exercising her buttocks. I believe this merits mention in the article.209.29.87.11 07:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
yeah.....your "belief" makes me chuckle. Then why not give a honourable mention to the young women who flap and bounce their buttocks in those spring break and hip-hop videos?
--Spring Break videos? That's the fat, not the muscle moving. And they're not moving there buttocks, it's more momentum-wise.
Male image removed
I've removed the male image - it's a terrible image. It's obviously been photoshopped in at least 4 places - right above the Gluteal cleft, in both horizontal gluteal creases, and between the legs (presumably to white-out testicles). I wanted to illustrate the article on the horiztonal gluteal crease, and couldn't find a usable image in this article. I've put the female picture which was previously used back into the article. Raul654 02:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've put the male image back in. It was better than the even worse female image which had her genitalia removed. Gillyweed 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, it does look like it has been photo shopped quite heavily. I do not see how we are meant to educate people when our photos have been edited so they do not reflect reality. Especially on an anatomy article. JayKeaton 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Equality required
I restored the female picture so that the genders are equal. There should be both a man's and a woman's buttocks represented in this article if it doesn't want to be sexist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laernaes (talk • contribs) 12:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic image of the woman's buttocks
I can't remove this as there is no edit tab. Here's what I worte on the talk page of the image:
What is this doing on Wikipedia??
I have no objection to photos of nude people. I DO have an objection to this photo, which has been manipulated to remove the woman's vagina. How on earth can this be considered encyclopedic when it doesn't show an anatomically correct image? I am going to remove it form the pages it is linked to. 81.151.230.188 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This image HAS NO PLACE ON WIKIPEDIA - it is non-encyclopedic 81.151.230.188 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
How can you claim that the vagina (vulva is the correct term here) has been removed from the photograph when the vulva would not be visible from the back in the first place? Are you referring to the lack of visible labia? If so, then perhaps the model simply had smaller labia that aren't neccesarily visible from the back. Asarelah (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Question
how come there are more male butts the women butts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjay45 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Gerr butt's butt
If you take a look at the articles history there has been some to and fro over the featured buttocks. I'm guessing mainly because they are the buttocks of the editor uploading them. To me it seems wrong - Wikipedia isn't about self-promotion. However Gerr butt is clearly going to continue forcing his buttocks on us, so I'm going to leave it to others to decide which buttocks they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaffertape (talk • contribs) 04:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Head pics
Keep the female pic on, the article already has a majority male pics. Bobisbob (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
G-string
I don't like how one has a g-string and the other doesn't. The g-string covers the gluteal cleft. They both should be bare. 69.179.62.189 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you find a suitable photo please, rather than deleting one without replacing it. Gillyweed (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The two pics don't pair well when one has a g-string. Mine as well have only one pic then. 69.179.62.189 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the g-string photo either, but it fits more with the male one. Gillyweed (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay then but I hope someone can find a better pic in the future. 69.179.107.224 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
New female buttocks picture
There seems to be a problem with giving a female buttocks picture. The black/white one apparently doesn't suit well and the crrent one has a g-string which covers the cleft and doesn't pair well with the male buttocks picture. We need a new non-photoshopped bare female pic, can anyone find one? Bobisbob (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: the sentence "Females generally have hair growth in the crack (particularly around the anus), often extending laterally onto the lower aspect of the cheeks." Thier are 2 unencyclopedic problems with this;
1. Too general of a statement. Indeed, not all femals have a hairy glootius maximus.
2. Do we really need need this phenomenon described in such puke inducing terms?
It seems that a section on dingle berries could improve this article. Tim30 (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Human Looking Asses....PLEASE!
Both images look photoshopped.
I don't see why so many people fear a the private parts. We see them everyday when takings showers and if we have partners in the bed.
I think its more necessary to get HUMAN BUTTS! Not some photoshopped ass.
