Rich Koslowski: Writer, Artist, Genius
homeView and Buy Rich's StuffReviews of Rich's BooksRead Rich's RantsLinksAbout RichContact Rich

Breast Of The Best! A Year In Review.

Last night at basketball my good friend, Mike Bularz, asked me when I was going to do another column on breasts (he asked with a lunatic's grin) . He's not the only one. It seems that of all the columns, reviews and pontifications I've written in the last couple years, my semi-annual views on the female mammary glands are my most appreciated. Go figger. As they say in the NBA "It's Mammtastic!"

Alright then...give 'em what they want as the old saying goes...

In past columns I have made brilliant observations regarding breast augmentations and the fascination our society has with the female form--specifically the breasts. I confess that this fascination, with me at least, borderlines on a type of...obsession, if you will. I have commented that I, for one, do not care for the over-the-top augmentations that some women seem to feel is necessary--let's refer from this point on to the "over-the-top" augmentation as the "Pamela Anderson." That is NOT a good look! I mean, sure, it looks pleasant when the woman is suitably attired in some semi-revealing, form-fitting outfit which properly accentuates the ravine which now represents their ample cleavage. Yes, it does. I like that. BUT! When the clothes come off and those newly acquired appendages fall free they do not fall at all! Rather they, seemingly, suspend the properties of gravity all-together. Therein lies the problem for me with the "Pamela Anderson". For if these breasts defy the laws of gravity one can only surmise (and properly so) that their density defies the laws of physics as other words, they're hard as friggin' rocks! I don't dig on that. I have seen these "Pamela Anderson" over-the-tops in several films. Do not judge me too harshly here, now, people. I am a self-professed perv, yes, but in a good way. Anyways, when a woman lies on her back her breasts should not retain the same shape they do as when she is standing in the upright position. When they look EXACTLY the same something is not right. Again, the "Pamela Anderson" effect. This indicates the aforementioned "hard as a rock" side-effect that, I believe, most men are really not looking for. They might think they are and say they are, but when the situation becomes "hands on," so to speak, I think they'll decide differently. In other words, most men are idiots, so ladies, please just don't listen to them. Listen to me. I'm a genius, it says so right on my business cards. Bigger, in this case, is not always better! Remember gravity, it has to be believable.

So, to review, lying back they shouldn't retain that perfectly round, gravity-defying shape that they do when standing upright. Make sure to mention that to the plastic surgeon before you start. Take along a picture, if you can, of "film" star Jessica Jaymes when you go to the doctor. This is, perhaps, the most entirely perfect breast augmentation I've ever seen. Perfect size, shape, centering of the areola, their relationship with our friend gravity is natural and believable and no visible scarring. If you cannot acquire a photograph I'll be happy to send you one.

Now, and this is a matter of personal preference, Mike asked me about the areola and nipple area. He wanted my opinion on that and pointed out (no pun intended) that I had not discussed this in prior columns. I apologize as I feel this to be an area of great importance and not to be overlooked at all. I like them. Quite a bit. I tend to like the areola circumference to be in the 25 cents to 50 cents range with the actual nipple protuberance to approximate a pencil eraser--the larger pencils we used as kids not the typical #2 pencil we're most familiar with, that'd be a tad bit too small. This brings me to my other movie person reference which should help and give a solid visual aide. Above I referenced Pamela Anderson when discussing the "bad" in breasts, here I will reference Jennifer Anniston when referencing the "good." More accurately, I will reference her character, Rachel, on Friends. For it seems that either the set was always very cold when filming that show or Jennifer was always in a state of heightened arousal. She was, if you'll notice (and really can't help to), always "on." And for that, personally, I was pretty happy. Anyways, whenever we (my wife and I) see a woman out and about in this "state" of "on-ness" we always comment that "her Rachel's are on." So, the "Rachel's" would represent what I think of as a perfectly sized protuberance in that specific area. Coloring isn't terribly important to me. I've heard some fellows comment that they like them tan or dark but I find that it depends on the particular woman, setting, mood and family history. So I'm pretty open on that.

So, there it semi-annual discussion on the fairer sexes special attribute that drives us neanderthals to lose all our already limited faculties (Look at what it's doing to me right now!). This one's for you, Mike Bularz. I hope that Mike and everyone else appreciates it and I welcome your insights and feedback and photos!



BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.1.004.

Home | View & Buy Rich's Stuff | Read Review | Read Rich's Rants
Links to sites Rich thinks you should see | About Rich Koslowski
Contact Rich | sitemap All contents copyright©2018 Rich Koslowski

web design, development & maintainence - sitebyMIKE