kingbee kingbee

Breast Implants, NOW, Skanks & Boobs

Breast Implants, NOW, Skanks & Boobs

And When Dorothy Peeked Behind The Curtain...

if the title sounds sorta familiar, there's a reason.   a post with a similar title appeared briefly in the political forum for a short time.  in that one, the 'skanks' of the national organization for women were judged in need of:

a. being slapped around

b. the author declaring a jihad against them

for joining with their 'selfish bitch' feminist sisters to force their anti-implant beliefs on the pure flower of american womanhood.  wait..sorry, now's real crime was hypocrisy.  the ultimate hypocrisy of demanding the right to choose abortion for themselves while arrogantly denying 'real women' the right to risk their health to enhance their bustline.  to make it all even more despicable, these so-called minority representatives--with their shrill leftwing emotional demands--caused all women to look bad.

the author's righteous condemnation was echoed in the thread by a chorus of equally right-thinking, rational, valiants who clearly saw the dangers of such outrageous foolishness manifesting itself in making a stink over  bob packwood's innocently affectionate gestures of endearment for which the poor man was martyred. it almost goes without saying--altho it was eventually said--NOW engages in collusion with such enemies of freedom as the aclu.  those who happened to avail themselves of this collective wisdom were reminded all of this was just one more proof of conspiracy to turn us--male and female--into floppy breasted prisoners of the state.

so far so good, right?  nothin like a lil misogyny among friends and in a good cause.

except...i'd heard a half-dozen reports on the issue, seen it encapsulated on national main stream media (politically correct for 'soviet') tv broadcasts and read about it in two major daily news publications.  clearly i seemed to be losing what slight connection i still have to reality because i didnt recall any mention of the national organization for women.  nor, for that matter, did i remember any mention of other feminist groups.  i'm pretty sure i woulda noted aclu involvement, if nothing else.

so i went back and found the articles i'd read and began paying much more attention to broadcast news.  my efforts weren't rewarded however.  even running a google news search using "national organization for women" + silicone implants  as keywords fell flat.

folks i can only assume this is some sorta feminist coverup conspiracy of massive proportions.   or i could if didn't pretty much decide the author made it all up outta whole cloth.  the best i could turn up was some sorta vague or supposed reference to now...and some vague allegations presented by 'moderate' to 'rabid' rightwing bloggers about now's massive campaign to criminalize implants..  without a link to a source, your guess is as good as mine.

so now...we've covered the breast implants, the national organization for women and skanks, but what part do boobs play in this travesty? 

well, one of em created the vitriolic and totally unsubstantiated crap pile of bombast.  the others jumped on the issue, took it all to be gospel truth since it so conveniently fit into their belief system and enthusiastically, gleefully donated to the cause.

and that's how ya put ideas into ideology. or to paraphrase the late eloquent johnny cochoran...if there aint no links, it prolly stinks.  

8,178 views 46 replies
Reply #26 Top
I'm drunk, so I don't remember much about your article. Cept boobs. Mine are real. But if they weren't they'd prolly sit higher...that's all I have to say about that.
Reply #27 Top
Parated: If you have your penis removed due to cancer, I'll be willing to bet you won't be satisfied being neuter


it might be the best choice. i once hadda script a video about penile implants for a urologist in newport beach who wanted something he could show prospective clients. by the time id finished, i was damn near unable to walk because i couldnt stop myself from protectively crossing my legs increasingly tighter. a complete dickectomy would require even more drastic reconstruction and i dont even wanna think about it.
Reply #28 Top
"silicone implants........fell flat."


simply couldnt help myself there.
Reply #29 Top
excuse me for expecting manners


expecting manners is inexcusable.
Reply #30 Top
There is no medical purpose for breast implants. The only reasons any women get them are based on low self esteem and a pathetic need for attention so strong that they are willing to risk their lives to get it.


while self-esteem issues and vanity may be the reason why whole & physically healthy women are willing to take such a foolish risk, i agree with bakerstreet that breast restoration following masectomy is medically valid.

There's nothing pathetic about breast implants, any more than any other plastic surgery is pathetic.


some plastic surgery is pathetic. it's as obvious as the nose on michael jackson's face.
Reply #31 Top
until the fda begins doing a more consistent, credible job of protecting citizens by providing us with a reasonably reliable basis on which to make an informed judgement about the safety of drugs, medical procedures and prosthetic devices--rather than catering to the industry it's supposedly regulating--choice isn't an option afforded consumers of either sex.
Reply #32 Top
Cept boobs. Mine are real


breast news i've heard all day!

Reply #33 Top
"excuse me for expecting manners


expecting manners is inexcusable."

writers are in charge of their own work; out of courtesy to their reader, they must excercise care.
Reply #34 Top
Parated: If you have your penis removed due to cancer, I'll be willing to bet you won't be satisfied being neuter. There's nothing pathetic about breast implants, any more than any other plastic surgery is pathetic.

Taken to an extreme, sure; when it is needless, sure, but "needless" and "extreme" are a matter of personal opinion. You don't give women the right to kill unborn children and then "protect" them from breast implants. If their womb is "their body", then I assume their breasts are too...


