Talk:Bra/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Size and measurement" paragraph (note on cup size vs. volume)

The line: "Note on cup size vs. volume, in US fluid ounces and cubic centimeters - A = 8 fl. oz. = 236 cm³, B = 13 fl. oz. = 384 cm³, C = 21 fl. oz. = 621 cm³, D = 27 fl. oz. = 798 cm³"is totally non-sensical. Cup sizes do not have specific volumes, they are proportional to the band size. A 34D, for example, has a smaller volume than a 36D or a 38D, therefore to say that a "D cup" has a volume of 27 fl.oz without giving a band size, makes no sense whatsoever and is extremely misleading. Zoggi the mouse (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Back Pain

In a study[59][11] of 103 women seeking breast-reduction surgery (reduction mammaplasty) for pain, one woman never wore a bra, but of the remaining 102 all were wearing an incorrect bra size. The underband was too tight and the cup size too large. The larger the woman, the worse the fit. The result was a bra that compresses the breast and distorts it by compressing the breast against the skin of the chest wall.

This statement goes against all other evidence. The most common fitting problem and the cause of back pain is the opposite of what is stated here - ie wearing too big a back size and too small a cup size. I am certain that this must be a mistake, because it simply contradicts the way that bras work. Bras are designed to support the breasts through the tension of the band, it is when the band is too large that back pain occurs, because the back rides up and the cups weigh down on the shoulder straps, causing nerves to be pinched and the wearer to hunch forward. The breasts would not be compressed by a too-small band - that would only result from too-small cups.

The NHS Royal Free Hospital reported of their patients referred for breast reduction: "To date, 100% of those fitted have been wearing the wrong size, overestimating the width of their back and underestimating cup size. This results in the weight of the breasts being carried by the shoulders rather than supported around the chest, and contributes to back pain." Bra fittings for breast reduction patients at the Royal Free Hospital. Zoggi the mouse (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the abstract from the study which is quoted as [11] above, "An investigation of the suitability of bra fit in women referred for reduction mammaplasty"

Reduction mammaplasty is rationed in NHS plastic surgery provision, despite abundant evidence that most women who undergo this operation obtain significant improvement in their physical health and quality of life. We suspected that women seeking reduction mammaplasty often wear ill-fitting bras, which may exacerbate some of their symptoms. Therefore, we studied 103 women who attended a nurse-run pre-assessment clinic, asking them what size bra they currently wore and then measuring them to see whether their bra size was correct. We also questioned bra manufacturers, designers and shop bra fitters about bra manufacture, sizing and fitting techniques, and we reviewed these findings. Of the 102 women suitable for inclusion in the study, all wore the wrong size bra. Their mean ‘claimed’ back measurement was 36 inches (range: 30–42 in.) and their mean cup size was F (range: C–J). We found that all but one underestimated their back measurement (by a mean of 4 in.; range: −2–10 in.) and overestimated their cup size (by a mean of three sizes; range: one size smaller to seven sizes larger) when compared with manufacturers' fitting guidelines. Multiple regression analysis used to assess the relationships of various factors to incorrect bra sizing showed a strong link (Pearson CORRELATION=0.54; P<0.001) between obesity and inaccurate back measurement. The reasons why women with breast hypertrophy wear incorrectly fitting bras are discussed. We conclude that obesity, breast hypertrophy, fashion and bra-fitting practices combine to make those women who most need supportive bras the least likely to get accurately fitted bras, so exacerbating the symptoms for which they seek surgery.

It becomes clear upon reading the abstract that the researchers did not have even the most basic knowledge of bra fitting required to undertake this study. They describe the process of comparing the bra sizes worn to the patients' measurements, rather than examining how their bras actually fitted, something which any bra fitting expert will know to be totally futile. It seems that they are referring to the conventional measuring system which requires the addition of several inches to the underbust measurement, usually 4 or 5, which is inaccurate to say the least. The majority of women require a band size two or more sizes smaller than that dictated by the measurement, so no wonder they were thought to be wearing a band which was too tight.

This study is totally flawed and should not be included. Zoggi the mouse (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Metric vs. Imperial

As per the Manual of style, both measurement systems must be used in this article. The focus is otherwise far too American/British rather than Intl. Luke w (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Images resizing

I've copied this from my talk page, to explain the 2 reversions that I've done recently. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I intended to make the images a consistent size, not smaller, by adding the 140px dimension to them. I should have used a larger dimension. In reverting my change, you also removed a new image I'd added. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have my default size set to 300px, so setting any fixed size forces them to be smaller. Besides, the default is 180 so 140 made them smaller. If you want images to display larger for you, go to my preferences, click the Files tab and change your Thumbnail size setting. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, "upright" images are supposed to be scaled differently to normal images, and fixed sizes are not desirable unless to resolve a specific problem with a page, per WP:MOS. Oh, and I can't see relevance of a photo of someone not wearing a bra to an article on bras. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Braless image?

