Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Genuine Article Issue 02
_The Genuine Article_ #2 (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
(2) "The Truth About Breast Implants" Part 2, by Frank Wallis
(3) "The Topless Question in New York" by Wallis & Kenner
(4) "Feminist Counterstrike" by Dolores Menendes
(5) "Julie Cialini"
(6) Book Reviews
_Sibiga Nudes_
_Edna's Nudes_
(7) Making a Better Nude
(8) "Can Men Live by Breasts Alone?" by Dick Freeman
***********************************************************
Keep sending those letters. The response to issue #1 was
gratifying, of course, but it suggests to me that lots of people
would like to read and learn even more. Thus, the decision to
expand to eight pages. There is so much to do, so much to say,
and you are helping in this worthy adventure. F.W.
(1) Letters: Continued Protest Against Plastic Breasts
Frank;
I agree with you that it's extremely silly to expose yourself to
that kind of stuff [silicone]. I just disagree that the stuff has
been proven to cause autoimmune disease in human females.
I'm an anesthesiologist who works a lot with a plastic
surgeon. She does a lot of breast explantations [removals]. When
the implants are ruptured it's really nasty and I'm sure to tell
my family (two daughters) how gross the case was. Sometimes the
stuff extends way up into the _axilla_ and takes extended
dissection. Sometimes there's no apparent leakage site but there
is silicone all over in the tissues. A nasty business.
Still, I'm not convinced that all the "disease" symptoms are
caused by silicone - a lot of the complaints are vague (from
weight gain to fatigue to depression) and hard to quantify. It
may simply be that a lot of these patients are focusing midlife
problems on something they've been told is a problem.
I don't know that silicone has much of a place in our
biochemistry (medical school seems like a long time ago in this
respect) so I'm not surprised that it hangs around forever in the
tissues. This makes explantation seem futile unless problems are
a dose related phenomenon. Doc [Unfortunately Anonymous]
[Doc, read up on the literature. Please begin with my three part
article. F.W.]
Frank;
It's bad enough with the porn industry, where any guy will often
go gaga over unnaturally huge tits, but the proportion of real to
fake-titted actresses has just been blown way out of proportion.
I don't think I'll ever see another natural set like Christy
Canyon's or Keisha's, though I now have doubts about her tits,
since a recent Keisha flick indicated a scar below her areola, a
sure sign of enlargement (or reduction, though she was much
smaller in the late 1980s to early 1990s).
Now I'm REALLY getting angry at Playboy/Penthouse. It used to
be natural, "girl-next-door" women. Now anything less than a B-
cup has been inflated to a C-cup (or bigger) with implants. With
the airbrush it's almost impossible to tell!! I gave up on
Penthouse long ago, and Hef [Hugh Hefner] needs to really start
screening these ladies, or else publish an issue with _The Girls
of Polyurethane_. Implants suck, people. Nuff said. Thank you,
drive through. Alexander Coddington
Frank;
I fully support your uprising against silicone skullduggery
currently sweeping the adult entertainment industry. Nature is
good, but metamorphosized titty-monsters are not! It seems as
though in the past few years everyone is moving toward the giant
boobed, huge butted, ultra-Rubenesque. Here's hoping you have an
impact. Eddie Spivonti
Frank;
Still fielding the flak from the internet newsgroups because you
happened to voice your opinion about natural breasts? Keep it up.
I agree with you. Nothing more against nature than an unnaturally
positioned breast. I agree with the procedure of lifting the
surrounding skin to combat the effects of gravity, and certainly
breast augmentation for those who have combatted breast cancer
must be a godsend, but for perfectly normal beautiful women?
They're better to leave themselves natural. Nothing wrong with
being what some might term a little on the small side . Some
huge breasts are very off-putting to look at, out of proportion
with the body. Keep up the good work! Cathy Alison Lang
Dear Frank;
I get the same story all the time when I send photos out to stock
agencies. They want me to send photos of women with big tits,
whether real or fake doesn't matter. Personally, I like small
breasts, like your model Sheila Ward has. (Lovely photo [issue
#1], by-the-way!) I find them much more graceful and attractive
to look at, and to photograph. My favorite models have almost all
had rather small breasts. Perhaps this is one reason that I am
such a sucker for Asian women.
