Talk:Toplessness/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Shirts and Skins

Should this be included here?

I was just thinking exactly the same.

added. Saccerzd 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Shirtlessness acceptability

I have removed " but over the past few decades shirtlessness has spread and now, in Europe and North America, a man can go shirtless just about anywhere." This, I feel, is largely inaccurate; certainly, most privately owned areas would not allow this (excepting beaches and pools, obviously). I have also removed other text that is inaccurate and POV in favor of bare-chestedness. Meelar (talk) 23:31, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Requested move to Toplessness

Oppose they are uniquely differant however related topics, but they closest they should be is Seealsoed to one another. Qrc2006 01:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Redirect_adjectives_to_nouns.

---

Add your name and the date under the appropriate subsection with ~~~~, followed by an optional one-sentence explanation.

Support

1. The policy quoted is just about universally supported. —Simetrical (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - No need to split. May be harder to link to.

Oppose --- The topics aren't very related. Topfreedom's about a political statement/movement. Toplessness has no political connotation at all, just a sunbathing or exotic dancing connotation. Cross-references of some kind, maybe. Merge, no. Like the subjects themselves, these best come in twos David in DC 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

What is the proposed name?--Patrick 20:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Erm, d'oh. Fixed. —Simetrical (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Is topless(ness) the same as bare-chested? The intro suggested the former is more applied to women, the latter to men. Rd232 22:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

They're pretty much synonymous. It's true that topless more often refers to women, bare-chested to men, but of the two possible nouns, toplessness is a lot more common overall than bare-chestedness, I think. ("Toplessness" gives 25,900 Google hits, "bare-chested OR barechested" only 283.) And both can apply to either gender, even if there's a preference for one or the other. So unless you can think of a more gender-neutral term, I think toplessness is our best bet. —Simetrical (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Move

The other day I moved this from Bare chested to here per consensus and a request at WP:RM. Just letting everyone know :). -Greg Asche (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Where's the coverage of toplessness?

The article seems to talk almost exclusively about bare chested men, not about topless women, even though the latter is clearly the much more divisive social topic. The Jackson incidence needs to be mentioned; differences between European and American attitudes, toplessness on TV etc. AxelBoldt 06:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I had expected a greater discussion of the social issues involved, since they are fairly significant to the topic. I can only assume they are covered on the more issue-specific pages, which is perhaps more appropriate. -- Kadin2048 18:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This article could stand for the award given to the most divergent from title article on Wikipedia. Although topless is most often thought of in terms of females the article exists mostly from the standpoint of shirtless males. Perhaps "shirtless" would be a more appropriate title for this article and someone could start over again on a true "topless" article. --StuffOfInterest 20:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

SPLIT: Propose splitting article

I'd like to propose splitting the article into two. The first would be under the current title, Toplessness, and refer to the female context. The second would be under the title Bare chestedness and refer to the male context. As the article stands now it is mostly from the male context which is not what most people consider when referring to "topless". I can see no easy way to maintain a balance between the two subjects in one article. I believe the best course of action will be to move the current article to Bare chestedness and then rebuild Toplessness with what little can be salvaged as a starting point.

If someone has a better name for the male context I'd be more than happy to go with it rather that what is suggested above. --StuffOfInterest 20:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. StuffOfInterest 20:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (proposer)
2. Angelo 02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC), even if currently there isn't so much content to be splitted
3. Kadin2048 23:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC) I would support splitting the article, since I think that male and female "toplessness" are treated so differently in many societies, they are deserving of different articles.
4. David Sneek 13:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC), as per Kadin2048.
5. Thryduulf the two are treated very differently, certainly in western culture, to the extent they are different topics. There is no real point in having two articles in one.
6. According to Merriam-Webster, it is one of five things: 1. High up or something like non-ending; 2. being without a top; 3. no clothing on the upper body; 4. featuring topless waitresses (feminine form only); or 5. being in a place where topless women are permitted (another feminine form only). That said, the whole "no clothing on the upper body" part could, quite possibly, indicate a man. The thing to think about though, is that what a normal definition is? In the end, I think splitting them is best to define another mode of use. On that same note however, I must add that the true definition indicates that it could be a man as well. I feel that adding both points of view is the best route, as well as splitting it. MagnoliaSouth 14:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 16:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Opposing for now as I don't see where one would split the article or why it is necessary--the article isn't too long. Maybe proposer could offer more justification. Surely parts of the curent article would apply to both of the two new articles and both articles would be mainly comparing attitudes to each.
2. Tokek 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I don't think this is a topic that requires two articles. I don't see a problem with the current article.
3. Makes no sense. Yes, the two are difficult to work in one article, but there's insufficient justification for having two articles on this topic. Let's just improve the one we have and balance it. -Kasreyn 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
4. That makes no sense, it's the same thing. Just make this article bigger and more all encompassing. 65.95.124.5 08:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
5. It would be a damned shame: precisely the comparison we'ld loose (or have to recreate by double mentions) is interesting, giving each a relative value. The word history is actually that Topless in the presently more common sense of (female) "bare-breasted" was first recorded 1966, but earlier it was used of men's bathing suits, 1937 (EtymologyOnLine) Fastifex 10:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
6. I do not really see the need for two articles, so I vote for the status quo--Clawed 06:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

