Breast cancer article

May 29, 2002

I have two things to say about the article myself; first--this is the reason that most larger dept. stores have "bra specialists" to ensure the correct fit. The "deep red grooves" prove that the woman in question was *not* wearing the correct size bra. Statistics show that a large percentage of women wear the wrong size, either because they don't know how to measure properly, or because they are ashamed of their size (either way, that is!) Women who wear less constrictive, non-wire bras are certainly at less risk.

Second, I'd like to know if the researchers take into consideration the "eras of corsets and bustiers"? These were much more constrictive devices, and I'd like to know what the rate of breast cancer was among women who wore them on a daily basis, before I go off changing my wardrobe. It sounded much more like they were using "today's" data, than taking our own past into consideration. These two pieces of clothing were implemented for centuries, yet the article makes it sound as if the breast cancer rate has risen "recently".

Ahreinya

May 29, 2002

So true about women being at less risk if their bras are the non-wire type. And I'm not just thinking about the metal's 'interference' aspect. Like thin, tight straps, anything narrow enough can create a flow-cutting pressure when in a weight-bearing mode. That factor, together with environmental and life-style differences, are just some of the health-saving benefits of yesterday's corsets vs. the destructive nature of today's bras for women whether they 'fit' or not. (a bad design that is a bad design is a bad design that ... )

True, by intent, bras are only meant to be supportive. But, by their very limited, halter-like, design, they end up being highly restrictive in exactly the wrong places, unlike yesterday's corsets which spread their compressive nature over as large an area as possible.

Regarding the even spread of a corset's pressure and the intent to use them to push FAT around that they afforded women, the majority of wearers didn't use them every waking hour of the day. They only wore them "out." They didn't 'corset up' as soon as they got out of bed or, worse yet, wear them while asleep at night. Yet that is what today's woman does to her breast area, without a second thought as to whether she has a real need to halter-up (for a run, or a lively dance maybe?) or not. In large part, and unlike most bras, the design of most corsets could help the woman's body move its lymph as the woman moved.

Of course, none of this would be of much concern were it not for the fact that today's woman has so much more of a toxic load to move thru her lymphatics. And THAT is why ANYTHING that restricts them IN ANY WAY should be avoided until she is no longer being poisoned by her 'life-style' and starts getting as much exercise as she may have done before her breasts started developing, or, gets at least as much exercise as her corset-wearing counterparts did while they were 'suited-up'. Their 'bustling-up' to show-off on a ('lymph-pumping') stroll around town, and thru the parks, for hours at a time was a good thing. If a woman would do that everytime she put on a bra, I'd be all for them (as long as they were made of cotton and designed right, of course).

Let alone the fact that they are more locally restrictive than were those corsets, how many woman today only wear their bras while they are active? Can't you just see those women in their corsets and bustles riding in a car, a plane or sitting around on a couch for hours? They almost had to stand and keep moving around or the circulation in their legs would be cut off. And what was the first thing they did when they got home or after the party was over? How many women take off, or at least unhook, their breast-restrictor's when they are using today's exercise-free (non-lymph-pumping) modes of transportation or sitting around at work or at home and hardly moving their bodies at all?

And, about the problem MATERIALS of which today's bras are made and to which women are subjected much more than men!!! If they are going to wear them at all, health conscious women should be DEMANDING well-designed, fully supportive and non-restrictive bras made out of natural, organic, non-chemicalized materials like cotton, wool, hemp or silk.

HaliteSpriteWednesday, May 29, 2002 8:26 AMRe: Re: Breast cancer article

Women who wear less constrictive, non-wire bras are certainly at less risk.

I'd like to know if the researchers take into consideration the "eras of corsets and bustiers"? These were much more constrictive devices, and I'd like to know what the rate of breast cancer was among women who wore them on a daily basis, before I go off changing my wardrobe. It sounded much more like they were using "today's" data, than taking our own past into consideration. These two pieces of clothing were implemented for centuries, yet the article makes it sound as if the breast cancer rate has risen "recently".

Ahreinya

May 30, 2002

>> Regarding the even spread of a corset's pressure and the intent to use them to push FAT around that they afforded women, the majority of wearers didn't use them every waking hour of the day.

Similarly, I do not know one single woman who wears a bra "every waking hour of the day". I was taught at age 13 (17 years prior to this article) that one should *never* sleep in a bra; I assumed this was common knowledge, as well as common sense.

I am, however, confused as to how you came to the conclusion that our predecessors wore corsets and bustiers less often than we wear bras. Is there text on this somewhere? In every instance I've seen it mentioned, it was 100% "socially correct" to wear such things, therefore it *was* a constant practice. When one dressed, they dressed fully, and stayed that way till they undressed fully--just as we do today. Our style of dress has even become *much* more casual than in the days of such styles. People "dressed" for each meal they took at home, whether they had visitors or not; and any sort of outing--and most times even "around the house" for daily tasks, just in case people should come calling. It was unacceptable to not be properly dressed in those days. Society was everything, and the "rules" were much more strict.

