Talk:Bra

Archives
29 August 2003 − 27 October 2006 November 2006 - May 2007

Measurements: Metric vs "customary system"

From what I can tell, only the UK and the US base bra sizing on the imperial system. I'm guessing that the majority of bras out there are measured on the imperial system simply because of the proliferation of US and UK lingerie retailers. Most European countries use the metric system. Australia uses something similar to the U.S. dress size and Italy uses some system that I'm still trying to figure out. I've yet to find good references for any of this, so I'm making no changes at this time. I'm working on cleaning this section up, though. Pippief (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting the statement. It's absurd and totally false. Until someone finds something better- there should be nothing about metric vs. imperial. And this article should NOT be using imperial measurements, metric then imperial- as per the manual of style! --Luke w (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let them eat cake

In France, it seems a Brassirie was where you buy cake etc, although that could have been a spelling mistake on one shop. 86.134.161.127 12:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In French, brassière is an old word for a bra. A brasserie an eatery (less pretentious than a restaurant). Lhmathies (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

only a quick edit

edited the spellof organisations to organizations :-D it hurt my eyes when i read that part. MikelZap 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Noted and reverted. Would people please read WP:ENGVAR before changing the spelling of a word that has been spelt that way for literally years. --AliceJMarkham 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Breast weight

Regarding the citation of "The Physics of Bras" by Anne Casselman in Discover, Vol. 26 No. 11 November 2005:
"But these weight values seem excessive. A single breast weight of half of 7-10 kg which is 3.5-5 kg is a gallon (3.8 liters) or more. Most women's breasts are below 1 liter, with the very largest approaching a gallon or 4 liters. The largest implants (not custom ordered) are under 1 liter."
(This comment was made from 66.53.223.185, at 23:50, 2 June 2007 (moved by ENeville 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)))

I agree. The numbers, though true to the cited article, seem off by several fold. ENeville 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For comparison, see numbers in gigantomastia article. ENeville 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked into it a little, due to the recent verfication-tagging of the statement on breast weight. What I found was that the largest implants most manufacturers make are 800 cubic centimeters each (3.4 cups in volume). (The vast majority of implants sold are between 300 and 500 CCs.) If you look at 3.4 cups of contents in the corner of a plastic bag, for example, you can see that those would give even a member of the itty bitty committee at least a full C cup, if not a D. Weight for those is 3.75 pounds for a pair in silicone, or 3.38 pounds if saline. Because the density of implants is not terribly different from the density of the real thing, even a 5 pound pair of breasts would seem to be approaching the far end of the bell curve, and the 23 pounds mentioned in the article sounds like some combination of obesity and/or gigantomastia. I'll look around a little more for something we can cite on the subject, because while the current text doesn't seem to be untrue, it seems a little misleading to list a weight which is around 8 times average without qualifying that statement somehow. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just been looking for information on this too (why I'm on this page actually :). A study into breast volume and weight was carried out in 1979 by Katch et al. (registration or payment required). The women in their study had a mean total breast weight of 484g, with the highest weight (in their 'high fat group') coming in at 845g. (There was significant variance (219g overall) in the figures within and between groups. Also, their sample of 45 18-31 YO is probably not representative.) They used a breast density of 1.017g/ml. While I'm sure that a significant number of large-breasted women would exceed these figures, 10kg - about 5 2l Coke bottles by volume - seems unusually large to me at least. Meloncholy 05:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

An anonymous someone just tagged this article as having POV issues. The last mention of any was in November, and the article was extensively rewritten in December; nobody has complained about POV during this calendar year. I'd like to hear what the explanation for the tag is. Anybody? Poindexter Propellerhead 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(Under "NPOV" above, an unsigned comment: "Seeing as the neutrality of this article is obviously in dispute, I added a POV tag. July 14 2007")

OK, so I slogged through the whole article, and I can see where the anonymous editor above was coming from, the piece did not impress me as NPOV. I also found the quality of references to be wanting, for example half a dozen citations to "AR Greenbaum" without naming any particular publication; or reference to a planned (but never completed or published, from what I could find) study by some osteopathy students. All of these references were to medical aspects, and there are LOTS of good, peer-reviewed papers on the subject, why not use those?

As the person who last extensively rewrote this, that is odd, since it was extensively referenced then and evidence based. Someone (hopefully merely carelessly) appears to have edited these. A simple search would reveal 3 articles by Dr Adam Greenbaum in the British Journal of Plastic Surgery. I have corrected that.

Incidentally bias requires demonstration of deliberately ignoring data contrary to the statements made. I don't see any evidence of that. I would be cautious about citing manufacturers as unbiased sources. I was going to say that this article appears to have attracted a lot of criticism perhaps related to erotic connotations or feminist iconography, however someone else called it 'political'. Eventually I abandoned defending the article because of people who insisted on imposing binary pro-bra/anti-bra POV instead of actually reading the literature. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I did what I could towards fixing some of these issues, but only had a few hours to work on it, and there's still a lot left to be done. Medical aspects, in particular, should conform to our standards for medical cites, they should not be to TV shows or popular books. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the issues with it left? Voice-of-All 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of the NPOV contention is that wearing bras is generally accepted by the vast majority of women in Western society, and the article does not reflect this reality. Sure there a few woman -- a small minority (too few, IMO) -- who go without on a regular basis. But the article loses credibility with what appears to me to be an disproportionate amount of content devoted to the anti-bra POV. --btphelps (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

General Anti-Bra status et al

There is a rather pronounced anti-bra bias in this article, which flies in the face of basic commonsense -- that not wearing a bra for a large breasted woman is simply inconceivable in daily life, in terms of social decency, physical comfort, and fashion necessity. This need to be explained in further length. As a woman with DD/DDD breasts, there is NO WAY I could ever go without a bra, even by the reasons listed by the medical professionals, or social researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.129.254 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that is personal choice, but it cannot be generalised. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed not Mgoodyear. I wrote that comment unsigned when I was doing preliminary reserach for a history of bras and corsets, and I can assure you in the strongest terms that bra wearing for larger busted women is not a personal choice. It is a necessity, instead of the convetional wisedom you dismiss it as.

