In an op-ed in Salon (which appears in slightly abbreviated form in the LA Times, Ehrenreich writes that women's response to the Stupak Amendment, which "will snatch away all but the wealthiest women's right to choose," has been "muted" compared with the outcry against the new mammography guidelines. This is despite the fact that mammograms for women under 50 haven't been shown to decrease breast cancer mortality, and some evidence suggests they may even increase cancer risk. Ehrenreich writes,

It's not just that abortion is deemed a morally trickier issue than mammography. To some extent, pink-ribbon culture has replaced feminism as a focus of female identity and solidarity. When a corporation wants to signal that it's "woman friendly," what does it do? It stamps a pink ribbon on its widget and proclaims that some miniscule portion of the profits will go to breast cancer research. I've even seen a bottle of Shiraz called "Hope" with a pink ribbon on its label, but no information, alas, on how much you have to drink to achieve the promised effect. When Laura Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2007, what grave issue did she take up with the locals? Not women's rights (to drive, to go outside without a man, etc.), but "breast cancer awareness." In the post-feminist United States, issues like rape, domestic violence, and unwanted pregnancy seem to be too edgy for much public discussion, but breast cancer is all apple pie.

On the one hand, Ehrenreich's comments seem like a somewhat heavy-handed indictment of modern feminism. She says, "Once upon a time, grassroots women challenged the establishment by figuratively burning their bras. Now, in some masochistic perversion of feminism, they are raising their voices to yell, 'Squeeze our tits!'" But just as not everything a woman does is empowering, not every extra-scientific position a group of women takes is a blow to feminism. Also, plenty of us have been far from muted on Stupak.

That said, however, there's good evidence that the breast cancer awareness movement as it currently exists isn't necessarily good for women. Though many fear that the new guidelines are simply an attempt by insurance companies to save money, Ehrenreich argues that the old guidelines actually pumped money into the pockets of oncologists, who offered chemotherapy for mammogram-detected cancers that might never have needed treating. Unfortunately, we don't yet know how to distinguish these cancers from those that do merit aggressive treatment — and the treatments we do have could be a lot better. Ehrenreich says,

What we really need is a new women's health movement, one that's sharp and skeptical enough to ask all the hard questions: What are the environmental (or possibly life-style) causes of the breast cancer epidemic? Why are existing treatments like chemotherapy so toxic and heavy-handed? And, if the old narrative of cancer's progression from "early" to "late" stages no longer holds, what is the course of this disease (or diseases)? What we don't need, no matter how pretty and pink, is a ladies' auxiliary to the cancer-industrial complex.

Ehrenreich's language is harsh, but as someone who suffered breast cancer herself, she knows whereof she speaks. And while research into cancer treatment is ongoing, the focus of breast cancer awareness could use a shift. Much of the focus is on women themselves — their responsibility to schedule regular mammograms, to lead a healthy lifestyle, and to perform self-exams (a practice also jettisoned under the new guidelines). It makes a certain amount of sense — individual women want to feel that they can have an effect on their health. But there may be systemic factors, like additives and pollutants, that contribute to breast cancer, and the pink-ribbon movement might do well to advocate for more research into those. And although mammograms can save lives, new screening options might be even better — cutting-edge research deserves just as much support as awareness and prevention currently get.

The "pink-ribbon breast cancer cult," as Ehrenreich calls it, may not be the sign of a large-scale failure of feminism. But women are being asked to accept a lot of symbolic gestures — like Sen. Dick Vitter's superfluous mammogram-access amendment — instead of the reproductive rights and truly life-saving treatments they actually need. Ehrenreich argues persuasively that rather than getting angry about new guidelines for a useful but flawed procedure, women should save their anger for what really matters — that we still don't know how to heal our breasts, and that the government is trying to control our wombs.

