In article <1105024913.127022.245680@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
sandra-lynn0@excite.com wrote:

> My daughter is 11 and over the last few months her breasts developed
> very fast. She really needs a a bra, but she hates it. Though she's a

> Anyway, sometimes I wonder if I'm being too harsh and too bossy. She
> complains a lot because I not only make her wear a bra but decided
> what bras she has to wear, but she's a teen and moms know better, I
> suppose.
>
> I'd li eto have the opinion of other mothers on this point.

Could you post a picture for us, please?

:-)

I'm not a mom, but I don't understand why she *needs* a bra.

Furthermore, I've never heard of a girl that age who didn't *want* her
first bra, or who actually needed one.

A bra should be comfortable, and what you've bought doesn't sound right
for a girl that age.

Here's another opinion about bras:

http://www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/Answers/The_Pro___Con/Bras_are_bad_/bras_are_bad_.html

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net

From:	matthaus.huber
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:08:46 GMT

"I'm not a mom, but I don't understand why she *needs* a bra."

They only need bras since they've become fashionable. At other times they
declared them a nuissance imposed by nasty males and burnt them!

mjh

"Dan Abel" wrote in message
news:dabel-0601051349540001@ssu-64en129.sonoma.edu...
> In article <1105024913.127022.245680@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> sandra-lynn0@excite.com wrote:
>
>
> > My daughter is 11 and over the last few months her breasts developed
> > very fast. She really needs a a bra, but she hates it. Though she's a
>
> > Anyway, sometimes I wonder if I'm being too harsh and too bossy. She
> > complains a lot because I not only make her wear a bra but decided
> > what bras she has to wear, but she's a teen and moms know better, I
> > suppose.
> >
> > I'd li eto have the opinion of other mothers on this point.
>
>
> Could you post a picture for us, please?
>
> :-)
>
> I'm not a mom, but I don't understand why she *needs* a bra.
>
> Furthermore, I've never heard of a girl that age who didn't *want* her
> first bra, or who actually needed one.
>
> A bra should be comfortable, and what you've bought doesn't sound right
> for a girl that age.
>
> Here's another opinion about bras:
>
>
http://www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/Answers/The_Pro___Con/Bras_are_bad_/bras_ar
e_bad_.html
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
> dabel@sonic.net

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:09:16 GMT

In article ,
dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:

> Furthermore, I've never heard of a girl that age who didn't *want* her
> first bra, or who actually needed one.

I have; it seems especially common in girls who develop before their
peers do. The "norm" may be that girls are anxious to get their first
bras, but NOT wanting one is not unusual.

>
> A bra should be comfortable, and what you've bought doesn't sound right
> for a girl that age.
>
> Here's another opinion about bras:
>
> http://www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/Answers/The_Pro___Con/Bras_are_bad_/bras_are_
> bad_.html

Thanks for the reading. I have two observations:

1 - I do NOT find going without a bra more comfortable if I'm doing
anything physically active. What's more, I do not wear bras that leave
marks on my skin, constrict my breathing (I do a lot of public speaking
and singing, so there's no way I would tolerate something that
restricted my breathing!) or are painful. I look carefully at how the
hooks in back are made, and only buy the kind that I know won't make me
itch. I feel no sense of relief when I take my bra off. I can't help
but wonder why so many women put up with wearing uncomfortable bras!
(Pantyhose are another issue -- and if I can live my life without ever
wearing another pair, I'll be much happier!)

2 - The so called "study" that indicated a link between wearing a bra
and breast cancer was so incredibly flawed that it is totally
meaningless. At best, it showed a correlation -- but (repeat after
me...) correlation does not prove causation. Without controlling for
all sorts of other things, like diet, family medical history, size of
breasts, and age, it proves exactly nothing.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
> dabel@sonic.net
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:05:17 GMT

dragonlady wrote:
>
> 2 - The so called "study" that indicated a link between wearing a bra
> and breast cancer was so incredibly flawed that it is totally
> meaningless. At best, it showed a correlation -- but (repeat after
> me...) correlation does not prove causation. Without controlling for
> all sorts of other things, like diet, family medical history, size of
> breasts, and age, it proves exactly nothing.
---------------------
Not true, there have not been any decent counter-research done yet.
And for its methodological problems, the correlation just between
bras and cancer for the breadth of human cultures simply on the
basis of wearing one or not is SUBSTANTIAL!!

