Talk:Madonna - Revision history

BreastKing: response

2009-01-07T01:55:23Z

response

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:55, 7 January 2009
Line 142:		Line 142:

	: It's not our task to reveal the truth about someone. This is the media's and other writers' task outside Boobpedia so we can cite the discussion and include it in an informative article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 18:27, 6 January 2009 (EST)		: It's not our task to reveal the truth about someone. This is the media's and other writers' task outside Boobpedia so we can cite the discussion and include it in an informative article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 18:27, 6 January 2009 (EST)

			Hi Prophecy,

			You wrote:

			"She focuses on reinventing her image every time, and one has to admit she has been quite successful at this over the years..." Personally this has only been possible because she is a sacred cow of the media, they have alawys allowed her to be and stay famous at the expense of much more talented performers, not because she 'reinvents herself" The media tells people that exact line and they repeat it verbatim. Just something to be aware of.

			You wrote: "Yes, and like here on Boobpedia, you did not source your statements at all; others did the work for you."

			It's not a personal attack on you to tell you that you wrote a false statement. It's 100% false, a lie whatever, I did virtually all the work on the Russ Meyer article, especially quoting Jimmy's book and A Clean Breast, so folks could not come along and say "Jessica Simpson has a Russ Meyer body..." We live in a culture of pop culture illiteracy due mainly to people like madonna who stole and prepackaged the original ideas of others and mass marketed once cool, underground things like bdsnm to Kmart America.
			I for one see sites like this as bulwark towards that changing. If one person reads this discussion and thinks wow, I felt that way too, she really is just a load of hype then ok, thats what this is about.
			Truth in and history of boobage.

			[[User:BreastKing\|BreastKing]]January 2009 (EST)

Prophecy: /* A new section after all the pics */

2009-01-06T23:28:56Z

A new section after all the pics

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:28, 6 January 2009
Line 141:		Line 141:
	: It's not me who has to allow pictures in an article. It's the community of editors by consensus. And for the time being, I cannot see any possibility for you to reach any consensus with other editors, as you are busily building up a more and more rigorous front against yourself. And this will become even worse if you do not calm down and refrain from attacking editors personally instead of objectively dealing with their edits.		: It's not me who has to allow pictures in an article. It's the community of editors by consensus. And for the time being, I cannot see any possibility for you to reach any consensus with other editors, as you are busily building up a more and more rigorous front against yourself. And this will become even worse if you do not calm down and refrain from attacking editors personally instead of objectively dealing with their edits.

	: It's not our task to reveal the truth about someone. This is the media's and other writers' task outside Boobpedia so we can cite the discussion ~~nad~~ include it in an informative article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 18:27, 6 January 2009 (EST)		: It's not our task to reveal the truth about someone. This is the media's and other writers' task outside Boobpedia so we can cite the discussion and include it in an informative article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 18:27, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Prophecy: /* A new section after all the pics */

2009-01-06T23:27:26Z

A new section after all the pics

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 6 January 2009
Line 137:		Line 137:

	[[User:BreastKing\|BreastKing]] 10:24, 6 January 2009		[[User:BreastKing\|BreastKing]] 10:24, 6 January 2009
			: Trust me, it was easy, even for me as a non-native speaker, to spot you out in the history of the Russ Meyer Wikipedia article. We do not have barnstars here at Boobpedia. We are just polite to each other and say it to an editor if we appreciate his or her work. In your comments, on the other hand, I only read such words as "you are lying" and so on. This is the opposite of friendly culture. Why don't you use all this energy you spend into personal attacks to research instead and present well-written, well-formatted and well-researched information on a topic?

			: It's not me who has to allow pictures in an article. It's the community of editors by consensus. And for the time being, I cannot see any possibility for you to reach any consensus with other editors, as you are busily building up a more and more rigorous front against yourself. And this will become even worse if you do not calm down and refrain from attacking editors personally instead of objectively dealing with their edits.

