Flashing Bride

I received this in my inbox from an unnamed correspondant:
"I've been sent this photo by several people in the past few days. Looks too perfect to be real."

(ETA: After comments, I've removed the image from the page, but you can view it here.)

Well, it's certainly been posted to the BridalBloopers website, but all the information with it states is that it has been posted by a woman named Amanda Sell from Mount Vernon, WA.

As to whether it's real or not, it's hard to say. The description on the website says: "If you can laugh after flashing 200 guests, you'll be able to handle anything in marriage right?" Of course, given the shot, it's impossible to tell whether or not this is a photograph from a real wedding or some sort of photo shoot, or whether the alleged 'flashing of 200 guests' occurred (isn't the bride usually facing away from the wedding party when throwing the bouquet?)

The photograph doesn't appear to be photoshopped, but the muscle structure and colouration of the bride's chest seem a little odd.


Posted on Tue Aug 22, 2006


Nice rack
Posted by buba  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  02:30 PM
I'm pretty sure i saw this on a Russian website. From my memory of the larger pic, they are tossing live doves or some such in celebration.
Posted by mazinga  in  Southeastern Arizona, U.S. of A.  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  02:35 PM
That's a wedding I want to go to.
Posted by FlintJ  in  Florida  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  03:39 PM
Her breasts look really unnatural... I mean... when you ARE a female, you sort of understand the anatomy of them better, and raising her arms doesn't seem like it should pull them in so much, plus... the fact that they look like they're attached via muscles to her shoulders is creepy.

And I couldn't help it and tested, but lifting up your arms, even inwardly doesn't do anything to the way th ebrest falls unless you actually hit it with your arms O_o and those ones are pulled in.

Plus, if there is only one bouquette, why is the groom throwing his arms up too?

I dunno, just doesn't feel natural.
Posted by Mera  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  04:20 PM
Cute, but probably not real.
For the reasons Mera mentions and others, it feels like it's been photoshopped or otherwise manipulated.
Posted by Big Gary  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  04:30 PM
Alex, I am actually shocked you have that pic on here, lol....if my boss were, well, lets put it this way, NOT SAFE FOR WORK.
Don't get me wrong, I always love to see a nice pair of......ti...brea, nope, um....boobs...Thats the ticket!!!!
Posted by X  in  McKinney, TX  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  04:39 PM
Mera, I know (what with being female and all). Yeah, I gave in to testing it too.

I believe that the bride has implants, which may explain the odd shape of the breasts, but not the odd musculature (as I mentioned in the post).

Mazinga's explanation that they may be releasing doves explains why both of them are throwing their arms up.

Having said this, I'm still dubious about it.
Posted by Boo  in  The Land of the Haggii...  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  04:39 PM
I wish you hadn't put that in plain sight. Could you maybe put a "not worksafe, click to view" thing on it? Like you do with disturbing images?

I don't have a problem with it, but my computer is in the living room and I wouldn't want certain people seeing it and wondering about what kinds of sites I go to.
Posted by Sakano  in  Ohio  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  05:32 PM
This sort of thing happens at weddings more often than you'd think. Don't ask me how I know....

I've seen other similar pictures from weddings, although it's usually a bridesmaid or wedding guest who is jumping to catch the bouquet that slips the nips.

As to whether or not this particular picture is real, well, the musculature IS weird. However, why would you photoshop it like that? It would be way easier to make them look normal.

She could also be jumping as she releases the doves.
Posted by MadCarlotta  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  05:32 PM
Okay, I just looked at the bigger picture on the bridal bloopers website and the shading between the breasts is suspect. Her muscles look even weirder in the bigger version too.

Anyone out there study anatomy?
Posted by MadCarlotta  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  05:38 PM
I vote for being real. She looks to be an atheletic woman and her muscles are causing them to pull up oddly.