In fact there seems to be an intention to avoid researching it and
to hope we all simply forget about it! This is yet another case of
insane religious notional zeal diverting reasoned science.
Steve

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:52 GMT

In article <41E86022.61E@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

> Not true, there have not been any decent counter-research done yet.
> And for its methodological problems, the correlation just between
> bras and cancer for the breadth of human cultures simply on the
> basis of wearing one or not is SUBSTANTIAL!!

I was referring only to the one study that was the subject of the
article.

And the correlation is STILL not proof of causation. To be even
remotely valid a study must also control for such things as exercise
and diet. It strikes me as highly likely that cultures in which women
do not wear bras eat fewer highly processed foods, may be subject to
less pollution, and may get more exercise.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:16:13 GMT

dragonlady wrote:
>
> In article <41E86022.61E@armory.com>,
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
>
> > Not true, there have not been any decent counter-research done yet.
> > And for its methodological problems, the correlation just between
> > bras and cancer for the breadth of human cultures simply on the
> > basis of wearing one or not is SUBSTANTIAL!!
>
> I was referring only to the one study that was the subject of the
> article.
>
> And the correlation is STILL not proof of causation. To be even
> remotely valid a study must also control for such things as exercise
> and diet. It strikes me as highly likely that cultures in which women
> do not wear bras eat fewer highly processed foods, may be subject to
> less pollution, and may get more exercise.
-------------------------------
Absolutely, BUT, in absence of such, it is MORE reasonable to assert
the implied causation, than NOT to do so!:

If you just discovered that a culture was without heart disease
merely because they didn't eat hydrogenated fats, which would be MOST
prudent?: To ban such fats from food UNTIL researched, OR to continue
eating them till researched??

Why the former, of course!

And on top of THAT *IF* such fats were in NO way known to be a required
part of a healthy diet, then, just as bras are NOT known to be needed
for health, then they should be banned immediately till further notice!!

But you see such a reasoned health policy would never be implemented
in American culture JUST because the bra meets the reactionary impulse
by fundamentalists to attempt to suppress normal human uality!
Steve

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:38:28 GMT

In article <41EAF7A3.7EC9@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

> Absolutely, BUT, in absence of such, it is MORE reasonable to assert
> the implied causation, than NOT to do so!:
>
> If you just discovered that a culture was without heart disease
> merely because they didn't eat hydrogenated fats, which would be MOST
> prudent?: To ban such fats from food UNTIL researched, OR to continue
> eating them till researched??
>
> Why the former, of course!

By using the word "because" your setup is not parallel. A more apt
analogy would be: if it were discovered that there were a culture
without heart disease that also did not eat hydrogenated fats, would I
assume that eating hydrogenated fats caused heart disease? The answer
is "no" -- I'd want more information than a simple correlation. Do they
also get considerably more exercise? Do they tend to have a lower life
expectancy -- and were the two populations controlled for age? What
happens to one of the people from that culture if they START to eat
hydrogenated fats? (For the record, I avoid hydrogenated fats -- in
fact, the last time I remember eating any, it was in about two months
ago in a tablespoon of processed peanut butter.)

Another analogy: we know that smoking and alcoholism are highly
correlated. Does that mean that alcoholism causes smoking? Or that
smoking causes alcoholism? It seems more likely that the same tendency
towards addiction leads to both.

>
> And on top of THAT *IF* such fats were in NO way known to be a required
> part of a healthy diet, then, just as bras are NOT known to be needed
> for health, then they should be banned immediately till further notice!!

They may not be needed for health, but for many women they ARE needed
for comfort. For that matter, there ARE health issues: if I don't wear
a bra in hot weather, no matter how careful I am, I develop a fungal
infection under my breasts -- hurts like hell.

