Oct 01 2006

I Got Yer Boobython Right Here

It won’t cost you nothin’ to see my rack shot.

I wasn’t going to write about this Boobie-Thon thing, mostly because (a) it’s getting plenty of publicity already, and (b) it seems that those involved are motivated by decent enough intentions that anything I say will require me to field a bunch of dreary “how come you such a hata?” complaints. But of course about 327 blamers (one of whom dubbed it “Porn For The Cure”, heh) have expressed an interest, so y’all might as well have a whack at it.

Boobie-Thon, in case you don’t read Salon or Self, is a blogger-driven pink ribbon dealio. Readers send their homemade “rack shots” to Florida blogger Robyn Pollman’s boobiethon.com site. Then, for a $50 donation, boob-lovin’ voyeurs get to access the photos. The money goes to either Children’s Hospital Boston or the dreaded Komen Foundation.

I reveal no secrets when I say that I regard pinkribbonnity, Komen, and porn as a particularly putrifactionous combination. The addition of jocular little sassy taglines (“If they’re worth looking at, they’re worth saving!”) makes me wonder what these people are smoking. I mean, from where I sit, breast cancer isn’t about boobs. It’s more about, oh I don’t know, death. Still, whatever bangs your box, I guess.

So, for everyone who doesn’t send me a fun picture of their fun boobs, up until, say, midnight Tuesday, I’ll donate $1 to Breast Cancer Action. So go for it. The Sitemeter’s ticking.


9 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. unsanesafe.blogspot.com

    Uh-oh. The slogan reminds me of a poster in a wildlife park of an animal being lined up through a rifle scope and through a camera lense. “How will you shoot?”

    Obviously, I say, if it’s worth looking at, it’s worth saving.

  2. Will you still donate a dollar if I send you a photo of my un-fun boobs? They’re really a buzzkill, especially at Tupperware parties and wife-swapping barbecues.

  3. forfuckssakes.net

    hold on, so if the boobs aren’t looking at they aren’t worth saving? ‘squeeze me?

  4. ginmar.livejournal.com

    God, porn for the cure? What the FUCK are they smoking?! Um, hey, what another great example of how boobies exist only for titillation and men instead of …..just to exist. God forbid something not benefit men somehow.

  5. Dear Twisty —

    For what it’s worth, the amazons were reputed to amputate one of their breasts to facilitate their use of the long bow. You’re prepared to shoot from either side.

    However, that’s not why I felt impelled to chime in. I would like to respond to the previous posts that seemed to question the need for conflict among the femininst hordes.

    I would argue, as a long-time feminist, that what is needed is more conflict and more voices, more far out ideas, more thinking outside the universe.

    Why? Why not peace and love and social change?

    Because, having done my time with feminists of all stripes and persuasions and having noticed, as many others have, that the experience usually degenerates in power f***ing of the worse sort, because the model we are using is the patriarchal model. We haven’t been able to do the paradigm shift boogie to something that is viable, let along supporting and empowering.

    I had hopes for our gay sibs and now all I hear about is getting married. Married. Is there a more repressing structure foisted by the p-archy than marriage. Marriage is voluntary slavery.

    I would be more sympathetic if their arguments were purely economic. We’re all subject to economic depotism.

    That’s being said, I don’t have answers. I just encourage the voices and hope that a few new ideals will emerge.

    Love ya.


  6. feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu

    I’ll sort of match. I am a public employee of the State of South Carolina, so I probably can’t afford your sitemeter. But my far less popular blog has a sitemeter too! http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=1050

  7. blog.3bulls.net


    Patriarchy does indeed reach, or perhaps tie its new/universal/eternal low with the penis/funky bratwurst?-centered utilitarian (save the boobies! (Boobs Unlimited? Boob hunters join for boobular conservation? Boobs, the new assorted waterfowl?) argument for breast cancer research. It is sad but totally understandable that Susan J. needs to be tossed into the nemesis category.

    I hope this click on IHTP counts toward the total. We’ll post some taco porn later in the week dedicated to IHTP.

  8. mycrust.livejournal.com

    Just wait till they have the Prostate-a-Thon photo benefit.

  9. joeblu.net

    I will not be sending any boob pictures to you. I hope BCA makes a ton of money off of this, and that the Komen Foundation somehow withers and dies.

