Conference turris::womannotes-v3

>    Would you ever consider breast augmentation? If yes why, if no also
>    why.


	No.  I like my breasts the way they are.  They're small and
	firm...don't sag.  But if I didn't like them, I would consider
	it if it meant that much to me.


>   Guys, would you let your wife, girlfriend, significant other
>    go thru this?
    
	And if I DID decide to, it would be MY decision, since it's
	MY body.  No one would be "letting" me, or "not letting" me
	do it.  I pretty much do what I want with my own body....after
	all, it's mine! 8-)


	kath

    I've thought about it, not real seriously, but I must admit that
    I have.  For my size (a size 7) I'm a bit top heavy.  If I were
    to have it done (I probably won't ever because there is always better
    places to put my money) it would be a re-shaping.  I had really
    nice "perky" ones before I had my baby, and now, well...after gaining
    and dropping a lot of weight...you know.  
    
    I also agree with .1, it would be my decision.
    
    Kel
    

    
    I've thought about it.  I used to want one badly, because I was
    so small.  Then I had a kid and behold!  Permanent additions!
    Personally I think it's too expensive.  I'd probaly spend the
    money on some other cosmetic surgery (the family nose)!
    
    
                                      L.J.

    What if they explode on an airplane?  WHat then?
    
    

Would I *let* my sweetie do it?

	I can just picture the scene:

	Janice:	I think I'd like to get my breasts enlarged.

	Me:	I don't think I'll let you.

	Janice:	[Looking at me like I've turned into a Martian.] What do you
		mean, "let"?

Now I've occasionally toyed with the idea of larger breasts myself, but they
seem so, so, *inconvenient*, if you know what I mean. I mean, I like breasts
personally, but I don't think I want them for myself.

	-- Charles

    re: .0
    
    "Let"?  "LET"?????  Well!
    
    In response to the question:
    
    Breast augmentation?  hahahahahaha!  Breast *reduction* maybe, but
    augment them over my dead body!
    
    Seriously, though, I dated a fellow a number of years ago whose father
    was a prestigious plastic surgeon, and a national expert on breast
    "augmentation" (he was interviewed on 20/20 a while back.)  So I heard
    about some of the problems silicone implants cause.  The problems are
    more than just the cost!  For instance, the flesh/fat around the
    implant hardens over the years, and this is noticeable.  (If you know
    what they feel like it is easy to tell if someone has implants, I
    understand.)  It can even cause complications requiring surgery if it
    gets too bad.  I believe it also increases chances of breast cancer.
    
    Having read some of the details about what enlargement really involves,
    I would *never* go through with it, even if I had (*snort*) the desire
    for bigger breasts.
    
    D!

It would certainly be her choice, however I would hope that she understood
the potential medical problems.  She would also know that I love her for "her"
and not the size of her breasts.  Having had relationships with women on both 
sides of the spectrum, I tend to prefer smaller, or "medium size" breasts.



Jim

    
    No, you'd have to hold me down with 2 teams of horses to augment
    my breasts!  I would recommend against anyone augmenting their
    breasts to larger than a size 'B'.  I've lost weight and gone
    from a 'DD' down 2 sizes and,IMHO, I'm still too large.  'C' and
    bigger breasts are a royal pain to have.  All my shirts get dirt
    and fuzzies right "there".  I can't even comfortably walk down
    stairs without a bra and LOTS of things don't fit.  I shutter to
    think what might happen IF I decided to have a baby!  Yuk!
    Stay small!!
    
    Perhaps you should rephrase the second part of your question.   Not
    too many people believe in controlling other people's bodies.
    (except for one special-interest group which shall go un-named)
    
    Rachael
    

    No.  (I think I would take a size 32A bra, if I wore one.)
    
    1)  I hate pain even more than I hate having small breasts.
    
    2)  Why should I kowtow to the values of a shallow society that
        *tries* to dictate that only large breasted women should
        be considered beautiful?  The heck with that!  It's a matter
        of principle.  :-)
    
    3)  It's also too expensive.  I would feel guilty spending
        money in such a foolish way even if I could personally
        afford it.
    
    
    Lorna
     

    Would I consider breast augmentation?  Yes, under one condition only:
    as a breast replacement after a mastectomy.  

    Otherwise, I'm with D! and Rachael: only with two teams of horses
    holding down my dead body.  Now, breast reduction... 

	Sharon

    re .9 I NEVER EVER meant "would you let your significant other go thru
    this procedure" What I meant is that when someone goes thru this sort
    of thing you would generally consult your better half and ASK for thier
    opinion. NOT to tell them what to do, but just an opinion. It is very
    interesting the response that is coming back, with breast augmentation
    being the most popular elective surgery (Yes, even more popular than
    the good ole family snoz) that the majority is against it, especially
    when you think of most of your models and some actresses that go thru
    this. 
    