The German surgeons can produce fakes which are damned hard to
detect. They use smaller implants, and they make a very small
incision in the armpit, and put the implant behind whatever
natural fat the woman has.
I photographed a lovely Moroccan woman in Germany several
years ago who came into the studio I was renting, threw off her
blouse, thrust her chest in my face and said, Do you like my
tits they're fake! I never would have known, and I usually
spot plastic pads at first glance. No one who has seen the photos
has noticed anything.
The problem with American women is
that they overdo everything, and breast
implants are just one of many things.
When they would look great as a C-cup they insist on DD+. It is
all part of our "bigger is better" national mania.
Good luck in your crusade. Just don't tilt too hard at
windmills you'll never get anywhere. Bob Shell, international
photographer.
About _The Genuine Article_
Frank;
Thanks for the _Genuine Article_. I read it with much interest,
because a friend of mine is part of the lawsuit against the
implant manufacturers, though she has no idea when or if there
will be a payout, and if there is, what she'll get. I called AVN
(_Adult Video News_) about this nine months ago and they made
light of the situation, though in a recent issue, in the legal
section, they did have a good piece on the lawsuit.
But when you consider the possible problems even
statistically that will occur to women in the porn industry it
is a bit horrific. Of course, we only talk about the porn
industry, because we can see the tits there, but I would assume
that the number of women with implants in the film industry must
be very large. Dick Freeman, _Batteries Not Included_,130 W.
Limestone ST, Yellow Springs, OH 45387 [$3].
Frank;
I just got _GA_ and I think it's fabulous! It's so well designed
and the writing is terrif! It's easy to write too much about sex
rather than the important implications of the breast, both
culturally and aesthetically. You really straddle the "line," and
that's a great thing. I think you're one of the most professional
'zinespeople around. Seeing _GA_ has inspired me to think about
re-formatting _RickNews_. Anyway, keep up the good stuff! Richard
Hollander, RickNews, PO Box 810051, Boca Raton, FL 33481-0051 [12
issues, $10]. <ricksh@aol.com>
Frank:
Funnily enough in _Caress_ #13, in post to you today, I review a
"viewers wives" video and say that the trend in Europe is away
from plastic smiles and tits to the "girl-next-door" look. I
wrote that before I received _GA_. The best selling x-videos in
Europe at moment are amateur stuff, not pro-am, but home
camcorder stuff. David Weldon, Caress, c/o The Write Solution,
Flat 1, 11 Holland Road, Hove BN3 1JF, England [$5 cash for
sample copy]. <caress@mistral.co.com>
Frank;
Thanks for the copy of The Genuine Article. I'm in total
agreement with you. I truly do not understand how anyone can find
pneumatic breasts attractive. Especially the absurd volleyballs
some women get stuck on their chests. I also can't understand the
attraction one of my friends has for size over quality. I don't
think less of a woman who has big floppy breasts, but I don't
find them especially appealing. For me, size is less important
than perkiness. Tom, JJ(O), MacLean-Jameson, PO BOX 191544, San
Francisco, CA 94119 [$6] <macjam@ix.net.com>
Frank;
I got your newsletter and yes, I DO agree. We get a lot of
complaints at _Exotic Magazine_ about strippers and "breast
augmentation." In fact, we did a satirical article by Rex
Breathes, "Only The Enhanced Survive" last year that received a
lot of feedback. Frank Flatch, _X Magazine_ <xmag@teleport.com>
Dear Frank;
Thanks for your letter and the copy of the Genuine Article. I
found it to be very informative. I've seen so many girls with
breast implants since I've been here in Hollywood. They don't
call it the silicone valley for nothing. Porn stars, oh brother.