User:Btphelps has, for the 3rd time, added a photo of a woman wearing a top without a bra. Given that this article is specifically about bras, I don't see the image as relevant to the article. I have not reverted the addition, or removed the inappropriate forced pixel sizing from the image. I'd like to know if anyone else other than Btphelps thinks that the image belongs on this page. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

T think that it should definitely be there, that image should be back right now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.94.59 (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's okay but it's in the wrong section. I'll move it. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the braless image. It's completely contradictory to an article about bras, plus it's rather unattractive. This article needs 4-5 more pictures of suitable quality IMO. Digital^NinjaWTF 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Isnt the unatractiveness of a bra-less woman the point of the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.84.8.64 (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding section "Shoulder Pain"

The section on shoulder pain opens with a sentence stating that the weight of the breasts is meant to be supported primarily by the shoulder straps. Not only is this simply not true, it's also contradicted by an earlier paragraph linked to by the sentence in order to support this claim, as well as a later paragraph and at least one of the references included. As the remainder of the article and the reference state, the weight is meant to be carried by the chest band.

However, since this incorrect statement appears to be the basis for the entire paragraph, I'm not clear on how to rewrite it. --Belthazar451 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting image discussion.

I dont mind the image in general, but could one find another girl wearing a bra without the underarm hair? It degrades the article , sort-of... JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bra sizes

This section was very fragmented. I tried to bring some order to it but it is still somewhat choppy. More later. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section since the ONLY citation was a breast augmentation website and it had the average size of women in the US as a "B" cup, something which is clearly biased in that it would be in their best interest and the site doesn't clearly disclose their sources. I did find a TIME article, albeit 3 years old but still more current, citing that the average breast size was going up to the C range. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1208335,00.html?cnn=yes Here's another, even more recent news article from a different, legitimate, news source which also makes the same statement that the current American bra size had gone up to C http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/Feb/20080210Puls004.asp Darqcyde (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have better sources, why did you remove the section, rather then correcting the data within it?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

19th century?

The second line in the intro states "Since the early 19th century, it has replaced the corset as the most widely accepted method for supporting a woman's breasts." Is this true? Is it a mistake and is meant to read "Since the early 20th century..."? Through the end of the 19th century, the corset was still in its heyday, right? LordAmeth (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That is problematically. The brassiere had exist in prehistoric era. But the first elastic brassiere been patented in 1803 and the first brassiere by cups been patented in 1808. The corset was new i 1837, but very rare in many years until MADAME CAPLIN received the only PRIZE MEDAL given for Corsets in the GREAT EXHIBITION of 1851. Before the corset all the weight hang on shoulders, as the corset was a liberation. http://www.flickr.com/photos/haabet/3521597414/in/set-72157608328223268/ Note: As many old corset for ordinary day use was short and been used together by a Brassiere. In 1909 been the fashionable dress general lighten (cause of growing price from the rearmament to WWI). And a corset in two parts, one corset and one propping up brassiere been more common.Haabet 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the bra was the most common women's undergarment for upper support until maybe the late 1920's; see Commons:Brassiere. Churchh (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Images redux

