*

siliconlover

  • E Cup
  • 339
Shae Marks MERGED
« on: July 25, 2002, 07:16:13 AM »
Can anyone out here explain the following to me: As recent as two years ago, judging by some of the movies she was in, (to name two only "The Day of the Warrior" and "Return to Savage Beach" ) her boobs were a very spectacular and large firm size.

Having recently seen her get undressed on SABC TV's movie line up in "Day of the Warrior" I started to search for her images on the Internet.

BUT I CAME UP EMPTY HANDED...OR RATHER EMPTY BOOBED!!!

To my incredible disbelief, she has had reduction done on her boobs, but I can't seem to find many photos of her before her reduction.

Can anyone help?? Websites of her before this delinquent act? She herself does not seem to refer to the procedure at all on her site.

SEE THE ATTACHMENT - COVER OF 'RETURN TO SAVAGE BEACH' VIDEO.

 
SiliconLover.....

"Cause Huge Round Fake Tits & Small Waists Go Together"

*

DTM

  • G Cup
  • 840
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2002, 08:29:24 AM »
This has been talked about before,so here it goes. I was a member of her site several years back. She had a spot in her diary about her breasts. She said she felt like a freak with them. Got them replaced. I cancelled then. Because I felt her website was a loser. A few monthes ago I rejoined to see what was up. She has added a huge video clip page some very nice clips of her and her friends. Her updates are more of her friends then herself. She is just starting to get more bold. Her breasts look OK. Just not as good as before that's for sure. A reduction never really works out right. Also she has come up with some new photos from before the reduction. All in all her website is pretty boring to me. Her so called hot section is just a few pink shots of known pornstars. Her chat is on during the day . So working guys can't watch. At least in the USA. I wrote her about all these things. And got back a scathing reply about not being very nice. I said "You want me to lie?". Any way if she has a trial offer go for it. See what you can and get out.  DTM

PS Also she won't talk about having a baby or any concerns about other models she features.  
She should make one of them stolen home videos.

*

MrHHH

  • L Cup
  • 2986
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2002, 10:25:30 AM »
Yeah. Just because they're hot looking doesn't mean that they have any other good qualities.

Anyway, she blamed an ex-BF for pressuring her into getting big boobs. One of the reasons she'd gotten a reduction was that she wants to be taken seriously as an actress.

Well, at least she's a better actress than Anna Nicole Smith.  

*

Psf_79

  • P Cup
  • 1506
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2002, 10:33:19 AM »
Um, but isn't the size of the actress' boobs in movies like "The Day of the Warrior" the measure of her 'acting skills'? Shae was a better actress before...

*

SteveZ

  • F Cup
  • 547
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2002, 01:53:45 PM »
I sure do hate the whole ex-boyfriend-big-boob-pressure argument so prevalent these days.

I would LOVE to comandeer such suggestive prowess as to get my g/f to inflate herself to comic-book-heroine proportions.  then again, I can't imagine I would be attracted to a woman prone to such suggestion.  talk about a catch-22.

I must put forth that most of Shae's appeal lay in the fact that she was so freakish looking.  I mean, she barely looked human.  And, while I find her to be one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen (a term I don't throw around frivolously) Shae definitely has a "niche" look - meaning, her elvish features and anime eyes are FAR from what is considered "conventional" beauty.

Oh, and that freaky scar on her face...yum.  I LOVE it.

Having said all that, I think the disproportionately large boobs were a major player in her appeal...the whole WAS more than the sum of her parts...but now it seems she's taken some important parts away, leaving us (and herself) with an incomplete package.

Let's hear it for freaks (whether freaks of nature, or freaks of cosmetic surgical science)!

Steve Z  

*

TheZookie007

  • L Cup
  • 53955
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2002, 06:18:17 PM »
ITDA that she looked freaky at all!

I think that her implants were very much in proportion with the rest of her body.

I also think that boyfriends who persuade their girlfriends to get their boobs done, are boobs themselves. The impetus should ALWAYS come from the woman, because if a woman does her boobs, she'll have to wear 'em...even if boyfriend leaves the scene!

Done for the right reasons, implants are not bad.
AOC, HC, TW, BO, KH: FU. FUATH. 100x.

*

Goldeneye

  • The Midas Look
  • 12448
  • The Midas Look
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2003, 11:26:47 PM »
More  

*

Goldeneye

  • The Midas Look
  • 12448
  • The Midas Look
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2003, 11:27:21 PM »
Yep  

*

Goldeneye

  • The Midas Look
  • 12448
  • The Midas Look
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2003, 11:27:41 PM »
Indeed  

*

Goldeneye

  • The Midas Look
  • 12448
  • The Midas Look
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2003, 11:28:23 PM »
Some  

*

Goldeneye

  • The Midas Look
  • 12448
  • The Midas Look
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2003, 11:29:28 PM »
Last one for now.  Sorry low-quality and no nudes...I had a headache when I looked for these and didn't feel like scouring very long.  I'll find more later.  

*

HomerJay

  • F Cup
  • 545
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2003, 11:30:20 PM »
Ahhh, Shae.  Quite a breast history that girl has.  Here she is 100% natural in the early 90's.  

*

Goldeneye

  • The Midas Look
  • 12448
  • The Midas Look
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2003, 11:32:15 PM »
And she was not a bad natural, either.  I'd forgotten how nice, in fact.

*

HomerJay

  • F Cup
  • 545
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2003, 11:32:18 PM »
Enlarged and brunette in the late 90's...  

*

HomerJay

  • F Cup
  • 545
Re: Shae Marks MERGED
« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2003, 11:38:53 PM »
Brunette & reduced in 2000 & beyond...