What about semi-toplessness (t-shirts that bare midriff or only wearing a bikini). Where is or would that be discussed? --Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 16:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that those issues might be best brought under subsections of "nudity" -- perhaps 'partial nudity'? Or under the particular article of clothing; e.g. tube tops, bikinis, etc. I think "toplessness" is usually taken to mean a completely bare upper half of the body, not a bare midriff or partially bared top. To include that here might be somewhat confusing, since I don't think it's what people are expecting. Kadin2048 23:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that was pretty pointless, actually. Belly tops are no more a form of partial nudity than short skirts. Just zis Guy you know? 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nudity does neither have nor need a section on partial nudity (literally taken that could even apply to a burka 'revealing' the eye lids, there is no 'correct' delimitation), but treats its forms as part of the Terminology section, which tries to make sense of terms in the two un-coordinated continuums of degrees of nudity by different viewpoints: objective, physical skin exposure versus subjective, largely cultural perception. Fastifex 06:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a fair point. Partial nudity is in any case a loaded term, with strong overtones of prudishness. Nudity has no such ambiguity. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many pictures?

I'm wondering why this article has so many pictures. Are they really needed? There's nothing wrong in my mind with the pictures (none violate copyright, and the content isn't illegal either), but I don't see why so many are necessary. Why not let the download time be shorter and only have one picture of each gender, the Minoan statue for artistic/historical context, and possibly the mountain climber picture for an example of a common activity that involves toplessness? -kotra 21:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose removing pictures 1 (black and white photo of topless woman in surf) and 4 (color photo of topless woman sunning herself). It's true that we don't need more than one photo of a topless woman. The goal is to be informative and educational, not salacious. One photo of a topless woman is all that's needed. I'd say the photo of whatsisname the singer can stay, because it's informative of cultural uses of toplessness (ie., stage performance), much like the rock-climbing picture is sports-related. -Kasreyn 22:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I personally think picture 1 is slightly more illustrative of the topless state than picture 3, but it doesn't matter much. The singer I suppose can stay too, although I don't know if stage performance is a notable setting for toplessness or not. If it stays though, then it could use a better caption, like "Singer Brandon Boyd performing barechested. Rock festivals and other outdoor concerts are common settings for toplessness" or something like that. But as long as a couple unneeded pictures are removed, I'm happy. -kotra 00:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove pictures 3 and 4 now. If anyone thinks picture 1 should be replaced by 3 or 4, you're welcome to switch it out. -kotra 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

50% of the pictures are of men, one of which from below so not actually showing "toplessness" anyway, but the article states (correctly) that the tem is applied almost exclusively to women. This is amply demonstrated by the list, which includes almost exclusively men (for whom appearing topless is completely routine and of no note whatsoever - hence essentially irrelevant). Just zis Guy you know? 15:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been scratching my head for months over this article and its dwelling over shirtless men. It just seems odd and is why I proposed splitting the article up above. Unfortunately there wasn't anything in the way of concensus. Were I better copy writer I'd probably tackle splitting up the article on the principal of WP:BOLD. --StuffOfInterest 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about toplessness usually being applied only to women, but for the moment this article is about both male and female toplessness. Since this article talks about both, we have pictures of both genders. As for them being roughly 50% each, I don't think it was intentional: we have one picture of a topless woman, one picture of a topless man, and the rest just happened to be just as much male as female. For example, the topless performer picture could just as easily be Courtney Love or another female performer if a picture of them was available. As it stands, though, we only have the Brandon Boyd picture, and I think it's fine.

