[Debbie L.]

Hi Paula! And everyone. I hadn't seen this post until this morning, although I'd looked at the Scar Project before. My daughter had sent it to me awhile ago. She raved about it but my initial reaction was more in the "okay, but why?" category.

I had bilateral mastectomies without reconstruction. Much like you, Paula -- I did not rule out eventual reconstruction, at least not for the first few years. But over time I adjusted to my chest, mostly. Of course I miss my breasts, but it's not high on my list of life's issues.

For me, the lack of interest in reconstruction was mostly based on the artificiality of it. I have always been a function-over-form kind of person and so, for example, prostheses never worked for me. I had a lovely pair, with a beautiful bra, and like the wig -- I tried to wear them. I couldn't even make it out of the bedroom with them in place, however. I felt costumed and hyper-aware of my losses. The props didn't help me deal with the loss, they made me uncomfortable (both physically and mentally), and more aware of the loss. Knowing that there was unlikely to be much sensation in reconstructed breasts, I figured I would not like them much more than I did the prostheses (which found a nice home with a grateful woman who saw things differently than I did). It's different for each of us.

On another list, we once had a rather heated discussion about whether mastectomy is a "mutilating" surgery. I think that was more about language and word definition than anything, but language carries feelings of course, and it was interesting and surprising to see the different feelings expressed. Some people felt disfigured or mutilated, in a traumatized way. Others said "yes, their chest was disfigured but oh well" (that was closest to my thinking). And still others were really upset at the words -- insisting that there was only beauty and to call the surgery disfiguring or mutilating was insulting and hurtful.

Oops, rambling again. Back to the scar project. So when my daughter asked what I thought, I said it was fine but I didn't really get its purpose. It seemed so staged and somewhat sensational. Was it for the general public and if so -- to what end? Or if for survivors -- again, what purpose did it serve (function over form for me, remember)? Her reply made sense to me, but in a broader context than breast cancer. She said that we, as a society or perhaps as a species, are phobic and judgmental about people's differences (skin color, disabilities, deformities, etc). She said that anything that reinforced the idea that we are not our bodies, that real people live within all kinds of bodies -- can only help us learn compassion and understanding. I can't disagree with that!

Debbie Laxague