Talk:Steatopygia

Correction needed?

 * I suspect someone hacked this to add the bit about "being caused by blowing up" but I know utterly nothing about the subject, so I don't want to mess with the page in case it is some sort of technical term, however unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.172.47 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

what are these "nymphae"?

 * The discovery in the caves of the south of France of figures in ivory presenting a remarkable development of the thighs, and even the peculiar prolongation of the nymphae, has been used to support this theory.

Mang 23:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

HAVE IT REMOVED!!! JESUS CHRIST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.126.134 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What seems certain

 * What seems certain is that steatopygia in both sexes was fairly widespread among the early races of man.

I feel like I've stumbled onto some largely unreviewed backwater (sorry) article from the hoary past. Isn't this a good example of the assumption that "bad characteristics" must have been arisen in our unevolved past, may still be found as curious examples in unevolved races, and aren't we glad 'we' aren't bums like 'them'?

In any case, can we find some justication for the above statement? It just seems spurious and unsupportable. Shenme 07:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's not like it would be preserved in any fossil evidence. Did some "cave-man" draw pictures of big-assed women on his wall?


 * I am sure that someone will point to the various figurines called Venuses as 'evidence'. The famous Venus of Willendorf is the 'type' for many people, I think.  The counter is that these most likely are exaggerations created as abstract symbols of female fertility.  And to anybody who objects to that characterization, I'd offer the cover pictures of modern women's magazines, which feature abstractions propitious only for male fertility, and equally unlikely to serve as an accurate 'type' for modern women. Shenme 04:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not the article's identification of steatopygia as being common in early humans that is racist, it's your assumption that it's a bad characteristic. --86.135.87.145 13:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No matter whether this is evidence or not, the article currently has this statement "even the peculiar prolongation of the labia minora, has been used to support this theory" but there is no link whatsoever. If wikipedia is to remain neutral, such citations should be mentioned, or this part should simply be removed (until someone adds a link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed edited picture
I have removed the link to Image:Steatopygia.jpg because the image there currently is some kind of extreme caricature which looks like someone has played about with an original from http://deadbarnacle.afraid.org/blog/0041.html. Telsa 12:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Current picture is still one that is not a photo but an early 20th century representation and not necessarily what is truly observable as a feature. It may well be that there are a few such individuals but to suggest it as a common feature of certain peoples seems highly problematic, e.g pictures of the modern khoikhoi appear in no way different from other people. Any modern steatopygia pictures? There is one here, but not sure of its copyright: http://25.media.tumblr.com/3b2b5b27d86ea8ddb32fa2f3d5198c04/tumblr_mild8gEYuI1ru5s3yo1_400.jpg Raputaja —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The Panglossian Paradigm on the march
The whole discussion of how steatopygia are "adaptive" to a hot, arid climate borders on the silly. The author makes the common mistake of assuming that if a trait is used for a particular purpose, selective pressure must have developed the structure for that purpose. That isn't necessarily true, as Stephen Jay Gould pointed out in his landmark paper "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm." Would-be evolutionary biologists are strongly encouraged to read the paper before announcing that a particular trait is "adaptive" for a particular purpose.

I do not deny the accuracy of any of the statements about the advantage of concentrating fat in a particular location. All of that may well be true. But there is nothing to support the assertion that steatopygia were evolved for some sort of thermal purpose, other than the fact that there is an advantage to having a steatopygia in certain climates. They could have developed for any number of equally plausible reasons, or no reason at all. Evolution does not always produce optimal structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.4.254 (talk • contribs)

Which Type of Tissue?
The german version of this article (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steatopygie) claims that steatopygia consists of muscle tissue, not fat. Is there a reference for the type of tissue involved? 129.27.236.118 19:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to explain why there was a genetic need to develop this trait now known as Steatopygia; some type of genetic adaptation? If so, for what purpose? Water, nutrients, etc.? …Kellogg76 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting statement?
This article contains the following quote:

"However, the type of Neolithic Venus figurines sometimes referred to as "steatopygian Venus" do not strictly qualify as steatopygian, since they exhibit an angle of approximately 120 degrees between the back and the buttocks, while steatopygia strictly speaking is diagnosed at an angle of about 90 degrees only."