And I'm glad you pulled the image, Flora. It was a bit startling to see it at work. 😉
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  06:33 PM
I think the reason for the strange looking anatomy is that the photo captured "things in motion" that your eye wouldn't normally see. We are used to seeing boobs under the normal influence of gravity or jiggling or bouncing from activity but we are not used to seeing them frozen in "mid-fling". That's my take. I'm no expert but I'm a keen observer...
Posted by Blondin  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  07:39 PM
I agree with Blondin, and most of above posts. I vote for real. And you haven't seen my sister-in-law playing beach volleyball. You don't want to go there.
Posted by stork  in  the spiracles of space  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  07:49 PM
that was, uh, topless....sigh
Posted by stork  in  the spiracles of space  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  07:52 PM
For those of you trying this at home, remember this was not just raising the arms, but a sudden upward thrust. I would have to mention also that anyone that's ever seen a low budget porno knows that doctors can really botch a job and the women will still put them on film.
Posted by Lonewatchman  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  08:18 PM
I vote for being real. She looks to be an atheletic woman and her muscles are causing them to pull up oddly.

I wouldn't say athletic, necessarily, as I've played sports for years, and she doesn't have more than a fit bodytype, it looks.

It could be a weird, in-motion thing, but it still looks very odd.
Posted by Mera  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  10:55 PM
I'm going to have to vote for fake. I can't comment from personal experience about implants, but I know a lot of transwomen, and from what I understand there should be a lot less movement with them... just two weeks ago I actually had a hostess remark to a full bar (while I was sitting in the front at a bachelorette party, which apparently makes one fair game for embarassment) that my cleavage must be real because it moves when I laugh.

She was right, my 38DD measurements are an entirely natural curse (seriously, try the back pain, try buying a shirt that fits) and I also have rather muscular arms. So I tried (in the interests of science, of course) flinging my arms up, jumping, etc. in front of a mirror. A sudden movement does produce a slight shift inward, but I can't manage anything that looks remotely like the picture. And I have studied anatomy... mostly skeletal, but I know enough about musculature to make me highly sceptical.

Women may be willing to expose a bad boob job in a third-rate skin flick (I've certainly seen some sporting truly embarassing hair and makeup) but they are getting paid in that case. On her wedding day, a woman wants to look flawless and feel like a queen. If the image were real, I can't imagine the woman's arms would look 'normal' in any position, and I sincerely doubt she'd choose to get married in a strapless gown.
Posted by Sometimes Josie  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  10:56 PM
I vote absolutely fake. I just did some testing of my own in the mirror and couldn't get anything remotely like in the picture. I also happen to have a lot of upper body strength and defined muscles (far more then all but the most athletic women), so if the extra strength made no difference on me I doubt it would on her either.

Though I can't speak for transplants personally, I've seen enough of them. If those were transplants they would hardly have "bounced" at all. Go to a club and watch a women with transplants dancing and you'll see what I mean.

Completely off topic, but Josie, I completely understand how you feel! 34DD here. It's horrible because the bra companies all assume skinny girls have small boobs. Trying to find bras that fit is an absolute nightmare!
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  11:22 PM
OMG - Guys, run like hell. The chicks are comparing their boobs. You don't wanna be here.
Posted by stork  in  the spiracles of space  on  Tue Aug 22, 2006  at  11:34 PM
So everyone knows, the picture on the BridalBloopers site is actually titled "DoveRelease.jpg," so there's more support for that theory. As for the rest of it, I'm voting for real on this one.

Ladies, try as you may, you are not going to be able to duplicate this for yourself. I think you are probably underestimating how far back she might have been actually leaning at the time the picture was taken, and even the angle of her neck could come into account. I could go on and on about my limited knowledge of anatomy and slightly less limited knowledge of physics, but there are two more important reasons than any of that: there are no obvious signs of manipulation, and the lack of symmetry.
Posted by knightofbob  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  12:57 AM
The image being called "DoveRelease" really proves nothing if it's a hoax in the first place. I can see what looks like a thrown bridal bouquet, but no dove-like things anywhere. Sure, lack of doves doesn't disprove doves, but the title of the image proves nothing either.

