or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Personal Growth › Boobs...Yuck!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Boobs...Yuck! - Page 2

post #21 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandelionkid View Post
If that were true all the naked african tribal women I used to see in national geographic would be super perky instead of really, really not.
post #22 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandelionkid View Post
Breast tissue isn't muscle though, so how can it get weak? I just don't see the fibres in the breast tightening up because they get a "work-out" when they aren't supported. If that were true all the naked african tribal women I used to see in national geographic would be super perky instead of really, really not.
I didn't say it was muscle, for the record. It has less to do with getting a "work out" as it has to do with proper circulation and lymphatic flow. Bras decrease both circulation and lymphatic flow, resulting in tissue that isn't getting everything it need and isn't getting rid of everything that builds up there. that is going to result in unhealthy, poorly toned tissue. There ARE ligaments in the breast that help support the tissue, and if they aren't getting oxygen/nutrients and being cleansed of toxic buildup, then they WILL lose their ability to support the tissue. Movement(jiggling, flapping, wiggling, whatever) IS part of the equation... Breast movement stimulates circulation and proper lymph flow. No you can't "work out" what amounts to a lump of fat and glands to improve it... But you CAN allow it to work in the way nature intended.

As for the National Geographic ladies... This is probably going to come across as politically incorrect, but rest assured I am NOT trying to offend anyone or saying this in any derogatory manner... While we are all human, we are all equipped with different genetics. It may be that the women in those relatively isolated tribes come from a line of women who tend to have breasts that aren't "perky". Which brings me to the point that "super perky" is a social desire, not a reality of all women... Our bodies are subject to wear and tear. I think the ultimate goal should be healthy breasts, not some societal conceived notion of perky sexy breasts. I seriously doubt that those women you reference are dying left and right of breast cancer, and I really doubt that they have as many crippling hang-ups about their bodies as we bra-touting civilized folks do.
post #23 of 89
Count me in with the bra-free tribe, I guess. I went from a DD before pregnancy to a lopsided E when my milk came in to a smallish C after DS as about six months old. I stopped wearing a bra then because I found that even my most comfortable, professionally fitted, no-underwire, racerback mesh bras were giving me plugged ducts and made my breasts ache. After a few weeks of feeling weirdly exposed and like I was hanging out or something, I stopped noticing that I didn't have a bra on. And my breasts started to perk up, which I couldn't believe.

I tried to attribute it to the changed composition of my milk or the decreased frequency of nursing, but even after I got pregnant and my supply dried up, my breasts remained perky. Now at 39 weeks my breasts are DD and are still perkier than they were before I had my first baby (even though they currently rest on my huge pregnant belly ).

It's really not that hard to go bra-free, even if you're very chesty, as long as you own a few camisoles in neutral tones. And it feels awesome. I used to get really achy breasts around my periods but that hasn't happened since I stopped wearing bras. The back and shoulder pain I used to get so frequently is gone. And I no longer get weird scary lumps that make me think I should do breast exams more often. Since breasts are giant glands that require constant free circulation to be healthy, this makes sense to me. Of course, I'd accept saggy breasts if it meant I was far, far less likely to get breast cancer. A double mastectomy isn't pretty either...

If this sounds soapboxy, I'm sorry. I just wanted to lend support to the idea that going bra-free doesn't necessarily mean floppy National Geographic boobs. And I agree that genetics surely plays a huge part. Bras are a relatively recent invention, but it's hard not to notice that paintings of nudes from many centuries ago don't show a non-stop display of sagging pancake breasts, so it seems that wasn't the norm even when women didn't wear bras at all.
post #24 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by peainthepod View Post
Bras are a relatively recent invention, but it's hard not to notice that paintings of nudes from many centuries ago don't show a non-stop display of sagging pancake breasts, so it seems that wasn't the norm even when women didn't wear bras at all.
i wonder why they paint the women as kind of heavy but usually with small breasts? i wonder if that's reality then and, if so, why the current sagging for so many of us? i also wonder if they were just models that had not had babies yet?
post #25 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by meandk0610 View Post
i wonder why they paint the women as kind of heavy but usually with small breasts? i wonder if that's reality then and, if so, why the current sagging for so many of us? i also wonder if they were just models that had not had babies yet?

As much as I adore the standard of beauty from long ago, I think that(as most art goes) is probably an idealized version of what was considered beautiful then. I think that many of those pictures are proportionate... The meatier gal with B or Cs. There are plenty with smaller bosoms too... I guess it was just what was perceived as lovely and what made it onto canvas. You might have a hunch, with the pre-birth woman being used more often for models. Then again, there are quite a few famous nudes featuring breastfeeding mothers or women surrounded by small children. If you want my honest opinion, I think that women prior to the 1800s had better bodies because they had better diets and less toxic exposure. They didn't have DNA that had been damaged by toxins and crappy food. Because of better health, they probably had far more resilient jahoobies.

