To bra? or not to bra? That is the question.

^^This! Haha I might hurt someone otherwise, or give myself a black eye! No bueno

this.

But in all honesty, I enjoy the end of the day when I get to take my bra off and I def don't wear one when it's my day off!

Best response of the day!

But for the record, your breasts will sag as the skin looses elasticity via loss of collagen and other factors through aging, regardless of whether or not you wear a bra. Mine comes off pretty soon after getting home, along with shoes. And probably pants.

I have to wear them, without a bra I feel all awkward! :S
Maybe because they are bigger? If I had smaller I wouldnt ever wear them. ( Except out, obviously )

Me, on a daily basis
New trick: wearing layers and avoiding stairs.

lol!
And when you must use stairs hold your boobs or cross your arms underneath for support.
yay for braless! :drinker:

I think I need one cuz after chest workout if I hit a bump in the road they bounce and I can feel the soreness. Just sayin...

Are you a professional breastologist? I am impressed with the amount of research you do! :flowerforyou:

That's funny! No, not a breastologist, not even sure if that's a word or a profession. I study health, science, nutrition, etc... My hobby is reading medical studies and studying the whys and wherefores of cause and effect when it comes to health. I put dozens of hours into the trivial questions and hundreds of hours into the important questions.

A lot of my research is to answer questions for my wife. We studied the bra question years ago, and I haven't given it much thought since. But this thread begged for the right medical information to be presented, and when I did, someone posted POIDH which i had to look up to find that it stands for pictures or it didn't happen, a polite way to say "BS."

Well, it occurred to me that if the scientific studies which I happily took at face value were true, and breasts perked up from not being held up, then there should be easily discernible evidence in the photographs available on the subject. I half expected to find the opposite because I had vague recollections of national geographic magazines showing saggy breasted natives back in the 70's and 80's.

I was startled by two facts: 1. That enough actual evidence existed so easily located, and 2. That the evidence was so crystal clear. While there are many exceptions to the rule, the vast majority of native images show perky healthy buoyant breasts, while the vast majority of western cultured images showed saggy droopy softer samples. Most exceptions had to do with age, lifetsyle, silicone implants, or pose.

That's what I meant when I said I had to apply critical thinking. If I located an image that was black and white and showed older pacific island architecture and clothing, I could trust that image was representative of an actual native who likely never wore a brazier. Contrastingly, if I located an image of a topless women of African descent who was wearing make up, or holding modern clothing, then the evidence of western culture made a strong case against assuming a native upbringing and such images needed to be discounted from the study. Also I favored standing images so that the effects of gravity could be properly interpreted in an apples to apples comparison. All breasts appear differently when pulled upon at different angles, such as laying down.

It takes a very short amount of time to locate a significant number of images representative of each category, those who regularly wear support and those who very likely never have, and to compare the general shape and form of the samples thus obtained. The difference will astound you! I told my wife about the research I did, and the studies in Germany and Japan and she actually immediately stopped wearing her bra, that she had only been wearing to keep breast feeding pads in place anyway. She generally goes without a bra at home 24x7 (Ever since the research we did years ago about cancer) and only wears them when wardrobe or occasion make it prudent, or when breastfeeding. But even now she has decided to forgo them even while breastfeeding, thanks to this forum making me do more research.

But it isn't so much about the shape of breasts that is at issue here. It is about their health and the relationship between circulation of blood and lymph fluids and cancer. Women who never wear a bra are 168 times less likely to get breast cancer than those who wear one every day.

Yeah, I guess some women can find it weird that a guy would post on a thread about wearing bras. While, I find it weird that just because of my different plumbing anyone would expect me to ignore a subject so profoundly linked to the health and well being of my wife, my mother (Who died of breast cancer), my daughters, my cousins, my sisters and other loved ones. I have never been one to ignore or shy away from "girly problems" or "girl issues" because they impact half the people I know. That would be like never learning about diabetes just because you don't have it. I believe that if it can affect someone you know, you should know all you can about it and do what you can to educate others about the possibilities and resolutions.

Going brazier-less as often as possible would seem to be the easiest most effortless thing you can do for your breast health! And according to the videos I was able to locate that were actually useful on the subject (a very difficult task when compared with just finding appropriate still images) topless women who have never put a bra on in their lives have even less bounce and jiggle than a good many women whom I see every day who are actually wearing bras, and bouncing all over the place. (And the natives were not overly small chested; their breasts were just more firm.