Shouldn't we edit the image of "sexy sam" or whatever it's called (the one that "illustrates" a caption about difficulty finding correct bra sizes) by cropping it just the upper torso and neck? Showing the woman's face adds nothing and might violate some policy or other, and the undone jeans are just a pointless distraction. None of the other images are particularly salacious, but this one, well, is. Huw Powell (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Which policy are you concerned about? The one that comes to mind for me is that Wikipedia is not censored (see WP:CENSORED). The jeans are less revealing than the photograph of a woman in bikini underwear. And most of the the other photos have womens' faces visible too. This photograph stands out in a good way by depicting a small busted woman. My only issue with the photographs overall is that they only have white women modeling. We could benefit from more diversity. Mattnad (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned about a particular policy, simply the appearance of the article. The open jeans aren't so much "revealing" as unnecessary. You're right about the faces. Also, you're right, it is a bit Caucasian-heavy. Huw Powell (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, the photo of the woman with her jeans unzipped is clearly non-encyclopedic. It's titllating. We don't need to see her in such a state of come-hither undress in an article about bras. Sure, Wikipedia is uncensored but we also require that the photos illustrating articles are appropriate to the subject of the article. This smacks of some teen's pervy pic stash. It is clearly sexual. If the article was 'bras as erotic clothing' I wouldn't object to its inclusion. But it is inappropriate here as it stands. If it were cropped to take out the jeans I would not object to its inclusion. 86.133.210.177 (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And how is an image of a woman in a bra not appropriate to this article? It's a bit funny that any hint of sexuality brings out the protests. If you can show me there's no connection between lingerie and sexuality, I'll accept your position that it's inappropriate.Mattnad (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You miss my point. A woman in a bra - brilliant, that's what this article is about. A woman in a bra with her jeans partially undone - not so. It is sexually suggestive and inapporpriate for this article. This article is about bras, so why show her lower half at all? And by the way - bras primary function is to support the breasts. Sexuality is a secondary matter. They weren't invented for the tittilation of men, they were invented for the comfort of women. So the article should only touch on sexuality, it shouldn't be its main focus. But as I said before, seeing a woman with her jeans undone has no place in an article about bras. Put your wank photos somewhere else on the web. 86.152.23.37 (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the article? To argue that bras exist only for the comfort of women is simplistic and one photo hardly changes the "main focus" of the article. The article explains in detail that Bras have much more than functional use and perception. There are entire sections dedicated to explaining how a bra has social, sexual, fashion and political aspects. I'll posit that it's good that the photo could be somewhat sensual since bras are sometimes use to promote a woman's sexuality. If you think I'm off base, how do you explain the entire lingerie industry that makes bras fashionable, sometimes "feminine", and dare I say it, "sexy"?

Let me further quote from the introduction the article's lede, "For some people, the bra has become a garment with erotic significance and a feminine icon or symbol with political and cultural significance beyond its primary function." But in the end, it's not what the picture shows, but your interpretation of the context. I agree that it's somewhat suggestive, but well within what's acceptable for an article about.....wait for it..... bras.Mattnad (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear you're not very good at reading clearly, are you? I say "And by the way - bras primary function is to support the breasts. Sexuality is a secondary matter." and you somehow interpret this as "To argue that bras exist only for the comfort of women is simplistic" (my emphasis). Your attempt at patronising me would work better if you yourself read more carefully. Of course I have read the article.

Let me try to make it clear. I don't object to showing how a bra reflects women's sexuality. But having a woman with her jeans undone is nothing to do with bras. Find a photo that shows a woman's sexuality through her bra, the subject of the article, not by looking like the first in a photoset of a Reader's Wife about to strip off. You are missing my point by a country mile. I am not against appropriate photos for matters of sexuality on Wikipedia. This one isn't appropriate for the topic being covered, that's all. 86.152.23.37 (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Get out much?Mattnad (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The image illustrates a women wearing a bra which is certainly pertinent to the article. What a viewer infers from the unbuttoned pants is something else. I reverted the removal of the image because consensus certainly had not been reached and the action to remove it was presumptive. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That the image shows a women wearing a bra is quite true. It's a poor example, though. The cover of Roxy Music's Country Life shows two women wearing bras, but probably would not really make sense here. Anyway, the image is undergoing a deletion discussion, so this issue may end up being moot. Huw Powell (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Brassiere for the buttocks

Is there such a thing as a support garment, like the brassiere, but designed for the buttocks rather than the breasts? If so, what is it called? 70.99.104.234 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called a Girdle. Bras and Girdles are Foundation garments.Mattnad (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

wider array of sizes and new marketing demographics

I'm not exactly sure where in the article this would fit but I have noticed a recent growing trend of smaller bras and also more designs aimed at the juniors demographic. I can't find hard and fast research to back this up, but it's pretty obvious with brands such as Victoria's Secret Pink, American Eagle Aerie, Candies, and Maidenform's Charmed line.

Something should also be included about the potential for variance between various manufacturers' bras of the same nominal size (e.g, a Victoria's Secret 34C may be the same, dimensionally as a Warners 34C of a similar design. Brendanmccabe (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bras in the Dress Code?

