Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Genuine Article Issue 01
_The Genuine Article_ #1 (1995) published by Frank Wallis
Copyright 1995 Frank Wallis. All Rights Reserved.
Don't forget to open and view the JPG file(s) that came
as part of the file that you just downloaded. If you didn't
get these JPG files, then go to http://frankw.hypercon.com/
for samples. Email: 102667.3544@compuserve.com
_The Genuine Article_ [a quarterly newsletter] is meant to inform
anyone about photography of the female nude and related topics, not
limited to the following:
* the breast implant scandal (legal, medical, cultural)
* how to make better female nudes
* female body image in psychology and pop culture
* reviews of books on the photographic nude
* pin-up models new and classic
* female nudes
As chief editor, publisher, and receptionist, I am always happy to
review articles and photographic nudes for possible publication.
With this new technology I am able to receive articles and nudes
via email, through my CompuServe address. Again, _The Genuine
Article_ has a web site, http://frankw.hypercon.com/
Hardcopy of this newsletter is $2 [cash] per copy. Two year
subscription is only $18:
Frank Wallis
PO BOX 654
Monroe, CT 06468
U.S.A.
All Back issues available, e.g., #s 1,2,3,4,5.
PS: There are female nudes at this www site, plastic-free.
****************************************************************
CONTENTS
(1) Letters to the Editor
(2) "Revolution Against Bionic Breasts" by Frank Wallis
(3) "Candy Barr", by Septimus
(4) "The Truth About Breast Implants," Part 1, by Frank Wallis
****************************************************************
(1) Letters to the Editor
Even before issue #1 came off the drawing board, many
connoisseurs of natural beauty lent their support. Such is
contemporary society that many of them choose to remain anonymous
out of concern that they may be persecuted for their
beliefs. F.W.
I agree with your hypothesis that the west (and I dare say the
world) has lost something precious with the rise of the pseudo
bosom. Beauty by design has now become the standard by which a
woman judges herself and is judged by others. Designer Beauty
replaced _Beauty Au Natural_ so swiftly, so decisively that
despite the proof that Silicone implants can and do cause
permanent harm to the body, the practice still continues.
Women still continue to place themselves in harms ways via
plastic surgery to achieve a non-practical goal. This not only
harms them but their mates, spouses, and families, who live with
permanent scars as a result of seeing a loved one put through
such agony.
Nowhere is this media affect more pronounced, more dangerous,
and more devastating than in East Asia. In Taiwan, families as a
whole save to give young girls nose jobs, eye jobs, and a whole
assortment of physically altering operations. The idea now is
that it is not enough to get by with the face you were born with
but must now be subject to marketing trends of a nation half a
world away. It seems the face of Taiwan is literally changing.
I think the article in _People_ about the girl who used to
play Punky Brewster was very convincing of the trend. At age 14,
she had already gone under the knife for nose, face, and boob
jobs. At age 14 a girl is just beginning to go through profound
physical changes. This is the state in which we are living in.
WELCOME TO THE BODY SHOP! Gabriel Gusme
Frank:
I agree completely! As a woman who was born with large breasts
(OK, not literally born with, but you get the idea) it seems that
if it's not one thing it's another. I recently had a doctor
suggest I consider breast reduction surgery to give me "...a more
natural look, better fitting clothes, and maybe a better back."
I'm a DD or D so it's not like I'm a freak of nature or anything!
And, my husband appreciates them and me! Why do we always have to
be something we are not in this day & age? You can quote me if
you'd like. Thanks. I'd love to encourage women not to
"mutilate" themselves & men not to encourage them to do so!
Christina
Frank;
As I described in a previous post (to the internet newsgroup
alt.sex.strip-clubs) on the dollar value to a dancer who opts for
surgical breast augmentation, how we spend our money is possibly
our greatest leverage in discouraging this surgery. I say again,
don't spend money on augmented dancers.
Another tactic is to talk with the managers of these clubs and
request that they book specific (by name) "natural" stars into
their clubs. If they ask why you would like to see this
particular star, mention that you prefer her look to some of the
other fake-chested stars. Needles to say if the club does book
the star you requested, go spend money and bring a dozen of your
closest friends. If we can demonstrate that club attendance is
high when they book natural stars, we will send a very strong
message. This is a marketplace, and money speaks loudest by far.
