Talk:Breast/Archive 6

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

sexist focus
Why are there mostly female pictures and pictures of humans? That's not all a breast can be. YVNP (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page. Scroll up and find Talk:Breast Asher196 (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image is broken
No matter what I revert to, its broken. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the image by adding .  Not sure what caused the problem originally; the problem seems to be in the image itself, not the infobox, as other images work fine in that position (and the infobox works fine everywhere else it's transcluded); furthermore, the image works fine outside of infoboxes.  I don't see anything recent in the file history over at Commons, so I have no idea what would have caused it to suddenly stop working.  I don't think the problem is really solved, this was just a quick fix; people at WP:VP/T or maybe WP:GL. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a technical error on the page
The blood supply to the breast is not the posterior intercostal arteries. I would be the anterior intercostal arteries.

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

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

Fetish breast binding.
Hi all, Great article(I love boobs, like most male's.) All the pictures are very tasteful except for the one on breast binding. I would not care if my young son saw all the other pictures. It does not add anything to the article and may be better placed under the bondage section. Would anyone like to discuss this further? I would recommend deleting the picture. --Yendor72 (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when did children and what's suitable for them to see affect the content of encyclopedias? Honestly, Wikipedia is not censored, and this picture adds information to the article (like the role of breasts in sex and fetish) just like the picture under "Sexual role". I understand your concern, but if we move the picture to the bondage page- next thing we'll delete it, next thing we'll delete pictures of breasts because there is always someone offended by everything. Before you'd know it, half of the pictures on Wikipedia would be gone. The picture is also very vague, and really as non-sexual as a picture of a woman in bondage could possible be, I don't think it would scar children since they probably wouldn't even realise what it is. --BiT (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

Why the redirect?
Why does the article for Oppai redirect here? I can't find any information on whatever Oppai is or why it should be related to breasts. Padillah (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Google says that Oppai is Japanese slang for a woman's breasts. Asarelah (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then shouldn't that be stated in the article? I don't think it's quite appropriate to simply "take" the article and not tell the reader why this is where they ended up. Padillah (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If they were already typing the word "Oppai" into the search, then they probably know what it means already. Asarelah (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how do you explain me? I was looking for what a username meant and ended up here. If I were left to my own devices I'd still not know. Padillah (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, feel free to redirect Oppai to the relevant entry in Wiktionary instead. Asarelah (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Wikipedia is not censored. If you find it juvenile that's because of your own pre-conceptions and social conditioning. 90.217.141.226 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTCENSORED. The pictures add to the article and present the subject in a responsible, clinical, educational way. (I do wish the lead pic was different, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms and I've unsuccessfully argued my point into the ground on the talk page archives). Asarelah (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Jefuab on this one. Though I have to say that most are austhetically pleasing their usage does seem a bit over the top and indiscriminate. Unless someone is living in some alien world I don't think an introductory picture is necessary to illustrate what a breast is. Most readers would probably be looking for more more information on the function and structure and on conditions affecting the breast. Most of the pictures could probably be moved into more specific articles, the completely out of place inverted nipple picture jumps to mind. Is there really a need for a gallery when the same could be said for most of the pictures in it? Biofase (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been going on for years. The answer is the same; there's no reason why this article shouldn't have a photo in the lead, just as other exterior anatomy articles do. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * The model is fine (for the reasons you've already mentioned). I think the execution of the photograph needs tweaking though. I guess the most obvious change would be the elimination of the blur by steadying the camera and using the self-timer (if the camera has one). Also, if the model moved forward from the wall/backdrop by about three to four feet then this could eliminate some of the close-ness and the cast of the shadow on the wall. There may also be a bit of an issue with focal length because of the proximity between you... perhaps moving further apart may make it easier to move to a length of about 50mm rather than a shallower length that may make the subject follow the curve of the lens. And adopting a slightly lower viewpoint might be useful (if we're looking for perfection). As it is... for me - the image is cropped too tightly, but I guess can be corrected easily if it's a post production decision.
 * In regards to your preference, I think a front-on approach creates a sense of flatness which the current lead does not possess, so perhaps then - there's something in the current leads favour. If you have a patient model it may be worth trying a few different shots with the model rotating 10 or 20 degrees to her right - and with natural light illuminating the front of her body. The light available at about 90 minutes after dawn or 90 minutes before sunset is particularly complimentary. Redblueball (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, perhaps I'll try some alternative shots incorporating some of the suggestions. This image was intentionally blurred by post processing, and the lighting improved from what was even worse than what is shown.  My thought was not to use this image for the article, but to stimulate conversation on what would be ideal.  This particular model was used for the reasons indicated above. I'm not sure that I can obtain the presice lightning of your preference, however.  Atom (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're using Flash, turn it off, the lighting seems off, Also, if you can, try pulling away a bit from the subject, so we have some boarder around the chest; it looks a little too tight.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the photo self taken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhoi.pakfa (talk • contribs) 11:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a great picture for the lead. Asarelah (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is of poor quality (blurry and overexposed). The current lead is much better. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The current lead is far more blurry. Asarelah (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are confusing blurriness with depth of field. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Surgically Altered vs Natural
The breast in the image with the caption "The breast of a pregnant woman" has been surgically altered. You can see the surgical scar along the bottom crease and halfway up the exterior side of the breast. This type of scar is typical of augmentation scars. Can we please get a non-surgically altered breast (i.e. a natural breast) for this picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.206.25 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a scar, it's a bra mark. We've been through this many times before.  Dreadstar  ☥  22:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Continued image discussion
Recent discussions archived here


