Breast Fetish
👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_fetishism
General
There is a widespread fascination with women's breasts, and especially their size. Many people, both male and female, consider breasts an important female secondary sex characteristic.
Modern female fashions which focus on tight clothing and the display of cleavagehave been attributed to an increase in b…
General
There is a widespread fascination with women's breasts, and especially their size. Many people, both male and female, consider breasts an important female secondary sex characteristic.
Modern female fashions which focus on tight clothing and the display of cleavage have been attributed to an increase in breast fetishism. Display of cleavage with a low neckline is often regarded as a form of feminine flirting or seduction, as well as aesthetic or erotic. Most men derive erotic pleasure from seeing a woman's breasts, and some people derive pleasure in their female partner exposing cleavage. When cleavage is enhanced with a push-up bra or exposed by a low neckline it may draw attention. There are differences of opinion as to how much cleavage exposure is acceptable in public. The extent to which a woman may expose her breasts depends on social and cultural context. Displaying cleavage or any part of female breast may be considered inappropriate or even prohibited by dress codes in some settings, such as workplaces, churches, and schools, while in some spaces showing as much cleavage as possible can be permissible or even encouraged. The exposure of nipples or areolae is almost always considered toplessness, considered by some to be immodest and in some instances as lewd or indecent behavior. Art historian James Laver argued that the changing standards of revealing cleavage is more prominent in evening wear than in day wear in the Western world.
Film producers such as Russ Meyer produced films which featured actresses with large breasts. Lorna (1964) was the first of his films where the main female part, played by Lorna Maitland, was selected on the basis of breast size. Other large breasted actresses used by Meyer include Kitten Natividad, Erica Gavin, Tura Satana, and Uschi Digard among many others. The majority of them were naturally large breasted and he occasionally cast women in their first trimesters of pregnancy to enhance their breast size even further. Author and director William Rotsler said: "with Lorna Meyer established the formula that made him rich and famous, the formula of people filmed at top hate, top lust, top heavy."
With regard to pornography, according to statistics from the websites Pornhub and YouPorn, preference for either breasts or the buttocks varies between countries and, on average, between world regions; the United States and most of Latin America and Africa is in the buttocks group, and most of Europe and much of Asia is in the breasts group.
Alternative opinions
The term breast fetishism is also used within ethnographic and feminist contexts to describe a society with a culture devoted to breasts, usually as sexual objects. Some feminists have argued that incidences of breast fetishism have been found going back to the neolithic era, with the goddess shrines of Catal Huyuk (in modern Turkey). The archaeological excavations of the town in c. 1960 revealed the walls of the shrine(s) adorned with disembodied pairs of breasts that appeared to have "an existence of their own". Elizabeth Gould Davis argues that breasts (along with phalluses) were revered by the women of Catal Huyuk as instruments of motherhood, but it was after what she describes as a patriarchal revolution – when men had appropriated both phallus worship and "the breast fetish" for themselves – that these organs "acquired the erotic significance with which they are now endowed".
Some authors from the United States have discussed attraction to female breasts within the context of sexual fetishism, and have stated that it is the American fetish-object of choice, or that breast fetishism is predominantly found in the United States.
https://lgbt.wikia.org/wiki/Breast_fetishism
Перевести · Breast fetishism (also known as: mastofact, or breast partialism)1 is a type of sexual preference. The term is used to describe the reliance on breasts as a stimulus for sexual arousal.23 Here we are talking about 'Breast Expansion Oil' which not only helps in developing breasts, but also acts as their toning and shaping. The phrase breast …
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breast_expansion_fetishism
References, deletion and the future
People will always vote keep on things, policy be damned. But if we're going to have a consensus, lets make progress. I don't see any attribution. If there were some attributed facts that would make a merge, not a keep, since we want an article that can feasibly become a full article, not a permanent stub. I see several possible futures: Deletion- obviously I think this is ideal or I would n…
People will always vote keep on things, policy be damned. But if we're going to have a consensus, lets make progress. I don't see any attribution. If there were some attributed facts that would make a merge, not a keep, since we want an article that can feasibly become a full article, not a permanent stub. I see several possible futures: Deletion- obviously I think this is ideal or I would not have nominated this. Redirect to * Breast fetishism or * Female muscle growth or...any other ideas? Move to some related topic that attribution can be found for, Something like "Breast size and sexual objectification" or what else?
A sudden unexplained discovery of newspapers, published books and journal articles using the term "breast expansion fetish" exactly the way this article does, accompanied by dedicated and responsible editors.-- preferable but I think unlikely.