Just for fun, while we are high jacking and talking about the classic beauties of long ago... This website has an awesome gallery of the old-school nudes.
post #26 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandelionkid View Post
Breast tissue isn't muscle though, so how can it get weak? I just don't see the fibres in the breast tightening up because they get a "work-out" when they aren't supported. If that were true all the naked african tribal women I used to see in national geographic would be super perky instead of really, really not.
There are tons of bra-wearing Western women who ALSO have 'tribal boobs.' You just never see them because of the bras and clothing.

I don't know what I think about the 'bra-free will make them perky!' argument (it probably is healthier but perky seems a lot to ask) but I don't think the tribal-boob argument is relevant at all.
post #27 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mambera View Post
There are tons of bra-wearing Western women who ALSO have 'tribal boobs.' You just never see them because of the bras and clothing.

I don't know what I think about the 'bra-free will make them perky!' argument (it probably is healthier but perky seems a lot to ask) but I don't think the tribal-boob argument is relevant at all.


I had some "tribal boobs"(I called 'em whoopie cushions though)... I know lots of women with "tribal boobs". Bras don't fix that.

I suppose when we braless gals say that we have been perkier since ditching the slingshot(correct me if I'm wrong) we're saying that there has been improvement in their state of sagginess. There are probably tremendously differing degrees of this. I know mine got MUCH perkier. Did they go back to my 18yr old pre-childbirth perfection? Heck no... But they are miles from the flat, pancakey, deflated flaps of flesh that they were when I still insisted upon trying to force them into the shapes and places desired by society. I love my mama jumblies.
post #28 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongBeliever View Post


I had some "tribal boobs"(I called 'em whoopie cushions though)... I know lots of women with "tribal boobs". Bras don't fix that.

I suppose when we braless gals say that we have been perkier since ditching the slingshot(correct me if I'm wrong) we're saying that there has been improvement in their state of sagginess. There are probably tremendously differing degrees of this. I know mine got MUCH perkier. Did they go back to my 18yr old pre-childbirth perfection? Heck no... But they are miles from the flat, pancakey, deflated flaps of flesh that they were when I still insisted upon trying to force them into the shapes and places desired by society. I love my mama jumblies.
Ok- the proper drainage and circulation for lymphatic system and tissues makes sense but what do you wear to exercise or just not look "nippley"? Do you count a shelf-bra tank-top as a bra or do you wear these? Very interesting food for thought.
post #29 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mambera View Post
There are tons of bra-wearing Western women who ALSO have 'tribal boobs.' You just never see them because of the bras and clothing.

I don't know what I think about the 'bra-free will make them perky!' argument (it probably is healthier but perky seems a lot to ask) but I don't think the tribal-boob argument is relevant at all.
Well, possibly not. I just went to look for national geographic african breasts and they don't seem as saggy as I remember from childhood. They actually closely resemble mine at the moment
post #30 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandelionkid View Post
Ok- the proper drainage and circulation for lymphatic system and tissues makes sense but what do you wear to exercise or just not look "nippley"? Do you count a shelf-bra tank-top as a bra or do you wear these? Very interesting food for thought.
Camisoles and snug tanks work for me. I'm partial to these. They come in a huge range of colors (with matching panties, if you want them) and are oh-so-very comfortable.

A shelf bra tank top gave me the worst plugged duct I ever had, so I avoid those no matter what.
post #31 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongBeliever View Post
As much as I adore the standard of beauty from long ago, I think that(as most art goes) is probably an idealized version of what was considered beautiful then. I think that many of those pictures are proportionate... The meatier gal with B or Cs. There are plenty with smaller bosoms too... I guess it was just what was perceived as lovely and what made it onto canvas. You might have a hunch, with the pre-birth woman being used more often for models. Then again, there are quite a few famous nudes featuring breastfeeding mothers or women surrounded by small children. If you want my honest opinion, I think that women prior to the 1800s had better bodies because they had better diets and less toxic exposure. They didn't have DNA that had been damaged by toxins and crappy food. Because of better health, they probably had far more resilient jahoobies.

Just for fun, while we are high jacking and talking about the classic beauties of long ago... This website has an awesome gallery of the old-school nudes.
the bolded confuses me.
post #32 of 89
I kinda like 'em soft. They aren't perky, but they are an awesome texture. I haven't found anything that I wanted to do that I couldn't do with the right bra.
post #33 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaRosie13 View Post
I could have written that exact post. It's definitely been a self esteem drop but I've learned to love them because I was blessed to be able to give my baby the ultimate nutritional start in life because of those now worn out boobies And hiding them in sexy bras always helps! As soon as I weaned I went out and bought some expensive bras (Which I never have done in my life!) Kind of shallow, but it helped me feel better about my body when nothing else could.
It's NOT shallow, IMO. Learning to love a less than perfect body is a big step, and if there is something (like buying smexxy bras!) that help you make the little steps that get you there, then not only is is not shallow, it's good for you! So go you!!!

