Talk:Bra

	This Sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

OK this article is pretty bad

It's a list of tidbits. Nobody using RationalWiki cares about the history of bras or their modern uses. They care about the woo. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

So a tiny section on history manages to ruin the whole entire article? Can you explain to me how that is possible? I will point out that we have the Goat article that has a lot of non-missional bits, yet it's bronze. Also saying an article is bad is neither constructive or helpful. If you think an article needs work, edit it yourself instead of sitting around.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 22:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

With a little work the article can be prevented from going tits-up. 86.191.125.164 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with FCP. This article is preeeetty bad. Can we also remove the 'Your Tango' references? It's not in any fashion a credible source. Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 16:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

Weasloid has passive agreesively claimed that bras are not an alternative medicine. While I agree with your other edits, I do not for this one. Let's look up what alternative medicine is:

“”"By definition", I begin "Alternative Medicine", I continue "Has either not been proved to work, Or been proved not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine That’s been proved to work? Medicine."

—Tim Minchin, Storm

Now let's look at the medical evidence for bras:

“”"A mistaken popular belief maintains that wearing a bra strengthens your breasts and prevents their eventual sagging. But you sag because of the proportion of fat and tissue in your breasts, and no bra changes that"

Source: http://breastnotes.com/aware/aware-bra.htm

Now, given this evidence, can you please elaoborate why you think that bras are not an alternative medicine. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 23:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Bras are a normal item of clothing, not a medical treatment. Women wear them for comfort & aesthetic reasons, like the article says: the same reasons for wearing pretty much any other item of clothing. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. Just because something may have a medical purpose does not necessarily mean it is medicine. Thank you for clearing this up, however, keep in mind that I did not add that template. In any case, the article is still being worked on and thank you for your edits.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 23:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

For those who find bras 'useful or more comfortable than the alternative' they are also probably healthier than corsets (which can crush your innards). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The cancer scare...

Seems like this article is getting a lot of attention from people concerned about bra-cancer link, so I thought I might add my points.

There is heavy reliance on the book “Dressed to Kill”. First off, the authors have one thing in common, that none of them is a cancer researcher or medical doctor. Second, it was not reviewed by medical experts and published in a peer-reviewed and respected journal. Third, and most importantly, Scientists have also criticised Dressed to Kill for not taking into account known risk factors for breast cancer, most notably obesity, which increases the likelihood a woman will wear a bra for longer periods. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-underwire-bras-cause-cancer/

There are many studies that debunk this link. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25192706/ Our results did not support an association between bra wearing and increased breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women.

https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/wearing-a-bra-doesnt-raise-breast-cancer-risk/

Case controlled, peer reviewed, credible, and cited by many other articles.

Please discuss here before adding anything else. The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 13:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There's plenty of research on the matter. We're not going to go against the medical consensus--Hastur! (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It's woo. (Unfortunately regarding this link, Jen Gunter is not so good on her HTML. But she is a gynecologist.) Soundwave106 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

She's probably in bed with big bra, like us--Hastur! (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

First, I read the book, Dressed to Kill, and the lead author, Sydney Ross Singer, is a medical anthropologist, with an MA degree from Duke University and PhD training in biochemistry at Duke, Anthropology at Duke, and Medical Humanities at UTMB at Galveston. He also attended medical school at UTMB. And if he does research into breast cancer, he is a breast cancer researcher. Second, the Scientific American article linked to above is an opinion piece, not a scientific paper. Out-of-the-box (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Still not an actual doctor or a cancer researcher. While “researching” (playing video games and looking at random sites on the internet I mean) I found that apparently Singer and Grismaijer wrote a book Get It Off!, another book about the dangers of wearing bras, and a series of other books in which they claim that sleeping on a tilted bed can prevent Alzheimer's disease and impotence; that frequent defecation and urination can prevent many conditions such as prostate enlargement and menopausal symptoms; and that high blood pressure is a "major medical scam" because "blood pressure measurements can be whatever the doctor wants them to be." (copied straight from the wikipedia article) If that doesn’t scream that Singer is a quack, I don’t know what does. The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 06:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong to say that "many studies debunk this link". There is only this one study that does not support the link. And, actually, this study was flawed by not including any bra-free women, hence there was no control group. The authors admitted this flaw in their study article. "It is important to acknowledge some of the limitations of this study....Because bra wearing was ubiquitous among our participants, we were unable to compare risks among women who never wore a bra to those who regularly wore a bra, and instead our primary comparison was based on average number of hours per day women wore a bra." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4184992/

Of course, a control group is important for scientific research, as you should know. Imagine doing a study on the smoking link to lung cancer, and excluding nonsmokers! You cannot compare the lungs of a regular smoker who has been smoking for over 40 years (the participants in this study were all over 55), to someone who is a nonsmoker. Likewise, you cannot compare a woman who has never worn a bra to someone who has worn one for over 40 years.