			: It's not our task to reveal the truth about someone. This is the media's and other writers' task outside Boobpedia so we can cite the discussion nad include it in an informative article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 18:27, 6 January 2009 (EST)

BreastKing: /* A new section after all the pics */

2009-01-06T18:35:06Z

A new section after all the pics

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 6 January 2009
Line 122:		Line 122:

	[[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 06:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)		[[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 06:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)


			Prophecy,

			I think this can qualify as at least a soft core site! that's what makes it so great!
			Regarding my great article on Russ Meyer from wikipedia, you are extremely incorrect and lying as there are tons of notations and citations on my wikipedia article, THAT I PUT IN, that's why I was awarded my Barn Star for it as it was only two paragraphs when I got there.Perhaps you are not clear as to what my wikipedia name is?

			That You Tube video speaks the truth for anyone interested in understanding women's bodies and how the media lies. There is a reason why there are no A list stars with large breasts and why madonna and Gisele lie about how they are built. If you are not a woman then it may not matter to you. But many who love women and truly buxom hourglass bodies want the truth out.

			You need to allow the pictures of madonna to stand and I am going to request that the editors allow them to stand if this article is not deleted which it really should be. It's clear she has has been a B cup throughout the majority of her career, she is very small breasted by the standards of the women here.Unlike Kate Winslet or Jennifer Connelly who NOW do have visually smaller breasts following child birth, weight loss etc the majority of THEIR careers they HAVE been busty.

			With madonna it's the inverse, she had a kind of busty look that was exploited from 84-to 85 and that was it . Before and after that she has been too small for notability on this website. The photos you call ugly? THAT is what Madonna's body and breasts look like. Many have been featured on her own website too...
			I think a better compromise would be to allow many of the above photos in the article. It's her body, it's her breasts, she's world famous for it and it's what she looks like. Finally, I did recall her measurements from costuming DURING THE 80's as being released as showing her having a B/C cup. I will find a reliable source and hopefully that will be enough to prove the obvious truth and rid this wonderful site of such an obvious interloper.

			[[User:BreastKing\|BreastKing]] 10:24, 6 January 2009

Prophecy: New section: A new section after all the pics

2009-01-06T11:34:48Z

New section: A new section after all the pics

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:34, 6 January 2009
Line 106:		Line 106:
	http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1037490053060_2002/11/17/18ent_madonna.jpg		http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1037490053060_2002/11/17/18ent_madonna.jpg
	http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061004/061004_madonna_vmed_11a.widec.jpg		http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061004/061004_madonna_vmed_11a.widec.jpg

			== A new section after all the pics ==

			Hi BreastKing,

			no, I'm not a fan of her, but I am a fan of objective writing. Again: CITE! We do not need original research here. Write a personal article in your own blog, in a forum or where-ever. That would be the right place to show your personal opinion. I appreciate, however, your efforts to clean the article from personally toned and weasel words. I understand if you are upset if everybody makes a hype out of her body or whatever, above all if it's only her PR division who made up this public image - but this is the case for nearly every single celebrity. You will not find unretouched photos of them nowadays. Which causes paparazzi all over the world to try to shoot as ugly as poosible pictures in order to show the "real" face of these celebrities.

			By the way, there may be ugly pics of many other big boob models too - but do we show them here? No, why? If this site is for boob fans, they deserve to see what they want. And if a public image differs very much from the so-called "truth", one can link to a newspaper article who discusses this and cite it. There's no need to show it in the article and prove it oneself - because this is original research, which is not welcome in an encyclopedia. Some other editor added a paparazzi pic in my article about the German chancellor [[Angela Merkel]] - but note the difference: He sourced his statements well and made clear the notable relevance of the incident. Although I was very sceptic at the beginning, I have to admit that it has its place in the article, and it's not harmful.

			I actually never noticed serious discussions about Madonna's breasts - if she declared that they are a D cup publicly, there would be much discussion, but she didn't. She focuses on reinventing her image every time, and one has to admit she has been quite successful at this over the years. That's all. That's a neutral point of view. Period. She does not state she has bog boobs, only you state she hasn't. This is personal. And please do not quote badly edited amateur digital videos spreaded somewhere on YouTube as a serious source. We all know that the celebrity world is a world of images the public want to see, not about the reality.

