Talk:Toplessness/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Monokini first topless swimsuit.

Reference: http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/new-york-worlds-fair-1939-40/ at 1:23

This is amateur film taken at the 1939-1940 New York Worlds Fair. Salvador Dali had a pavilion where the "surrealistic swimsuit" he designed was on display (the outside of the pavilion, in Dali's unique style, is shown starting at around 1:00). As can be seen the swimsuit was bare-breasted (though like the monokini, not technically "topless"). The monokini may have been the first commercially marketed topless suit, I don't know. I haven't read the cited source, but unless what it says is more qualified, it is clearly wrong. 74.104.151.161 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Topher Cooper

From what I see, what may appear to be bare breasts are actually some sort of molded material. There's really no possibility that the NY World's Fair in 1939 would allow actual bare breasts to be exhibited in public (probably Dali had to withhold what he was planning on doing as it is). Given this, we would need a citation from a reliable source to verify that the bathing suit actually exposed the wearer's breasts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This article from The New York Times in 2003 is intriguing, but still doesn't quite confirm the actual toplessness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• There are a a few of the shots that seem to show something like that, with a ridge below the breasts, but the breasts still seemed to move naturally, and there were other shots where there was no sign of that at all. Furthermore, it was far, far beyond the prosthesis technology of the time to produce appliances that looked that realistic at that distance even with the odd lighting and ignoring the question of movement. It wasn't until, I would say, the beginning of this century that you could see in films any prostheses that showed substantial areas of skin that actually looked like flesh and skin, and film could set up the shots carefully and throw out bad takes. See, for a pretty direct example, this still (https://riversofgrue.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/the_entity_rivers_of_grue-1.png; the point would be even stronger if you can find a clip) from the supernatural rape scene from the 1982 film The Entity.
• After some still-framing I figured out what was going on. The suit is built like a one-piece, but with the top looking something like that of a long sleeved formal dress, with a heart shaped cutout extending from above the naval at the bottom then up and across the tops of the breasts. So much is obvious. What is less obvious is that the heart is filled, up to the bottom of the breasts with a gauzy material. Normally it is almost invisible, but in some light (oblique I think) it takes on a darker color than the skin under it. Add some bunching and it looks like the covering you describe.
• You're belief that bare breasts would not be shown at the NY World's Fair in 1939, which seems entirely reasonable, biases you into generalizing the apparent breast plate in some shots to a conclusion that they are there in every shot, just better hidden. The curator who entered this in Public Domain from the Internet Archive says "One stand out element is the huge number of acts and shows involving female nudity of some kind, though this may tell us as much about the tastes of the cameraman as about the surprisingly liberal ... attitudes of the time."
• So far I have viewed about half of this reel. When I realized it was the 6th and last reel I decided to start with the first reel, which is found further down the page.
• Also on reel six, between about 5:05 to 6:07, is "Frozen Alive". Outside the tent we see several models, who will be in the show, in very form fitting one-pieces. Inside the film shows one of the models pretty unambiguously stripped down to only a brief bottom getting entombed in a block of ice. This is a standard carny technique, outside the tent before the show, there is a titillating but socially acceptable come-on; inside the tent, where only adults (originally only men) could enter, was the real serious skin "Kootchy show" -- there is a possible reference to this in the titular -- sorry, that just came out that way -- song from "Meet Me In St. Louis" that came out a few years after this World's Fair about a previous one. Between 15:18 and 19:38 there is a segment which the cinematographer named "Son Worshipers", this breaks the "only inside" pattern, though not fully. I'm not sure where this is taking place, but apparently it is a bit of a yard in which staff models wearing quite transparent scarves around their breasts are hanging out, talking, playing games, etc. -- I suspect that this was "supposed" to be an illustration of normal life at one of the region pavilions.
• In reel one running from about 41:30 to 41:17 we have a shot of "Cogan's Alley Life Class". "Life class" refers to a class where artists practice painting living nude models. Since we don't see the interior with the models, this constitutes only weakly supportive evidence, but it is evidence. Much more significantly, there is the segment running from about 48:55 to 53:20, we have an attraction called "Living Magazine Covers". We see the outside, with a titillating hidden strip tease (essentially removing underwear while covered completely by a robe with a lot of displaying of leg though nothing else). At 49:48 we see the interior we see a series of tableaus each showing a "living" cover of a stereotyped magazine, each cover including as the foreground a naked model. The Public Domain curator says "Apparently after one particular topless show called “Living Magazine Covers”, the NYPD made a sweep of the fair to tone down the sexual content of some of the girls shows, only to then label them as 'art'."
• As it happens, a few weeks ago I stumbled upon "https://dp.la/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Morality+and+Nudity+Issues". This is from the archive of the NYPL accessed through the Digital Public Library of America. The search apparently accesses 151 folders containing contemporary material on the Police Crackdown on the NYWF: newspaper clippings, the complaints, court orders etc. I'm not sure why there are so many hits. There is a lot of redundant material between them, but most seem to differ from each other to some extent as far as contents. I haven't waded through it, but it seems likely that Dali's suits -- which provides a strong argument for the "art" label -- are at least mentioned in passing somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.151.161 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Almost everything you've said above is WP:OR, and is therefore ineligible to be put into the encyclopedia. Find a reliable source that says, explicitly, that it was a monokini-type suit, and we'll talk.{{parabr}And BTW, you're entitled to your opinion, but at least wait until you've had a drink with me before you make pronouncements about my "biases".Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• My apologies. I meant only that a very reasonable but amazingly enough, incorrect (as documented by the cited reams of material in from the NYPL archives) belief, rationally biased your interpretation, as it would any other human being. I shared this belief, and hence bias, until I came upon the NYPL archive through a chance keyword match on an unrelated subject. I was not claiming prejudice, but a rational bias. Peace. And please excuse this way of apologizing for not making clear that the only bias I meant was the rational one that you stated that you had (to wit, that there is "no possibility" that nudity was allowed at the NYWF and that it was therefore, to be taken as a priori true that any appearance of it is misleading), I feel that you are owed such an apology, and I do not know how else to give it to you -- due entirely to my ignorance of the tools available. 74.104.151.161 (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Topher Cooper

