Breast News Magazine

I can honestly say that this is one of the most ridiculous stories I’ve ever read in the “news” as they call it nowadays.  And can I use this also as a sounding board for what I feel is and increasingly sensationalistic media?  Why do we have to read about the Iraq war and Paris Hilton all one one page?  Why are celebrities now considered to be “newsworthy”. 

I’m very disappointed in traditional integrity-oriented news outlets selling out to what they think constitutes public interest.  I think very soon we are going to see a serious backlash against this so called news, as we’ve already seen in two news anchors refusing to read stories about Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, respectively, on airwaves typically reserved for news that actually, um, matters!  And congrats to these anchors for bringing this type of ridiculous newscasting to light and letting people know that they too, as journalists, are sick and tired of reading drivel.

Anyways, didn’t mean to get up on my soapbox, but this story about Hillary Clinton’s cleavage is a bit sensationalistic, but at least it’s about an intelligent, political figure who happens to be a woman and happens to be about what we talk about on this blog - breasts! 

Apparently, during a recent Senate speech Clinton made, her cleavage was, as quoted by someone who witnessed her appearance “on display”.  Sorry, but I’ve never seen Ms. Clinton wear anything even remotely inappropriate, and feel that she represents women very well.  Not to mention, if she was sportin’ a little cleavage, then good for her!  In a commentary, a guy actually wrote that he felt he was catching a glimpse of something he shouldn’t have been, that it was in some way taboo. 

Um, buddy, cleavage is a female thing, and it’s very natural.  Some say if you’ve got it, flaunt it, some say that you should cover it up and wear turtle necks your whole life.  I for one say that you should be in between.  There is a happy medium between flaunting your assets (breasts) and just making them look darn good, don’t you think?

Well, this was one thing I didn’t really think of when the ban on all liquids was put into effect for all domestic and international flights originating here in the US.  Baby’s breast milk - that is, pumped from the mother, would not of course have been allowed either under the newer restrictive ban against any liquids that was put in place over a year ago on all flights due to terrorism threat levels and specific threats of liquids being used to deploy explosives on planes.

I remember actually going through airport security, and even makeups that were liquid and many lip glosses and chapsticks were taken from passengers because they could not be taken aboard.  What were mothers to do that had pumped their breast milk for their infants then?  Especially if they were on a nonstop or very long flight that their infant was definitely going to need to be fed on?  I do wonder what mothers in this predicament did before this ban was lifted, just recently, to feed their infants.  I’m sure there was some sort of loophole, but this nonetheless is a little disquieting that mothers had to go through this, although it is also understandable that the airlines are just trying to protect it’s customers from harm as well.

Excuse me - actually the ban was that you could not bring more than 3 ounces of breast milk on any flight, and that is the ban that has been lifted since.  This is a very tiny amount of breast milk, and even if the child were not able to drink the breast milk, I wonder, how would an infant be fed on more than 3 ounces of breast milk? 

Did the airliners previously have some sort of system in place where they could have formula available on the plane, or were mothers expected to bring pumping materials aboard?  I suppose if the mother breast fed though her breasts alone would serve as feedings for their infants, but even so, what if they needed more than the three ounces? 

I know, I’m harping, but when restrictions like this go into effect, I can’t help but get a little flustered and think that yes, women do still have it harder in this world than men in so many ways, right? 

I almost died when I saw a video clip that Perez Hilton himself posted on his infamous celebrity gossip blog, which, yes, I’m hopelessly addicted to, where Posh Spice, AKA Victoris Beckham hunts down Perezzers and confronts him about the nasty, poking fun names he’s called her in the past on his blog (like Alien, for one).  The confrontation is actually kind of friendly, but a little uncomfortable at times too.   

She also sticks her boobs in his face and asks him if they’re really as big as he says they are and says she doesn’t think they’re too big.  They’re fake breasts of course, as if you couldn’t tell, what with her teeny waistline and her almost D cup.  I think she could have gone a little smaller but that’s just me. 

She’s a pretty woman, but her breast implants are over the top, and they look hard and lifeless, because she’s naturally thin and doesn’t have enough natural “padding” to pull off that large of a pair of breast implants without inevitably having them look fake and unmoving.  But hey, the woman and her ridiculously good looking husband David Beckham are blessed in more ways than one and have gorgeous kids and enough money to buy a small country, so who am I criticizing? 

Gisele Bundchen, dubbed the body, boobs and butt from Brazil, or otherwise known as the babe that graces the covers of Victoria’s Secret catalogues and runways, is now officially the highest paid supermodel - ever.  She’s even said before that she would not be successful if it hadn’t been for her bodacious Brazilian roots that gave her a tall, lithe body, ample but not huge breasts, and a killer butt that seems to be toned and just the right size.