  10. imponderabilia.blogspot.com

    So can I send hundreds more viewers here then? I’m pretty sure that they won’t send you pictures of their breasts.

  11. Twisty

    Bring it, Sandy D.

  12. This is the first I have heard of the $50 to view breasts. Is that right? Am I understanding this correctly?

    Why not pictures of a big (or little) hard penises for $50…after all, isn’t that the natural reaction of the male penis when it sees a women’s bare breast? Or is Viagra or cialis needed these days?

    I get so sick and tired of seeing women’s bodies used for titillation…in the name of fairness, I want to see men’s bodies revealed for the same damn reason. I would like to compare the various penis sizes, girths, colors, testicle shapes, etc. I want to know what I’m missing…men don’t run around in Speedos or tight jeans anymore so us hetero women have no damn idea what is going on in the penis department. I guess that’s how the boys want it…they want their wives/girlfriends to think they have the biggest and best.

    Or are penises unable to raise money for their mother’s/daughter’s/wive’s/sister’s/niece’s breast cancer? I believe the male of the species should do its part to raise $.

    I can’t believe women sell pictures of their breasts for cancer research…which isn’t even real research. I’m sick.

    Our bodies are just currency…I think I’ll put $$$$$ signs across my chest and ass. And when I go thru the check-out lane at the grocery, I’ll just flash those $$$$$$ and say, “There you go…my bill is paid.” I wonder how long it would take the clerk to call the police…could I make it out of the parking lot? Maybe we should just have paper money printed up with breasts on it…


  13. Okay, who used that HP slimming effect on twisty?

  14. Twisty

    “Okay, who used that HP slimming effect on twisty?”

    Patricia Morrison MD, boob surgeon.

  15. Sybermoms.com are clicking.

  16. Prostate-a-thon! oh whoo-hoo-hoo I’m dying.

    Oops wait I forgot I’m a humorless hairylegged whatever the other thing was.

  17. Hello! I’m a friend of Sandy D’s. I followed her link from sybermoms.com.

  18. Consider my nonexistent boob photo not sent.

  19. I’m from sybermoms.com, too.

  20. I’m new to the genius that is twisty, but I most assuredly will pledge to never, ever, send you a picture of my boobs. Unless I turn into that saint that carries hers around on a plate. Boobython seems to suggest that women aren’t worth saving from pain, fear and death, but their boobs are; which makes the above referenced saint a bit of an ancient forerunner for this movement’s poster girl, yes? Isn’t this what patriarchy does? Dehumanize women by reducing them to parts, ala Killing Me Softly? As you so deftly pointed out, breast cancer isn’t about boobies, it’s about women DYING. But, but….that’s not SEXY….keep that dying shit to yourself, and show me your tits.

  21. Genius. This is me not sending you a picture of my breasts.

  22. Another sybermom chiming in in support!

  23. Here they aren’t. Both of them.

  24. Why do you suppose breast cancer is the most popular disease in America? “Our” breasts aren’t ours. They’re there for hetero male enjoyment so, hell yeah, they’ll send money to save ’em.

    I hereby refuse to send you a pic of my rack.

  25. buttercupia.blogspot.com

    yeah, like i’d ever send you a picture of MY boobs. No freaking way.


    nefarious. It’s nefarious, I tell you.

  26. autonym.blogspot.com

    Count me in. The pictures are not forthcoming.

  27. Here isn’t a picture of my boobs.

    I tried to make a donation to Breast Cancer Action just now, in solidarity, but they won’t accept a non-USA zip code on the donation form. Anyone know a way around that?

  28. You can e-mail them at:


  29. Thanks Pony. I’ve done that, and I asked them if it’s difficult to take international donations, to recommend an appropriate group here that isn’t covered in pink ribbons.

  30. This is a long-time reader, second time poster officially NOT sending you a picture of her breasts. Even if she had a camera. Which she doesn’t.

  31. No boobs pictured here.

  32. The folks at Healthy Skepticism would probably know too:


  33. This comment is certified 100% fun-boob-photo free.

  34. livejournal.com/~fireincarnation

    I’ll be not passing along pics of my tits. I will be sending you my support. Your scars look beautiful.

  35. purpleduckie.com

    Hey, look, it’s not my boobs!

  36. Wow. Looks like you’ll have hundreds of dollars to donate. Here’s my absence of picture.

  37. you are gorgeous, twisty. here are no photos of my boobs.