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


 * 95c has a touch of Contrapposto about it; whereas 289 does not, being straightforward thereby complimenting the formal tone of the nature of an encyclopaedia. Redblueball (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, a little tiny bit of contrapposto doesn't ruin it. Its still better than an illustration. Asarelah (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * 95c alludes to the use of a style (contrapposto) that 289 does not possess. The lack of "aliveness" in 289 is because of the artist's use of generality to suggest that a description of breasts cannot be specific and include all the realistic variations of women's bodies. The purpose of encyclopaedia articles is to summarise knowledge, not present individual cases, and within the scope of various meanings attributed to breasts - it is of curious importance to attach an inevitable incidence from this scope as an illustration to the introduction... thereby creating an oxymoron of a specific image illustrating a general passage of text in a general article. More curious while there being a more innocent alternative - 289. Redblueball (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see it as an artistic image. (I asked if that was your perception) ''Contrapposto" just means that the pose is one where the subject is relaxed with weight on one foot.  I don't see how the particular pose of that picture distracts from the topic in any way -- nor does it seem (to me) to add "emotional appeal".  I hear your opinion.  In my opinion one can learn the most from seeing a real example, and not a sterile drawing.  Your point that we should avoid special cases is well taken, hence my working description of a good image to include "subject should be average, rather than unusually small or unusually large, should have neither tattoos or piercings, the image should not indicate disease."  That should not be extended to mean that we should work to remove any and all unique characteristics from an image for it to be a good lede for this article.  In fact the "average" person is not symmetrical, and each breast is different, so having such an image shows the normal case.  The more images and examples of the topic we have, the better idea that an interested reader gets of the topic.  Also, the more that people see images of normal human anatomy in normal context, the less they will be biased to perceive the topic as erotic or pornographic.  As you point out there is great variation, and space for but one lede, we want something that is a fair representation, and not a perfect one. Its purpose (a lede) is primarily to offer, at a glance, an idea of the topic of the article, and an image such as 95C succeeds at that well.  I admit that 289 succeeds at that, but it still begs the question (for me) of why someone would use a rendition of a real topic when there is a real image available.  Atom (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For once, I am in agreement with Atomaton. The contrapposto is really not a major issue. Even if this image is slightly flawed, it certainly beats the blurry, weirdly angled one we have now. We simply don't have a perfect image, and we have struggled like hell to get people to even consider to changing it to a better photograph, let alone getting anyone to concede to an illustration. The contrapposto is barely even noticable, I didn't even realize it was there until you pointed it out. Its a tiny flaw in an otherwise excellent picture. Asarelah (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify :- images, sketches, photographs, contain elements of style; style being a concept realised by (for example) posing a model in a particular way. This realisation (by way of contrapposto) is used as a method for connecting (asking, appealing?) to a viewer's sense of beauty and their emotional faculties. In the case of drawing a comparison between a stylistic property (the pose) from all stylistic properties present in images 95c and 289 - the latter image cannot be confused with a product of an artist concerned (either intentionally or unintentionally) with implementing a style (contrapposto) that makes an appeal to our emotions. Becuase 289 does not contain this type of stylistic endeavour within its complete set of stylistic properties, and for the sake of rejecting emotional appeals in the text of articles, and for the sake of images following the style of the text, then image 289 gains one mark (imo) from the critical pool of all possible marks shared between 95c and 289. Now, Asarelah, if we are to reach a consensus then we need to be critical of all images (for the benefit of the article), not just those we don't prefer, right? Redblueball (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, obviously, but that still doesn't mean that we should reject the photo for the illustration. We should simply replace the blurry picture we have now with 95c, contraposto or no contraposto, and put out a request on commons for a superior photo. I still believe that we should at the very least switch to 95c for now, as it is obviously superior to the current picture, and then return to the talk page to debate its relative merits against the illustration. Sound reasonable? Asarelah (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no apparent consensus for this change, Asarelah. See Talk:Breast/Archive 5.  Make certain there is consensus before changing the image again.  Dreadstar  †  01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. We should leave the current image, and see if we can find a better image than 95c.  After some period of time, we can start a consensus discussion on either a new image, or 95C if there is interest.  There is no hurry to do anything quickly.  Atom (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let everyone know, I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute as much to this discussion as I did previously. I'm recovering from laproscopic gall bladder surgery, so my Wiki use will be more erratic. Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up. Asarelah (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Breast Orgasm" Citation Needed
If ever a citation were needed, it's the claim that some women are able to achieve "breast orgasms." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.94.164 (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My wife is my cite, and no, you can't watch. 69.171.166.231 (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

