Jump to content

Patty's Bust


Recommended Posts

I have removed a couple of posts, which were reported, that provided links to bare breasts.

It certainly isn't lost on me that they may be pertinent to the discussion of Patty's breasts for purposes of comparison.

However, this is a PG/family friendly site and they are out of bounds under that format.

Perhaps a solution would be to link to text book drawings as opposed to *live* frontal nude pics. Thanks for the suggestion ChrisBFRPKY!!!

This isn't an easy issue for me as I can see the relevance of such pics as they pertain to the discussion within the thread.

However, they also would open a door of sorts that I don't want to see opened.

While I think both of the posts I removed clearly violated the rules, there will be no further action taken against those who posted them other than their removal.

I can think of at least one instance on the *old* board in which a post similar to this earned a 30-day suspension.

I hope those that reported the posts, as well as those who made the posts with the offending links can understand and accept my ruling on this.

I think/believe it is extremely fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have removed a couple of posts, which were reported, that provided links to bare breasts.

It certainly isn't lost on me that they may be pertinent to the discussion of Patty's breasts for purposes of comparison.

However, this is a PG/family friendly site and they are out of bounds under that format.

Perhaps a solution would be to link to text book drawings as opposed to *live* frontal nude pics. Thanks for the suggestion ChrisBFRPKY!!!

This isn't an easy issue for me as I can see the relevance of such pics as they pertain to the discussion within the thread.

However, they also would open a door of sorts that I don't want to see opened.

While I think both of the posts I removed clearly violated the rules, there will be no further action taken against those who posted them other than their removal.

I can think of at least one instance on the *old* board in which a post similar to this earned a 30-day suspension.

I hope those that reported the posts, as well as those who made the posts with the offending links can understand and accept my ruling on this.

I think/believe it is extremely fair.

Kill joy :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you google pendulous breast images, with safe search off, the very first image under where is says "page 3" is for bellevue breast reduction. I believe the "before" image shows a close approximation of a human with breast very similar to what is seen in the PGF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hairy Man

I honestly am not getting what the problem is. Compared to myself, a women who breastfeed two kids for two years+ each, where the breast starts at the armpit, "hanging" level, nipple position, ribcage, etc., is about equal with my own self (and no, I am not interested in providing proof of that - but the hubby just confirmed it :) ). In California, at least, bras are always optional and I know I have spent more time out of one than in one (although it's important to mention that it makes no difference if you have worn a bra everyday of your life if it was a BAD bra, vs. a good one...women will know what that means). The hairiness of the breast should be more of an issue than size/shape/etc. Where the terms "torpedo" and "cones" come from, I don't even know, there is nothing torpedo or cone shaped in those pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

vilnoori,

I don't think the breasts are that far down relative to the armpit. As for the nipples, honestly I don't see them, not to mention, I've always question findin' such small details when blowin' up images of this overall quality. So the placement thin' I have no idea what you're seein', sorry. As for the only reason they appear bein' so full lookin' bein' milk, this is a possibility of course. It could be fat deposite as well? I wonder if climate or temperature plays any roll in this, as the tissue of flatish or droopy pancake like breasts may be effected by the colder temps. Not sure?

Again, the baggyness of the upper back thigh ? Are you referin' to the fold of the buttock, or infront of it an lower down slightly? The possible hernia is found much lower down the thigh.

Pat...

Sorry for not replying directly, Pat, but all I'm saying is in Africa I've seen many a woman who has never worn a bra in her life, or any tops whatever, and very few of them once they have breastfed one or two kids, have any suspension at all to the bosom which would lift the nipples so that they face forward rather than down. They sag very low, too, the ladies in their young teens are the only ones that have perky breasts which are what we are used to thinking of when we westerners think of breasts. Most women who have children starting at age 14 or so, and wear no bra, have very long, flat, pendulous breasts with nipples that face to the floor rather than having the "fish hook" shape we are used to. From what I've seen of pics of apes that are lactating, and I have no idea how old they are or how many babies they have had, it seems things go pretty saggy and flat in them as well, fairly quickly.

The flappiness of the upper back thigh, under the padding of the butt, is also clearly apparent to me. And ask yourself why "Patty" looks so much like one of those guys that brought the film out in the facial structure, and why she walks like a man instead of a woman. One could say that sasquatch females do not have hip variations like we women do which allow big brained babies through the pelvis...but then, why on earth not? From drawings and descriptions, sasquatches have fairly big heads too--though rather more bullet shaped, at least in maturity.

C'mon, we do not need to believe this film is real vs. hoax to consider the possibility that sasquatches exist. I think trusting eyewitness accounts, their number and descriptiveness (especially multiple witness encounters, where some of the party did not previously believe in sasquatch or even describe it in terms of sasquatch) is a better way to go.

And in the end a picture or movie is not going to be enough to prove the creature exists, we will need physical evidence of some kind. I don't advocate going out and shooting one, but collecting bones or an already dead body, or finding an infant, is not impossible if they're out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:P

There is no greater fan of the female anatomy than myself. But, under a PG format, we simply can't allow links to posts of nudity here.

I am curious, did xspider's gorilla pic also get yanked from the other thread? All I need is an affirmative/negative answer, as I'm not trying to open a debate on the removal (unfortunate that it may be). I would assume that it would also be inappropriate to post them in our personal galleries?

If we cannot provide evidentiary support for our arguements in this matter pro or con, I don't see how this thread can continue much longer. Though we seem to have pretty much said all that needs be said on the topic.