It would seem unusually cruel to ban bras, which many women find more
comfortable for many reasons, based solely on a correlation -- which is
NOT proof of causation.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:55:44 GMT

dragonlady wrote:
>
> In article <41EAF7A3.7EC9@armory.com>,
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
>
> > Absolutely, BUT, in absence of such, it is MORE reasonable to assert
> > the implied causation, than NOT to do so!:
> >
> > If you just discovered that a culture was without heart disease
> > merely because they didn't eat hydrogenated fats, which would be MOST
> > prudent?: To ban such fats from food UNTIL researched, OR to continue
> > eating them till researched??
> >
> > Why the former, of course!
>
> By using the word "because" your setup is not parallel.
-------------------------
The because is inferred, not implied.
Read for comprehension of the author's intent,
and not the achievement of your own.

> A more apt
> analogy would be: if it were discovered that there were a culture
> without heart disease that also did not eat hydrogenated fats, would I
> assume that eating hydrogenated fats caused heart disease? The answer
> is "no" -- I'd want more information than a simple correlation. Do they
> also get considerably more exercise? Do they tend to have a lower life
> expectancy -- and were the two populations controlled for age? What
> happens to one of the people from that culture if they START to eat
> hydrogenated fats? (For the record, I avoid hydrogenated fats -- in
> fact, the last time I remember eating any, it was in about two months
> ago in a tablespoon of processed peanut butter.)
----------------------------
Assume quite fairly that no other potentially associated variables
were noted to accompany. You're merely being stubborn and have
misapplied the scope of the anology.

> Another analogy: we know that smoking and alcoholism are highly
> correlated. Does that mean that alcoholism causes smoking? Or that
> smoking causes alcoholism? It seems more likely that the same tendency
> towards addiction leads to both.
-------------------------
Sure, but if we ALWAYS found them associated, and not merely MOSTLY
so, then it would be valid to infer a need to halt one to halt the
other. The detail of statistical cause and effect are to be determined
LATER, BY SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE AND STATISTICS, but initially you are
presented with a quick potential cure for a condition that it is well
worth it to attempt PRIOR to the completion of any such research.

> > And on top of THAT *IF* such fats were in NO way known to be a required
> > part of a healthy diet, then, just as bras are NOT known to be needed
> > for health, then they should be banned immediately till further notice!!
>
> They may not be needed for health, but for many women they ARE needed
> for comfort.
----------------------------
Or something else is.

Unless this "comfort" you're citing is some alleviation of their
antiual religious terror by acceding to that phobia. Many kinds
of mammary support or separation have been used in clothing prior
to the brassiere.

> For that matter, there ARE health issues: if I don't wear
> a bra in hot weather, no matter how careful I am, I develop a fungal
> infection under my breasts -- hurts like hell.
------------------------------
A fold of cloth beneath, built into the clothing, is sufficient.
As thick and soft as need be.

But if you have some problem with that, then elevate, and
apply clotrimazole.

> It would seem unusually cruel to ban bras, which many women find more
> comfortable for many reasons, based solely on a correlation -- which is
> NOT proof of causation.
--------------------------------
But if they caused breast cancer, and this ban did not remove OTHER
remedies for the breast problem, then I see no valid objection.
Steve

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:22:46 GMT

In article <41EC7C98.48AE@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

> They may not be needed for health, but for many women they ARE needed
> > for comfort.
> ----------------------------
> Or something else is.
>
> Unless this "comfort" you're citing is some alleviation of their
> antiual religious terror by acceding to that phobia. Many kinds
> of mammary support or separation have been used in clothing prior
> to the brassiere.

Nope -- talking about plain old fashioned pain. And I know of no other
support available NOW -- regardless of what was available in the past.

I don't always wear a bra, though the older I get the more I'm likely
to. I DID always wear one while pregnant -- and looked for one
constructed out of steel -- because my breasts hurt so much, and also
during the years I nursed, because I found it more comfortable.
>
>
> > For that matter, there ARE health issues: if I don't wear
> > a bra in hot weather, no matter how careful I am, I develop a fungal
> > infection under my breasts -- hurts like hell.
> ------------------------------
> A fold of cloth beneath, built into the clothing, is sufficient.
> As thick and soft as need be.
>
> But if you have some problem with that, then elevate, and
> apply clotrimazole.

