From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon sex.svg

This Sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



MMMMMMmmmm. I know this has been created by a new user and everything, so I don't want to start wiki lawyering. And I also know this is a subject which will be of, shall we say, "pressing" interest to many contributors. But, well, it doesn't really fit in with the mission statements: 1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people. 2. Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. On the other hand, the simple taboo-breaking nature of the subject may well justify it. Any thoughts?--Bobbing up 13:19, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I think I agree that it's not really germane to RW. Nice rack, though. PFoster 13:25, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Please don't be a moron and delete it, but at least try to improve it. Perhaps you can put in some humour? Verna 13:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Please don't call us "morons" and let the mob decide if it likes the article.PFoster 13:33, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Now how would we improve it? Crank ideas about breasts? Must be some. Authoritarian ideas about breasts - must be loads. --Bobbing up 13:34, 15 December 2007 (EST)
While I don't think calling people a moron is really helping your case, I'll speak up for you. I reckon it serves the same function as many of the other articles in the human sexuality category. That is, it shows you can talk about human anatomy without feeling like they're somehow dirty or shameful. --JeεvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 13:36, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Public toplessness for women is legal in the province of Ontario, Canada. Not sure about other jurisdictions, but in Ontario it's cool. I had a wonderful time at the now-defunct Women's Voices music festival a few years ago, and probably about 20% of the all-female crowd was quite comfortably bare. There was a court decision about the issue some years ago, but I honestly can't remember most of the details. --Kels 18:08, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I removed the mission template for 2.5 reasons: 1. It mentions embryology, which teh anti-sciencers hatorz. 2. It mentions censorship of their existence and requirements to cover 'em up. 2.5 I actually linked to this article twice recently without even knowing it existed (make link, preview, cross fingers). humanUser talk:Human 17:25, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Moobs vs. Gynecomastia[edit]

I thought gynecomastia was when the male breast tissue began to develop like a woman's would, whereas moobs are what severely overweight men have because they run out of other places to store fat. Researcher 16:55, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Good point, I suspect you are right. I doubt adipose moobs even have a medical name ("meatloafism"?). ħumanUser talk:Human 17:03, 10 December 2008 (EST)


This article is stupid. It's saying that it should be legal for women to show their breasts in public.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

In my province, it is. --Kels (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That has my full support. --ǓḤṂ³ 22:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
You're a brassiere? 22:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ


I'm not impressed by the claim that it's "natural." Is anyone here? Calieber (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm.... Breast milk is specifically evolved to be perfect for the feeding of young humans and has various additives that help healthy growth - like antibodies for the local bugs (citation needed). So, in that sense it is beneficial and (marginally) better than the alternatives. Although there are tinges of the naturalistic fallacy there is some basis in truth here. I'm not sure I'm 100% happy with your edits.
What does bother me is the stigma than can be brought against women who chose, for whatever reason, not to breast feed. Breast may be best but it's not so much better that it's that important. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of info out there that breastfeeding is natural and beneficial to infants. Bottle feeding is ok too, it's a woman's choice and some have a hard time breastfeeding. I agree, there should be no discrimination against a mother who chooses not to breastfeed or is unable to. There is also a lot of discrimination against women who want to breastfeed but are not allowed to in public places. Refugeetalk page 08:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

While the word "natural" tends to be grossly overused and misused it's difficult to understand why anyone would object to its use in respect of breastfeeding. Perhaps Calieber could tell us why s/he objects to the use of this word in this context?--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't deny that it's "natural." I just don't care. But the notion that it's "natural" feeds a lot of the actual woo about breastfeeding, and both the woo and the naturalness itself are leveraged as justifications for shaming women who exist in some mode other than "mother" during the first year or five of the kid's life. If you want to say "breast is best," fine, though I suspect that's often overstated. If you want to say "breast is best, so you'd better not think about stepping into an office before your skills atrophy and your professional network dries up," I'm going to object. Calieber (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that breastfeeding has an article, we can probably severely cut own the section on this page. Calieber (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Do the people who complain about naked 'real breasts' also complain about naked #female# statues - or just to statuesque male bits? (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Breasts and model trains[edit]

A 'humorous remark' I read somewhere - breasts and model trains are designed for infants but played with by grown men. (Though some of the model railway layouts are quite complex/interesting as constructs.) Anna Livia (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)