She’s in her mid twenties, so she should definitely enjoy the career high while it lasts, as modeling is traditionally known as a fairly short lived profession, and maybe she can then pursue some of her other interests.  I believe she’s the model that said she’s probably be a marine biologist of some sort if she hadn’t been discovered as a model and skyrocketed to international fame for her looks.

Gisele isn’t conventionally beautiful by some standards, but she is nonetheless beautiful and captivating and it’s refreshing that she’s got realistic looking breasts that aren’t huge and make other women feel that all models are just impossibly proportioned.  She’s also earned some celebrity by dating Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Brady - models never date just anybody I guess!  Her relationship with DiCaprio ended about a year ago and he’s onto some other young thing now, but oh well. 

She’s been said to have one of the most realistic bodies in modeling, but I beg to differ - she’s still incredibly thin - I’d give the “realistic” prize to Tyra over her, because Tyra Banks may have huge breasts, but she’s also got curves everywhere else, and that shows her breasts are real and she’s struggled with her weight before as we all have at one time or another. 

Tyra’s even been known to talk about how her breasts are real, and has even offered to have people touch them to show they are real, even going so far as to have a professional doctor on her show to “feel her up” and show that her breasts are real.  I know, over the top - right? 

I couldn’t believe when I read this article, because quite frankly I’ve always been of the staunch opinion that eating way more fruits and vegetables that the Federal Daily Allowance says to can basically help fight any disease known to man, or at least make us feel healthier and stronger while we’re here on this earth.  A new study that was carried on over 7 years though, is showing the women who were on a high veggie and fruit diet did not show any larger of a chance of their breast cancer returning than women who had a regular diet.

The outcome of this study has been to still exercise and maintain a healthy weight, but as researchers had hoped, the fruits and veggies, if no weight loss or maintenance was involved, did not actually improve the odds that the cancer would not return after a woman had gone in remission for a while.  They still do emphasize that keeping weight down and exercising is still recommended, but are looking at the increased fruit and vegetable utilization in the diet as perhaps a moot point.  Sick, I know - right?

On the positive side of the findings, women who feel maybe they did not get enough fruits and vegetables in their diet can take this off their guilty conscious if they got cancer and feel this is part of the reason, but it still bothers me because it’s like saying that eating a lot of fruits and veggies can’t contribute to healthy weight, which is part of the contributing factors to most cancers.  Most people who eat fruits and veggies the right way, without a lot of fats or cooking oils etc. are actually on average, usually thinner than the average American who does not get much of this in their diet.

I guess since women did not lose weight on either diet, including the high veggie and fruit diet, they are concluding tons of fruits and veggies aren’t necessary to increase odds of cancer not returning.  I just feel like some important variables were probably left out of this equation.  More to come on this most likely - I’m hoping they addend their findings with more logical advice and information for survivors of breast cancer.

You know, I’ve gotten a Japanese straightening process done to my hair two times now, and I was always concerned about it, because literally it made my scalp and head burn at some points during the treatment, enough to make me wonder “hmm, could this possibly be toxic, and even cause cancer if I get it done repeatedly?” 

Well, I didn’t know it, but the same debate had been going on about whether popular chemical hair relaxers that are often used by women of African American descent contributed to the likelihood of breast cancer.  Makes sense though.  Let’s face it, the chemicals we will dump on our heads to look pretty are very harsh, and one has to wonder whether they can be healthy, because we all know that things can absorb through our skin and into the blood stream, and with some things that could just be a bad form of toxin we’re allowing, willingly, into our system.

Apparently, the new study shows that women are no more likely to develop breast cancer if they’ve used these relaxing chemicals on their hair for twenty years (although I don’t think they can safely say that beyond twenty years) for about seven times a year, or for under a year.  But is this type of study really reliable?  I just wonder with some of these types of studies, how can we be sure that the results are reliable when we don’t know how big the control group was or if they were any more biolgically prone to breast cancer or not?

The concern of researchers and concerned physicians about potential cancer and breast cancer links is that the potentially harmful chemicals in many hair relaxers and hair dyes can enter the blood stream very easily through cuts, abrasions and lesions of sorts on the scalp, and may interfere with healthy cell reproduction, which is essentially what all cancers are - an unhealthy cell reproduction.

I know one thing, I did decide not to do the Japanese straigtening any more.  Instead I bought myself a good, salon quality ionic hair dryer and use higher quality anti frizz hair products.  I’d rather not have my scalp burned again, and quite frankly it scares me, even if there isn’t any conclusive scientific evidence yet. 