I am honestly puzzled as to how to proceed from here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we cannot provide evidentiary support for our arguements in this matter pro or con, I don't see how this thread can continue much longer. Though we seem to have pretty much said all that needs be said on the topic.

We agree again!!

Wer'e on a roll babe! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Sorry for not replying directly, Pat, but all I'm saying is in Africa I've seen many a woman who has never worn a bra in her life, or any tops whatever, and very few of them once they have breastfed one or two kids, have any suspension at all to the bosom which would lift the nipples so that they face forward rather than down. They sag very low, too, the ladies in their young teens are the only ones that have perky breasts which are what we are used to thinking of when we westerners think of breasts. Most women who have children starting at age 14 or so, and wear no bra, have very long, flat, pendulous breasts with nipples that face to the floor rather than having the "fish hook" shape we are used to. From what I've seen of pics of apes that are lactating, and I have no idea how old they are or how many babies they have had, it seems things go pretty saggy and flat in them as well, fairly quickly.

The flappiness of the upper back thigh, under the padding of the butt, is also clearly apparent to me. And ask yourself why "Patty" looks so much like one of those guys that brought the film out in the facial structure, and why she walks like a man instead of a woman. One could say that sasquatch females do not have hip variations like we women do which allow big brained babies through the pelvis...but then, why on earth not? From drawings and descriptions, sasquatches have fairly big heads too--though rather more bullet shaped, at least in maturity.

C'mon, we do not need to believe this film is real vs. hoax to consider the possibility that sasquatches exist. I think trusting eyewitness accounts, their number and descriptiveness (especially multiple witness encounters, where some of the party did not previously believe in sasquatch or even describe it in terms of sasquatch) is a better way to go.

And in the end a picture or movie is not going to be enough to prove the creature exists, we will need physical evidence of some kind. I don't advocate going out and shooting one, but collecting bones or an already dead body, or finding an infant, is not impossible if they're out there.

vilnoori,

I guess we see thin's different lookin' at the back of the thigh, no worries. Regardin' her walk an head size, check Reasons Not To Consider The P/G Film A Hoax #382, I quoted Jeff who explains it .

I don't know how to answer your comment that Patty looks like someone who brought out facial details. Who?

No one has to believe the P/G Film is genuine, I do based on my own opinion is all. I think photos or film still hold possibilities, I know a bone would be better, but a good photo or film...? One of these days...

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious, did xspider's gorilla pic also get yanked from the other thread? All I need is an affirmative/negative answer, as I'm not trying to open a debate on the removal (unfortunate that it may be). I would assume that it would also be inappropriate to post them in our personal galleries?

First off Mulder, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Your query certainly merits a response by me. My mom has been in the hospital for the past two weeks and not doing too well. My time here has been somewhat limited because of that. So again, I apologize for the delay in answering you friend.

xspider's gorilla pic was not removed. I had a tough enough time deciding on the proper means to handle the links yourself and Jodie posted that led to frontal nudity of female homosapiens.

As I said in an earlier post, this is a PG forum and frontal nudity of any kind is discouraged under that format.

But, the pic by xspider is somewhat of an exception as it should be expected as something a parent would expect their child to see if they took them to the zoo.

Simply put, that falls within the parameters of a PG site while the links to frontal nudity that I removed do not.

If we cannot provide evidentiary support for our arguements in this matter pro or con, I don't see how this thread can continue much longer. Though we seem to have pretty much said all that needs be said on the topic.

I am honestly puzzled as to how to proceed from here.

Welcome to my world. Fortunately most threads here don't illicit this type of connundrum. As I've stated ad nauseum, I see/get how pics of human breasts are pertinent to the discussion within this thread.

But under a PG format I can't allow them.

I did suggest that links to textbook drawings of them would be allowed whereas links/pics of frontal nudity would not.

ChrisBFRPKY suggested that as a solution and I think he is onto something. I realize that not allowing the links to frontal nudity in this thread inhibits discussion.

A PG-13 rating for the forum and pics depicting frontal nudity would be allowed. But I don't want to moderate a PG-13 forum and neither do the other Mods. There just isn't enough distinction between a PG-13 forum and an R-rated forum from the perspective of someone mandated to Moderate.

There is ample distinction between a PG and R-rated forum. The boundaries are clearly defined.

If the frontal nude links were allowed for this thread, they would serve as fodder to allow similar or worse in other threads.

The simplest solution, from my perspective, is to not allow them at all given the PG format.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm too immature to comment on this thread. :rolleyes:

Somebody gave me a positive mark for that? I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or an insult. :lol: "Lucy! You got some splainin' to do." :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, PBeaton and Mulder, please know the appreciation I have for your sentiments. I've been extremely humbled by the PM's I've gotten as well as your posts in reference to my mom.

You and yours are in my prayers as well.

It is my honor to consider all of you friends, but it goes beyond that for me. You are all an extended portion of my family in my mind.

We may go at each other pretty hard at times, but our community is a family. A tad dysfunctional, but family nonetheless.

Your posts and PM's Ive received during this trying time are most welcome and appreciated!!!

A heartfelt and sincere thanks from me to each and every one of you!!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
Guest Fister Crunchman

MK Davis has posted some animations of patty's chest area which look really important and very interesting, over at his newish site, thedavisreport at wordpress.com.

I have no technical expertise and would love to see what you guys think of MK's method and results. Take a look!

Fister

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...