Most of them these days are not only getting boob jobs but whole
facial restructuring. I went to the Glamourcon 4 at the Marriot
Hotel a few weeks back. Dozens of older Playmates from years gone
by were in attendance right along with their ageing silicon tits,
standing high and defying gravity. Personally, I'm an ass man
myself, but when you can find a woman with the deadly combo of
real tits and a round tilted ass consider yourself lucky. Floyd
Hardwick, _Skin Trade_, PO Box 2583, Hollywood, CA 90078.
Frank;
Regarding my opinion on boob jobs, I can say this: as editor of
_D-CUP_, they're a necessity. My audience wants to see them, and
if I didn't use models with silicone tits, there'd be blank pages
in the magazine. We try to use "natural" women as often as
possible and usually end up with a 50/50 mix. Personally, I like
them soft and natural. Bobby Paradise, D-CUP, 210 Route 4 East,
Paramus. NJ 07652. <DCUPMAG@aol.com>
Frank;
I believe you are doing a wonderful service with _G.A._ and hope
your message gets spread far and wide. In my own work as a
glamour and figure photographer I emphasize to my models that
beauty is not measured in inches. True beauty comes from feeling
happy with yourself and is not confined to one body type. My best
models exhibit a self-confidence that sets them apart. They are
all beautiful! Bruce T. Ritchie
(2) "The Truth About Breast Implants"
Part Two (of Three)
Frank Wallis
Dow Corning released its own study of silicone implants in March
1993, which indicated that silicone may cause immune system
diseases in laboratory rats. So much for "safe" silicone. Some
health problems originally linked to silicone implants have been
partly resolved. One study showed implants "may not increase" a
woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Other studies indicate
that connective tissue diseases are not caused by silicone
implants.
Legal Implications
With so many women in pain from their breast implants, it is
understandable that they sought legal redress. Almost two
million women in the United States had breast implants over the
past quarter century, 80% of whom chose to do so for cosmetic
reasons. About one million women have silicone implants. Dow
Corning offered $1200 to women wishing removal of their silicone
implants, but such "explants" cost at least $3500, and health
insurance often fails to pay for it, because insurers use the
loophole of, "medical necessity."
In September 1994, US Federal District Judge Sam C. Pointer,
Jr., in Birmingham, AL, approved a $4.25 billion settlement in a
class action lawsuit filed against the manufacturers of silicone
breast implants on behalf of millions of women across the globe
who had been implanted. It is without doubt the largest product
liability settlement in US history. Major defendants included
Dow Corning, Baxter Intl., and Bristol-Myers Squibb. This
followed judgments already awarded to plaintiffs in similar
cases: $25 million to a Houston woman, and $24 million to a
California woman, against Mentor, Inc., another silicone implant
maker.
Thousands of women ill from silicone poisoning had to make
legal decisions. Under a complex formula, women with symptoms
would get from $100,000 to $1,400,000, based on the seriousness
of their symptoms. The settlement was open to more than just the
20,000 plaintiffs who filed suit before and during global
negotiations. It was open to any woman unable to determine the
manufacturer of her implants, or whose implants were made by a
company like Surgitek that went bankrupt. Even women without
symptoms of silicone induced disease could file a claim, but
their awards could be less. There were time limits for women to
opt out of the settlement and pursue individual suits, a major
deadline being June 1994.
What Next?
Due to adverse publicity and events outlined above, silicone
implants are rarely used now. However, the mania for bigger
breasts has not subsided. American industry immediately filled
the void left by the excision of silicone gel implants from the
market: new types of breast inflators became available.
In the mid-1980s about 150,000 women were opting for implant
surgery every year. In 1992 that figure fell to 62,000, 80% of
whom did so for cosmetic reasons, according to figures from the
American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. In that
same year more than 25,000 had explant operations and half of
them chose to have replacement implants. The implant of choice
has been the saline type, a silicone bag filled with salt water.
