Should bras be a no-no?

[Ice.Maiden]

For some reason, there were several studies carried out in 2013 to find out whether wearing a bra did women any good. It seems that the answer's no.

Those who go bra- less have better defined nipples, and average 7mm more lift than those who choose to wear the garments.

Several newspapers reported that contrary to general opinion, breasts DON'T sag before time if a woman goes au naturale, and wearing a bra just hoists them up for a more youthful appearance. So have we been misled for years, or are us women too vain to go without? What do you think?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... -good.html

[Kellemora]

All I know for sure is Double-Ds sag a whole lot faster than Triple-As, hi hi...

[Ice.Maiden]

:lol: Hello Gary.

Yes, well the obvious weight difference'd cause that, but whether a double D or an A, I wonder if going bra-less really makes any difference to the sagging that each size'd naturally show as time went on?

If a person wore a double D bra, against someone who had the same chest measurement but went without a bra at all, I wonder if the droop'd be noticeable? The surveys found that wasn't the case, but I don't know ....

[Yogi]

The article claims that the researchers were scientists. We can thus hope they did a classic study and compared results against a control group.

My own opinion is that bras are themselves are often pretty and add to the visual appeal of the woman overall. But this fixation with women's breasts is something not easy to understand. We all know, especially us males, the sex appeal and erotic value of well defined breasts. But why does that occur? They are sensitive organs and play a role is sexual arousal, which in turn may suggest a kind of male dominance. But, there are many many other parts of the female anatomy that are just as sensitive if not more so. Why would breasts, and the need to enhance them with bras, have such precedence?

[Kellemora]

I wonder what the world would be like if women tried to hide their breasts and men wore enhancing underwear for their private parts? Hmm, like those gourd wearers in Africa maybe, hi hi...

I think most if it has to do with with Media using breasts to sell nearly everything.

[Ice.Maiden]

Men and woman were put on the earth to procreate. Whether they decide to or not's irrelevant. Nature not only gave fuller breasts to women so that they can feed their young, but for sexual attraction.

In tribal communities, bare-breasted women aren't seen as anything special, but their attractiveness in other ways is. I watched a fascinating documentary about this. The menfolk were attracted by the feminine adornments that they wore, and the women liked men whose skin'd been pierced and patterned, so different societies have a different slant on what looks sexy and inviting.

If us women all walked around showing our breasts off, eventually, the novelty'd wear off. It is, as Gary says, still a relatively new thing, in that if a woman exposes parts of her body which're usually hidden, it's bound to make people look, and bound to cause arousal in some men, simply because they're privvy to seeing something "different" and not hidden away.

However, if you wander onto a beach full of topless women, the looks might still occur, but no one really takes too much notice, because it's en masse. I've been on a naturist beach, and no one took any notice of the next person. Whole families were walking around naked, which felt uncomfortable at first, but a few hours later, it just seemed like the most natural state to be in, because it wasn't "horrible" or "sexy" - it was just bodies as nature intended.

You'll always get people - males and females - who view all nudity with a sexual connotation, but again, if it was there all the time, I think much of it'd disappear. It's not just bare boobs which attract. A feminine shape, full stop, is there for a purpose. The hour-glass figure is still the most desirable shape for the majority of men (although not all), but by flaunting it, the women make themselves appear "available". In many respects, you can't blame men for looking and wanting, and I don't agree with feminists who say that we should be able to walk around dressed how we like without the chance of being groped or worse. Yes, we SHOULD be able to, but the fact is, it draws the wrong sort of attention, and men sometimes lose control.

I'm not a prude. If I see a female who's showing it all off, I don't tut-tut and make snide remarks. I can say to my husband if a woman has a good figure or looks nice, and there's no jealousy connected at all, but I sometimes think that us women're our own worst enemy. Many think that this's all that men're after, and deliberately show off their attributes, but come the end of the day, they're usually the ones who're left on their own, older and desperate.

[Kellemora]

I was on a couple of missions where you find the oddest things, some of which never made their way into National Geographic hi hi...

Took three of us forever and a day to figure out what a group of young girls found so funny about us, they giggled every time we turned our back in their direction to face someone else, or after we walked past.

At first we figured it must be our short haircuts, but that couldn't be it, because most everyone's hair was short. Most of the elders had longer hair, but not all of them. Hard to tell with their cloth headpiece.
One of the missionaries was showing a pictorial flip chart to a lad slightly beyond his teen years. He was wearing the cloth headpiece like most of the men. His back was toward a few girls some younger, some older, than himself. A gust of wind flipped the lower part of his headpiece up, he missed pulling it back down, and when the girls laughed, he used his other hand to cover the back of his neck.

It wasn't until he did that when we realize anyone over eighteen who did not have hair covering the nape of their neck wore the headpiece with the cloth covering their neck. With our crew cuts the nape of our necks were exposed, and to them, it was just something on your body not exposed. We never did figure out why, other than that was they way they were. One other tribe we visited everyone had their ankles covered, even if they were barefoot, everyone had their ankles covered. Never found out why there either.

It almost seemed universal, no matter where we went, how a woman combed her hair, or I guess I should say, the design of her hair, was some type of relationship state they were in. We never learned but a few of the hair style meanings, but we learned first thing, which ones to steer clear of.
Those who combed their hair forward first, then folded it back on itself leaving a long forward tilting pompadour were the, how do I put this, working girls, hi hi... Seems these styles covered an entire region.
How hair was braided seemed to be unique to each tribe, but probably also had meanings we never learned about.

[Ice.Maiden]

Interesting. Yes, I think the way that hair's worn can give an "image" of those who're sporting it. It happens in our society as well.

If you see a girl with her head shaved, accompanied by piercings, tattoos and the rest of it - what springs to mind? Someone trying to look "hard"? Someone who's so outrageous that they simply look stupid, and therefore it swamps their better attributes? Do you give this person a wide berth, or make jokes? In these type of cases, I think the women're just putting a stamp on their "individuality" or wanting attention.

In tribal/indigenous situations, hairstyles, body adornments and the way that clothes're worn can signify status and attractiveness.

In India (and other places), a married woman'll decorate the chakra area on her forehead with a bindi. It used to signify marital status, but this doesn't always follow now.

I find these sort of traditions nice.

[Yogi]

Erica @SCbchbum
I’ve discovered, the easiest way to change a flat tire is by not wearing a bra.

I found this on twitter. There seems to be more than the obvious reasons for not wearing bras

[Ice.Maiden]

:lmao1:

Good one!