Bulge.

There has been a lot of buzz about LEGO recently.  The new line, LEGO Friends, features the inhabitants of Heartlake City, where women lead mundane calm cute (?) lives baking and taking care of puppy booboos.  They also skateboard!  In flimsy shoes while carrying a bunch of pears semi-stuffed into a parfait glass?

ANYWAY - there has been a valid, hah, sorry, "man-hating lesbian" critique offered for the Friends community.  For an unknown reason, some folks have questions about the abundance of malls, cafes, and spas in Heartlake City, coupled with the lack of -say -things that actually make cities, like hospitals, universities, government infrastructure.  Crazy, I know. 

The minifigs themselves have come under scrutiny as well for their shape and costume.  The protest is against the inclusion of discernible breasts and narrow waists on the figurines.

Personally, I do not see the problem here.  They are female minifigs, and everyone loves boobs -especially on an otherwise seemingly juvenile character.  I say the real problem is the opposite concern shown for the anatomical correctness of the "boy" minifigs.  I want to know, Where's the Bulge?  And why is Han Solo's butt where the Bulge should be?  I want answers.  Men have anatomy too, and if the Friends' minifigs get curves, nay - need to have them and it is ludicrous to think otherwise- then I dzrn well want my anatomically correct Han Solo package!

I mean - kids who play with LEGO need it, because otherwise life does not make sense.

It's Not For Pleasure. Really.

Unlike the pill, there is no argument against private companies' health insurance covering Viagra.

Obviously because Viagra is only prescribed to married men whose wives are currently ovulating. (And only after she gives him her explicit permission to try and impregnate her.)






Oh wait, that's not how that works.
What are the arguments against the pill again?
Hmm?

"Blame-Blindness"

*nothing to do with the Optic Nerve  =D

I'm a fan of protecting my property. (Putting up fences and posting "No Trespassing" signs are the just the shallow end of the pool when it comes to what I consider my right to defend) But even when I've failed to deadbolt my shed closed and some thief steals my hedge clippers (because, like, hedge clippers are totally this year's Tickle-Me-Elmo? ...Anyhow!), the law will still punish that offender. Despite not having a lock, the criminal is still the one at fault.

This concept does not apply to women. Well, haa, let us be honest, a woman's body is not her own in the first place! ;D

A lot of Americans will immediately assert that they believe women in Saudi Arabia should not have to wear obfuscating clothing (the visual being the burqa); But mention that a rape/sexual assault victim was wearing a mini when the attack took place -suddenly, "Well, she's asking for it if she dressed like that!"

A woman does not need a deadbolt or burqa for a man to know not to mess with her body without her permission.  I could cover my yard in signs promising I have stashed long-lost Spanish treasure in my basement, and guess what? If someone goes ahead and takes that booty, it is still ILLEGAL.

So no, particular make-up and clothes do not equate to "asking" for anything.  What does?  Well -for starters- asking or saying, "Yes".

And because this is a body we're talking about, permission is free to be withdrawn at any time.  Kind of like how a boxer can throw a flag and that over-eager opponent in the blue corner has to stop those damn knees to the gut already.

 Yes, yes, I get it - there is such a thing as precaution.  And there's also such a thing as being held responsible for CRIMINAL acts when one messes around with stuff they have NO RIGHT over.  And being married, as we are now comfortably into the twenty-first century, is no longer a contract of ownership, so you're out of luck there too, rapists.

Unless you are in Norway, apparently.