Showing posts with label breasts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label breasts. Show all posts

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Do Not Buy That On The Internet

Sometimes I read things and I just think to myself "Who are you people?" Then I immediately retract that thought because I really don't think that I want to know in most cases. That's what happened when I stumbled across this headline over at The Vancouver Sun: "Don't buy breast milk on the Web, doctors warn". Good Lord. What now?

Seriously? Is this a warning that needs to be out there? You don't already know that you shouldn't be buying some random fluid from some stranger on the Internet and feeding it to your baby? Really? What part of that is the toughest for you to noodle through? I'm guessing all of it is a pretty novel concept to certain folks, as the sub-headline reads: "Lack of medical information about donors can result in problems, Health Canada says". Huh. In what way?

Of course it can result in problems! What is wrong with you people?! Who can't figure that out?! Who is buying breast milk over the Internet and feeding it (presumably and kind of hopefully) to their infant? Well, apparently the kind of people who joined a "...breast milk sharing program launched by a Montreal woman on social networking website Facebook". Why does Facebook have to be involved with everything?! I'm sick of hearing about Facebook, for cryin' out loud!

Look, do I really have to delve very far into this entire concept before I can just get to the common sense part of it that would tell any normal person that buying breast milk over the Internet is a BAD idea? According to the statement (that is clearly for people who are not going to read it, comprehend it, nor care what it says) that was released along with the whole "Don't buy breast milk over the Internet" shpiel, "There is a potential risk that the milk may be contaminated with viruses such as HIV or bacteria, which can cause food poisoning".

Really? Are you the sort of person who is going to do something so reckless that it potentially puts your child at risk for contracting HIV? Or any other sort of disease? Really? Powdered or pre-made formula is sooooo terrible in your mind that it is a better option to risk your child contracting HIV than to feed them milk not directly from a breast? You should not have children. At the very least, you certainly shouldn't be allowed the feed the children that you do have.

I'm sure that this sounds harsh and judgmental. Good. It's supposed to. Remember, a word to the wise isn't necessary; it's the stupid ones who need advice. And here's the advice: Don't buy breast milk over the Internet to feed to your baby. If you're wondering if it could possibly be so simple, trust me. It is. Just don't do it and you'll be fine. And, probably to your surprise, your baby will be fine too. Lots of people weren't breast fed and they turned out just fine.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

I Like It To Make Sense

With 500,000,000 "members" on Facebook, can't they do something useful with that sort of base? I mean something really useful. Not something that's fake-useful. (By the way, I use the quotes around members because the number of accounts is different than the number of people who actually use the service on a consistent basis. See, I can do that when I'm not one of those who benefits from trumped up numbers. But either way, it's still an enormous buttload of people.) How about if I amend that request? How about if instead of asking if Facebook users could do something useful I instead ask if Facebook users could just stop doing things that do absolutely nothing, all the while pretending as if they're saving the world from certain destruction. (Trust me. Certain destruction doesn't sound that bad when the alternative is surviving with a bunch of morons that just blindly follow something without giving any thought to what they're doing.)

Here's the scoop: A certain status update has been going viral on Facebook. It's women who are blindly doing the updating without stopping to think a) Why am I doing this, and/or b) Why am I doing this? It goes something like this: The status starts off with "I like it on the" and then women are supposed to fill in the blank with where they like it. Like what, you ask? Why, where they like their purse, of course. Wait. Wait. Their...purse? Yes. Their purse. Melissa Bell over at the Washington Post explains it "Women are posting where they like to keep their purses when they come home, but they conveniently leave out the word "purse." Oh. Ha-ha. Is there a reason for this? Of course there is, silly! It's for breast cancer. Wait. What?

Correct. Breast cancer. According to The Huffington Post (which sites other references) "October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, and the "I like it on" trend is an attempt for women to unite around that cause in a top secret way. The idea is figuratively to leave men in the dark." Um, this might be one of the stupidest "feel good" things that I have heard about in quite some time.

