Baby Got Back!

Umgarishen Frauen Haben Die Am Besten Arse Um Die Welt.

Dr. Constantino Mendieta (Dr C) is the biggest advocate for butt augmentation in the world.

Unsurprisingly, his practice is in Miami and overrun with sexy nurses with surgically sculpted butts. Butt-hungry patients fly in from all over the globe to have his steady hand in their behind, and with good reason – he literally wrote the book on butts. It's called The Art of Gluteal Sculpting. In this article he wants to set the record straight.

All of the women pictured in this article are Hungarian, except for Serena Williams.

(Along the Danube on a warm sunny day, in the merry merry month of May)
None of them have had surgical augmentation. What you see is natural. It is just what God gave them.

rself to be an artist? 
What Dr C does is three-dimensional sculpting. It's not just moving around fat – anyone can do that. His prices start at around $14,000, but you may find some plastic surgeons who will charge $4,000 for butt augmentation.

(A working lunch in Budapest calls for a stroll to a nearby cafe for quick service.)
The price tag is the difference between going to a hack or getting a real Picasso.

The problem is that some women see the butts of other people who've already had an underground procedure. Initially underground butt injections with stuff like silicone can look fantastic – the problem often occurs several years later. The silicone can, for example, eat away at the flesh. It's mind boggling to me with the advent of the internet how many people think it is safe to undergo those shady procedures.

The bottom line is that there are four different butt shapes that exist, no matter what part of the world or the country you are in. It has to do with measuring two points – the upper-outer part of the upper butt and the lower-outer part of the lower butt. When you measure those points you start to get the A, the V, the Square and the round shapes. (SEE last picture in this article to view the 4 basic shapes.)

Serena Williams, tennis champion.

There are four famous women that most women want to look like. Number one would be J. Lo or Kim Kardashian, they are running head to head. And then Serena Williams and Beyoncé. Also, ever since the royal wedding we've been hearing a lot about Kate Middleton's sister, Pippa – she's got the smaller cute butt.

Serena Williams has a pretty massive ass. I would think not many people could achieve that level of butt, even with plastic surgery. 
Mainly the African Americans ask for that one. A lot of the time the women who seek a Serena butt are already full-figured. So it is in line with their body type. Occasionally, however, I can't deliver it because of their anatomy, so they have to come back for a second procedure.


The prettiest shape is the A. The most complained about shape is the square. The least attractive is the V, followed by the round – but it is a far second. The A shape is what we are always trying to get.

The A shape is basically where a woman's waist is smaller than her hips at a ratio of 0.7. Psychologist Devendra Singh did a study where she found that men – young, old, American, Afghan, whatever – desire women who posses that magic ratio. It's probably an instinctive thing because A-shaped women tend to be more fertile and have a healthier lifestyle.

How wide those hips are is the cultural factor. Latinos tend to like the "Jennifer Lopez", which is a little bit fuller on the bottom with wider hips. Asians tend to like a little bit narrower hip area because they want to look taller and more slender. African Americans want a huge caboose that is big, full and round everywhere. Caucasians run the gamut – some like a wider hip and some like a narrower hip.

I have never met a butt that I can't make better. I only turn them down because they're not good candidates for medical or psychological reasons, or they don't have enough body fat.

People who don't have any body fat limit what I can do. I have to send them to a Bootie Camp. To build more fat on their body that I can then move into the buttocks, I send them to booty camp.

 I tell them they can eat whatever they want – McDonald's, Burger King… Once they've puffed up I can grab that new fat and put it in their butt. Booty camp is the best prescription they are ever going to get.

When the news came out late last year that some retardedely desperate girls in Miami allowed a transsexual Frankenstein man with grotesquely gargantuan ass and titties to inject their butts with cement and Fix-A-Flat tire sealant in hopes of ballooning their asses to J. Lo proportions, we knew this whole bootylicious thing was starting to get out of control. Surprisingly, that case is just one of many instances last year where people hired quacks to augment their asses – a 20-year-old student in Philly even died from underground silicone butt injections last February.

This seedy scene of backyard assplasty belies a broader trend of women going to extreme measures to improve the shape and girth of their behinds. The sane way to do this, beyond squats and eating lots of bonbons, is to go to a plastic surgeon. There are two general methods that real doctors use to augment your bum – implants and fat transfers. Implants in the butt generally follow the same concept as implants in the breast, and have been slowly rising in popularity in the US over the last few years. However, fat transfers, also known as the Brazilian Butt Lift, are where all the action is. This procedure involves liposuctioning fat from unwanted places, prepping it and pumping it back into select areas of the butt to create a delicious flesh-apple. It's hard to get specific statistics on fat grafting, however, because most surgery societies tally fat transfers under liposuction.