In addition, since this study is only on post-menopausal women over 55 (who were lifetime bra users), there is a survivor bias, which further discredits this study. You can also find smokers in their 90s who have never had lung cancer. But that does not mean smoking does not cause lung cancer. It just means some people survive, and if you only look at survivors you will not see those who succumbed. That is a survivor bias.

It is also inaccurate to say there are "many studies which debunk this link". First, a theory is not "debunked" by a single study. There are conflicting studies all the time in science. Using the word "debunking" is biased against this theory, and is unscientific.

The book isn’t peer reviewed, or the ‘facts’ given in it published in a reputable journals. The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 06:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There are also many peer-reviewed studies which show a link. I have tried to include them in the bra article, but they have been removed. There are dozens of studies internationally on the bra-cancer link, including a meta-analysis of 12 studies, and they conclude bras are contributing to breast cancer incidence. To ignore these studies is dishonest and scientifically unjustified.Out-of-the-box (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest changing the title of this section of The Cancer Link, instead of "Scare". That word "scare" is biased, implying the link is not true. You cannot say the link is not true based on one negative study and many positive studies. All that can be said is that more research is needed. Out-of-the-box (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Where on planet earth is someone supposed to find women who don’t wear bra? This is not just a problem in this study, it is also a problem in your studies too. The hypothesis is that it blocks some vessels which gives ya cancer, so if worn overtime, shouldn’t you have more cancer risk or something? _{very scientific language used here} I think it is called a prospective cohort study, i dunno seems legit.

There are many studies that debunk this link, it was just that I was too lazy to see if they were credible. I think I am just going to paste them here without any formatting... https://www.ejcancer.com/article/0277-5379(91)90469-T/abstract. http://www.center4research.org/can-wearing-bra-cause-breast-cancer/. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/myth-busted-bra-wearing-not-linked-breast-cancer-201409097391

Here are some risk factors to keep in mind... http://www.center4research.org/can-wearing-bra-cause-breast-cancer/ Dr Jen Gunter targeted some of your studies I believe... https://drjengunter.com/2014/04/13/your-bra-is-not-killing-you/ The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 06:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, medical consensus is sometimes based on unscientific reasons, such as the medical consensus in the mid-1900's that encouraged smoking. Medical consensus is never a good reason for censorship of opposing ideas or research. If this bra article is to be accurate and honest, it should include references to supportive studies, not just one biased negative study.Out-of-the-box (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

One difference, this ain’t 1900 no more. See Science has been wrong before. The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 06:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It's clear that there is a bias against this bra-cancer link, based on something other than science. The theory behind the link is that lymphatic impairment by tight bras (as evidenced by red marks and indentations in the skin), interferes with immune function in the breasts, and causing mild, chronic lymphedema of the breasts. Lymph stasis has been associated with cancer development. And tissue that is chronically congested with lymph fluid becomes hypoxic, toxic, and less able to fight developing cancer cells. There are now studies around the world which support this link, and further research is needed and warranted. However, this issue affects the lingerie industry and the cancer detection and treatment industry. Since bra usage has been ignored in breast cancer research, an important lifestyle factor (at least as great as family history according to a recent Iranian study) has been overlooked, causing confusing results. This challenges the current research paradigm, and when this happens historically there is resistance from the current guard against this paradigm shift. There is also the cultural resistance to being bra-free, although this is currently changing as women forego the bra during COVID lockdown. If RW is wanting to simply regurgitate the same one-sided position as WP has on the book, Dressed to Kill, then go ahead. But it is unscientific, biased, and wrong to do so. You should include the references to other studies and let your readers come to their own conclusions.