I prefer to not apply that to my body on a regular basis. If I can
avoid the need to do that by wearing a bra, I prefer that approach.
>
>
> > It would seem unusually cruel to ban bras, which many women find more
> > comfortable for many reasons, based solely on a correlation -- which is
> > NOT proof of causation.
> --------------------------------
> But if they caused breast cancer, and this ban did not remove OTHER
> remedies for the breast problem, then I see no valid objection.

But I see no evidence of causation in any of the stuff I read. I saw
poorly constructed statistical analysis.

I think that YOU are looking for a reason to ban bras due to some
bizarre notion about the rest of us feel about our bodies.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:56:35 GMT

dragonlady wrote:
>
> In article <41EC7C98.48AE@armory.com>,
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
>
> > They may not be needed for health, but for many women they ARE needed
> > > for comfort.
> > ----------------------------
> > Or something else is.
> >
> > Unless this "comfort" you're citing is some alleviation of their
> > antiual religious terror by acceding to that phobia. Many kinds
> > of mammary support or separation have been used in clothing prior
> > to the brassiere.
>
> Nope
---------------
Of course they have!! Brassieres are ONLY about 120 years old!!

> -- talking about plain old fashioned pain. And I know of no other
> support available NOW -- regardless of what was available in the past.
------------------------------
Some few enormous women probably ned help, but not 95%.

> I don't always wear a bra, though the older I get the more I'm likely
> to. I DID always wear one while pregnant -- and looked for one
> constructed out of steel -- because my breasts hurt so much, and also
> during the years I nursed, because I found it more comfortable.
-------------------------
The pain associated with breast movement goes away with exposure, many
women have experienced this over an active summer where they didn't
wear a bra.

> > > For that matter, there ARE health issues: if I don't wear
> > > a bra in hot weather, no matter how careful I am, I develop a fungal
> > > infection under my breasts -- hurts like hell.
> > ------------------------------
> > A fold of cloth beneath, built into the clothing, is sufficient.
> > As thick and soft as need be.
> >
> > But if you have some problem with that, then elevate, and
> > apply clotrimazole.
>
> I prefer to not apply that to my body on a regular basis. If I can
> avoid the need to do that by wearing a bra, I prefer that approach.
-------------------
See above.

> > > It would seem unusually cruel to ban bras, which many women find more
> > > comfortable for many reasons, based solely on a correlation -- which is
> > > NOT proof of causation.
> > --------------------------------
> > But if they caused breast cancer, and this ban did not remove OTHER
> > remedies for the breast problem, then I see no valid objection.
>
> But I see no evidence of causation in any of the stuff I read. I saw
> poorly constructed statistical analysis.
------------------------------
Please tell me why third-world women who don't wear bras have FAR LESS
breast cancer than EVEN third-world women who wear bras but also do not
eat a fatty diet, but instead shareing with them the more typical
impoverished asian diet??!!!

> I think that YOU are looking for a reason to ban bras due to some
> bizarre notion about the rest of us feel about our bodies.
--------------------------------
My notion isn't bizarre, it's the TRUTH!: It is these sick religiously
superstitious antiuals who are BIZARRELY MENTAL DISTORTED!!!
Steve

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:02:16 GMT

In article <41EF1FCC.12FC@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

> dragonlady wrote:
> >
> > In article <41EC7C98.48AE@armory.com>,
> > "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> >
> > > They may not be needed for health, but for many women they ARE needed
> > > > for comfort.
> > > ----------------------------
> > > Or something else is.
> > >
> > > Unless this "comfort" you're citing is some alleviation of their
> > > antiual religious terror by acceding to that phobia. Many kinds
> > > of mammary support or separation have been used in clothing prior
> > > to the brassiere.
> >
> > Nope
> ---------------
> Of course they have!! Brassieres are ONLY about 120 years old!!