As I said, people have strong views on this so it is important to filter out what are the facts. Therefore, having interviewed many larger breasted women, I disagree with you. Possibly everyone is seeing a biased sample of women. The Bristol study was able to persuade women to go without bras regardless of size. --Mgoodyear (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the article is that minority veiws are overrepresented so greatly that the entire article's NPOV and integrity is compromised. A major rewrite is needed. Your previous efforts on the article are to be commended, but considerable work needs to be done for even Good Status. Finally, your comment on the pro/anti bra binary is interesting, since with your citations you have managed to increase it by making the article so anti-bra biased that most readers dismiss it. Zidel333 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think people are confusing bias and balance. Balancing an article means representing the diversity of opinion not forcing it into a neutral position. We don't have to provide equal space to flat earth and round earth opinion. The level of evidence is very much favouring a round earth. An article deliberately suppressing what is actually being done in terms of studies would be the one that was biased. --Mgoodyear (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While Wikipedia's rules are to provide information first, rather then such things as 'social decency', 'fashion' or such cloud an article, the article in question does have an bias in it leaning more towards 'anti-bra' then being a neutral presentation of the facts. Most of this was because of a single user months ago that completely alter the article's structure, we know the bias is there, but it's extremely hard to remove without a complete rewrite on the article.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is a reference to me. And I would describe it as a re-write, and bias is often in the eye of the beholder as I have commented elsewhere. Unfortunately for some, conventional wisdom does not always stand up to critical examination of assumptions. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What you see as common sense is a not a view shared by everyone. For example, large breasted tribal/indigenous woman traditionally did not wear any sort of breast support and generally went about their daily lives perfectly content. The same can be said of nudists who generally also don't see bras as necessary. Even among mainstream western society (outside of the nudist movement), some large breasted woman go without bras some or all the time and thus do see it as conceivable. Concepts like social decency, physical comfort, and fashion necessity are all subjective opinions often derived from society. Not everyone agrees that wearing a bra is more socially decent, physical comfortable, and a fashion necessity. I agree that the article should be clear that the majority in western cultures share the view that bras necessary (at least some of the time) for social decency, physical comfort, a fashion necessity, or all the above but it should also be clear not every culture or even every western Women shares this view. The article as it was originally, was heavily biased towards the view you share and was later expanded to include alternate views. What it probably needs is more info on the arguments used by bra advocates to support their claims regarding the necessity and benefit of bras. --Cab88 11:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me a little of the teach the controversy strategy used by opponents of the theory of evolution. A minority view that bras are unnecessary or bad is given too much weight. I know it's hard to remove material once it has been included, but perhaps we should just trim out some of the negative commentary to create a more credible balance. The observation that some cultures have alternatives to the bra should be a paragraph and no more than that. Mattnad 13:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of the NPOV contention is that wearing bras is generally accepted by the vast majority of women in Western society, and the article does not reflect this reality. Sure there a few woman -- a small minority (too few, IMO) -- who go without on a regular basis. But the article loses credibility with what appears to me to be an disproportionate amount of content devoted to the anti-bra POV. --btphelps (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that over the last two years a good deal of both research papers and social commentary which reflect the considerable diversity of views on this subject has been removed, purely because it did not fit the biases of those who removed it. A feeling that the article was 'anti-bra' seemed to have been used to justify removal of anything that was critical of bras. Large scale acceptance in the US does not mean there can be no criticism within a world-view. For instance reference to cancer was removed despite there actually being a Wikipedia article on this, and common fears expressed by women about this. Whether it is true or false is immaterial - it is important enough to be mentioned with reference to the opposing view points. Similarly the widely commented on phenomenon of actresses and models not wearing bras. Even the BBC wanted to debate the use of bras the other day, but the current article seems to convey the impression there is no criticism. It will be interesting to see how long any critical paragraphs remain if reintroduced. One fall out of such editing is that the article gets tagged with requests for citations and claims that statements are unverified - simply because the references were removed by the over-zealous. Mgoodyear (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I read this article. I was having some severe shoulder pain and after reading it I did a week bra-free and it went away. I'm an A cup, so it wasn't a huge deal for me. I never would have thought about it otherwise, I'm glad the bra-skeptical viewpoint is there.

Seeking comment for rewite

I've reviewed this article and identified a few areas where a strong anti-bra sentiment could be reduced. Before I proceed, I'd like to elicit some comments from other editors.

I checked other garment articles like shoes, suits, dresses to see how these, less politically charged, garments are treated. There is significantly less criticisn of these garments even though one could pick issues will all of them.

Towards tackling this article and making it worthwhile, here are some major changes I'd like to work on (and FYI, I brought the Wonderbra article from a Stub to a Featured Article in 3 months):

• Overall reduction of various points that not all cultures wear bras - while true, it's not relevant to the article. There are many cultures where men do not wear suits, shoes, neck ties etc. I don't see whole sections in those articles about how people in XXX country favor YYY to suits. or ties, or whatnot. Since no sane person is arguing the bra is universally worn, why bring up these straw man arguments?
• Fitting Difficulties: This section is very large and gives an impression that bras are hard to fit for most women. This strike me as POV. Sure, some women are hard to fit, but many have bras that fit them well. Like shoes, we all find what works for us. I've checked the references and I'm not convinced these fairly represent the whole picture. I'd like to reduce this section and possibly incorporate it into measurements. Comments like "Fashion and image drive the bra market, and these factors often take precedence over comfort and function" are frankly off the wall and not true of all brands. Check out the www.wonderbra.ca (Canadian Wonderbra) site for a mainstream counterpoint which emphasizes comfort and fit. Like all fashion, form and function vary by design, but that is not unique to brassieres.
• Size and Measurements - Amazingly, this has even more material than the so-called main article on the topic. I'd like to move a lot of the commentary to the other article and keep it at a summary level. And frankly, we do not need to be a pamphlet on how to fit a bra. That can be handled by the external links.
• Social Pressure and Trends - IMHO this section is a laundry list right now with little cohesion. I think the History of brassieres article has a good balance. I'd like to draw some quicks points from that article and refer readers to it, possibly renaming the section or incorporating elsewhere.