I've just heard of someone whose school (GED program) is ordering her to wear a bra. Any additions to the article on this topic would be appreciated. -75.57.7.223 (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Western bias of the article

This article suffers from strong Western, and especially U.S. bias. There is hardly any mention of the prevalence and attitude towards bras in non-Western countries. More could be said of the prevalence of Bra wearing in Asia, Africa, South America, etc. While the bra may be a commonly worn and accepted garment in Western countries, it is not as common in non-western world. --67.103.38.211 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a contradictory statement. On the one hand, you mention that the article has a bias against non-western countries, and then you state that the bra is not commonly worn in non-western counties. Given your statement that the brassiere "is not as common in non-western world", doesn't it follow that the article should not have to focus as much on parts of the world that do not wear, or care about bras? As an analogy, Japanese is spoken predominantly in Japan. Would an article on Japanese language have a bias against western countries if it does not cover how little people embrace it, in lets say, Central America? The bra is a western foundation garment. Other articles can be created to cover non-western garments (and there are). I'm personally not fretting that the article on Kimonos is Japan-centric.Mattnad (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the original postI'm incontinent and wear Tena Slip Maxi (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Brassiere#Calculating_cup_volume_and_breast_weight section - is this needed?

Seems like more of a technical "how to". Not typically encyclopedic for a layperson. Mattnad (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be too technical for the purposes of this article. Perhaps it ought to be summarized here and the relevant content moved to Brassiere measurement. Your thoughts? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (after the fact!)Mattnad (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the current Construction and Fit section. Most of it is dedication to measurement and sizing and could go in the the forked article. I think we need to have a single paragraph for this section given the there's now a main article on the topic.Mattnad (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, go for it. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahh..... nice to get that out of the article. Too much detail. There's probably room for more trimming, but this is a good start.Mattnad (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Compression of Lymphatic System Section - OR and poor sourcing

I have removed this section, Compression of the Lymphatic System. It blends standard information about the lymphatic system and mixes it with a couple of articles from fringe sources. As it happens, only a few sentences are about lymphatic system,

While bras prevent the breasts from sagging against the chest wall they may cause some negative health consequences. Bras that are too tight can compress the breasts and possibly constrict the flow of the lymphatic system, inhibiting its beneficial effect upon breast tissue."

One citation [1] is from a commercial nutrition site discussing the risks of pressure on the lymphatic system while simultaneously trying to sell a solution. The only other citation [2] contains a rambling range of concerns and opinions about clothing being too tight and the risks. It appears to be self published since Ken Smith is the owner of the site Breastnotes.com and therefor fails WP:RS. Neither of these articles cite any medical research on the topic.

The rest of the section is about other issues/concerns already covered in other parts of the of the article and have nothing to do with compression of the Lymphatic system (although they are at least better sourced). It does not meaningfully contribute to the article. When it comes to health issues in particular, we should ensure that we have reliable sources that cite research and not opinion.Mattnad (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Triumph survey of cupsizes

Critics of that survey by Triumph however point out that the data used in this survey is flawed. Cupsizes above D are readily available in British stores, so a British woman with a larger cupsize is more likely to wear a well-fitting bra in her correct size. The German bra-fitting community Busenfreundinnen has been most vocal in this critism, pointing out that they frequently find that German women who need a UK-G-Cup (EU J) make do with a DD two bandsizes too large. They have also found that women who need D and DD cups are relatively likely to wear A and B cups, because the women themselves do not perceive their breasts as "large", a perception skewed by the multiple G-Cup women stuffing themselves into D and DDs. The members of the community also point out that any research based upon sales of DD+ plus bras in the various countries is bound to be flawed since a significant amount of women with larger cupsizes around the world order their bras online in British online shops.

The source of this is 1) statistical analysis of user data of the German forum 2) Bravissimo - according to one of their employees most of their online customers are from abroad. 79.216.119.151 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad reference link

Ref #7 links to a canadian newspaper article about wikileaks and has nothing to do with bras. I'm not sure what the protocol is for this error (or potential vandalism?). --Brendanmccabe (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free and be bold when you see something like this to remove it, or mark it as a {{deadlink}} — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

more than 80% of women wear the incorrect bra size

Reference to a study of thirty nulliparous women aged 18–26 years. It is an exploratory study to determine the need for in-depth study of back and chest-wall pain due to incorrect bra size. The study does not support the statement that "more than 80% of women wear the incorrect bra size" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.95.171 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