First of all, how does posting where you like to keep your purse (assuming that you carry a purse) help raise awareness for breast cancer? And second, how is leaving men in the dark about it helping anything at all? (I realize that it's a small percentage, but it isn't like men don't get breast cancer also.) Is it just women who should be concerned about breast cancer? Assuming that this was even a legitimate tool for raising awareness, why is it that men should be excluded from all of the being aware? Explain to me how it is that men should be excluded from caring about breast cancer? Explain to me how it is that men are not affected by breast cancer? Better yet, explain to some guy whose wife has breast cancer how breast cancer awareness should exclude him.

I'd love to hear from anyone who actually posted this on their status so that they could tell me not where they like their damn purse, but what did they think was going to be accomplished by their going along with it? I'd like to know if they in some way felt smarter by posting it or if the goal was just to feel smarter than the men who had no idea what it could possibly mean (and who, stereotypically, just jumped to the assumption that it was about sex). Thank God that the folks who have been actually been doing actual things to raise awareness about breast cancer didn't run their campaigns with inane Facebook statuses.

Listen, if you want to raise awareness about something, what say you tell folks what it is that you want them to know, OK? Wouldn't you raise more awareness about breast cancer by simply posting on your status "October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Now you know."? Or something like that? I'm sure that you probably would, but that wouldn't be nearly as cutesy as where you like your damned purse. We're so doomed. So, so doomed.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Thank You, Captain Obvious


Where do I sign up to get a job that studies the completely obvious? I know that such jobs exist. In fact, I'm positive of it after reading in Psychology Today that a one Nicolas Guéguen did a study "...on the likelihood of a female hitchhiker being picked up, by either a male or female driver, as a function of her breast size." Sooooo...let me get this straight. He wanted to know if a hitchhiking woman had larger breasts, would it increase the chances that she would be offered a ride? Really? There needs to be a study for this? Can't we all just agree on some things without the study?

The author of the article at Psychology Today is a one Gad Saad (pronounce that however you'd like). Mr. Saad muses about Mr. Guéguen that he "...could not help but notice that he possesses a talent for conducting naturalistic experiments about issues that many people have wondered about and yet few (if any) have tested." Really? Do you really think that many people have wondered whether or not chicks with large hoots get preferential treatment? Or do you think that many people already know that chicks with large hoots get preferential treatment? Can't we just agree that some things don't need to be proven, that they're just intrinsically known and we're all good with that?


The guy, Mr. Guéguen actually did a little test where "...an average looking female confederate" with either A cup, B cup or C cup sized breasticles "...stood at the side of a road and actually hitch hiked (i.e., put out her thumb as cars whizzed by)". Someone counted how many guys and how many girls drove by and also counted how many guys and how many girls stopped to pick this chick up. (They make of point of telling us that the "female confederate" did not actually get in any of the cars. I wish that would have made a point of telling us why she is called the "female confederate" instead.)

Now, this may shock you to learn that more men stopped to pick up the chick with bigger breasts. This is summarized in Mr. Saad's article as "If a woman has large breasts, men are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior." You think?! Are you freaking kidding me? How about next time, instead of sending some chick out on the side of the road and having her thumb rides, what say you just ask guys what they would do? "Excuse me, sir? If you saw this woman hitchhiking (show picture of voluptuous female, preferably Pam Anderson because, well, who doesn't like Pam Anderson?), would you give her a ride?" Then give the man a tissue to wipe the drool coming out of his mouth. Repeat as needed. (I realize that "as needed" makes it sound as if it is necessary to ask someone else to see if this is, in fact, an actual phenomenon. You and I both know that it's not. You and I both think that this study was about as stupid as it can get in the first place. Then again, some guy managed to figure out how to study how women's breasts cause different reactions in society. OK, that guy might be a genius, but this study certainly is not.)

And just in case you were wondering, here is the picture that Psychology Today included along with their article. You know, just in case you were unfamiliar with the concept of a fairly attractive, large breasted woman. Behold!


Good Lord....