Talk:Breast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breast article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Censorship warning

This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored.

Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.
Notice Discussion of images for this article can be found at Talk:Breast/sandbox. We want to have images that add quality to the article, and not have a collection of random images. Please do not add or remove images from this article without discussion with the other contributing editors of the article.
Peer review Breast has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.



Contents

[edit] Child Pornography Vilolation

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

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

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

Honeymane, whether or not Wikipedia has a disclaimer does not relieve it from following the law. If the wikipedia disclaimer said "vandals are liable to be executed" that would not make such executions legal. Thus if wikipedia is hosting child pornographic or copyright material in the United States it is legally liable for it. That said the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. One must prove the young lady's breasts are aged below the vintage of consent to have a valid accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilsachs (talk • contribs) 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Haha, those crazy Americans. I see no violations here. --Mathew Williams 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Luckily the law does not forbid the depiction of breasts. Pornography is a different story. According to Princeton, pornography is defined as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". None of the pictures on this page fit that description. All of the pictures are there for educational purposes.--71.3.64.72 03:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. To my mind, this page is just a poorly veiled excuse to show pictures of nude women. If that were not the case, the page would not have needed to show said pictures, since the article can be complete without any of them. 68.122.222.231 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies don't say to only use images when strictly necessary, or when the article is incomplete without them. According to Wikipedia:images, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic." Pictures of breasts are undoubtedly relevant to an article about breasts. I highly doubt that wikipedia users are laboring over this article for the sole purpose of showing pictures of nude women, especially considering that this is an article about a well-known and commonly discussed piece of human anatomy. Wikipedia is not censored, and my understanding is that generally, a high-quality, informative image is vastly preferred over no image at all. Ketsuekigata (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


This has to be the most hilarious discussion ever. "boooo, it's illegal !" Sorry guys, but showing a picture of breast is not illegal, or a lot of biology books or even magazines would be illegal. And I advise you to look at the definition of the word "pornography", it means graphic depictions of sexual matter. So, big news, guys, theses pictures are anything but sexual, can you believe it ? Nope, a nude breast is not necessarily sexual, it can be nothing else but an anatomic part of the body. Seriously, guys, if you feel sexually excited by theses pictures, maybe you should consider to meet a real woman from time to time. Kaolol 20:36, 6 Aprile 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.53.96.18 (talk)
I agree that this article should be in Wikipedia. I agree it should have photos of female breasts. But flashing? If this is of a clinical nature and therefore not of a pornographic nature, then why include photos of societal constructs such as flashing? Also, if this is "clinical", those "Gallery Shots" of women with mastectomies and breast cancer should be part of the story, covering diseases and conditions of the breast as well. As for the above argument, scaring people about the validity of law is not the issue. Prove to us that a online picture of a naked female breast absent of any context is against the law. I want to see the USC section and Paragraph that says in no uncertain terms "No naked breasts anywhere online, period, regardless of context." If you can prove that, then you've made a point. If you can't, then where is this law you keep conjuring up? Any line regarding "children view this site" is a moral argument best answered by this: know your children, and if you don't want them to see this, block it. CyberPatrol, CyberSitter, and Net Nanny are all great services to accomplish this. If you don't want to pay for them, use the Content Advisor on Internet Explorer. Wikipedia is rated by the FOSI (http://checked.icra.org/), the former RSACi operators, so that all web-browsers that support FOSI will block responsible websites that contain parentally-objectionale material. The bigger problem that is being fostered by the internet, radio, television and film is the objectification of women, that parts of women are sexually motivated when seen naked. Women are human beings, just like men, neither goddesses or animals, equally as mortal and fallible. And that these are just parts. Nothing more superior than the woman herself as a whole. Promoting unnecessary special treatment of such matters is akin to something worse than pornography. Women and men do deserve to protect their decency, however, they deserve to know what the part is and what function it serves. (A similar argument can be made for the Primary Sex Organs as well.) An article should exist to inform in a mature and necessary manner (including pictures, otherwise, it's a Church Mandated Sex Education class where imagination is more important than facts) specifically WHAT a breast is for anyone wanting to read or see it.66.215.153.240 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better Pics

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

Um. No. I doubt that would happen--$UIT 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Why from porn stars? I think more representative pictures are always better for encyclopedias... Have a look at the Danish Danish Wikipedia. --84.161.203.227 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Porn stars almost always have surgical modifications done to their breasts, so they would not be representative of breasts in their natural state. Asarelah 01:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
sooo true, Asarelah, porn stars use plastic surgery, which makes it fake and false. Whereas natural should be shown because it's real and natural. =]
Well, we can have pictures of pornstars with natural breasts — pornstars with really nice breasts, like Jeannine Oldfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 07:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

or a type of comparing thing- normal versus plastic surgery--76.252.42.191 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreadstar (talk • contribs)