One 45 year old woman remarked that she decided to have
replacements for fear that her chest would look unattractive,
with sagging skin where once implants had been. Yet, women with
money have been flying to Mexico or the Caribbean islands to
receive silicone implants, despite the well known health risks
associated with them.
Of course, plastic surgeons have voiced strong disapproval of
the way silicone implants were portrayed in the news media. Many
still maintain that it was "blown out of proportion," or that it
was "all media hype." The silicone scandal hit their implant
line hard, and they had to make up lost revenue via other
procedures such as chemical skin peels and liposuction. Some are
beginning to advertise breast reduction surgery for men
"suffering" from gynecomastia, buildup of fatty tissue under the
male breast.
There is no national database on exactly how many women had
implant surgery each year since the first silicone bags came on
the market almost thirty years ago. It seems most women have
recently been opting for saline implants, but many are
apprehensive about them due to reports that they may harbor
bacteria and/or fungi in the saline solution, and that this is
communicated into the body via leaking containment bags. A
Canadian study reports that bacteria do live and grow in the
saline implants. Besides this, the silicone-rubber bags which
contain the saline solution may shed tiny fragments of silicone
and cause autoimmune diseases.
_______________
9. Roan, "Time Not on Their Side."
10. Hans Berkel, et al., "Breast Augmentation: a risk factor
for breast cancer?" New England Journal of Medicine 326 (June
18, 1992):1649; Sherine E. Gabriel, et al., "Risk of connective
tissue diseases and other disorders after breast implantation,"
New England Journal of Medicine 330 (June 16, 1994):1697.
11. Laura Shapiro, "What is it with Women and Breasts?"
Newsweek 119 (Jan. 20, 1992):57; Roan, "Time Not on Their Side."
12. Reuters (Oct 25, 1994); Roan, "Time Not on Their Side."
13. Linda Cornett, "Here Are Legal Options for Women with
Breast Implants," Daily Camera (April 29, 1994).
14. Judy Foreman, "Breast Implant Field Altered by FDA Edict,"
Boston Globe (March 13, 1994):1.
15. Ibid.
16. Patricia Corrigan, "Breast Implants," St. Louis
Post-Dispatch (March 3, 1994):1A; Leslie Vreeland, "Saline
Breast Implants May Not be So Safe," American Health 13 (July/Aug
1994):11.
(3) "The Topless Question in New York"
by Frank Wallis and Richard Kenner
Why Women Can Go "Topless" in New York, and Why They Can't
In July 1992 the highest court in the state of New York decided
that women can be barechested in public, as long as they are not
being lewd, or exposing their breasts for a commercial reason.
What follows is a report on the legal problems associated with
public nudity, and specifically the question of bared breasts in
public. I wish at the outset to thank Richard Kenner for his
legal insights. F.W.
Remember that laws do not say what is legal, but what is illegal.
The basic issue here is whether or not there is a law prohibiting
topfree use of beaches. Of course the whole thing would be
silly in France, where women normally wear the same amount of
chest-covering as men, i.e., they are barechested.
In 1986 New York became one of only three states to make "mere
nudity" a crime. They included topfree women in this, and it was
this last part that was struck down by the Court of Appeals
ruling in 1992. In New York, women can sunbathe topless and even
go barechested on the subways.
The Verdict
Defendants were arrested for violating Penal Law sec. 245.01
(exposure of a person) when they bared "that portion of the
breast which is below the top of the areola" in a Rochester
public park. The statute, they urge, is discriminatory on its
face since it defines "private or intimate parts" of a woman's
but not a man's
body as including a specific part of the breast. That assertion
being made, it is settled that the People then have the burden of
proving that there is an important government interest at stake
and that the gender classification is substantially related to
that interest (see, Mississippi University for Women v Hogan, 458
U.S. 718, 725). In this case, however, the People have made no
attempt below and make none before us to demonstrate that the
statute's
discriminatory effect serves an important governmental interest
or that the classification is based on a reasoned predicate.
