Musings on fake breasts
chitownlawyer
Florida
I have been thinking about a conversation that I had with a dancer last week, when I stopped into a club for lunch. The dancer sat with me while she ate her lunch, and we had a nice talk. One subject that came up was her boobs, which were obviously fake. I know the surgeon who did her first four boob jobs, and she has had one more procedure. She is probably 35-38 years old, and of course the boobs were firm (I had a dance for dessert), with nipples pointing straight ahead--such as you would never see naturally on a woman her age, especially one who had had two children. She was very proud about the job that her two surgeons had done over the years.
This conversation got me to thinking: what makes good fake boobs? When a plastic surgeon does reconstructive surgery, the goal is to restore the body part(s) in question to its/their former condition. Even on most plastic surgery procedures, such as nose jobs, the goal is to give the patient a realistic post-surgery appearance. The patient obviously doesn't want the nose she started with, but her nose will end up looking like a nose that lives on the face of some human being. But the goal of boob jobs is to give the patient (really, "customer," since it's not medical treatment) something that doesn't exist in nature. When I was single, I dated a lot of women, of all races and a broad range of age, and I never saw a woman whose natural tits looked like a those conferred by a boob job. Obviously, a woman who is 5'4 and 120# is not going to have 36DD tits, unless a plastic surgeon gives them to her.
What got me thinking about this was, as I sat with this dancer, she pointed out another dancer who was on stage (and who has previously described herself to me as "the top of the food chain.") The dancer who was eating at my table said, "Her boobs are too far apart. Mine are just right...two finger widths apart." Who decides what the standard is for something that does not naturally exist?
Those of you who were familiar with pre-implant porn--up through the late 80s--will remember that there were a lot of flat-chested models. I think that this is because, in the "state of nature", you get two choices with boobs--small and perky, or big and saggy.
My thoughts on this are somewhat influenced by the fact that I don't like fake boobs, and will put up with some sag in order to have "Big 'Uns". (I've also had a lot of flat-chested dancers complain that guys say they don't like fake boobs, but the dancers with implants always make more money post-surgery.) So, my question is, for those of you who like fake boobs...what makes a good pair?
This conversation got me to thinking: what makes good fake boobs? When a plastic surgeon does reconstructive surgery, the goal is to restore the body part(s) in question to its/their former condition. Even on most plastic surgery procedures, such as nose jobs, the goal is to give the patient a realistic post-surgery appearance. The patient obviously doesn't want the nose she started with, but her nose will end up looking like a nose that lives on the face of some human being. But the goal of boob jobs is to give the patient (really, "customer," since it's not medical treatment) something that doesn't exist in nature. When I was single, I dated a lot of women, of all races and a broad range of age, and I never saw a woman whose natural tits looked like a those conferred by a boob job. Obviously, a woman who is 5'4 and 120# is not going to have 36DD tits, unless a plastic surgeon gives them to her.
What got me thinking about this was, as I sat with this dancer, she pointed out another dancer who was on stage (and who has previously described herself to me as "the top of the food chain.") The dancer who was eating at my table said, "Her boobs are too far apart. Mine are just right...two finger widths apart." Who decides what the standard is for something that does not naturally exist?
Those of you who were familiar with pre-implant porn--up through the late 80s--will remember that there were a lot of flat-chested models. I think that this is because, in the "state of nature", you get two choices with boobs--small and perky, or big and saggy.
My thoughts on this are somewhat influenced by the fact that I don't like fake boobs, and will put up with some sag in order to have "Big 'Uns". (I've also had a lot of flat-chested dancers complain that guys say they don't like fake boobs, but the dancers with implants always make more money post-surgery.) So, my question is, for those of you who like fake boobs...what makes a good pair?
24 comments
There is an interesting story about her bit part in a movie called "Idle Hands". I can't remember where I heard/read this, but apparently everyone assumed they [her breasts] were fake since she was a Playmate, and the reasons mentioned above. When the scene came for "the hand" to grope her breasts the guy playing the hand apparently gasped in the first take when he realized they were real.
I am of course insanely jealous of that guy.
Kelly Monaco, on the other hand, combines two delightful phenomena: the naughty babysitter, and the "Italian Dirty Girl" (as first described by Tom Wolfe in _The Bonfire of the Vanities_. I suspect that, of all girls who first became famous by taking off their clothes, Kelly has done the best at crossing over into the mainstream. Jenna Jamison, Traci Lords, and Jenny McCarthy should be so lucky!
While I'm no fan of boob jobs, the ones I like on strippers look unapologetically fake. Not asymmetrical or rock hard malpractice work, but impossibly big for her size and sticking out like headlights is fine. If they're fake they might as well look fake. Honesty in materials, I say. Beyond that, what makes a good pair is all in how she wears them. If she can play the bimbo sex object role, it can be fun. If she acts defensive about the obvious -- the "I just did it to feel better about myself" line -- all I'm aware of is their defects.
I think a good boob job can look almost as good as the real thing.
Shadowcat, "whilst"?
Mrs. (Dr.) Chitown once had a patient who had a pound taken off of each side...they were so big that they were causing her back and shoulder pain.
As a practical matter, this is how I judge them:
Very small breasts=A
Average, but on the small side=B
Large, but not overly so=C
Very large=D
Too big, and almost certainly fake=DD
If there is a one inch difference, she is an A cup.
Three inche difference= B cup, and so forth, going through the alphabet, except of course that D is used twice (D for a seven inch difference between the boobs and the trunk, DD for a nine inch difference), and E is skipped.
The inch measurement means nothing concening how large a woman's breasts are. A woman can theoretically have a 37A measurement, in which case she would be flat and stocky (and hopefully not around in any club I go to). At the other end of the spectrum, you could have a spinner who had a 32DD bra size--petite bodyl but with big tits. Much more to my liking than the other.
I think it really takes a distorted point of view to believe that equates to "natural looking". To an impartial observer, it must look a bit grotesque to see what is essentially a caricature of nature incorporated into a real living body. I think even we who are no fans of boob jobs, after seeing literally thousands of case studies - and convincing ourselves that the ones that weren't horribly botched could be enjoyed in a lapdance - learn to overlook what a strange feature it is for a healthy, attractive young woman to sport synthetic bags stuffed inside her chest.