			You said you wrote most of the Russ Meyer article on Wikipedia. Yes, and like here on Boobpedia, you did not source your statements at all; others did the work for you. On the other hand, you attacked editors who tried to expand the article in good faith, not refraining from personal attacks against the editors themselves instead of what they wrote. So what's the use of this? Did you think that a simple boob page like Boobpedia is less tolerate against disrespect of fellow editors and constant breach of basic writing rules? That the quality of an article becomes better if you add lots and lots of pictures to it (and destroying the layout) instead of only '''once''' providing a serious source where Madonna's breasts are discussed? I think you do not have to remind me that articles here are public and can be edited by anyone who feels entitled to it. As long as these are '''edits''', not mere expressions of personal opinions, I welcome this and I am grateful for everyone working on stubs I created - that's what they were made for.

			Of course, Boobpedia is all about boobs. That's the only rule for notability here: A cup size larger than C, as we all know. But it would be quite poor to stop there and describe the boobs af each model in her article and nothing else. We should leave this to porn sites. If a person has an influence on other aspects, it can and should be included too. Even if she did something important with her left toe.

			[[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 06:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

BreastKing: /* An executive opinion */

2009-01-06T05:07:14Z

An executive opinion

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:07, 6 January 2009
Line 76:		Line 76:
	http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1037490053060_2002/11/17/18ent_madonna.jpg		http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1037490053060_2002/11/17/18ent_madonna.jpg

	Hi prophecy, ~~please~~ do remember, as I will, that you may have created an article but is not your's to call all the shots on. This is a site that allows the public to edit and for a more relaxed vibe than wikipedia This is the "peoples boob fetish site" not the media's. If you feel that I'm incorrect then recent untouched pics of her in a bikini (see above) also need to be in the article along with her early nudes below, it's what she's looked like for the bulk of her career. The B&W nudes you pull from are before a documented abortion when her tits were fuller and even then she's small chested. You can cherry pick shots if you want to but even the pics you chose show a b cup woman which I'm surprised you can't see.		Hi prophecy,
	~~there~~ is not one consistent group of UNRETOUCHED photos of her scantily clad that show a C cup.
			You wrote" Hi BreastKing, it might have escaped your attention that the only content in the article so far was about the fashion Madonna wears and weared."

			I though wikipedia was first and foremost about BOOBs? :)

			Please do remember, as I will, that you may have created an article but is not your's to call all the shots on. This is a site that allows the public to edit and for a much more relaxed vibe than wikipedia. This is the "peoples boob fetish site" not the media's. If you feel that I'm incorrect then recent untouched pics of her in a bikini (see above) also need to be in the article along with her early nudes below, it's what she's looked like for the bulk of her career. The B&W nudes you pull from are before a documented abortion when her tits were fuller and even then she's small chested. You can cherry pick shots if you want to but even the pics you chose show a b cup woman which I'm surprised you can't see.
			There is not one consistent group of UNRETOUCHED photos of her scantily clad that show a C cup. The biggest lesson of Madonna is that she is a liar and a cheat about everything and everything is for drawing attention to herself. so of course she is going to carefully hype herself as a c with an hourglass figure because that is much more preferable than what she really is: a b cup with a boyish/athlete's figure.

	Other nudes from that era show here a 100% flat chested frame. She was shrewd enough to know that exploiting tits that were bigger than Debbie Harry's, Joan Jett's or Cyndi Lauper's would make her stand out when anyone who was not supper skinny was unheard of. Hype city on a pair that's frankly very average with almost no aureoles-small nips add size to even the smallest breasts visually as everyone knows. Madonna is the queen of hype-it's her legacy, it's like the sky being blue.Her fans always point to shots of when she was breastfeeding to prove she has chest, which frankly does not count in this case.		Other nudes from that era show here a 100% flat chested frame. She was shrewd enough to know that exploiting tits that were bigger than Debbie Harry's, Joan Jett's or Cyndi Lauper's would make her stand out when anyone who was not supper skinny was unheard of. Hype city on a pair that's frankly very average with almost no aureoles-small nips add size to even the smallest breasts visually as everyone knows. Madonna is the queen of hype-it's her legacy, it's like the sky being blue.Her fans always point to shots of when she was breastfeeding to prove she has chest, which frankly does not count in this case.

