Jump to content

Talk:Buttocks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.109.100.86 (talk) at 18:16, 12 January 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Buttocks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies

2005

While the first picture that appears on this page is of the buttocks, I believe that it is an unnecssary illustration because it is obviously not in place to inform the reader of what the buttocks is.

The story of Sodom has nothing to do with the buttocks so I removed the lines related to it. I also removed the lines about Rome and Greece as they admired what they considered perfect human form both male and female and they did not admire the sexual acts related to the buttocks in any special fashion. - 24.7.186.18 19:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text "However, the wide-spread use troughout time and cultural space, even when the victim is not bared as fetishists generally prefer, tends to point rather to the pragmatical considerations, while some sexual arousal in the inflictor is probably secundary." added on July 5 to the reasons for choosing the buttocks as a target because it should not be there.

Saying that spanking is done out of a sexual fetish is a reason often made by those against spanking for why the rear is chosen as a point of punishment. While I agree with the user who added in the text that it was an unlikely reason, it should not be added to the list of reasons simply because the user did not agree with it. I also agree with user Cadr's decision to remove the second picture and think the first should probably be changed to one less artistic and more anatomical. 69.3.92.105 8 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Brazilians' bounty of booty should be noted as should the common (and healthy) marken for ass centric pornography. EG: booty talk

This text discusses corporal punishment in length, evenwhile there is an article for that, in itself. I think the corporal punishment stuff should be moved where it belongs. I would also move it, if it wasn't as extensive a part of the article.

Buttock/ass/whathaveyou has a lot of implications, and there's content to be created of it. However, spanking does not contribute significantly to it. It should be dealt separately, so that I (we) could get around to dealing with the real subject.

Which is nice and fun. ;)

This article is needlessly critical of spanking.



Shouldn't there be a link here to the Gluteus Maximus article? Also, I'm fairly sure the muscle's main purpose is to pull the femur back, as when a person stands up or climbs up, something that is never mentioned here. Not complaining about the social and psychological discussion, though. <:)


Just arrived here, out of sheer prurience, via the Articles_which_lack_sources category. The choice of images seems more than a little sexist. What about examples from anatomy texts or classical art? RayGirvan 06:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I like the pictures but to be fair there should be - at least - pictures for both genders. A drawing might be more appropriate for an encyclopedia though. --82.141.48.4 20:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

picture

the front picture is out of place. PhatRita 16:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree butt good, legally useable anatomical drawings of the buttocks are surprisingly hard to find. - 24.7.186.18 19:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


the picture is highly inappropriate and therefore I removed it

I think that all articles on the human/animal body need a picture. --66.218.17.100 02:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need multiple pictures of guy's asses?! There's one female regular one, but why show the "hairy" male picture as well as the "shaved" picture? Is this gratuitous?!--164.107.92.120 02:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording?

"Early in the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz, Uncle Henry is holding the gate open for Miss Gulch, and at a seemingly appropriate time he lets it go, and it swats the disagreeable old lady in the fanny... emphasized by a musical "thunk" on the soundtrack's underscore."

Although this may be written in US English, I still think that the word "fanny" should probably be changed to somethine like "butt", or even "behind". From the page "Fanny":

" Fanny is also a slang American English word for buttocks and an impolite British English sexual slang word for the female genitalia (perhaps a corruption of the word vagina)."

How about it? Allthesestars 19:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Bith buttocks"?

What are "bith buttocks", as captioned in the picture? Joyous (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bith are a race in Star Wars with a head that has some resemblance to a particular object . . . [1]. Fixed this. -Ethan0 02:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I WANT MORE PICTURES OF BUTTS!!!!!!

One is not enough.--Princess Homestar

Well, there's an abundance on the Internet... =S 85.226.122.222 21:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The first picture isn't even a very good one (no offense to the source). If you're going to have a picture of a butt, it should be just a butt, not a g-string or tatoos etc. If this is inappropriate, go with a drawing or classical depiction. Steve.

At least one more picture in the beginning, one of a female butt, just to be fair. 68.38.242.66 06:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as we all know, there are now two pictures of butts in the beginning of the article, one of a man, and one of a woman. However, the picture of the male's butt is colored, but the female butt is black and white. I think, if it can be done, the second picture should be replaced by the same picture, only in color. I'd say that would make it fair, just my two cents.

68.38.242.66 06:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New image

I tried to address people's concerns with this photo. It displays different races and both sexes equally. A colour photo is available, but I thought that a black and white one would be more suitable. -4micah 23:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, but a B/W photo sort of ruins the idea of including different races in the first place... The color differences get murky... =S 81.232.72.53 13:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to me all the butts look the same now. Why are many used in the first place? To be politically correct or because there really is anatomical differences besides the color? I appreciate your effort though, I just question the need for it as for what additional information it gives us, especially in B/W. -- Jugalator 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It gives us no useful information whatsoever. In fact, it may be misleading, since people may attribute the pictures to be indicative of each group of people.

Questionable Connotation?