Anon.
Frank;
I hate them. The porn video industry should blackball all of the
women with them and develop a new crop of real women. I'm totally
turned off by them and their artificial appearance. Mechanicus
There is just a slight problem with blackballing: many
influential people in the industry (producers like Marc Carriere,
or agents like Jim South) seem to LOVE big boobs (and even
horribly fake big boobs seem better in their eyes than beautiful,
natural smaller ones). In other words: it ain't gonna happen...
Peter
Frank;
Great idea, Frank. While I haven't bought a men's magazine for 10
years, and haven't been in a strip club for even longer, I am
very saddened that women feel they have to augment what God has
given them. Good luck! Postman
Frank;
You hit a home run with me. Agree 100%. Aside from the fact that
augmented breasts look wrong, there are the health issues we all
know well. Worse yet, these operations typically involve
relocation of the nipples; this cuts a lot of nerve endings. The
end result must be greatly diminished sensitivity!
I have no problem with this surgery in the case of
reconstruction due to disfiguring accidents, disease, etc. In the
case of an exotic dancer, it is purely a business decision, with
future consequences that could be catastrophic!
The bottom line with all of this is that every woman has
something about her that makes her beautiful; you just have to
look for it, and be able to appreciate it. The size of her
breasts is only one parameter in the complex equation that makes
up a female human being.
Best of luck with your new publication. All I ask is that you
depict women as human beings, and allow their natural beauty to
express itself without silly poses, layers of makeup, or gallons
of hairspray. Scholasticus
(2) "Revolution Against Bionic Breasts" by Frank Wallis
For the first time in living memory, masses of men and women
are uniting in their condemnation of plastic breasted models
in the popular glamour magazines marketed primarily at men.
Since the early 1980s hundreds of young women have posed nude for
such publications as Playboy and Penthouse, and most of them have
been altered surgically in order that their breasts appear larger
than normal.
On internet newsgroups such as alt.sex.movies, one can now
find, thankfully, a host of complaints lodged against the absurd
boob jobs undergone by porn starlets. It is well known that women
entering the x-video industry may begin with normal breasts, but
if they wish to continue, they must submit to the surgeon's knife
for a double tit enlargement.
On alt.mag.playboy one can read with pleasure several posts
which register contempt, amusement, shock, sadness, and
bewilderment, at the pictorials in Playboy, and especially the
Playmate layouts which feature boob-job models.
When will the photo editors, talent agents, and publishers
finally get the message? Silicone tits are ugly!
LETTERS, PHOTOS, AND ARTICLES WE WANT TO SEE
* Letters which question the need for bionic tits
* Photos of real breasts, buns, and whole women
* Articles on the fake tit scam forced on the world
public by big corporations
(3) CANDY BARR: Some inspiration from a pin-up legend
by Septimus
Just imagine you are a lifelong baseball fan. Now imagine that
the dimensions of the playing field have been drastically
altered, to allow the average major league starter to hit 50
homeruns a year and bat in 150 runs. The true sluggers will now
hit 125 homeruns a year and bat in over 200 runs; much more than
Ruth, Gehrig, Greenburg or Foxx. Now I ask you, how thrilling
would it be to watch a homerun under the new conditions?
As baseball slugging is cheapened in the example above, so is
the female breast, as a sexual and esthetic object, cheapened by
the widespread use of implants. When anyone with a reasonably
cute face and long, slim legs can spend a few thousand dollars
and have a centerfold bustline, what is there to admire or wonder
at? Most of the current generation of Playboy centerfolds have
been surgically enhanced. Their shapes are so similar, they
suggest a cookie-cutter sameness. Although all natural breasts
obey the law of gravity, more or less, the plastic breasts look
like they are on a marble statue. Although they have a certain
static perfection, they are so bland, they don't get a rise out
of me (which, I confess, may have something to do with my
advancing age).
Well before 1990, Playboy's most bosomy centerfolds were a
little on the plump side, or had a realistic degree of sag
(though the photographer tried many tricks to hide the sag) or,
in rare instances, were just phenomenally shapely, taut and
large. Kimberly MacArthur (Playmate, 1/82) comes to mind as one
of the latter [see photo]. Pat Farinelli (Playmate, 12/81), I
dare to say, was a little on the plump side, God bless her! Those
models, and their counterparts in other skin magazines, were
wonders of nature, and deserved to be held in awe. How can one be
awed by the results of a plastic surgeon? How can one be
attracted by the grotesque hyperinflated bosoms of the current
crop of topless dancers? They are caricatures of real women: how
can you relate to them?
