_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]. 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]. 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] 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_ 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. 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/