I hate my stomach, but my back came out of pregnancy unscathed and it has always been really lovely. I never had problems with acne on my back and it tans really evenly, etc. So while I couldn't learn to love my stomach, I decided to embrace my back and I found a really beautiful tattoo design and got it put on my back last summer. I was shocked at how much loving that one part of my body and doing something to highlight it helped me accept the rest of my body. I am very preggo now, so the floppy tummy isn't an issue at the moment, but in another month or so when it is, I'm going to look at it, feel sad, turn and look at the tattoo on my back instead, and feel better. If it helps YOU, then it's a good thing, no matter what anyone else thinks.
post #34 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorasMama View Post
the bolded confuses me.
I was referencing a comment from another poster related to how all of those old-school paintings(many of them painted prior to the 1800s) don't have saggy baggy boobs... Even when the women in them tend to be a little "fluffier" which these days seems to correlate with "sag".

Back then they just DIDN'T have the toxic chemical exposure in their food that we do today. Even the people who were "impoverished" and had limited diets were still eating better than many people today... Minus the additives and taking into account the fact that the used natural farming and didn't have depleted soil. A healthy resilient body requires quality input. Compare the diet of an impoverished woman from a couple hundred years ago to the standard American diet eaten by many women today, and I'll bet the impoverished gal ate better. I think it is safe to assume that a body taking in only quality natural food and very little toxic crap would have healthier tissue(maybe far better boobs) than we have today. Generation after generation has been consuming more and more junk, and we are what our Grandmothers ate(your diet effects what is expressed in your DNA). Yeah, I am making some generalizations, but think about it and do some research. I say "the 1800s" and I might be off... But I *think* that is around the time that refined grains and sugars became available, and the nastiness in our food has just gotten worse from that point... Not to mention the environmental toxins that came about with industrialization around the same time.
post #35 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongBeliever View Post
I was referencing a comment from another poster related to how all of those old-school paintings(many of them painted prior to the 1800s) don't have saggy baggy boobs...
Neither do the cover models of today. Which are about as representative of the average modern woman as a Rembrandt nude was of the average 17th-century Dutchwoman.


Quote:
I think it is safe to assume that a body taking in only quality natural food and very little toxic crap would have healthier tissue(maybe far better boobs) than we have today.
Why are you correlating healthy with perky? Perky boobs are just a physical trait with aesthetic value in the modern West. I don't see why you think boob shape is correlated with boob health (or overall health for that matter).
post #36 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mambera View Post
Neither do the cover models of today. Which are about as representative of the average modern woman as a Rembrandt nude was of the average 17th-century Dutchwoman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongBeliever View Post
As much as I adore the standard of beauty from long ago, I think that(as most art goes) is probably an idealized version of what was considered beautiful then. I think that many of those pictures are proportionate... The meatier gal with B or Cs. There are plenty with smaller bosoms too...
I wasn't saying that they were a perfectly realistic depiction of what was common then. No more than modern models are of women today. although I will say that I think the depictions from those past eras are going to be more true to life at the time than the ones representing today... Models back then probably weren't going under the knife.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mambera View Post
Why are you correlating healthy with perky? Perky boobs are just a physical trait with aesthetic value in the modern West. I don't see why you think boob shape is correlated with boob health (or overall health for that matter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongBeliever View Post
Which brings me to the point that "super perky" is a social desire, not a reality of all women... Our bodies are subject to wear and tear. I think the ultimate goal should be healthy breasts, not some societal conceived notion of perky sexy breasts. I seriously doubt that those women you reference are dying left and right of breast cancer, and I really doubt that they have as many crippling hang-ups about their bodies as we bra-touting civilized folks do.
As you can see... I am not saying that perfect shape, perfect perkiness, perfect anything is going to be common for everyone... There really is no standard of perfect, as much of what is perceived as perfect is often unrealistic and unattainable, created by society. I never said boob health is indicated by boob shape... I am saying that healthy boobs are more likely to exhibit and maintain the traits that are considered attractive than unhealthy boobs. If you've really read everything I've written in the context to what I am responding to you'll see that I focus on the health of breasts, regardless of genetic make-up/shape/size/whatever. I'm saying that to really love our breasts we need to stop cramming them into the artificial perky molds(bras) created by society and let them hang so that they can regain health... So that we can learn to love them for what they are, how they are, while having healthy tissue. My breasts IMPROVED(IMO) when I stopped wearing a bra... They aren't anywhere near what society considers to be full and perky. But they are fuller and perkier TO ME(and my hubby) than they were when I was wearing a bra all the time. I love them now more than I did when I was rattling around in the coconut bras society said was the shape they should be.