As for the "even spread of a corset's pressure"--this would make for even more constriction than today's bras, which was one of my points. I have never worn a corset myself, but I do know women who have "suited up" in them for renaissance fairs--and I happen to own a merry-widow or two myself. These are similar to corsets, in every way but the lace-up closures, they have a complete top-to-bottom row of hook and eye closures. They are made with wire "boning" to constrict and shape the body, and are twice as uncomfortable as any bra I've ever owned. Manufacturers and fashion experts alike will tell you that they are safer than corsets of days gone by, as well as more comfortable. I realize that you wouldn't know this, since you've never worn one. Experience is everything, and the women who have worn these items know exactly what I'm talking about.

>>Of course, none of this would be of much concern were it not for the fact that today's woman has so much more of a toxic load to move thru her lymphatics.

Good point, which the article also does not mention--which was *my* point to begin with. The article does not implicate a thorough investigation, nor does it state that research was done on this point, or the ones I made.

>>And, about the problem MATERIALS of which today's bras are made

Another good point, also not mentioned in the article, but should have been.

>>and to which women are subjected much more than men!!!

This was the ending to the above sentence, I'm not sure what you were trying to say here?

I also don't understand why you felt the need to yell at me (stating several points in CAPS is yelling). I said nothing untoward about the article, with the exeption of the implication that it was incomplete, which it is. I simply pointed out that it didn't appear to be thoroughly researched, because very important factors were left undiscussed. To me, that screams of fear of the researcher's facts being proved false, or at the very least, inaccurate. This was a very important article, about one of the most important women's health issues in this day and age. It is not something to be taken lightly, and the article could easily have included more information, again, my point.

Ahreinya

May 30, 2002

Good responses, Ahreinya. Your thoughts on the matter have a wonderfully modulating quality and point out how difficult it is to be brief about the complicated workings of the human body. But first please let me clarify your "CAPS is yelling" misinterpretation of my writing style since I'm very likely to do it again and don't want you to think that I'm "yelling" at an obviously intelligent and good-natured sweetheart like you.

Capitalizing is simply one of the four formal ways of using your "writing" STYLE to emphasis a thought (AND I consider it the easiest, and most EMPHATIC, one to use - as you must think of those *** that you use for emphasis). As well, it is the legal way to denote the TITLE of a thing. Look at how your name is written on your driver's license, DO YOU THINK THE STATE THAT ISSUED YOUR LICENSE is yelling at you because YOUR NAME IS IN ALL CAPS? Not at all. Your STATE isn't yelling at you. The STATE just considers you a legal THING under their jurisdiction when they issue you a license.

Only on the internet have I ever heard this OVERLY SENSITIVE 'pop' cyber-mis-interpretation of CAPITALIZATION which only goes to reinforce the warning "don't believe any thing you read on the internet without checking it out. In any CASE, you have no need of being "CASE SENSITIVE" about what I wrote in response to your post, for, as you so adeptly point out, there was nothing to yell AT YOU about anyway.

but, on to the more 'meaty' things of your post

>> Regarding the even spread of a corset's pressure and the intent to use them to push FAT around that they afforded women, the majority of wearers didn't use them every waking hour of the day.

Similarly, I do not know one single woman who wears a bra "every waking hour of the day".

(well, of course, most women don't wear them in the shower, etc., but, tell me, how many HOURS do you actually go without one during the day?)

I was taught at age 13 (17 years prior to this article) that one should *never* sleep in a bra;

(you were lucky. Who was the enlightened person who told gave you such sage advice? I've met many women who were TOLD BY THEIR DOCTORS to ALWAYS sleep in a bra [just drumming up business, I guess] and I've never met a woman who didn't strap up as she got dressed in the morning. It's almost as if women have been trained to consider a bra as necessary a garment as any other type of underwear.)

I am, however, confused as to how you came to the conclusion that our predecessors wore corsets and bustiers less often than we wear bras. Is there text on this somewhere?

(there might be, but my information comes from relatives who died of age old when I was a much younger whipper-snapper than you are today my dear)

In every instance I've seen it mentioned, it was 100% "socially correct" to wear such things, therefore it *was* a constant practice. When one dressed, they dressed fully, and stayed that way till they undressed fully--just as we do today.

(and, "fully dressed" meant dressing in corset and bustle all the day long? where is that text written? and, are you under the impression that people 'dress for dinner' or dress for "going out on the town" when they first get dressed in the morning?)

Our style of dress has even become *much* more casual than in the days of such styles.

(of course it has, but are you saying people dressed "formally" everyday, from morning to night? don't you think that there were formal occasions back then, where people put on their 'airs', just as there are 'black tie and evening gown' occasions today?)