The bottom line is that there are four different butt shapes that exist, no matter what part of the world or the country you are in.

It all has to do with measuring two points – the upper-outer part of the upper butt and the lower-outer part of the lower butt. When you measure those points you start to get the A, the V, the Square and the round shapes. he prettiest shape is the A. The most complained about shape is the square. The least attractive is the V, followed by the round – but it is a far second. The A shape is what we are always trying to get.

A Majority of Blacks do not support the radical homosexual agenda. Why is that?

Why did 70% of California African-Americans vote against homosexual marriage on November 4th, 2008?

While a narrow majority of white voters opposed Proposition 8 (which defined marriage as "valid and recognized" only between a man and a woman), and a small majority of Latinos supported it, the Black community overwhelmingly said "no" to the top "civil rights" priority of homosexual activists.

Liberals explain this surprising result with insulting (and occasionally racist) claims that Black voters didn't understand the real nature of the fight, and suggestions that they were misled by TV advertisements or their impassioned pastors.

Conservatives, on the other hand, hail the tally as a sign of powerful, sturdy Black support for traditional marriage --- an odd conclusion for a community with disproportionately high rates of out-of-wedlock birth and single parent households.

In fact, conversations with several leaders and thinkers in the African-American community lead to another explanation for the one-sided rejection by Black voters of the homosexual agenda.

At least in part, the support for Proposition 8 reflected deep resentment for the homosexual community's appropriation of the rhetoric and symbolism of the Black civil rights struggle, along with understandable anger at the offensive analogy between African-American identity and homosexual sexual orientation.

For three reasons, the comparison of the homosexual struggle with the Black struggle insults the memory of Black heroes of the past and trivializes the problems of the African-American community of the present.

1. The expression of homosexual identity is a matter of choice, while only individuals with complicated mixed backgrounds (like Tiger Woods) get any element of choice in determining their racial identity. Even if you accept the politically correct argument that homosexuality is no more controllable or correctable than left-handedness, an individual still chooses how he wants to act on his inclinations, or the extent to which he wants to identify with a movement based on sexual orientation. My finest teacher in high school (a brilliant, challenging, completely dedicated English instructor and an inspiration to his students) was, I now suspect, homosexual. Of course, no one in the 1960's ever knew or ever asked (and I still don't know anything about his personal life with any certainty). In other words, Mr. S---- never experienced discrimination or hostility of any sort because he never chose to discuss or reveal his sexual identity. The Black teachers in our school (or in any school) obviously enjoyed no such luxury ---everyone knew within moments of meeting them that they were African-American, and reacted accordingly, for better or worse. No one would argue that homophobia doesn't exist, or deny that many innocent people suffer from external reactions to their actual or perceived homosexuality. But a comparison of the inconvenience and unpleasantness of hostile reactions to homosexual identity (which homosexuals can avoid in many if not most facets of their lives), and the omnipresent, crippling ravages of racism in America's past (and, alas, present) is dishonest and appalling.

2. The best evidence that racism plays a far more destructive role in our national life than homophobia involves the relative success of members of the homosexual community, especially when compared to the continued economic struggles of African-Americans. Despite spectacular and altogether admirable progress in the last generation, Black people remain handicapped by their history and identity, trailing their white counterparts in income, accumulated wealth, education, and other familiar measures of success. Homosexuals, on the other hand, according to figures from "The Advocate" and elsewhere, exceed the national average in education, income and professional success. Comparing the homosexual struggle to the Black struggle is ridiculous on the face of it, due to the fact that homosexuals already enjoy at least the same standard of living and opportunity as their straight fellow-citizens, while African-Americans continue to lag behind whites (and Asians, for that matter). When homosexual activists insist that they only seek their "basic human rights," the claim sounds like self-pity and whining for a community that's already privileged in educational and economic terms.

3. An interracial marriage isn't profoundly or fundamentally different from a single race marriage, but a same sex couple is irreducibly distinct from any mixed sex union. Comparing a right to homosexual marriage with the right to interracial marriage therefore highlights the distinction between a racial influence on identity (which is relatively minor) and a gender influence on identity (which is huge and unavoidable). The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967) found that a marriage between a white man and a Black woman differed in no substantive way from a marriage between two whites or a marriage between two Blacks: the identity of the spouse you chose didn't change the essential nature of the union you entered. This argument of course bears no application to the case for same sex relationships. There, the choice of a partner of the same sex (as opposed to a partner of opposite sex) fundamentally and profoundly alters the terms of the union – for instance (and most obviously) eliminating the chance that the two partners will produce a child together. It's important to understand that the essence of this difference between male-female and single sex couples is based on gender, not sexual orientation. For instance, most sane and objective observers would concede that it's important for a child (particularly in its early years) to benefit from the care of a mother. There's very good reason, then to give preference in adopting an infant to a male-female couple, or even a female-female couple, above a male-male couple. The key distinction involves gender, (which is profoundly important) rather than race or sexual orientation (which are far less significant). That's why legal distinctions based on gender (women don't register for the draft, and they get obvious preferential treatment in custody cases in divorce court) persists where discrimination based on race, national origin or even sexual orientation would look far more questionable.

