Talk:Bra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

See Also

I changed the See also: from a heading in accordance to The Manual of Style. Sorry if it looks like it's part of the History section—that's just the way it works. It is a see also for the whole article. :-) —Frecklefoot 18:40, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The server treats it as part of the History section this way. I think it is important that logical and formal sections correspond, otherwise the TOC is useless and confusing. I added some on this to the Manual of Style. - Patrick 21:18, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Now that an External link section has been added it is even worse: the general link is ridiculously hidden in the History section. I will change that. - Patrick 00:06, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Alternatively the internal link may be put just before the first section, i.e. just before the TOC. - Patrick 00:44, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The way it usually is, is that external links go last in the article. It's just nicer that way, and makes the distinction between our ideas and external ones more distinct :) Dysprosia 00:48, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, the way it's been done with the [1] following the History statement is perfect, just leave it like that, IMHO :) Dysprosia 00:49, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To clarify, I did not object against the external link, but against hiding "see also" in a section in which it does not belong. Patrick 00:56, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Norma Stitz

Kudos to whoever came up with this one:

• The largest bra worn by a woman, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, is a size 56WW, worn by Norma Stitz of the United States.

I appreciate the joke, but removed it from the page for obvious reasons. User:mmj

It doesn't seem to be a hoax as you said [1]. Could you please substantiate your view?-Rrjanbiah 05:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The name is apparently meant to sound like "enormous tits". Reminds me of when children at my school would leave notes in the office so that the female principal would wish a happy birthday to "Mike Hunt" over the PA system.

The page about this udder-ly endowed fictitious person is slated for deletion. I am also going to delete the joke from this page. Shorne 04:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See here [2]. For me, it is hard to believe that it's a joke. (Your phrases like "Mike Hunt" and PA are extremely colloquial to understand:-( ) --Rrjanbiah 06:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mike Hunt= My Cunt PA=Public Address System

• Norma Stitz is (God help us) a real person - although it's a fake name, of course. Whether she should be mentioned in this article is a separate issue. DS 12:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Guinness says the largest breasts belong to an Annie Hawkins-Turner (first saw this in 2003 edition) from Washington DC, USA. She has a bust measurements of 178 cm (70 in.), and an underbust measurement of 109 cm (43 in.). She should have a US size 48V (110V European) bra, but since they're not available, she uses size 52J (120J).

Now, I find it quite likely that she and Ms. Stitz are the same person. At least both have been given similar measurements in many occasions, like in this Ananova article.

Norma_Stitz - Read birth name.

adding information on Maidenform

I have added some information to enhance the section on the Maidenform company and the innovations of Ida Rosenthal, et al. rmcox 18:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Meaning in modern French

The word "now refers" to a baby's vest? I'd say it "came to mean" that, but right now it doesn't. I can't cite the reference but someone more familiar with French could chase this down.: a few years ago I read somwhere that as the French language had lost control of the word brassiere, which (as I read it) referred to a child's undershirt, the Acadeny came up with a new word for that and went with the flow (with the rest of the world) on the meaning of brassiere. ;Bear 16:23, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

A brassière is indeed French for a baby's vest ("undershirt" in Yankeespeak), although in Quebec it still has the older meaning of what we call a brassière in English. I'm not aware of any other words for a baby's vest in French, whether Academic or not. Chameleon 17:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cultural impact

The cultural impact of the brassiere seems rather iffy, just an off-hand remark of bra burning in the 60s. No mention of the Wonderbra? (That article isn't much cop, BTW.) The "cultural status" section of breast might similarly be expanded; there will probably be some overlap eventually. Why is our coverage of breasts so irregular? (Yes, that's a pun. Sue me. :-) JRM 14:48, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Physical Necessity

Could someone who knows more then I add in a section on whether or not bra support is necessary for females and what problems having a bra/not having one causes/fixes?--144.136.109.222 02:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All I can point out is common opinion: that without a bra one will sag like tribal africans one sees on national geographic. This is, of course, contradicted by tribal south americans, who have no such problem/benefit (depending on taste of course). If said south americans are any indication of people in general, there's no physical necessity. ^_^

For the record. Celerityfm 17:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The article points to non-conclusive evidence in research. This is certainly related to Body Mass, and Lifestyle. If the breast is heavier, it will certainly sag. It is certainly correlated also to manual labor, that requires body swing movement, like agriculture. If the subject in question is busy in embroidery, it wouldnt sag. It is a medical fact the old ladies not using bra are complaining from pain around the nipples. In this case normally the doctor advises to use a bra.--Connection 11:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire article ignores the link between breast cancer and constriction from bras. The incidence of breast cancer increased dramatically with the length of time a bra is worn. Compression of the lymphatic vessels within the breast tissue by the bra causes a build-up of lymph fluid in the breasts, resulting in pain and cysts formation. End the constriction from the bra, and the pain and cysts typically go away within weeks, if not days. It is simply a mechanical compression issue. And since the role of the lymphatics is to remove toxic substances from the tissue, impairment of this cleansing function of the lymphatics by bra-caused compression can lead to accumulation of these substances within the breast tissue. This is how bras lead to cancer. We live in a petrochemically polluted world, and are exposed to carcinogenic substances daily in our food, air and water. These carcinogens course throughout our bodies and are removed from the tissues by the lympatics. Compromised lymphatic function can impair this toxin removal process, leading to toxification of the tissue. Women who do not wear bras have the same incidence of breast cancer as men! I suggest readers see the book Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras (Avery/Penguin Putnam, 1995; ISCD Press, 2005), by medical anthropologists Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer. See also their website www.SelfStudyCenter.org.

Training bras as camouflage?

With regards to "Training bras for newly developing young girls seem like an oxymoron, and in reality aren't really meant for support as much as for camouflage" could someone please expand on this? Camouflaging what and for what purpose? I feel it's vague but can't come up with anything to add. Thanks. Celerityfm 23:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Camouflaging breasts! They are a good way to stand out in a crowd of teenage girls. Training bras are worn to press the breasts against the chest and hide them.