What you're suggesting is the split between Toplessness (female) and Barechestedness (male), which I think would be a good idea (there probably should be more effort to reach consensus though). Until then though, the article is about both genders, and the images reflect that pretty well. (by the way, showing a topless guy from below doesn't make him any less topless in my mind) -kotra 09:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention to this page in a while. For one thing, I definitely prefer this image to the one currently at the top of the page. For one thing, it's in color rather than black & white, and isn't as grainy. I'm going to go ahead and change it out since you said to feel welcome to. If anyone disagrees, just post here. Cheers, Kasreyn 00:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists of bare chesters

Do we really need a list of all the people in TV or movies ever seen bare-chested? Especially the men, where it's really nothing out of the ordinary? DJ Clayworth 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the standard of notability is people who are known for their topless appearances. Kasreyn 01:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Legality

The recently added Legality section I think is a good one but it needs to be expanded. I tried to improve it by adding information about topfree equality and mentioning that other places besides Ontario exist that legalize toplessness, but I don't actually know which places those are. It would be great if someone with more knowledge about which places legally allow toplessness (male, female, or both) could expand it some more (with sources). -kotra 03:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Added topless protest

I'm adding this as an example that toplessness is sometimes used as a gimmick or attention-getter at gatherings that otherwise don't necessarily have anything to do with toplessness. Please note that the caption up to and inclusive of "2005" is required by the license of the image and must not be altered or removed. The portion of the caption after "2005" is my addition and could be altered, if needed. Kasreyn 11:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Article split

Is there any reason why this article is being split when there has not been a consensus to to so?--Clawed 01:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• None, and the majority was AGAINST! Fastifex 11:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wth some guy split the article, when the article split lostm im changing back.Zach 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason is very simple: this article is about toplessness. The word topless applies in normal English usage solely to women. The content on men is moved in full to barechested, no content has been lost and the article is now about what people would expect it to be about. Do not mistake a low-inpur straw poll for [{WP:CON|consensus]]; I have yet to see a convincing reaosn for not separating the two articles according to the terms normally used, and recognising that breasts have a sexual connotation which is almost entirely absent from the male chest. Quick litmus test: would a barechested man walking in the street in your town be arrested or attract significant note? And a topless woman? It really is not complex. Just zis Guy you know? 11:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I will expand a bit on my opposition. Here in New Zealand topless applies equally to both sexes and "bare-chestsed" is a term that is never/barley used. I would describe a half-naked man as topless. --Clawed 00:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Then New Zealand is unusual and that should be mentioned in the article with an appropriate link. No problem at all with that. For the most part, though, bared breasts are considered to have sexual connotations well in excess of that of the bared male chest; on the beaches of Europe, for example, there is debate about whether women may go topless but the idea of men covering their torsos is not even considered. A topless beach means one where women may go topless, a non-topless beach will not prevent men form doing so. I have posted this on the article RfC page for more input, but I really do think that this is the correct approach. Just zis Guy you know? 09:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Where I live (Ontario, Canada) there is no law against women being naked from the waist up. Many people believe (hope) that this will ultimately normalize bare-chested women. Men have been walking around topless for years and that is now seen as normal. I believe that both terms should be included in one article, with redirects so a search on either brings you to one article. I'm not sure that the topic (people naked from the waist up) is large enough to even need two articles. ColtsScore 08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the request left at RfC: I feel that the article should be kept in one for the following reasons:

1. My first note was that the female toplessness article is quite short with the male information seperated.
2. Then I read the comments above, and thought that "Barechested" was quite a strange word - I've never heard it in frequent use - topless is more common as one can tell from the context whether it as about a man or woman.
3. Finally, I thought the best way to implement this suggestion so that those who use the term barechested would still find the page would be to use a simple revert. That way, the main arguement for the use of Barechested and a split into that page is nullified - the arguement being (as far as I can see), "People use barechestedness for men and toplessness for women".