You's guys are weird, a boob is a boob, whether it's real or fake. You're too far up ur own buttholes; who's gonna care who owns the breast or if it's fake or not??? Nobody, that's who!! You actually think that soemone is gonna complain or moan about the picture? If so, then, my friends, you need to get a life!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.249.123 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not worth arguing over —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royyuru (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Section

I'm not sure that breast fetishism, mammary intercourse, and breast bondage are appropriate links for this article. These links seem to focus on prurient interests which do not serve to further understanding of the topic. They do relate to the issue of breasts, but not in a way that adds anything useful to an encyclopedic article. 71.244.215.105 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It's my understanding that articles relating to the the issue in question are exactly what should appear in the See Also section of an encyclopedia.--70.168.88.158 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Any information linking to sexual acts involving the breast other than standard intercourse is not relevant to this topic if it's truly 'clinical' in nature. This isn't a Kama Sutra, or a medical reference either: not everything has to be covered. I'd hate to say it, but what's the notability of this? It can't be a lot. 66.215.153.240 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size

There seems me that there is absolutely nothing about the sizes of breasts.1 wit da force (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)1 with da force

Which only matters in regard to Women's Clothing, where you can read all about bust sizes. The size of a breast doesn't alter their physiology. 66.215.153.240 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current main photo

The current main photo seems really inappropriate. It is more an artistic photograph than one which properly depicts breasts. It's shot from a side angle so as to really only show one breast; the other breast is barely seen and blurry. Overall it is not the best choice. A better photo would be directly forward, showcasing both breasts in a more clinical sense. TheGoonSquad (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. Asarelah (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We have images like that already in the article, and the lead picture doesn't nessicarly need to depict the image in a clinical fashion; also, finding good images for this article isn't exactly easy, you can see if you can't find a good image, and then we'll discuss it, but tbh, the lead is probably one of the better images in the article.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the lead picture ought to depict the image in clinical fashion. Its an encyclopedia article, it ought to take a clinical approach. Asarelah (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
So you stated, above me. But what exactly, do you mean by 'clinical fashion'? a Mammogram? a diagram with a cut away? Both yours and TGS's statements are extremely vague, other then you want a picture showing them from the front, in a supposed 'clinical sense'. Please propose an image or two so that they can be discussed.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
By "clinical", I mean displaying the subject in a manner that depicts it very clear, educational way. A mammogram or diagram can be "clinical", of course, but I just had a more clear photograph in mind, one where both breasts are clearly visible on the chest. A blurry picture of only one side of the subject isn't very helpful. Asarelah (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Honeymane. Find a better picture that suits your aesthetics and put it in. As it stands, the current picture may not conform to some notions of "clinical" (whatever that is), but it clearly depicts a single breast. The lack of depth of field helps focus the composition, so in my opinion, it serves a practical and not an artistic purpose. Mattnad (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Human Female breasts are a very wonderful thing, but we need to show at least one male breast. Maybe in a comparison between natural male and female breasts? Even though it's common knowledge, this entry is incomplete without a picture of male breasts. I also think wikipedia users should use pictures of their breasts in order to confirm and shut up anymore idiots that come here claiming that a picture uses an underage subject, and that picture is more porn than educational related. I thinkwe should also have black/african/african-american/jamaican or just plain dark breasts here to show differences between white and black breasts and just to keep it diverse. The article is lacking color, males, and maybe something about bra's and the positive and negative effects that they have on breasts.76.112.167.230 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)srkelley76.112.167.230 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"Male Breast" is mentioned in lead and that's probably all we need. Generally, "Breasts" are a considered a female feature that has key reproductive functions. While men have chests, and some have enough fat to have a fuller breast shape, men do not have milk producing ducts. Similarly, they are not generally considered a "sexual feature" for men. It's a fine point on emphasis I'll agree. Perhaps we can create a concise subsection in this article? Probably doesn't warrant a photo of a male breast, but it would hurt to offer a bit more detail. I'm all for increasing the racial diversity of images. If we can find an appropriate image with a non-white person, let's get in here - perhaps as a substitute for the main image which seems to attract speculation and concerns about the subjects age. Mattnad (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Since female breasts and nipples come in many shapes, colours and sizes this picture does not even come close to providing a clear representation of what a female breast looks like. Moreover the guidelines in the Breast/sandbox clearly state that "Artwork is preferred over photographs". Pictures of a young woman's breasts add nothing useful to wikipedia.195.195.166.31 (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Bede
What guidelines are you talking about? I've never read anything on Wikipedia anywhere that said that art work is preferable over photographs. May I see a link please? Asarelah (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be the Breast Sandbox policy, but it really only applies on Beachipedia or Wikibeach, where you mold your own sculptures of article subjects. . Dreadstar † 02:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Line-drawing gallery of all most common breast shapes.