True, the 80% figure is not supported by that citation. In fact, the figure is much wider than that. This is described in some detail on the article about Brassiere measurement, which states, "The results of a number of surveys and studies in many different countries show that between 70% to 100% of women wear incorrectly fitted bras." I'll update this. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems hard to believe that 70-100% of women wear incorrectly fitted bras. 100%? It seems that some women would be wearing a correctly fitted bra just by random chance. Maybe it's 70-100% of women do not know their correct bra size, however that still seems implausible to me. Up to 70%, maybe but 70-100%? Seems off. ScamperCat ^(meow) 01:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The average bra size, correctly fitted, is around 30E. Societal conditioning telling people that they pretty much have to wear the wrong bra size means that there is NO way a woman could be wearing the proper size by random chance. The 100% statistic is actually around the most likely-there are many women out there who do wear the correct size, but the number is so small and so overshadowed by society's constant 'A B is average, a DD is massive, every woman wears a bra band in the 32-38 range' that it'd be statistically insignificant. --Stealthy (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Was "30E" a typo? The band measurement is possible, but an E cup is huge. Anyway, average sizing should vary by country and to some degree bra styles. Just like shoes which can vary in size for the same person, I have to imagine it's the same for a bra. I did read an article in the NY Times about Japanese bras and fitting, it did corroborate your point about smaller band measurements. Do you have a source for your conclusions? Would be good to settle this since it's a significant topic.Mattnad (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably not a typo. You may *think* an E cup is huge, but that's mostly a size misconception. A 30E is quite medium-sized. Cup sizes are relative (up one band size = down one cup letter), and 30 band is in fact fairly small (but absolutely normal for correctly fitted, slim women of smaller builds). The 30E cup is as big as a 34C in volume (depending on sizing systems including DD or not), and they have the same cup volume as a 38A. Of course, the idea that anything bigger than a C is massive tends to interfere with women getting the right fit when their breasts are fairly normal-sized. Here's a link that should illustrate it a little better (warning, women in just their bras pictured): [3] The 32DD OR 32D breasts in the pictures (again, depending on sizing system) are the same volume as a 30E. They don't look that huge, do they? For an example of a very poorly fitting bra, see the first picture that illustrates this article. (The band size is huge, and not a wonder, Japanese women tend to be petite. She should probably be wearing the hard-to-find 30 bands, or even a 28.) With the right band size, she could easily be a C cup. Mirithing (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Problematic Anti-Bra Information

A lot of the "health" related information on this page seems dubious. Especially from this section:

Breast pain and brassieres

A poorly-fitting bra can aggravate mastalagia (breast pain) in some women, while a well-fitted bra, especially a sports bra, can alleviate symptoms. Physicians recommend women seek a better-fitting support bra that provides better support.

An informal survey conducted by Dr. Gregory Heigh, who practices traditional Chinese medicine and homeopathy in Tampa, Florida as a licensed acupuncturist, recommended that patients with breast pain take off their bras. "We did a bra and breast impact study, sending out questionnaires to the patients," Heigh says. "We've received 70 or 80 of them back so far, and the percentage of women who have said [taking off their bras] has helped is almost 100 percent." There is some anecdotal evidence to support the idea that not wearing a bra alleviates breast pain.

The first paragraph is ok, but the second is just odd. Why should the results of an "informal" study from an acupuncturist be listed here? And after reading the first few sentences, it doesn't even make a lot of sense. Yes, maybe taking off your bra can reduce your breast pain, but maybe the reduction in breast pain was due to something completely unrelated, who knows? The results were self-reported. Anyway, this info is not well sourced and should be removed. This holds also for the "anecdotal" evidence that not wearing a bra reduces breast pain.

This article really does seem to have an anti-bra bias. I hate to dichotomize it that way, but that was the feeling I got when I read this article. It gives the overall impression of "bras are bad for your health and unnecessary to boot". Maybe I'm seeing something that's not really there, but that's still the impression I got when I read it.

As a bra-wearer, I have to say that I am pro-bra. I don't assume that means that every bra-wearer is pro-bra or even that every woman needs to wear one, but it seems to me that many women wear bras because they provide support and comfort. ScamperCat ^(meow) 01:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph of "Breast pain and brassieres" does look dubious, and I would suggest that neither of the two references cited are reliable. My suggestion is to delete that paragraph. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing WikiProject Sociology template

I've removed this template from the top of this page. While sociology is interested in social aspects of fashion and clothing, and there could be (or maybe is) sociological research on brassiere, by themselves they are not any more of interest to sociologists that most other pieces of clothing, or most material objects (social facts) in general. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Using images effectively