--Stereo 13:36, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense now. That is similar to the ace-bandage wrap technique. So training bras are more often used by people who have matured past the time they were intended to be used for! My understanding of training bras was they were intended to help girls get used to the feeling of wearing a bra before they wore one later. I think this phenomenon needs more study. I'll research it and get back to you :) Celerityfm 15:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok I figured it out. Did some hard research and found a book that discussed this very topic! I've digested it and I am going to communicate the ideas in the book and link to an external excerpt as well. Very interesting stuff!

--Celerityfm 18:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"The acquisition of a training bra by a girl is often seen as a significant turning point in her development, and a first step toward motherhood" How many eleven year old girls associate their training bras with motherhood?

Me, Personal effects on

Gosh, I never realized it was such a science... 212.159.91.204 22:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As the American people grow ever-larger in regards to weight.... mention should be made for the supporting of lard-laden man breasts. Being 50 pounds overweight I have noted my breasts are larger than many females. Of course, their being hair-covered precludes any direct comparison with female mamallian protrusions.

Medical studies

I've came accross these two papers: [3] [4]

I think a mention of such studies should probably be included in the article.

---

If no one suggests, I'm going to some serious modification to these pages. For one, the statements about bras not sagging with age is contradicted in the  Breasts article. Second, sources 1 and 2 are quite flagrantly unreliable.

Totally agree, the sources are clearly biased towards an extreme point of view. There may not be any medical studies, i wouldn't really no where to look, but it's pretty obvious that unsupported breasts sag with age, especially if the person does vigorous exercise without a sports bra. The article should be NPOV. Also this [5] is unreliable. It's on about breast weight being held on the shoulders - a bra doesn't hold the breast weight on the shoulders! A well fitting bra actually take most of the weight on the band round the body. Spute 21:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no research to show that breasts don't sag more or less after a lifetime of bra wearing. What common sense and basic observation should indicate to all of us is that a woman's breasts sag as she matures, despite having worn bras her entire life. So do bras prevent sag? I daresay not. User:btphelps 09:48 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Societal views on Bra wearing

The article could use better coverage of societal views of woman wearing/not wearing a bra in various cultures. This could include the following issues:

• Societal pressure to wear a bra regardless of physical need.
• How woman who often or always go braless are viewed including how some people label them immodest, slutty, loose, immoral, etc.
• Pressure by many mother or fathers on their developing daughters to start wearing a bra regardless of the daughters desire to do so.
• The modern changes in societal attitude towards going braless at times vs. the early to mid 20th century.
• How the sexual revolution and the feminist movement effected views on bra wearing.
• How some public high schools have tried to discipline female students who refused to wear a bra to school.
• How celebrities who were known for regularly appearing braless attracted special attention from the media and the public such the female stars of Charlie's Angels (Original TV version) or Charlie Dimmock of the BBC's Ground Force TV show.

I am in the process of trying to locate good resources on this subtopic maybe I will be able to address some of the issues I listed above myself but anyone who already has access to some good resources could go ahead and start something on this subtopic. --Cab88 12:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think these are good suggestions, but i think it has to be NPOV. Not too much of this 'bras are bad for you, society is wrong for trying to get you to wear one.', bras are very useful things, and the majority of women who wear bras are probably happy doing so.Spute 12:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A few comments:

• The "bad for you" issue and the "pressure to wear one" issues are not unnecessarily the same. Some, while not believing bras are bad for you, hold the position that wearing a Bra should be, with possible exceptions, strictly a personal choice and pressure from peers, society, etc. to wear one is wrong. This view should be mentioned without giving greater weight then the traditional arguments in favor of bra wearing.
• The article shouldn't assume that the majority of woman enjoy wearing bras. We can however present studies, surveys, etc. that address this issue. Also some people argue that woman's enjoyment of wearing a bra in many cases is a product of societal views of the subject and that if they had grown in say a traditional native society they might find going braless more enjoyable.
• The views of societies regarding bra wearing can be stated in a NPOV manor without taking a stance on the arguments for or against bra wearing.

--Cab88 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a sentence could be added on the general societal acceptance of cleavage, but the focus on nipple concealment.

Actually it's not just about nipple concleament. If you were to wear a 'microbra' which perfectly covered the nipples but little else of the breast, I'm sure you'll find there is still objection to it Nil Einne 12:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Ex-girfriend" Picture

I removed the image File:36D Brassiere in use.JPG because 1) I think we have enough images and 2) It's no a great picture (IMHO). The picure was added twice on this article by the uploader himself (User:Alkivar), that happens to be the creator of the picture. And, according to the image description page, the girl depicted is an ex-girfriend of him. I jsut expect user User:Alkivar not to act too defensive on his creations. Regards, --Abu Badali 12:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you removed it originally to replace it with the Leopard print bra photo (which imho is a crappier photo)... so I too can say dont act so defensive. The picture is merely 1 of 3 images in the article (and a picture is worth 1000 words). It is high resolution, public domain, and illustrative of a DEMI bra. My ex-girlfriend is not a wikipedian, or she would have uploaded it herself, as it was she told me "The photo on that wikipedia bra article sucks. I know you must have something of me that would look better" as she is a professional lingerie model (models for Fredricks of Hollywood these days I believe), I think her judgement is spot on here. Honestly what is your problem with the photo?  ALKIVAR™ 18:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be just about personal taste, but I really don't like the photography in that picture. Maybe it is the shadows, maybe the lightning, maybe the angle of view, maybe the model (or how she was cropped).. I don't know. And as the image (IMHO) doesn't seem to add information to the article (as we already have a good bra photograph), I felt like removing it. The fact that the picture was (twice) added by its own creator (you) didn't helped me to believe someone could like it on the article (but I will not draw into conclusions). I agree with your ex-girfried that the old article image wasn't good. But I do prefer the new one overyours.