Also, dismissing the bra-cancer link based only on the ACS's reaction to the book, Dressed to Kill, ignores the many studies done in this field. The ACS has been wrong before. Ad hominem support is as unscientific as ad hominem attacks. The ACS should defend their position. And you cannot just say the conclusions reached in the book were reached "through a variety of unscientific methods". You should describe what is meant by that. Such a blanket, vacuous dismissal of a book that has had much influence in the world is unscientific and biased, and lowers the credibility of this website.Out-of-the-box (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not just the ACS jokers jumping on the train to refute this book, it is the entire circus!

• The National Cancer Institute (US) states that bras have not been shown to increase a woman's risk of breast cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/pregnancy
• The American Cancer Society states, "There are no scientifically valid studies that show wearing bras of any type causes breast cancer."https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/risk-and-prevention/disproven-or-controversial-breast-cancer-risk-factors.html
• The U.S. National Institutes of Health states, "Breast implants, using antiperspirants, and wearing underwire bras do not raise your risk for breast cancer."https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000913.htm
• In 2000, as a follow-up to misreporting of a UK study, British health professionals stated that bras cause no increase in breast cancer risk. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/998348.stm https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dont-burn-your-bra-just-yet-622008.html
• A study conducted by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found "no aspect of bra wearing, including bra cup size, recency, average number of hours a day worn, wearing a bra with an underwire, or age first began regularly wearing a bra, was associated with risks" of breast cancer.The study included detailed studies of women's lifestyle and bra-wearing habits and found no correlation between bra use and cancer.http://health.heraldtribune.com/2014/09/30/putting-rest-myth-bras-can-cause-breast-cancer/
• Here are a few more links of scientists ranting about the book. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/26/your-bra-could-kill-you-and-other-breast-cancer-myths-busted https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000913.htm. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16qna.html

I haven’t done much research on this really, because I am a freaking idiot who can’t read a medical journal without falling asleep I am just lazy um... I am... busy _{playing video games that is...} The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 06:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Three points. One, @Out-of-the-box Learn to sign and format your posts properly so others don't have to clean up your mess. Two, "bias" doesn't work like that. It's neither good nor bad, merely a function of the brain forming conclusions. So in saying something is "biased" all you've really said is that it has reached a conclusion, which is pretty fucking obvious. That's what you're trying to dispute. Three, @Sqrt-1 would you like to respond?☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, my notification box isn’t working _{rw pls fix} and I was probably sleeping when this came out (timezones in India). The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 03:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I just wanted to add "Science was wrong before" is a laughable "argument". — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 15:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll do some work for you, Out-of-the-box. Here's a sentence that actually has a study backing it: "Wearing a Tight Bra for Many Hours a Day is Associated with Increased Risk of Breast Cancer". This is different from saying "bras cause cancer". As has been pointed out, there are a few studies that say bras in general don't cause cancer (see here), and this comes from an open-access journal without a big reputation that I know of, so "buyer beware". However, the statement above actually is sourced, comes from someone who appears to be a qualified gynecologist and a professor at the Universidade de Brasilia (Salete Da Silva Rios is the primary author) and has occasional citations. Furthermore, if you read the study, it suggests that the biggest risk factor here is sleeping with a tight bra on. Entering "sleeping bra cancer" in Google Scholar seems to pull up a couple of Chinese studies (see here and here) that also suggest an increase of cancer, albeit they look at first glance as preliminary-ish. So, if you want a statement that is possible, saying something like: (though preliminary research suggests that sleeping with tight bras may be associated with an increased cancer risk), with the three sourced links above. I'd buy that. I wouldn't buy "bras cause cancer" in the generic. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

As suggested, I have included studies which show sleeping in tight bras may increase cancer incidence. I also made it clearer that the Scientific American article cited to disprove the bra-cancer link is actually only an opinion piece with no scientific data. Out-of-the-box (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Page protected

Hi @Out-of-the-box, make a reasonable case in the talk page before going on the article and editing stuff in or out. I set the page to be protected for around 4 days, so by then you should be able to edit it again if you have a good argument. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 21:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I did make a reasonable case in the talk page. Perhaps someone should read my arguments and show why my edits are not acceptable. And for any editor to simply remove edits that give references to peer-reviewed journals shows this process is bullshit. 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:55 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)