Letters to the Editor
-
look at the flipside of the flop
The name "sports bra" is an oxymoron. I am a triathlete and seriously tried to figure out how to get some MIT grad students to finally figure out how to make these miserable things comfortable. It is ridiculous to thwart circulation at the aorta and inhibit breathing with a wide swath of elastic smack across your chest. Yes I do pull the center so I can breath.
Thanks for the tip about the Danskin and Converse brands. I was noting tonight that my favorite running shoes are my current ones, Converse, and a fraction of the price of the Etonics that gave me a bunion in three wearings.
I assume men designed jock straps too. To my understanding they aren’t particularly delightful equipment either. So maybe it is the threshold for misery on the part of the sport gear designers that’s the root of the problem.
Doppleganger? Is that Regangelpplod backwards?
-
-- Allie_
Read anony 05:28 PM, and get a clue.
-
btw, I think a lot of this bra complaint stuff is basically baloney.
Just a basic perusal of bras is enough to tell they come in many shapes and sizes with about a zillion models on the market. There are varying degrees of support, under wire, cross support, sport models, high tech fabrics, padded, nipple-less, and that's barely the tip of it.
For another thing, people always complain about things they can't actually make themselves, and insist somebody somewhere should be making the magically perfect one only they can imagine. A "perfect" design which is actually impossible and only exists int their imagination.
Guys have various subjects they kvetch about, like car engines. And most guys don't actually know shit about cars, besides they go vroom. But because culture supposes they do, they feel the need to babble nonsensically on the subject. Bras seem to be an equivalent for women.
And every year a company announces a new product, whether it's the new turbocharger or motor oil or something, or the new bra, or whatever, which is supposed to finally address the needs of all those perfect designers. The fools read the marketing copy and exclaim "finally!" A year later, they're usually repeating the same complaints and buying the next wonder product.
Lastly, there seems to be no shortage of women who love to "complain" how big their breasts are and how horrible it is to be objectified, and what trouble they are, etc. A lot of them tend to be overweight too, so it makes sense to work with what ya got. Just recently I was hit on by a gal I'd have no interest in, even if I was single, who drunkenly felt the need to tell me what trouble her breasts are, how early they developed, and how she even lactates sometimes, etc.
-
-- lukvthdra
To my understanding [jocks] aren’t particularly delightful equipment either. So maybe it is the threshold for misery on the part of the sport gear designers that’s the root of the problem. -- lukvthdra
People aren't really designed by evolution to fit into clothes. Some parts of us just don't clothe easily. Especially parts that are soft, sensitive, lack bones or other structure, and dangle freely.
Since we don't have hard carapaces naturally, anything we wear is either going to be 1) loose and flexible with minimal support 2) flexible but compressing soft tissue for some support 3) have a rigid carapace for full support, and still require some compression where it's strapped on.
A jock is basically a compression container to keep everything in place. Since it's under a lb of flesh to contain, and since it's already contained by thighs, a jock can be relatively over engineered without it becoming a huge mechanical contraption. For protection "cups" are given a semi-hard shell.
The female equivalent of a "cup" for support is actually the hard-shell cone bra.
Big brested women may have 10+ lbs of breast. With jogging or other physical activity, they're accelerated to 30+ lbs momentarily. That's a lot of mass to contain in a cup that is 1) stretchy to accommodate variation 2) machine washable for ease of use 3) durable 4) doesn't uncomfortably compress the chest 5) has a soft outer shell, which rules out superstructure for lateral/vertical support.
Since nobody wants a bra with a rigid superstructure, like a hard shell cone bra, or an exterior steel trellis on a bridge, making a bra that is supportive in the right places, and also malleable, without too much compression, is a pretty big challenge. It would probably need to have support ribs of a semi-hard plastic, at the least. And those might cause other discomforts.
And at the end of the day, even the perfect bra isn't going to completely ease the stress on connective tissue. No matter what you put outside the breast to support it, internally the breast is soft, and mass is still going to bounce internally, and have to be supported by internal connective tissue.
So it's really not this simple problem some imagine.
-
and the point of it all
And the point of it all:
Technical people, like mechanical engineering, physicists, etc. are the most qualified to actually make informed comments, and either make the super-bra, or explain why it's not possible. If that's a woman, all the better.
But the women complaing here haven't gone into any technical discussion nor do they seem inclined to whatsoever. Rather they just prefer to kvetch and complain it's "The Misogyny" to blame for everything.
And such ignorant whining is hardly empowerment or a good cultural value.
-
-- brightstar65
just keep adding non flexible materials among the flexible material in the bra cup. Machines can sew amazing hybrid materials now. Criss cross the materials across the nipple area to minimize sideways movement.
Not really.
What you're basically describing is a fabric with mono directional stretch, which is then crossed to provide additional directional support. That already exists and is basically what most sport bars do.
The problem is you're either 1) no different or better than current designs, 2) simply creating a semi-rigid cup, which then has fit problems and aesthetic problems ala "cone-tit" or 3) you're relying on compression again, which was the original complaint and also causes soreness.