I know a lot of folks, even here on this thread, on both sides of the gender aisle, like to overly sexualize breasts. but lets remember that, the sexual nature of breasts is unique to western culture. Most of the indigenous peoples of the earth consider them not much more than food sources for their offspring, and living, as they do, in warmer climates they wear nothing above their waste. These same people are hyper modest when it comes to the private areas below the belt and so it is not a matter of immodesty to them, it is a different understanding of what modesty entails. And we would do well to live up to our standards, even while respecting theirs, and separating our western way of viewing breasts as secondary sexual characteristics from the fact that they are also an organ for milk production and that they have their own unique health concerns, like all other body parts.

Being raised the son of a La Leche league Leader, I was surrounded by women breastfeeding openly, by carved statues on our mantle & paintings on our living room walls showing the same thing, breasts were everywhere. We were taught from a young age what breasts were for and it was obvious by casual observation. It wasn't until I was MUCH older that I realized their was any other way to think about them. Even today, while I am attracted to nice breasts, like any red blooded man. I am not at all sexually attracted to seeing breastfeeding breasts, nor do I find that site awkward, at all. Despite sometimes being aware of the woman's embarrassment, which is completely unnecessary but also understandable. (We are the only culture on earth that relegates a natural act of love and nurture that is necessary to sustain life as some kind of dirty act or not much above the bodily functions addressed in the rest room. Drives me nuts. Breastfeeding is a wonderful, loving, pure, and sacred act, that ought to be appreciated for what it is. But our breast hang ups, and over sexualization of breasts make us see it differently.) Context defines a thing. That's the difference between a steak dinner and road kill, they are both dead meat, but one makes you squeamish while the other makes you hungry. For me the "context" of the breast I'm seeing controls whether I see it as arousing, disgusting, or merely interesting. Everyone understands this "context" thing at some level, but some require more extreme examples before they really understand how you can separate one from the other. Or more precisely how I can look at hundreds of breasts and not ogle them for my own sexual arousal. These are the same folks who don't understand how a male OB/GYN can look at female genitals all day and not be aroused. Are you kidding me?! CONTEXT!

Context Related Examples:
1. Surgery to save a life may involve cutting someone open; while that act could be part of a mugging, a murder or gang fight.
2. Sex vs rape. These are VERY DIFFERENT acts, but ONLY based on context, because the anatomical reality is identical.
3. Medicine or poison. Taking a pill to heal, or to kill, as in suicide.
4. Dance Vs.Seizure. The rapid gyration of muscle groups in the body can not be accurately interpreted without context.
5. Stabbing a needle into someone's heart. You could be administering Epinephrine to save a life or simply trying to kill them?
6. Shooting someone with a gun. Self defense or murder? The intent (context) defines the thing.

None of us sexualizes every pair of breasts, or every back side, or every pair of eyes, hands, feet, legs etc... Context controls our attraction, repulsion or neutrality. (If this were not true, women would actually be atracted to "flashers" in the public park, right? The Flasher is hoping to be lusted after but the victim is merely disgusted! Cops run into this with drunk women flashing their bare chests at them. It the cop realy atracted to that women about to puke all over herslef? Generally not.) We don't generally lust after mom and dad, sister and brother, aunt and uncle, or people we find too skinny or too fat for our taste, or the wrong color/race for our preference, or the wrong age for our opinion of compatibility, or drunk while we are sober, etc.... Context controls attraction. Thus while some may assume that a brief study of breast structure was my thinly veiled excuse to surf breast images for a thrill (they are welcome to their opinion). However, I was trying to answer the question of whether the evidence to back the studies, was in fact easy to locate in photographic form. And while I did see some attractive images amongst the hundreds I examined, the fact is that it was mainly a monotonous endeavor comprised of examining each photo for evidence of how old the photo was, geographic/racial origin of the people in the image, presence of western influence, general health of the woman in question, and then finally examining the evident breast structures in the context of the other evidence about the photo to build a body of data. It occurred to me that it would be easy to build a slide show with a series of images side by side comparing age groups to age groups and nationalities to nationalities, and to easily prove the case that bra-less-ness does in fact enhance the health and loft of the human breast. But who has the time for that!? The studies have actually already been done, showing that the same exact women could enhance their own breast health, comfort and loft/firmness by giving up the bra.

Now I am freed to move on to the next question of health science and learn yet another exciting thing to benefit my family. If you read my other posts you will find them equally verbose and of similar depth and reason.

95 percent of the time I go with out. In or outside of the house

Oh... I am almost always bra-less any time I'm at home!


Commando too!

Ditto!

Me too. Can't stand being trapped in that stuff. Less clothes the better. Lucky I live where it's warm.

Oh and off as soon as possible, unless I'll be heading back out or someone is coming over. Don't care much for socks, either.