Thursday, April 21, 2011
You know, if there was one place we thought we could always go to where we wouldn't have to hear about vibrators, it was the New York Times. It used to be Walgreen's, until that chain store started selling vibrators. . . a fact documented in today's New York Times.
Yes, folks, it seems vibrators have become "acceptable." What's next? Equal pay for equal work?
Seriously, though, we were actually prepared to gloss over this article with a mere smirk and a leer, until we read this bit:
"Perhaps the top of the line [of 'personal massagers'] is the Lelo Inez, which for $13,500 offers a 'virtually silent' engine. . . and either an 18-karat gold-plated or stainless steel finish."
$13,500? Look, we defer to our female readership for guidance here, but. . . $13,500?!? What does a $13,500 vibrator do that a $19.99 Walgreens model doesn't?
For that kind of money, we hope that it at least cuddles with you afterwards.
"Vibrators Carry the Conversation"