BreastKing: /* An executive opinion */

2009-01-06T04:28:36Z

An executive opinion

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:28, 6 January 2009
Line 81:		Line 81:
	Other nudes from that era show here a 100% flat chested frame. She was shrewd enough to know that exploiting tits that were bigger than Debbie Harry's, Joan Jett's or Cyndi Lauper's would make her stand out when anyone who was not supper skinny was unheard of. Hype city on a pair that's frankly very average with almost no aureoles-small nips add size to even the smallest breasts visually as everyone knows. Madonna is the queen of hype-it's her legacy, it's like the sky being blue.Her fans always point to shots of when she was breastfeeding to prove she has chest, which frankly does not count in this case.		Other nudes from that era show here a 100% flat chested frame. She was shrewd enough to know that exploiting tits that were bigger than Debbie Harry's, Joan Jett's or Cyndi Lauper's would make her stand out when anyone who was not supper skinny was unheard of. Hype city on a pair that's frankly very average with almost no aureoles-small nips add size to even the smallest breasts visually as everyone knows. Madonna is the queen of hype-it's her legacy, it's like the sky being blue.Her fans always point to shots of when she was breastfeeding to prove she has chest, which frankly does not count in this case.

	The only sources of Madonna's obvious fake and doctored stats are her OWN PR. the same PR that said she had a 'happy marriage.' one can see with their own eyes that she is not only a borderline C cup but in no way has an hourglass figure. She may have had a ~~solid c~~ cup from being heavier TWENTY YEARS AGO FOR A YEAR- give or take a few pregnancies exploited for photo shoots, but all her photos ALWAYS show -VERY CLEARLY- a very narrow hipped frame with no hip to waist delineation. It's in all her photos, esp photo number two below where she is clearly an A/B at the most without the cones. readers need to not be mislead that's why the obvious must be stated.		The only sources of Madonna's obvious fake and doctored stats are her OWN PR. the same PR that said she had a 'happy marriage.' one can see with their own eyes that she is not only a borderline C cup but in no way has an hourglass figure. She may have had a slight C cup from being heavier TWENTY FOUR YEARS AGO FOR A YEAR- give or take a few pregnancies exploited for photo shoots, but all her photos ALWAYS show -VERY CLEARLY- a very narrow hipped frame with no hip to waist delineation. It's in all her photos, esp photo number two below where she is clearly an A/B at the most without the cones. readers need to not be mislead that's why the obvious must be stated.

	If you are her fan then we will most likely never see eye to eye because i think she is ~~vile and~~ an insult to the many truly buxom, voluptuous and sexually explosive women on this site but rules are rules and sadly she stays for now. I'm used to her fans ~~lying to create~~ what is not there about her body to give her the allure of more exciting women that she's stolen from. It was in my opinion a far more authentic site before you created the article. Madonna just has no place here. Here are some photos from ALL along her career-no padding, lighting or airbrushing- that prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.I'd like to know what you think and I hope the editors of this site will take note. The eyes don't lie on this one. -Breast King 1-5-09		If you are her fan then we will most likely never see eye to eye because I think she is an insult to the many truly buxom, voluptuous and sexually explosive women on this site but rules are rules and sadly she stays for now. I'm used to her fans fabricating what is not there about her body to give her the allure of more exciting women that she's blatantly stolen from. It was in my opinion a far more authentic site before you created the article-Madonna just has no place here. Here are some photos from ALL along her career-no padding,no cones,no photo shop lighting or airbrushing- that prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.I'd like to know what you think and I hope the editors of this site will take note. The eyes don't lie on this one. -Breast King 1-5-09

	http://www.madonnashots.net/ip11.jpg		http://www.madonnashots.net/ip11.jpg

BreastKing: /* An executive opinion */

2009-01-06T04:24:50Z

An executive opinion

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:24, 6 January 2009
Line 76:		Line 76:
	http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1037490053060_2002/11/17/18ent_madonna.jpg		http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1037490053060_2002/11/17/18ent_madonna.jpg