Well that is a relief having written that from scratch myself, rather than lengthen this. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll let this stew for a month before going to work on this. Please feel free to offer comments/ideas/challenges etc. Mattnad 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions:

• I do think the article should make it clear that bras are not universal and that they are largely a western garment though I am not apposed to making this point in fewer sentences.
• While I understand that some people do not like having so much info in the article on criticism of bras as modesty, health, comfort, or fashion necessities, I think it would be better to try and expand that arguments from pro bra sources to help balance out the arguments.

I agree there should be some mention of minority opinion, but I, like others, think it has been taken too far in this article. I'm also not sure how useful it is to cite articles that extol the virtues of bras for balance as you suggest. I suppose you're reluctant to remove material, but to me it distracts from what should be the core of the article. I actually don't believe bras are "fashion necessity" but "fashion choice" even here. Tour a lingerie section in a department store and there are many alternatives.Mattnad

• I think we need to be careful about assuming that the anti-bra people represent in tiny minority. while they might represent a minority, I would suggest that it is a larger minority then people might realize, especially from a worldwide prospective.

I'm not for removing all criticism but it's a matter of weight. As I mentioned earlier, no one is saying bra's are universal, so do we really need to spend a lot of time pointing out alternatives in other countries? There are many, many items of clothing that differ by countries, so why not focus (mostly) on bras where they are worn (and not where they aren't). And we all know that Western women already have alternatives to the Bra - just like in footwear they have alternatives to high heels, or boots, etc.Mattnad

• Regarding how this article compares to other garment articles, I would argue that the reason this article has more criticisms in it then say an article on suits or shoes is that fact this it is more "politically charged" then the other garments just as the article on George Bush has more criticisms then the article on Senator Barbara Boxer does. The fact that it is more "politically charged" would justify the greater level of criticisms included.

This is a fair point, but I'm not so sure how big is that constituency of critics anymore. In the 1950s, Bras and girdles were not optional for "proper" women and in the 1960's women and feminists objected. Things have changed since then. When I did my reading for the Wonderbra article, I got my hands on market research that tracked women's views of brassieres. The vast majority (>90%) of them them said they wore bra's sometimes or often (granted this was in North America). There are always vocal minorities, but how much air do we give them in this article (see my point above about Intelligent Design and Teaching the Controversy). I think we agree in principle that the minority view should be included, but it's now a matter of degree.Mattnad

--Cab88 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a word to the wise, when replying to people's posts, don't edit what they said so that your responises are below the points they made, that can make it rather difficult to read. I'll try to get around to commenting tomorrow--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually accurate to say, as some have, that bras are a feature of the Western society. Many women in all developed countries and in metropolitan areas of developing countries wear brassieres. The exceptions for the most part are women who live in so-called "fourth-world." --btphelps (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on all fronts Mattnad, go for it! Once that's done we'll revert the article and make more changes. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 17:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Mattnad asked me to provide some perspective on this based on the last few years, noting that the people involved keep changing.

I eventually gave up on this because it was so politically charged, subject to vandalism, and the constant attacks of certain individuals. There was also constant pressure to include bras for men. I have not looked too closely at what has happened since.

I don’t think it will ever escape the NPOV criticism because people have some pretty fixed ideas. An awful lot of nonsense gets written about this garment. As you know Wiki has been the subject of manipulation by vested interests and industry. I don’t know if this is going on here or not.

It is interesting that anything negative gets labeled ‘anti-bra’ which is a simplistic binary. Yes, it could simply be an article on a piece of cloth, but then that would not be very interesting and would attract criticism, since it represents far more than that.

As it is I span off at least three leaf articles. One could put the social and cultural material into a leaf article too if you like (rather than history which is not really what that is about). However an article suggesting that this was a biological and social necessity would be equally misleading, since the emerging literature is increasingly questioning both that and the design in general. A huge amount of money has been spent by industry on promoting the idea of the sports bra, and indeed the idea that every woman needs a drawer full of bras for every occasion, a very expensive proposition.

I originally questioned the very concept of support, as opposed to elevate but I see that has been reverted. I don’t actually see much reference to other cultures any more, although it is interesting how many people assume this is a universal garment, a subject of considerable amazement amongst women at an international health conference recently.

As already mentioned, using industry sources is not recommended other than to acknowledge that they have a POV. The qualitative and quantitative data do suggest the majority of women have difficulty getting a fit because the design and measurements are completely illogical. We see large numbers of women with marks on their skin indicating poor fit. Actually I do believe that fashion overrides comfort, but you could make that statement for much of women’s fashions. I agree much of the fitting was supposed to be in the leaf article, it seems to have crept back.

I think we need to be careful about what minority opinion is, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Yes the majority of women in western society wear a bra for at least some of the day (mainly work outside the home), but that does not mean they are happy about it. Sit down with any focus group on this subject and you will hear plenty of ‘anti-bra’ comments. Ask how many people remove them as soon as they get home. I see one of the critics of the 'anti-bra' position here is a member of Bras Suck.

There is a high level of interest in this within women’s health, because the bra cannot be separated from breast, body image, and self esteem, and such things as cosmetic surgery.

Finally I would again caution distinguishing between opinion and data.--Mgoodyear (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the need for revision but find it culturally significant that an open-ended article written by the general population was filled with such passion. Something that surely relates to the discrepancy between the 93% of American Women who wear a bra and (the reported) 80-90% who wear the wrong size. As one of the certified bra fitters, I see all to frequently the pain and misery an ill-fitting bra can cause simply because most women cannot imagine anything or any size better. 71.248.112.7 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)alamodelingerie

Replace article's main image?