Ok, I will bow to ignorance on my part with the blanket statement of, "No medical purpose". I didn't know that implants were used for complete reconstruction after a masectomy. My great Aunt had to have one of hers removed, and had a "falsey" in it's place. I'll never forget the sight of her using it as a pin cushion when she sewed! (but that's a side issue of my own! ;~D

As far as I can see, MOST plastic surgery is pathetic. Yes, you do have burn patients, and other reconstructive procedures, but let's face it, those are the exception more than the rule.

I don't question a woman's (or even a man's) "right" to seek whatever legal procedures modern medicine has to offer, however, I do question why women feel the need to have implants put in just to make her breasts bigger. As far as the "right" to kill a baby compared to enhance her breasts, that comparison is as pathetic as the low self esteem issue.

In one case, it is her body, in the other case, she is allowing a "doctor" to destroy a baby's body. Two different people, two different situations.


until the fda begins doing a more consistent, credible job of protecting citizens by providing us with a reasonably reliable basis on which to make an informed judgement about the safety of drugs, medical procedures and prosthetic devices--rather than catering to the industry it's supposedly regulating--choice isn't an option afforded consumers of either sex.


Absolutely agree with you here, Kingbee! What are supposed to be our "regulatory" agencies are severely dropping the ball on their responsibilities to educate and inform us. Congress is also showing their spinelessness by not exercising their oversight authority.

If we can't count on them to do their jobs, why have regulatory and oversight at all?
Reply #35 Top
writers are in charge of their own work; out of courtesy to their reader, they must excercise care.


Yes, kb! Don't you realize this sort of behavior will lead to obscurity, a lack of readership, and a complete rejection by posterity?

Just ask e.e. cummings.


since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you;

-- e.e.

Reply #36 Top
My great Aunt had to have one of hers removed, and had a "falsey" in it's place. I'll never forget the sight of her using it as a pin cushion when she sewed! (but that's a side issue of my own!


Yes, that explains a lot. hahaha jk
Reply #37 Top
Just ask e.e. cummings.


since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you;
-- e.e.


Hey Gene, I know I can always count on your for insight!
Reply #38 Top

Just ask e.e. cummings.


since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you;
-- e.e.

Never liked her - HIM! (an old Joke, sorry, I had to put it in).

Reply #39 Top
Don't you realize this sort of behavior will lead to obscurity, a lack of readership, and a complete rejection by posterity?

Just ask e.e. cummings


one of the few times in my life i've wished i was wearing a hat which i could then take off to show my respect for your scholarship and wit.

for life's not a paragraph
And death i think is no parenthesis

--ee cummings
Reply #40 Top
Hey Gene, I know I can always count on your for insight


i'm totally in agreement.
Reply #41 Top
What are supposed to be our "regulatory" agencies are severely dropping the ball on their responsibilities to educate and inform us. Congress is also showing their spinelessness by not exercising their oversight authority.

If we can't count on them to do their jobs, why have regulatory and oversight at all?


one more reason why the public suffers when one party controls the executive and legislative branches. especially if the controlling party interprets its obligation to work on behalf of those it's supposed to regulate rather than those it's supposed to protect
Reply #42 Top
especially if the controlling party interprets its obligation to work on behalf of those it's supposed to regulate rather than those it's supposed to protect


That is eloquent, and double talk. They are the same. But to the left, one is companies (non-entities as they are just a collection of individuals) and to the right they are EVERYONE.

But that is for another blog I guess.
Reply #43 Top
They are the same. But to the left, one is companies (non-entities as they are just a collection of individuals) and to the right they are EVERYONE


that might be correct if everyone was concocting snakeoil in our basements and offering it for sale as medicine...or butchering downer cattle and selling their flesh to jack-in-the-box...or operating our own lil power plants in our back yards...or selling insurance to our neighbors and then refusing to pay claims because we spent their premium payments on bentleys...or we were all engaged in the sale of worthless stock.
Reply #44 Top
one more reason why the public suffers when one party controls the executive and legislative branches. especially if the controlling party interprets its obligation to work on behalf of those it's supposed to regulate rather than those it's supposed to protect


Yup, ain't dat da truth.

Talk about doublespeak - calling padding industries' pockets by no longer regulating their emissions the "Clear Skies Initiative", or allowing loggers to log without government regulations, under the guise of reducing forest fires, the "Healthy Forests Initiative" is what the bushies do best. They doublespeak. Alot. Always. But, the industries do get what they pay for - a bought and paid for president, and Congress. Some citizens just buy into the doublespeak, under the guise of jingoism, patriotism, love it or leave it garbage.
Reply #45 Top
one more reason why the public suffers when one party controls the executive and legislative branches. especially if the controlling party interprets its obligation to work on behalf of those it's supposed to regulate rather than those it's supposed to protect


True, and it doesn't seem to matter which party. To me the big problem here is Senators and Representatives forget that they are supposed to represent the State and People (respectively), not their party.

I'm still trying to find the term "political party" in the Constitution!
Reply #46 Top
True, and it doesn't seem to matter which party. To me the big problem here is Senators and Representatives forget that they are supposed to represent the State and People (respectively), not their party.


or their contributors.