Goodness gracious people.71.142.242.233 (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
I totally agree with you. I am so sick of fake photoshopped pictures and drawing and sketchs of asses. It makes me so mad I feel like taking a picture of my own ass and my girlfriends and putting them on there so we can have real picts! Neville (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now the female buttocks is lush, colorful, and humanlike while the male buttocks is pale, waxy, fake looking and very flat. This isn't representative at all. --Vlsi0n (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
new pic
I felt the backwater pic was not a good representive of the female buttocks. Bobisbob (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The female buttocks are supposed to be wider (done to hips) and have more fat. The backwater picture doesn't not illustrate that well. It'd be like posting a picture of a lion with barely a mane to represent a male lion. Bobisbob (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the photo we currently have is not brilliant but it is at least consistent with the male photo. Gillyweed (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine then I'll put it on the to do list, fine with you? Bobisbob (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
G'day Bobisbob, I think this photo you have now is marginally better than the other one. Such a shame about the towel. I still don't think it shows that wider hips though. I think we need to still keep hunting. Gillyweed (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The towel can be cropped out. At least this image it can be used as a holding image until someone finds a better one. This one is the best I can find. Bobisbob (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and the hips on his one are still wider then the other image and the male image (who seem to have no hips at all). How wide do you want the hips! Bobisbob (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This is hilarious... (pictures "controversy")
... and yet, at the same time, so sad. How to avoiding aesthetic objections altogether (and sex/race exclusion) seems quite simple; get an exploded view of the buttocks from an anatomical point of view. That is what this article is about, right? The buttock's significance to culture and human sexuality should be noted, of course, but the actual pictures for the main entry shouldn't reflect aesthetics at all. Something similar to this, but more clean and representative, would seem to be the most simple solution. DeeKenn (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for just editing yours. I have no idea how to post new topics. I want to have added to buttocks in the external links my scientific study of steatopgygia, that is badonkadonk. Here is the link. It's a blog. http://sonikkkblog. blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SONIKKK (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
yeah why do the pictures both come in at the up the ass close up angle?
is that neutral? ~ R.T.G 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
And what are they doing? One is whizzing and the other is bending over. Wheres the pimples? ~ R.T.G 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The male photo, would be nice to see it improved
First, I have nothing against male buttocks in this article. Again, I have nothing against male buttocks in the article. ;-) But, it now looks rather odd in comparison to the professionally lit female buttocks. As if the male counterpart was photographed by a Wikipedia contributor in his living room, while the female pair is clearly of studio quality. So this is a note that it would be nice to see it improved, and taken from the level of amateur quality. It's especially striking when put against the other photo like that. — Northgrove 08:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I sure as heck wouldn't mind being told why the previous male picture was removed, it was a very clean, well lit, professional picture, and it suited the article well, this picture is of an overweight, excessively hairy individual with poor lighting, and on top of that there's a lot of discoloration that is indicative of someone who does not take care of themselves, as well as what appears to be a large bruise on the right buttock.
So why was the good image tossed out in favor of this one? While someone explains this to me, I'm going to just go ahead and re-add the previous image that was of excellent quality and not appearing to be taken by someone in their living room. Revrant (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
New culo
Good work on the new female buttocks it looks good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CartelCacique (talk • contribs) 09:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Irony
The most ironic thing about life is that one cannot see one's own arse, so how can you be sure it even exists! O.o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.166.86 (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Female human buttocks image
Does anyone else find this image overly suggestive? I mean, the woman is bent over, for goodness' sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.90.78 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It works for me. Several times a day. 12.186.37.41 (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely with (User:118.90.90.78). It was the first thing that came to mind when the page loaded. Male buttock takes the objective view, female the fashion magazine take on it, lit up and indeed suggestive. However, I'm not going to search the web for female buttocks that would be better suited... --83.248.83.119 (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
It is perfect. Should be featured as image of the day. -- 200.234.107.35 (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur Image of the Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.61.74 (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Calliope
Calliope (calli-/καλλι- beautiful + ωπή/ope hole, more specifically eye) means "one with beautiful eyes". Please correct. – 91.132.152.64 (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hiney?