The woman in the main image is kind of gross. Who votes to replace it with a better looking girl?--eskimospy (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Cant we just have a diagram of a bra? That would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.84.8.64 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, the lead image is supposed to be illustrative, which it is, as it illustrates a brassiere quite clearly, and it's not needlessly overly sexualized, consistent with the encyclopedic tone of the article. Whether or not the woman is "good looking" is irrelevant; the picture serves its purpose. krimpet✽ 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto - and that pair of images have the advantage of showing the woman's back with the bra on. This has been discussed in the past. I will say I'd prefer a more conventional bra than the leopard print, but this is what we have with front and back views. Mattnad (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

just a suggestion, but how about combining the two images like this:

File:Bra.gif

to save room--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 06:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Mattnad.--eskimospy (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Neat approach, but personally I don't mind the side by side as it stands. Any other opinions? Mattnad (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We could take both pictures and combine them into a single picture, for example, and just have them stacked on top of one another. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with two separate pictures? It's not really that big of a deal to have two images instead of one. Editmaniac (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This picture should not be near nude woman, that is practically pornographic. The picture should be an unworn brassiere. Posidon09 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, if you have problems with this, then you'd really hate the articles relating to human genitalia. I think you have an unusually low threshold for what constitutes pornography. This image could just as well be a woman in a bikini top - something that we see in every public pool and beach across the country. At any rate, it's far easier to to see what a brassiere does, and what it looks like, when it's on a woman. Mattnad (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, it's a reasonably full cut bra by modern standards. The line of the top of the bra is no more revealing than many outer garments (dresses and tops) commonly seen in public today. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the picture could be better in two senses: Firstly, leopard-print is hardly a standard bra style -- I would go for a plainer, more everyday, style for the main picture and move the leopard-print bra to elsewhere on the page. Secondly, it looks to me like the bra is too small for the person wearing it -- you'll notice that the back clasp isn't even properly fastened. KarenSutherland (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Been brought up before. If you have a nice fair use pair of images (front and back), bring 'em on. Mattnad (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A picture of the bacon bra could also be shown, to illustrate that there are brilliant bra geniuses out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.88.90 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I Have to agree with eskimospy, the picture of the women in the leopard print bra should be changed. I have a lot of bra pictures in my collection that I would be willing to use. William7000 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats true, there should be a woman in a different bra, one that is more appropriate, unfortunately i lack the boobs to take the pic myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.94.59 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bras and Cancer Risk (aka Dressed to Kill fringe theory)

There has been a new subsection added that links bra wearing and breast cancer. Given it offers only one source (and a non-medical one at that), this may be a very controversial claim. I suggest we consider reducing the prominence of this paragraph. I think it's OK in one to two sentences, but beyond that it distorts the relative importance and authority of that particular authors claims (and agenda). Quoting the authors of the book:

"While more research is clearly needed to further study this link, we believe it is prudent medicine to recommend women abstain from bra wearing as a precaution. There is no reason for wearing a bra, apart from fashion. The human body was not designed with a flaw that requires modern lingerie for correction. Like the absurd and destructive fashion of foot binding in China, women in the West bind their breasts. Surely, we believed, once women understood how this practice is threatening their health and lives, they will stop wearing bras."

Okay... kinda odd. I wear a bra, and I'm not 'binding my breasts'. I'm simply supporting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.50.86 (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Equating bra wearing to foot binding is somewhat outside of conventional and scientific wisdom. I'd prefer we include offer other supporting evidence of the claim before giving this book such a large portion of the Wikipedia article. Mattnad (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The foot-binding analogy seems quite reasonable. I disagree that the authors have an "agenda" other than to find the cause of the epidemic of breast cancer. Their research was conducted in good faith and deserves to be reported. Please leave in as much of it as possible. --Jonathan108 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Their research is unique and to my knowledge unsupported by other scientific studies. Of note, they refer only to their own 1991-1993 study in their book. That tells me they found no other scientific research that correlates with their hypothesis that bras cause breast cancer.

We can differ on whether they "have an agenda" or operated "in good faith" even if the authors present themselves as "this dynamic duo is known worldwide for their willingness to stand up to the profit-oriented, treatment focused medical system."(see http://www.selfstudycenter.org/about.htm)

Your view that they are reasonable doesn't overcome the problem that their conclusions are not supported by independent research. They even admit their paper was ridiculed by the scientific community. I'll add that one of co-author's was trained as an optician. Not exactly the resume of an epidemiologist. Let's see if other editors chime in. Mattnad (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure that was right: an optician, as in the person who helps you decide what color eyeglasses look best on you and fills out the paperwork to order your contact lenses? (Perhaps it's different in other countries, but, in at least parts of the US, this person may have only on-the-job training and no medical license.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the "selfstudycenter" link above. No joke - she's an optician. Mattnad (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How astonishing: She's an unlicensed optician (Hawaii's database is online), and he enrolled in four different doctoral-level graduate schools, but only managed to get a single Master's (in anthropology). Whether he dropped out or was kicked out of all these programs is unimportant: These are not the kind of credentials that give one confidence in an extraordinary claim like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into these authors and they are really outside of bounds of accepted science. Including this section would be akin to including Intelligent Design counter arguments in the article on Evolution. See WP:WEIGHT. I'm removing the entire section. Mattnad (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the nature of wikipedia as report all opinions. Specially if a opinion is printed in a book. If a opinion by a source is wrong that have need of a note. Note the science is open. If one investigation say Yes and 100 investigation say No, there are constant a (very small) chance of as new investigation will say Yes.Haabet 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As a point of fact, Wikipedia does not report all opinions on all subjects. You will not, for example, find my neighbor's claim that she got breast cancer because she didn't have the milk of human kindness flowing through her. I suggest that you read WP:UNDUE again, with particular attention to the bit that says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia".

