it's like santa for your vagina
 

shit in the mail is a thing

yeah, but it's a tampon commercial that actually acknowledges the period! usually they're so.....sterile? we don't bleed clearish blue liquid.

but it's not on the teevee, so it's not like it's being aired on family friendly prime time.

It's good marketing, though.

I give duo 48 hrs to make that girl his avatar

how can you tell? we don't own a television so i wouldn't know; we just download a handful of shows. and watch episodes of i survived on the bio website. i'm a 48 hours, american justice, etc. freak, but i've always been. as a kid i was all about that rescue 9-11, unsolved mysteries, and america's most wanted. i blame my grandma.


...i assumed commercials get shown on television. kekeke

obligatory "she's too old for him"

I feel bad for the poor girl with the cramps getting yelled at.

It's nearly 2 minutes long. Too long for TV. I doubt any network would show even a shortened version because of the content.

This follows the same formula used by Dollar Shave Club. They create a funny video and use a modest social media budget to get buzz online. Looks like they succeeded.

why women can't talk about their organ functions on teevee I don't know. prolly sexism

i enjoyed both of those spots

I'm using dollar shave club. So far so good. They send you 4 blades every 4 weeks and bill your credit card. I'm on the $9 per month blade plan (blade refills similar to fancy Gillette Fusion razors. Shaver handle is free). They also have a $2 per month option (which uses a double bladed razor).

For sado-masochism, R v Boyea (1992) 156 JPR 505 was another application of the ratio decidendi in Donovan that even if she had actually consented to injury by allowing the defendant to put his hand into her vagina and twist it, causing internal and external injuries to her vagina and bruising on her pubis, the woman's consent (if any) would have been irrelevant. The court took judicial notice of the change in social attitudes to sexual matters but, "the extent of the violence inflicted… went far beyond the risk of minor injury to which, if she did consent, her consent would have been a defence". In R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75 the House of Lords rejected the defense on public policy grounds (see below). This is an application of the general rule that, once an actus reus with an appropriate mens rea has been established, no defense can be admitted but the evidence may be admitted to mitigate the sentence. This decision was confirmed in the ECHR in Laskey v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 39 on the basis that although the prosecution might have constituted an interference with the private lives of those involved, it was justified for the protection of public health. In R v Emmett (unreported, 18 June 1999), as part of their consensual sexual activity, the woman allowed her partner to cover her head with a plastic bag, tying it tightly at the neck. On a different occasion, she agreed that he could pour fuel from a lighter onto her breasts and set fire to the fuel. On the first occasion, she was at risk of death, and lost consciousness. On the second, she suffered burns, which became infected. The court applied Brown and ruled that the woman's consent to these events did not provide a defence for her partner. The general rule, therefore, is that violence involving the deliberate and intentional infliction of bodily harm is and remains unlawful notwithstanding that its purpose is the sexual gratification of one or both participants. Notwithstanding their sexual overton