There is no way this is a picture of a lingerie model. The bra is not particularly well fitted and the flesh contours show this to be a very average figure, albeit with reasonably large cup size, with some spread around the waist. The hair looks like a home or cheap salon colour job. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah and of course every model always looks like shes in a magazine... they never have days when they dont wear makeup *rolls eyes*.  ALKIVAR™ 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think it is more likely there is a bit truth stretching going on which underminds the explanation for the inclusion of the photo. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Your picture is still in the article, just as you (re)added it. If someone reading this discussion feels like removing it, let him do so. I won't start an edit war. --Abu Badali 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate your response, your argument "we already have a good bra photograph" unfortuntely doesnt hold water IMO. Would you say an image of a 1915 Rolls Royce (and only 1 photo of it) is enough to illustrate the concept of an automobile in all its shapes/sizes/manufacturers/etc...? It certainly shows a car, but not the extent of which it has changed and developed over the years. The same is true for the bra, there are many types/designs of bra (we're not going to go into different prints/patterns etc...) I think each should be illustrated so as a direct visual comparison can be made. certainly the leopard print at issue doesnt illustrate a maternity bra, or a strapless bra, or a ... (hopefully you see where I'm going here).  ALKIVAR™ 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You would have a better argument if it were a different kind of bra from the first picture. As it is, I think a better question is do you have the right to post the picture without explicit approval from your ex. It could be construed as harrassment. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is, the leopard print is a full cup bra, the striped bra is a shelf or demi bra.  ALKIVAR™ 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• The one problem I have with the picture is that the fact that the face has been so deliberately cut off, combined with the bad lighting, makes it look almost misognistic. It is a picture of nothing but breasts, completely devoid even of the most minimal features of the person wearing it. Though I don't think the leopard print bra photo is that much better, at least the combination of the angle and the shoulders/side/back/hair makes it look less like a cheesecake picture and more like a good illustration of what a "bra" is. Just my two cents. --Fastfission 01:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  That at least is a valid concern... The image was intentionally cropped to remove the face as she didnt want her face on wikipedia. As the subject is a bra and not the girl, again it was cropped to reference only the subject.  ALKIVAR™ 01:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I understood that was the reason it was done in that way; unfortunately, due to the subject matter, I think it made it somewhat more taudry looking than it would if it had a face or rest of a body, etc. In the same way that a highly cropped shot of David might also look considerably more taudry than the uncropped version). --Fastfission 04:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

All i've gotten is shit over this picture ... fuck you all its deleted.  ALKIVAR™ 03:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't be rude to other members of our community, ALKIVAR. This is not the way we are supposed to behave. Thanks, --Abu Badali 15:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, AlKIVAR give it a break. Wikipedia a site of happiness and unity of humans to create a better world through the written word- does that sound corny or what? Qwert11 07:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image should show more of the woman in question. Surely there would be many women out there who would gladly contribute an image of themselves in a bra? Many women seem to like showing of their bodies at other times! Qwert11 07:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For example of a next to perfect bra photo go to google images. Type pregancy bra and on the bottom row of the second page 2 from the left is the perfect bra photo. Can someone find somthing like it which isnt copyright? Qwert11 08:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree With Qwert. Go to the tankini section of wikipedia. The image is much better and far more natural.

Is it just me and the angle that I'm looking at that picture, or does the model in the in the leopard pattern bra have hairy armpits?

New Photo

I am new here but I think that we need a new photo for the first bra picture on the page. The leopard print just kinda looks cheap. And before anyone says it, no I will contribute one of myself. :P SallyB 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe get a girl isn't covered in moles and shaves too. Ick. :(

Anybody want to take a respectful photo of their girlfriend in a bra for this page?

Its about a bra forgodness sake, not the person wearing it. Get a clue.

The photo's fine by me. This article could definitely use more photos though. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Futher History

Could someone find out who invented/developed the Early Greek cloth/covering for womens breasts? If it was a male or female? As well as name of course - Timmah01

No personal information about such an inventor would now be known -- and it's rather doubtful whether there would have been one single "inventor" in the first place... Churchh 23:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Advertising

The user Lorieposes is persistently using this page as a means of self-publicity. Looking at the contribution record, the user has obviously been created solely for this purpose. I've twice reverted the changes and asked him/her to stop; if it persists, I will ask an admin to warn the user and/or seek a block on the user id. --Stephen Burnett 11:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

NOT Personal Advertising / Proper Attribution

As I stated in my edits, but what my attacker here fails to admit, is that my only "advertising" was identifying myself in the photographs I added to the article. I have since removed my name. So, what's their objection now??? I'm sure they'll find something. (Moreover, as they know, I contributed more than my name; I added textual content to improve the article. They make NO mention of that. And they delete IT out of hand along with what they supposedly do--but unjustly--object to.) I put my name there for proper attribution--not advertising, as explained in my edit. To blatantly accuse me in open forum without at least summarizing MY SIDE seems unfair and cowardly. Further, to question my ethics merely because I am a new user is equally unfair; one has nothing to do with the other. And I, unlike the some who question my ethics, identify myself openly. I am NOT here to do anything WRONG; I am here to contribute to articles I know something about. Brassieres I certainly do. I have written articles on the topic myself. Finally, it should be noted that objections to my contributions are coming only from a handful of MALE users. A call for warnings against me--or they--seems childish. Let the wikiway play out without threats to call in the admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorieposes (talk • contribs)

• I'm not "attacking" you - I'm simply reminding you that Wikipedia has certain rules and conventions, one of which is that articles are not there to give you the opportunity of publicising yourself or your website. As I pointed out to you, attribution of images is properly done on the image page, as you have now done; I don't consider it acceptable to have your name as part of the caption on the page itself. I take it that you will also be adding a tag releasing the images for use under the GPL. If you don't, a bot will be around shortly to remove them. I'm not going to argue that the photos are not an improvement - they clearly are - so I do hope you will provide the necessary tag so that they can stay.