Progress, anyone? Lotusduck 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The reference that I added is an excerpt from the book Deviant Desires: Incredibly Strange Sex by Katherine Gates (Amazon link). The webpage is the site for this particular book. The book is somewhat sociological in nature, relying on interviews with various fetishists, including BE fetishists. Other references can be added from primary sources such as http://www.overflowingbra.com/wiki/history:be_co…
A sudden unexplained discovery of newspapers, published books and journal articles using the term "breast expansion fetish" exactly the way this article does, accompanied by dedicated and responsible editors.-- preferable but I think unlikely. -- Unlikely as it may have been, I think this option is the one where this article ended up. ju66l3r 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Lotusduck, would you like to withdraw your nomination? The article has been verified. —Disavian ( /contribs) 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I am re-writing the article to make the sentances match the articles cited, of which at least one has nothing to do with the article.128.101.70.95 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
In your attempt to rewrite, you duplicated sentences, misplaced pronouns so that they no longer made appropriate contextual sense, and made the article less readable. ju66l3r 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Upon review I find the citations to be about either breast enlargement or breast fetishism, with none relating to both and with certainty none mentions "breast expansion fetishism." The corrected citations should be moved to articles that they more appropriately support.128.101.70.95 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea that a site about sexual fetishes needs to some how incorporate the literal and full title in every mention of its terminology is ludicrous. Imagine if the article for the Star Wars movie from the 1970s could only link to locations that said "Star Wars IV: A New Hope" when it mentioned the movie at all... ju66l3r 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Also I found a link for the pursuit of beauty article "http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/26/6/454" if you read this or any of the other references, you will find they make zero reference to breast expansion fetish.128.101.70.95 14:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The Deviant Desires book is indeed a published source, but the link does not support the claim on this wikipage. The link talks about body inflation and never mentions breast expansion fetish, much less how they are related. I believe that these edits were made carelessly but in good faith. Please do not restore them without settling this discussion of their lack of any direct reference to the term or idea "breast expansion fetish."128.101.70.95 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe you can be editing in good-faith if you can't find the parts of the Deviant Desires links that says things like There are BE (Breast Expansion) fans who are only interested in breasts. and the picture on the page taken from BustArtist. The fetish map also explicitly says "Breast Expansion" as one subject within the Body Inflation genre as well. There are numerous ways that this book directly cites and discusses this fetish and it is wrong to relegate it to the External links (and without even a link to the actual text, but only to the image). Please discuss your desired changes here further before reintroducing them. ju66l3r 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't log in but the sentances do not match the references. If altering the article to accurately reflect the content of the references makes it confusing and badly structured then this is the fault of the references being added poorly. The Deviant Desires may be relevant, but certainly isn't reflected in the article. You can re-add it in a better way, but I am restoring my general fixes thank you.Lotusduck 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait a second here. Paraphrasing: If your edits harmed the article, it's the fault of someone else. Astounding. Also, the Deviant Desires book page directly addresses and reliably sources the ways in which the fetish is manifested by the fetishists (pregnancy, etc) and you just removed it as refering the credential of that statement. Furthermore, the fetish map link references how other similar fetishes are related and suit the same ends of satisfying the fetish. Finally, by blanketly reverting me you introduced horrible cut-n-paste grammar and destroyed the point of having a WP:LEAD. You over-specify the details of the Tribune article in what should be a summary section and furthermore moved a sentence to follow it with the word "they" in it (which originally referred to the fetishists in its original context, but now refers to the family and friends of the article writer??). You ALSO just inserted a [1] instead of using appropriate reference notation which is essentially junk characters in the article now. Finally, when moving the image to the External links section, you didn't put any sort of phrasing to describe the link so it's just an ugly dereferenced out-link with no appropriate annotation. I'm putting it back and I ask that if you feel that any or even all of your changes have merit, you do them with far more attention to detail and caution for grammar, manual of style, and continuity of thought. Thanks. ju66l3r 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC) If it looks like vandalism and it sounds like vandalism... —Disavian ( /contribs) 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC) This isn't vandalism. That requires that we suspend WP:AGF to assume that everything done was malicious and I don't see any evidence that this is the case. I think Lotusduck is simply overly eager to "clean up" sexual fetish pages and disagrees with the article's sourcing and content. The article is likely still not perfect. I don't doubt that either, but the manner in which the text was treated was not conducive to good grammar, style, or structure of an article. That's still not vandalism, just bad editing. ju66l3r 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC) An excellent summary/recap. I concur. —Disavian ( /contribs) 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That said, the deviant desires page deals primarily with a different fetish, glancing at the page it is clear that it is not the sort of expansive article on breast expansion that we would prefer. The other articles have exactly nothing to do with breast expansion as a fetish. Even the films do not have an explicit erotic connection to the actual growth of breasts--the scenes where breasts grow are not sex scenes. I created the bad paragraph