Hubby and I were just reading about how breast implant commercials are going to debut during the airing of a makeover show. This prompted him to ask why implants can’t be made to look less fake–basically, like cantalope halves resting on a woman’s chest. I thought maybe it had to do with the ratio of the size of the implant and the size of the woman’s frame, but he made a good point–we’ve seen women with small implants that basically look like orange halves as opposed to their larger melon cousins.
Is it a body fat thing? Do rail-thin women simply not have enough flesh to soften the artificial curves? What is the science behind good implants and bad?
(And FTR, I am in no way, shape, form, or deform interested in these. My C cups are fine on their own!)
Unfortunately breast implants and their subsequent look on the human body have a lot to do with the skill of the doctor performing the operation and the wit of the woman deciding on the size. Some women get the generic augmentation and it looks fine. Others want to go for broke and go from a b to a double D and it looks terrible.
I conducted a research study on the psychology behind implants when I was in Graduate school. It was a fun study, but it basically showed that there is a huge gap between a good augmentation where you can barely tell she had it done, and a bad augmentation where it looks like Nancy Karrigan crossed with Dolly Parton.
How do you know? Is it possible that you are only noticing the worst examples, and that many breasts you thought were natural are in fact good implants?
scr4, that’s why the thread title asks why some implants look so artificial. I thought initially it was a size thing, then I realized some small ones look horribly fake as well.
I’m curious to know what the skill is, then, that certain surgeons are lacking to create the half-sphere effect. Are they placing the implant incorrectly, then, perhaps? Not in the right pocket of muscle? Or something…hey, I’m not up on my surgeries.
My ex-g/f, her sister, and their MOM all got their boobs done at the same time, with the same doc. The ex-g/f had more muscle mass and tissue on her chest than her sister, and the doc put the implants behind the muscle (in her words). They looked perfectly natural, and she’d get comments from other women while they were all in bikinis about how they had wished they had boobs like hers to start with, they wouldn’t have gotten surgery. Only while tensing most of the muscles in her body was it apparent they were not natural. She had been an A and A- cup, and went to C.
Her sister, on the other hand, looked like someone had stapled a few grapefruits to her chest. I did not have occassion to see their mom’s new boobs.
You are noticing the bad ones, or have been made aware in advance that you will be seeing someone with breast implants, which introduces bias.
You probably pass many women who have had augmentation, but you don’t always notice. Kind of like bad hair pieces.
Additionally, an augmentation gets better over time, while the shows that feature them usually show them before they look their best (which happens with time and massage).
I suspect that some women are still running around with silicone implants that they never swapped out, and those were notorious for their gravity defying globularity (as opposed to pear-shapedness).
Also heard a surgeon saying that trouble sometimes arises because different girls just have different torso/breast arrangements. Some have a widish ribcage with breasts that are naturally separated and that sort of “hang toward the outside.” He made the point that even women with the same breast size can have differing cleavage depending on breast spacing. He recommends that girls with widely spaced breasts think hard about implants, because even if the breasts get bigger, they won’t necessarily get much of the sought-after cleavage. Or . . . they’ll go for disproportionately big implants in the hopes that they will somehow “meet in the middle” and produce cleavage.
Again, Philster, you’re missing the point of my OP. My question is simply why some look bad. Yes, I know, I get it, there are plenty that look great, plenty I wouldn’t notice, blah blah blah. I get it! I
'm simply asking what has essentially gone wrong with the bad ones that creates the icky visual.
Especially with the gigantic ones, some people actually prefer the artificial look as “better than Nature”. People have fetishes about every body variant possible; breasts as large and spherical as cantelope mounted way up on the collar bone are one of them.
Take a half hours or so and view the pictures at awful plastic surgery You will see examples of some great work, and some that makes people look like the bride of Frankenstein (or worse)
To answer the OP, I attribute much / most of the problems to the skill of the surgeon. The rest of the reason is split between different bodies react differently, and picking the correct implant to compliment the body they are going in (a girl with a 32" chest is not going to look very natural with FFs)
I’m afraid I don’t recall the url of the site, but I have seen an online boob test where one has to determine if they are real or fake based on a single unclothed photo. I scored 95%–19 of 20, thankyouverymuch. And I still say I would’ve gotten all 20, but one was an obscured view and I pretty much had to guess.
(They also have quizzes like female vs. shemale–I frighteningly didn’t do as well there!)
I thought initially it was a size thing, then I realized some small ones look horribly fake as well.
