Talk:Male bra

Bro
Do people really talk about their "bro's"? Perhaps we should leave the Seinfeld reference in. ;) —Lantoka ( talk 08:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

necessity
The line about there being no necessity for men to wear one seems to imply that anyone who does does so for perhaps less than acceptable reasons. If the line means that there's no social pressure to (even for men with substantial development), as there is with women, then perhaps it should be rephased as such- if it doesn't, it seems preachy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.226.103.82 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I threw in "medical necessity" to clarify that point. Whoever wrote that is trying to say that it's a choice whether or not to wear a bra, regardless of gender. —Lantoka ( talk 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes it sound like they are medically necessary for women, though. 202.139.23.205 (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've cleaned that up. Banj e  b oi   22:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question; Where do I find a male bra? I have size 48B breasts and female bras just don't fit right.[user:NinefootNinefoot 19:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Male Support Vest
The company referenced that sells a bra-like product for men calls it a "Male Support Vest". The terms "mansiere" and "bro" seen to have little currency outide the Seinfeld episode in which they are introduced. IMO this article should be deleted and "Male Support Vest" (with its Seinfeld nicknames) mentioned in the brassiere article. --House of Scandal 12:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting this article would be a rather extreme response. While there may be men who wear a "male support vest" specifically designed for men, there are also many men who wear bras, that is, feminine garments designed for women. I would suggest many male bra wearers do so for reasons other than support, as this article hopefully outlines. 81.78.178.42 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Beyond My Ken, please explain your recent reverts of my improvements to this page. Matma Rex talk 20:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, since you wish to make a change, you should explain why you believe your edit improved the article. All I did was return it to the state it was in before your edit.  After all, it may be that once you explain how you think the article was improved, I may agree with you. I await your explanation. BMK (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already explained this in the edit summary: I fixed formatting (removing an extraneous comma) and removed unnecessary template cruft. I also fixed grammar in another part of the article. Matma Rex talk 20:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary explanation tells what you did, but not why you think it improves the article, which is what we're concerned with here - we can see what you did by looking at the diff. So, how did your actions improve the article? BMK (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry, I forgot you like template cruft and incorrect commas around here. Matma Rex talk 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm isn't particularly helpful when you are simply being asked to justify disputed edits. Can you please explain how your edits improved the article, in your opinion? BMK (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already explained several times. Have you read any of my explanations? Please try re-reading them a few times and maybe you'll understand what I said at some point. Matma Rex talk 22:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read them, and I have understood them. They say what you did, and what you think of you did, but they do not say  how what you did improved the article .  This is what we are trying to establish, not what your actions were (which is quite obvious), but in what way your actions made the article better.  Please tell us that. BMK (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you do not think that correcting the grammar of articles or removing weird wikicode that does nothing useful is not obviously improving the article, then I'm afraid I cannot help you. Matma Rex talk 06:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem strangely reluctant to specify why you think your edits improved the article, which is odd, since you apparently thought they were worthwhile enough to start to edit war over them. I note from your talk page that you may not be a native speaker of English, so perhaps there is some miscommunication here. Given that, even though it's rather backwards from what should happen, I'll outline why, in my opinion, your edit was not an improvement to the article. Your edit was in three parts. In the first you removed a comma which, indeed, should not be there. I am removing it again. In the second part, you changed these sentences: "Additionally, some male athletes (more specifically runners) may choose to wear a sports bra under their shirts in order to prevent a common medical condition called jogger's nipple, also known as nipple chafing. This condition is caused by excessive rubbing of wet (sweat soaked) material over one's nipples." and converted them to this run-on sentence: "Additionally, some male athletes (more specifically runners) may choose to wear a sports bra under their shirts in order to prevent a common medical condition called jogger's nipple, also known as nipple chafing, caused by excessive rubbing of wet (sweat-soaked) material over one's nipples." While I am an advocate of using complex sentences, and the run-on sentence is