The usual reliable sources uniformly reject this hypothesis,[1] [2] [3] [4] although some (but not all) studies suggest that normal-weight women with the most breast tissue (the women most likely to wear a bra) is associated with a greater rate of breast cancer.[5] This ref [6] is interesting primarily because they seriously considered wearing bras as a risk factor, but were unable to demonstrate that it had any effect other than as a proxy for breast size. Finally, the two individuals who make this claim failed to undertake really basic steps, like adjusting for known risk factors. So, for example, they apparently didn't consider whether their wealthy, urban, bra-wearing breast cancer patients had many fewer children than their poor, rural, non-bra-wearing comparison group, even though both pregnancy and breastfeeding are known to have an enormous impact on the likelihood of developing breast cancer (as in, pregnancy and breastfeeding may entirely explain as much as two-thirds of the cases of breast cancer in developed countries). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a significant body of public opinion about this, we may actually need to include a short paragraph on the subject. But then it needs to be NPOV. After all, Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH but about being an encyclopedia. "Authors XYZ have suggested that wearing a bra increases the risk of breast cancer. This is contradicted by studies ABC and DEF that found no link, and authoritative bodies ABC and DEFG state in official guidance that a link between bra wearing and breast cancer has been disproven." Problem solved IMHO. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea, especially since no studies have been done "disproving" the hypothesis. The only study I am aware of was published in the book Dressed to Kill. The "authoritative bodies" have dismissed it out of hand without bothering to test it. --Jonathan108 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan108, contrary to what these authors claim on their website, this theory was properly studied -- by two researchers at the Harvard Medical School. They concluded in 1991 that yes, young women who don't wear bras are less likely to get premenopausal breast cancer, but this was because they were thinner (obesity is a known risk factor) and had smaller breasts (more breast tissue = more chances to develop breast cancer, at least in that study), not because of their clothing. Don't just read the abstract (which is linked above): go get the real article and read it all the way through. It's only five pages long, including the refs. If at the end of that, you still believe that no studies have been done on this subject, or that this study somehow proves that bra-wearing is dangerous, then please let me know.

I have no idea why the "anthropology" people don't tell anyone about this study: perhaps their book sales will be hurt if people find out that a decent study, involving almost 10,000 women, disproved it?

JFW, I don't think that this information really belongs in the brassiere article. If it's important for Wikipedia to include this obscure hypothesis, then it belongs in Epidemiology_and_etiology_of_breast_cancer#Factors_with_minimal_or_no_impact_on_risk. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I maybe wrong but shouldn't they have created one group of women who didn't wear bras and a second group who did, and have breasts of all sizes? I mean, all this study seems to prove is that in women who don't wear bras and have small breasts have less cancer then women who do wear bras and have large breasts, it doesn't disprove that bras aren't a factor because it doesn't examine just the bras. I'm not saying we should give it a whole section, but it seems to me that, unless I'm misunderstanding the results you're citing, they haven't disproved anything.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As mentioned earlier, this falls under WP:UNDUE. As far as I can tell, the only people promoting this hypothesis are the authors and they have books to sell. Mattnad (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a widespread as clothes is filled with cancer-producing chemical. Brassieres are stiffed and filled to the fashionable shape without consideration to the health. the list of baned chemical in textile is long.Haabet 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for that story? We'd need something reliable that says, for example, the chemicals in an organic cotton bra cause breast cancer, but the chemicals in a tie-dyed T-shirt don't. That is, that it's actually about the bra. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not chemical engineer, but I know some poisons from fabrics (from danish sources): formaldehyde, nickel, mercury, nicotine, barium naphthalen o-chlorphenol diethylhexylphthalat (DEHP) nonylphenolethoxylats (NPEO) C3-alkylbenzens, C4-alkylbenzens tetrachlorethylen p-chloranilin p-nitroanilin 2,6-dichlor-4-nitroanilin 2-chlor-4-nitroanilin 6-methyl-3-nitroanilin diphenylamin toluendiisocyanat acridin nitrobenzen cadmium cobalt chrom lead arsen tin zinc. Note: Many of these chemical reinforce each other. And many chemicals been released from the fabrics by sweat and wear.Haabet 13:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, your clalim that this study disproves the link between bras and breast cancer is completely false. You say, "they seriously considered wearing bras as a risk factor, but were unable to demonstrate that it had any effect other than as a proxy for breast size." It is equally possible that breast size (and obesity) are considered "known risk factors" because their status as proxies for bra use has been ignored. The importance of the Singer-Grismaijer study is that it at least makes an effort to separate the factors by taking hours per day of bra-wearing into account. The study may not be bulletproof, but is certainly suggestive enough to warrant a follow-up.--Jonathan108 (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the study or just the abstract? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't provide a link to the full study. Either provide a link, or, better yet, tell me how the full study addresses my objections. --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, it's fair to say that the link between bras and cancer is inconclusive. I'm concerned about giving too much emphasis to what is now a very minority view on bras. I think Jonathan108 and Haabet have a lot of passion for this point. How about you two collaborate on a separate article that expands on your views about the cancer risk of bras, and possibly all clothing in general (per Habeet's comments on fabrics above). Once it's fleshed out, then we can link to it? Let me know what you think. Mattnad (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea to exile this subject to a separate article. It belongs in the breast cancer article, where people concerned about preventing the disease can find it. "Prophylactic mastectomies" are a crime. --Jonathan108 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense there. OK. Go for it. Mattnad (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor there, but I suspect that breast cancer doesn't want it. They've spun off a separate article, Epidemiology and etiology of breast cancer for cause-related stuff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And there we go, again: Please all interested editors check my three references at Talk:Risk_factors_of_breast_cancer#Bras_and_Breast_Cancer. Randroide (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Over 50 citations have now been added to this section which does reverse the original objection to it being added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.201 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See the long discussion above and other efforts here: Talk:Risk_factors_of_breast_cancer#Bras_and_Breast_Cancer. The other material you added is original research - you drew conclusions from primary reasearch but you're an editor, not an expert. Also, you'll get more credibility by having a user ID. Anon editors with shifting IP addresses are given less because they come off as sock puppets (rightly or wrongly.Mattnad (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• A couple of links for information on bras causing breast cancer:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1930858051/ref=ase_007breasts-20?v=glance&s=books

http://www.007b.com/bras_breast_cancer.php (WARNING: contains nudity)

For example, a study found that: 3 out of 4 women who wore their bras 24 hours per day developed breast cancer where as 1 out of :168 women who wore bras rarely or never acquired breast cancer. 1 out of 7 women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not :to bed developed breast cancer. 1 out of 152 women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day got breast cancer.