I first saw this when researching falsies and where you can find the best ones online, and came across “Falsies Awards”.  I thought maybe they were critiquing and awarding the actresses with the best falsies which looked the most convincingly like real breasts, but alas I was wrong - they were only an award of some sort of journalistic subject for a small online publication. 

Falsies are some of the coolest things, if you know how to buy them and how to make them look right.  Even if you have an A cup breast, you can make your breasts look like smaller C cups by using the best falsies out there.  I purchased a pair of silicone, soft, squishy falsies about five years ago at Victorias Secret for a wedding I was going to be in.  I was supposed to wear a strapless dress, and wanted to make sure the baby had plenty of boobage to stay up so I could avoid any embarrassing episodes if I could help it.

They are half moon crescent shaped, and they are flesh toned, although I’m not sure why this matters since they are hidden and if a guy were to put his hand down your shirt or you were getting frisky with someone, they surely find out your little secret anyways.  Not only that, falsies are securely hidden in your bra the whole time, and should never see the light of day, except of course when you take them out at the end of the day.  They make a good breast implant alternative because they are many times undetectable if you buy the good kind.

A good pair of falsies may run you a little bit of money, but they are worth it, because the more expensive, high end brands will look and feel very natural, and give your real breasts a lot more cleavage and bounce, almost as if you received a really good, natural boob job, but only without the cost, pain and fake look that come with some breast implant jobs. 

Women with advanced breast cancer many times will have to go through what is called a radical mastectomy.  It is called a radical mastectomy, because it is, by medical and personal standards, considered a somewhat radical procedure that removes large amounts of your body and also because it radically alters one’s anatomy and is considered a highly invasive procedure.  Not only invasive physcially, but also emotionally many times. 

Some women, in fact most, report feeling less feminine, like a part of them is missing and gone forever that has made them what they are : a woman, a part of their body they’ve enjoyed throughout their whole lives and their husband has as well is suddenly taken from them in what seems like a cruel twist of fate. Some choose to have reconstructive surgery, some women may choose, based on cost or personal preference to simply wear a type of false prosthetic. 

In older mastectomies, many time all the lymph nodes were removed as well from underneath the underarms, but this is not always the case today, where advanced methods of breast removal are available that are a little less invasive and much less scarring.  However, depending on the situation and the advancement of the breast cancer, a surgeon may still choose to remove all these lymph nodes, especially if they are invaded with cancer. 

Most times mastectomies are performed when cancer is found in more than one area of the breasts, and lumpectomies or more localized removal of affected tissue is feared to not get all of the cancer that it needs to.  In earlier times, radical mastectomies were more the norm, no matter what the advancement of the cancer, and reconstructive options were almost nonexistent, but with today’s advanced methods of plastic and reconstructive surgery, it is possible to reconstruct something the is much closer to the woman’s original breasts and also do it for a lesser price since plastic surgery prices have somewhat come down in favor of newer, more cutting edge methods (which of course always bump the older methods down in price). 

I recently learned that an MRI may be recommended for plastic surgery patients who receive silicone breast implants, since silicone breast implants have now been reintroduced into the plastic surgery field as an acceptable breast implant after being banned amid safety concerns here in the US for several years.  Some people agree with the reintroduction and some people don’t, with lobbying groups lobbying to get the silicone implants banned for good here in the US because they still believe they are the cause of serious health issues.

Regardless, some doctors may actually recommend a yearly MRI as a precaution for breast implant patients who have the new silicone implants to make sure that the silicone has not leaked out into the body.  The problem with silicone is that, instead of being absorbed by the body and reabsorbed harmlessly into the blood stream like saline breast implants, silicone will just stay in the body indefinitely, and that is why the MRI is recommended. 

This way, the MRI can detect the silicone that has leaked out of the breast implant and a surgery can be performed to remove the escaped silicone from the chest or wherever else it may have migrated to.  I guess this is the only way that one can truly tell if a silicone implant has leaked, because the silicone stays localized in the breast area usually, and the shape is held, unlike a saline implant which is more easily told if there is any deflation involved because the deflation occurs rather than the shape being held in a silicone implant (understand?  I feel like I just ran in circles!)

At any rate, it really is up to the patient whether they want silicone or saline, and their level of comfort with safety issues that have not been fully examined at this point.  Silicone is often a more natural look that is softer to the touch as well, and this is the reason that many patients do choose this alternative breast implant method instead, especially if their concerns are primarily about natural look and feel.