Why did someone put "Indraneels" in place of "buttocks" in the Connotations section? -- Bendybendy 19:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian image

The caption on the Romanian image seems a bit strange as the image is certainly of more than just buttocks. Is that image really a good illustration of buttocks, or just cheesecake? I think we may be showing our systemic bais here. Kaldari 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Sexual Characteristics

Speaking of the buttocks being "hot", shouldn't there be something about how important the butt is as a secondary sexual characteric? Maybe a link or something. The article does discuss some of the sexual nature of the bum, but it seems like it keeps getting more and more censored. That is, except for that hot picture- NEW JACK 26 Feb 2006

While the buttocks is a sexual attractant for many, it isn't a secondary sexual characteristic. It doesn't change appreciably during puberty and there is nothing to differentiate a male one from a female one.--Lepeu1999 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I think there are a lot of butt fans that would disagree. Female butts are a world-of-different from male butts! Zebruh 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The differences are minor and not often apparant when all you're seeing is the butt itself. There was a (since) deleted photo on this article that showed 4 butts, 2 male, 2 female in B&W. They were totally non-descript as to which sex was which. I'm not saying that butts aren't sexy - I believe they are. What I'm saying is they're not a secondary sexual characteristic. Secondary sexual characteristics are not present prior to puberty. Butts are.--Lepeu1999 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe more in appearance than function, though... (although there is a huge difference between the prostate and the vaginal wall (which, btw, really deserves its own article ^,^)). 惑乱 分からん 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but neither are part of the Buttocks per se and are thus beyond the scope of the issue. Butts are sexy in the same way that nice legs are sexy, but neither are secondary sexual characteristics--Lepeu1999 14:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the article at Secondary sex characteristic says. Ne1ls 19:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the buttocks is indeed a secondary sex characteristic. The buttocks of females becomes thicker and fattier following puberty. Also, there is much research to suggest that the padding of the female buttocks developed as a stimulant for males. 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Lepeu1999 is only partially correct; the buttocks are not secondary sexual characteristics per se (both males and females have them, after all). According to the Secondary sex characteristic article, secondary sex characteristics are traits (not having a direct reproductive function) that distinguish the two sexes. In human females, secondary sex characteristics include widened hips and increased fat deposits in the buttocks, thighs and hips. So the differential development (which are "appreciable changes", in females) of these areas during puberty creates secondary sexual characteristics. In other words: butts are indeed sexy, in case anyone wasn't clear on that point. Oh, and by the way "buttocks" is the plural of "buttock". MarkBrooks 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male buttocks image

Can someone please change the picture of "Male Buttocks"? While it may be a realistic portrayal, it seems rather unsightly.

I fail to see how? Is it just because they are male buttocks, or do you have any suggestion for a better image? 惑乱 分からん 12:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's not a good picture. The lighting is not good and it just looks like a polaroid someone took and posted for a thrill. There is already another buttocks picture above it. Finally, yes it's male. The fact is that more people find female buttocks appealing and unoffensive than male buttocks. Also it is fully nude whereas the above isn't. This nudity serves no purpose in this case. Howdybob 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as quality goes, if you have a better picture of nude male buttocks, feel free to use it instead. The picture was taken specifically for use at the German Wikipedia article linked to this one (de:Gesäß), not "for a thrill". The picture above it is of female buttocks, which are quite different from male buttocks. NPOV requires that both sexes be represented. The fact that it is fully nude is a point in its favor: a neutral illustration of any body part must be nude in order to show what the body part actually looks like. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of the guy is OK, it's better than the statue. Not exactly a beautiful photo, but it's neutral, not incredibly in-your-face and sufficient. 惑乱 分からん 23:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • all the above arguments pro are true (the lack of Donatello appreciation left aside; still Michelangelo's David is probably impossible to beat) and relevant; the only way to do perhaps functionally better would be to zoom in more closely (even more true for the female one), though the esthetical loss might be greater; historically male nude is actually more accepted; remembering a media controversy concerning (female) modell stereotypes, one might consider deliberately adding less well-formed, boy/girl(ish) buttocks Fastifex 09:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader of the male buttock image has replaced it with a newer, lighter, and cleaner image. Angr (t • c) 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep the Michelangelo. The greatest (male) butt of all time is found on Giambologna's "Rape of the Sabine Women," which stands in Florence at the Loggia dei Lanzi near the Palazzio Vecchio. This from a major butt connoisseur. I first heard about it in high school, and have admired it ever since. 66.108.105.21 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the image of naked male buttocks again. While it may be something most of us don't want to look at, it's no more offensive or less appropriate than the image of naked female buttocks. It seems to run against the NPOV policy to call the male pic offensive and to remove it while leaving the female pic in its place. For the sake of NPOV, i believe both images should stay. Robotman1974 04:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robot, your correct. A image of a mans butt is no more offensive than a womans. Also: Wikipedia is not censored Stralia 04:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, it is more offensive. Avoid political correctness.Fistful of Questions 04:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fistful of Questions, please read this policy. Even if the image of male buttocks was somehow offensive, that would not be a justifiable reason to remove it from the article. I must admit, I don't understand what you mean by "Avoid political correctness", that statement seems to contradict your whole point. Could you clarify that please? I would also like to ask you why you haven't removed the image of female buttocks as well. Both images depict the same amount and style of nudity, yet you find only one of them to be offensive. Can you explain precisely why that is? I will add the image of male buttocks to the article again now. Robotman1974 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of male photo

I am yet to see any explanation as to the removal of the photograph of male buttocks. There have been multiple reverts over the past couple of days, with some people putting it back and others removing it.