That said, I am inclined to think it's a fake. The weird musculature happens to coincide pretty well with where poofy straps would be on a dress, and there just something off about the size of her breasts compared to the rest of her visible body.
Posted by Fred  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  01:07 AM
There is something strange about it...
...but I don't see it as totally implausable. If it's photoshop'd, it's a pretty good one. We simply can't see enough of the picture... if we were able to see her stance we might be able to add more to the story.
Posted by Soldant  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  02:30 AM
Sorry but... So some womans boobs fell out. Maybe they're real, maybe the pic is photoshopped. So? Big deal.
Posted by Ed  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  03:05 AM
I didn't intend to mean this chick wanted to show herself with the porn star comment, I only wanted to show that chicks don't seem to know when they have had a bad job. But I have to be honest I am a 340lb man and I do not have anywhere near that much flesh between my shoulders and neck at any point when I throw my cat in the air.
Posted by Lonewatchman  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  03:23 AM
I'm just speculating here, but could the dress be partly responsible? If the dress was pushing her breasts together in the first place, when she jumped/flung would this originally too-central position cause this effect?

Perhaps some of you women who tested this out at home should try it wearing something that would simulate this. (or not)
Posted by Torpid Rat  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  03:57 AM
A serious in depth discussion of a boob-shot! This is why I love this site!!!
Posted by LaMa  in  Europe  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  05:11 AM

The breasts aren't attached to shoulder muscles this way. (And the muscles are fake-looking..) They sit on top of them, like blobs of fat they are. Also, it almost looks like her breasts start up at her collarbones, or right underneath them.. They tend to be somewhat lower than that rl. 😉
Posted by Hope  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  05:33 AM
Well, here's another one from the same site. I've seen this one before - years ago, so it's a bit old now.


However, it would support the "real" vote as she has the same weird muscle thing happening (tho not as extreme), and I would definately say that this one is the real thing.

It's a nicer rack too...for those that care about such things 😉
Posted by MadCarlotta  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  06:49 AM
When Alexx takes the Museum of Hoaxes on the road as a stage show, one of his attractions can be a re-enactment of this scene with willing audience members and a movie camera, to determine if it is real or not.
Posted by cvirtue  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  06:55 AM
>The image being called "DoveRelease" really proves >nothing if it's a hoax in the first place. I can >see what looks like a thrown bridal bouquet, but no >dove-like things anywhere. Sure, lack of doves >doesn't disprove doves, but the title of the image >proves nothing either.

Shows what you know about doves. 😊
Wouldn't it be easy to Photoshop in a dove if you're going to be Photoshopping in fake breasts?

I'd even add a dove to the pic myself to make everyone happy, but sadly I slept in this morning and must be getting off to work now.
Posted by katey  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  07:08 AM
and here's a non-busting out bride in a similar position, for comparison:
Posted by katey  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  07:10 AM
If you look at the link posted above by katey you can see the muscle structure is taking on the same shape as the subject photo. Why would someone fake the photo and make it look weird? They would try to make it look as natural as possible. The photo may be staged by I think it could actually happen in the same manner.
Posted by N E O  in  Everywhere and nowhere  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  08:22 AM
I just did some testing of my own in the mirror and couldn't get anything remotely like in the picture. - Razela


That's an image that will be staying with me forever.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  08:37 AM
okay......I just did the whole "pretend to release a dove while naked in front of the mirror" thing too

And guess what?


Actually "muscle" is rather inaccurate since I don't have any. I'm not athletic, I'm flabby.

Even though I voted real at first, I did have some doubts about it, but no more. I definately think the picture is real now.
Posted by MadCarlotta  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  09:09 AM
I'm a graphic designer, specialize in photoshopping images, and I can tell you for sure that this photo is not real. The shading inside the breasts is darker than any other shading on the bride, and it's a brown tone rather than the grey tone in the rest of the shading. The highlights on the breast are brighter than those on the WHITE dress. And don't even let me get started on the musculature.
Posted by Coco  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  09:21 AM
Picture was on Wacky Things may of last year. http://www.wackythings.com/2005/05/wedding-day-boobies.html
Posted by Neal  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  09:28 AM
Carlotta, maybe the weird musclular thing is fat not muscle. I may not get that since I'm mostly musclular.

Oh also, someone mentioned that no one would wear a strapless dress to their wedding. Definitely not true, one of my friend's as well as my aunt both wore strapless dresses to their own wedding. I think it's pretty common these days.