I hope this forms a compromise of sorts. Martinp23 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

this article is melting

Why has this article dwindled so much in the past month? what good does this do? Joeyramoney 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

See above: the barechested parts (on males) were removed by a split against the majority; if you disgree, like me, why not merge it back in (as I did onece, but was re-reverted) Fastifex 10:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support this. I opposed the split as well. Kasreyn 21:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For values of "the majority" which encompassed a very small number of people with no compelling arguments. We have been told that in one country the word topless is sometimes applied to men. In most of the English-speaking world it is not. Just zis Guy you know? 08:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think arguing about this is silly given the articles still have no significant verifiable content (which was actually an argument against splitting). Those interested in this article could be more usefully engaged in finding some sourced information (e.g.: laws, scientific studies). However, I feel compelled to point out that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contrary to the views expressed by JzG above and the article intro as now written, I think the article should be describing the concept of not wearing a top as opposed to the term toplessness. Encyclopedias are for concepts; dictionaries are for definitions.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 11:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

oh, i see. my bad. :) Joeyramoney 01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• ... your annoying me, the US is like the only country who supposdely uses that term bare-chested and i live here and have never heard it used, also if other english speaking countries are using the term topless to apply to both genders it must be used in this article. If the US is the minority in using the word topless for female only, it should not count.Now... stop reverting the article to its small amount.Zach 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• ... i can tell your likely going to keep changing it back, thats why i suggest a merge between bare-chested and toplessness.. in a small way it would promote gender equality to have the two pages mergedZach 23:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

UK and US both use the term barechested - I know of no significant part of the English-speaking work that uses "topless" to describe men. Just zis Guy you know? 11:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge in Topfree here?

• Support, can't see anything specific Fastifex 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons given in my comment above (or near to those reasons) Martinp23 23:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Question Just what exactly is being proposed? That sentence could be interpreted in two ways. Will the final merged article be "Topfree" or "Toplessness"? Kasreyn 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

answer The name is not the essence of a merger, but the notices on the content pages clearly say merge topfree INTO toplessness (plausibly as a section) Fastifex 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, Support, but I prefer the images in this article to the one in that one. Merge its content, not its picture. Kasreyn 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, merge the text by all means, but as per above lets be discerning about the pictures. Just zis Guy you know? 12:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. There is by far enough overlap in the material to make one article out of it. "Topfree" or "Topfreedom" is more of a political euphemism for topless to avoid search overlap with "Where can I find topless pics". --StuffOfInterest 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• No. People who use topfree to describe themselves, or their activities use that term to differentiate from the "baggage" associated with the usual context of topless (EG: "live topless girls on stage"). Topfree is used to create distance from sexuality. Also the "less" suffix implies that something is missing that "should" be present. The "free" suffix is used to imply personal freedom. Topless and topfree are two divverent topics.

• No, as the person said above they can be quite different. While on the surface you might say there is no difference in the end result, in reality the underlying idea behind the two are totally different from each other. Mathmo 09:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, they are two very different topics. Topfree(dom) is fundamentally an equal rights and body acceptance movement, related to naturism. Toplessness is sexualised partial nudity of women designed to be attractive to men, related to strip clubs, Page 3 and the like. Thryduulf 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, While we currently don't have much content to support either articles, they are different topics. Topfreedom is a very specific social movement with the purpose of removing the perception of indecency toward the nude female breasts. Toplessness is simply the state of being topless, done for comfort, sexual arousal or social tradition PyroGamer 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - topless describes the action, or state, where as Topfree can be interpreted as a movement of people supporting Toplessness.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am closing debate and removing the tag on the Topfreedom page unless there are any objections. There has been a majority Opposition vote here, although true consensus was not reached. But real consensus is impossible if there is no back and forth argument, and it looks like the in-favor votes aren't interested enough to have a real debate. This can be reopened if anyone desires. But after six months, I think it is time to go ahead and close debate. — Eric Herboso 06:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cramped pictures