• The reason I said I'd bring the situation to the attention of an admin was that you just kept reverting the article, with no apparent intention of discussing the matter or making any changes, and despite my having left two comments on your talk page. That in itself is unacceptable behaviour, and more than sufficient grounds for complaint (Wikipedia:3RR). It may seem childish to you, but that's the way it works. It wasn't something I wanted to do, but if someone won't discuss the matter, there is no real alternative. Now that you have decided to discuss it, hopefully that won't be necessary.

• As for putting your side, I'm not actually under any obligation to do that; I'm hardly going around saying things behind your back, and you have now had ample opportunity to put your own point of view. I would say that a little less hysterical squealing about injustice and male oppression, and a bit more quiet reasoned argument might be more effective, but that's just my personal view. I still don't consider the website link a particularly useful addition, but I will leave that for others to consider. --Stephen Burnett 13:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you help me fix the references in Types of Bras. The mutiple footnotes should be just one. Thanks for your help.

And about my images, if you don't like them, fine. Change 'em. But the leopard print bra is misogynistic. I'm not going to settle for it being here. Photos of a more typical bra is called for. Wikipedia is not a place to belittle women by likening them to animals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorieposes (talk • contribs)

The "leopard print bra" image is a free image, and, according to Wikipedia policy, it can't be replaced by a non-free equivalent. If you don't like the image,you may want to check this collection of free images of bras to pick one that pleses your taste. Also, unless you release the images you have uploaded under a free license, they will be deleted, as they are obsoleted by free alternatives. --Abu Badali 15:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bravissimo

Bravissimo's great in my opinion too, but Wikipedia shouldn't advertise it, i've removed the mention of the URL in the text, but put in a link to the as yet non-existent Bravisimo article. It'd be an interesting compnay to write about. Spute 17:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bras for men

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned in the discussion page already. I removed the phrase "worn by both men and women" from the header line for this article. I certainly don't dispute that some bras are worn by some men, but I think it is far from a matter of course, and certainly not common enough to merit a place at the head of the article. The statement as it stood was fairly misleading (assuming there's anyone reading Wikipedia who doesn't already know what a bra is and who wears them anyway), because it implied some level of parity in the number of male and female brassiere wearers. Even if the internet article referenced is taken at face value, it only implies that 40% of males may have gynecomastia, which doesn't really tell us anything about how many might be wearing bras. Contrast this with common sense, which tells us that approximately no men wear bras. Joachim Heck 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Please people, stop putting references to male bras in the first sentence. I understand some men might wear bras, but it's a major majority and the opening sentence isn't the place for these comments. Spute 20:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the point you're trying to make here 88.108.52.34, but Wikipedia has to maintian a neutral point of view. Yes we should include all relevenat info, but it has to be balanced, and the suggestion that bras are unisex is not realistic. The link that keeps being cited [6] represents a certain point of view, and we should acknowledge that. The simple facts are: most women need to wear a bra, most men don't. The vast majority of bras (probably more than 99.999% at a rough guess, are worn by women. Also i find that site a bit objectioanble in its suggestion that being gay is "weird", but that's another point. Please, be reasonable here. Spute 21:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I see male bras was reinserted - I have discussed this with others - this is NOT the place to discuss men and bras - it has its own article - it is out again!
Mgoodyear 14:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonyumous writes

==Male Bra Wearers== Valid source information shows men also wear bras - please stop removing this valid reference material.

We don't need an edit war over this, it has been gone over time and time again. The whole plan for this article is spinoffs, and that's where men in bras has gone, please read the discussion pages. Spin off articles are listed under See also, and pages that link to this site

Mgoodyear 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unisex?

Please stop putting that the bra is a unisex foundation garment. It doesn't sepcify male or female, it just says "A brassiere or bra is a foundation garment which supports the breasts.". What is unreasonable about that?

I understand your point that a very small number of men wear bras, but this is mentioned later in the article, and doesn't belong in the intro. The Automobile page doesn't say "An automobile is a wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own motor, which may be used for transport or for the sexual practice of dogging". Spute 08:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find the word 'Unisex' means it can be worn by either sex, which a Bra can actually be referred to as. And that Car explanation is a completely different kettle of fish. Theradioguy 19:57, 2nd October 2006 (UTC)

OK , the car example wasn't that great, but maybe the barbecue article should say:

"Barbecue (also barbeque, abbreviated BBQ or Bar-B-Que or diminuted chiefly in Australia to barbie) is a method and apparatus for cooking food, often meat, which may be used by men or women"

I find this unisex business rather ridiculous. A bra is the least unisex garment imaginable (unless you could suggest another?), so should we insert the word unisex everywhere? If we say bras are unisex, then what isn't? Maybe we should point out that the Eiffel Tower is unisex in some way, it is visited by approximately equal numbers of men and women (whereas with bras the gender proportions are more like a few hundred thousand to one, at a guess).

By inserting a reference to men wearing bras, you're confronting popular opinion, there's not necessarily anything wrong with that at all, but the context should indicate this. Putting the word "unisex" (without any appropriate citation justifying this term at any point in the article) in the first sentence of the article suggests that (a) approximately equal numbers of makes and females wear bras, and (b) bras are designed to be worn by either sex, both of which are clearly untrue. Even the link that has been provided (Article about Men's Bra's) acknowledges that it's uncommon for men to even have any need to wear a bra.

Please, if there's something encyclopeadic to be said about men's bras, or men wearing bras, then write it down and expand the article in a constructive way. Spute 16:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think the information about the bra replacing the corset is really necessary in the first line of the article either. I'm a little tired of editing that line though, so I'm not going to do it this time. Joachim Heck 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

so you're saying men can't wear bra's. urrrm, I think you and many others before me who have commented on this thread before believe they actually can. i read some of your silly comments about how they are apparently 'not' unisex, when unisex actually means 'for either sex'. and to your comment above if a man needs to wear a bra for bust support then he damn well can. i (even being female) agree that men should be able to wear bras if they need the support. User:88.108.57.57 00:44, 7th October 2006.