    
    LSH @CWO

no, I wouldn't consider it.  I don't want larger breasts, much less do I need
them.

"let" is an interesting choice of words, as previously noted.  I haven't the
faintest idea what Rick, or any man, thinks or wishes for as regards my breasts
... which sort of gives an indication of the reception suggestions or 
commandments from outside parties regarding their disposition would receive.

I've known a couple women who've made volume and shape changes to their breasts
that were ecstatically happy afterward.  I don't get it.  But then, I don't have
to get it. They weren't my breasts.

  Annie

	I think I posted this in one of the older versions of this
	conference.

	Our neighbor when I was growing up weighed in at about 300lbs.
	She up and decided to lose weight one day and did.  I would
	guess that she now weighs about 145lbs, but I couldn't be
	sure, to this day she has never weighed since she started the
	diet.

	But she had HUGE breasts before she started the weight loss.  After
	she lost it all, they hung to her waist.

	Before she went into surgery she said to me, "Kathy, I've always
	envied you in your little breasts...they're the perfect size and
	I would give ANYTHING to not have to wear a bra again, just like
	you don't."

	So, she up and changed her breasts to be like mine...she's now
	and ECSTATIC 36B....and very braless, just like me.


	kath

    
    I used to say to my mother that I wished I had smaller breasts.  She
    used to say "But just think - then your hips would be totally out of
    proportion with the rest of your body"!!!
    
    I suppose she has a point... :-)
    
    Sam
    

    God don't make no junk ... leave 'em alone.  That's *my* view, but if
    my wife wanted the surgery - it'd be her decision - it isn't my body.
    
    Jerry (who figures God must be male, look at how the female body turned
    out ! .... no flames, OK ?)

    Re: .16
    
    I don't think its the design of the body that needs altering, its
    the engineering.  If I could have my druthers the 'monthly' cycle
    would probably be yearly!  Elimination of PMS, monthly bloating,
    monthly cramping sounds like a little piece of heaven to me!
    
    E!
     

    Reminds me of a [nonsexist] joke . . .
    
    God must be an urban planner -- who else would put a sewage
    disposal system right in the middle of a recreation area?
    
    And in answer to the question . . . no, I'm quite pleased with the
    body I've got, and I don't think I'll monkey with it. 
    
    --bonnie

    >God must be male, look at how the female body turned out !
    
    I had two reactions...that's for *damn* sure, no woman would have made
    human women go through a week of menstruation every month and agonizing
    and dangerous childbirth.
    
    Second reaction (speaking asthetically):  God was a *Lesbian* of
    course, just look at how the female body turned out!  :-)
    
    D!

    --Mike
    
    You are misrepresenting the Mennotes discussion!
    
    BJ

    
    Of the five women I know that have had surgery to increase/decrease
    the size of their breasts, all of them would do it again.
    
    2 reductions.
    3 implants.
    
    As far as *let* someone do it, I'ts your body, you own it.
    
    Jim
    

    RE: 473.11

    >> Would I consider breast augmentation?  Yes, under one condition only:
    >> as a breast replacement after a mastectomy.  

    I had a mastectomy in 1986 and grappled with this issue at the time. 
    The breast surgeon assumed that I would be wanting a replacement since
    I was so young (35) and started to set me up with a plastic surgeon.  I
    felt uneasy about submitting to any more surgery than was absolutely
    necessary (just the thought of general anesthesia makes me Shudder) and
    then it turned out that my insurance (not from DEC) would not cover any
    breast replacement expenses anyway.

    A friend and I discussed the possibility of plastic surgery at some
    time in the future.  She was opposed and loaned me a book to back up
    her point of view - _The_Cancer_Journals_ by Audre Lorde.  This slim
    eloquent volume opened doors in my mind and I quote from it here:

    p. 61
        "Prosthesis offers the empty comfort of 'nobody will know the
    difference.'  But it is that very difference which I wish to affirm,
    because I have lived it, and survived it, and wish to share that
    strength with other women.  If we are to translate the silence
    surrounding breast cancer into language and action against this
    scourge, then the first step is that women with mastectomies must
    become visible to each other."*

    footnote: "*particular thanks to Maureen Brady for the conversation
    which developed this insight."

    p. 77 (final page of the book) 

        "When I started to write this article, I went back to the books I
    had read in the hospital as I made my decision to have a mastectomy.  I
    came across pictures of women with one breast and mastectomy scars, and
    remembered shrinking from these pictures before my surgery.  Now they
    seemed not at all strange or frightening to me.  At times, I miss my
    right breast, the actuality of it, its presence, with a great and
    poignant sense of loss.  But in the same way, and just as infrequently,
    as I sometimes miss being 32, at the same time knowing that I have
    gained from the very loss I mourn."