In particular, I'm referring to the "Attitudes towards topless people" section. The four pictures really does push the text out of proportion and it's not a nice looking layout. For this reason, I'm going to remove some of the more pointless pictures which are cramping the page. Feel free to move them around so they don't make the article look like crap though. Schizmatic 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the "breasts not bombs" picture is noteworthy because it shows that toplessness can have a group purpose, and that it can be a tool of political protest. Furthermore, you removed the page's best image of a topless male in favor of another topless female who's distorted by being underwater... doesn't make any sense to me. I'm restoring unless you can give some better reason than "cramped". I don't even know what you mean by that. Kasreyn 00:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There. I've edited to improve the layout. I've kept all four images but rearranged them for better appearance. How does it look now? Kasreyn 00:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks better now, but only because of the poor quality picture of the barechested man has been removed by another user. The topless protest is still a bit iffy though. Perhaps it would be better to expand the legality section and put it in there. Schizmatic 13:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Partial bareness of the trunk

More covered than topless is wearing a bikini or crop top / bellyshirt, thus having a bare midriff.

Also clothing may have a low neckline, for women also referred to as cleavage, and/or bare shoulders.

Dress codes sometimes address these options.

MisterSheik 07:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious use of photos

Am I the only one who thinks that this is one of those articles which doesn't technically NEED photos - like without them we didn't know what a topless woman looks like? I'm now going to go and look up "nudity" to see whether that article is equally amusing. Well done, keep up the good work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.17.253.122 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Seems like a matter of opinion. Many pages may not 'need' images, but images help to illustrate context. The protest picture is especially informative to someone not familiar with toplessness as a protest mechanism. Trollderella 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We need much more work on different societal attitudes here

Anyone want to take a crack at breaking it up, perhaps by region? Trollderella 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add more to this article!

Could this article be a little bit less westernized? I mean, you have one sentience, as a caption, for other cultures around the world.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully - this is a wiki - please go ahead and help! Trollderella 10:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 64.26.98.90

I am reverting 64.26.98.90's latest edits. S/he replaced the current version with an older version of this article without explaining which revision it was, or why. The contents s/he reintroduced had links to two now-deleted images:

• 12:17, 26 May 2006 Angr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Brandon boyd incubus.jpg" (I4)
• 06:16, 25 January 2007 Jaranda (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Smilingguy.JPG" (uncyclopedic)

Suggesting that the article was replaced with a version older than 26 May 2006. Indeed, older versions of this article do have links to these two images. —Tokek 00:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Traditional v. western is weird wording

I suspect something other than "traditional cultures" is meant by that section, since of course there are "traditional cultures" in both the western and non-western world prior to the rise of what's now considered modern culture. Perhaps Western and Westernized vs. non-Western/non-Westernized? --Delirium 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, although I don't think it is entirely to do with westernisation either - any other ideas? Indigenous maybe? Trollderella 10:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Male chests

"the male chest is considered as being wholly unattractive to women" - Really??? As a straight guy I can't comment from my own views, but I was rather under the impression that the opposite is often true?! Paulfp 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

so the opposite would be "the female chest is considered as being wholly unattractive to men" -Really? The opposite MIGHT be true but I doubt it is very widespread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.149.23.113 (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The opposite would be, ""the male chest is considered as being attractive to women." 76.219.170.8 (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

News story

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,283512,00.html

Good info to add. I don't feel creative enough now to do it. SakotGrimshine 13:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Topfree Action - why removed?

Why did you remove link to Topfree Action...?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TopfreeAction (talk • contribs).

When someone ads an external link with a domain name the same as their Wikipedia account, it is usually going to be considered spam. Wikipedia is not here for self promotion. If your link does not directly contribute to the page content then it probably has no place in the article. If you can explain here why your link directly contributes to or suppliments the article's content, then it may qualify to be included. A better place for external links is as refernces to facts within the article itself. As a note, Wikipedia uses the "rel=nofollow" attribute on links so the search engines will not go to your site from the articles. --StuffOfInterest 13:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I used wikipedia for a long time but this is first time that I actively participate in it. I have read your guidelines for which links should be posted and which not - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links - and couldn`t find any reason why my link should not be included. I don`t want to make copy-paste of rules now because it would be too long and unnecesary but my link doesn`t brake any of your rules. You said " If you can explain here why your link directly contributes to or suppliments the article's content, then it may qualify to be included" - well I don`t know have you seen our page at all but it is about right of women to be topless - how you mean that it isn`t supliment to article content? And my wikipedia account name - didn`t find in your rules that it violates it but I can change it, NOWHERE writes who posted any link except if you are not loged in so I have apsolutely no interest of how my nickname should sound. Cheers.TopfreeAction 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Image:Gustave Courbet 009.jpg