Redirects here, but is not included in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.72.162 (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need a baboon picture?
Seriously, why? --Jackass2009 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the scientic name for a genetic big butt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eupeyd (talk • contribs) 21:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Steatopygia.
"females tend to have wider and thicker buttocks due to higher subcutaneous fat and wider hips."
I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be proportionally. i.e. Males' buttocks, on average, are absolutely wider and thicker than females' buttocks, whereas females' buttocks, on average, are wider and thicker in proportion to the rest of their body than is the case in males. This is a scientifically proven fact. The portion above should read "females tend to have proportionally wider and thicker buttocks due to higher subcutaneous fat and wider hips". I cannot edit it because the article is locked. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree and I've changed it. --Archdeceiver (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Does this need a citation to be counted as "scientifically proven"? Caduon (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Buttocks
The definition is Kailem Wilson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.130.161 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Not the Best Picture
I belive that the current female buttocks picture is not a great one. If we have a picture up there it should be of a quintessential female butt. This is not the most educational one either, because it shows a more (I hate to say not normal) not normal butt. We should have a picture of an every day butt that belongs to someone who is in the middle of their life and is not saggy and not round like this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star2buk (talk • contribs) 06:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Use in Sex
I think there should be a topic about the Buttocks use in Anal Sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.165 (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
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"
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)
"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)
"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)
Pratt is not slang for Buttocks
In British English, Pratt is slang for female genitalia, not for buttocks. That said it is rarley used in a literal context, but only as a mild insult (unlike other British slangs for that part of the anatomy which can be used literally, or as an quite hard insult). Pratt ought to be removed from the page on Buttocks.
108.20.217.49 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It's "prat", not pratt. Urbandictionary.com says it has buttocks meaning in UK. Moscowsky-talk- 12:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
"Pratt" or "Prat" is certainly understood as "buttocks" in the US, as in the compound word "prat(t)fall", a comedic bit of slapstick humor wherein the subject falls on his "pratt". 73.27.217.196 (talk)
"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)
@Jpetrell: No, the truth is that the ideal shape and size of an attractive woman's buttocks does, in fact, vary both from "person to person" and from "culture to culture". You seem to be claiming that a low waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and a round buttocks are essential components to everyone's conception of an ideal woman's physique, but this is not true. Obviously, a large number of men prefer round buttocks and hourglass figures as can be seen in the numerous European paintings of curvaceous nude women. This preference is not in dispute, but there are also heterosexual men who have a healthy and normal sexual attraction to women whose buttocks are flat and whose WHR is high. In Female Mate Value at a Glance: Relationship of Waist-to-Hip Ratio to Health, Fecundity and Attractiveness which was published in the journal Neuroendocrinology Letters, in the second paragraph of the right column of the ninth page, Devendra Singh (2002) states that in groups of people where the women have naturally high WHRs, of whom he mentions the Inuit, men may consider women with high WHRs as being attractive. In Erotic Grotesque Nonsense: The Mass Culture of Japanese Modern Times, in the second paragraph of page 114, Miriam Rom Silverberg (2006) states that Yasuda Kiyoo claimed that, unlike Westerners, Japanese people consider a woman with a large buttocks to be "vulgar". In What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women, published in The University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal, on the bottom-left of page 60, Rachel Sewell (2013) states that in her study Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected the "thin-all-over" body shape as the most attractive shape for women in contrast to blacks, whites, Hispanics and the group labeled "Other" who, alternatively, most commonly selected the "hourglass" body shape as the most attractive shape for women. In Preference for Women's Body Mass and Waist-to-Hip Ratio in Tsimane' Men of the Bolivian Amazon: Biological and Cultural Determinants, published in the journal Plos One, in the sixth paragraph of the "Introduction" section, Piotr Sorokowski et al. (2014) states that the indigenous Matsigenka people of Peru were found to prefer women with an extremely high WHR of 0.9. These sources which I have mentioned have dealt with the preferences of the Inuit, the Japanese, Asian/Pacific Islanders and an indigenous Peruvian ethnic group. If there is indeed a "biological component" as you say to preferring a woman with a round buttocks with a low WHR, it appears that the men of these four groups of people do not share the supposed "biological component" that would cause them to prefer a round buttocks and a low WHR.--Ephert (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"White men and a black man!"