Yet, the two pictures provided show women whose so-called back-to-buttock angle is clearly 120 degrees, not 90. And how could anyone possibly have a 90 degree profusion of fat, especially as they mature, without regular skin stapling or something ridiculous? I imagine the quoted author's assertion is in error... 132.198.12.94 (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aditional Picture
On most versions of this article in a different language, there is another picture. Can we add this? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rasvapakara.jpgSuperjustinbros. (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary hypotheses
I moved the complete chapter "Evolutionary hypotheses" here. All three sentences are ridiculous. Maybe they correlate to some useful hypothesis, but then the description is grotesquely insufficient:


 * Steatopygia is believed to be an adaptive physiological feature for female humans living in hot environments, as it maximizes their bodies' surface-area/volume ratio but keeps enough fat to produce hormones needed for menstruation.


 * With fat deposited heavily in only certain areas in the middle on the trunk of the body, the limbs are left slim enough to expel heat more efficiently.


 * Another suggestion is that being able to store large fat amounts is important in very seasonal environments like those in African savanna, where during the dry season, a food shortage ensues, and people live largely off of their stored fat.

-- Tomdo08 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

they seem like good theories to me, i think they should be in the article. if you want to explain why africans get a big butt while europeans get a big belly than climate-differences are a logical thing to look at. it is already well accepted that heat-loss is probably the reason black people tend to be long and slim, while eskimo's are short and fat Selena1981 (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Has this been removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hausa warrior (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"diagnosed" ?
while steatopygia is diagnosed at an angle of about 90 degrees only

... the word "diagnosed" is used here, but there's no mention of steatopygia being a disease or harmful medical condition. Is the better word choice "identified"? Or is this a harmful condition? Is it harmful to be so hot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericaricardo (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

good point. i would assume it's basically a body-shape, which only causes medical problems if taken to it's extreme (same way having an extremely big belly causes problems) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selena1981 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am a physician at Harvard Medical School and can confirm this is not a medical condition, and cannot be "diagnosed". There are no "modern medical standards" which define it, and this is inappropriate language which reinforces racist pseudo-scientific views. The citation used here to support it is not a medical or scientific source, and does not itself use the terms "medical standards" or "diagnose". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.35.36.2 (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Pseudo-science
The background to the story is that porn was forbidden. But men still had a need to talk about big beautiful buttocks. So you will find women with big buttocks in a foreign nation, far far away. That is all women with Steatopygia i Denmark, at least two in Roskilde.Jesper7 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If people have is the fusion of the vertebrae, then end the buttocks bristled.Jesper7 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

see hyperlordosis and Lordosis.


 * I removed Category:Pseudoscience on the grounds that said epithet (a highly, and often unfairly, stigmatizing epithet, IMO) was unwarranted based on the content of the article. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Venus of Willendorf
Why is the venus of willendorf included? she clearly doesn't have Steatopygia, her ass is flat, she just happens to be extremely overweight.

Bumblebritches57 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

agreed. some venus-figurines have a strangely big butt but she is fat all around. Selena1981 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Steatopygia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120710025916/http://www.andaman.org:80/BOOK/chapter5/text5.htm to http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter5/text5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

New title possibly?
I believe it is from a evolutionary characteristic and what we see is the "abundance"/effect of such a characteristic through time. Bodies were designed like this to hunt, run and chase down food. Such proportions not so exaggerated by the succes of this trait(what we see and call 'Steatopygia') would have created better gravity and balance for maximum speed output and stabilization while running. Hundreds of years of prosperity and new technologies/tactics for gaining food changed its place within our society and its importance and effect

Racism and Steatopygia
I just added a portion about how steatopygia and Sarah Bartmann contributed to viewing african-americans as "different," and how steatopygia was used to justify racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actcm4 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Lipedema?
This reminds me a lot of lipedema/lipoedema. Is there any connection? 2A02:3100:7123:FF00:90AC:2F0B:7CDC:C6CD (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)#

First Pregnancy

 * Among the Khoisan, it begins in infancy and is fully developed by the time of the first pregnancy.[citation needed]

In my opinion this sentence should be cut out, or at least revised. Firstly it follows on from a statement that men can have steatopygia and is incongruous. Secondly it seems like a superfluous statement since most body development happens between infancy and puberty (if that's what is meant). Lastly, and most disturbingly for me it suggests all Khoisan woman are destined for pregnancy and sounds like the author is talking about animals not human beings. 82.17.86.64 (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

<> seems logically questionable
The text contains:

”In Victorian England, freak shows were known to have exploited a woman with steatopygia at least once.”

This sentence makes a logically questionable impression to me. Shows (plural) having exploited a woman seems to imply that she was sadly exploited more than once, yet the sentence ends with “at least once”. More logical seems to me to write “at least as many time as these shows were staged”.Redav (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Understanding Intersectionality
— Assignment last updated by JaxC135 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Big butt disease" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_butt_disease&redirect=no Big butt disease] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 02:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)