Slap On A Pink Ribbon, Call It A Day [Salon]
Can Mammograms Increase Cancer Risk For Some Women? [Time: Wellness Blog]
Annual Screening With Breast Ultrasound Or MRI Could Benefit Some Women [EurekAlert]
Targeted Breast Ultrasound Can Reduce Biopsies For Women Under 40 [EurekAlert]
David Vitter Will Protect Ladies From Medical Recommendations [Wonkette]

NBC's Andrea Mitchell and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, herself a breast cancer survivor, talk above about one of the biggest concerns sparked by the new guidelines: that insurance companies will now choose not to cover mammograms for women under 50. Doctors say this won't happen immediately, but is certainly possible, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance is already changing its system for grading health plans to reflect the new recommendations. Because of this, many worry that the change is motivated by a desire for cost-cutting, and not a concern for women's health. Carol H. Lee of the American College of Radiology says,

The only conclusion I can come to is it's economically motivated. In this climate, when we are all paying attention to how we can decrease the cost of health care, in my opinion that's the primary motivation.

But the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which not only recommended the change in mammogram ages but also said breast self exams have little benefit, says the real issue is unnecessary screening and even treatment. Women in their 40s are 60% more likely to experience false positives from mammograms, leading to unnecessary follow-up tests and anxiety. While these risks may seem relatively minor, early screening also increases the odds that a woman will be treated for cancer that never would have sickened her — and unnecessary cancer treatment is a much more serious proposition than a biopsy. Some women, in fact, seem relieved by the new guidelines. 51-year-old Nancy Moylan told the New York Times,

Sure, I know plenty of women who have breast cancer. And I know many, many women who've received false-positives. It always struck me that most women seemed so relieved to know that they don't have cancer that they never took the next step and said, ‘Hey, why was I just put through that anxiety? I've had all these invasive tests and worry only to find out that the mammogram isn't all it's cracked up to be?'

What's frustrating for many women may be the uncertainty of breast cancer screening, uncertainty only further compounded by the new guidelines, which have already been criticized by the American Cancer Society. Liesl Schillinger writes in The Daily Beast,

The only consistent message from the scientific community to women is to be afraid. How can issues of such life-and-death importance to women-more than half the population-be so murkily understood, and so conflictingly explained? Are medical authorities playing a guessing game with women's health?

Unfortunately, when it comes to breast cancer, a guessing game still seems to be the only game in town. Dr. Donald A. Berry, a statistician on the task force, says the money spent on regular mammograms for women under 50 "was buying something of net negative value," and that with the new guidelines, "the economy benefits, but women are the major beneficiaries." And in fact, many women have long forgone mammograms because they personally feel the risks outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, mammograms only reduce the breast cancer death rate by 15% — a big deal if you are one of the ones saved, but still a relatively small fraction of all sufferers. This statistic — and the high number of false positives associated with mammograms — shows that what women really need are better screening tools. But for now, we have to decide what to do with the tools we have, and this decision has just become a lot more complicated.

Mammograms And Politics: Task force Stirs Up A Tempest [Washington Post]
Many Doctors To Stay Course On Breast Exams For Now [NYT]
New Mammogram Advice Finds A Skeptical Audience [NYT]
Panel Urges Mammograms At 50, Not 40 [NYT]
The Great Mammogram Debate [Daily Beast]

The new guidelines weighed the risk of false-positive tests against the benefits of screening women for breast cancer and found that although some lives were saved, more hospitals were ordering needless tests, and more women were being subjected to anxiety and stress, than was truly necessary. While for many, a false positive seems like no big deal - worth it, when you consider the alternative - the government-funded panel says the risks of a false positive are real, and can result in unnecessary treatment for cancers that are growing too slowly to be an issue during a woman's lifetime. False positives and the battery of unnecessary testing that follows may cause extreme panic and anxiety, which can also adversely affect the body.

To arrive at their radical new guidelines, the task force examined several studies from England and Sweden. They also commissioned six groups to make make statistical models to analyze date. These groups were essentially brought in to answer the question: How much does it benefit women over 40 to get screened for breast cancer every year, and do these benefits outweigh the (often quite high) cost? Donald A. Berry, a statistician at the University of Texas and a leader of one of the modeling groups, says that they almost unanimously found that there was "very little" benefit to screening women, "so little as to make the harms of additional screening come screaming to the top."

For younger women, they found that the benefits of screening for cancer are low when weighed against the risks of a false positive. For each case of cancer-related death prevented among women under 50, 1,900 women must be screened, according to their report. For women 50-59, the ratio drops to 1 for 1,300, and for women aged 60 to 69, 1 for 377.

