Talk:Breast fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breast fetishism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Images

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

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

[edit] Geographic Areas?

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


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

[edit] How is this a fetish?

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

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

[edit] Topfree Action removed...?

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

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

[edit] Ridiculous

This sentence is overly complex... cumbersome too.

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

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


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

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

[edit] Unsourced

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

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

[edit] is this serious?

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

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

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

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


[edit] What does this mean?

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

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

[edit] not a disorder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Removed unsourced text

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

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

[edit] Fetishism and pornography

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

[edit] Merge in Bakunyu

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

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