  38. members.cox.net/thevixen/Cayenne/1.html

    Here I am, but my boobs will not see the light of day nor flash of camera.

  39. karenroadchronicles.blogspot.com

    Absolutely not showing you the rack, Twisty. I went on the link and noticed only large, lace wrapped breasts on the site. Where are the real breasts? Since cancer is now a marketable commodity, it was only a matter of time before porn caught the gravy train. You look beautiful, although I miss the pink nails.

  40. myspace.com/veryveryviolet

    No boobs comin’ right up. Your pic is awesome, though, Twisty.

  41. Count me in! I mean out! I hereby don’t show you my boobs. You are awesome.

  42. I’m a breastfeeding mother, and I won’t send you a picture of my breasts, infant attached or not.

  43. ninaturns40.blogs.com

    Count me in. No boobie fotos here.

  44. Boobs this comment = none

  45. faultline.org/place/toad

    I’m not even sending a shot of my Lee Press-On Tits.

  46. madsheilamusings.blogspot.com

    What slade said.

    Covering my tits for a cure.

  47. I have boobs, but you wouldn’t know it, due to the lack of them being shown in this comment.

  48. here from ginmar’s link, and definitely not sending pictures of boobies (though I thought about sending some from http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/GalapagosWWW/BlueFoot.html, just because my mind quirks that way).

  49. Not flaunting them here, not flaunting them there, not flaunting them anywhere. Also not a big fan of green eggs and ham.

  50. bornfamous.com

    no boob shot here.

  51. I’m not flashing my boobs and therefore will not get any beads, either.

  52. Hey, how about I send you a picture of my stubbly legs instead? Heh.

    Actually I’ll spare you that one, and no boobs here either.

  53. blog.3bulls.net

    Boob minus, but a bit of toe

    Susan J. Emu foundation does fund a lotta research including some post-doctoral fellowships (funding some great scientists I know), but when both breast cancer and Yoplait smoothies have the same marketing campaign some serious blame is in order.

  54. My boobs are pretty saggy and very uneven, so I’ve got a better chance of somebody paying a buck not to see them than somebody paying fifty bucks to see them, anyway. Thanks for doing this, Twisty.

  55. sparklematrix.blogspot.com

    No boobalicious delights winging their way.

    “Why not pictures of a big (or little) hard penises for $50…after all, isn’t that the natural reaction of the male penis when it sees a women’s bare breast? Or is Viagra or cialis needed these days?”

    Or more likely the mighty penis pump


  56. witchy-woo.blogspot.com

    See? Here aren’t my boobs.

  57. unsanesafe.blogspot.com

    Someone said : ” tried to make a donation to Breast Cancer Action just now, in solidarity, but they won’t accept a non-USA zip code on the donation form. Anyone know a way around that?”

    Generally, I just put in five random numbers in these cases. You’d be surprised where I’ve ended up ‘living’ — I know I always am.

  58. Hereby sending you no pictures. Not attached. Etc. k

  59. delurk.

    Post no picture.
    Post reverse whistle through teeth at sight of scars and line cap.


  60. What is it about the Komen Foundation I should know?
    Why are they “dreaded?”

  61. whatis-wrong-withyou.blogspot.com

    I’m not sending you or anyone else pictures of my boobs. Ever.

  62. You have much sand, Twisty. Here my boobs aren’t.

  63. No one would wish to see my boobs, so I’ll make everyone happy by not sending a picture of them. What can I say, I’m a pleaser.

  64. no rack pic here.

  65. No boobs for a buck.

  66. hexpletive.blogspot.com

    Oh ffs… how come every “break” I take from the internet leaves me not wanting to come back?

    Twisty, you’ve inspired me to not just not send you a pic of my boobs, but to not send a pic of my boobs to every other blogger I usually read but have recently neglected.

    Off I go!

  67. No boob shots here.

  68. salfordfeminist.blogspot.com

    Here aren’t my boobs too!! They are busy elsewhere….Excellent idea, this Twisty. Well done.

  69. acunningplan.typepad.com

    Those booby ladies have something here. My dad has terminal colon cancer. I think I’ll get a flickr account and fill it full of ass-holes that people can pay to look at to raise money.

    I’ll start with the booby-thon squad.

    Head shaking. Breasts not on public display.

  70. forfuckssakes.net

    i wonder how would they react if they’d only receive pics of scars…

  71. Or pics of the severed, preserved in pink formaldihyde in Mason jars, canned boobs. Nevermind. It would probably sell.