I have no strong feeling in either direction about the quality of the photograph, and cannot see any more wrong with this photo than the female one opposite it. The latter is perhaps more controversial, as it has been suggested above that the photo was edited to remove the genitals, resulting in a physically impossible gap between the legs. The angle of the male photo suggests that such editing would not have occurred. I do believe that the male photo is of encyclopedic quality, but I am going to refrain from reverting or adding it back in until the person(s) removing it have had an opportunity to explain their objections.

If no response is forthcoming on this talk page in reasonable time, I will re-insert the image. Any subsequent attempt to remove it from the article without prior discussion on this talk page will be deemed vandalism. --AliceJMarkham 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an attempt at discussion over this issue. That can be read above (about ⅔ down). I have added the image once more, and any further comments I have to make will be made in this section of the talk page. Robotman1974 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typology Request

Would be there an expert coverage of "Size, shape and composition"? Also concerns of the fashion industry. BTW, the anatomy section is too thin.--Connection 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first photo looks a bit overly photo-touched...also, why the need to change the images so often? The previous one of the tanned butt was perfect

Biblical buttocks

The inclusion of references of buttocks from the bible is totally innapropiate. Buttocks are mentioned in lots of books and All of these things cannot be listed, thus the most sane alternative is to list none of them. It is an article about the buttocks, not about all of the books buttocks are in. Dean randall 09:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As often, the Bible is interesting as a rare source from early time; if you read it attentatively and unprejudiced, you'll find this section is not a cheap attack on religion but no les to the point then any other section Fastifex 07:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It adds nothing of substance to our understanding of the subject - in other words, it's trivia. Guy 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buttocks are not a subject to which the Bible is relevant (as far as I know :). Should every article contain a list of Biblical and Church Father references to its subject? – Smyth\talk 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of course not. That is why i removed it ➨ Darren

black and white image

the black and white image has too much empty white space. —ptk✰fgs 17:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. Also, the hands are obscuring the buttocks, so this is not really the best image to illustrate the subject. Ne1ls 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the removal of this picture and am borderline on putting it back, particularly given the profanity in the descripton of the edit where it was removed. If someone has a better picture, by all means put it here. In the meantime, I've moved the male picture to the right side as the page didn't look right as it was. --AliceJMarkham 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most artistic pictures of a butt, more than the sculpture, and should be in the article because of what it says about assthetics.24.154.173.50 05:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back

Bring back the hot sunbathing image of the girls' buttocks! Its so much better than this guy's ass..eerr I mean, it is so much more in accordance to Wikipedia's goal in representing a variety of butts. .....Please?--67.183.132.49 10:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


wtf is that hairy man's rear end on there for, that's retarded. useless it looks like this article is a joke Shaddix 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) sorry for not signing i don't know how to use this thing xD Shaddix 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but agree. The other two are fine, but that one is just repellant in comparison.Talshiarr 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism magnet

At what point does a topic like this become such a target for vandalism that it ceases to be editable by people without registered accounts? Talshiarr 22:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pictures

Are these actual photographs or edited one or 3D modeled? They look too... perfect to be real. Also the male one seems slightly off (smaller than I would expect), but I haven't looked at too many buttocks so I might just not know. Anyway, if they are edited, I think it should be noted. If not, well, congradulate the respective models on their surprisingly prestine rears. IMFromKathlene 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pain in the neck

I removed the bit about "pain in the neck" being a polite euphemism for "pain in the ass" in the Connotations section. If anyone can find a reliable source for this, please put it back. MarkBrooks 11:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft purge

While I wholly agree that the listing of Pop Culture nonsense needed to be trimmed back, was annihilating the entire section necessary? How can anything given as a pop culture reference in any article not be free of such "purges" if everything was deemed useless waste here? Lists of song titles and every obscure film reference are unnecessary but that wasn't all that was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talshiarr (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the pictures

are rather nice.... *clears throat* i mean...good work on the article! Wikipediarules2221 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues with this article

  1. Why was the pop culture section completely removed? Seemed like the act of a POV-pusher who is opposed to its obscenity and its trying to censor it.
  2. And at the same time, an extremly disgusting and unattractive picture of a male buttocks remains at the top of the article. I find the image visually abrasive, but I keep getting reverted when I try to remove. Please, let's stick with attractive pictures, or not use any at all.Fistful of Questions 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or just respond here.Fistful of Questions 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fistful, their is not one damn thing wrong with the male buttocks photo. The fact is may be unattractive is an opinion not a fact. If it is removed again it will taken as vandalism. Stralia 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea: Why dont all of you arguing each take a picture of your own ass's. The post them on WIkipedia and then have all editors vote for which one to use. 75.109.100.86 18:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buttocks&oldid=100263906"