haha good point. I'd (and the rest of us) would beintrested in a source that says its not possible.24.192.42.231 (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * These are all original research which does nothing to substantiate the claim. I agree with the original poster, a reliable source for the information needs to be found. --132 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For inclusion in Function
The following is recommended for inclusion in the category of Function, under the sub-category of Other suggested functions. This is the wording and coding used in the article Cleavage (Breasts) and appears to be more appropriate in this article instead.

Evolutionary psychologists theorize that humans' permanently enlarged breasts, in contrast to other primates' breasts, which only enlarge during ovulation, allowed females to "solicit male attention and investment even when they are not really fertile", though Morris notes that in recent years there has been a trend toward reversing breast augmentations.

Thornbrier (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aftersometime, 17 December 2010
i want replace breast image with new image so please give me power to change it

Aftersometime (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I presume you're referring to File:Breastnew.jpg, which you uploaded to Commons. Please view the linked page to see why you must provide more information about the source of that picture, otherwise it will be deleted.  Subsequently, you should explain here why you believe that image is preferable to the existing image.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * The article also fails to mention that the sight of bare female breasts can elicit heightened sexual desires from (bisexual or lesbian) women, if we really want to split hairs over the issue. Xmoogle (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a qualifier added. Breasts are not considered sexually exciting in all cultures. Asarelah (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As Xmoogle said, it ain't just men, my gf finds female breasts to be quite stimulating and she is quite the woman. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

To do:

1.To stand upright.

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

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

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

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

Not to do:

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

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

3.Not to be carrying heavy weights.

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

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

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

7.Not to make experiments with your weight.

8.Not to deprive of proteins in your diet.

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


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


 * This sort of thing should be in Wikihow and sourced. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Breast function section
I've noticed that there is a minor inconsistency in the Breast Function section with the Wiki article on bonobos, the citations for which I have verified. Female bonobos, which are primates, have protuberant breasts (not to the same extent as humans, but markedly so, nevertheless). The selection bias for protuberant breasts therefore needs to be discussed in greater length, including mention of bonobos, and possibly cite recent sources on the evolution of breasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sausagerooster (talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

menstral cycle
Shouldn't it be included that during the menstral cycle, breast tissue is briefly created and dies, increasing risk of cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know what you mean. Breast tissue is continually created and dies even between menstrual cycles as it is with all the tissue in the body. Haven't seen any reliable study that shows this can increase the risk of cancer and don't think it can be reliably tested at all, remember verifiability. Biofase (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that cancer cells are mutated cells, anyway, so the menstrual cycle would have little to do with it. 68.235.157.103 (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless you take into account estrogen levels. Estrogen is a well known carcinogen. 75.142.234.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

1st and 2nd photos
It is good educational practice and common sense to proceed from the general to the special and more particular. So I think the first photo given, that of the breasts of a pregnant woman should become the 2nd picture, and the current No. 2 would better serve as the first. Is there anyone who feels the same? Myles325a (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first picture isn't of a pregnant woman. It's simply an angle issue. The model is in repose (I believe) and the extreme crop makes it look different. I do agree that maybe a less extreme crop would help the pic but I don't know if one is available. Padillah (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this is a little late, but the description for the first photo clearly states "English: Closeup of the breasts of a pregnant woman." The user who uploaded the photo has also come to this talk page several times to state that fact. I don't have an opinion on the order of the photos, but I figured I'd make that clear since you seemed to be running on the assumption that she was reclining, rather than pregnant. ICY TIGER'S BLOOD  23:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there milk in the breast of a pregnant woman?
The caption to first image indicates that the breast of the pregnant woman is swollen because it is full of milk. The secretory tissue in the breast begins to grow some time during pregnancy, but significant milk production does not start until after delivery. A better caption would be something like "A full breast of a pregnant woman ready to begin milk production after delivery". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storslem (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is why they had a picture of a contented cow on Australia's Norco brand of milk. (And why Norcs became slang for breasts here.) I know that the "primary" purpose of breasts is to feed infants, but the aesthetic world generally depicts women's breasts without infants sucking on them, and not when they are lactating. If this prissy attitude is to take effect, then would not the image of a male penis be properly shown as erect and spurting semen? I wrote earlier that a general image of a normal pair of breasts should be the first picture shown, not this extreme close up, which cuts out the head and torso, both of which give the female breasts all-important context. I'm surprised that more women haven't complained against this absurd prudery. A modern woman is only lactating a few months of her life, while her figure is something that is with her for all her adult life. Similarly, a man's penis only fulfills its "primary" purpose for a few seconds in an entire lifetime,if that, but it has value for a man every day of his life, and like the women with her breasts, a man very rarely has occasion to think of his organ for reasons of its "primary" purpose. Grow up, and stop behaving like the moral morons at Conservapedia.Myles325a (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While I agree with most of what you have, you seem to have forgotten that a man's penis is not just a sexual organ. It's purpose is just as important in the excretory system. Men pee from their penis, and probably do so for hundreds of hours in a lifetime. 65.184.113.99 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Censored
Can I remove images of Nudity?--85.12.88.17 (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't completely remove an image from an article just because it contains nudity, per the policy that says Wikipedia is not censored. However, there are several ways you can suppress some or all images from appearing when you view Wikipedia; see Help:Options to not see an image. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: no, wikipedia=not censored, have a nice day.Kornflakes89 (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Breast cup sizes around the world, map
http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=5285 Bigshotnews 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)
 * We have a map like that here. It needs referencing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Statistical inconsistency / contraditction
From the page, under development:

...notable breast asymmetry [...] is present in 25% of women.

and in the following paragraph:

For approximately 5–10% of women, the asymmetry of the breasts is notably different

Am I misinterpreting this or is this a contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.203.250 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cissexism high in article
This wikipedia user would like to move for the article to be re-written for accuracy. Specifically, usage of gendered terms throughout the article, starting in the second sentence:
 * "Both men and women develop breasts from the same embryological tissues. However, at puberty, female sex hormones, mainly estrogen, promote breast development, which does not occur in men, due to the higher amount of testosterone. As a result, women's breasts become far more prominent than those of men.".