  72. I read about the $50 Boobie-Thon on Friday right after being told I needed a breast biopsy. I was so angry I bust into tears. Thanks for giving me a way to fight this crap.

    No pictures from me.

  73. I will refrain from sending you a picture of my breasts, which were just squished in the mammogram machine a month ago.

  74. How many Yankee boobs do you see here? Yup, that’s right: zero.

  75. Twisty, I am not sending you a boob shot right now.

  76. thefemmedyke.com

    No boobs here.

  77. Sorry, but my boobs are mine and not for sale. Call me selfish, but I’m not sharing. Cha-ching, toss in 20 nickels for me, Twisty.

    How ’bout I just send them a picture of my ass with a “kiss here” sticker on it? Oh wait. They might mistake the left and right cheek for boobs and in their excitement, donate double.

  78. I will not be sharing my ta-tas with any strangers except my massage therapist. Dedicate my dollar to my grandmother who just found out about the buckshot spray of cancerous nobules in her breasts.

    Ain’t nothin’ about wommins worth saving unless the menfolk can beat off to it, and gramma sure as hell don’t count.

    Fuck you, Porn for the Cure.

  79. theseatedview.blogspot.com

    So, um… it’s to – and I quote from the site – “raise money for breast cancer causes”. Then why the Children’s Hospital involvement? What am I missing??

    (Porn for the Cure. Heh)

  80. bombadee.blogspot.com


    Here’s not a picture on my mammary glands.

    I can’t wait for the Prostate-athon! Come on guys let’s see those prostates! When does Colons for Cancer start? Can we get a peek at your colon guys? Come on, it’s for a good cause.

    Much Love from IL,

  81. alphabitch.org

    I have boob pictures and am not sending them. Do I get an extra point?

    PS RON: Lee Press-On Tits??? Ha!!!!!

  82. mjroseblog.typepad.com/buzz_balls_hype

    Here’s my contribution to the antibooberama:

  83. shopsassafras.com

    Not here for your perusal is a photo of my boobs.

  84. universaljellyfish.blogspot.com

    No boob photos here.

  85. climactericclambake.blogspot.com

    I’m proud to keep my headlights in the dark.

  86. hedonisticpleasureseeker.wordpress.com

    Has anyone out there thought to send a photo of a dead woman
    to these assholes? That’s exactly the kind of thing I’d do, if I had such a photo, which I don’t.

    No boobie shots pour vous today.

  87. I’m resisting the urge to send you a pic of my hairy, pepsi-filled* manboobs.


    * – they must be full of pepsi. they weren’t this big until i got addicted to the stuff.

  88. disgruntledamazon.blogspot.com

    I will break trend and post a picture of a booby. It is not my booby, however.


    Blue-footed booby.

    I propose that we send in masses of pictures of similar boobies until their servers crash.

  89. No boob piccies from me, Twisty.

  90. Finn- we appreciate your resistance, please keep it up.

    Twisty- Great idea. Consider my picture not sent.

    And whoever suggested the colon cancer site, you’re brilliant too.

  91. I only have one picture in which my boobs figure prominently and there’s a wee bonnie lad attached to one of them so really it’s a picture of matriarchially sanctioned boobular activity that I’m not sending you.

  92. delurking to absolutely not post a pic of my boobs.
    great idea, Twisty.

  93. saraarts.com

    I enthusiastically refuse to send you pictures of my breasts. Also, I have a refresh button and I know how to use it. Pony up.

    And rock on.

  94. Twisty,
    I found your website a few months ago because of the Austin connection (I live here too) and I’ve really been enjoying it. I don’t consider myself an advanced blamer, although I’ve been ranting about the same things for years, I just never knew how to vocalize them very well. thanks for the lessons.

    And for that, here is not a picture of my tits.

  95. No picture of boobs here.

  96. (Long-time lurker, first time blamer)

    Ceçi n’est pas une boob.

  97. no one is his/her right mind would want to get a gander at these battered old relics, so consider my “rack shot” not sent.

  98. dreamhunter81.deviantart.com

    No boobs for you!
    Only my attention, as usual…

  99. literaryhoax.com

    Type 55378008 on a calculator, turn it upside down, and whatcha got? A description of every email I’ll ever send you, Twisty.