• What you meant to say is "It turns out that you were wrong, see this evidence" rather then "You were wrong because you were biased". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Now who is failing to have a proverbial drink with me before declaring knowledge of my intentions? What I meant to say is that you stated a reasonable assumption (the problem of infinite regress in demanding evidence for everything is a common point of discussion in philosophy; to reach any conclusion you must decide on what is likely enough a priori to not require full justification), that happened to be wrong, and that this effected (or why else even mention it) how you interpreted the evidence presented (i.e., within the supplied source fully in accord with Wikipedia's stated definition of a source, as I read it, with accompanying validation of reliability (i.e., of actually showing what occurred at the fair) by a trustworthy source -- the Public Domain project curator who included it in the site's collection). To my way of thinking (which may be contrary to Wikipedia culture, of course) any valid source still needs to be "read" and interpreted: written sources using language, and visual sources by studying what is actually shown and what can be reasonably inferred on that basis. That is what I meant, and that is what, actually, I said, though much more briefly, and making the mistake of using a technical term (a pretty elementary one) which in popular usage has pejorative connotations. Note also that none of this documentation would appear on the actual page, since what I was suggesting was only that there was what I considered to be a credible case (more precisely what I considered to be at least a credible case, specifically, a very strong case) of error on the part of the cited source for the claim that the monokini was the "first topless woman's swimsuit". Consequently, I suggest that it be considered that that claim should be removed from the text until such a time as the contrary evidence is shown to be invalid. In analogy to the US legal system, the evidence necessary to include something must be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but that means that the case to remove something is only having a basis for a reasonable doubt. 74.104.151.161 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Topher Cooper

