Holly Madison, the US "reality TV star and model", has insured her D-cup jubs for $1m, lest they suffer a mishap during her Las Vegas extravaganza Peepshow. According to Reuters, the highly talented 31-year-old explained: "If anything happened to my boobs, I'd be out for a few months and I'd probably be out a million dollars. I …
Spend ten thousand on a pair of rubber boobs, insure them for a million, have an 'accident' and collect the windfall.
I insured my nads for a grand, had an "accident", when I went to claim they called me nuts!
Did they ring?
Should've answered them. They were probably calling to tell you they'd accepted your claim and find out where to send the check.
Blah PETA ad
I think I honestly would rather wear fur than go naked. As a public service to all onlookers, really.
And nevermind that PETA also handily killed the possum fur trade, cutting off a profitable way to control the pests in NZ. Or for that matter the excess of rabbits in aussieland. That's animal welfare fundie extremism for you. It drives me to admit I really don't look at their ads for the interviews, no.
How can such an article be classified as NSFW? This type of imagery is mandatory inventory of many workshops.
Are you trying to moralize us into something?
What workshops would those be?
Believe it or not, there's lots of people who don't work for non-profit organizations, and for those of us who aren't privileged to participate in the implementation of governance it's considered "not on" to be looking at titties on chargeable time. Thus, NSFW.
tl;dr: Quit whining about "moralizing", you jerkoff! Those of us who have to work for a living appreciate the heads-up.
by 'workshop' it may be that you mean mechanic's shop, HVAC shop, &c., which have a rather more robust tradition of pin-ups and girlie calendars than many workplaces do. In that case, I've no argument at all, especially considering the degree to which intrusive, moralistic regulation has made that sort of thing impermissible in modern times.
So, you know, it goes either way depending on what point you were actually making. In order to salve my embarrassment, I'm just going to assume that my first response was merited and I'm giving you too much credit in hindsight, rather than that you had an excellent point which I misread and responded to in such a way as to make a complete fool of myself.
>> Chargeable time
>> it's considered "not on" to be looking at titties on chargeable time.
But it's okay to read nonsense redtop websites (no offence to El Reg) on chargeable time, because no-one will notice?
In short: yes
It's one thing to have a job with some slack in it. It's quite another to be (seen as) looking at porn on work time. The latter, even in many places where the former isn't a problem, could be a trip to HR, quite possibly of the sort where, instead of going back to your desk afterward, you're escorted by security to the lobby where you wait to receive a carton of your personal items and then depart the premises for good on pain of being arrested for trespassing.
(And look at it this way: if "no-one will notice", why would I be worried in the first place about whether the next link I click is going to have bare tits at the other end of it? The privilege of "no-one will notice" is reserved for officers at the VP level and above, that is, people who have office doors that close and office walls that aren't made out of glass.)
She Is Not Topless...
...her breasts are covered. By Lloyd's of London.
Now you know why i choose to live in Vegas.
Anything more than you can hold in your hands is a waste.
More than a mouthful's a blessing.
I got big hands
One word ...
OH MY GOD OH MY GOD
Didn't you used to write Ratliff fanfic? I *wondered* where I'd heard that name before!
Kids these days!
Cyd Charisse had her legs insured for $5m back in the 1950s.
For those unfortunate enough not to know who she was, this
The lady had talent. And nice legs. And she was a lady.
The $1m is certainly due to eh... inflation, what with today's dollar not being worth what it was in the '50s. The $5m for Cyd's legs was probably a conservative estimate unless of course it was $5m each.
$5 million in 1950 is edging up to $50 million today - so these jubs apparently have 1/50th the value of those legs.
Er... the assets are on your other side, milady!
Those are some nice partybags.
Seems a little short sighted (couldn't think of a good pun)
She's insured her breasts against any injury/malfunction which prevents her from working? Isn't that a bit like insuring your car tyres, incase you have a tyre related problem which causes you to have an accident or prevents you from getting to work?
Wouldn't it make sense to have a more rounded policy that offered broader protection incase of lose of earnings? Surely an injury to her leg or back etc. would result in the same loss of earning. Or do her breasts require an additional coverage because they aren't original equipment?
The items concerned warrant a separate policy as the story will carry a picture of them and hence generate required publicity.
Truth in advertising
Can you avoid the coy euphemism "burlesque performer", please, and stick to the simple and accurate "fat stripper"?
You've made it clear that your taste in women is execrable. Well done. You're not going to succeed in dragging the rest of us down to your rather gauche level, though, so you may as well quit trying.
My taste is women is irrelevant: this is a simple matter of accurate language. "Burlesque performers" are by definition strippers and invariably (GIS is your friend) fat, so "fat stripper" has the merits both of accuracy and brevity.
That red herring aside, it's sad to see such value placed on a pair of plastic bolt-ons. Cyd Charisse's legs were (a) things of beauty (b) natural and (c) irreplaceable. If Miss Charisse had seriously damaged them in an accident her career would have been seriously affected so, publicity aside, the insurance made sense.
In this case, though any damage can be repaired by the technician who installed the fun/air bags, so anything in excess of standard medical insurance seems a tad excessive.
Yours for natural bodies, sex and BMI irrelevant.
No worries about the story. But I'm a bit worried about a sexed-up version of Bo Peep, since sheep figure fairly prominently in the nursery rhyme...
Shearing time excepted, one doesn't usually find the farmer's *daughter* chasing after the sheep, does one?
Wasn't she one of Hef's playthings on that playboy mansion TV show?
You consider Bo Peep Fat ?
That's unanimous, then
We'd ALL rather she went naked...
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Microsoft refuses to nip 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- Tesla: YES – We'll build a network of free Superchargers in Oz
- US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies
- True fact: 1 in 4 Brits are now TERRORISTS