  100. redneckmother.blogspot.com

    I love this idea, Twisty. The Girls are camera-shy so they send their kind regards but no photo.

  101. You’re my hero, Twisty!

    I am SO not sending you a pic of my boobs.

  102. My boobs are feeling shy and droopy today. Maybe some other time.

  103. phemisaurus.blogspot.com

    I don’t have breasts. Do I count?

  104. My boobs send their regards, but no photos or autographs.

  105. I have no clever comment about my boobs or lack thereof.

  106. I’ll send a picture of my boobs when Dick Cheney publicly reveals his nipple rings.

  107. 27july1869.blogspot.com

    Much as I appreciate my boobs–and much as I enjoy sharing them, with selected others only–ain’t sendin’ you a picture. (Ron, you also made me snort; love the thought.)

  108. Another Sybermom here; good work Twisty. As a reward, you are spared a photo of my rackage.

  109. shmallowstunts.blogspot.com


    I’ve been reading your blog for less than a month now and I love it. I would totally make out with you.

    My aunt was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and has since had a lumpectomy and is doing chemo.

    I’m not sending you a picture of my boobs right now!

  110. blog.3bulls.net

    peoples, when Twisty posts the total, I think we should try to match (at least)- dealio?

  111. barlyru.blogspot.com

    Don’t those patriarchal preverts know that tits are for tots?

    Here isn’t a picture of mine.

  112. De-lurking for the second time, without my boobs!

  113. You really are the adorable ones. I love you all.
    Not only am I not sending you a shot of my bosom, I am witholding a picture of my beloved cousins half bosom.

  114. Twisty I respect your wish not to slam any other fund raiser. But you have to know about this.

    Barbie Shows Her Support For Breast Cancer
    Mattel Has Partnered With The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation

    Check google news. I don’t want to link this.

  115. cypress.typepad.com

    No photo of my boobs is sent with this message. However, my huge personal regard for you has gone entirely off the top of the means of measuring such things.

  116. Twisty, you are indeed the best — and in return I send you my best boobless non-picture

  117. No boobs here, move along please, nothing to see here, folks!

  118. Not me, too on the boob picture front.

    Great picture – still took my breath away but in a better way than the picture shortly after the op.

    My dad would be laughing heartily at the ‘colonathon’ suggestion – he died of rectal cancer, and this would have just appealed to his weird sense of humour.

    I am a bit grossed out at one idea though = the ‘Dick Cheney wearing Nipple Rings’ image – just eeww. (Mind you, the images on that 70s website from your last post are quite disturbing too, although the mushroom shaped lamp looked very familiar).

    Twisty – keep on blaming.

  119. saraarts.com

    Pony, you made my head explode. While I clean my studio carpet, can you just tell me if they’re going to make some post-mastectomy fashion dolls? How ’bout Uniboob Barbie complete with staples, drain and an assortment of things to cover her chemo-bald head? Will they come in different “skin” colors, or will they all be relentlessly white and dressed in pink?


  120. Another Sybermom here, not showing her tits. For once.

  121. Mark me down for another no-boobeh.

    Your words almost cause me to swoon, Twisty.

  122. Pinko Punko: yup, excellent idea. Put me down for $20.

  123. No New Hampshire boobies for you, Twisty! A shame, too, for it is peak season up here! :)

  124. No photo of my boobs coming.

  125. i told my daughter about this campaign on the ride to school, and she thought it was great. i’ll show her later, but sign her up for no boobage photos, too.

    and pinko punko — great idea about matching.

    go to http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/Membership/Donate.html and press the “donate now” button. there is another site doing collections [network for good], and catch this, you can do a **dedication** to “twisty faster.”

  126. Sara that booblectomy doll sounds like something Sparkle*Matrix would ace.

  127. abirdsnest.wordpress.com

    It’s Yom Kippur; today, all those of Jewish persuasion must refrain from consumption. In keeping with that tradition, I hereby send you no delicious photos of my delicious breasts.

  128. faultline.org

    Pony* up fifty cents for me, because here’s a picture of my one big boob.

    * Hi, Pony!

  129. Beautiful dog, with one sweet smile. But geez. Those EARS.

    Hi Chris. ; )

  130. ad-kay.livejournal.com

    No boobs from me, I promise!

  131. grannyvibe.blogspot.com

    Hey Twisty, that’s an exquisitely fine port you have there. If I don’t send a picture of my redhawt sexybot mediport, will you toss a buck over to the the Lymphoma Research Foundation? Thanks, nice job.

