Bra Wearing Causes Cancer By 12500%

Yes Breast Cancer is a very serious illness, and this line of research should be followed to find out what it is about bras that cause such an alarming rate of cancer... we don't have the answer--yet. As soon as that answer comes in I think everyone on this site would be screaming it from the hilltops as a truly preventable disease and the reasons it can be prevented--fashion be damned.

Most of us have chosen to put a bit of humour into a rather serious issue, who of us here has not lost someone to cancer, someone dearly loved to a terrible illness that could have been prevented or delayed in some way.

"If you don't laugh, you'll cry" I believe is the expression. How many people have read the post? Taking away a bit of humour with a sad message seems to be an adult thing to do and seems to help remind us of the matter, passed around as a laughing matter more people may hear of it as well and be informed.

just my opinion
sparkie

Why is anyone wearing a bra 24/7?

Seriously I've had several live in g/f's and the first thing they do is set the puppies free when they walk in the door...

Come to think of it Mom's the most conservative woman I know just threw on a heavier shirt and did the same when she was in for the day...

Anyone whose ever seen recently freed puppies will see the underwire marks and say man that can't be healthy...

my question is what about sports bras...

i offer my services in breast cancer detecting. but i reserve the right to refuse service

GREAT work. Excellent first post. Thanks.




...There really is too much cancer in our world - and it is an unbelievably incredibly painful way to die. My mom always boasted about her ability to tolerate pain, but at the end she was begging me to please kill her.

IMO - we should put every guys' balls in a vise, tighten it weekly for about 3-6 months, then let them comment on bras, breast and cancer.


.

Usually women who don't wear bras don't have as much
breast tissue as women who do wear bras. Therefore -
do those who wear bras get cancer more often because
of the bra, or because they have more breast tissue ??

All I know is every woman I know hates wearing bras because they're painful, uncomfortable, or both. Now - at least potentially - there is a connection between bras and breast cancer. That’s two strikes against them.

As for the aesthetics, I'm a believer in love and psychology driving what one finds sexy, so the appearance of breasts - whatever their shape or size - doesn't matter to me nearly as much as how I feel about someone sexually, because for me it has mostly to do with how I feel about the person. Everyone is beautiful, and if you love someone - in my opinion - all the more. But whether someone is sexy or not isn't the point. Whether they live or die is. If this connection is genuine, I think it's an exceedingly trivial price to pay for improving women’s' health.

I'm thinking that they simply found a coincidence and aren't familiar with the history of underwear.

No, seriously.

Breast-binding/restriction has been around for milennia. If breast-compression/bra caused cancer, then Japan would have an extraordinary history of female deaths from breast cancer, given that they bound their breasts to make kimonos fit right.

Victorian women (those stays and corsets) would have died in droves from breast cancer and the introduction of the bra (less restricting than corsets) would have seen a decrease in deaths from breast cancer -- independant of any new treatments for the same.

Bras aren't from the 20th century. They go back to the cottes of the Middle Ages (1500's or so) which featured wire and cloth contraptions to help the lady of the house look "perky."

Corsets themselves go back thousands of years to ancient Crete.

So, if you examine the history of underwear (which the researchers apparently didn't) I think you'll find that the connection kind of falls apart.

I'm thinking that they simply found a coincidence and aren't familiar with the history of underwear.

No, seriously.

Breast-binding/restriction has been around for milennia. If breast-compression/bra caused cancer, then Japan would have an extraordinary history of female deaths from breast cancer, given that they bound their breasts to make kimonos fit right.

Victorian women (those stays and corsets) would have died in droves from breast cancer and the introduction of the bra (less restricting than corsets) would have seen a decrease in deaths from breast cancer -- independant of any new treatments for the same.

Bras aren't from the 20th century. They go back to the cottes of the Middle Ages (1500's or so) which featured wire and cloth contraptions to help the lady of the house look "perky."

Corsets themselves go back thousands of years to ancient Crete.

So, if you examine the history of underwear (which the researchers apparently didn't) I think you'll find that the connection kind of falls apart.

Hmmm.

There's a connection between vaginal infections and panties made of synthetic material (which does not breathe).

Maybe the material makes a difference. ...Early "bras" were usually like binders - natural fabrics wrapped round the upper body.

Modern bras have metal -not whalebone like Victorial bras and corsets- are made of synthetic materials and treated with chemicals...

Some might find the credentials of the researchers of interest and perhaps, just a little suspect.



Here's the home page for "Do it Yourself Research."



www.selfstudycenter.org...

Ignoring the more stupid and selfish responses the point is that wearing a bra increases your cancer risk by 12500 % due to constriction reducing blood low and oxygen and increasing tumour risk.

An increase in male genitalia related cancers has also implicated tight panties as a possible cause

I suggest some of you weara tight band around your little finger and see what happens.

If this is actually true and not a coincidence we need to find out such things as what types of bras cause the most cancer, what fabrics are implicated, is it the shape of the bra or compression, or lack of blood or lymphatic flow? The correlation in the study only mentioned the amount of time the bra was worn. If we find out what the problem is then the amount of time it is worn shouldn't matter much.

Unfortunately a real study needs to be done comparing different factors--who would be willing to pay for it? Who would be willing to run it and who would be willing to participate--or is such a study underway

TRUE! Grady mentioned a lack of evidence for "the boys" ...But there is a very definate link to decreased sperm levels and tight "panties" (cant beleive you called them panties)

I would not be surprised in the least to find that constricting nutsnugglers were also a cause of testicular cancer... (not to mention, very uncomfortable)

as far as breasts go... More of a butt man myself...
never understood what the facination was... they are there, or they aren't ... if you got em, then that is all that matters...

and as far as "saggy vs perky"
they all look the same when they are horizontal... and that is one of the few times it matters to me..

I can only hope that this study is true... if so, it is merely a matter of destroying the Barbie myths of perfect breasts to save so many lives...

Ladies... no matter shape,size, perk level god blesses you with... love em, and others will too...