A dingbat font called "Mannequin" contains all the most common breast shapes and sizes. The black-and-white vector drawings are anatomically accurate, but much less provocative than photos would be.

The images are available online for free preview, and I (as the author of the font) can give permission for their use on wikipedia pages.

http://www.feelreal.org/fonticon/poster_cups.gif http://www.feelreal.org/fonticon/poster_cups_2.gif http://www.feelreal.org/fonticon/poster_weight.gif http://www.feelreal.org/fonticon/poster_pregnancy.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oligopiste (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breast Picture

Its really funny that this Article have an female's breast picture. Did anybody think that nobody knows how an females breast looks like?? ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.49.26 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The cat article has an image, but I'm sure that the people who added it didn't think that nobody knows what cats look like. When there is a useful, informative image pertaining to an article's subject, its inclusion is often appropriate for Wikipedia. Please remember that the talk page is an area for discussion of how to improve an article, not for general commentary. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the image "Closeup of female breast.jpg"

I feel that this image should be replaced in the article. The image has a visible line, which some say is a breast augmentation scar and others say is an indentation left by a bra. I personally think that it's probably an indentation, but in either case, it's a misleading mark and I think it would be better to use a picture of a typical breast without such a visible mark. I feel that the first picture in an encyclopedia article should depict the relevant object as accurately as possible and with as few misleading features as possible. Most of the time, for the majority of the human populace, such (indentation) marks are not typical features of human breasts. 86.56.40.172 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just let me download it first! Actually, I have no constructive commentary, other to say that while I am typically against the genital exhibitionists that try and put their pics up here, I personally have no problem with this image and find it to value. How can it be inaccurate, are you claiming that it is in fact not a breast? If anything I think it does exemplify the average breast. Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism still here

I still see the "Boobies are the best!" thing at the top of the page, but according to the page history and vandal's talk page, it has been reverted. Why is this happening? 71.186.198.238 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that you're looking at a previous version of the page, or that you need to reload. It's also possible that the vandalism was added again sometime between when you looked at the history and when you looked at the article again. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I have been looking for the non-vulgar term for a human female breast. "Breast" is not really adequate, because it can also refer to a part of the male body. Same with "bosom." "Mammary" seems only to apply to the milk producing gland within the female breast. Does such a word exist? Are the male and female breasts are too homologous to justify a separate word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostoner (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Male Breasts

Why arent their any pictures of male breasts? This isnt an article about female breasts but breats in general right?--76.173.255.40 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is primarily about the human mammary gland, which is only rudimentary in males. It would be very difficult to show a picture of a male mammary gland as most males have relatively large pectoral muscles and, with age, fat deposits combined with almost non-existent mammary tissue, so all you'd have would be a picture of a rudimentary nipple and an area of skin covering mostly non-glandular tissue and bone. But if you can find a good picture or diagram of male human breasts, go for it. Search Commons and make some suggestions. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breast picture change

