Talk:Monokini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crossdresser[edit]

lol That picture of the American "monokini" is a man with breast implants. Look at how he lacks the female waist, female toroso utterly... And, look how skinny and long the legs are, like an Asian man. It's a man with breast implants (you can definitely tell it' implants, too), and that's why they are hiding their face in their hair. No offence intended to the transgendered... But, a picture of a woman in women's clothing would be more appropriate than potentially disturbing people sensitive to such sights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.117.225 (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a cross dresser wouldn’t have breast implants, that’s a woman 74.134.154.178 (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restarted[edit]

The article has been mreged with Bikini earlier, but with new information flooding in it was thought wise that Monkini shall have its own article again. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the sources

The one problem is that the fashion world now has two different types of bathing suits considered a "monokini." See: [1] for the other type (basically a one piece that has been cut to display your abs but still covers your chest. 70.24.147.133 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviets and the monokini[edit]

The Soviet government called it "barbarism" and a sign of social "decay"

yes, it's found in the reference cited, but it seems rather unlikely to me, because the Soviets (and the other Eastern block countries) were rather tolerant with nudity on beaches. bogdan (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invent the piece of information on soviet condemnation. But, the piece of information you are offering - Soviet tolerance of nudity - seems highly unlikely. Can you cite any reference that validates this information? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

The image Topless_women_on_the_beach.jpg seems really out of place here, none of the women in the picture are wearing a monokini. Remove? 85.252.185.219 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, since no one did it, I'll do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.252.185.219 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone and without dropping a word here seems to have added Topless_women_on_the_beach.jpg to the article again. I'm gonna go ahead and delete it _again_ for the aforementioned reasons. Seriously, if you actually support the presence of Topless_women_on_the_beach.jpg in the Monokini entry, state your reasons here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desnacked (talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A monokini is just a bikini without a top which is what that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.87.159 (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia about the subject. Not a gallery of pictures especially large iones stuck into the lead which make it hard to read the lead. Wikimedia Commons has galleries if that's what you are interested in maintaining. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A regular monokini, i.e. a bottom without top, warrants an illustration as the subject of the article. Is there any reason or policy that says it should not be here? Please, replace it with better image, if needed, but don't remove it without a valid reason. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, it just seemed to cause a narrow line of text for the next section where both photos occurred across the page on my browser. I should have just shrunk it a bit. I'll leave as it is for the moment and see if other editors want to do anything. Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bottom image really considered a monokini? I thought they were just the bottom portion of swimsuits. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wrong. The bottom image is classic illustration of monokini. --Stizerg (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Monokini is the type of women's swimwear. Bikini bottom doesn't magically become monokini if women doesn't wear top. That is simply ridiculous.
Please, can somebody replace Topless_woman_walking_on_Coral_Beach,_Jamaica.jpg with correct image of monokini.--Stizerg (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

american meaning for monokini[edit]

So i Googled monokini and it came up with a lot of those one piece looking things with cut outs. Thats what most americans think of as a monokini, a bikini that is attached at the front center and open on the back. The monokini is more conservative than a one piece, but without the stigma of being for older or fat people. It also wont come off as easily as a bikini would in waves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.147.218 (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back-formation[edit]

Since the "bi" in "bikini" has nothing to do with "two", despite the fact that a bikini is a two-piece bathing suit, I think the article ought to include a discussion of how "monokini" is a back-formation from "bikini". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll for the etymology of "bikini".

John Link (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article now discusses this as an "erroneous assumption." I believe this may be an unfair and biased viewpoint. It is just as likely (probably more, though I can't support it), that it was more of an intentional play on words than an errror. --98.210.133.159 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep the point pretty open. If you mean that "Gernreich was apparently the first to misinterpret the word bikini as consisting of two parts" describes an "error" than you may be assuming too much. The misinterpretation can be deliberate or not. The sources don't have any information in the intentions of Gernreich. As for your "erroneous assumption" (quote-unquote yours), I don't see any "discussion" at all.
John Link, your point has been covered since your comment. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"First Topless Dancer" ??[edit]

"Carol Doda [...] became the first topless dancer in the United States." Yes, there's a cited source for this, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous on its face. Ever hear of a thing called "burlesque", for example?

--75.145.68.89 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burlesque is not about toplessness. In fact it was originally called a "leg show". Topless burlesque is a very recent innovation. Carol Doda was the first topless burlesque dancer. For more on Carol Doda check: The Strange Case of the Walking Corpse by Nancy Butche, A Diary of the Underdogs by Don Alberts, Striptease : The Untold History of the Girlie Show by Rachel Shteir, Bathsheba's Breast by James S. Olson, Erotic City : Sexual Revolutions and the Making of Modern San Francisco by Josh Sides. There's more if you want. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to topless swimsuit[edit]