According to cancer.org This was an invalid study: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/med/content/med_6_1x_underwire_bras.asp

--Kylelovesyou (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, all roads lead back to the same fringe theory related to this book. This hypothesis is given its own article but Per WP:Fringe should not be given any more weight. There is already a see also link to this book in the Brassiere article.Mattnad (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is clearly a fringe theory and hence can example of undue weight. Lets review we have one book claiming that bras cause breast cancer, in fact it claim bras are responsible for MOST breast cancers based on their stats. Considering the sum of research on cancer risk factors (collectively thousands of peer reviewed papers) can not be reconciled with this 'study' which not only wasn't blinded but didn't even have a fucking study protocol. On top of this they have a "cross cultural cohort study" the only conclusion I can draw from which is that they don't know what a cohort study actually is. Needless to say this second 'study' is also worthless since they did zero to control for any confounders like I don't know Life expectancy. On top of this they've published on such diverse issues as how Alzheimer's can be prevented by tilting ones bed and how apparently high blood pressure isn't a risk factor for cardiac disease. The paragraph also claims "Nevertheless such hypotheses continue to be raised in the medical literature" unfortunately Medical Hypotheses isn't what most people would call part of the "medical literature", it wasn't even peer reviewed at the time the paper was published and was almost removed from PUBMED until Elseview sacked the editor. Others exciting articles the journal has hosted include articles on how HIV doesn't cause AIDS. On top of this we have a number of sites such as the NIH, Cancer society etc stating categorically that bras don't cause cancer. So if all this doesn't qualify as fringe then I'm at a loss. 203.160.122.242 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Size and measurement" paragraph (note on cup size vs. volume)

The line: "Note on cup size vs. volume, in US fluid ounces and cubic centimeters - A = 8 fl. oz. = 236 cm³, B = 13 fl. oz. = 384 cm³, C = 21 fl. oz. = 621 cm³, D = 27 fl. oz. = 798 cm³"is totally non-sensical. Cup sizes do not have specific volumes, they are proportional to the band size. A 34D, for example, has a smaller volume than a 36D or a 38D, therefore to say that a "D cup" has a volume of 27 fl.oz without giving a band size, makes no sense whatsoever and is extremely misleading. Zoggi the mouse (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Back Pain

In a study[59][11] of 103 women seeking breast-reduction surgery (reduction mammaplasty) for pain, one woman never wore a bra, but of the remaining 102 all were wearing an incorrect bra size. The underband was too tight and the cup size too large. The larger the woman, the worse the fit. The result was a bra that compresses the breast and distorts it by compressing the breast against the skin of the chest wall.

This statement goes against all other evidence. The most common fitting problem and the cause of back pain is the opposite of what is stated here - ie wearing too big a back size and too small a cup size. I am certain that this must be a mistake, because it simply contradicts the way that bras work. Bras are designed to support the breasts through the tension of the band, it is when the band is too large that back pain occurs, because the back rides up and the cups weigh down on the shoulder straps, causing nerves to be pinched and the wearer to hunch forward. The breasts would not be compressed by a too-small band - that would only result from too-small cups.

The NHS Royal Free Hospital reported of their patients referred for breast reduction: "To date, 100% of those fitted have been wearing the wrong size, overestimating the width of their back and underestimating cup size. This results in the weight of the breasts being carried by the shoulders rather than supported around the chest, and contributes to back pain." Bra fittings for breast reduction patients at the Royal Free Hospital. Zoggi the mouse (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the abstract from the study which is quoted as [11] above, "An investigation of the suitability of bra fit in women referred for reduction mammaplasty"

Reduction mammaplasty is rationed in NHS plastic surgery provision, despite abundant evidence that most women who undergo this operation obtain significant improvement in their physical health and quality of life. We suspected that women seeking reduction mammaplasty often wear ill-fitting bras, which may exacerbate some of their symptoms. Therefore, we studied 103 women who attended a nurse-run pre-assessment clinic, asking them what size bra they currently wore and then measuring them to see whether their bra size was correct. We also questioned bra manufacturers, designers and shop bra fitters about bra manufacture, sizing and fitting techniques, and we reviewed these findings. Of the 102 women suitable for inclusion in the study, all wore the wrong size bra. Their mean ‘claimed’ back measurement was 36 inches (range: 30–42 in.) and their mean cup size was F (range: C–J). We found that all but one underestimated their back measurement (by a mean of 4 in.; range: −2–10 in.) and overestimated their cup size (by a mean of three sizes; range: one size smaller to seven sizes larger) when compared with manufacturers' fitting guidelines. Multiple regression analysis used to assess the relationships of various factors to incorrect bra sizing showed a strong link (Pearson CORRELATION=0.54; P<0.001) between obesity and inaccurate back measurement. The reasons why women with breast hypertrophy wear incorrectly fitting bras are discussed. We conclude that obesity, breast hypertrophy, fashion and bra-fitting practices combine to make those women who most need supportive bras the least likely to get accurately fitted bras, so exacerbating the symptoms for which they seek surgery.

It becomes clear upon reading the abstract that the researchers did not have even the most basic knowledge of bra fitting required to undertake this study. They describe the process of comparing the bra sizes worn to the patients' measurements, rather than examining how their bras actually fitted, something which any bra fitting expert will know to be totally futile. It seems that they are referring to the conventional measuring system which requires the addition of several inches to the underbust measurement, usually 4 or 5, which is inaccurate to say the least. The majority of women require a band size two or more sizes smaller than that dictated by the measurement, so no wonder they were thought to be wearing a band which was too tight.

This study is totally flawed and should not be included. Zoggi the mouse (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Metric vs. Imperial

As per the Manual of style, both measurement systems must be used in this article. The focus is otherwise far too American/British rather than Intl. Luke w (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Images resizing

I've copied this from my talk page, to explain the 2 reversions that I've done recently. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I intended to make the images a consistent size, not smaller, by adding the 140px dimension to them. I should have used a larger dimension. In reverting my change, you also removed a new image I'd added. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have my default size set to 300px, so setting any fixed size forces them to be smaller. Besides, the default is 180 so 140 made them smaller. If you want images to display larger for you, go to my preferences, click the Files tab and change your Thumbnail size setting. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, "upright" images are supposed to be scaled differently to normal images, and fixed sizes are not desirable unless to resolve a specific problem with a page, per WP:MOS. Oh, and I can't see relevance of a photo of someone not wearing a bra to an article on bras. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Braless image?