I am attempting to garner consensous for a change to the picture in the lead of the article. The one in there now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg is blurry and only shows one side of the breasts, whereas the one that I am proposing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Weibliche_brust_en.jpg is a clear, full frontal view which also labels the various parts. Asarelah (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the labels are desirable for the lede image, they're more appropriate for one in the anatomy or other section. Ciotog (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ciotog. Labels clutter up the lead. In addition, the first image is of a pregnant female and thus given that breasts are for feeding young, this photo for the lead seems particularly apt. Gillyweed (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But the picture is incredibly blurry and at a weird angle...We need a clear, full frontal view, this one just looks bad. Besides, other body part articles have images with labels in the lead. How about this one instead? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Breast_and_nipple_changes_during_late_pregnancy.jpg Asarelah (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe this one? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pregnancy_34_weeks.jpg Asarelah (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone even going to respond? Asarelah (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure. The one we have for the lead at present is excellent. Gillyweed (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you are satisfied with the picture that is there, but you haven't addressed any of the valid points that I've brought up (such as the blurryness and the angle), nor offered your opinion on the two images that I've offered as possible alternatives. Asarelah (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to a lead photo being artistic and therefore the blurryness and angle do not matter. The breast itself is not blurry and the angle is one that would be seen by a baby! The other two photos are taken for particular purposes, viz, illustrating the changes to breasts during pregnancy and thus are appropriate for such a specific purpose. The current photo is fine for the lead. There, now I have addressed your other points. Cheers! Gillyweed (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture A (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pregnancy_34_weeks.jpg) is too focused on the woman's stomach/pragnacy, not her breasts, which is the focus of this article. The second image is very small and poorly lit. As for the issues you bring up, the photograph is clearly meant to have an artistic flare to it.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 06:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Asarelah has brought up this topic in a previous thread and the consensus then was keep the current photo unless a better one can be produced. So far, the one we have is the best but I'm open to another. Keep at it and perhaps we'll find a winner in the process. Mattnad (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/95C.jpg Bobisbob (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That one is better. I also disagree with Gillyweed on his point that a picture of a pregnant woman's breasts is better because breasts are used to feed young. That is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is, women aren't always pregnant. The picture should reflect how a woman's breasts usually look, not just how they look under a certain circumstance. Asarelah (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So can the one I suggested be put up? Bobisbob (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we still need to garner consensus. Asarelah (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the current photo is fine, per Gillyweed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The current photo is more juicy, that's why I like it.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be salacious. The goal here is to educate, not to titillate. Asarelah (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The current image has too many signs which distract from the idea of straightforwardness and neutrality. The angle of the model's body, her raised blouse, the mark on the skin, the ambiguous situation regarding her state (natural, natural and pregnant, augmented, pregnant and augmented), the ambiguous room temperature (is she cold?), the natural lighting, the yellow object, the minimal depth of field, the close proximity of the lens to the subject, the tightness of the focal point in relation to its distance from the top edge of the picture frame. The new image should reflect a general appearance, almost clinical, with a collection of average and plain signs. This image (of all the images at wikimedia) appears the most suitable to me, although the model appears to be standing in her garden, and the photographer seems slightly unaware of the breasts in the context of the body. Redblueball (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It just isn't a suitable picture for our purposes, and its nice to have someone who actually knows about photography explain why. I'm going to list this into requests for comment so that we can get an outside opinion, as other editors have been rather insistent upon keeping it. Asarelah (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A user has requested comment on society (including sport, law or sex) for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCsoc list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.
I agree that the present picture, largely because of the angle, is inappropriate and should be changed to one with a more neutral angle and showing the breast in the context of the chest as a whole. Jjshapiro (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culteral differences regarding breasts in Euorpe and Africa.

This article lacks any discussion as to the fact that Europe and Africa have different views on the bare female breast then the U.S., Asia, South America, etc. Europeans allow bare breasts in mainstream TV, magazines, etc. where the U.S. for example would not as well as toplessness at public beaches. African tribal societies have a even more relaxed view of the breasts then Europeans with female toplessness common in some African tribal groups. Probably something that should be added to the article. --Cab88 (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just that, but all the women that are shown - or the vast majority of them - are Caucasian. Some more diversity would not hurt this article.UberCryxic (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I added in a pic of two Himba women. I suppose that's a good place to start. Asarelah (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should include a link to the Toplessness article as well, it has a fair amount of information on cultural attitudes regarding toplessness. Asarelah (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caption

the caption below the russian picture ends with an exclamtion mark which should be removed. 78.148.69.70 (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

the caption is a translation of the russian slogan on the poster, and therefore contains the punctuation of the original. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add Breast fetishism as see also link

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

[edit] Picture of breast for arsoual.

Let's talk this over, you say that not all cultures are exicted by female breasts, but it isn't about culture but biology. The breasts evolved to that size for sexual arousal. Also not all culture allow womanto walk topless shall we get rid of the image of the topless African? Bobisbob (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But why include a picture of a woman's breasts in the section when we already have multiple pics of breasts? There is nothing remarkable about her breasts in the picture that has anything to do with female sexual arousal, whereas an African woman in traditional clothing has plenty to do with cultural attitudes regarding toplessness. Furthermore, if you're arguing that woman's breasts evolved to be fairly large for male sexual arousal, please include a citation, as it was my impression that they evolved to their size for lactation. Asarelah (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the "arousal" picture adds anything. We have plenty of pics. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Small point here, but the humans are the only primates with significant breast size before pregnancy. There is a visual function for human female breasts that's separate from feeding babies. I'm sure we can find a reliable source to support this theory. I also agree that it's much better to show women from other cultures. Mattnad (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Desmond Morris for instance writes about this. Ciotog (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I found a scientific paper that covers this (and there are many). See section on Sexual RoleMattnad (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)