Read my entire sentence for comprehension -- I said I was NOT talking
about antiual religious terror -- only physical pain.
>
>
> > -- talking about plain old fashioned pain. And I know of no other
> > support available NOW -- regardless of what was available in the past.
> ------------------------------
> Some few enormous women probably ned help, but not 95%.

Next time you personally have breasts and are engaged in physical
activity you can state your opinion. You're a guy -- you don't get a
vote on whether or not we hurt.
>
>
> > I don't always wear a bra, though the older I get the more I'm likely
> > to. I DID always wear one while pregnant -- and looked for one
> > constructed out of steel -- because my breasts hurt so much, and also
> > during the years I nursed, because I found it more comfortable.
> -------------------------
> The pain associated with breast movement goes away with exposure, many
> women have experienced this over an active summer where they didn't
> wear a bra.

Wasn't my experience.

>
>
> > > > For that matter, there ARE health issues: if I don't wear
> > > > a bra in hot weather, no matter how careful I am, I develop a fungal
> > > > infection under my breasts -- hurts like hell.
> > > ------------------------------
> > > A fold of cloth beneath, built into the clothing, is sufficient.
> > > As thick and soft as need be.
> > >
> > > But if you have some problem with that, then elevate, and
> > > apply clotrimazole.
> >
> > I prefer to not apply that to my body on a regular basis. If I can
> > avoid the need to do that by wearing a bra, I prefer that approach.
> -------------------
> See above.
>
>
> > > > It would seem unusually cruel to ban bras, which many women find more
> > > > comfortable for many reasons, based solely on a correlation -- which is
> > > > NOT proof of causation.
> > > --------------------------------
> > > But if they caused breast cancer, and this ban did not remove OTHER
> > > remedies for the breast problem, then I see no valid objection.
> >
> > But I see no evidence of causation in any of the stuff I read. I saw
> > poorly constructed statistical analysis.
> ------------------------------
> Please tell me why third-world women who don't wear bras have FAR LESS
> breast cancer than EVEN third-world women who wear bras but also do not
> eat a fatty diet, but instead shareing with them the more typical
> impoverished asian diet??!!!
>
>
> > I think that YOU are looking for a reason to ban bras due to some
> > bizarre notion about the rest of us feel about our bodies.
> --------------------------------
> My notion isn't bizarre, it's the TRUTH!: It is these sick religiously
> superstitious antiuals who are BIZARRELY MENTAL DISTORTED!!!

Man, you do go over the top. Now a simple desire to wear certain
undergarments is part of antiual religious bigotry, too.

Does this belief include the fact that many men now wear briefs instead
of boxers? After all, that's known to affect fertility.
> Steve
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:39:56 GMT

dragonlady wrote:
>
> In article <41EF1FCC.12FC@armory.com>,
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
>
> I said I was NOT talking
> about antiual religious terror -- only physical pain.
--------------------
If you're NOT talking about religion then you're missing the point
of the THREAD! The OP was NOT talking about pain!

> Next time you personally have breasts and are engaged in physical
> activity you can state your opinion. You're a guy -- you don't get a
> vote on whether or not we hurt.
--------------------------
Eat shit and die, I'm as able to identify with women as a woman is.
You're just being disingenuous here. Denying the common humanity of
your opponent is childish of you!

> > The pain associated with breast movement goes away with exposure, many
> > women have experienced this over an active summer where they didn't
> > wear a bra.
>
> Wasn't my experience.
---------------------------------
Doesn't have to be when you never didn't have to long enough to even
learn this!! Do you intend to promote the mythology that women were
somehow in constant pain for thousands, no, millions of years, before
some ass invented the bra?

> > > I think that YOU are looking for a reason to ban bras due to some
> > > bizarre notion about the rest of us feel about our bodies.
> > --------------------------------
> > My notion isn't bizarre, it's the TRUTH!: It is these sick religiously
> > superstitious antiuals who are BIZARRELY MENTAL DISTORTED!!!
>
> Man, you do go over the top. Now a simple desire to wear certain
> undergarments is part of antiual religious bigotry, too.
-------------------------
If the motivation comes from a desire to unnaturally and antiually
conceal, YES! ESPECIALLY if it is a desire to clothe OTHERS!!!

