Talk:Bralessness

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Some suggestions to make the article better

The Swedish article on the issue is actually better, for those of you who understand Swedish and want to translate.

There are also other things that could have been made better. Why do women wear bras is an important question to begin with, when bralessness is discussed. It is an obvious part of the answer that one of the purposes of bras is to hide the breasts in general and the nipples in particular. That is not so commonly mentioned and in this article not at all, except for the fact that the lack of coverage shows up as one of the main issues of bralessness. So, logically covering them up is one of the purposes of said bra.

Secondly, the article does not mention very much about bralessness outside of Western culture. Supposedly are there parts of the world where, unlike in Western countries, bralessness is and has always been the norm. The short story from Somalia gives a glimpse into this part of reality.

Third, the public discussion on bralessness has become closely connected to the question of visible nipples, like on the picture of Gisella Marengo. The issue of hiding nipples without using a bra is not thematized in this article.

Fourth, one reason for wearing a bra that has not been mentioned in this article is to support heavy breasts. Some women with heavy breasts report that wearing a bra reduces back pain. For them, the bra has as strong or even a stronger practical then aesthetical and cultural function. For them, bralessness can be outright uncomfortable.

Fifth, the article would become more encyclopedic by starting by defining the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.228.62 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Another good source article

I don't have time to add this into the article currently, so if someone has time now please feel free to incorporate the content. Much of this is already in the article, but this appears to be an additional source for many elements. TeenVogue - Why You Don't Have to Wear a Bra § Music Sorter § (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Usage

The term free-boobing has 50% the amount of returns as "bralessness" on google news. Per your logic this article should be deleted. Furthermore, that was merely an etymology, which isn't against guidelines. 92.6.177.254 (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Google search results for free-boobing total about 22,000 and is illustrated with a definition of braless. Top freedom returns 773,000,000 results; breast freedom 79,300,000 results; free-titted 0 results (I removed it); and bra freedom 29,200,000 results. You can't compare free-boobing to bralessness and claim they are relatively equal in importance or usage. Free-boobing is not found in a dictionary. Braless and bralessness are found in a dictionary and tolal 22 million Google search results. I appreciate your devotion to the term free boobing, but it is almost trivia and barely qualifies a mention. The term doesn't merit a longer explanation than the other synonyms, which in any case are not further defined. Already covered along with other synonyms for bralessness. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Images

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. ... Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available." With that in mind, I am planning to remove:

• Street photography of women who appear unaware they're being photographed or that their breasts are exposed (e.g., the filipina woman)
• Personal vacation photos (e.g., the woman in the pink camisole top)
• Porn/fetish photos which don't provide a realistic depiction of the topic (e.g., the two of the same woman flashing cleavage from a flickr porn account)

Cheers, gnu57 04:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Btphelps: Hi, I saw that you readded the photos of the filipina woman and the woman in the pink camisole top. I still think that this is inappropriate: they are images of identifiable individuals, and they seem voyeuristic to me in this context. (Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Privacy rights.) The filipina woman seems to be having a wardrobe malfunction and appears unaware that she is being photographed. The other woman appears to be wearing one of those camisole swim tops with a flimsy built-in shelf bra. I don't know whether she was aware that the top was so revealing. I think the average person would be mortified to find her personal vacation photographs used in this way. gnu57 17:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Genericusername57:, when you state that an average person (woman) would be "mortified", that you find the view "voyeuristic", and believe that a woman would only show her breasts like that due to a "wardrobe malfunction", it seems evident you are projecting your view onto others and revealing your own bias against women being seen braless, which is a good deal of what this article attempts to understand. The point is that an increasing number of women are NOT mortified about being seen braless, are in fact increasingly comfortable in that state, despite what you or others might think and how they may be judged. That's exactly why the images are appropriate. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Btphelps: I don't think that all images of braless women are inherently voyeuristic. What I object to are revealing photographs taken or used in this context without the clear consent of the subject. I think in general it would be better to use images more like these (non-free), which feature a fashion writer wearing ordinary clothing, rather than seethrough/super sheer outfits like a mesh dress or a wet swim top. Cheers, gnu57 20:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @Genericusername57:, while it may be your preference, WP policy which you cite clearly states, "When taking pictures of identifiable people, the subject's consent is not usually needed for straightforward photographs taken in a public place..." 'Nuff said. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Btphelps: FYI, I have requested a third opinion. gnu57 21:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:3O Most of the images are, let's face it, absolutely useless. "Here's a braless woman, here's another, here's one more..." Once you show the first image (Gisella Marengo) none of the others actually illustrates the sections they are anchored to. The implied connections are so thin as to be transparent. The only subsequent image that actually illustrates the section it is anchored to is the Free the Nipple image. gnus removals were policy-based and, more importantly, better for the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, so I'll request a fourth opinion. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