User:Btphelps has, for the 3rd time, added a photo of a woman wearing a top without a bra. Given that this article is specifically about bras, I don't see the image as relevant to the article. I have not reverted the addition, or removed the inappropriate forced pixel sizing from the image. I'd like to know if anyone else other than Btphelps thinks that the image belongs on this page. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

T think that it should definitely be there, that image should be back right now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.94.59 (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's okay but it's in the wrong section. I'll move it. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the braless image. It's completely contradictory to an article about bras, plus it's rather unattractive. This article needs 4-5 more pictures of suitable quality IMO. Digital^NinjaWTF 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Isnt the unatractiveness of a bra-less woman the point of the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.84.8.64 (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding section "Shoulder Pain"

The section on shoulder pain opens with a sentence stating that the weight of the breasts is meant to be supported primarily by the shoulder straps. Not only is this simply not true, it's also contradicted by an earlier paragraph linked to by the sentence in order to support this claim, as well as a later paragraph and at least one of the references included. As the remainder of the article and the reference state, the weight is meant to be carried by the chest band.

However, since this incorrect statement appears to be the basis for the entire paragraph, I'm not clear on how to rewrite it. --Belthazar451 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting image discussion.

I dont mind the image in general, but could one find another girl wearing a bra without the underarm hair? It degrades the article , sort-of... JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bra sizes

This section was very fragmented. I tried to bring some order to it but it is still somewhat choppy. More later. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section since the ONLY citation was a breast augmentation website and it had the average size of women in the US as a "B" cup, something which is clearly biased in that it would be in their best interest and the site doesn't clearly disclose their sources. I did find a TIME article, albeit 3 years old but still more current, citing that the average breast size was going up to the C range. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1208335,00.html?cnn=yes Here's another, even more recent news article from a different, legitimate, news source which also makes the same statement that the current American bra size had gone up to C http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/Feb/20080210Puls004.asp Darqcyde (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have better sources, why did you remove the section, rather then correcting the data within it?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

19th century?

The second line in the intro states "Since the early 19th century, it has replaced the corset as the most widely accepted method for supporting a woman's breasts." Is this true? Is it a mistake and is meant to read "Since the early 20th century..."? Through the end of the 19th century, the corset was still in its heyday, right? LordAmeth (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That is problematically. The brassiere had exist in prehistoric era. But the first elastic brassiere been patented in 1803 and the first brassiere by cups been patented in 1808. The corset was new i 1837, but very rare in many years until MADAME CAPLIN received the only PRIZE MEDAL given for Corsets in the GREAT EXHIBITION of 1851. Before the corset all the weight hang on shoulders, as the corset was a liberation. http://www.flickr.com/photos/haabet/3521597414/in/set-72157608328223268/ Note: As many old corset for ordinary day use was short and been used together by a Brassiere. In 1909 been the fashionable dress general lighten (cause of growing price from the rearmament to WWI). And a corset in two parts, one corset and one propping up brassiere been more common.Haabet 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the bra was the most common women's undergarment for upper support until maybe the late 1920's; see Commons:Brassiere. Churchh (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Images redux

Shouldn't we edit the image of "sexy sam" or whatever it's called (the one that "illustrates" a caption about difficulty finding correct bra sizes) by cropping it just the upper torso and neck? Showing the woman's face adds nothing and might violate some policy or other, and the undone jeans are just a pointless distraction. None of the other images are particularly salacious, but this one, well, is. Huw Powell (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Which policy are you concerned about? The one that comes to mind for me is that Wikipedia is not censored (see WP:CENSORED). The jeans are less revealing than the photograph of a woman in bikini underwear. And most of the the other photos have womens' faces visible too. This photograph stands out in a good way by depicting a small busted woman. My only issue with the photographs overall is that they only have white women modeling. We could benefit from more diversity. Mattnad (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned about a particular policy, simply the appearance of the article. The open jeans aren't so much "revealing" as unnecessary. You're right about the faces. Also, you're right, it is a bit Caucasian-heavy. Huw Powell (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, the photo of the woman with her jeans unzipped is clearly non-encyclopedic. It's titllating. We don't need to see her in such a state of come-hither undress in an article about bras. Sure, Wikipedia is uncensored but we also require that the photos illustrating articles are appropriate to the subject of the article. This smacks of some teen's pervy pic stash. It is clearly sexual. If the article was 'bras as erotic clothing' I wouldn't object to its inclusion. But it is inappropriate here as it stands. If it were cropped to take out the jeans I would not object to its inclusion. 86.133.210.177 (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And how is an image of a woman in a bra not appropriate to this article? It's a bit funny that any hint of sexuality brings out the protests. If you can show me there's no connection between lingerie and sexuality, I'll accept your position that it's inappropriate.Mattnad (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You miss my point. A woman in a bra - brilliant, that's what this article is about. A woman in a bra with her jeans partially undone - not so. It is sexually suggestive and inapporpriate for this article. This article is about bras, so why show her lower half at all? And by the way - bras primary function is to support the breasts. Sexuality is a secondary matter. They weren't invented for the tittilation of men, they were invented for the comfort of women. So the article should only touch on sexuality, it shouldn't be its main focus. But as I said before, seeing a woman with her jeans undone has no place in an article about bras. Put your wank photos somewhere else on the web. 86.152.23.37 (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the article? To argue that bras exist only for the comfort of women is simplistic and one photo hardly changes the "main focus" of the article. The article explains in detail that Bras have much more than functional use and perception. There are entire sections dedicated to explaining how a bra has social, sexual, fashion and political aspects. I'll posit that it's good that the photo could be somewhat sensual since bras are sometimes use to promote a woman's sexuality. If you think I'm off base, how do you explain the entire lingerie industry that makes bras fashionable, sometimes "feminine", and dare I say it, "sexy"?

