1

New Theories / Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%

« on: 13/09/2005 21:46:25 »

I do not agree that bras are for support.  There is nothing wrong with the female body that requires 20th Century lingerie for correction.  When girdles were in fashion, their manufacturers claimed that they, too, were essential for abdominal support.  In fact, however, the artificial support from the girdle resulted in weaker abdominal muscles, since the body comes to rely on the girdle instead of on its own muscular system for support.  The same goes for the bra.  They are only for fashion.  And they create weak, droopy breasts.  It is a myth, promoted by the bra industry, that bras prevent sagging or are necessary for breast support.

Interestingly, Singer and Grismaijer also did a study in Fiji to follow-up on their US study.  They found that about 50% of the female population there wore bras, and breast disease was limited to this bra-wearing group.  Comparing women from the same village, with the same diet and genetic background, those who developed breast cancer were those who had a history of wearing bras.  

And while some women in the west, who were raised on bras, claim that they need a bra for comfort and "support", Singer and Grismaijer found many large breasted Fijian woman claiming that they couldn't wear a bra because their breasts were "too big"!  

The problem is that women who have worn a bra since puberty have not developed their natural ligamental support system for their breasts.  The breasts become reliant on the bra for support.  It takes time for the body to relearn to support the breasts by itself once women go bra-free.  However, according to Singer and Grismaijer, many women who have never worn a bra have reported that their breasts are firm and free from cysts and pain, even into their 60's.  

I suppose wearing a bra during sports activities would be helpful, just as some men wear a jock strap.  However, if men wore jock straps for 18 hours daily, there would probably be more cases of testicular cancer.  (Tight underwear has already been shown to harm the testicles.) Also, keep in mind that one of the benefits of exercise is that it improves circulation.  Wearing a bra inhibits this circulation.  

As for breast massage, it would certainly help the breast lymphatics and help clear out some of the edema caused by chronic bra constriction.  Self-massage would be best.  But the problem is getting past the discomfort people have with the subject.  After all, we live in a breast-obsessed culture where a mature discussion of breast massage is difficult. It is even illegal in some states for a massage therapist to offer a client a breast massage.

Given the taboo nature of breasts and bras, is it any wonder that this bra-cancer connection has been ignored?

2

New Theories / Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%

« on: 09/09/2005 04:07:17 »

I find it amazing, and unscientific, that so many comments have been made about this research and theory without going to the source.  The book is Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras (Avery/Penguin Putnam 1995; ISCD Press 2002).  The authors, Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, are medical anthropologists.  Their website is www.SelfStudyCenter.org.  They have also written a follow-up to Dressed To Kill, entitled, Get It Off! Eliminating the Cause of Breast Pain, Cysts, and Cancer, Illustrated with A Little Breast Play. Dressed To Kill discusses the reasoning behind the bra-cancer connection, describes the 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, and provides a brief analysis of the cultural role bras play in Western societies.  Intelligent discussion of this theory requires reading this book.  Otherwise, criticism or support will merely reflect one's personal biases, which many people have when it comes to topics such as bras, breasts, and cancer.  Also, keep in mind the research of Singer and Grismaijer is applied medical anthropology, not epidemiology.  
Get It Off! explores the cultural issues that keep women wearing bras and that have turned breasts into fashion accessories.  As a method of illustration, the authors use a play (actually a musical) that begins each chapter.  It is a novel, creative presentation, and the musical version of the play, renamed "The Booby Trap", was premiered in New York City on Mother's Day, 2000.

Finally, keep in mind that bra wearing is a form of breast binding, akin to foot binding as once practiced by the Chinese.  Compression by the bra of lymphatic vessels within the breast results in fluid accumulation, as the microscopic lymphatic vessels that drain the breast tissue of fluid and toxins is impaired in its flow.  This results in tenderness and cyst formation, which is readily reversible by going bra-free, as has been experimentally shown.  (This was also documented by medical doctors in the UK for the BBC and Channel 4 in the year 2000, in a program entitled, Bras-The Bare Facts.)  Fibrocystic breast disease should be called Tight Bra Syndrome.  The cancer connection is that the toxins that the lymphatics normally flush away from the breasts are kept within the breast tissue due to the bra's constrictive of lymphatic vessels.  The toxins include various carcinogens that are known to contaminate our food, water, and air in our petro-chemically polluted world.  These toxins cause the cancer, not the bra.  However, the bra keeps these toxins in the breast for as long as the bra is worn.  That is why cancer of the breasts is the most common female cancer in the West.  The bra is the tightest garment women in the West wear.  This also explains why men have a much lower rate (they don't wear bras.)  And it also explains why breast cancer is negligible in bra-free cultures.  
There's much more.  Don't underestimate this theory or the reasoning behind it.