Let me tell you about a model whose bosom aroused in me, not
only a hard-on, but a sense of awe, the first time I saw her
picture. I was a college student around 1960, in a rustic rural
Connecticut camp for engineers taking summer courses. Wandering
around the dorm one night, I saw fixed to the wall a photo from a
skin magazine which knocked me out. The model seemed to be about
5'4" and 125 lbs. She was pretty enough, with short blond hair, a
sensuous mouth and snub nose, but she wasn't really beautiful.
Her legs were shapely, but rather too sturdy-looking to qualify
her as a fashion or swimsuit model. She did have world-class
natural breasts, and that's what made my jaw hang slack and my
eyes glaze over. I guess she was about a D-cup or D+ in size, but
with an extremely prominent, beautiful contour. I think her
areolas had a convex contour of their own, what some call "puffy"
areolas. Her nipples I think were large, but not phenomenally so.
Who was she? A stripper and skin-mag model whose stage name
was Candy Barr. You might have heard of her in another
connection. Back in 1963, she was the "girlfriend" of the
infamous Jack Ruby, who assassinated Lee Harvey Oswald on live
TV. Before, she had started her career doing porn loops,
including the celebrated stag film, "Smart Alec." Candy must have
been about 16 or 17 when she did "Smart Alec." Candy Barr, whose
real name, I think, was Juanita Slusher, was born in 1936. I
remember reading that she originated from Texas or Oklahoma. My
guess is that if she's been in decent health, her shape is
probably still spectacular at age 58 plus. I still think about
her, in fact have named my Macintosh hard disk "Candy Barr,"
because she is a true and wonderful natural phenomenon. Years
from now, who is going to remember any of these plastic-boobed
skin models photographed (and electronically retouched) in
Playboy?
Unfortunately, photos and videos of the legendary Candy are
few. I know someone who can supply an R-rated edited version of
"Smart Alec." Drop me a line if interested. Septimus, email:
fvj@world.std.com
(4) "The Truth About Breast Implants"
Part One (of Three)
Frank Wallis
The safety of silicone breast implants was called into question
in 1992 by the FDA (Food & Drug Administration). In January 1992
the FDA ordered a moratorium on silicone breast implants, asking
manufacturers to suspend production, and plastic surgeons to
cease inserting them into their patients. In April the agency
forbade their use, except for clinical studies and for
reconstruction surgery following mastectomy. In March, Dow
Corning (largest maker of silicone implants) withdrew their
product from the market.
The FDA cited consumer concerns about several medical
problems associated with implants: cancer, immune system
diseases, connective tissue disorders, interference with accurate
mammography, and capsular contraction (formation and shrinking
of scar tissue around the implant, causing painful hardening of
the breast).
Silicone was developed during WWII, and has been used in
surgical procedures since then, because this man- made inorganic
substance feels like human flesh. Silicone breast implants were
introduced to the market in the mid- 1960s, but the FDA did not
have responsibility or authority to regulate these devices until
1976, by act of congress. Because this product had already been
on the market for ten years, it was grandfathered into a list of
approved medical devices without clinical testing. The practice
of injecting pure silicone into humans was banned by the FDA in
1965.
Thousands of women complained for over a decade about medical
problems associated with their breast implants. In Denver,
stripper Tammy McCartney testified that only weeks after her
first augmentation in 1987 she noticed abnormal deflation in one
breast, indicating rupture. In three subsequent operations, her
plastic surgeon replaced ruptured silicone implants, and
adjusted implant position to relieve painful pressure from scar
tissue build-up. After a total of six operations McCartney's
breasts were disfigured, and she was forced to end her exotic
dancing career. Although she elected for a seventh implant
operation, this time it was saline filled. Two more operations
removed various glands from her breasts, in which pathologists
discovered silicone.
Cecy Doykos, a 42 year old Sacramento woman with two
children, suffers from autoimmune diseases such as lupus and
systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). The latter affliction causes
hardening and scarring to skin, lungs, heart, and kidneys. She
and her doctors think her silicone implants have generated this
immune system disease. Greatly disappointed, Doykos opined that
when she was in her early twenties it was enjoyable to sit on the
beach and have "these pert breasts", but admitted that as she
aged, they began to sag as much as natural breasts, only worse
because they were much bigger.