btphelps, there is no "fourth opinion" mechanism in the WP:DR procedures. You might want to read WP:CONSENSUS. "I'll keep asking the questions until I get the answers I want." is generally perceived as WP:TE. If you want to create and RfC, there's nothing stopping you but this is a cooperative project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Despite there being no formal WP procedure for a fourth opinion, I will invite another editor or two to add their input. The images illustrate the diversity of women who prefer to be braless, which certainly supports the content. If you disagree, you are free to create an RfC. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 16:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic content

I've removed some off-topic content. There is probably more. The subject of this article is women not wearing bras – not naked women, not women wearing bras with or without other clothing, not women being manhandled by police, etc. If you see off-topic information, please WP:Be bold and remove it. If you think it is good content for Wikipedia, then it can be WP:PRESERVEd at another article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What images are acceptable to use in this article, in No Bra Day, and on other pages related to bralessness? gnu57 20:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Gallery

Below are images that are or have been used in this article or in No Bra Day.

• File:Philippine woman braless.jpg|A: Filippina woman
• Image:Julie red camisole top braless.jpg|B: Vacation photo
• File:Braless in Central Park.jpg|C: Pink dress
• Image:Braless woman in Bebe top.jpg|D: Midriff top
• Image:Gisella Marengo - 66th Venice International Film Festival, 2009.jpg|E: Italian actress
• File:Woman wearing a sheer swimsuit cover.jpg|F: Festivalgoer
• File:Free the Nipple.jpg|G: Campaigner
• File:Redheaded woman braless at home.jpg|H: V-neck 1
• File:Kat braless in public.jpg|I: V-neck 2
• File:Marisangela_in_white_top.jpg|J: Sunglasses

Opinions

• Very strongly oppose A, B, C, and J as impositions on those women's privacy. Oppose H and I as low-quality and WP:Gratuitous. Neutral on everything else; though I doubt that so many similar images are necessary for the reader's understanding of the subject. Oppose all but E and possibly G per the below commentators. gnu57 20:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose all but E - Except for famous people, an identifiable image of a living person should be accompanied by a release of the right to privacy. In addition, "G" is more topless than bra-less. How many ways are there to be bra-less? See-thru, form-fitting, décolletage? More than that would be redundant.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Can we get a gallery that notes the status of each image as a caption? Surely, we have to have something on Commons where the subject of the photo uploaded it themselves, or gave explicit permission? I am strongly opposed to any image that doesn't meet these criteria – as much purely neutral encyclopedic interest as we may have in going through and finding photos to put in this article, it's obviously got the potential to be quite embarrassing for someone who doesn't want to be represented in this way. Even if there are no copyright issues; just because we can doesn't mean we should. How would you like it if you posted vacation pics on Flickr and, 15 years later, a photo of you with a booger in your nose was the lead image for dried nasal mucus? jp×g 23:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree as an artist and photographer who has been obtaining model releases for 40 years. The quirk in the law is that "public figures" give up much of their right to privacy if a photo is taken in public. They have, instead, a right to publicity, being paid if an image is used for profit. As a non-profit, WP can use these images as long as there is no copyright infringement. There must be other images of slightly famous people, such as the Italian actress, whose photo is in Commons and can illustrate these articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

For example...

