I Hated My Breasts And Was Afraid To Show Them To Dates. Here's What Happened When I Did.
Cutting off my breasts when I didn't have cancer seemed radical, but it wasn't radical to me. I have the BRCA1 gene mutation. That means I have a 60% chance of getting ovarian cancer and an 85% chance of getting breast cancer ― the deadly kind that doesn't respond to treatment. For me, those odds felt like 100%.
Before genetic testing was available, my mother got ovarian cancer when she was 62 and a few years later, she died. Then two of my cousins got breast cancer before they were 60 and both of them died. So, I got a prophylactic hysterectomy and a double mastectomy.
Now I'm 64, and I know I made the right decision because I'm alive.
Before the surgery, I spoke to a few other women who had mastectomies. They told me how it hurt to lift their arms after the procedure and how it took months to stretch their skin to accommodate the implants used to make reconstructed breasts. None of that scared me. I knew that a cancer diagnosis, chemotherapy, and death were, of course, much worse.
So, I had the surgery and then took my son to his first day of kindergarten three days later with surgical drains hiding under an oversized shirt.
I didn't ask the plastic surgeon how my breasts would look after the reconstruction. I even thought they would look better, fuller, like they did before I nursed two babies. I was wrong.
My implants are nothing like the ones many women get to look and feel sexier. Mine, the kind you get when the surgeon scrapes every bit of breast tissue out, are right under the skin. The skin covering the implants is thin and taut, and cold to the touch ― a different temperature than the rest of my body.
It turns out that breast reconstruction after a radical mastectomy is a difficult process. After the initial surgery, I had surgery six more times over the next 15 years to deal with the pain caused by scar tissue, and also to try to make my boobs look more normal. Three times, the plastic surgeons attached fake nipples made from skin taken from my pubic area, and they always fell off within a month of the surgery.
My boobs were ugly, and I hated to let anyone see them. Even doctors couldn't hide their disgust. When I went to the dermatologist once a year for a skin cancer screening, I reminded him about my mastectomies and reconstruction to avoid the slightest change in his facial expression, like I saw the last time he opened my paper gown.
After the surgery, I shut the door when I took a shower or turned away from my husband when I changed my clothes in front of him. I never asked him if he wanted to see or feel my boobs, nor did he ask. I kept my T-shirt on during sex for the remaining 12 years of our marriage, and we never talked about it.
After my divorce and more reconstructive surgery, my breasts, now with tattooed nipples where the flesh ones should have been, looked better, but they still weren't 'normal.' They were too hard and too cold. When I started dating, it had been 30 years since I was with a man other than my husband. I was anxious about intimacy, about letting a man see or touch my over-50 body. But my breasts made me consider never dating again.
When I told the first man I dated how taking my shirt off made me uncomfortable, he said, 'You never have to take your shirt off for me. We'll play shirts and skins, like in a pickup basketball game.'
Mostly, that's what we did for five years.
Three years ago, when I started seeing David, I went over to his house for dinner. We were standing in his kitchen talking and sipping our drinks, a vodka cranberry for me, and a scotch for him. He looked at me and said, 'I'm dying to kiss you,' and leaned in for the kiss. I kissed him back. It felt good. As the kissing got more passionate, we moved to the couch. A few minutes in, I pulled away and put my hand on his chest.
My anxiety was growing. I needed to give him my rehearsed speech. I had thought about giving it sooner, like on our first date, but that seemed too early, or afterwards, in a text message before our second date. Now, I felt I had no choice but to tell him mid-kiss, before he reached for my breasts.
'I had a double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery because I have a genetic mutation that causes breast cancer and ovarian cancer,' I told him.
I assured him I didn't have cancer. I mentioned that Angelina Jolie didn't have cancer either, but had done the same thing. I had the surgery years before Jolie, but most people are familiar with her experience.
I was afraid that my speech about dying and ugly boobs would be a buzzkill, but I needed to warn him so he wouldn't be surprised at what he saw or touched. I felt the familiar panic I always had when I gave my speech. I worried that the man I was starting to like would be disappointed or repulsed. My armpits were sweaty and I hoped that my deodorant was working.
'Don't worry, I've seen women with implants before,' he said.
'Not my kind of implants,' I replied.
In the direct, matter-of-fact way that I'm now used to, he said, 'Let's get this over with,' and gently lifted my T-shirt over my head. I helped him unhook my bra. He looked at my boobs quickly, said they're gorgeous, and though I didn't believe him, we continued to kiss.
Since then, I've discussed my insecurity about my breasts with David many times.
I am not the same person who hid under a T-shirt for so long and never told her ex-husband how afraid she was that he wouldn't desire or love her after a double mastectomy.
I wasted years after the surgery hating and hiding my breasts, but I don't blame myself. I grew up in a looks-obsessed culture that made me think I had to look like Angelina Jolie. I'm happy that Jolie told the world she has the BRCA gene mutation and had prophylactic surgery, because she may have saved some lives. Maybe her reconstruction looks better than mine, and maybe she wasn't afraid to take her shirt off afterwards. I was, because our culture makes women feel like they have to look perfect.