    
    > came across pictures of women with one breast and mastectomy scars, and
    > remembered shrinking from these pictures before my surgery.  Now they
    > seemed not at all strange or frightening to me.  
    
    RE: .25, this reminded me...
    
    One of the most striking and beautiful women I have ever seen
    photographed is a woman with a mastectomy.  After her surgery, instead
    of opting for breast replacement, she chose to have a massive tattoo -
    of a great serpent, coiled about her waist and extending over her
    mastectomy scars.  The effect was exquisite and powerful, and the photo
    leaves me speechless every time I see it.
    
    						/Rita
    
    

    re: 473.25 (Dale)

    When I said I'd consider having breast augmentation done after a
    mastectomy, I meant just that: consider.  My mother has also
    undergone a mastectomy and chose not to have it done (in fact,
    she joked at the time that she wished they'd offered to reduce 
    the other breast instead, so she could go braless - but she didn't
    have this done, either).

    I mentioned it mainly because there is a great deal of stigma
    around about breast augmentation surgery, and because it tends
    to be associated with vanity and frivolity.  Breast reduction 
    surgery seems to be more acceptable socially, because there are
    medical problems (back pain, shoulder cuts from bra straps)	
    associated with very large breasts.  It would seem that a similar
    problem could be caused by having only one large breast, and that
    in those cases, breast augmentation could be a medically recommended 
    alternative, aside from the emotional aspect of not having to deal
    with the loss of a breast in addition to the emotions that accompany
    the news that one has breast cancer.

    Under the circumstances, I don't know how I'd feel.

    
.26 -
    
I've seen a poster similar to the one you mention. In this one, the 
tattoo twining around her scar is of flowers, and she's standing with her
arms held high (not easy to do after a mastectomy, not on that side that
is) looking very triumphant and joyous. I believe the woman's name is Deena
Metzger, she's a writer, and the poster is displayed on the wall in New
Words bookstore in Cambridge, MA and I believe it's also reproduced in the
recent book The Once and Future Goddess by Elinor Gadon (or Gabon). 
    
D.
    

    Would I get my breasts enlarged?  No way!  Mine are very small and I
    enjoy the option of going braless.  My husband would definitely prefer
    me the way I am too.  He sez they're his favorite part of me and calls
    'em cherry tomatoes.
    
    Mary

    mine are just fine, thank you. on the small side.
    
    a former lover had huge breasts, which she hated and had considered
    reduction surgery. she didn't, because she was concerned about losing
    sensation in them. she envied me as i could wear `recreational'
    underwear, whereas hers had to be functional...
    
    ...laura

    Maybe this should be in The Rathole but an incident yesterday reminded
    me of this topic.  My daughter and I were looking at bras in a lingerie
    store and Melissa was disgusted because all the lace bras seemed to
    have wire in them.  Melissa asked a clerk if they had any lace bras
    without wire in them.  The clerk, after glancing at us, primly said, "I
    don't care how small a woman is, *everyone* needs support."  It just
    struck me as funny.  I burst out laughing and said, "You're talkin to
    the wrong woman.  I haven't worn a bra in 10 yrs."  She looked at me
    scornfully and said, "Well, we have some lovely camisoles for women
    *like* *you*."   :-)
    
    Lorna
      

    No such thing as "let".
    
    No. Natural is better, and healthier.......
    
    ....Bob

    Face to Face (Connie Chung) has a segment on this.  *Many* women spoke
    out about the health risks related to the silicon being absorbed
    in the system and causing illness.  Several women had diseases of the 
    lymphatic system.  
    One of the manufacturers had (has) a synthetic covering on the silicon
    gel to serve as a protective covering. 
    The silicon covering degrades over time and becomes a carcinogen.
    An experiment showed the new ready to be implanted silicon gel packet
    (clean, clear, with a white covering) and how it degrades in the body.
    The white covering turned brown and started flaking off.  This is
    essentially what would happen inside the breast.  This covering and
    silicon (which BTW turns a rancid shade of green) becomes toxic to
    the body.  ONe woman had to get her chest cavity opened up so the 
    doctor could remove all the silicon that had oozed out of the breast
    and turned green.
    I would think that if physicians would tell patients about all the side 
    effects, this type of surgery wouldn't be so popular.

    I heard they were thinking of using pillows of peanut oil, because I
    guess at body ttemperature it feels fairly natural, and another problem
    implants cause is they interfere with mammography (whereas peanut oil
    wouldn't) - so even when there is cancer it's hard to catch because the
    implants themselves block the doctors' view....
    