Moreover, the People do not dispute that New York is one of only
two states which criminalizes the mere exposure by a woman in a
public place of
a specific part of her breast.
Appellants and the five other women who were arrested with
them were prosecuted for doing something that would have been
permissible, or at least not punishable under the penal laws, if
they had been men they removed their tops in a public park,
exposing their breasts in a manner that all agree was neither
lewd nor intended to annoy or harass. As a result of this
conduct, which
was apparently part of an effort to dramatize their opposition to
the law, appellants were prosecuted under Penal Law sec. 245.01,
which provides that a person is guilty of the petty offense of
"exposure" when he or she "appears in a public place in such a
manner that the
private or intimate parts of his [or her] body are unclothed or
exposed."
The statute goes on to state that, for purposes of this
prohibition, "the private or intimate parts of a female person
shall include that portion of the breast which is below the top
of the areola." The statute thus creates a clear gender-based
classification, triggering scrutiny under equal protection
principles (see, Craig v Boren, 429 U.S. 190).
Public exposure of a female's breast for the purposes of
breastfeeding infants or "entertaining or performing in a play,
exhibition, show or entertainment" is expressly excluded from the
New York statutory prohibition.
It is clear from the statute's legislative history, as well as
our own case law and common sense, that the governmental
objective to be served by Penal Law sec. 245.01 is to protect the
sensibilities
of those who wish to use the public beaches and parks in this
State.... And, since the statute prohibits the public
exposure of female but not male breasts, it betrays an
underlying legislative assumption that the sight of a female's
uncovered breast in a public place is offensive to the average
person in a way that the sight of a male's uncovered breast is
not. It is this assumption that lies at the root of the statute's
constitutional problem.
Although protecting public sensibilities is a generally
legitimate goal for legislation (People v Hollman, supra), it is
a tenuous basis for justifying a legislative
classification that is based on gender, race or any other
grouping that is associated with a history of social prejudice
(see,
Mississippi Univ. for Women v Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 725 ["care
must be taken in ascertaining whether the statutory objective
itself reflects archaic and stereotypic notions"]). Indeed, the
concept of "public sensibility" itself, when used in these
contexts, may be nothing more than a reflection of commonly-held
preconceptions and biases. One of the most important purposes to
be served by the equal protection clause is to ensure that
"public sensibilities" grounded
in prejudice and unexamined stereotypes do not become enshrined
as part of the
official policy of government. Thus, where "public sensibilities"
constitute the justification for a gender-based classification,
the fundamental question is whether the particular "sensibility"
to be protected is, in fact, a reflection
of archaic prejudice or a manifestation of a legitimate
government objective (cf., People v Whidden, 51 NY2d 457, 461).
Viewed against these principles, the gender-based provisions
of Penal Law sec. 245.01 cannot, on this record, withstand
scrutiny. Defendants contend that apart from entrenched cultural
expectations,
there is really no objective reason why the exposure of female
breasts should be considered any more offensive than the exposure
of the male counterparts. They offered proof that, from an
anatomical
standpoint, the female breast is no more or less a sexual organ
than is the male equivalent (see, e.g., J McCrary, _Human
Sexuality_ [1973]:141). They further contend that to the extent
that many in our society may regard the uncovered female breast
with a prurient interest that is not similarly aroused by the
male equivalent (but see Kinsey, _Sexual Behavior in the Human
Female_ [1953]:586-587;
Kinsey, _Sexual Behavior in Human Male_ [1948]:575; Wildman, Note
on Males' and Females' Preference for Opposite-Sex Body Parts, 38
_Psychological Reports_ 485-486), that perception cannot serve as
a justification for differential treatment because it is itself a
suspect cultural artifact rooted in centuries of prejudice and
bias toward women. Indeed, there are many societies in other
parts of the world and even many locales within the
United States where the exposure of female breasts on beaches
and in other recreational area is commonplace and is generally
regarded as unremarkable.