• To me the idea of a "first topless swimsuit" seems like clear nonsense. It might depend on the definition of what a swimsuit is, but it's clear that breasts existed long before swimsuits existed. It's the covering of the bottom that's the innovation, not the exposure of the breasts, so the first topless swimsuit is something that was certainly invented tens of thousands of years ago. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Except that having special clothing to swim in is quite modern. Mostly people swam nude, and if not nude than in their smallclothes (which mostly means underwear but in a broader context means whatever small, unencumbering pieces of clothing one was likely to have on hand). This was my strong impression, and dates specialized swimwear to 1860 in Britain, though it goes on to describe the style or fashion of clothing typically worn in situations where modesty was important in the previous two centuries.74.104.151.161 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Topher Cooper

References

• I see. I suppose it's a matter of whether the definition of swimsuit is "something people wear when swimming or lounging near water" or "something designed specifically and marketed as specialized clothing intended for swimming and lounging near water". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, my impression about the video is the same as the IPs – that the ridge that is visible below the breasts in the video is because there is some mesh fabric material that is covering the area below the breasts, and there is a line where that mesh ends, leaving the breasts exposed. The aquarium was also presumably in a private restricted-access area, not out on the sidewalk. The idea that some prosthetic device was made to appear like breasts seems like the more complicated, and less likely, explanation. Nudity in art is certainly not something unknown for the time, and Dali is a very well known artist whose art frequently involved (real) nudity. Dali doesn't seem like the sort of artist who would use fake breasts in his art – at least not as a way of bowing to societal prudishness. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• And as I documented above, there was widespread use of topless performers at the fair. Some of the sources I've been reading say that while the partial nudity was kept inside, contrary to the carny custom and my expectations, there was no effort to keep children out. The usual authorities concerned about the public good and church leaders concerned about the public's souls made a stink about it, but apparently the general public was not bothered by it at all. The barker and come-on generally would have made it clear what attractions that those who felt that they, or their children, would be offended could then just avoid it. The attitude in the newspaper clippings included in the digitized NYPL archives I cite above, take a pretty amused, casual attitude about the matter and even publish photos of the ladies and their outfits in question, with various things fortuitously blocking site of "the good parts".74.104.151.161 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Topher Cooper

• Actually there was some censorship of Dali before the event. Apparently there was fear among some that the famous "madman" would do something truly disruptive and he was given closer scrutiny then the less refined semi-nude entertainments. First the guy paying for the "Dream of Venus" (Dali's pavilion) wanted to turn Dali's naiads into mermaids who would wear rubber tails -- the sponsor was a rubber manufacturer. Dali did, apparently give in despite the meddling with his vision -- at least in one of the tanks, but was quite unhappy about it. External forces, though also insisted on a change that Dali got really upset. Dali wanted to put fish heads on the topless Venus (the whole display was inspired by Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" -- a.k.a., "Venus On the Half-shell"), as well as many of the other topless performers. This was felt to be just too, too much (I'm not sure why) and while the performers could be topless they had to show their own heads. Although he didn't pull out, Dali refused to attend the opening, and instead had pamphlets about "the rights of a free man to his own insanity" (or something to that effect) dumped on Manhattan. According to one source summarizing another that I don't have access to (yet), Dali's exhibit was among the very most popular at the fair, and once this was demonstrated, there were no further attempts by those afraid that Dali's madness was contagious (or whatever their fears were) to modify or tone down his vision. 74.104.151.161 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Topher Cooper

• Comment I agree with the IP that the claim in the article needs to be more qualified. The bikini in the Dali exhibition may or may not have been topless, but it is obviously an antecedent of it. If you read the accompanying source it does not state that the "topless bikini" was designed by Rudi Gernreich in the 1960s, but rather "In 1964 he made headlines with his infamous topless bathing suit that exposed breasts for the first time in commercial fashion." Wikipedia is clearly overstating the claim. I suggest we change "...designed by Rudi Gernreich in the 1960s" to "introduced into commercial fashion by Rudi Gernreich in the 1960s". That would make it consistent with what the source actually says and it does not negate the possibility of antecedents such as the Dali garment. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have no objections to the change in wording suggested by Betty Logan, however there is still no reliable source which explicitly supports the claims made by the IP for the Dali garment, so it cannot be added to the article at this time. The conclusions of Wikipedia editors after viewing a video remain WP:OR, no matter how many editors agree. Given the quality of the video, this is not a WP:BLUESKY situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  I fully agree with this. Editors watching blurry videos of art exhibitions trying to pin down when the monokini was invented is the very definition of original research. That said, it has provided us with an opportunity to use more precise language in the article itself. Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Topless versus Barebreasted"