It seems like all of the images in the article relate to specific text in the body except for the lead image and the photo of the Calvin Klein model. Obviously the lead image is fine since it's supposed to be a general illustration. The Calvin Klein photo, however, just seems to be a random addition which isn't illustrating anything in particular. I would suggest removing it or replacing it with something more related to the text. Also, the photo illustrating breast asymmetry seems to be perfectly symmetrical. Illustrating breast asymmetry with a photo of normal breasts is confusing. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the asymmetry photo, as it seemed to be a misleading illustration. Perhaps a better photo could be found for this. Any thoughts on the Calvin Klein photo? Kaldari (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The first picture is a pretty good example of how a bra should *absolutely* not fit. May I suggest using a picture of a correctly fitted brassiere? Mirithing (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Stupid, sexist picture choice

That first image does not illustrate how a bra works. The women is pushing up her breasts with her arms. There are plenty of images out there where you can actually see a bra do it's job - why not use one of them? Oh yeah b/c this is wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.123 (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to change it. Would any of the images in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Brassieres be more appropriate illustrations? Kaldari (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As the article notes, brassieres no longer serve solely functional purposes, but have become garments that women wear for cultural and personal reasons. Some bras are designed to emphasize the breasts, others to minimize them, some to camouflage them. I don't think there any one image that will satisfy all these purposes. AltSkitMan (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the IP is correct that the first picture isn't really demonstrating the bra's functioning, it's demonstrating the woman's arm-squeezing function. I agree that it's a bad picture and should be replaced. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we'd also need a picture showing a brassiere off one's body, or maybe one on a model in the shops? The picture demonstrating the function may be put together with it. And I do agree with replacing the current illustration.Roger Federer Xu (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Dramatic new findings

This article's history section has been rendered out of date due to recent a discovery: http://www.thestate.com/2012/07/18/2358921/600-year-old-linen-bras-found.html#.UAbbj7R5GSq

The bra is about 500 years older than previously thought. --74.0.139.105 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sagging breasts

Why are there at least 3 separate places that the whole "some women wear them because they think they prevent sagging breasts, but actually that's not true" mentioned? We only need that once in the article. This is not the only instance of duplication in the article, but the one that stood out to me. Any suggestions about which section to keep? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Cultural differences

I think this article would be really enhanced by a consideration on wearing bras or going braless in different cultures. I'm sure it signals different cultural signs in countries in Asia, Africa, North America, South America or Europe. Going braless in France is probably more acceptable than in a more conservative country like Singapore. I don't think every country needs to be represented, just a sampling of the variety of social norms in different cultures. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WT:MED

FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WT:MED. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead picture

The lead image, as it currently stands, isn't the best image for a lead and should be changed if a better one can be found. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, "Lead images should be ... appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". The current lead image shows a woman pushing her breasts together with her upper arms while wearing a bra. It doesn't show how a bra itself changes breast shape (e.g., lifts, creates cleavage, supports, etc.) or illustrate the "anatomy" of a bra. An image that performs one of those two functions would be preferable over the current one. I'm going to see if I can hunt one down over at the Commons' category of images related to brassieres. Happy editing! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel like searching through commons to find one, but if you can find one, I think we should replace it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

possible image? is one possibility; it is licensed appropriately, we could crop and just show the bra part of the image if necessary. other pics are available on flickr, I didn't find any in commons that were better yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Something like this or this might be more suitable/illustrative - Alison ^❤ 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should shy away from showing a real model, but it should not be a sexualized or glamorous image. Check out Flickr maybe you will find something better - unfortunately for us, most high quality images of women in bras are selling sexiness.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Bravo User:Alison for great article improvement!

Much more appropriate pic for lede pic. Sets better tone for all the rest of the article. (claps hands). Soranoch (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would also like to see this illustration in the article. At present it is only in the Brassiere measurement-article. But it is one of the most informative illustrations we have on bras (IMO), so I think it should also go into the "main" article. Huldra (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it's a very particular, detailed chart for F cup sizes, which represent a small minority of women. Better for the measurement article which is more specific than the general article.Mattnad (talk)

Well, actually no: it is also for the 38C woman (which is quite common). And that is what is so informative about it: not everybody knows how the cup-size varies according the body-size. Huldra (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation

I would like to see a citation for "In western cultures, about 10–25% of women do not wear a bra, either as a matter of preference or sometimes for health or comfort reasons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.55.243 (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and removed that paragraph; it's fine for some unsourced material to be tagged, but that claim is so specific, it needs a source before it can stay. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it came from this part in the article:

"Various surveys have reported that from 75% to 95% of Western women wear bras.[11][108][109]"

or at least that would support 5-25% of Western women do not wear bras. Wearing a bra and not wearing a bra are mutually exclusive states, so you do not really need another citation to say this in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.97 (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Japanese girl in a white E70 bra is unnecessarily sexualized