Interestingly, expert testimony at appellants' trial suggested
that the enforced concealment of women's breasts reinforces
cultural obsession with them, contributes toward unhealthy
attitudes about breasts by both sexes and even discourages women
from breastfeeding their children.
It is notable that, other jurisdictions have taken the
position that breasts are not "private parts" and that breast
exposure is not indecent behavior (State v Parenteau, Ohio Misc
2d 10, 11, citing State v Jones, 7 NC App 165; State v Moore, 241
P2d 455; State v Crenshaw, 61 Haw 68; see also Duvallon v State,
404 So 2d 196), and twenty-two states specifically confine their
statutory public exposure prohibitions.
The People in this case have not refuted this evidence or
attempted to show the existence of evidence of their own to
indicate that the non-lewd exposure of the female breast is in
any way harmful to the public's health or well being. Nor have
they offered any explanation as to why, the fundamental goal that
Penal Law sec. 245.01 was enacted to advance avoiding offense
to citizens who use public beaches and parks cannot be equally
well served by other alternatives (see, Wengler v Druggists Mut.
Ins. Co., 446 U.S. 142, 151-152; Orr v Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 281-283).
In Summary
In summary, the People have offered nothing to justify a law
that discriminates against women by prohibiting them from
removing their tops and exposing their bare chests in public as
men are routinely permitted to do. The mere fact that the statute's
aim is the protection of "public sensibilities" is not sufficient
to satisfy the state's burden of showing an "exceedingly persuasive
justification" for a classification that expressly discriminates
on the basis of sex (see, Kirchberg v Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455,
461). Accordingly, the gender-based classification established by
Penal Law sec. 245.01 violates appellants' equal protection
rights.
Order reversed and informations dismissed in a memorandum.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Kaye, Hancock and Bellacosa
concur. Judge Titone concurs in result in an opinion in which
Judge Simons concurs.
SOURCE: New York Court of Appeals, _People v. Ramona Santorelli
and Mary Lou Schloss, Appellants, et al., Defendants_ (July 7,
1992).
Parting Shots
The issue of whether or not local ordinances may prohibit
toplessness is not related to state laws, but to the state
constitution. Note that the NY court's majority opinion did NOT
say that laws prohibiting topless women are unconstitutional.
That was what a minority concurring opinion said. The majority
opinion said they did not have to raise the constitutional
issue since they interpreted the "sense of Congress" to apply
that law only to commercial settings.
So, here are the following categories that states can be in:
(1) Is the state constitution construed so as to make laws
banning female toplessness unconstitutional? If so, then neither
state nor local laws can prohibit it, and toplessness is
permitted anywhere in the state. Texas is in this category and NY
is in there too, but California is not.
(2) If #1 is not true, the next question is: Does the state
have a state-wide law banning female toplessness? If yes, then
females must wear tops anywhere in the state. Tennessee and one
other state are in this category. If neither #1 nor #2 are true,
there is no state law requiring females to wears tops, but also
nothing to prevent counties or localities from imposing such
requirements. Most states are in this category.
(4) "Feminist Counterstrike"
Opinion on Beauty from the Feminist Angle
by Dolores Menendez
Women who are reading things like Vogue, Elle, Glamour etc.,
aren't really women at all: most of the readership is around
14 to 20 years old. These are girls who are being presented an
image of an ideal at an age too young and impressionable to
appreciate their own value as they are. And at this age they
are being told they just aren't good enough. Not only from the
media images but often by those around them. Women are taught
to squelch their natural robustness in order to meet what is
considered the feminine ideal.
Self-esteem in women is battered out of them during this
time period. It happens at the same time young men are being
encouraged to express the same lust for life that women are
being told is inappropriate. The world of sports is a prime
example of this. How many schools back and support womens'
sports the way they do mens'? "Oh but the girls aren't interested"
is the usual response. They are not interested because they are
told at a very young age what they are not supposed to be. We
even dress little toddler girls in tights and dresses and tell
them not to get dirty when they are exploring their world for
the first time. Little boys are supposed to get dirty. This
isn't some kind of biological edict that we are following: it
is cultural.