Okay, what's going on here, with this article? 🤔 "Topless", should refer to when a female isn't wearing the top part of a two-piece swimsuit, be they bikinis or pre-bikini era. As in, "She removed her bikini top, and became topless.", or, "She didn't bother to put on the bikini top, preferring to be topless".

When a swimsuit doesn't have a top to begin with, the swimsuit itself is "topless". But the female is, "bare breasted".

So then, why should the term, "topless", be applied to all feminine fashions? 🤔

There's a picture featuring Chelsea Charms, and to others. The woman to her right, o's wearing a bikini bottom, but not a bikini top. Ergo, she is the only topless one. While Chelsea herself, is wearing a skirt, rather than a dress, without a blouse or a shirt. So she should be, "bare breasted", or, "blouse less", or, "shirt less". Though that there, probably caused confusion or laziness, and that led to everything being a "top", as in, "That's a lovely top that you're wearing!", but so what? Is that meant to be an excuse?

So then, when did "Wikipedia" give up on the distinction that I was going by, and decide to refer to it all as, "topless"? Is it because someone wanted males only to be associated with the term, "shirtless"? What happened when I wasn't looking? 🤔 LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

perhaps barebreasted sexualises the issue, toplessness is a simple NPOV statement of fact. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Assumed gender

How many topless people are in this photo?.

A: One, the other is bare chested, which, if you read the article, you would see.

B: Both are bare chested, both are topless, you don't even have to read the article to see.

A: You can't change the reality of the world by wishing it away, buth are "topless" in the pedantic sense that they are both wearing no clothing over the upper parts of their bodies, but in most places it's legal for one to do so, but in many places it's not legal for the other, which is one of the thing that makes that sort of "toplessness" worth an article, and the other one not.

How on earth was it decided that only women can be topless? This seems a very dubious assumption. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not tag "the sky is blue" facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, you might want to re-read WP:POINT, and the archives of thistalk page.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't tag "the sky is blue", but I would tag "the sky is always blue" or "only the sky is blue". I skimmed this page's discussion archives; what in particular? Thanks, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel you have removed my request for citation for "only the sky is blue". As it stands, I fear this article has a serious POV and neologism problem. Seriously. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Toplessness is both a social issue and a legal one. There were once, I believe, laws against men being bare-chested in public, but that hasn't been the case in most of the Western world in many decades. What's left are social and legal constraints about women exposing their breasts in public. Fortunately, in many of the mor enlightened jurisdictions -- such as my home state, New York -- afford women equal rights with men to wear no tops, but there are still social restraints ad there are still laws against toplessness, and these are solely aimed at women. This is one very good reason why this atticle is about women and not about men. All of this is fauirly well explained in the "Bare-chestedness" section, so I fail to see your concern. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

picture caption?

a caption to one of the pictures states, "A bare-breasted goddess holding snakes based on a Minoan statue for the 2004 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony" what does this mean? is it a statue? an actress? it isn't clarified.

Men and children

This article has a section about topless men. It seems that it has less information than many years ago, compare the March 2006 version and the July 2006 version, which give more details about the development in time (for example since the Victorian age) and the situation in various areas of the world. The present article, on the contrary, has only generalizations like "In most societies, male barechestedness is much more common than female toplessness, even among children", which I doubt. In many parts of Asia, men (except for workers) are supposed to cover their chests and legs as well and tourists wearing shorts or so may be frowned upon. On the other hand, prepuberal boys and girls may be topless or even naked in many cultures (prepuberty girls have no breasts, have they?). Bever (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

developed countries

"developed countries have social norms around female modesty". that implies that a key feature of being developed is the existence of such social norms around female modesty, which is not true. it should be changed to western countries Farleigheditor (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)