structure so that someone could move the references to somewhere they might be appropriate. What would have been more appropriate, removing them outright?Lotusduck 01:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The Deviant Desires page deals with "inflation" fetishes. This is a meta-category that includes whole body, breast (BE), and belly/butt (B2E). The first example given in the second sentence on the page is breast expansion as a form of inflation fetish. It is dishonest to say that BE is not a primary concern to that page since the term BE is defined and printed no less than a half-dozen times in the 7 paragraphs on the page. As for the other references, the Carey article is entitled "Breast Enlargement Fantasy..." and the others provide support for statements made in the article that satisfy how the fetish is expressed as the article is written. In other words, not every reference on an article page needs to include the terms in the article title. Often references are used to qualify the content of our articles that define the article topic. For example, the New York Times article might say that readership is down in recent years and the article linked may not mention the NYT specifically but be a more general treatise on how all major newspapers are losing to other media. That doesn't make that reference wrong for the article. Finally, while Wikipedia is always changing, it's not a perpetual rough draft. Bad sentence structure, grammar, etc. is not a means to an ends for an article because the article is always supposed to be display quality. If you're unsure of how to rearrange something, then it's best to discuss it on the talk page first. If you don't believe a reference fits *anywhere* in the article, then it should be removed...of course, others may disagree and reinsert it where they find that it fits...which should then be discussed on the talk page. ju66l3r 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia states that we must follow our sources closely, which means that every source other than the deviant desires one is used incorrectly. They should be removed. Lotusduck 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) to be discussed tomorrow. I am not sure the narrowness of your viewpoint here will have consensus, but I want to do it is some detail.As a preliminary, I mention that it is highly appropriate for an article on Mars to give a reference to a standard textbook in Astronomy where Mars is discussed perhaps incidentally, but well. Even a book on the Earthy geology may have something relevant. It is furthermore not productive to get into detailed discussions of whether two very closely related topics are the same or slightly different. At finally, editing is not a mechanical process. WPedians are expected not to stop thinking when they edit WP. DGG 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree with you on that last point/semi personal attack, and throw it right back at you. Even if it is okay to add sources that are not directly about the subject of the article, it is obviously not okay to add sources to a fact that the source article does not address, like adding an article on family disapproval of hypnotism and breasts to cite a fact about fetishism.Lotusduck 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
just to clarify, the editors who are not expected to stop thinking are the ones adding references to the articles: I am saying that they add them having read them and knowing them to be of some degree of relevance to the subject. The semi personal reference was to myself. I will now make a personal reference to myself: this is one of the many fetishes that I can understand only on an intellectual level. DGG 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't (or don't know how) to access the proquest articles in question. Until I can, I'm forced to AGF and leave the necessary reversions to those with access. --David Hain 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism and fetishism and giantism
I just did this, and now I am doing it again
Не удается получить доступ к вашему текущему расположению. Для получения лучших результатов предоставьте Bing доступ к данным о расположении или введите расположение.
Не удается получить доступ к расположению вашего устройства. Для получения лучших результатов введите расположение.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breast expansion fetishism redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
This article was nominated for deletion on March 19, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Giantism as defined by Wikipedia is not the “fetish” that is often (loosely) associated with BE. It should be macrophilia, or more specifically, giantess fetish.
I’m astounded that someone [216.107.3 & Babecorp one and the same?] who obviously doesn’t know what BE is, would just blank most of the article and try to concoct one of his own. Not only does it grow more nonsensical with his every edit, it has less and less to do with BE fetishism. He/she did the same to the breast fetishism article – just erased a HUGE amount of content without giving any reason! (It is in light of the mess this BE article has become that I’m going to ignore Psb777 (talk • contribs • logs • filter log • block log) aka Paul Beardsell's response to it: vandalism.) Actually the original BE entry (which I didn’t write) was a heck of a lot more informative than the fractured nonsense this article is currently. And what’s the point in trying to improve this if Babecorp is just going to erase it every time? 64.11.244.35 14:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The title of the article is "breast expansion fetish". It is not "breast giantism". Any improvement can not be vandalism. That someone else might have destroyed a good article does not make edits which I do which improve the grammar, the wording into vandalism. Even if the article remains ridiculous. Paul Beardsell 16:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Uh huh. And “A few write encyclopedia articles on the subject” wasn’t vandalizing the article at all. It was a definite improvement in fact. [sarcasm] 64.11.244.75 18:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
If writing stories is part of this fetish, then what is writing encyclopedia articles about it? I, for one, experience a frisson in so doing. What do you want to do? Deny me my fetish? Suppress the facts? Or is censorship your fetish? Paul Beardsell 18:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
And thus you reveal yourself to be the troll you are. How many times have you been blocked? And you
Asian Teens Hardcore Anal
Deep Fisting Porno
Son Incest Cartoons
Marie Kaefer Chastity Vlog Day 007
Squirt Beach
Breast fetishism - Wikipedia
Breast fetishism | LGBT Info | Fandom
Talk:Breast expansion fetishism - Wikipedia
Breast Fetish
