Talk:Self breast exam

From Conservapedia

How was that image offensive and/or graphic. The woman's breast was concealed by her hand - it was a harmless image demonstrating exam technique.

Highly graphic and offensive image? Oh please! JamesK 22:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this not intended as a reference tool that is considered safe for children? Do you really consider nudity appropriate? --BillOReillyFan 22:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That wasn't nudity. Really, how on earth was that 'unsafe' for children? JamesK 22:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw a woman's body. I saw no clothes. It was completely unnecessary. The article is just as informative without it, and much more friendly to younger users. They don't need to see a woman touching herself intimately to learn about breast examinations. --BillOReillyFan 22:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

How is the female form offensive to children? Especially a photo of a breast exam? It is not even remotely sexual... Are you also going to disallow presentation of Michaelangelo's David?

Michaelangelo's David is a piece of rock, not an actual person. --BillOReillyFan 22:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It's still a visual representation of the human form. How, in all honesty, do you think this photo is offensive? This is an illustration of a diagnostic technique. How does that warrant offensiveness? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from here...

Would you not find it inappropriate for such a picture to be hanging on the wall of a kindergarten or elementary school class? If so, why would we tolerate it here? --BillOReillyFan 22:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this site really for kindergarteners? JamesK 22:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

No, actually. I do not find a photo of the human form offensive for children. For heaven's sake, about 50% of children are brestfed in infancy. Once a child reaches the age of 5, how do breasts suddenly become offensive. Furthermore, many young women do not know how to perform a correct breast exam. In my experience, photographs are extremely helpful in this arena.

How odd an attitude. It is true that on its own, the image of a breast obviously doesn't have a corrupting influence. However, on the subject of nudity, how is the line drawn. There has to be a threshold of tolerance somewhere, right? Is a bare breast OK? How about full frontal nudity? What about a picture of an erect penis? If we are allowing nudity, there must be some guideline as to where the the threshold is drawn? Who decides this? Who polices it? Is it even possible for such a guideline to be anything more than unambiguous and subjective? Would it not be sensible to just conclude perhaps we should just consider human nudity inappropriate for a reference on which we hope children will learn? It's not like the site will lack serious informative content by having a policy against human nudity. A depiction of how to perform a breast exam can be just as effective if shown with a clothed breast or with some kind of breast analog. Although, perhaps the job of teaching about breast examination should be left to qualified doctors? --BillOReillyFan 22:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

But an extremely detailed sculture of a man's penis and scrotum is okay with you?

So where do you propose we set the tolerance for nudity? Do you want to set out the guidelines of exactly what is decent and what is not? --BillOReillyFan 22:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I smell a huge contradiction on Conservapedia! (Ok, many, but here's another). Conservapedia loves to point out how the article about abortion on Wikipedia reads like a brochure for the industry, and fails to mention that it causes breast cancer. Now, first of all, the article does not even get close to reading like a brochure...and if it does...it's the most long and neutral brochure in existance. Now, I haven't done any reading about whether it does or does not cause breast cancer (or at least make it more likely), and I highly doubt it does. But if you're going to criticise that Wikipedia does not include that information, it would seem like Conservapedia is all for making sure breast cancer becomes less common in females, correct? Well the way to do this is for regular self breast exams to check for lumps - preferably every day. But those poor conservative woman who don't know how to perform a self breast exam, and have been scared off by the "evil" liberal WIkipedia, can only check here. But uh oh, it seems like that woman's body is offensive! Especially to young children who have only seen a breast every day of their lives while they're a baby! Better hide that from everyone. Too bad that woman could die, she'll never know though because she can't check. Get over it. A woman's body is not offensive, especially when covered. This is censorship at it's absolute worst. --ALFa 01:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you out of your mind? Are you going to tell me that:

• • Conservapedia is the only place where a woman could possibly learn about self breast cancer examinations, and that we are to alone shoulder the responsibility of educating all of America's women on how to examine their own breasts?
  • That if a woman fails to see a breast on this page she will instantly assume her breasts are offensive to everyone and will be so ashamed of herself she'll die of breast cancer?
  • That a completely uninformative picture of a naked woman is sufficient education for women wishing to know how to examine their breasts, and that it is a perfectly adequate substitute for guidance given by a professional?

It's not about censorship at all. It's about what is appropriate and tasteful. The picture added nothing of value to the article at all. It did, however, set a precedent that there is an undefined level of tolerance for nudity on this website. If we are to have a certain tolerance for nudity on this site, I think first we must at least consider:

• • Setting clear and concise guidelines as to what is acceptable and what isn't
  • Some facility in which users may moderate pictures before they're posted
  • Appropriate warnings on the website letting people know that some pages may contain images of human nudity
  • A flagging system for images containing nudity so we may give facility for people to opt-out of these images, so their browser will not display them. I think this is both a reasonable suggestion and a perfectly adequate compromise for the people who insist nudity has some educational value. --BillOReillyFan 18:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I'm not out of my mind. I was completely exaggerating and using sarcasm to prove my point. I suppose sarcasm hasn't really caught on with biased conservatives yet. No, it's not the only place a woman can learn, but why send them somewhere else when it's not offensive? No she won't die because she's ashamed of herself, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not offensive. It's not an uninformative picture, it's how to perform a self breast exam, like the article is about. It's not a naked woman, it's part of a female torso with the breasts covered by hands, I see worse on TV shows every day. I've never heard of a professional breast examiner, but I have seen the description on a T-Shirt. Please enlighten me. Relax, more sarcasm. Yes, a picture that is not offensive, with a description (which needs to be expanded by the way) is very adequate. Guidance from a professional would be the same. It is censorship, since when has a picture of a woman, covering her breasts with her hands to perform a breast exam, been considered nudity? That shows no more than a bikini does. Do you have children? I suppose you don't let them go to the beach either? I guess they were given baby formula as a baby? None of that breast feeding stuff. I would reply to the next points (which would be a good idea for pictures that were actually containing nudity), however, this picture was not nudity, and not offensive. --ALFa 00:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)