I guess I am saying if we have to "fake" pretty all day with expensive bras, and we never learn to appreciate our breasts as they are... If the only way we can love our bodies are if they are plastered over with societies trappings... Well... It's just sad. Ditching the bra was liberating for me, as I wasn't always being reminded that they had to be "better" than they were and that "better" was eventually going to be taken off at the end of the day. I am completely comfortable in my skin, and I want that for all women. Forgive me if I get on my high-horse and want to share my experience. I do that with my whole-foods diet and natural birthing thing too.
post #37 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongBeliever View Post
I wasn't saying that they were a perfectly realistic depiction of what was common then. No more than modern models are of women today. although I will say that I think the depictions from those past eras are going to be more true to life at the time than the ones representing today...
OK, and how did you arrive at the late Renaissance as your past era of choice? How about the Willendorf Venus, hers are pretty saggy - is that an indictment of the prehistoric diet?

Quote:
I am saying that healthy boobs are more likely to exhibit and maintain the traits that are considered attractive than unhealthy boobs.
Considered attractive by whom? There are societies that idealize other breast shapes besides the one we like here. Even Western men differ vastly in their personal preferences - perky isn't everyone's ideal. It isn't like, say, facial symmetry, which is considered attractive pretty universally across cultures, and really is a good indicator of health status.
post #38 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mambera View Post
OK, and how did you arrive at the late Renaissance as your past era of choice? How about the Willendorf Venus, hers are pretty saggy - is that an indictment of the prehistoric diet?
As we've both said, art is rarely going to give a completely accurate portrayal of body type from any era. When a PP asked about famous nudes, referencing the heavier body type and smaller breasts(again, this is where reading through to get a sense of context is SO helpful) the Renaissance was ONE of the many styles that came to mind, never did I state that as my era of choice. I said prior to the 1800s... That covers a lot of area. As for the Willendorf Venus... ALL of her body is exaggerated lushness. I don't think thats in indictment of the prehistoric diet... I think that is art, pure and simple.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mambera View Post
Considered attractive by whom? There are societies that idealize other breast shapes besides the one we like here. Even Western men differ vastly in their personal preferences - perky isn't everyone's ideal. It isn't like, say, facial symmetry, which is considered attractive pretty universally across cultures, and really is a good indicator of health status.
Obviously considered attractive to many of the women who've posted so far in this thread. I absolutely understand what you are saying, and I agree... Perhaps I should have worded the sentence that you quoted more specifically. Considering the vast array of genetics the world over, I am sure that there are going to be vast differences between what any culture or society finds attractive(thinking of all those lovely tribal women that are still reproducing) based upon what is available and common to them. Thats perfectly fine, and quite wonderful. Diversity is fabulous. There are also going to be huge differences in what individual men find attractive. That is also fabulous. Never once did I say perky was the ideal. I am not attacking breasts that hang, believe you me. I own a pair. The OP, and several other posters were lamenting their sag and softness and looking for ways to achieve lift, or make them look closer to what I can only assume is the western model of beauty. I lamented my own saggy boobs at one time. I was merely sharing my experience and my ideas regarding how switching to what I(and many others) believe is a healthier way of relating to our breasts that may result in any number of improvements that might make a woman feel more attractive.

So, basically, to spell it out plain and simple after having gone over it at length... I was suggesting to women who may be unhappy with the state of their breasts that there is an alternative to trying to fit exactly into the modern western ideal of beauty. This alternative would be to stop wearing bras and learn to love the natural shape of thier breasts. There are noted health benefits involved with not wearing a bra. As a potential bonus, some women experience breast changes they would consider positive after having not worn one for some time. These changes would be a result of the health benefits attributed to going bra-less. These positive changes may or may not include traits that they were trying to achieve wearing a bra in the first place.

More simple yet... Hooray for boobies of all shapes and sizes, high or low. Hooray for no bra. There is my point. What's yours?
post #39 of 89
I am not interested in going bra-free, ever.

I have drastically uneven breasts (small B on one side, big C on the other.) They developed this way and did not improve through pregnancy and nursing. So I'll keep using my "slingshots" in order to preserve my self esteem, avoid open disgust from strangers and droopy seams in tailored clothing, thank you very much.

As for perkiness... The B is still plenty perky. The C, not so much.
post #40 of 89
It must have been the superior diets that kept the average life expectancy in 1880 at around 39 years.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Personal Growth
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Personal Growth › Boobs...Yuck!