Women are just as responsible for their own lives as men are.
Everyone has to take personal responsibility for their life.
However, society does stack the cards. And women have a much
longer and harder struggle to come to that conclusion then men
do in our culture.
Things like breast augmentation are the result of male desires.
No woman would want bigger breasts except to please a man. We
live in a patriarchal society. Large breasts are a hinderance
to daily activity and indeed would be a real annoyance if we
still hunted and gathered. I do believe most women don't have
a clear view of their own value as human beings. And you as a man
are going to have a difficult time understanding that. - D. M.
[Besides the exploded "beauty myth" thesis [that women make
themselves do odd things to their bodies to please men], Dolores
makes many generalizations that simply fail to hold up under scrutiny.
I doubt the publishers at the big women's magazines think their
market is 14-20 year old females. In fact, their marketing research
suggests an older audience, the 21-45 age group. Don't take
my word for it: call up their advertising departments. I'm glad
she doesn't like boob jobs, but don't buy her "devil" theory of
self-esteem, that everything is the fault of males. - F.W.]
(5) "Julie Cialini, Natural PMOY!"
Playboy Selects a 100% Normal Woman as Playmate of the Year
Julie Cialini was chosen 1995 Playmate of the Year by Playboy
magazine, and stars in a ten page pictorial in the June issue.
The 24 year old native of Rochester, NY, stands at 5'11" and has
what many would call small breasts. In high school the idea of
being a model was out of the question: her height and coltish
gangliness seemed, in her own mind, to be liabilities.
By age 20 all this had changed: she had already posed in
the nude for an artist, and began modeling in South Florida.
She began dreaming of becoming a Playmate model, and appeared
in the September 1993 issue as part of a feature on women from
Florida. In February 1994 she achieved her goal of becoming a
Playmate. Now, PMOY, and what a delightful surprise: a very
leggy 100% plastic-free Playmate with small breasts!
Like all Playmates these days, Julie stars in her own
provocative video, "Playmate Video Centerfold: Playmate of the
Year Julie Lynn Cialini". It runs 55 minutes, and lists for
$19.95, in stores or purchased direct from Playboy,
Inc., at 1-800-423-9494.
(6) REVIEWS
Amy Sibiga, _Nudes_ (Freedom, CA: 1995). [ISBN: 0-89594-749-8]
7x7 Softbound.
64pp. $12.95.
Amy Sibiga is a young graphic designer from Monterey, CA, who
liked nudes so much that she created her own portfolio, _Nudes_.
The twenty-six male and female nudes range in intent from classic
to erotic. Not surprisingly the most erotic images are of men
with erections, the most original and humorous being "Baguettes,"
French bread arranged around a hard-on. Bread of Life?
Two female nudes merit special mention: "Woman on a Pedestal"
and "Female Torso, Ava." In the former one sees a woman balanced
supine, acrobat-like, on top of a classical column. The latter
is a powerful yet feminine torso study set against a high key
background. Sibiga knows how to compose a photograph
and exploit the viewfinder's four corners, that unnatural but
necessary frame which holds an image together. Anyone with
even the slightest interest in the nude must own a copy of
this beautiful book. Please consult the resource box
below to buy your copy of _Nudes_. - F.W.
The Nudes of Edna Bullock
Edna Bullock, _Edna's Nudes_ (Capra Press, 1995)
[ISBN 0-88496-393-4] 8 x 10. Softbound. 112pp. $28.95.
Wynn Bullock, a fine art photographer, died in 1975 and a
distinguished photo-career came to an end. Yet, soon after
another one began. His wife Edna had largely been unfamiliar
with the technical aspects of making photo-images, but
in 1976 she studied photography formally and started work on
what became an impressive portfolio of nudes.
_Edna's Nudes_ presents twenty years worth of B&W nudes,
sixty-nine in all,culled from an original file of three hundred
images. One theme unites this diverse collection of artistic
nudes: a search for the human form to find a place in the
universe. Models express the artist's yearning to find a place in
nature for humanity.