This statement, and many others throughout the article are incorrect. These are gender terms, not sex terms. That sentence, specifically should be re-written as follows (the changes are from gender terms to sex terms.
 * "Both males and females develop breasts from the same embryological tissues. However, at puberty, female sex hormones, mainly estrogen, promote breast development, which does not occur in males, due to the higher amount of testosterone. As a result, a female's breasts become far more prominent than those of males."

Clearly, this article is in great need of correcting, and I would correct it myself, but I feel that it would be reverted due to personal views of other users on gender and sex. Once again, I state that this is article is incorrect from the standpoint of biology. Futhermore, there should be a section in this article on non-cissexed and/or non-dyadic individuals, or a link to the relevant article. LupusSapien (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)LupusSapien: Tuesday, April 24th, 15:55 UTC.

That, and a lot of 'generally's and 'tends to's. There is not enough room in this article to discuss the full spectrum of human biological variation, but to act like it simply doesn't exist is totally unacceptable, and is yet the standard fair for Wikipedia. Because yeah, trans* and intersex people apparently don't exist. "Hello World?!!" ''Let's not mention anyone outside the norm, because that would be nitpicking. And if we do mention, well, let's pretend they magically appear in our painfully mainstream discourse (we need a section called "the Other", fill in the blank later), and then disappear the moment their existence does not appeal to our normative sensibilities (or would require an additional word or two not to completely preclude from existence).'' Anyazelie (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the 'big tit' redirect
Sexual slang term; it's usage is not academic and looks strange in an informative article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.167.228 (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed and ✅. Someone looking for the bird isn't going to type "big tits" by accident. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Since this article is allready quite long would it not be smart to move some of the information regarding anatomy to breast anatomy, an article allready created, and insterting a at the reduced anatomy section in breast? Eventhough the anatomy section in breast is very well written it might be to long/complex for non-health professionals or readers who just want a quick overview? That way the stand-alone breast anatomy article could also be expanded to include even more information. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with that idea. Good thinking.(olive (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC))


 * The breast anatomy article needs serious work. It is based on a single source which is not WP:MEDRS and appears to have had minimal impact. The article apparently makes unrealistic statements and is misnamed - if anything it should be called "anatomy of lactating breast". In fact I am thinking that article should be nominated for deletion. Richiez (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, for now, per Richiez. There needs to be some sort of detailed summary in the main article, at least. -- 92.13.83.85 (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The breast anatomy article contains useful information about errors made in understanding the anatomy of a breast, and it does need work, so migrating a considerable portion of the section on Anatomy would be useful. Then the existing content in   breast anatomy could be re-worked to refer to the anatomy of lactating breasts. And yes, a summary of the breast's anatomy ought to remain in the main breast article. Go for it. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Suppoort. I'm in favor of transferring most of the Anatomy section here should to breast anatomy, with key terms and summaries defined in the breast article. The material here is should be a bare minimum of what an anatomical article should include. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have completed the merge. The article contained no content that was both reliably sourced and notable enough to be included in the encyclopaedic, and the information contained here is additionally of higher quality and more comprehensive. --LT910001 (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2013
The image right above "Shape and Support" is not in Wikimedia. This creates the situation where if I take my classroom to this site, we are unable to block this image. I request it be moved to Wikimedia.

72.183.116.207 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the image below the title "Shape and Support" is not in Wikimedia, so I cannot block it.