Now, I see my breasts as just another imperfection, like the wrinkles on my knees or the age spots on my forearms, and they don't make me more or less lovable.
My reconstructed breasts no longer feel like a secret I have to hide. David has normalized my chest for me because he touches me frequently and without hesitation. When he touches my breasts and tells me he loves them, I have started to believe him. Not because I think my boobs are beautiful or even just OK, but because they're part of me.
I showed David the real me by taking my shirt off, but I learned that discussing my insecurities was what really mattered. Now, when David and I spoon and he reaches his arm over my back and rests his hand on one of my breasts, I relax into his touch and fall asleep.
Margery Berger is the mother of two grown children and lives in Miami with her two poorly behaved dogs and David. She has written for Home Miami Magazine, Lip Service, Next Tribe and for the Writing Class Radio podcast.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost in October 2022.
Also in Goodful:
Also in Goodful:
Also in Goodful:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
25 minutes ago
- Fox News
Physical fitness represents ‘spiritual stewardship' of God's creation, says Christian bodybuilder
Hunter Sprague, a Christian bodybuilder and fitness coach in Texas, shares how he balances his dedication to physical improvements and his commitment to his faith.
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
UnitedHealth Stock Is Being Dumped By Wall Street—Here's Why
UnitedHealth stock is being offloaded. It just reported billions in profit. Earnings were strong. The story sounded stable. Yet the stock has been sinking. It's trading near multi-year lows, underperforming peers, and reacting poorly to every quarterly release. The market doesn't move like this for nothing. Markets often sniff out risks long before they're made official. The headlines are piling up: government investigations, operational failures, and leadership questions, but the price has already started to discount something deeper. Investors are trained to react to numbers. But when structure breaks, the numbers are often the last to go. This isn't about a soft quarter. The model itself is cracking, and the market sees it. The way UnitedHealth generates earnings, the incentives behind its vertical integration, and the regulatory heat all point to fragility that isn't captured in consensus spreadsheets. The market is whispering what many investors don't want to admit: that something is changing here. And once trust fades, the re-rating isn't temporary. It's structural. UnitedHealth Stock: Big, Profitable, Misunderstood UnitedHealth trades with a market value of about $226 billion, against $400 billion in revenue for 2024, with 2025 revenue expected to reach mid‑$445 billion to $448 billion. Size doesn't really equal a safe company; it often hides the fragility beneath. Most investors can't describe how the business works. They see adjusted EPS. They don't question the mechanics. They assume that anything producing this much cash must be built to last. But what looks durable can rot from the inside. The core of UnitedHealth's engine is vertical integration. Optum decides on care, delivers it, and pays itself. One hand washes the other, all under the same roof. It's efficient when unexamined. But regulators are finally paying attention. When the payer, provider, and data all sit in one unit, it becomes harder to separate health outcomes from billing outcomes. Investors often mistake size for insulation. But complexity cuts both ways. When that model starts to wobble, through government probes, whistleblower claims, or unexplained earnings distortions, it doesn't usually collapse overnight. It slowly leaks. This is what we are witnessing. The price action is the tell. This isn't about sentiment anymore. It's about what the market now knows; the market no longer trusts what it thought it understood. You can see it is undone. Slowly at this point. But it's picking up. UnitedHealth Is In The Crosshairs Of The Regulators The Department of Justice now runs both criminal and civil investigations into UnitedHealth's Medicare Advantage billing, officially confirmed on July 24, 2025. Washington is targeting diagnostic coding and risk adjustment practices tied to higher payouts. A process investigators say may have involved pressure, bonuses, and algorithmic recommendations to staff for certain lucrative diagnoses. At the center is Optum, UnitedHealth's massive care delivery and analytics arm, which assigns diagnoses, delivers services, and influences payer reimbursement. That vertical structure underpinned margin expansion until it became a regulatory vulnerability. Congress and CMS are now eyeing those same incentives for bundled services that may prioritize profit over care. And according to multiple reports, lawmakers are drafting reforms to Medicare Advantage to clamp down on what they see as systemic abuse. This is more than a compliance issue. If enforcement leads to fines or limits on Optum's ability to steer claims, UnitedHealth loses both margin and narrative. The company disclosed a potential settlement cost of $1.6 billion tied specifically to these investigations. For investors, this isn't a question of past performance but future structure. If Washington forces a redesign in how payer, provider, and auditor relationships operate within Optum, valuation multiples change. You won't see regulatory risk on a spreadsheet. It's not in the line items. But it's in every fund manager's head. And the market is already pricing that doubt. Earnings Vs. Trust UnitedHealth keeps beating the numbers. But the market's not cheering anymore, and that should make investors stop to think. Second‑quarter 2025 adjusted EPS came in at $4.08, while GAAP net earnings per share were about $3.74, reflecting a 9‑10% spread. This