Even after cropping, so please will the people stop adding it back.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.42 (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternative

I would propose the photo below as an alternative:

The current photograph is low quality and has a price tag on it etc. etc. Mattnad (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Current lead picture is excellent. Desexualizes, illustrates exactly what the topic of the article is, avoids this panting man-boy stuff.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You suggested a Wonderbra advert as an alternative to unnecessary sexualized imagery? Did you even read what this thread is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.137 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd still prefer a photo of a bra on an actual woman. The lede photo right now is rather ugly. We just need to find a photo that is rather plain, and not something you'd find in a victoria's secret catalogue. Jockstrap, Briefs, Boxer_shorts, Bikini_(underwear) all have a lede image with a human model.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The current lead image is ideal. I think some people will just always oppose the removal of such images, but this article is about the garment and should stay focused on the garment. Perhaps such images might be appropriate on other articles: Cleavage (breasts), Sex in advertising (and the related articles from there: Exploitation of women in mass media), etc. And may I also point out that what goes on on other articles holds no weight when deciding about changes here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.137 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not a good use of WP:OSE, which is really mostly meant for use in deletion discussions. It is appropriate to note that other articles about similar articles of clothing have not eschewed the use of a model, as this is an indication of broader silent consensus, and consistency is not a bad thing. It seems the initial opposition to the image was simply the fact that she was pushing her breasts together, not that images of women in bras are generally a bad idea. If you don't see how the garment works on a person, you're sort of missing the point of the garment. Another similar example is at Bustier, where the image is rather plain but still it shows how it is worn. I just think we need a more plain-style photo of a woman in a bra. Something like this [4] (but that one's not free)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

For starters, answering the Anon editor, the photo I suggested is not from any Wonderbra advertising and it's a free image in the commons. I'll also add if anyone thinks it's unnecessarily "sexualized", well, then I think they have a problem showing bras and their function. The photo is far less provocative than a typical beach-ware photograph. This push towards bad photography is not a requirement for the article. As for Dan Muphy, the please leave the "panting-man-boy" comments at home. Insulting editors is not a way to influence others.Mattnad (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree the wonderbra isn't sexualized, but it is a wonderbra; for the lede image I think we should have a regular bra that doesn't attempt to enhance...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

All bras change the shape of a breast.Mattnad (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no "broader consensus". You cannot use other articles to govern what happens here. There is a consensus here not to have such images. Also, the image on bustier is not on a human model. It is a mannequin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.181 (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The recent image change to the mannequin did not try solicit opinions or get consensus - it was just done, and a couple of editors agreed with the change. I for one did not, but I was not going to get into an edit war over it. But there are at least three editors in the last day who think your preferred image is not good. I will also point out that for years before this change, a woman wearing a bra was the lede image. I'd be happy to create an RFC on this, and you'll find that most editors without an ax to grind will prefer woman in that picture. Mattnad (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation is wrong. Reading this page, there are only 2 who have said they don't like the image (and they don't agree on any alternative). Everyone else prefers the current image. The only vaguely credible reason posed against the current image is the price tag, but since the actual price is not visible, nor any brand, I think we can tolerate this. The real reason I am guessing is that some people want a picture of female cleavage, as they are used to and expect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.250 (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So you've forgotten this [5] revert that you did yesterday? That's 3 by my count. You have a very short memory.Mattnad (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As the person who changed the image to the current, mannequin one, I think it's perfectly acceptable. It's non-sexualized, shows correct fitment of the garment, shows a full-cup fitting with correct under-band placement (unlike the previous) and doesn't have issues around personality rights and model release. This is an article about the garment of clothing, not tits, tits, tits - Alison ^❤ 21:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Alison here--the lead image should show a bra portrayed in as neutral a manner as possible--that means no special pose, no unnecessary accompaniments, and no specialized lighting. While I don't inherently object to the use of a bra worn by an actual woman, it would pretty much have to be a woman standing straight, arms at the side, looking straight ahead, shot in a "pure" lighting. All of this isn't because there's anything wrong with a "sexualized" image, and such images might even be useful later in the article, but the lead needs to present in as simple and neutral a way as possible what the subject of the article is. The lead image should not imply (as the prior image did) that the primary purpose of a bra is to increase the perceived sexual attractiveness of the woman. It also needs to focus on the bra, not on the woman the bra is being worn on (as I believe the previous image also did). So the image that Alison added is a definite improvement, over both the prior image and the alternative suggested above. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to show any human model. You can see just as easily how this garment is worn on a mannequin. It is likely that any image offered will not be representative of most women, but rather the methods by which lingerie is marketed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.97 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the rimply skin/fabric is really horrible looking frankly, and the picture itself does a poor job at showing how a bra actually works since it's not on a real woman; it's quite an ugly image. What would you think of something like this: [6] - I agree it should be as plain as possible; one could drop it to just show below the neck. The IP would do well to not ascribe stupid motives to those editing this page; it is easy enough to find dirty pictures elsewhere on the internet (and on wikipedia), that's not why we oppose the current image. Alison, your points are well taken, but the issue around personality rights and model release does not apply, as otherwise we'd have to eliminate all clothes-wearing-models from the wiki. Especially if the face isn't visible, I don't think we'll have an issue. I just think putting a bra on a real woman helps the reader understand a lot better than a fuzzy picture of a bra on some weird wrinkly mannequin.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