> Does this belief include the fact that many men now wear briefs instead
> of boxers? After all, that's known to affect fertility.
> > Steve
------------------------
Briefs are older than boxers. And all that underwear is for is
to keep skidmarks off the furtniture! A rear-hanging loincloth is
sufficient.
Steve

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:44:09 GMT

In article <41F2E639.61B8@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

> dragonlady wrote:
> >
> > In article <41EF1FCC.12FC@armory.com>,
> > "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> >
> > I said I was NOT talking
> > about antiual religious terror -- only physical pain.
> --------------------
> If you're NOT talking about religion then you're missing the point
> of the THREAD! The OP was NOT talking about pain!

I was answering your direct question abut whether the pain of which I
spoke was physical pain or antiual religious terror -- I repeat, I
am/was only discussing the physical pain. That's the only reason *I*
was giving for *my* choice to wear bras. I have never said anyone else
should wear them (including my daughters). I have absolutely no problem
with anyone's decision to wear or not wear bras.

>
>
> > Next time you personally have breasts and are engaged in physical
> > activity you can state your opinion. You're a guy -- you don't get a
> > vote on whether or not we hurt.
> --------------------------
> Eat shit and die, I'm as able to identify with women as a woman is.
> You're just being disingenuous here. Denying the common humanity of
> your opponent is childish of you!

You're claiming I don't hurt. I know better.

>
>
> > > The pain associated with breast movement goes away with exposure, many
> > > women have experienced this over an active summer where they didn't
> > > wear a bra.
> >
> > Wasn't my experience.
> ---------------------------------
> Doesn't have to be when you never didn't have to long enough to even
> learn this!! Do you intend to promote the mythology that women were
> somehow in constant pain for thousands, no, millions of years, before
> some ass invented the bra?

I don't know. I know in some cultures they had things that bound the
breasts. I know that in many non-technological cultures VERY few women
lived to be past 50 -- and I have more problems now than I used to.

Can you be certain that they DIDN'T have problems with pain?

>
>
> > > > I think that YOU are looking for a reason to ban bras due to some
> > > > bizarre notion about the rest of us feel about our bodies.
> > > --------------------------------
> > > My notion isn't bizarre, it's the TRUTH!: It is these sick religiously
> > > superstitious antiuals who are BIZARRELY MENTAL DISTORTED!!!
> >
> > Man, you do go over the top. Now a simple desire to wear certain
> > undergarments is part of antiual religious bigotry, too.
> -------------------------
> If the motivation comes from a desire to unnaturally and antiually
> conceal, YES! ESPECIALLY if it is a desire to clothe OTHERS!!!

It isn't my desire. My only desire is to not have someone like YOU
claim that bras out NOT be available to me -- that is, someone like you
who has a desire to control how other people dress.

>
>
> > Does this belief include the fact that many men now wear briefs instead
> > of boxers? After all, that's known to affect fertility.
> > > Steve
> ------------------------
> Briefs are older than boxers. And all that underwear is for is
> to keep skidmarks off the furtniture! A rear-hanging loincloth is
> sufficient.

Unresponsive. I asked if you also think briefs ought to be made
illegal, since it is KNOWN that wearing briefs affects fertility.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:59:37 GMT

dragonlady wrote:
>
> In article <41F2E639.61B8@armory.com>,
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
>
> > dragonlady wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <41EF1FCC.12FC@armory.com>,
> > > "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > >
> > > I said I was NOT talking
> > > about antiual religious terror -- only physical pain.
> > --------------------
> > If you're NOT talking about religion then you're missing the point
> > of the THREAD! The OP was NOT talking about pain!
>
> I was answering your direct question abut whether the pain of which I
> spoke was physical pain or antiual religious terror -- I repeat, I
> am/was only discussing the physical pain. That's the only reason *I*
> was giving for *my* choice to wear bras. I have never said anyone else
> should wear them (including my daughters). I have absolutely no problem
> with anyone's decision to wear or not wear bras.
-------------------------
Then you're off topic.