isn't a one-off. The company has leaned on adjustments for several quarters, removing charges from cyberattacks, restructuring, litigation, and 'normalizing' expense items. Each quarter it gets harder to square the adjusted reality with the actual income statement. Investors have tolerated this because the stock used to respond. Now, even beats fall flat. The post-earnings reaction in July was strong, with headline numbers, and yet shares sank over 4%. It's not the earnings they're questioning. It's the whole premise. When the market no longer trusts the adjustment logic, the premium unwinds. At some point, 'adjusted' starts sounding like wishful thinking. That's a dangerous pivot for a stock that trades on perceived consistency. The issue here is credibility. And when credibility gets questioned in a complex, vertically integrated healthcare giant with active DOJ probes and massive opacity in its internal operations, the path forward narrows quickly. UnitedHealth's numbers still impress. But the market is no longer listening to the numbers alone. It's watching what they're trying to cover. Optum: The Black Box That Powered Growth At UnitedHealth For years, Optum was UnitedHealth's crown jewel. It gave the company vertical integration that most healthcare giants could only dream of. Run the insurer. Own the doctor's office. Control the pharmacy benefit manager. Route the claims. Capture every step of the dollar. Investors praised it as genius. Until now. Optum was built for margin expansion. By combining payer and provider, UnitedHealth collapsed the value chain into itself. But that same structure is now drawing fire. Regulators are asking whether a company can truly manage care outcomes and approve and profit from the services being recommended. This questions their entire integration strategy. What used to be pitched as 'scale and efficiency' now looks like opacity. Good luck getting through an Optum report without needing aspirin halfway. It's all intentional. In a market that once rewarded complexity, investors are shifting toward simplicity and transparency. Optum is the opposite. Here's the rub: the more essential Optum is to UnitedHealth's story, the more exposed the company becomes to scrutiny. Break the chain or just shake investor faith in it and the premium vanishes. Optum was once the crown jewel. Now it's the bullseye. The Cyberattack Was A Wake-Up Call At UnitedHealth When Change Healthcare, an Optum subsidiary, was hit by a massive ransomware attack earlier this year, most investors treated it as a one-off disruption. It wasn't. It was a systemic failure that revealed how fragile UnitedHealth's infrastructure had become and how slow its leadership was to respond. The breach paralyzed billing and claims systems for weeks across the U.S. healthcare network. Providers couldn't get paid. Pharmacies stalled. Patients were caught in the middle. For a company that sells itself on reliability and integration, the collapse of a core system fully exposed them to operational risk. But the real damage was reputational. CEO Andrew Witty's delayed response and lack of transparency during the fallout shook investor confidence. For a business model that depends on centralized control, a failure of this scale felt like the opposite of control. The market didn't punish the stock immediately, but the tone shifted. Since the hack, UnitedHealth stock has lagged peers, failed to respond to buybacks, and sold off post-earnings despite beats, indicating trust erosion. In healthcare, operational execution is the product. And the cyberattack told the market what the earnings couldn't: UnitedHealth may be bigger than ever, but its foundation isn't as solid as the numbers suggest. Defensive Stocks Are No Longer Safe Havens Investors once treated UnitedHealth like a bond proxy. It was dependable, defensive, and cash-rich, perfect in a zero-rate world, but the world has moved on. And the assumptions that supported its premium are unraveling with it. But investors have moved on. Higher rates change everything. Safety no longer commands a valuation premium. If anything, it draws sharper scrutiny. Now, capital seeks efficiency and flexibility. It rotates out of perceived stability the moment cracks appear. That's exactly what's happening with UnitedHealth. It's mainly about multiples. Stocks like UnitedHealth were priced on the assumption that growth would stay steady, margins wouldn't come under pressure, and regulators would remain passive. That's no longer the case. Every part of the thesis, from Medicare Advantage economics to Optum's integration, is under review. And the old multiple doesn't hold under new conditions. At 9 to 10 times forward earnings, UnitedHealth stock is still priced for control. But what happens if growth slows, scrutiny increases, and earnings quality erodes? That multiple doesn't hold when earnings wobble and faith erodes. And that's what we're starting to see. The idea that defensive means safe no longer applies. In a world where capital costs more and scrutiny cuts deeper, structural risk matters more than past predictability. And UnitedHealth is showing investors what happens when they confuse size for safety. Market Behavior Is Telling
Wall Street Journal
25 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Why Drug Prices for Some Big Medicines Will Remain High for a Longer Time
Thousands of Medicare recipients will have to wait longer to get some price relief on the expensive cancer drugs they depend on for treatment, while others might not get any reprieve at all. Two little-known provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump in July will delay Medicare price negotiations for some of the biggest-selling drugs in the world, including Merck's Keytruda, which is used to treat cancer and had $17.9 billion in U.S. sales in 2024. Other drugs, such as Johnson & Johnson's Darzalex, will be excluded entirely.
