Boob job
I had a mammogram today. I felt kind of silly going, since I'm only 36 and don't have a history if breast cancer in my family. But last year my doctor said I should have one just to establish a baseline, and more importantly, I promised my friend Tracey, who does have a family history of breast cancer, that I'd get it done. To be honest, I'd probably never get one ever if there weren't people in my life prodding me to do it, because it's just not high on my list of concerns, and I couldn't be bothered. But that's just the kind of attitude that would get me breast cancer, isn't it? So I might as well take half an hour out of my day and consider it a sacrifice to the cancer gods. I figure it's like envisioning the plane crashing before take-off to ensure that nothing goes wrong in the air.
Does anyone else think this way?
Anyway, I had a mammorgram today, and it was no big deal. I'm not sure where this rumor got started that it's painful, because it's not. Awkward? Sure. Uncomfortable? Absolutely. But definitely not painful. Actually, it was kind of amusing, the way the technician arranged my breast on the tray like a cook preparing a nice filet. She was taking the pictures with a digital camera, so I got to take a peek at the images on the computer before I left, and I was struck by how lovely they were. My boobs on the tray they were just pieces of pale meat squeezed between plexiglass plates, but on the screen, their white outlines against the black background looked like water balloons filled with gauzy cobwebs, bouyant and beautiful.
posted by judybat at 2:55 PM
14 Comments:
I know that women who've breastfed have lower rates of breast cancer; I wonder how much of it is that since your boobs have been working organs, they lose some of that collagen-cloudiness and become gauzier when subjected to mammogramification. My own girls have certainly changed for the squishier since mama-hood, though I haven't subjected them to a mammogram yet.
I feel like I should be pithier/ funnier on a blog comment, but oh well. I like talking about boobs these days. :)
First people prod you, and then doctors squeeze you. Where's the love?
Wait a minute...where does this idea come from that a boob isn't a "working organ" until an infant nurses from it? Last time I checked, many breasts do not exist in some kind of state of dignified repose until childrearing.
--Brian (whose feelings about breasts are a lot like Muslims' feelings about the Prophet, except for the part about objecting to graphical depictions)
Although I think the painful-mammo rumor was based on fact, the technology has gotten much better in recent years. I had my baseline four years ago and my second mammo just last year, it was much better the second time.
Of course, I'm lucky to have access to an urban health-care center (shout-out to the Polyclinic!) that gets new equipment on a regular basis. I can imagine that there are many older, owie-making machines still out there.
But before an infant nurses from them, you'd agree that one's breasts aren't in action like other organs are, right? Apparently, it's the hormones of pregnancy that physically change your breasts; a good (young) friend of mine who had a successful bout against stage 1 breast cancer last year was told by her Onc that it can be trickier to find aberrations in younger women who haven't been pregnant because the collagen is more elastic and can mask small lumps.
In re: the bfing/cancer stuff, here's the summary from a recent Nature publication:
"Breastfeeding protects women from breast cancer, says a major new study. But researchers are reluctant to advise women to change their behaviour.
1 in 8 women in the United States will develop breast cancer; 1 in 9 in Britain. The new study suggests that, for every year a woman breastfeeds, her risk of breast cancer falls by more than 4%. This is on top of the 7% reduction for each child she bears, and regardless of other risk factors such as genes, smoking or age of having her first child."
I am all fo rnursing, but I hear that weird stuff like Scotchguard and Teflon shows up in breastmilk. In a Teflon-free world things might be better (out of fear and affectionate nostalgia,I use only my grandma's cast-iron pans). I worry that my 34 year old self has more toxins built up in its ample fat supply than, say, my 20 year old self (which was thinner too, that bitch). The trade off is that at 34, I have more money and patience than I would had at 20. So my poor kid (whenever s/he shows up) will have lots to deal with on the toxic front, because I think formula is just plain weird. Sorry for the rant, but I have had a great deal of coffee.
We and our kids will be exposed to countless carcinogens that we have no control over, so why worry about teflon? In my highly unscientific opinion, the benefits of breast feeding way outweigh the putative drawbacks. Plus, you get to lose weight while eating constantly!
given the subject i just have to chime in. the only thing i can add that isn't more than minorly innapropriate is that as a child I refused to suckle. I wanted nothing to do with those darn breasts - and apparently I have been making up for lost time ever since.
The whole "BOOBS! / Good God, y'all / What are they good for? / Aside from nursing?" debate is interesting to me, so I ran it past my sis, who is both a mama and a medical professional:
"It's true that breasts complete their maturation during pregnancy, so from an infant-nourishing point of view I would agree that breastfeeding is the only time breasts are performing their primary function.
That said...there is some interesting work in human evolution about breasts. Our really distant ancestors didn't walk upright, so the visual signal for a fertile female would probably have been a round butt. Think about it, what other mammals have big ta-tas before reproducing? Or even after weaning? The theory is that as humans spent more time upright, the females who happened to have more fat deposited in their breasts were more likely to attract attention from males, thus were more likely to reproduce. So, evolution essentially grew a second set of buttocks on women's chests, strictly for the purpose of attracting a mate. What I've seen on ultrasound bears this out, small-breasted women have mostly glandular breast tissue and very little fatty tissue, while big breasted women often have an unimpressive amount of glandular tissue sandwiched between layers of fat. So, from an evolutionary point of view, the chest bootie certainly does serve a purpose just by attracting attention."
Of course, a couple of years ago I saw a great documentary, BUSTING OUT, in which one of the experts said that in cultures where everyone walks around bare-breasted, breasts just don't have the mythical powers they do in ours. I prefer explanations that link us back to our monkey friends, though.
That was one of the more interesting comments we've had on the blog, but I'm having trouble shaking the image of a big butt growing on my chest.
I agree with the spouse: That was an interesting point. And yet, Rachel, it doesn't explain ManBoobs.
First rule of ManBoobs: Do not talk about ManBoobs.
Judy, sorry for the bad image! As to the, um, Things That Shall Not Be Named, I think that one has a much shorter explanation.
Mmmmm . . . cheese and meat inside a pastry . . .
I had a former coworker who ate Hot Pockets nearly every day. And he was as skinny as a toothpick. Go figure.
Post a Comment
<< Home