The lurid stripper photo whose caption goes out of its way to name the races of the Chippendales pictured? It seems really inappropriate for Wikipedia, more like something from a joke or a porn site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.164.210 (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Please elaborate on your reasoning for the implied request. Your reasoning seems arbitrary. I agree that the caption, by mentioning racial information, is unnecessary, but I don't believe the image, as a whole, should be removed. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017
This edit request to Buttocks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The words female and male (used under the pictures) are adjectives, not nouns. This should say a female (or male) buttock or the noun woman (and man) should be used. Heggink (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This edit request to Buttocks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The caption "Two white men and a black man," and the accompanying stripper photo, should be deleted. It is inappropriately lurid for a Wikipedia page, and the racial references push it way over the line.
95.151.164.210 (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. DoneGhmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Now reverted, unfortunately, by OnBeyondZebrax. At the very least, it should have a more explanatory caption (of the fact that it shows a stage show) - not an unencyclopedic and borderline racist one that has zero educational value. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I see no motive as to why one would deem this "racist". Need I evoke the definition by the English Oxford Dictionary? (Showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another) Whatshouldichoose (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I proposed the picture of the black man so that this articles' images would comply with MOS:IMAGES, which states that articles on a general topic should depict a range of races and genders. Until the picture in question was added, there were no images of Black individuals. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
lists in the "society and culture" section
The overall section on society and culture is too long relative to the overall article. Compare with the article on heart, a part of the body that obviously also has substantial cultural significance, but where this section is in more reasonable proportion to the overall article. The section suffers in particular from the various bullet-point lists which it contains (namely: synonyms, related terms, and in popular culture), which by their nature tend to become dumping-grounds for every conceivable example, many of which are unsourced. The list of synonyms is the most egregious of these. I do not think that it serves any useful purpose in terms of understanding the cultural significance of the buttocks to list every conceivable synonym in English. Wikipedia is not a thesaurus, and neither is this an article about the English language -- although a brief and appropriately written section on "linguistic aspects" including a modest selection of examples inline in the text would be reasonable. Regarding the list of related terms, a few of these could no doubt also be folded into a section on linguistic aspects by way of examples of words derived from the Greek root pyg-, but really most of the terms should either be incorporated into the text of the section relevant to their actual meaning (depending whether they relate to medical or cultural aspects) or simply omitted. Again, simply presenting a list of words is not particularly helpful. Regarding the "in popular culture" list, well, the same thing really: two or three well-written paragraphs with selected examples, and lose the rest. The problem of course is that it is much harder to do this well than it is to just expand lists of examples, and I am not offering. But what I would say is that anyone wanting to improve the article by replacing lists with well-written prose should be bold about doing so, and not be worried about discarding some existing content in the process. Thanks, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that converting the lists to prose would be a good step. Lists make it so easy to add a new bullet for a new slang term you heard on the bus last night...too easy. When text is in prose, it requires editors to find a logical place to insert their text. Which is harder than just creating a new bullet.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
"The buttocks allow primates to sit upright without needing to rest their weight on their feet as four-legged animals do."
Kelly Starrett would argue that our bottoms are not intended to be load-bearing surfaces at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfhoundjesse (talk • contribs) 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Non-primates
As I was writing the short description, I noticed that the lead says "primates (including humans), and many other bipeds or quadrupeds", but the anatomy section only talks about primates. What other creatures besides primates have buttocks? Daask (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Women Buttocks with towel.
This one might be too artistic for the perpous of the illustration but it's still better than the current photo.
Side view but the buttocks isn't very visible.
Done SpigotMap 13:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done - see wikt:female#Noun. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Done Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)