But you do have stupid motives:

• "the mannequin is weird" - it's a mannequin. It's fine
• "fuzzy" - the image is not at all fuzzy
• "personality rights do not apply" - personality rights apply to any image not clearly taken in a public setting where a person can be identified.
• "ugly image" - It's not an ugly image, you just expect some advertising standard sexualized image.

The current image is fine, and there are no benefits to getting a picture with a human model, it offers no improvement in understanding the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.97 (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith but you're acting like an ass with your continued comments and attacks. Please stop telling me what I expect, as you'll notice several times I have mentioned that the image should not be sexualized. As for the model release issues, my point was that this is not a good argument for removal from the lede; if the image in question has a questionable model release, the image should simply be deleted; whether it shows up in a lede is orthogonal. As to whether the current image is fine or ugly, we're going to have to agree to disagree, but it doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

When did I attack you? I started this thread because some anonymous people (possibly the same person) keep re-adding the old sexualized image against the agreement earlier. It was not intended for a minority who were unhappy with the previous agreement to continue to argue against the majority for a different image. If we are going to talk about other things ... this article has been featured in Wikipediocracy as a testament to the male dominated sexist environment of Wikipedia. Therefore, I also think File:Young woman in dessous.jpg needs to go. This definitely is fuzzy, but I don't hear anyone complaining about that. The perfect image which shows how this garment can be advertised sexually is the famous Wonderbra one, I think we should keep that and scrap this non-notable one.

um, you said I had stupid motives, and you said I expect a sexualized image. I consider those personal attacks, so please apologize, strike, and cut it out. I don't care about that other image - I'm mostly concerned with the attitude that a woman in a bra is inappropriate for a lede about bras, which I don't agree with at all. The current image is just bad, in many ways; not only the distracting price tag, the small size,The weird wrinkly fabric, and the odd pointiness - it all adds up to a rather ugly image. A boring, sears-catalogue type image is what is needed, and I'm happy to find one with proper model rights but there seem to be a few editors who will fight against any image of any female models in the lede of this article. If we could get agreement that a female model is ok in principle, then we can start to scour Flickr and find something that works. Also you seem to think that advertising bras in a sexual fashion is somehow a bad idea, to that I can only say, good luck with that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have not attacked you. Above you freely called me an ass. I think if anything were to be called a personal attack, it would be that. However, I am not interested in making this personal, it is about the article. So more to the point, you call the non fuzzy lead image fuzzy, yet you do not say anything about the definitely fuzzy File:Young woman in dessous.jpg ? We should show how bras are advertized, and I believe one image, the famous Wonderbra advert which allegedly caused road traffic accidents when it was placed on billboards on roads, should be the image to stay. The other is superfluous.

If you can find some image of a women who is not air-brushed, malnourished eye candy in soft focus, and cut out all other parts of the image and focus on the garment, then this might be acceptable in my opinion, but I don't really anticipate any improvement from the current image. If by "pointiness" you mean the design of the bra is atypical, then perhaps a more typical design could be called an improvement. It looks normal to me though.

You have an extreme position. I can only surmise that you will be unsatisfied with any point of view that does not match your own. I'll set up an RFC so we can let other editors contribute to this dialog.Mattnad (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My position is that the 2 images I have posted here were not of encyclopedic nature. To a lesser extent I feel this is true of the image posted as an alternative here (the middle one). I don't think this is extremist.

And, if we are being accurate, let's say "so we can let other editors from the 90-95% young male editorship contribute to this dialogue". Or whatever the statistic is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.97 (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)