Men can wear bras if they want, that's fine. Some do wear bras. But we don't need to make this point in the first section of this article. It didn't mention sex at all until you added the unecessary comment about being worn by men or women. Please read the above points, and contribute sensibly to this discussion. Spute 08:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What bras are for

I thought it's fairly obvious that bras are to support breasts, but if anyone would like to discuss it, please do so. Spute 05:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Breasts do not need bras for support! Nature did not make women's breasts to require 20th Century lingerie for support. The real purpose of bras is to sell women a product. Women are taught in this culture to feel their breasts need a bra to be culturally acceptable. This is sales, nothing else. There is nothing necessary about a bra. It is merely a fashion accessory. The problem is that the bra changes the breast shape, which compresses the breast tissue. This causes circulation problems, including impairment of lymphatic function. You can't change body shape without altering body function. This is why breast disease is only a problem in cultures where bras are worn. No bras, and there is no breast disease. Bras, therefore, are to support a fashion industry, not to support breasts.

When i made the above comment i was actually inviting discussion from an editor who kept changing the article to the meaningless phrase "breast area", but i think you make a good point. I don't entirely agree with it, but if you feel this point of view is under-represented in the article then please contribute more. Lots of women wear bras for support, i think that is obvious. Whether they need them or not is a complex question, and doesn't have a black and white answer. Bras have an important effect not just in fashion but in giving confidence to women (maybe i should say "breasted people"!) and in making them more physically and psychologically more comfortable with their bodies. I think it's fair to say that "No bras, and there is no breast disease" is a massive over-simplification as well, but your points are interesting. Spute 20:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the sources for this? And what is this "breast disease"? If people are going to make wild claims like that they should at least be specific. And before arguing bras are unnecessary and only some conspiracy of the fashion industry then, please, whoever wrote that should try running for a bus braless with very large breasts, and tell me you don't experience a lot of discomfort.

Name of article should be Bra

That is, what i thought, the most common thing they are called. And articles are supposed to be called what most commonly refers to the articles subject. TrevorLSciAct 07:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree -- Bra is actually a disambiguation page, so that this article would have to take the title of "Bra (garment)" or something like that -- and what would be the point? I don't think we have to name articles by ambiguous abbreviations when there's also a common unambiguous unabbrevated form... Churchh 11:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sort of agree, How about having bra redirect to brassiere, with a message at the top saying Bra redirects here, for other uses see Bra (disambig) ??Spute 21:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This Article's Newest Picture

I'm not sure how you guys feel about this, but don't you guys think that it's kind of weird to have a picture of a guy in a bra in this article? For it to be one of the three pictures in this article draws a lot of attention to a phenomenon that I didn't even know existed. I hate to suggest it because I expect reactions to be mixed, but perhaps the section alone will suffice? Just putting the idea out on the table. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest that "drawing a lot of attention to a phenomenon that we didn't even know existed" was precisely the point of putting it there. It has recently become very evident to me that certain people are pursuing a particular agenda through this article. Although I'm not unsympathetic to their desire to propogate their views or draw attention to something they feel to be important, I do think that it's being done at the expense of the article. An article which claims to be encyclopedic should aim at balance, and the male-bra issue is assuming a significance within it which is grossly disproportionate to the situation as it exists in real life. Yes, there are a few men who wear bras; the phenomenon does exist, and the point has been made. That doesn't mean that the article ought to present an even-handed unbiased picture of the bra as a unisex garment which worn by both sexes, because it's simply not. Personally I am in favour of the picture being removed. --Stephen Burnett 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the picture. Since nobody's chimed in to argue that it should be kept, I assume this isn't a problem. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Measurements: Metric vs "customary system"

From what I can tell, only the UK and the US base bra sizing on the imperial system. I'm guessing that the majority of bras out there are measured on the imperial system simply because of the proliferation of US and UK lingerie retailers. Most European countries use the metric system. Australia uses something similar to the U.S. dress size and Italy uses some system that I'm still trying to figure out. I've yet to find good references for any of this, so I'm making no changes at this time. I'm working on cleaning this section up, though. Pippief (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting the statement. It's absurd and totally false. Until someone finds something better- there should be nothing about metric vs. imperial. And this article should NOT be using imperial measurements, metric then imperial- as per the manual of style! --Luke w (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let them eat cake

In France, it seems a Brassirie was where you buy cake etc, although that could have been a spelling mistake on one shop. 86.134.161.127 12:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In French, brassière is an old word for a bra. A brasserie an eatery (less pretentious than a restaurant). Lhmathies (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

only a quick edit

edited the spellof organisations to organizations :-D it hurt my eyes when i read that part. MikelZap 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Noted and reverted. Would people please read WP:ENGVAR before changing the spelling of a word that has been spelt that way for literally years. --AliceJMarkham 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Breast weight

Regarding the citation of "The Physics of Bras" by Anne Casselman in Discover, Vol. 26 No. 11 November 2005:
"But these weight values seem excessive. A single breast weight of half of 7-10 kg which is 3.5-5 kg is a gallon (3.8 liters) or more. Most women's breasts are below 1 liter, with the very largest approaching a gallon or 4 liters. The largest implants (not custom ordered) are under 1 liter."
(This comment was made from 66.53.223.185, at 23:50, 2 June 2007 (moved by ENeville 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)))