I propose to change the title of the article to "topless swimsuit" as "monokini" has now become a misnomer. Some manufacturers now call their one-piece swimsuits "monokinis", for whatever reason. That was not what the original monokini was, and "topless swimsuit" is a more general term to describe the topless (ie bare chested) phenomenon. Enthusiast (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Rudi Gernreich coined the word monokini to describe the article of clothing he invented, and almost the entire article is about that specific item of clothing. There is very little content about topless swimsuit in particular. I also question whether there is such a thing as a so-called topless swimsuit -- because being topless is the absence of a top, which can occur any time a woman decides not to wear her bikini bra top.
I think use of the phrase topless swimsuit and monokini by manufacturers today is nothing more than a marketing gimmick trying to capitalize on sensationalism. A quick search for topless swimsuit for sale turns up mentions of Gernreich's monokini 6 out of the first 15 mentions. When I searched for monokini swimsuit, the search results contain links to almost exclusively retailers. A search for topless swimsuit produces a bunch of links to retailers and voyeur-related articles, nothing I believe qualifies as a reliable source.
I also searched for monokini for sale and that turns up almost solely one-piece designs that cover the women's bottom and bust. This certainly isn't the monokini that Gernreich conceived of. But if you can find some reliable sources that substantiate the topless swimsuit as a specific item of clothing, then I suggest as an alternative a separate article using that title. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 04:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per btphelps's reasoning. And per what I stated at Talk:History of swimwear, it's nice to see Ewawer (Enthusiast) going to the talk page about this. But what he should have done was start an official WP:Requested moves discussion, since these swimwear talk pages are generally inactive. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the same reasons. The article should note that monokini’s usage has changed in recent years if there is a citation for that but otherwise be left alone. I’m also skeptical of many of the recent changes. Strebe (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I am so skeptical I intend to revert them. I’m particularly unhappy with the repurposed main definition and the blatantly bigoted supposition that Gernreich “might have erred” in his interpretation of “bikini”. The source does not support that claim. I do not see these recent edits as improvements. Strebe (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement areas[edit]

Then in May, clothing designer Rudi Gernich, who, incidentally, belonged to a circle of politically conscious gay men, launched the “monokini” bathing suit. In contrast to the bikini, which consisted of a top and a bottom, the monokini had no top.

— Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore by Jeffrey Escoffier

The current version has very weak writing, and the organization of the article is still weak. There also are plenty material available to improve on the content.

I hope to do some of the stuff, as soon I can. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with putting the essential information about Gernich's intent, as reported by Moffat, into a note at the bottom. The content is very essential in articulating his point of view and motiviation towards designing this kind of clothing. Notes are usually peripheral to the content, of minor interest, and the info in the note does not fit that characterization at all. Given this change, I encourage you to discuss your intentions about the edits you are considering and gather some input before you make them. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added Comments to the sources suggested above that might add new information. Of the eight possible sources you cited, two have already been cited. Of the remaining six, I only see potentially valuable information in two of them (excluding one that is not viewable by me), but the info is relatively brief. I'm not sure where you see the "plenty material" to add. Can you list the new info you propose to add from the sources you've listed above? I'd love to see what you've found that I missed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The long commentary by Moffit is WP:UNDUE and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Either it goes to the notes section or it goes out altogether.
The "comments" are rather scanty. For example, you also need to check pages 17-20 and page 90 of the first book. In the second book the most important fact is that Doda wore one of Gernich's monokinis. And, so on.
Try not to take commentary as facts. WP is an encyclopedia, not an editorial. There is very little space for the subjective, unless the subjective statement is notable by itself. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my comments are necessarily scanty. I wasn't trying to scan the entire book, merely the links you provided. If there's other relevant material in the sources provided, then by all means add it to the article.
The quotes you moved, at 90 words, are hardly "long" IMO. Her commentary would be "undue" if it gave a disproportionate weight to his intentions about his designs in contrast to other points of view. Per WP:UNDUE, this means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Are you aware of other points of view about his intentions with the design of clothing that create an imbalance in how his intentions are represented? Are there others who contradict Moffitt's assertion that "He was trying to take away the prurience, the whole perverse side of sex", or that the design wasn't "about freedom and emancipation"?
Since WP:SUBJECTIVE redirects to WP:UNDUE, I'm not sure what else you're trying to say. If you believe her "commentary" is subjective or biased and not factual, that is, are her personal interpretation of Gernreich's intentions, and therefore not reliable, you need to study Gernreich's relationship to Moffitt. She was his "muse" and his sole model for many of his projects. She, her husband William Claxton, and Gernreich became an "inseparable trio". Of all the people in his life, she best understood his intentions. When Gernriech died, she was so close to him that she inherited the rights to all of his work. I would hardly describe her assessment of Gernreich's work as "subjective", that is, "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." She had a direct, long-lasting, personal relationship with Gernreich.
In your comment about moving Moffitt's comments to a note, you wrote, "too much moffit's views in the body." You also moved a statement by Gernreich quoted in Time magazine. Her comments, based on her intimate knowledge of Gernreich's designs and style, amplify and clarify Gernreich's intent. They are material to understanding that the design wasn't created so much as a swimsuit but as a socio-political statement. If Gernreich's statements are primary sources, her statements are even more valid as secondary sources validating Gernreich's assertions.
So if you can clarify where you think the undue weight exists, perhaps provide some examples that illustrate that her comments create an unbalanced POV, and what ought to be added to counterbalance the information presented, I think that would be helpful. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language. Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art.

— WP:SUBJECTIVE

No need to go effusive over a creative topic. Facts, not comments/commentary. Critique in an encyclopedia about how the work was received, not what it meant or how it reflected the creators mind. I believe there is a wee bit too much of all that in the article. WP:NEUTRALSOURCE is also preferable, for reasons i hope to be obvious. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Monokini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monokini&oldid=1211565485"