> > > Next time you personally have breasts and are engaged in physical
> > > activity you can state your opinion. You're a guy -- you don't get a
> > > vote on whether or not we hurt.
> > --------------------------
> > Eat shit and die, I'm as able to identify with women as a woman is.
> > You're just being disingenuous here. Denying the common humanity of
> > your opponent is childish of you!
>
> You're claiming I don't hurt. I know better.
-----------------------------------
You can think you hurt all you want. Just don't make claims about
others' reasons for disbelieving you.

> > > > The pain associated with breast movement goes away with exposure, many
> > > > women have experienced this over an active summer where they didn't
> > > > wear a bra.
> > >
> > > Wasn't my experience.
> > ---------------------------------
> > Doesn't have to be when you never didn't have to long enough to even
> > learn this!! Do you intend to promote the mythology that women were
> > somehow in constant pain for thousands, no, millions of years, before
> > some ass invented the bra?
>
> I don't know. I know in some cultures they had things that bound the
> breasts. I know that in many non-technological cultures VERY few women
> lived to be past 50 -- and I have more problems now than I used to.
>
> Can you be certain that they DIDN'T have problems with pain?
--------------------------------------
I'm sure they did, sometimes, but that they did other things before
the invention of the bra I AM ALSO SURE!! I have also heard from
big-breasted women that when they first went without they couldn't
stand it, but with time their body adapted and they had no pain.

Don't try to tell me I don't know what I know!

> > > Man, you do go over the top. Now a simple desire to wear certain
> > > undergarments is part of antiual religious bigotry, too.
> > -------------------------
> > If the motivation comes from a desire to unnaturally and antiually
> > conceal, YES! ESPECIALLY if it is a desire to clothe OTHERS!!!
>
> It isn't my desire. My only desire is to not have someone like YOU
> claim that bras out NOT be available to me -- that is, someone like you
> who has a desire to control how other people dress.
-------------------------
Available? I don't care what's available. I only care about how you
stupid women are warping your daughters!

> > > Does this belief include the fact that many men now wear briefs instead
> > > of boxers? After all, that's known to affect fertility.
> > > > Steve
> > ------------------------
> > Briefs are older than boxers. And all that underwear is for is
> > to keep skidmarks off the furtniture! A rear-hanging loincloth is
> > sufficient.
>
> Unresponsive. I asked if you also think briefs ought to be made
> illegal, since it is KNOWN that wearing briefs affects fertility.
------------------------------------
I never asked for any legality regarding bras. That's what you
keep missing. But I do want to see anyone who tries to force a
kid to wear a bra when they don't want to, get beaten to death.
Steve

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: bras for an 11-year-old
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:15:04 GMT

In article <41F2F8E6.78AE@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

> > It isn't my desire. My only desire is to not have someone like YOU
> > claim that bras out NOT be available to me -- that is, someone like you
> > who has a desire to control how other people dress.
> -------------------------
> Available? I don't care what's available. I only care about how you
> stupid women are warping your daughters!
>
>
> > > > Does this belief include the fact that many men now wear briefs instead
> > > > of boxers? After all, that's known to affect fertility.
> > > > > Steve
> > > ------------------------
> > > Briefs are older than boxers. And all that underwear is for is
> > > to keep skidmarks off the furtniture! A rear-hanging loincloth is
> > > sufficient.
> >
> > Unresponsive. I asked if you also think briefs ought to be made
> > illegal, since it is KNOWN that wearing briefs affects fertility.
> ------------------------------------
> I never asked for any legality regarding bras. That's what you
> keep missing. But I do want to see anyone who tries to force a
> kid to wear a bra when they don't want to, get beaten to death.
> Steve

Yes, you did. You specifically said that you thought bras should be
made illegal.

That is what I have been responding to: I don't care if you want to
discourage their use. I only want to be able to make the choice for
myself.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care