    -Jody
    

    Re .35: And they'll get Annette to do the commercials, right? ;-)
    
    -b

    re: .34
    
    i saw that.  something that upset me was when they talked to a nurse,
    and before she went in, she specifically asked her surgeon what the
    risks were, and he told her nothing.  he was in possession of a booklet
    detailing what the findings were, provided by the company that sold
    the gel.  she eventually had to have the implants removed when the
    protective covering broke.
    
    

    >    The Feds are at this time in the process of pursuing...
    
    No, the FDA has had the info for years.  Nader's group Public Citizen
    are the ones pushing for the release of the info, and they have been
    for years.  I caught a portion of an NPR blurb yesterday that reported
    on the case; probably meant Public Citizen got a favorable ruling, and
    the info will be coming out from FDA files now.
    
    DougO

	I read that the court has ruled that the information that the FDA 
has is not exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and must be released.

	The FDA had not responded at the time of the article that I read.

	The group that sued for release of the information IS Public Citizen.

Tracey

    addition to .32
    
    Since that reply, I heard of a case of silicone slippage. To me, it
    re-inforces my opinion of .32..........
    
    Besides, I always think natural is better anyway. No pun intended, but
    silicon implants are another way of putting up a false front.
    
    FWIW
    
    ....Bob

    There's been a lot of press recently about breast REDUCTION
    operations...for reasons including; alleviating back problems, etc.
    
    Do people still think operations are unwarranted??
    
    PJ

    NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
    
    After suffering from backaches, deep dents in the shoulders, neck
    pain that was unbearable  the last 5 months of freedom have been
    wonderful.  Also jogging has been added to the agenda.  Never could
    since age 12 because the support even in athletic equipment was
    never really adequate.  Wish I had done it sooner.

    Interesting info on the other side of the story reported by Fave to
    Face:Connie Chung. DOW, chemical was asked to make comment about the
    issues and declined. Naturally, Connie reported this as "We tried to
    get DOW to be interviewed and they declined. More alarmism by the
    media. The reason DOW chose to not be interviewed was tha the Network
    advised them that they would allow them a 30 second segment, and the
    network advised that they would edit the interview. DOW felt that they
    could not adequately respond with only thirty seconds of air time and
    they were also sceptical of the segment being edited to share the view
    of the network.
    
    Also another small point, the covering mentioned earlier is not silicon
    but is polypropaline(sp) and their have, as of Dec 11,1990 only been 40
    reported cases of the reported incidence(disentigration) of the
    polypropoline out of two million uses over the last twenty years. The
    FDA generally considers this a low enough rate of incidence to be
    considered virtually no risk. Additionally, out of over four million
    augmentation uses, the serious rate of reported complications to the
     extent that was reported in Face to Face is less than 400. Once again,
    considered to be extremely safe by any standards. It seems that Face to
    Face conveniently neglected to report ALL of the information, only the
    stuff that would entertain the audience.
    
    This information was given to me by a reconstructive surgeon that is a
    friend of mine who sent me copies of information that he has recieved
    from DOW, the producers of Face to Face and the FDA. 
    
    For what it is worth, If someone feels that they are not happy with what
    they have or look like and they want to change and technology is
    available to help them the let them have it done. 
    was reported on face to face is

    For what it is worth, you assumed that my surgeon friend didn't advise
    his patients of this information....your assumption is incorrect. He
    has prepared a packet of information regarding specifics of
    complications of all of the types of reconstructive surgery that he
    does including those for burn patients. With regard to implants, he
    says that he primarilarly does facial reconsrtuction after
    accidents and burns and the same type of implants are used. He consults
    with each patient and their family at length and the decision is
    totally theirs. His most frequent question is "If it were you what would
    you do?" He says that his reply (and I know for fact that this is his
    answer because he used it with us) is "I can't answer that because it
    is not me and I don't want to influence your decision."
    
    I would agree that there probably are a lot of Doctors, as well as
    other professionals, including Pilots, Police, Sales People,
    Secretaries, Lawyers, Dentists, Engineers, Blue collar workers and
    White collar workers and on and on that do try to influence
    one's decisions by not telling necessarilarly a lie but by not telling
    all of the facts known to them in order to line their pockets.
    Fortunately there are also some who do reveal all that they know and
    when it involves possible risks they are up front and ethical with that
    information. 
    
    All I was trying to point out was that, Face to Face implied that the
    problem was extremely wide spread rather than reporting all of the 
    facts they tried to become sensational. It would have been more ethical
    for them, in my opinion, to have stated the incidence level as well as
    given the manufacturers as well as some of the Doctors the time to
    report more of the available information without taking editorial
    liberties and editing out perhaps some more of the facts that they
    chose not to reveal because it would lessen the impact of their danger
    story.
    
    
    reported 
    Fortunately there are also some