I agree. The numbers, though true to the cited article, seem off by several fold. ENeville 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For comparison, see numbers in gigantomastia article. ENeville 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked into it a little, due to the recent verfication-tagging of the statement on breast weight. What I found was that the largest implants most manufacturers make are 800 cubic centimeters each (3.4 cups in volume). (The vast majority of implants sold are between 300 and 500 CCs.) If you look at 3.4 cups of contents in the corner of a plastic bag, for example, you can see that those would give even a member of the itty bitty committee at least a full C cup, if not a D. Weight for those is 3.75 pounds for a pair in silicone, or 3.38 pounds if saline. Because the density of implants is not terribly different from the density of the real thing, even a 5 pound pair of breasts would seem to be approaching the far end of the bell curve, and the 23 pounds mentioned in the article sounds like some combination of obesity and/or gigantomastia. I'll look around a little more for something we can cite on the subject, because while the current text doesn't seem to be untrue, it seems a little misleading to list a weight which is around 8 times average without qualifying that statement somehow. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just been looking for information on this too (why I'm on this page actually :). A study into breast volume and weight was carried out in 1979 by Katch et al. (registration or payment required). The women in their study had a mean total breast weight of 484g, with the highest weight (in their 'high fat group') coming in at 845g. (There was significant variance (219g overall) in the figures within and between groups. Also, their sample of 45 18-31 YO is probably not representative.) They used a breast density of 1.017g/ml. While I'm sure that a significant number of large-breasted women would exceed these figures, 10kg - about 5 2l Coke bottles by volume - seems unusually large to me at least. Meloncholy 05:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

An anonymous someone just tagged this article as having POV issues. The last mention of any was in November, and the article was extensively rewritten in December; nobody has complained about POV during this calendar year. I'd like to hear what the explanation for the tag is. Anybody? Poindexter Propellerhead 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(Under "NPOV" above, an unsigned comment: "Seeing as the neutrality of this article is obviously in dispute, I added a POV tag. July 14 2007")

OK, so I slogged through the whole article, and I can see where the anonymous editor above was coming from, the piece did not impress me as NPOV. I also found the quality of references to be wanting, for example half a dozen citations to "AR Greenbaum" without naming any particular publication; or reference to a planned (but never completed or published, from what I could find) study by some osteopathy students. All of these references were to medical aspects, and there are LOTS of good, peer-reviewed papers on the subject, why not use those?

As the person who last extensively rewrote this, that is odd, since it was extensively referenced then and evidence based. Someone (hopefully merely carelessly) appears to have edited these. A simple search would reveal 3 articles by Dr Adam Greenbaum in the British Journal of Plastic Surgery. I have corrected that.

Incidentally bias requires demonstration of deliberately ignoring data contrary to the statements made. I don't see any evidence of that. I would be cautious about citing manufacturers as unbiased sources. I was going to say that this article appears to have attracted a lot of criticism perhaps related to erotic connotations or feminist iconography, however someone else called it 'political'. Eventually I abandoned defending the article because of people who insisted on imposing binary pro-bra/anti-bra POV instead of actually reading the literature. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I did what I could towards fixing some of these issues, but only had a few hours to work on it, and there's still a lot left to be done. Medical aspects, in particular, should conform to our standards for medical cites, they should not be to TV shows or popular books. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the issues with it left? Voice-of-All 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of the NPOV contention is that wearing bras is generally accepted by the vast majority of women in Western society, and the article does not reflect this reality. Sure there a few woman -- a small minority (too few, IMO) -- who go without on a regular basis. But the article loses credibility with what appears to me to be an disproportionate amount of content devoted to the anti-bra POV. --btphelps (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

General Anti-Bra status et al

There is a rather pronounced anti-bra bias in this article, which flies in the face of basic commonsense -- that not wearing a bra for a large breasted woman is simply inconceivable in daily life, in terms of social decency, physical comfort, and fashion necessity. This need to be explained in further length. As a woman with DD/DDD breasts, there is NO WAY I could ever go without a bra, even by the reasons listed by the medical professionals, or social researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.129.254 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that is personal choice, but it cannot be generalised. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed not Mgoodyear. I wrote that comment unsigned when I was doing preliminary reserach for a history of bras and corsets, and I can assure you in the strongest terms that bra wearing for larger busted women is not a personal choice. It is a necessity, instead of the convetional wisedom you dismiss it as.

As I said, people have strong views on this so it is important to filter out what are the facts. Therefore, having interviewed many larger breasted women, I disagree with you. Possibly everyone is seeing a biased sample of women. The Bristol study was able to persuade women to go without bras regardless of size. --Mgoodyear (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the article is that minority veiws are overrepresented so greatly that the entire article's NPOV and integrity is compromised. A major rewrite is needed. Your previous efforts on the article are to be commended, but considerable work needs to be done for even Good Status. Finally, your comment on the pro/anti bra binary is interesting, since with your citations you have managed to increase it by making the article so anti-bra biased that most readers dismiss it. Zidel333 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think people are confusing bias and balance. Balancing an article means representing the diversity of opinion not forcing it into a neutral position. We don't have to provide equal space to flat earth and round earth opinion. The level of evidence is very much favouring a round earth. An article deliberately suppressing what is actually being done in terms of studies would be the one that was biased. --Mgoodyear (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While Wikipedia's rules are to provide information first, rather then such things as 'social decency', 'fashion' or such cloud an article, the article in question does have an bias in it leaning more towards 'anti-bra' then being a neutral presentation of the facts. Most of this was because of a single user months ago that completely alter the article's structure, we know the bias is there, but it's extremely hard to remove without a complete rewrite on the article.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is a reference to me. And I would describe it as a re-write, and bias is often in the eye of the beholder as I have commented elsewhere. Unfortunately for some, conventional wisdom does not always stand up to critical examination of assumptions. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What you see as common sense is a not a view shared by everyone. For example, large breasted tribal/indigenous woman traditionally did not wear any sort of breast support and generally went about their daily lives perfectly content. The same can be said of nudists who generally also don't see bras as necessary. Even among mainstream western society (outside of the nudist movement), some large breasted woman go without bras some or all the time and thus do see it as conceivable. Concepts like social decency, physical comfort, and fashion necessity are all subjective opinions often derived from society. Not everyone agrees that wearing a bra is more socially decent, physical comfortable, and a fashion necessity. I agree that the article should be clear that the majority in western cultures share the view that bras necessary (at least some of the time) for social decency, physical comfort, a fashion necessity, or all the above but it should also be clear not every culture or even every western Women shares this view. The article as it was originally, was heavily biased towards the view you share and was later expanded to include alternate views. What it probably needs is more info on the arguments used by bra advocates to support their claims regarding the necessity and benefit of bras. --Cab88 11:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me a little of the teach the controversy strategy used by opponents of the theory of evolution. A minority view that bras are unnecessary or bad is given too much weight. I know it's hard to remove material once it has been included, but perhaps we should just trim out some of the negative commentary to create a more credible balance. The observation that some cultures have alternatives to the bra should be a paragraph and no more than that. Mattnad 13:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of the NPOV contention is that wearing bras is generally accepted by the vast majority of women in Western society, and the article does not reflect this reality. Sure there a few woman -- a small minority (too few, IMO) -- who go without on a regular basis. But the article loses credibility with what appears to me to be an disproportionate amount of content devoted to the anti-bra POV. --btphelps (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that over the last two years a good deal of both research papers and social commentary which reflect the considerable diversity of views on this subject has been removed, purely because it did not fit the biases of those who removed it. A feeling that the article was 'anti-bra' seemed to have been used to justify removal of anything that was critical of bras. Large scale acceptance in the US does not mean there can be no criticism within a world-view. For instance reference to cancer was removed despite there actually being a Wikipedia article on this, and common fears expressed by women about this. Whether it is true or false is immaterial - it is important enough to be mentioned with reference to the opposing view points. Similarly the widely commented on phenomenon of actresses and models not wearing bras. Even the BBC wanted to debate the use of bras the other day, but the current article seems to convey the impression there is no criticism. It will be interesting to see how long any critical paragraphs remain if reintroduced. One fall out of such editing is that the article gets tagged with requests for citations and claims that statements are unverified - simply because the references were removed by the over-zealous. Mgoodyear (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I read this article. I was having some severe shoulder pain and after reading it I did a week bra-free and it went away. I'm an A cup, so it wasn't a huge deal for me. I never would have thought about it otherwise, I'm glad the bra-skeptical viewpoint is there.

