_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