But it's not though, is it?

What 'big dramatic bit' in Skyfall was that? I don't remember there being any particular dramatic twists or revelations in it. They may have given away stuff for IM3, I wasn't really paying attention to that. I can't imagine they gave away the recent major shocks in GoT because you pretty much couldn't show them on terrestrial TV, given the level of violence involved.


Again, I'm not entirely sure what there is to give away in Superman. Superman's origin story is something like 80 years old. The main villain is the same bad guy as was in a film made something like 35 years ago. The idea these kind of films can be 'spoiled' strikes me as bizarre. You can spoil a thriller, you can spoil a murder mystery, you can spoil any film with a twist, but can you spoil a film that's retelling a story that's older than pretty much every person who will ever see it, that has already been made into a film twice?

New bra that fitted fine a few weeks ago is significantly too small now.Really not comfy.
balls.

I hate bras. Whoever designed them obviously wanted to make them a torture device.

Is it time to burn that bra? To the delight of adolescent boys across the globe, new research from France suggests that women would benefit from ditching the undergarment and going au naturel all the time. Professor Jean-Denis Rouillon, a specialist in sports medicine at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bensacon, recently published a study saying that women gained no health or shape advantage by wearing a bra. If anything, bras brought them down. Literally.

Over 15 years, Rouillon used a slide rule and calipers to measure the breasts of more than 300 female volunteers between the ages of 18 and 35. He found that women who did not wear a bra had an average 7 millimeter lift — in relation to their shoulders as measured from their nipples — over a given year. Moreover, their breasts were firmer and stretch marks were more likely to fade. "Medically, physiologically, anatomically — breasts get no benefit from being denied gravity," Rouillon tells France Info radio. "On the contrary, they get saggier with a bra."

But don't torch your Victoria's Secrets products quite yet. As Caity Weaver at Gawker notes, Rouillon makes it clear that "a bouncing braless existence isn't for everyone."

Rouillon cautions that his study is preliminary and that it would be "dangerous" for all women to stop wearing bras. He admits his sample size still isn't large enough to be conclusive, and since his volunteers were ages 18 to 35, he can't speak for older women. In fact, in an inadvertently uncouth way, he says, "An overweight, 45-year-old woman with three kids has no business not wearing a bra." Ouch. So, essentially, as Weaver puts it, Rouillon means "Don't wear a bra (HOT LADIES ONLY)."

Another issue: Even if science is ready for women to let loose, the rest of society isn't as progressive. A recent study showed that women who don't wear a bra to work are judged as less likely to become executives by colleagues of both sexes. Moreover, it's hard to fight the social implications of jettisoning an undergarment with 600 years of history in the Western world. So let's be honest: While some cleavage is sexy and showing more and more of it is increasingly deemed appropriate, we're not quite ready to see it all hang out… yet.

measure the breasts of more than 300 female volunteers between the ages of 18 and 35

I read about this a while ago and there was a lot of concern over the fact that it was a male scientist who had been conducting the research.


That's probably more boobs than I've examined in my entire training. And he's limited it to girls of a young age.

I have a different view. Younger girls so less stretchy skin hence less likely to sag. I wonder what would have happened had he done it properly and measured across all age groups? Or better still followed measurements over a longer timespan?