Seeking comment for rewite

I've reviewed this article and identified a few areas where a strong anti-bra sentiment could be reduced. Before I proceed, I'd like to elicit some comments from other editors.

I checked other garment articles like shoes, suits, dresses to see how these, less politically charged, garments are treated. There is significantly less criticisn of these garments even though one could pick issues will all of them.

Towards tackling this article and making it worthwhile, here are some major changes I'd like to work on (and FYI, I brought the Wonderbra article from a Stub to a Featured Article in 3 months):

• Overall reduction of various points that not all cultures wear bras - while true, it's not relevant to the article. There are many cultures where men do not wear suits, shoes, neck ties etc. I don't see whole sections in those articles about how people in XXX country favor YYY to suits. or ties, or whatnot. Since no sane person is arguing the bra is universally worn, why bring up these straw man arguments?
• Fitting Difficulties: This section is very large and gives an impression that bras are hard to fit for most women. This strike me as POV. Sure, some women are hard to fit, but many have bras that fit them well. Like shoes, we all find what works for us. I've checked the references and I'm not convinced these fairly represent the whole picture. I'd like to reduce this section and possibly incorporate it into measurements. Comments like "Fashion and image drive the bra market, and these factors often take precedence over comfort and function" are frankly off the wall and not true of all brands. Check out the www.wonderbra.ca (Canadian Wonderbra) site for a mainstream counterpoint which emphasizes comfort and fit. Like all fashion, form and function vary by design, but that is not unique to brassieres.
• Size and Measurements - Amazingly, this has even more material than the so-called main article on the topic. I'd like to move a lot of the commentary to the other article and keep it at a summary level. And frankly, we do not need to be a pamphlet on how to fit a bra. That can be handled by the external links.
• Social Pressure and Trends - IMHO this section is a laundry list right now with little cohesion. I think the History of brassieres article has a good balance. I'd like to draw some quicks points from that article and refer readers to it, possibly renaming the section or incorporating elsewhere.

Well that is a relief having written that from scratch myself, rather than lengthen this. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll let this stew for a month before going to work on this. Please feel free to offer comments/ideas/challenges etc. Mattnad 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions:

• I do think the article should make it clear that bras are not universal and that they are largely a western garment though I am not apposed to making this point in fewer sentences.
• While I understand that some people do not like having so much info in the article on criticism of bras as modesty, health, comfort, or fashion necessities, I think it would be better to try and expand that arguments from pro bra sources to help balance out the arguments.

I agree there should be some mention of minority opinion, but I, like others, think it has been taken too far in this article. I'm also not sure how useful it is to cite articles that extol the virtues of bras for balance as you suggest. I suppose you're reluctant to remove material, but to me it distracts from what should be the core of the article. I actually don't believe bras are "fashion necessity" but "fashion choice" even here. Tour a lingerie section in a department store and there are many alternatives.Mattnad

• I think we need to be careful about assuming that the anti-bra people represent in tiny minority. while they might represent a minority, I would suggest that it is a larger minority then people might realize, especially from a worldwide prospective.

I'm not for removing all criticism but it's a matter of weight. As I mentioned earlier, no one is saying bra's are universal, so do we really need to spend a lot of time pointing out alternatives in other countries? There are many, many items of clothing that differ by countries, so why not focus (mostly) on bras where they are worn (and not where they aren't). And we all know that Western women already have alternatives to the Bra - just like in footwear they have alternatives to high heels, or boots, etc.Mattnad

• Regarding how this article compares to other garment articles, I would argue that the reason this article has more criticisms in it then say an article on suits or shoes is that fact this it is more "politically charged" then the other garments just as the article on George Bush has more criticisms then the article on Senator Barbara Boxer does. The fact that it is more "politically charged" would justify the greater level of criticisms included.