The task force still advises that women with the breast cancer gene get routinely screened, but suggest that women at a normal risk should forgo yearly testing until their 50s. They were even more blunt about the benefits of performing self-examinations. "Women should know it doesn't work," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice-chairman of the task force. And naturally, there are studies to back this up: Two large studies involving 200,000 women in China and over 100,000 in Russia found no benefits from breast self-examinations.

While the National Cancer Institute has announced plans to re-evaluate their guidelines in light of the report, the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology both said they are sticking to their current guidelines, which advise annual mammograms for women over 40. Phil Evans, a professor of radiology from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and president for the society for Breast Imaging, says he is "shocked" by the new findings. "There's a ton of scientific data in this country and others on screening that shows a significant benefit for women between 40 and 49 to be screened," he says. He also points out that the task force's interpretation of data did not take into account the fact that saving younger women leads to more "life years saved" than for older women. Dr. Constance Lehman, chair of the American College of Radiology, says that mammograms are necessary for early detection, and can "put them in a group of women where they more likely can have their breasts conserved. Without that early detection they are much more likely to be told they need the breast removed." She says younger women and African-American women are increasingly developing aggressive cancers that will not be detected if they are only screened every other year.

Of course, one of the biggest issues to come out of the new guidelines relates to how they will effect health insurance. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will continue to cover annual mammograms (congress currently requires Medicare to cover yearly screening for patients), but many private companies may feel differently. The guidelines will also change the grading system for health plans, which are issued by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, and are used as a marketing tool. One measure of the grading is based upon the percentage of patients getting mammograms every year starting at age 40.

While some researchers fear that the new report will be viewed as a political effort by the Obama administration to save money on health care costs, Dr. Berry is quick to note that the money is only one consideration. "The money was buying something of net negative value," he said. "This decision is a no-brainer. The economy benefits, but women are the major beneficiaries."

Less-Rigorous Guidelines For Breast-Cancer Screenings [Wall Street Journal]
In Reversal, Panel Urges Mammograms At 50, Not 40 [New York Times]
Panel: Mammograms Should Start At 50, Not 40 [NPR]

This boobtastic Rethink Breast Cancer ad "and a couple more like it," according to the LA Times's Dan Neil, "seem to answer a question that must have nagged breast-cancer-awareness advocates: How to get men to care? With rare exceptions, men don't suffer from breast cancer. The earnest, sad-violins spots invoking moms and grand-moms of the past probably haven't gained much traction among men." Of course not! Why would we ever expect men to care about their moms and grand-moms dying of cancer if the issue isn't marketed to get their attention? (And they say feminists have pathetically low expectations of men.) Says Neil on behalf of Dude Nation, "These ads make the equation explicit: More breast cancer equals fewer awesome breasts. Brilliant. Where do I send my check? The only people who could object to such ads are advocates for other kinds of cancer awareness. "

Setting aside the implication that the average straight male has thus far been too fucking stupid to connect the dots between breast cancer and "fewer awesome breasts" — what was I saying about low expectations? — there's actually a pretty good reason to object to the ads, regardless of any affiliation with other cancer awareness projects. However devastating mastectomies may be, the somewhat larger point here is that breast cancer equals fewer awesome women. And if that point is lost on Dude Nation, the problem is not with the ads, it's with a culture that says women's primary value lies in our sexuality. I mean, seriously, is it even possible to illustrate that any more clearly? Dead human beings of the female persuasion = meh. Lost tits = crisis!

Despite my feminism and general cantankerousness, I am often a fan of pragmatic solutions, even when they irritate me politically. 9 times out of 10, I'd be like, "More money for breast cancer research? Can't really complain." But I'm sorry, this is that 10th time, and I'm fucking complaining. If it's really true that men can't be bothered to care about second most common cause of cancer death in most women (and the number one cause in Hispanic women) unless you hit them over the head with images of vulnerable titties, then I would like to talk to a realtor on Mars, but I still don't want to see an ad like this.

But oh wait, it's a trend. Neil also recently saw a lung cancer awareness ad featuring a close-up of lingerie-clad boobs ("La Perla? I'm just guessing," he adds helpfully) that switches to "an X-ray of her diseased lungs." Gotcha! Lung cancer is even more deadly for women than breast cancer! "The take-away here?" says Neil. "These ads represent a positive cultural change."

Really? That's the take-away?

