Now that I've got your attention, both pro- and antimorphs (maybe I didn't get everyone's attention, but I got yours, 'cause you're reading this), my first confession is that I'm not really a morph hater. I was turned off by most of the morphs I saw when I first visited the Archive. This was not a question of principle but of taste: the breasts were grainy, badly formed, obviously false -- in a word, unattractive.

In addition, I often wonder (as do many others in the Gallery and Forums), "Holy cow: isn't she big enough without morphing?" I mean, feast your eyes on Busty Dusty:

Not big enough? Does she need this done to her?

Another simple example, side by side: Cindy Fulsom:

Same question. The morphing in both cases seems to my inexpert eye quite well done (the guy's hand on Cindy's breast is kinda skeletal, but who's looking?) -- but is it necessary? Is it an improvement? I realize, of course, that this is a matter of taste: De gustibus.... Many people might say yes, it is an improvement, whatever I -- or you -- might think. ¹

Morphers often display the original image in a small window, so that you can admire their skill. The trouble with this is that the window is always there to whisper to you, like News for the Deaf, "This picture has been faked." And even if the window is not there to taunt us, most of us know these models. I mean, who among us does not recognize Kayla Kleevage or SaRenna Lee from any angle? ² For example, check this out:

Our normal reaction when we see something like this is, "Oh yeah, a morph of Casey James; 'course she doesn't really look like that." Even if I can admire the technical skill of the morphing artist, that tends to spoil the fun for me. I mean, I can appreciate an impossibly huge and firm unknown model, but it's difficult to suspend my disbelief for something like this pic of Toppsy Curvey:

Not long after I joined the Archive I guardedly revealed my dislike of morphs (another confession) to a trusted few of my new Archive colleagues, who advised me to keep my heretical attitude sub rosa lest I be flamed, lynched, nay, castrated (all virtual sanctions, but still morally painful) by the Morpher Mafia. "Traitor! Blasphemer! Iconoclast! If you don't like it here, why don't you go back to Playboy or wherever you came from?" The trouble was, I did like it here. There were plenty of wonderful (unmorphed) pics, interesting discussions, technical advice, witty repartee (even though some of the repartee only made it halfway to witty).

So I stayed. And I found that plenty of participants shared my tastes, and most of those who didn't share them still respected them, as I respected theirs. I happily up- and downloaded pics of my favorite silicone and latex princesses, artwork, cartoons, et al. -- and also came across morphs which were so well executed that they couldn't be distinguished from unretouched pics. And I began thinking, if I had to ask myself, "Is this a morph or not?" -- why fight it? Why not just enjoy it as I would a sexy work of art?

The pic above is probably my favorite morph. Even though it's of my favorite model, Deena Duos, it's so subtle (again, to my inexpert eye) that it could be just a clever camera angle and lighting if the artist, Martin Brumm ³, hadn't told me it was a morph. There are other morphers as good as Brumm, but I don't want to start listing them lest I commit a sin of omission.

There is one last reason why I have -- until recently -- been against morphs. There is one serious defect even in pictures which have been perfectly and undetectedly morphed: they can only be static. We can all enjoy a motionless photograph, but a moving image is so much more...well, moving. I mean, when you can actually see those rising beauties move, jiggle, b- b- b- bo- bounce...[groan] ⁴ -- well, the static images mean that much more when we can associate them with images in motion. I began this paragraph with the caveat "until recently" -- because recently I got Cheviot's morphed film "Amply1" and fell in love. I have seen video animations before -- Imaginos has some very good ones -- but nothing like this. A knock-out gorgeous girl (Nikki Cox) enters the room several seconds behind her huge yet totally realistic bobbing breasts, crosses the room, and shrugs [groan]. See it for yourself if you haven't yet; you can download it from Cheviot's site (click on this screencap):

Now, if Cheviot can take an ordinary film and do this to it, the sky's the limit. Now even this bastion of the morph hater must fall.

¹ For the ultimate intellectual discussion of this and other heady issues of morphing, turn to Franz75's "Hegelian View of Morphing" in this issue. (Hegel? Didn't he invent the electric diode -- or di-electric something?)

² OK, quiet there in the Peanut Gallery: it's true that sometimes I haven't recognized them -- the light is pretty poor here in the monastery.

³ "Brummi" also did the Casey James morph above; his work is on view at Chili Palmer's "Gallery of Rogues", btw.

⁴ Some of you have had the even greater experience of seeing these ladies in person, and even [gasp] of having them dance on your lap [double groan].