In my last article, In Nomine Archivi, I established that the Archive is devoted to big breasts, including morphed big breasts. Let's be clear about this point: morphs are and always will be welcome at the Breast Expansion Archive. Without duplicating the points so eloquently made by my friend and colleague Franz in this issue, I can still cite several items supporting the special place of morphs here:

•firstly, of course, enhancement does feature in the name of the Archive (even though, as I have documented, this name is not really accurate);
•morphs are specifically invited on the site pages I cited in my article;
•the writing sections (I neglected them in my article, but they are also very much part of the BEA -- in fact, the chief or only interest for many participants) are solely devoted to breast expansion;
•finally, of course, morphs are welcome as a subset of big breasts.

Of course, other subsets are welcome too, subsets such as...well, since I like categorizing things (though I'm not so Aristotelian as Franz), and since it gives me an excuse for showing my very favorite pictures, I'll just go over - in historico-biblical order - the five subsets of big breasts that make up the BEA Pentateuch.

Genesis: "...and God created Woman" in her natural state: what we like here at the BEA are slim-'n'-stacked beauties who may sport a C- or DD-cup. For many participants they are the crème de la crème. One of the finest examples is Patti Farinelli, but there were a number of playmates in the 60's and 70's who fit in this category. And there are many, many others, going back to the pinups of the 40's and beyond. I found one I remember from my youth (I've only seen B&W pics of her): Margaret Middleton. "Stacked" indeed, but I don't know if "slim" comes to mind for Maggie M.: she can be a transition to a sub-subset of natural breasts, viz. the natural biggies. To achieve a much larger breast size, they need to be larger all around. When I was a kid they were called fat; now they are referred to as heavy, chunky, BBW (I'm surprised not to have seen the politically correct term "horizontally challenged"*). The Users' Gallery upload page allows us to choose "chunky" as an attribute, so this type is obviously foreseen as a valid category. There are BEA participants who swear by this type too, and although I am not a fan, I have found an example of a chunky one I really like, Mary Waters. By the way, raise your eyes for a moment and admire her face, too. And here's another eminently acceptable Earth Mother: Titanic Toni (not quite as pretty as Mary, but on the other hand, she wears a garter belt; besides, she goes down).

Executis: art is almost as old as man himself (and woman herself). The UG upload page contains a "cartoon" category, and indeed most art we see in the UG is cartoon style: almost always animanga, though there are of course other cartoon styles. Here's one of my favorite animanga. Of course, big-breast art need not be cartoon style: observe, exempli gratia, the works of Gutteridge, or our own (well, shared with Score) traX -- I attach an example of his work which he sent to me (and graciously permitted me to publish here).

Latexicus: There is an old tradition of women expanding their breasts' apparent size by outside appendages, if only handkerchiefs stuffed inside the blouse. The modern equivalent of this, state-of-the-art latex balloons pasted on to the chest, makes this possible even in the state of nudity. The early attempts, e.g Tina Small, used various cover-ups, such as soft focus or clothing, especially clothing covering the join between latex and skin: this pic of Maria Biggs aka Vicky Little demonstrates, but still manages to be quite pleasing IMHO. Later technique improved considerably, to the point that even in sharp, clear films, movement was quite realistic. Zena Fulsom, probably the best-known, is also the best-done (and biggest); if you have the chance, however, be sure to admire her in motion.

Plumbers: Now we have definitely reached the modern era: a vast step for mankind in the form of surgically enhanced breasts, i.e. implants. Surgeons can burrow into those glands we love and install bags of silicone, saline, soybean oil or even fishline, with remarkably realistic results - and, unlike the Latex Princesses, these ladies keep their own natural skin. Women with implants are a great favorite for many at the BEA (including me), while abhorred by others as unnatural. My feeling is, it's all fantasy anyway: if it looks real, I like it (more about this under Hooteronomy, below). Deena Duos is my all-time favorite, so here's a nice pic of her. Topsey Curvey is probably first runner-up in my book; here she's wearing a covering dress, but it's having a hard time doing its job (which is how I like TUC).

Hooteronomy: Computer-enhancement (only in last place because it's the most recent, remember). I posted an article in BEhavior in March, stating my personal dislike of grainy, fuzzy, overdone morphs. To please me, they have to be realistic, even though they may be, if you'll allow me an oxymoron, realistically impossible (by that I mean, if a woman could look like this, she would look like this). My highest compliment to a morph or morpher is "I can't tell it's a morph." Look at this one from my fellow ecclesiastic Rasputin - see what I mean? Of course, if you know who the model is, you know it's a morph, but deciding on the basis of technique alone, it's undetectable and therefore great. Or here's another: unfortunately I don't know the morpher, and I've forgotten who the morphee is, but take a look: wonderful, eh? (Of course the original photographer gets credit for the superb pose).