grammatically correct, it is not superior to the originals, which have a better rhythm. The only worthy part of this part of the edit is the change to "sweat-soaked" from "sweat soaked", which I will return to the article now. The final part of your edit converted the "See also" list of 6 items organized into 2 columns, and made them into a single-column list. This does not improve the article, because it introduces 3 unnecessary lines of white space into the article which do not need to be there - obviously so, since they weren't there in the version before you edited. Overall, although there were two small items which were helpful, your edits did not go to improving the article, and even, in a small way, made it somewhat less good than it was. I hope that in the future when you are asked to elucidate why you think your edits improved an article, you will comply with the other editor's request in the spirit of collegiality and collaboration that is supposed to pervade this project, and not indulge yourself in the silly little dance of obfuscation you did above. Remember, it is the responsibility of the person who is changing the article to defend their edits, and not vice versa. Thanks, BMK (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. I still prefer my text, but whatever, I don't really care about that.
 * I do care about my reformatting of the "See also" list, and I do believe my changes to be an improvement. Whether one prefers the columnized or non-columnized layout is just a matter of taste, but the former also present some technical issues. It is only optimized for the default web site and for "visual" usage, and the usage of a table with hard spaces to create this layout can cause problems in the multitude of other environments Wikipedia articles can be used on:
 * in the mobile view (, it's displayed with an ugly frame for some reason)
 * for sight-impaired visitors using screen reader software (I'm not experienced with these, I have only briefly worked on making the site more accessible to them; they rely heavily on semantic markup, which a table used to create two columns isn't; would probably be happy to explain more if you asked him)
 * for the multitude of mobile apps that show Wikipedia articles
 * for offline Wikipedia readers like Kiwix often used where there is no high-speed Internet access available
 * and for various tools like Wikipedia bots or search engine spiders
 * I hope your preference doesn't trump all this. :) Matma Rex talk 23:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the job of other platforms to translate any valid formatting user on Wikipedia into a form usable for its users. It is not our responsibility to make our text functional for the multiplicity of other platforms which exist in the world, and which will continue to proliferate -- that's their job.  We're the fifth or sixth most used website in the world.  I have no concerns that any platform is going to support our formatting. BMK (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It indeed is our responsibility if we are aiming to be a free accessible knowledge database. There is a whole MOS section on why and how to do this: Manual of Style/Accessibility. Matma Rex talk 11:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you are okay with this, I restored this part of my changes. Matma Rex talk 16:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your assumption was incorrect, there is no consensus here. BMK (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked for help at WP:3O. Matma Rex talk 18:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable to me, thank you (but please do not dismiss accessibility as a "minor issue"!). ? Matma Rex talk 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ BMK (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's important. When I spoke about the See also section's accessibility being a minor issue, I meant the former not the latter. Smile.png Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Male bra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708091318/http://www.brassiered.com/ to http://www.brassiered.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202020846/http://www.petticoated.com/PDQ.august.06.html to http://www.petticoated.com/PDQ.august.06.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501043619/http://www.enell.com/products_for_men.php to http://www.enell.com/products_for_men.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Misleading title vs. content
This article is about brassieres designed for males who use them for specific 'utilitarian' purposes. Those purposes include the effects of amounts of breast and/or nipple tissue and such things as medical conditions that are not typically experienced by males. The bras are designed to minimize the appearance of or control movement of the breast tissue, to protect sensitive nipple tissue, as clearly described in the article.

It's misleading to include more than a passing mention of brassieres worn by male cross-dressers because male cross-dressers typically wear brassieres for other reasons, e.g. to appear more feminine or to experience clothing that is typically worn by females. To suggest that male cross-dressers wear male brassieres is wrong, because they wear brassieres made to be worn by females and not to flatten or conceal breasts but to enhance their appearance to something closer to female breasts. I think the article contains too much misleading information which suggests to people looking to increase their knowledge a distorted view of something that is already often misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:9063:EC8E:F8AC:7E84 (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)