I still vote not true. I mean, her boobs don't seem to even be connecting to her body at the correct places.

And Charybdis, ... well, on second thought, no comment.
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  09:45 AM
In two of the last three weddings I've been to the bride wore a strapless dress.

And I hadn't considered implants. They can definitely change the shape, but I don't think they're necessary to achieve this look. I've seen similar images when women were leaning forward with their arms up, but everyone is built differently so not everyone would look like this.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  09:58 AM
I think gravity has something to do with the odd appearance of her mommy parts in that photo. I don't think she's leaning back as some have suggested; I think she is bending forward so they are hanging down.
Posted by Chris Carlisle  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  11:28 AM
Yeah, it's definately fat, not muscle. I'm not chesty, but when I did my "re-enactment" my boobs did exactly the same thing. It was like the tops of my boobs went up over my shoulders.

The bride looks pretty slim though, but I'm not FAT fat, I'm just not a lean muscle machine. She's definately leaning forward, not back and the picture seems to be a motion shot, which could account for the odd breast shape(s). She may have been jumping up or lunging forward to throw the dove. If you take any random movie with topless women dancing (showgirls, old betty page movies, etc) and watch it in slomo, you'll see all kinds of breast shapes as they move. Don't ask me how I know this either.

I do agree with Coco on the shading, as I mentioned before. I'm also a graphic designer. However, just because the picture may have been retouched (and I think it definately was) doesn't mean the picture itself is fake.

Again, it would be WAY easier to make them look "normal" than to go to all the trouble to make them look like that.
Posted by MadCarlotta  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  12:40 PM
I never said the file name was proof...

With the testimony of two experts, I have to point out the symmetry again. An amateur would probably tend more toward the symmetrical approach falsely imagining it looked more natural, and a professional would probably tend that way out of habit.

Taking other things into account: the way the dress sits is not how it would normally be worn; if it was manipulated, the editor either spent a great deal of time on that alone, or else it came from another source altogether. Based on the groom, the shadows and shading seem completely reasonable, and the lighter areas on the breasts appear to be totally realistic tan lines.

Nothing is proven, and it's not even as black and white as "real" or "fake," but I'm standing with my original opinion.
Posted by knightofbob  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  02:03 PM
Let's just agree the pic is real but the chick is a mutant.
Posted by Lonewatchman  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  03:19 PM
"... Go to a club and watch a women with transplants dancing and you'll see what I mean."

Uh, I think you mean implants. ... Don't you?
Or is this some subculture I don't know about yet?
Posted by Big Gary  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  04:40 PM
Of course it is. Haven't you heard about it yet? 😜 Aren't the breasts mostly fatty tissue and Cooper's Ligaments anyway? Therefore the odd shapes could be possible if the picture was taken at a specific time. There's nothing holding them in place or in a specific position, they're at the mercy of the rest of the body and gravity.
Posted by Soldant  on  Thu Aug 24, 2006  at  01:38 AM
"Or is this some subculture I don't know about yet?"

You mean you've never heard of titswapping?
Posted by Vader  on  Fri Aug 25, 2006  at  04:53 AM
Heh, ooops! Definitely meant implants =)
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Sat Aug 26, 2006  at  08:32 PM
Also, after listening to some other people, I'm now having extreme doubts about my own position. I was completely sure before that it was fake, but now I'm definitely willing to entertain the possibility it may be real.
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Sat Aug 26, 2006  at  08:33 PM
It's Real, guys & gals. Suck it up & admit defeat, thou doubters.
Posted by stork  in  the spiracles of space  on  Sat Aug 26, 2006  at  10:37 PM
Okay, there's only one way to settle this - experimentation. I have a camera...
Posted by Blondin  on  Sun Aug 27, 2006  at  05:39 PM
Okay, that is obviously not real, it as if her breasts are directly attached to both her arms and chest. I tested it out, and they just dont do that, hers look like they are somehow hanging from her shoulders.
Posted by Lady Hedoniste  in  Chilling with 14 other tiny people in your head.  on  Tue Aug 29, 2006  at  04:02 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.