Fine. You win, Dude Nation. Let's just slap a pair of perky, young hooters on every friggin' PSA for every friggin' cause of death that isn't male-specific. Cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, melanoma, leukemia, heart disease, AIDS, malaria, drunk driving, you name it. New slogan, for all of them: IF SHE DIES, HER PRETTY BOOBIES GO WITH HER. Hell, why be that conservative, when the stakes are so high? Let's just go with a crotch shot: IF SHE DIES, NO MORE PUSSY FOR YOU.

The important thing here is getting straight men's attention, right? Who could complain?

Breast Cancer Ads Use Lechery For Good [LA Times]

But it's not just patent rights over breast cancer genes that the ACLU seeks to overturn — they want the courts to rule that giving private companies patents over large portions of the human genome is generally unconstitutional.

The ACLU contends that patenting the genes limits research and the free flow of information, and as a result violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit also challenges genetic patenting in general, noting that about 20 percent of all human genes are patented — including genes associated with Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy and asthma.

"It is absolutely our intent that upon victory this will rend invalid patents on many other genes," said Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation and a patent law professor at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. "We just had to pick one case as our case."

Officials at Myriad Genetics (a Utah-based company) and the University of Utah Research Foundation, who hold the patents, declined to comment.

The ACLU contends that giving private companies genetic patents for existing genes is problematic for researching cures, among other things.

Myriad's patents give it exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the genes — forcing other researchers to request permission from the company before they can take a look at BRCA1 and BRCA2, the ACLU said. The patents also give the company the rights to future mutations on the BRCA2 gene and the power to exclude others from providing genetic testing.

Those other things include issues that affect the women who carry the BCRA1 and BCRA2 genes, which often cause breast and ovarian cancer.

The company also charged $3,000 a test, possibly keeping some women from seeking preventive genetic testing, the ACLU says.

"Women whose doctors recommend genetic testing should be able to find out whether they have the gene mutations linked to breast and ovarian cancer so that they are able to make choices that could save their lives, and these patents interfere with their ability to do so," said Lenora Lapidus, director of ACLU's Women's Rights Project.

So even though the company and the foundation was just able to look at something that already existed, they get to choose who can afford to live or die? Lovely.

ACLU Sues Over Patents On Breast Cancer Genes [CNN]

Rep. Green claims that she wants to ensure that "infants in our state ... are getting the very best brain food they can get," and has been backed by fellow Rep. Lynn Kessler, who fully supports the legislation and claims that those who think that women shouldn't be allowed to breastfeed in public because it's "obscene" need to "grow up." [SeattleTimes]

The Wall Street Journal reports that 210,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer every year before 2002, but that number dropped to less than 190,000 each year and stayed low through 2005. Some doctors speculated that the drop was due to wide-scale abandonment of postmenopausal hormones after the National Institutes of Health warned in July 2002 that long term use of the drug Prempro, which contained estrogen and progestin, increased the risk of breast cancer, heart and stroke. Other doctors said stopping hormone treatment would not cause such a sudden drop and said it was due to a decline in screening.

A new study published today in The New England Journal of Medicine supports the claim that women abandoning hormone therapy caused the drop-off. USA Today reports that breast cancer risk declines falls markedly within two years of quitting HRT treatment. "It looks like after a couple of years a woman is pretty much back to normal," says Rowan Chlebowski, lead author of the study. "That's very encouraging." The new research analyzed data from the Women's Health Initiative, a landmark federal study, that assigned 16,000 postmenopausal women to take Prempro or a placebo. In 2002 the women stopped taking the drug and the new analysis found that the women's breast cancer risk fell rapidly in the next two years, even though their screening mammogram rate didn't change.

A related study was published last month in the journal Cancer that also found that users of estrogen and progestin had their breast cancer risk return to normal within two years of ending the treatment. Eugenia Calle, the lead researcher of that study, says that which she believes the federal warning helped fuel the 2002 drop, "we can't quite tie it up in a neat bow. They should have dropped a little slower and more continuously."

Doctors still say that taking hormones during menopause is safe, but recommend that women take the drugs for as few years as possible. Before the warning, six million women were taking Prempro for strengthening bones, curbing hot flashes and vaginal dryness, and other benefits. Chlebowski says that for about two years combined hormone therapy is safe, but the research "really suggests that there's a great benefit to women for stopping, because the risk goes down almost immediately." He recommends that women use hormone replacement therapy for no more than two or three years, and says even then they should only take the drugs if they are experiencing severe menopausal symptoms that interfere with their quality of life.

