I’m sure that tape was primarily responsible for the perky shape but one more thing may have contributed in some cases. Back in the decade or two before implants, many would-be celebrities/models had another option for increasing breast size and levitation. It was not uncommon for them to get silicone injections directly into breast tissue. I had an oriental friend in the early 70’s who had been almost flat-chested before injections. Unfortunately, she developed breast cancer in her mid-twenties. The injected silicone delayed diagnosis considerably (it could become quite lumpy after a while) and may have even caused the cancer. She died a year after diagnosis and silicone injections died a well deserved death as soon as implants arrived on the scene.
I think that’s because, as someone else said, the current sexy look is someone with a small frame, with narrow hips, very skinny legs and a high waist-to-hip ratio (higher than the “ideal” that most men find a turn on IRL). Women shaped like that almost all naturally have small breasts, which mostly come equipped with small nipples and areolas. Breast implants will increase the size of the breast mass, but they don’t enlarge the nipple or areola. What you end up with is an oddly small looking nip on a big boob.
My breasts were very much the shape of those in the OP link when I was young. As I’ve gained weight and gravity has taken a toll, they’ve both rounded out on top and sunk slightly southward. But when I was young, I was a DD cup who could still pass the pencil test, yet the tops of my breasts were nowhere near as full as the bottoms.
Bras also change the shape of what we see on most people. The cut of a bra changes with fashion - in the 80’s and early 90’s, pointy was “perky” and bras were nearly cone shapes (thanks, Madonna!). Now on bra-selling websites, you’ll see negative ratings with comments like, “This bra is way too pointy!”. Bras cut so as to give very high sitting round breasts are much more popular right now. There are even “molded bras” (which I LOVE!) that have a solid shaped piece of thin high density foam forming both cups - they offer great support and a very round look. (They also hide the nipples very well and look awesome under thin t-shirts or camisoles.) I find it amusing that breast implants have become so ubiquitous that even those of us who don’t have them want our breasts shaped as if we had them!
“Fighting Ignorance” notwithstanding, there is no way that I am searching for pictures of naked women over retirement age.
That’s because when women with small breasts get implants, their areolae stay the same size. ETA, as Whynot mentioned.
Seriously guys, I hate to burst your bubble, but the number of women that are 120# or less with DD’s or larger *naturally *is miniscule. It just doesn’t happen that often. Especially when they are older than 22.
There was about 370,000 women in 2006 that had breast implants. So, someone help me do the math, here. There are approx 73,000,000 women between the ages of 20 and 50. What percentage of the general female population has implants? Granted the numbers have changed through the years, and are increasing each year, but I’ve searched for some sort of stats, and can’t find any. After 3 years would that be about 1 out 50?
And now that I’m in this thread, I wouldn’t describe her breasts as perky. Huge, yes, perky, no. Perky to me implies nipples that look straight out, or up. Usually that means smaller breasts, not enough material to weigh them down. There were some pics of women with large boobs on that website who had breasts that fit my definition of perky, but again, they looked all of 18.
As an aside, I thought it was kinda creepy that there were pictures of women at topless beaches who were having their photograph taken without their knowledge. If I’m at a topless beach, I don’t care who is there looking, however, that’s a far cry from having my topless picture posted on the internet.
The picture cited in the OP does not meet my definition of perky. Way too big for perky. If you can lodge a pencil under them without it falling out, they are not perky.
Who invented that test? Needs an honorary award for something…
Girls at a sleepover with too much time on their hands, I expect.
I don’t grasp why the men’s magazines feel the need to adhere to one narrow standard of female beauty/sexiness. Wouldn’t variety be the spice of life (so to speak) and lead to more sales, if the customers could count on there being a wide range of body types in the pictorials? Of course there are the less-mainstream mags which certainly do cater to less “mainstream” tastes, just trying to figure out why the skinny big-boobed look is assumed to represent the mainstream taste among men…
I suspect (but do not know) that most men have a “favorite,” and also have body types they actively dislike, and if that’s the case, then specialization is going to be the way to maximize profits.
-FrL-
That presumes that their readership appreciates a wide range of body types, which I don’t think is in evidence. A men’s magazine is in the business of catering to the tastes of their readership, not molding that taste. If 80% of men like enormous hooters, there is little margin in disappointing them in order to reach the 20% who appreciate itty bitty titties. If tastes change so that granny bosoms that dangle down to knees become the most popular style, then you can bet they will predominate the pages of Playboy as well.
No, this is true in almost any business. People outside the business, especially those with minority tastes, always assume that the business would do better by broadening its variety of wares.
Doesn’t work that way. The most profitable route is almost always to cater to the mainstream, because not only do they do most of the buying, they also tend to actively dislike the minority wares.
A big supermarket can get away with niche products, but a small grocery store or convenience store can’t. Unlike the internet, magazines do a limited number of pictorials a year making them more like grocery stores than supermarkets.
If a mainstream magazine has one centerfold a year out of the current style, that’s 8% of its annual business that it’s harming. Risky.
Niche products can often be found in niche stores and that’s true for magazines as well. They just have to be aware that they’ll never do more than, say, 1% of the business of the big magazines.
You can apply this logic to almost anything: music, computers, cars, spangle-plated widgets.
That was called the “pencil test” in my high school, and the administration used it to determine whether girls needed to wear a bra to school. If the pencil fell out, no bra required. If the pencil stayed, go home and get a bra.
(Colorado, 1970s)
:eek:
Whoa, whoa - you mean this was adminstered by school officials of some sort? “Alright girls, line up - Mr. Ludy needs to perform a little test.” Jeez.
Times do change, I guess.
Unless I’m being whooshed, I presumed those numbers meant the year they were in a pictorial.
He was making a joke on the thing. 
The pencil test was offered by the French in 1970, when sheer tops had become quite fashionable.
My wife tried it long before 1970.
Sadly.
Ask her where she heard of it. Please.
I’ve heard of the pencil test being called the devil’s tip back in 1935 in Kramer’s Pictorial*.
*Ok, not a real cite.