By the way, I am very appreciative that Wikipedia allows us to block the images. This allows us to allow the children free access to this wonderful site.

72.183.116.207 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The image, File:Weibliche brust en.jpg, is from Wikimedia Commons - same as most, if not all, of the other images on this page. If the others work, does there seem to be anything different about this one from then that might cause it to not work? -— Isarra ༆ 22:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * disabling this request. All images on this page that can be moved to Wikimedia Commons have been - all others are unable to be moved due to Copyright reasons. Mdann52 (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014
There is NO correlation between "race" and breast size, considering that "race" is a social construct, not biological. Please, take out the sub about Size because it along with the terrible New York Times article that's being used as a source, it's nothing but lies and junk science. This article is at risk of actually appearing racist if you don't fix it or allow it to be opened to editors who can fix it. Please.

AccurateEddits (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Not because of your allegations of lies and junk science but because we should have more studies more definitively proving any link. --Neil N  talk to me 04:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * lol it is lies and junk science thoughSecondplanet (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is easily provable that there is a non-zero correlation between any two genetically-variable attributes, regardless whether a causal relationship exists or not (the correlation can be arbitrarily close to zero, though). So your claim is false.  That doesn't require us to include anything in the article, of course, especially if there's no good and relevant study.
 * Also, race is not just a social construct, although it's often misunderstood. For example, melanesian/australian people and Bantus (southcentral Africa) are genetically most distant among all human races, despite both having "black" skin. KiloByte (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Where precisely?
'In Asia, there was "Breast Mountain,"...' Asia is a very big place. 109.149.208.19 (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Preparation for GA nomination
I will be preparing this article for GA nomination over the next month and would accept any feedback. I invite other users to contribute and/or take the lead on this. Ping to, what are your opinions about what needs to be done to get this to a satisfactory standard? Tasks: --LT910001 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Add citations to unsourced areas


 * The ping didn't work, LT910001; but since I have this article WP:Watchlisted, it wasn't needed anyway. I see that you listed that the unsourced areas need citations; of course, I agree. What I first see as needing improvement when looking at this article is the lead; it doesn't do a good job at summarizing the article. But fixing up the lead can come after we fix up the rest of the article. The sourcing needs improvement. For example, look at the first two sources currently in the Shape and support section; those need to be replaced. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. I tend to work in a time-scale that is a little slower than other users, so I will slowly add and replace citations over the next month. Am also looking to get Cervix to GA --LT910001 (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll help out with sourcing and some other matters concerning the Breast article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Btphelps, regarding this, this and this latest edit I made, and this and this latest edit you made, make sure that you are using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Generally try to stay away from WP:Primary sources. Also see WP:MEDDATE. Flyer22 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

, regarding expansions such as this... Per what I stated above to Btphelps (who thanked me via WP:Echo for that post), make sure that you are not using too many WP:Primary sources. Keep WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE in mind. Also, take it easy on the excessive citing; see WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request Jul 18 2015: Aspect with regard to both sexes
This whole article is heavily weighted toward females, giving almost no consideration to male breasts.

Even the opening sentence gives the reader the immediate impression that only females have breasts.

The breast is one of two mammary glands on the upper ventral region of a female primate's torso ...

Why is a breast being defined as a female only anatomy part?

Please clean up this article or allow it to be edited so that it can be factually correct.

93.95.76.135 (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:Due weight. The article (its WP:Lead) is clear that the male chest also consists of breasts. But the male chest is usually not referred to as breasts, and the vast majority of sources on breasts refer to female breasts...not to male breasts (as any "breasts" Google search will show). Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But even the sentence I pointed out is clearly misleading, and the opening of an article should act as a definition of sorts for defining what is being talked about. Breasts are not exclusive to women. The primary reason for my dismay is that I was recently involved in an online discussion with a number of people who refused to believe that male and female breasts are fundamentally the same thing, and I am having this wikipedia article shoved in my face as evidence to the contrary.