Both manufacturers and surgeons knew that silicone implants
could split open, releasing silicone gel into surrounding
tissue. Problems related to implant rupture and gel migration
include chest pain, breast pain, triggerpoints (small areas that
are very painful to the touch), buildup of gel blobs in the
armpit, elbow, or abdominal wall, and addiction to prescription
pain killers. An implant made by now defunct Surgitek was known
to crack in four years, show perforations in six, and
virtually disintegrate in ten years. Surgitek also made an
implant with a "Meme" cover, made from the same type of foam
used in furniture upholstery.
Thousands of women with silicone implants report fatigue,
joint pain, swelling of lymph nodes, and other symptoms of
autoimmune diseases. These are maladies in which the immune
system attacks the body's own cells. Silicone has been shown to
cause immune reactions in two ways: 1) local, where cells around
the implant become inflamed, causing fibrous tissue to form,
walling off the entire object; 2) systemic, where silicone leaks
out into the rest of the body.
Thus far, clinical studies indicate that silicone breast
implants may cause autoimmune diseases and damage the health of
children born to women with such implants. However, earlier
concerns over cancer links and connective tissue diseases have
been allayed. Researchers at UC Davis School of Medicine found in
1993 that silicone implants may induce autoimmune diseases, but
not in all women. At least a third of tested women in a study by
the Chicago Academy of Allergy and Immunology had elevated levels
of anti-nuclear antibodies in their blood, a finding associated
with lupus. The Journal of the American Medical Association
reported that infants breast-fed by mothers with silicone
implants may absorb silicone because the small intestine barrier
is immature and unable to fight off alien molecules. Women with
such implants were urged not to breast-feed their children. A
Memphis study showed evidence of silicone dioxide in women whose
implants had been removed up to eight years earlier. In addition,
small breast tumors are not easily detected by mammograms in
women who have breast implants.
_____________
1. Phil Mintz, "New Fear: Studies on Breast Implants," New
York Newsday (May 5, 1993):6; Doug Podolsky, "A Ban on
Silicone," US News & World Report (Jan. 20, 1992):61; Ginny
McKibben, "Ex-topless Dancer Relates Deformed Implants Terror,"
Denver Post (May 13, 1993):1B.
2. Diana Sugg, "Breast Implants, Illness Linked, UCD Study
Hints," Sacramento Bee (March 15, 1993):A1.
3. Sharon Roan, "Time Not on Their Side, Say Women With
Implants," Los Angeles Times (May 18, 1993):E1; Tinker Ready,
"The Doctor and His Implants," News & Observer (March 31,
1994):A1.
4. McKibben, "Ex-Topless."
5. Sugg, "Breast Implants."
6. Jonathan Bor, "Medical Scanners Help Find Leaks in
Implants," The Sun [Baltimore] (Dec. 4, 1992):8A; Ready, "The
Doctor"; Nicholas Regush, "Toxic Breasts," Mother Jones 17
(Jan/Feb 1992):24.
7. Laurie Loscocco, "OSU Scientists are on Trail of Breast
Implant Dangers," Columbus Dispatch (Nov 6, 1993):2C.
8. Sugg, "Breast Implants"; Jonathan A. Flick, "Silicone
Implants and Esophageal Dysmotility: Are Breast-fed Infants at
Risk?" JAMA 271 (Jan. 19, 1994):240; "Breast Feeding and
Implants," FDA Consumer 28 (April 1994):3; John Garibaldi,
"Breast Implants Said to Threaten Health of Children," Reuters
(March 25, 1994); Mary Powers, "Memphis Study Finds Implant Tie
to Illness," The Commercial Appeal [Memphis] (July 14, 1994):B1;
Kathy A. Fackelmann, "Implants Block X-ray View of the Breast,"
Science News 142 (Oct. 17, 1992):262.
________________
The Genuine Article, #1 (1995) published by Frank Wallis
Copyright 1995 Frank Wallis. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 102667.3544@compuserve.com
_The Genuine Article_ now has a web site at:
http://frankw.hypercon.com/
PO BOX 654
Monroe, CT 06468