But, in a new U.S. News and World Report story, author Deborah Kotz points out that the new research does not mean women should panic about using hormones if they do have bad symptoms because the doses women were taking when the research was originally performed were about twice that of the low-dose therapy doctors give women today, and if women do only take hormones for a short time, their increased risk will disappear within two years.

Breast Cancer's Decline Analyzed [The Wall Street Journal]
Breast Cancer Risk Drops After Women Stop Hormone Use [USA Today]
Hormones And Breast Cancer: 3 Reasons To Not Panic About HRT [US News & World Report]

For those who need a refresher course: Facebook banned some photos of mothers breastfeeding their children because they said it violated their Terms of Use. Naturally, this angered a lot of breastfeeding mothers who created a group with 80,000 people titled "Hey Facebook, breast feeding is not obscene!" and some of the mothers even staged a small protest outside of Facebook's main offices in California.

A spokesman for Facebook says that the site does not ban all breastfeeding photos, just ones where a nipple is fully exposed:

"Photos containing a fully exposed breast (as defined by showing the nipple or areola) do violate those terms (on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material) and may be removed," he said in a statement.

"The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain."

The Facebook spokesman claims that the company's standards for "indecent" breastfeeding photos are not just found on Facebook: the social networking company called several U.S. newspapers and asked if they could run an ad with a woman breastfeeding with a fully exposed breast, which the newspapers declined (and we all know how great newspapers are doing right now).

Is an exposed nipple really the line that makes breastfeeding go from "wholesome" to "indecent"? The issue sparked a debate over at Babble when a Strollerderby blogger defended the moms protesting:

I've got to tell you, I've seen plenty of freaky photos on Facebook - from the teenager I babysat when he was 3 looking so blitzed he might well have had alcohol poisoning (not indecent, I suppose, but definitely making me feel old) to the old tea bagging trick (why do guys do this to one another?). I could see removing this kind of thing - you know, underage drinking is against the law guys.

But a mom breastfeeding? Give me a break. I'm one of those people who prefers to give a mom her privacy, and I look away - I probably would avoid commenting on a friend's photo if it was of her breastfeeding. But, in the end, it's a mother and her child. It's not a Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. Women can walk down the street wearing nothing on her boobs but a pasty and be violating nothing more than the laws of taste (and fashion). Meanwhile, she's showing more of her breast than a breastfeeding mom, and with no real reason for it.

Some of the commenters, of course, disagreed. One feels that if a woman is breastfeeding she wouldn't necessarliy be showing an exposed nipple since the baby's mouth covers it:

OK, I don't understand. They will not show a mother breastfeeding, but will allow a photo that does not show an entire breast. By definition, a breastfeeding pic would not show the entire breast, as the baby's mouth would be covering the nipple. Am I missing something here? If a pasty is OK, why not a baby's mouth?

Meanwhile, some other commenters took issue with the indignation that some pro-breastfeeding mothers showed as well as the idea that everything must documented on Facebook (oh, and someone had to bash feminism too because, hell, why not?):

I'm with LAUREN on this: not everything you do needs to be documented on face book. Yes, this is natural to do. I fully intend to breast feed my future children. But this is an INTIMATE and MEANINGFUL time for Mom and Baby. It does not make you look cool or look like a model mother to show this. It is a beautiful thing, but it is special. You wouldn't show yourself having sex with your husband or bathing your children or cleaning up the babies vomit, because they are special times. If you do, you are simply needy for attention and seem to think that your life must be shared with the whole world. Stop exploiting this special time, it's not supposed to be for anyone else to see or congratulate you on.

And no: IT'S NOT OK FOR A DUDE TO FLASH HIS PENIS OR TEENS TO BE SHOWING THEIR BOOZE PARTIES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THESE SHOULD BE FIRST ON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S "DELETE" LIST, BUT THERE STILL NEEDS TO BE SOME DECENCY AND PRIVACY IN PEOPLE'S LIVES. And standing in the streets and offices of Palo Alto is not going to improve your case. You're just going to upset the overly-prudish and annoy the rest of us.

No, breastfeeding isn't obscene, not by a long shot, but you do not need to be the center of digital attention: either for showing the breastfeeding or staging this idiotic protest for being denied the right to show it.