In short, the analogy between the Homosexual struggle and the Black struggle for equal rights, as well as the comparison between a right of inter-racial marriage and a right of same sex marriage (precisely the comparison on which the California Supreme Court based its now infamous – and overturned- prior decision) make no sense and win no arguments.

Those analogies also no doubt contribute to the overwhelming rejection of the radical homosexual agenda by members of the African-American community. The invidious comparisons should produce the same indignant and outraged reaction from all Americans of good will, regardless of race.

Blacks are not victims any longer. Middle class Black Americans no longer blame racism for their economic failures. A majority of Black Americans blame individual failings -- not racial prejudice -- for the lack of economic progress by lower-income African Americans, according to a survey released Tuesday , 13 November 2007. That is a significant change in attitudes from the early 1990s.

At the same time, Black college graduates say the values of middle-class African Americans are more closely aligned with those of middle-class whites than those of lower-income Blacks, the poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found.

And 40% of those surveyed said African Americans could no longer be viewed as a single community.
The report said that in 1994, 60% of African Americans believed racial prejudice was the main thing keeping Blacks from succeeding economically. Only 33% blamed the individual. Though views on the issue have shifted over time, this was the first year that a majority of Blacks, 53%, said individuals were responsible for their own condition.
At the same time, the survey found that most Blacks believed racial prejudice was still a widespread problem in America.

Pew President Andrew Kohut said that about 60% of African Americans surveyed said Blacks often faced discrimination when they applied for jobs or looked for housing. Just 20% of whites agreed with the employment assessment of Blacks and 27% with the housing.

One result of shifting views on individual responsibility may be changes in Blacks' attitudes toward immigrants. In 1986, 74% of Blacks said they would have more economic opportunities if there were fewer immigrants; today, 48% feel that way.

Most Blacks and whites who participated in the poll agreed that immigrants tended to work harder at low-wage jobs than workers of their own groups.

On the topic of diverging values, 44% of Blacks polled in 1986 said they saw greater differences created by class than by race. Today, that figure has grown to 61%.

The feeling holds for Blacks with less than a high school education: 57% of those surveyed said middle-class Blacks are more like middle-class whites than they are like poor Blacks.

"The values of the bottom and the top are different," Kohut said.

Overall, the survey found that there has been a convergence of values held by Blacks and whites. For instance, a majority of both groups say that rap and hip-hop music have had a negative influence on society. "Blacks and whites have become more culturally integrated and, therefore, less-affluent Blacks feel more estranged," Kohut said.

The survey also found that pessimism about economic prospects has grown significantly among Blacks. Fewer than half of those polled, 44%, said they expected life to get better. Twenty years ago, 57% had said they thought life would improve.

"People are quite anxious," Kohut said. "They do not see the kind of forward momentum that Blacks saw in earlier times."

One reason for the pessimism may be that the condition of the Black middle class appears to be more fragile than that of whites. About 45% of Black children who grow up in middle-class families will slip into a lower-income bracket in adulthood, according to a separate study on economic mobility sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

"Nearly half of children born to middle-class African Americans fall down to the bottom quintile [20%] as adults," said John Morton, director of the economic mobility study.

The project, which tracked more than 2,000 children from 1968 to the present, found that two-thirds of children of all races tended to earn higher incomes than their parents when measured in constant dollars, Morton said.

However, about 16% of white children and about 45% of Black children were unable to match their parents' success and slipped into a lower socioeconomic bracket in adulthood.

"The good news is that the lower the child begins on the economic ladder, regardless of race, the higher the likelihood that child will surpass their parents' income as an adult," Morton said. "The bad news is that middle-income African American families appear to have tremendous difficulty passing on their middle-income status to their children."Morton said one reason could be changing family structures.

"There is a higher prevalence of single-parent families at a time that it is increasingly important to have two salaries to maintain a standard of living," Morton said.

The Pew poll, which interviewed more than 3,000 people in September and October, had a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points. The margin was slightly higher when the attitudes of Blacks, whites and Latinos were considered separately.