Let me further quote from the introduction the article's lede, "For some people, the bra has become a garment with erotic significance and a feminine icon or symbol with political and cultural significance beyond its primary function." But in the end, it's not what the picture shows, but your interpretation of the context. I agree that it's somewhat suggestive, but well within what's acceptable for an article about.....wait for it..... bras.Mattnad (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear you're not very good at reading clearly, are you? I say "And by the way - bras primary function is to support the breasts. Sexuality is a secondary matter." and you somehow interpret this as "To argue that bras exist only for the comfort of women is simplistic" (my emphasis). Your attempt at patronising me would work better if you yourself read more carefully. Of course I have read the article.

Let me try to make it clear. I don't object to showing how a bra reflects women's sexuality. But having a woman with her jeans undone is nothing to do with bras. Find a photo that shows a woman's sexuality through her bra, the subject of the article, not by looking like the first in a photoset of a Reader's Wife about to strip off. You are missing my point by a country mile. I am not against appropriate photos for matters of sexuality on Wikipedia. This one isn't appropriate for the topic being covered, that's all. 86.152.23.37 (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Get out much?Mattnad (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The image illustrates a women wearing a bra which is certainly pertinent to the article. What a viewer infers from the unbuttoned pants is something else. I reverted the removal of the image because consensus certainly had not been reached and the action to remove it was presumptive. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That the image shows a women wearing a bra is quite true. It's a poor example, though. The cover of Roxy Music's Country Life shows two women wearing bras, but probably would not really make sense here. Anyway, the image is undergoing a deletion discussion, so this issue may end up being moot. Huw Powell (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Brassiere for the buttocks

Is there such a thing as a support garment, like the brassiere, but designed for the buttocks rather than the breasts? If so, what is it called? 70.99.104.234 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called a Girdle. Bras and Girdles are Foundation garments.Mattnad (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

wider array of sizes and new marketing demographics

I'm not exactly sure where in the article this would fit but I have noticed a recent growing trend of smaller bras and also more designs aimed at the juniors demographic. I can't find hard and fast research to back this up, but it's pretty obvious with brands such as Victoria's Secret Pink, American Eagle Aerie, Candies, and Maidenform's Charmed line.

Something should also be included about the potential for variance between various manufacturers' bras of the same nominal size (e.g, a Victoria's Secret 34C may be the same, dimensionally as a Warners 34C of a similar design. Brendanmccabe (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bras in the Dress Code?

I've just heard of someone whose school (GED program) is ordering her to wear a bra. Any additions to the article on this topic would be appreciated. -75.57.7.223 (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Western bias of the article

This article suffers from strong Western, and especially U.S. bias. There is hardly any mention of the prevalence and attitude towards bras in non-Western countries. More could be said of the prevalence of Bra wearing in Asia, Africa, South America, etc. While the bra may be a commonly worn and accepted garment in Western countries, it is not as common in non-western world. --67.103.38.211 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a contradictory statement. On the one hand, you mention that the article has a bias against non-western countries, and then you state that the bra is not commonly worn in non-western counties. Given your statement that the brassiere "is not as common in non-western world", doesn't it follow that the article should not have to focus as much on parts of the world that do not wear, or care about bras? As an analogy, Japanese is spoken predominantly in Japan. Would an article on Japanese language have a bias against western countries if it does not cover how little people embrace it, in lets say, Central America? The bra is a western foundation garment. Other articles can be created to cover non-western garments (and there are). I'm personally not fretting that the article on Kimonos is Japan-centric.Mattnad (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the original postI'm incontinent and wear Tena Slip Maxi (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Brassiere#Calculating_cup_volume_and_breast_weight section - is this needed?

Seems like more of a technical "how to". Not typically encyclopedic for a layperson. Mattnad (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be too technical for the purposes of this article. Perhaps it ought to be summarized here and the relevant content moved to Brassiere measurement. Your thoughts? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (after the fact!)Mattnad (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the current Construction and Fit section. Most of it is dedication to measurement and sizing and could go in the the forked article. I think we need to have a single paragraph for this section given the there's now a main article on the topic.Mattnad (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, go for it. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahh..... nice to get that out of the article. Too much detail. There's probably room for more trimming, but this is a good start.Mattnad (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Compression of Lymphatic System Section - OR and poor sourcing

I have removed this section, Compression of the Lymphatic System. It blends standard information about the lymphatic system and mixes it with a couple of articles from fringe sources. As it happens, only a few sentences are about lymphatic system,

While bras prevent the breasts from sagging against the chest wall they may cause some negative health consequences. Bras that are too tight can compress the breasts and possibly constrict the flow of the lymphatic system, inhibiting its beneficial effect upon breast tissue."

One citation [7] is from a commercial nutrition site discussing the risks of pressure on the lymphatic system while simultaneously trying to sell a solution. The only other citation [8] contains a rambling range of concerns and opinions about clothing being too tight and the risks. It appears to be self published since Ken Smith is the owner of the site Breastnotes.com and therefor fails WP:RS. Neither of these articles cite any medical research on the topic.

The rest of the section is about other issues/concerns already covered in other parts of the of the article and have nothing to do with compression of the Lymphatic system (although they are at least better sourced). It does not meaningfully contribute to the article. When it comes to health issues in particular, we should ensure that we have reliable sources that cite research and not opinion.Mattnad (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Triumph survey of cupsizes

Critics of that survey by Triumph however point out that the data used in this survey is flawed. Cupsizes above D are readily available in British stores, so a British woman with a larger cupsize is more likely to wear a well-fitting bra in her correct size. The German bra-fitting community Busenfreundinnen has been most vocal in this critism, pointing out that they frequently find that German women who need a UK-G-Cup (EU J) make do with a DD two bandsizes too large. They have also found that women who need D and DD cups are relatively likely to wear A and B cups, because the women themselves do not perceive their breasts as "large", a perception skewed by the multiple G-Cup women stuffing themselves into D and DDs. The members of the community also point out that any research based upon sales of DD+ plus bras in the various countries is bound to be flawed since a significant amount of women with larger cupsizes around the world order their bras online in British online shops.

The source of this is 1) statistical analysis of user data of the German forum 2) Bravissimo - according to one of their employees most of their online customers are from abroad. 79.216.119.151 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad reference link

Ref #7 links to a canadian newspaper article about wikileaks and has nothing to do with bras. I'm not sure what the protocol is for this error (or potential vandalism?). --Brendanmccabe (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)