 * Even if you look at the wikipedia page for mammary glands, currently it also opens with a sentence leading the reader to believe that it is something exclusive to females.


 * I don't know how this is such a large misconception among the population, but it is, and I do not believe wikipedia should be re-inforcing misinformation, especially in a time when women are working to develop equal rights with men.


 * "In humans, there is one pair of mammary glands, also known as mammae, or breasts. They are rudimentary in both sexes until the age of puberty when, in response to ovarian hormones, they begin to develop in the female" --The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed.


 * 93.95.76.135 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The WP:Lead sentence is not the end of the subject. We often give the primary definition of a topic in the lead sentence and move to other definitions after that (in other sentences and/or paragraphs). The people directing you to this Wikipedia article obviously didn't comprehend the lead well. If people don't read past the lead sentence and notice the other definitions, that is a problem with their comprehension skills. I did, however, tweak a part of the lead after your initial comment above. I'll contact WP:Anatomy about weighing in on this matter, see if they feel we should go with a different WP:Lead sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Alerted. On a side note: I added ": Aspect with regard to both sexes" to the heading of this section so that it is clearer as to what this section is about and will be easier to identify once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flyer, and as long as male breasts are mentioned to exist in the lede and that male breast cancer is overlooked we don't need much more, simply because there isn't much more to say.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 18:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the phrasing is not ideal. I find this a little confusing because it seems to contradict itself. That said like with many organs of the body I think most readers will have an idea of what the breast is before they read the article:


 * I guess my question is this. Are we conflating the mammary glands (which I have always presumed to be the glandular structures that secrete milk) and the breasts (ie the two prominences we see on males and females in surface anatomy, but with a lay meaning that includes the mammary glands)? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would something like this suffice?: "The breast is one of two prominence found on the upper ventral region of the torso of male and female primates. In females it serves as the mammary gland, which produces and secretes milk and feeds infants. Both males and females..." Open to changes/suggestions --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made this change, please feel free to comment below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Waste of time really Sir ian guru (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Splitting the content into a Breast development article
Is everyone okay with this splitting of content by ? And, Medgirl131, why did you feel that the content needed splitting? I'm asking both questions because I don't see the need for the split. Medgirl131, I know you prefer not to communicate on talk pages, but maybe you wouldn't mind explaining why you split the content? As others have noted to you before, communication and collaboration are vital on Wikipedia. Did you split the content because you intend to keep adding more and more on that topic? Did you feel there was a WP:SIZE issue? Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Medgirl131 did get back to me about this via email, and I read the email late (like a month or so late), but didn't get back to Medgirl131 on that email (I meant to, though). I think I eventually will. Medgirl131 was clear that she prefers not to respond on talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Only human breasts
This page is not about "breasts"... it is about female human breasts. All mammals have breasts; should we not link to the real "breasts" article? DouglasHeld (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To which article do you refer? There is already a link in the lead to mammary gland. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the Mammary gland article and it is a very good general breast article. I do think renaming "Mammary gland" to "Breast" would be sensible, and renaming the Breast page to "Breast (human anatomy)" would be sensible. The content of the Breast page is human-centric to a ridiculous degree. DouglasHeld (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * DouglasHeld, the term breast is usually used to refer to human females. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.01.009 is a recent review that focuses on male breast changes and when to suspect cancer. JFW &#124; T@lk  23:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Group 1:
 * 1) Under the clothing section, religious piece is not cited
 * 2) You may wish to consider adding a recent paper by Jan Havlicek (2016, Evolution and Human Behavior) for a perspective on mate choice and the evolution of breasts as sexual ornaments
 * 3) This page only focuses on human breasts. Consider renaming?
 * 4) Under clinical significance, breast cancer as a killer is referred to. Please cite
 * 5) Citations begin at number 2, rather than number 1
 * 6) That being said, we thought this page was of an excellent quality, and with a lovely layout Nmuggleton (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Group 2:
 * 1) Please cite the diagram (cross-section of breast)
 * 2) Please cite in introduction paragraph (re. androgens)
 * 3) Pictures correspond nicely with the article
 * 4) It'd be good if you could flesh out the symbolism section (towards the bottom)
 * 5) Overall, not much to add. This is a high quality page Nmuggleton (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Group 3:
 * 1) It'd be good to add some more detail on breast cancer, including male breast cancer
 * 2) Cultural movements re., 'free the nipple', bra burning, and other feminist movements
 * 3) The page initially talks about male and female breasts, but continues to focus on only female breasts. Either rename the page, or include a section on male breasts
 * 4) Re. the photograph of a pregnant woman's breasts - this photograph should be explained (e.g., how they differ to non-pregnant women's breasts), or removed
 * 5) The 'symbolism' section only covers one example. Either rename or expand beyond Christian symbolism
 * 6) Re. reference 58: Havelicek et al. (2016) found that a preference for youthful, upright breasts is universal. Consider balancing the argument
 * 7) Despite the comments above, we thought that this was an excellent contribution. There are some great scientific articles, a clear introduction and structured layout 137.205.219.74 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Breast size increment.
I want to make certain that any child I bear would have a sufficiency in lactation at least for that time it requires for the child to be able to whine for the refrigerator door to be opened, which takes a while.