This is a fair point, but I'm not so sure how big is that constituency of critics anymore. In the 1950s, Bras and girdles were not optional for "proper" women and in the 1960's women and feminists objected. Things have changed since then. When I did my reading for the Wonderbra article, I got my hands on market research that tracked women's views of brassieres. The vast majority (>90%) of them them said they wore bra's sometimes or often (granted this was in North America). There are always vocal minorities, but how much air do we give them in this article (see my point above about Intelligent Design and Teaching the Controversy). I think we agree in principle that the minority view should be included, but it's now a matter of degree.Mattnad

--Cab88 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a word to the wise, when replying to people's posts, don't edit what they said so that your responises are below the points they made, that can make it rather difficult to read. I'll try to get around to commenting tomorrow--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually accurate to say, as some have, that bras are a feature of the Western society. Many women in all developed countries and in metropolitan areas of developing countries wear brassieres. The exceptions for the most part are women who live in so-called "fourth-world." --btphelps (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on all fronts Mattnad, go for it! Once that's done we'll revert the article and make more changes. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 17:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Mattnad asked me to provide some perspective on this based on the last few years, noting that the people involved keep changing.

I eventually gave up on this because it was so politically charged, subject to vandalism, and the constant attacks of certain individuals. There was also constant pressure to include bras for men. I have not looked too closely at what has happened since.

I don’t think it will ever escape the NPOV criticism because people have some pretty fixed ideas. An awful lot of nonsense gets written about this garment. As you know Wiki has been the subject of manipulation by vested interests and industry. I don’t know if this is going on here or not.

It is interesting that anything negative gets labeled ‘anti-bra’ which is a simplistic binary. Yes, it could simply be an article on a piece of cloth, but then that would not be very interesting and would attract criticism, since it represents far more than that.

As it is I span off at least three leaf articles. One could put the social and cultural material into a leaf article too if you like (rather than history which is not really what that is about). However an article suggesting that this was a biological and social necessity would be equally misleading, since the emerging literature is increasingly questioning both that and the design in general. A huge amount of money has been spent by industry on promoting the idea of the sports bra, and indeed the idea that every woman needs a drawer full of bras for every occasion, a very expensive proposition.

I originally questioned the very concept of support, as opposed to elevate but I see that has been reverted. I don’t actually see much reference to other cultures any more, although it is interesting how many people assume this is a universal garment, a subject of considerable amazement amongst women at an international health conference recently.

As already mentioned, using industry sources is not recommended other than to acknowledge that they have a POV. The qualitative and quantitative data do suggest the majority of women have difficulty getting a fit because the design and measurements are completely illogical. We see large numbers of women with marks on their skin indicating poor fit. Actually I do believe that fashion overrides comfort, but you could make that statement for much of women’s fashions. I agree much of the fitting was supposed to be in the leaf article, it seems to have crept back.

I think we need to be careful about what minority opinion is, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Yes the majority of women in western society wear a bra for at least some of the day (mainly work outside the home), but that does not mean they are happy about it. Sit down with any focus group on this subject and you will hear plenty of ‘anti-bra’ comments. Ask how many people remove them as soon as they get home. I see one of the critics of the 'anti-bra' position here is a member of Bras Suck.

There is a high level of interest in this within women’s health, because the bra cannot be separated from breast, body image, and self esteem, and such things as cosmetic surgery.

Finally I would again caution distinguishing between opinion and data.--Mgoodyear (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the need for revision but find it culturally significant that an open-ended article written by the general population was filled with such passion. Something that surely relates to the discrepancy between the 93% of American Women who wear a bra and (the reported) 80-90% who wear the wrong size. As one of the certified bra fitters, I see all to frequently the pain and misery an ill-fitting bra can cause simply because most women cannot imagine anything or any size better. 71.248.112.7 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)alamodelingerie

Replace article's main image?

The woman in the main image is kind of gross. Who votes to replace it with a better looking girl?--eskimospy (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Cant we just have a diagram of a bra? That would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.84.8.64 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, the lead image is supposed to be illustrative, which it is, as it illustrates a brassiere quite clearly, and it's not needlessly overly sexualized, consistent with the encyclopedic tone of the article. Whether or not the woman is "good looking" is irrelevant; the picture serves its purpose. krimpet✽ 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto - and that pair of images have the advantage of showing the woman's back with the bra on. This has been discussed in the past. I will say I'd prefer a more conventional bra than the leopard print, but this is what we have with front and back views. Mattnad (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

just a suggestion, but how about combining the two images like this:

File:Bra.gif

to save room--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 06:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Mattnad.--eskimospy (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Neat approach, but personally I don't mind the side by side as it stands. Any other opinions? Mattnad (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We could take both pictures and combine them into a single picture, for example, and just have them stacked on top of one another. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with two separate pictures? It's not really that big of a deal to have two images instead of one. Editmaniac (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This picture should not be near nude woman, that is practically pornographic. The picture should be an unworn brassiere. Posidon09 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, if you have problems with this, then you'd really hate the articles relating to human genitalia. I think you have an unusually low threshold for what constitutes pornography. This image could just as well be a woman in a bikini top - something that we see in every public pool and beach across the country. At any rate, it's far easier to to see what a brassiere does, and what it looks like, when it's on a woman. Mattnad (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, it's a reasonably full cut bra by modern standards. The line of the top of the bra is no more revealing than many outer garments (dresses and tops) commonly seen in public today. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the picture could be better in two senses: Firstly, leopard-print is hardly a standard bra style -- I would go for a plainer, more everyday, style for the main picture and move the leopard-print bra to elsewhere on the page. Secondly, it looks to me like the bra is too small for the person wearing it -- you'll notice that the back clasp isn't even properly fastened. KarenSutherland (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Been brought up before. If you have a nice fair use pair of images (front and back), bring 'em on. Mattnad (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A picture of the bacon bra could also be shown, to illustrate that there are brilliant bra geniuses out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.88.90 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I Have to agree with eskimospy, the picture of the women in the leopard print bra should be changed. I have a lot of bra pictures in my collection that I would be willing to use. William7000 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats true, there should be a woman in a different bra, one that is more appropriate, unfortunately i lack the boobs to take the pic myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.94.59 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)