	Hi prophecy, please do remember, as I will, that you may have created an article but is not your's to call all the shots on. This is a site that allows the public to edit. If you feel that ~~way~~ then recent untouched pics of her in a bikini also need to be in the article along with her early nudes below, it's what she's looked like for the bulk of her career. The B&W nudes you pull from are before a documented abortion when her tits were fuller.~~Yoh~~ can cherry pick shots if you want to but even the pics you chose show a b cup woman which I'm surprised you can't see.		Hi prophecy, please do remember, as I will, that you may have created an article but is not your's to call all the shots on. This is a site that allows the public to edit and for a more relaxed vibe than wikipedia This is the "peoples boob fetish site" not the media's. If you feel that I'm incorrect then recent untouched pics of her in a bikini (see above) also need to be in the article along with her early nudes below, it's what she's looked like for the bulk of her career. The B&W nudes you pull from are before a documented abortion when her tits were fuller and even then she's small chested. You can cherry pick shots if you want to but even the pics you chose show a b cup woman which I'm surprised you can't see.
			there is not one consistent group of UNRETOUCHED photos of her scantily clad that show a C cup.

	Other nudes from that era show here 100% flat chested. She was shrewd enough to know that exploiting tits that were bigger than Debbie Harry's or Cyndi Lauper would make her stand out when anyone who was not supper skinny was unheard of. Hype city on a pair that's frankly very average with almost no aureoles ~~and that I actually believe was closer~~ to ~~a full B on average~~. Madonna is the queen of hype-it's her legacy, it's like the sky being blue.Her fans always point to shots of when she was breastfeeding to prove she has chest, which frankly does not count in this case.		Other nudes from that era show here a 100% flat chested frame. She was shrewd enough to know that exploiting tits that were bigger than Debbie Harry's, Joan Jett's or Cyndi Lauper's would make her stand out when anyone who was not supper skinny was unheard of. Hype city on a pair that's frankly very average with almost no aureoles-small nips add size to even the smallest breasts visually as everyone knows. Madonna is the queen of hype-it's her legacy, it's like the sky being blue.Her fans always point to shots of when she was breastfeeding to prove she has chest, which frankly does not count in this case.

	The only sources of Madonna's obvious fake and doctored stats are her OWN PR. one can see with their own eyes that she is not only a borderline C cup but in no way has an hourglass figure. She may have had a solid c cup from being heavier TWENTY YEARS AGO FOR A YEAR- give or take a few pregnancies exploited for photo shoots, but all her photos ALWAYS show -VERY CLEARLY- a very narrow hipped frame with no hip to waist delineation. It's in all her photos, esp photo number two below where she is clearly an A/B at the most without the cones. readers need to not be mislead that's why the obvious must be stated.		The only sources of Madonna's obvious fake and doctored stats are her OWN PR. the same PR that said she had a 'happy marriage.' one can see with their own eyes that she is not only a borderline C cup but in no way has an hourglass figure. She may have had a solid c cup from being heavier TWENTY YEARS AGO FOR A YEAR- give or take a few pregnancies exploited for photo shoots, but all her photos ALWAYS show -VERY CLEARLY- a very narrow hipped frame with no hip to waist delineation. It's in all her photos, esp photo number two below where she is clearly an A/B at the most without the cones. readers need to not be mislead that's why the obvious must be stated.

	If you are her fan then we will most likely never see eye to eye because i think she is vile and an insult to truly buxom, voluptuous women on this site but rules are rules and sadly she stays. I'm used to her fans lying to create what is not there about her body to give her the allure of more exciting women that she's stolen from. It was in my opinion a far more authentic site before you created the article. Madonna just has no place here. Here are some photos from ALL along her career-no padding, lighting or airbrushing- that prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.I'd like to know what you think. -Breast King 1-5-09		If you are her fan then we will most likely never see eye to eye because i think she is vile and an insult to the many truly buxom, voluptuous and sexually explosive women on this site but rules are rules and sadly she stays for now. I'm used to her fans lying to create what is not there about her body to give her the allure of more exciting women that she's stolen from. It was in my opinion a far more authentic site before you created the article. Madonna just has no place here. Here are some photos from ALL along her career-no padding, lighting or airbrushing- that prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.I'd like to know what you think and I hope the editors of this site will take note. The eyes don't lie on this one. -Breast King 1-5-09