One of my favorite nudes is Michaella with Scarf, 1986.
The attraction here is in the voluptuous curves of her body,
amplified by pregnancy. Who said a pregnant woman can't be
beautiful? A certain timeless quality is achieved,the mark of
true artistic photography.
Most of _Edna's Nudes_ are posed outdoors in natural light,
and it is clear that she enjoys integrating human form with
Mother Nature, taking delight in both complementing, and at
times contrasting, the nude within a discovered environment.
The book also has an introduction by Edna's daughter, Barbara.
Please consult the resource box below to buy your copy of
_Edna's Nudes_. - F.W.
(7) HOW TO MAKE A NUDE
Idea #1: Try torso shots in closer, with the model's
arms in different positions: raised, crossed, behind
the back. Options include casting shadows upon the body,
or application of paint or liquids. - F.W.
For twenty more ideas on how to make better nudes,
order your copy of _Make Better Nudes_ today and get
a classic nude from the Wallis Studio.
RESOURCE BOX
Order any item mentioned in the _G.A_. Please add $2
each for shipping. Checks (allow up to 20 business days
to receive your items), made to Source Publications,
3 Cross Hill Rd., Monroe, CT 06468.
Amy Sibiga, Nudes. $12.95
Edna Bullock, Edna's Nudes. $28.95
Frank Wallis, Make Better Nudes, and
(8) "Can Men Live By Breasts Alone?"
by Richard Freeman, Mid-West Editor
As a reviewer of both amateur and pro porno films,
I feel prepared to answer the trenchant questions posed
to me by our Editor, Frank Wallis. First, What happened
to boobs in porn movies over the last twenty years? Annette
Haven was all natural, but was Seka? Then comes the Traci
Lords era. Where does she fit into all of this?
I can safely say that there were only a few possible
boob jobs in the Golden Age of porn, ca. 1973-85. With the
exception of Seka and Desiree Cousteau, I can't think of
any major actress of that era with implants. As for the
Traci Lords era, this was a time of transition from film
to video, from nature to silicone valleys. Traci was natural,
and her breasts seemed to change size and shape with every
film she made, which is just part of growing up when you're
only 15 years old.
If you want to see the genuine articles, as well as the
best porn movies ever made, then watch porn films made before
1986. It's that simple. Around 1986 chests began to not ring
true, but rather truly amazing. Breasts that come to mind are
those of Candie Evans, Krista Lane, Jessica Wylde. By 1991 at
least " the chests in porndom had been enhanced. In this braver
new world, basketball jobs seem to have popped out on strippers
such as Wendy Whoppers and Tiffany Towers, who began to do
hardcore porn videos. I don't know how far skin can be stretched,
but there is a limit, and this limit has possibly been reached:
attempts at 100" chests have all been prosthetic.
Are men turned on by large breasts or by the action? I don't
know how many men like large breasts, but one must suspect that
enough do to make dancing in front of such wolves profitable.
More so with boob jobs than without.
Frank also asked me, Can porn live without boob jobs? Yes,
porn could do quite well without fake tits: John Leslie's recent
"Fresh Meat", and Jim Holliday's "Real Tickets" have been highly
successful. You should also look for the following natural-
chested porn stars: Tammi Ann, Christy Canyon, Asia Carrera,
Careena Collins, Nikki Dial, Debi Diamond, Alex Jordan, Keisha,
Francesca Le, Ginger Lynn, Krysti Lynn, Micky Lynn, Sharon Mitchell,
Sharon Kane, Melanie Moore, Brittany O'Connell, Kelly O'Dell, Misty
Rain, Lana Sands, Tiana, and if you don't mind breaking the law,
classic Traci Lords.
_The Genuine Article_, #2 (1995) published by Frank Wallis
Copyright 1995 Frank Wallis. All Rights Reserved.
_The Genuine Article_ now has a web site at:
http://frankw.hypercon.com/