And yeah, Navi, for some reason this is still an issue. Don't know why. We have nursing rooms in lots of stores and even corporate buildings (Colgate-Palmolive among them). Nobody gives a damn anymore except a few prudes and a few neo-feminists who look for any excuse to fight there self-supposed "oppressions".

Facebook Ban On Breast-Feeding Photos Sparks Protest [Reuters]
Breastfeeding Moms Fighting Facebook Ban [Strollerderby]

Earlier: Facebook: Boobs Are For Body-Shots, Not Baby-Feeding

As a chick with a big rack I'm divided (heh) on this issue. On one hand, fuck a mothertrucker who can't concentrate and look you in the eye just because you're wearing a scoopneck shirt. Any modern woman knows that getting dressed for work is hard enough. Guys have interchangeable suits and ties; we have skirts, cardigans, blouses, shirts, tanks, camis, trousers, pantsuts, skirt suits and dress suits. And if your chest is large, finding a jacket or button down shirt that will contain the twins without pulling or buckling is pretty damn tough. So the more scooped out and open a garment is in the bosom area, the better. My old job was pretty casual and I'd rock some cleavage now and then. My attitude was "If I'm comfortable, then I'm getting work done, and that's all that matters." Just because my cups runneth over doesn't mean I have to cover 'em up like a nun. Also, I can't just put them away in a drawer and pull them out on Friday night. It doesn't work that way.

That said, I'm not a lawyer or an international bond trader. Salma Hayek might be able to wear low-cut stuff every day of the week, but, as Jonathan Fitzgarrald, director of marketing for a Los Angeles law firm tells the Journal, "If my attorney bills out at $1,000 an hour, I want them to look like a lawyer, not a celebrity." Because, yeah, on the other hand: Cleavage can look downright trashy. Sometimes it looks sloppy, like you're in need of some support, like your clothes are ill-fitting. And also, it reminds one of, oh, I dunno, Loni Anderson, Pam Anderson, Chrissie from Three's Company and other women not known for their smarts. Maybe the patriarchy did this to me. Maybe if bond traders, scientists, lawyers and doctors wore low-cut tops then cleavage would seem like no big deal. Maybe if Americans didn't only think of boobs as sexual objects but as just a regular part of a woman's anatomy actually intended for feeding infants, then cleavage would seem like no big deal. The truth is, I don't even really like cleavage all that much. As some comedienne once said, I don't need my bra to lift and separate; I need it to divide and conquer.

Risky Business: Décolletage At A Work Dinner [Wall Street Journal]

Earlier: New Bra Makes Women "Flawless" By Erasing Their Nipples
"Contour" Bras: Holding Us Up, Or Holding Us Back?
With Great Breast Size Comes Great Responsibility
German Titocracy
Do Bouncy Breasts Make Women Skip Workouts?

'I always try and push them, because it gives a better lift and you don't see the nipples peeking through,' said Heather, a young lingerie saleswomen in mod makeup, a black mini-dress and furry boots who was working at Saks Fifth Avenue's lingerie department the other day, holding a hanger with two silky but sturdy cups dangling from straps.

Her colleague, Carolina, concurred: 'A lot of women have problems with their'—and here her voice dropped to a whisper—'nipples showing.'

Not that I would know what that's like: I work at this job all day in a muumuu and no bra, and my previous job was in an all-female environment. So I guess I've been afforded the luxury of actually liking my nipples, or at least, not feeling the need to hid them.

Recently, I bought one of those "T-shirt" bras from The Gap for an event I had to go to. It was my only option, since it was all they had (and since I've completely given up on Victoria's Secret). Problem was, my tits kept falling out of it. And it's not like I bought the wrong size. My boobs just do not want to conform to that cup shape, and they particularly are adverse to being pushed together, as they seem to be sticking to this whole divide-and-conquer theme.

A bra I bought at Agent Provocateur however, was not only cute, it was devoid of annoying padding, with a layer of thin, comfortable fabric that actually let my nipples be, you know, nipples. But that shit cost me like a bajillion dollars. (Real price: $160). I guess what it comes down to is that nowadays, you have to pay an obscene amount of money to look "obscene."

Pad Girls! Attack of the 21st-Century Falsies [NY Observer]