	http://www.madonnashots.net/ip11.jpg		http://www.madonnashots.net/ip11.jpg

BreastKing: /* An executive opinion */

2009-01-06T04:07:06Z

An executive opinion

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:07, 6 January 2009
Line 98:		Line 98:
	http://www.tmz.com/media/2006/06/madonna_leotard_0630_300.jpg		http://www.tmz.com/media/2006/06/madonna_leotard_0630_300.jpg
	http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1037490053060_2002/11/17/18ent_madonna.jpg		http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1037490053060_2002/11/17/18ent_madonna.jpg
			http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061004/061004_madonna_vmed_11a.widec.jpg

BreastKing at 03:58, 6 January 2009

2009-01-06T03:58:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:58, 6 January 2009
Line 80:		Line 80:
	Other nudes from that era show here 100% flat chested. She was shrewd enough to know that exploiting tits that were bigger than Debbie Harry's or Cyndi Lauper would make her stand out when anyone who was not supper skinny was unheard of. Hype city on a pair that's frankly very average with almost no aureoles and that I actually believe was closer to a full B on average. Madonna is the queen of hype-it's her legacy, it's like the sky being blue.Her fans always point to shots of when she was breastfeeding to prove she has chest, which frankly does not count in this case.		Other nudes from that era show here 100% flat chested. She was shrewd enough to know that exploiting tits that were bigger than Debbie Harry's or Cyndi Lauper would make her stand out when anyone who was not supper skinny was unheard of. Hype city on a pair that's frankly very average with almost no aureoles and that I actually believe was closer to a full B on average. Madonna is the queen of hype-it's her legacy, it's like the sky being blue.Her fans always point to shots of when she was breastfeeding to prove she has chest, which frankly does not count in this case.

	The only sources of Madonna's obvious fake and doctored stats are her PR. one can see with their own eyes that she is not only a borderline C cup but in no way has an hourglass figure. She may have had a solid c cup from being heavier TWENTY YEARS AGO FOR A YEAR- give or take a few pregnancies exploited for photo shoots, but all her photos ALWAYS show -VERY CLEARLY- a very narrow hipped frame with no hip to waist delineation. It's in all her photos, esp photo number two below where she is clearly an A/B at the most without the cones. readers need to not be mislead that's why the obvious must be stated. if you are her fan then we will most likely never see eye to eye because i think she is vile and an insult to truly buxom, voluptuous women on this site but rules are rules and sadly she stays. It was in my opinion a far more authentic site before you created the article. Madonna just has no place here. Here are some photos from ALL along her career-no padding, lighting or airbrushing- that prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.I'd like to know what you think. -Breast King 1-5-09		The only sources of Madonna's obvious fake and doctored stats are her OWN PR. one can see with their own eyes that she is not only a borderline C cup but in no way has an hourglass figure. She may have had a solid c cup from being heavier TWENTY YEARS AGO FOR A YEAR- give or take a few pregnancies exploited for photo shoots, but all her photos ALWAYS show -VERY CLEARLY- a very narrow hipped frame with no hip to waist delineation. It's in all her photos, esp photo number two below where she is clearly an A/B at the most without the cones. readers need to not be mislead that's why the obvious must be stated.

			If you are her fan then we will most likely never see eye to eye because i think she is vile and an insult to truly buxom, voluptuous women on this site but rules are rules and sadly she stays. I'm used to her fans lying to create what is not there about her body to give her the allure of more exciting women that she's stolen from. It was in my opinion a far more authentic site before you created the article. Madonna just has no place here. Here are some photos from ALL along her career-no padding, lighting or airbrushing- that prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.I'd like to know what you think. -Breast King 1-5-09

			http://www.madonnashots.net/ip11.jpg
	http://www.madonnalicious.com/images/extra/2005/johnny_carson_news.jpg		http://www.madonnalicious.com/images/extra/2005/johnny_carson_news.jpg
	http://www.madonnashots.com/ver99c.jpg		http://www.madonnashots.com/ver99c.jpg