Image:Gustave Courbet 009.jpg was recently removed from this article with the following explanation: "Again, I fail to see how this improves the article..." However, the image illustrates a context in which toplessness has been widely accepted in European society, and would be the first image utilizing a non-photographic medium in the article. Since the article describes toplessness, in part, as a reference "to a graphic, photographic, or film depiction...", images in the article shouldn't be limited to photographic media. Therefore, I suggest that the image be restored. John254 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because when you originally decided to change the lead image, you first claimed that it was aesthetic reasons, which made no sense, as aesthetics are not a part of wikipedia as far as information is concerned. Secondly, you removed the lead image without discussion, which is generally a bad idea. After I reverted this, inserted the image again, this time without removing the original picture at all, however, this messed up the article's introduction and contents bar, leading me to believe that the original image replacement was not done for any reasons related to aesthetes.

Again, I fail to see how a painting of a women would make a better lead image then the current one. Foremost, while the painting may depict the attitudes of Europeans, the Ethiopian picture clearly shows that not all culture's clothing includes some sort of covering for the breasts. Frankly, your arguments are rather weak, and some of your statements have caused me to question your objectivity, although I will assume good faith for now.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Skin cancer?

What is the link between toplessness and skin cancer? Does a bra or a top prevent skin cancer?

In my opnion there is no place for a link to the page about skin cancer

--194.151.163.166 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Severe overcrowding of pictures

Honestly, do we need four photos of what toplessness is?

And what purpose does german women sunbathing topless and the jailbait in hotpants fulfill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.210 (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that possibly the jailbait should be changed for someone a bit older, but I think the images are quite valuable to the article, the jailbait excluded unless it's replaced by something more relevant - a burlesque dancer say. Each addresses points about the section in question. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No tops =?= Child pornography

Although images of topless women are increasingly prevalent in Western magazines and film, images of topless girls under the age of eighteen years are controversial, and are potentially considered child pornography in some jurisdictions.

I think listing a few of these jurisdictions would be advantageous. bkil (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This could help: Child modeling (erotic). Not sure, but I list it anyway: [1] Anyone for a web search? bkil (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On another note, since when is plainly depicting topless woman, adult or otherwise, considered pornography to start with? I thought in its purest form, it shall be called either simply art or in its more "hard core" form erotica, which is a very different cookie from pornography. (Just think: otherwise wikipedia would be considered full of porn because of the heap of medical articles...:->) I have a feeling that the pictures you are looking at were troublesome not because of the lack of tops, but because of pornographic content, intent, set up, etc. Not that I'm a fan of the genre, but I think the quoted text needs rewording. bkil (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to include ribaldry. bkil (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nudity is not pornography, no matter what the age. Images of topless females under the age of 18 are also not inherently child pornography. Because there is no clear line between what is obscene, and what is not, and therefore, what is pornographic and what is not, and because of the very strong social and economic penalties for being found guilty of child pornography, many people are not willing to take a risk. Just because someone is unwilling to publish an image of a topless child, that doesn't imply that an image of a topless child is pornpgraphy. Depicting a topless woman is not inherently a decision as to whether it is art, erotica, or pornography. An image of a topless woman is simply an image of a woman. It is inherently no diffent than an image of a woman riding a bicycle. Should we consider it erotica merely because some man(or woman), someplace, might be aroused by the image? Does that mean that if a person has a fetish for women on bicycles that the image of a woman on a bicylce is erotica? Atom (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Man, I don't know how you found out about my fetish for (adult) women on bicycles, but you are so right! :-D I was thinking along the same line, but felt a need for confirmation. The Entertainment and media paragraph reads pretty definite about this issue, however. I'm still questioning the validity of the exact wording used in the cited sentence and it's surrounding from a mathematical implication standpoint. As a matter of fact, we both agree upon that (almost) any picture of a minor could be potentially considered child pornography (see added link to bluelineradio), even with clothes on. bkil (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)