What are my breast size increments, if the child grows and continues suckling, the lactation incrementing accorded it´s needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.158.149 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Breast. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/children/adolescenthealth/articles/aa_breast_development.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414005441/http://www.movements.org/case-study/entry/ukraines-ladies-of-femen to http://www.movements.org/case-study/entry/ukraines-ladies-of-femen/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.liv.com/right_bra.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/kama/index.htm

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

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

Request for removal of Offensive image
This image given in article is offensive. As per this pic should be removed, becoz the educational addition to article it brings is too less compared to its offensiveness. And yes, Wikipedia is not meant for children but this doesnt mean we should include any offensive content in the name of broad-mindedness or in the name of educating people. This picture appears without giving any graphic warning and can disturb even adult users. Topazemerald (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @Topazemerald: I don't see how this image is any more offensive than the other pictures in the article. If anything, the caption might need expanded to tie in with text already present in the article about mastectomy. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is already an article on it- Mastectomy. I see no reason why this image showing removed breast is necessary to keep on a page on breasts. It's like showing a pic of a man whose penis has been cut on an article on penis. As far as C.Fred not finding it offensive enough, well I would like to disagree. How many times do you come across such images in real life? And if you do come across a woman with removed breasts, wouldn't you get disturbed by it? Let us hear the views of more people on this issue. By the way, let me disclose hear that this is the first time I have made a Wiki account, and I made it just for starting this topic.Topazemerald (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @Topazemerald: Curious that you figured out the Restricted use template on your first account. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I never said that I havent ever made edits in past. So ofcourse I was aware of this page. I just never had an account in past- never felt its need.

Anyways, plz see this- Offensive_material Topazemerald (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This image is informative and is directly relevant to the article. Labeling this offensive doesn't diminish that, and imparting information is the primary goal here. This article provides information about breasts, including the real-life fact that breasts get removed sometimes. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This content is informative "for the real world" and is not offensive just to be offensive, which is meant to discourage. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope in future Wiki admins would agree with my view and remove this image. Please don't delete this debate.Topazemerald (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Add or switch for the actual scientific article in (currently) reference 67
The reference used to illustrate the article which "showed that breasts are often the first thing men look at, and for a longer time than other body parts" directs to an article in the Daily Telegraph which neither give the names of the authors nor the name of the actual paper.

Acknowledging that such a exposition of what the article is about can be beneficial for the readers, I think a link to the original article, titled Eye-tracking of men's preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. should be added as well. It can be accessed for free on ResearchGate.

The recommanded citation is "Dixson, B.J., Grimshaw, G.M., Linklater, W.L. et al. Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40: 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9523-5".

--Lboukoko (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have made the change you requested. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)