Pornstar Abbey Brooks, an image that is free to use anywhere

Laura Novoa, Argentine actress

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose all but E and G per WP:IUP The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Image E conveys almost all relevant aspects clearly and centrally and most of the rest are neither necessary nor add any additional information. The only other image that may be relevant is Image G, as directly relevant to the Free the Nipple section. The remainder range from redundant to gratuitous. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose all but E and G, with reservations about G. In addition to the above arguments, which I endorse, G is the only picture with any apparent relevance to the specific section it's associated with. In general, when you have a collection of images that illustrate the subject of the whole article, surely it's best to group them together in an "Image gallery" section, rather than sprinkle them through sections they don't relate to. And an image gallery is only really appropriate for highly visual topics, like art. One could argue that fashion is one such highly visual topic; but I would say that doesn't apply when it's about a choice of undergarment. Meanwhile, although relevant to its specific section, G is marginal to the main subject of the article. I feel it would be better to drop it (though I don't feel as strongly about this as about the others) and instead illustrate the following section, "No Bra Day", with the infobox image from the No Bra Day article. —VeryRarelyStable 05:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree only E and perhaps G is usable. We do not need many images to illustrate this concept and there are privacy implications. I also removed two irrelevant images from No Bra Day. Fences&Windows 21:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support E only It clearly represents the information that is being conveyed. Idealigic (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support E only E for the reasons given above (as well as some concerns that several don't appear to be with the subject's knowledge which should be avoided as far as possible). As a distinct topic to toplessness, I don't believe G should be used Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@JPxG: A and C are creepershots, by all appearances taken without the knowledge of the subject. B is some private individual's vacation photo. D, F, H, I, and J come from anonymous Flickr accounts dedicated to uploading and exchanging pornography; the J account is particularly sketchy. E is an actress making a public appearance; G is a participant at an event promoting (semi-)nudity. gnu57 00:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I'm seeing a pretty strong consensus already forming. Does the opposition have anything they wish to contribute? —VeryRarelyStable 23:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@VeryRarelyStable:, I dislike use of WP:BATTLEGROUND terms like "the opposition" but in the case of this RfC, the only editor previously attempting to increase the number of images was btphelps. That editor appears to have taken their ball and gone home so there is unlikely to be any substantive input from that quarter. I agree that there appears to be a clear consensus formed here for removing all except E and possibly G and if that remains the case in, say, a week I think it would be appropriate for anyone to close this. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Length, details, and trivial claims

Now that the images have been sorted out, is it perhaps time to discuss the overall length and tone of this article? It seems over-inflated with minor detail and trivial claims, such as women preferring to take off their bras on coming home. It seems like a WP:BLUESKY statement yet there are three sentences about this minor factlet with eight total cites. This does not help readers in any discernible way. Can we quickly establish a consensus that there is a detail issue and the article needs to be pared down? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be no objection so I'll be getting out the hedgetrimmers later today, probably. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed the intro and the first two sections, I'll come back later to continue. Please let me know if there are any objections. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Historicism lacking

There was a definite bralessness movement in the first half of the 1970s. The article misses addressing how the trend appeared and became a widely popular trend in the US --not just among fashion models or Hollywood figures-- or also in the Western world in that time, and then was gone by the 1980s.Dogru144 (talk)

Muscles

What muscles 99.240.77.17 (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Failure to address?

The lead image of an actress photographed at a social function has a caption which states that she is "wearing see-through clothing".

This is highly debatable. The photograph shows the tell-tale signs of papparazzi flooding of the subject area with flash light so as to render non-seethru clothing artificially seethru. This is done (as it has been done for decades) for the singular purpose of highlighting the subject's nipples, in a very sleazy attempt to produce the most near-to-naked photograph possible of the subject at that moment. The goal, in terms of contextual takeaway for the viewer, is inappropriateness and titillation.

Make no mistake, the motivation behind this was always to sell the image to a male target audience. This does not look to me like a good representation of a libertarion, gender-equality act of dressing for oneself. Rather it looks to me much more like this: the inversion of it by the inclusion of an obvious pap snap.

It seems to me, in this one moment, the article is perhaps not addressing the age-old male exploitation of women in regard of this topic? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:2D20:DE26:1E48:794F (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Lack of other cultures

This seems to only reference western culture. It would be interesting to add any other information of other cultures that historically do not participate in this movement due to being established in their culture already and how they do not sexualize women's breasts. Mistikaa (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)