I Had Always Thought of My Jugs As Environmentally Friendly

by Little Miss Attila on April 14, 2011

. . . despite the metal in the underwire—and that bit of Koch-tainted Lycra in the cups. But judge for yourself:

I could be wrong; perhaps they are hemispherical menaces.

RightGirl, the difference between pet rocks and carbon-hysteria schemes is that the latter destroy industry, and tend to take the economy down with it.

This lingerie-related matter should probably be referred to the Breast-Staring Institute for further review.

Via Smitty, whose role at the Institute appears to be in a support capacity.

{ 5 trackbacks }

Miss Attila’s Jugs: Twin Eco-Menaces? | POWIP
April 14, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Earth-Friendly Melons « Common Sense Political Thought
April 14, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Iowahawk: 16 Tons - The POH Diaries
April 15, 2011 at 9:34 am
Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
April 17, 2011 at 4:03 pm
One Million Hits L.M.A. « The Camp Of The Saints
April 19, 2011 at 8:31 pm

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

Sean April 14, 2011 at 6:06 pm

Odd… ‘hemispherical menaces’ is how I have long referred to my wife’s chesticular region. Well – that or ‘dual output infant nourishment system’, depending on what developmental stage the children were in.

Reply

jefferson101 April 14, 2011 at 7:15 pm

Were we both single, that would be quite friendly to my environment. But since we’re neither one available, I’ll just admire from a decent distance.

Whoot! Be nice to those sweater puppies, young lady!

Further, Deponent sayeth not, so as not to incriminate anyone in print. Most notably myself, since my wife tends to follow my browser history around on occasion.

“What were you doing in a .50 Barrett rifle forum for an hour and a half? You don’t need one of those!” After that one, I started being a bit more discreet.

Or not, as the case may be, but nonetheless, you are doing just fine, and high caliber at that!

Reply

Roxeanne de Luca April 14, 2011 at 8:12 pm

Does my smaller bosom mean that my bra has a smaller carbon footprint? and is that an argument for keeping up my running regimen, or for giving the middle finger to Al Gore and the rest of the whack-job environmentalists by getting a boob job?

Reply

Bob Belvedere April 14, 2011 at 8:20 pm

NO BOOB JOBS!

Large or small, wide or lean, natural is best when seen!

Robert ‘Bob’ Belvedere,
Rule 5 Mojo Master

Reply

Mike C April 21, 2011 at 1:18 am

And, fercryinoutloud, “no boob jobs” includes NO REDUCTIONS!

I was hopeful that the Republican alternative medical care plan would outlaw this purposeless, mutilating procedure which is nothing less than another form of abortion.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 14, 2011 at 8:38 pm

Roxeanne, these decorative items were given to me in compensation for my squeaky little voice. If I had your lovely sexy-yet-ladylike tones, I wouldn’t need ’em. (And I’m positive I spend more on running bras than you do, too.)

Actually, I’ve considered breast-reduction surgery in 20 years or so–but even in retirement it seems like a bit of a bait-and-switch to pull on my husband, so unless I have really bad back problems, I’ll likely just muddle along.

Reply

smitty April 14, 2011 at 8:44 pm

Hey, if you can’t be an athlete. . .

Reply

I R A Darth Aggie April 15, 2011 at 8:35 am

I thought you weren’t going to post cheesecake until the paypal donations flooded in.

Reply

Roxeanne de Luca April 15, 2011 at 10:17 am

You have a lovely voice, LMA – especially when you’re routing Stacy.

Bob, can we try that again in Haiku?

Reply

Bob Belvedere April 15, 2011 at 12:56 pm

Roxe: Gesundheit!

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: