Hot model - Real Tits or fake?

Silicon or not, works for me either way

I'd have to put my head between them to find out.


Can you arrange this for me?

From this image, it's impossible to be sure. But life has made me a cynic, at least on this issue, and I'm always suspicious. It looks like this image has been resized, from the watermark in the corner--do you have the original size? Or other poses? That might make it easier.

There are various things to look out for. The sure sign is scars. They are most commonly under the nipple at the edge of the areolae. Often they're "airbrushed" in pr0n, but are still detectable. The worst are scars along the underside of the breast. These are very hard to hide and are usually bad enough to be called disfiguring. This is the cheapest form of surgery, but I am continually amazed at the number of women who apparently voluntarily opt for this form of mutilation. The best (and most expensive) surgeons use a tiny incision in the underarm and insert the implant through a small tube. This scar is very hard to detect. But I think there's a limit to the size of the implant that can be done this way, and if the surgeon isn't skilled, the lymph nodes can be damaged.

The structure of the nipple is another clue. Implants distend the nipple and areola, so the nipple becomes less prominent and the areola lighter. (This particularly bugs me, because I like prominent nipples and well defined areolae.)

Proportion is another giveaway. Breast implants are often higher than the natural tissue, so the curve of the breast above the nipple is unnatural. They are also sometimes not centered laterally, leaving the nipples pointing out or in. Stretch marks are common, although large natural breasts or pregnancy will also leave marks.

Breasts are mostly fatty tissue, which can be a clue. If a woman otherwise is very lean or muscular, large breasts are fake. Musclebuilders can build up the pectoral muscle, but this give a large, broad, flattened breast, without much projection. How the tissue moves in other than a standing position is often revealing. When a women with large breasts is supine, the natural tissue will sort of slump, but implants bulge. If she's on her hands and knees, the profile of the implant is often obvious. However, fit but not exceptionally lean young women, such as the one that started this thread, can have very firm tone naturally. This generally is not a permanent condition. (One of the reasons I like smaller breasts is that they age so much more gracefully.)

Very nice tutorial on the world of real or fake tits

After reading the tutorial, I feel compelled to vote in favor of "real boobs" for our test subject. She has a bit of a sag, which is good and her nipples are pointing pretty much where they are supposed to. I'd need a second photo of her lying on her back (perhaps with her heels behind her ears) to be absolutley sure.

Elmo wrote:

Despite my cynicism, I'm inclined in that direction too, at least on the basis of the single photograph. It's just that I've been dismayed so often when I get a chance to make an examination.

However, just in case you think I never believe in fairies, I turned up a couple of examples of large, firm, natural breasts. (This is in my ongoing project of turning a large stack of archived CDs of usenet gleaning into a smaller stack of DVDs with, hopefully, a lot of duplicates removed, names resolved, &c.)

This is turning into a dissertation. At least the research is more fun than my last one.

This is Eve, more recent pictures and higher resolution from a well known site. However, this site is not reliable in their selection of un-mutilated models; quite a few of their models have been under the knife. So I start out skeptical.

Damn, the file comments are getting truncated. So much for the running narrative. I'm too lazy to go back and reconstruct it now, sorry.

I should, in the interest of pedantry, follow this up with some examples of fake breasts that are subtle and hard to spot, but I don't have any. They're purged from my collection when I spot them.

For a pop quiz, go here http://www.funsforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=940 and practice your discriminatory skills

FAKE OR NOT, ALL LOOK GOOD FOR ME.

My congratulations to Sleeper-shark !

That last photset, although already submitted December 2004, is a true beauty !

I prefer small tits (but of course, there must be some kind of nipple formation in stead of a flat chest) !

If anyone's interested in doing some more research, there's a wide array of before-and-after pics that can be found here:
http://www.implantinfo.com/photocenter/

Nothing like examining tits to pass the time. It can be shocking sometimes how unnecessary these operations are.

Sorry for bumping this, but I'm new to the site, and I think Mr Shark deserves a big thumbs-up for that tutorial on how to spot fake tits

They are real and I´m pretty sure that I bet the virginity of my sister.

Titties should be proportional to the body. If they're too big they just make the girl look like a cow; and if they're non-existent they make her look like a boy wearing a wig. (Okay, maybe a castrated one, but you get the point.)

Too small is better than saggy.

Big can still be okay if they're not out of proportion to the body and NOT saggy.

I think on most female body types, a "C" cup size is the best.

In the example given above, whether those are fake or not, I'd say they COULD be fake if they are over-muscle implants, but if they are they were done very well by the surgeon--very natural-looking.