People "dressed" for each meal they took at home, whether they had visitors or not; and any sort of outing--and most times even "around the house" for daily tasks, just in case people should come calling. It was unacceptable to not be properly dressed in those days. Society was everything, and the "rules" were much more strict.

(and you have it that "properly dressed" meant that a woman always wore a corset and bustle if she dressed for breakfast and while doing choirs around the house?)

As for the "even spread of a corset's pressure"--this would make for even more constriction than today's bras, which was one of my points.

(and the main one around which my comments were meant to revolve. Obviously overly constricting any part of the body for an extended period of time is not usually a good thing to do on a regular basis. [that's why this whole bra discussion is taking place isn't it?] But it's not just a matter of pressure. There are vital pressures and destructive pressures. And it can be just a matter of degree for one to turn into the other. The thing to remember is that stressful constrictions are not necessarily detrimental restrictions and different applications do not produce the same results just because they can be labeled by the same terms or may have the similar qualities. For example, you can lay a fifty pound plate of steel on your body for hours on a daily basis without doing your body any damage, and, in fact, you may actually be healthier for doing so. But, put fifty pounds of force behind a knitting needle and have the point of it digging into your body for only a few minutes and you won't be likely to escape the experience without noticeable injury.)

I have never worn a corset myself, but I do know women who have "suited up" in them for renaissance fairs--and I happen to own a merry-widow or two myself. These are similar to corsets, in every way but the lace-up closures, they have a complete top-to-bottom row of hook and eye closures. They are made with wire "boning" to constrict and shape the body, and are twice as uncomfortable as any bra I've ever owned.

(I don't think "comfort" is actually what we are considering here.)

Manufacturers and fashion experts alike will tell you that they are safer than corsets of days gone by, as well as more comfortable.

(interesting! "Safer" in what way?)

I realize that you wouldn't know this, since you've never worn one.

(again, we weren't talking about "comfort," we were talking about detrimental effects of the bra on the breast and whether or not yesterday's woman should have experienced the same effects from her corsets if the current research findings are accurate. But, as regards both safety and comfort, "You don't have to lay an egg to know what to do with it!" and, you can see and test the effect of a thing on another person's body, to see if it is causing any problems, even though you've never done the thing to yourself.)

Experience is everything, and the women who have worn these items know exactly what I'm talking about.

(as you can tell from my previous comment, I beg to differ. Experience is only experience. Many people experience things and still don't KNOW EXACTLY what someone else is talking about. Some, like bra wearers, may not even have any idea what their body is actually experiencing.)

>>Of course, none of this would be of much concern were it not for the fact that today's woman has so much more of a toxic load to move thru her lymphatics.

Good point, which the article also does not mention--which was *my* point to begin with. The article does not implicate a thorough investigation, nor does it state that research was done on this point, or the ones I made.

>>And, about the problem MATERIALS of which today's bras are made

Another good point, also not mentioned in the article, but should have been.

>>and to which women are subjected much more than men!!!

This was the ending to the above sentence, I'm not sure what you were trying to say here?

(meant to say that woman are much more likely to be wearing synthetics over a larger area of their body at any particular time than men are.)

I also don't understand why you felt the need to yell at me (stating several points in CAPS is yelling).

(NO IT'S NOT! (see first paragraph above) Where did you come up with this RULE about somehow being able to yell in writing? WHO SAYS STATING ONE POINT IN CAPS OR WRITTING A WHOLE SENTENCE IN CAPS IS yelling? SEEING SOMETHING WRITTIN IN CAPS AS yelling IS SIMPLY THE WAY YOU CHOOSE TO HAVE SOMETHING WRITTIN IN CAPS BE for you. Like anything AND EVERYTHING ELSE in your life, YOU make a thing mean whatever YOU want it to mean. Otherwise, IT DON'T MEAN A THING [except what you make it mean in your own mind].

I said nothing untoward about the article, with the exeption of the implication that it was incomplete, which it is. I simply pointed out that it didn't appear to be thoroughly researched, because very important factors were left undiscussed.

(Since you're not having the brief news article 'DO IT' for you, you might want to read the book. Most likely they document their research in the book just a little more than could a brief news story ABOUT their book. )

To me, that screams of fear of the researcher's facts being proved false, or at the very least, inaccurate. This was a very important article, about one of the most important women's health issues in this day and age. It is not something to be taken lightly, and the article could easily have included more information, again, my point.

(of course it could have, but, to cover it all, it would most likely have had to become a book of its own.)

Love (and safe harnessing),

William.**************************************************WWW.PEACEFULMIND.COM Sponsors Alternative Answers-HEALING NATURALLY- this is the premise of HOLISTIC HEALTH. Preventative and Curative measure to take for many ailments at:http://www.peacefulmind.com/ailments_frame.htm__________-To INVITE A FRIEND to our healing community, copy and paste this address in an email to them:http://www./members_add _________To ADD A LINK, RESOURCE, OR WEBSITE to Alternative Answers please Go to: http://www./links___________Community email addresses: Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner _______Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.