  132. Hey look! It’s not my boobs!

  133. OK, now, nobody take this personally, or as a criticism or anything! I am making no pronouncements about feminism! Whatsoever! But I have never been able to bring myself to call my breasts boobs, tits, my “rack”, or anything variation thereof, although I find it highly entertaining when y’all do it, and entirely appropriate in this context.

  134. Any.
    Hi, vibrating liz, and I hope you are doing well!

  135. scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience

    No shot of my rack, either (and I’m with Pinko Punko on the matching-Twisty-train, although I may not be able to dig up an equal match so much as kick it up a cup-size).

  136. I almost did it! But no, I will not send any pictures of my boobies. I’m selfish like that.

  137. sashaundercover.blogspot.com

    Fortunately I read this post just before clicking that ‘send’ button to fling a photo of my boobs in your general direction. Thank you for saving me from myself.

  138. sabreland.com

    Count me in! Attached please do not find a picture of my boobs.

  139. Just say no to boob shots.
    Thanks for your post.

  140. vera.wordpress.com

    I’m sending you lots of respect and good regards, Twisty, and sending no breast photos to the, er, Boobie-thon.

  141. Now I’m so sad. If they aren’t worth looking at, they aren’t worth saving???? What does that mean???

    Well, no boobs attached, not even these I’ve had for 50 years.

  142. No photos for you, my pretty. And none from Miss Patsy, neither.

    yrs, B. Dagger Lee

  143. There are infinite moments as I type this comment in which I am not sending you boobie pictures. I’ll only hold you to the one dollar, though.

  144. Registering and de-lurking to say “Check out my boobs!”

    Or, you know, DON’T. On account of I’m not sending a picture.

  145. feminista.com

    shit, i usually get paid a lot more than $1 to not show my boobs. but what the hell, since it’s in the name of charity… here are not my breasts.

  146. I’m late to the party, as usual. No picture of my tits either. But I am sending you and your readers a link to Think Before You Pink campaign, another project of Breast Cancer Action.

  147. Delurked and registered, just for this occasion.

    …. No boobs for you!

  148. I forgot how you feel about the ellipsis, and it doesn’t seem to want to let me edit. I meant no harm by the ellipsis! But you still won’t get to see my boobs.

  149. I’d love to not show you my boobies.

  150. AND ANOTHER THING….this Sybermom isn’t posting her rack either. Nope, nope, no way. Nuh-uh. Forget it, missy.

  151. clawingupfromunder.blogspot.com

    Knock Knock

    Who’s There?

    Not a picture of my boobs.

  152. Just so long as Lance Armstrong doesn’t follow suit with a site of his own, we will be okay.

  153. BTW, I won’t send you any udderpics, either. Promise.

  154. If I even tried to take a picture of my nekkid chest, my tits’d reach right the fuck out and crush the camera out of sheer rage. I’d rather not get my camera crushed.

  155. yep. not showing them.

    registered just for this.

    while I’m here: thank you for everything twisty, you are my reality check. and all y’all commenters keep me up to snuff as well.

  156. I’m sending in a picture of a pair of boobs but they’re not my boobs thus I’m still included in the count, yes?

  157. unraveling.typepad.com

    No boobs. That’s it. No boobs at all.

  158. No floppy sandnigga titties for you! No no! Boobs be gone!!

  159. There are two Laras here? Does registration not prevent that?
    the original Lara, this space has been left boobless intentionally

  160. Nope, no boobie pics here.

  161. Me too, no picture being sent.

  162. “A special huzzah to the commenters, and two extra ones to the delurkers”

    What a great time to delurk: I get to not send a picture of my boobs and/or a picture of my mom’s uniboob. And for that I get two extra special huzzahs from Twisty!!

  163. Twisty, you are my hero. I’ve been reading you forever but for THIS I delurk and keep my boobies to myself. Don’t worry about my dollar, I’m donating 20 in your name.

  164. Delurking to say that I’ve got no nekkid boobie pictures for you.

    Also: you rock. This is the best blog ever.

  165. Another temporary delurker keeping all boobal pics to herself.

  166. fray-chicago.blogspot.com

    What my boobs and my camera do in the privacy of their own home is none of your business, Twisty. You ain’t seein’ any of my tits.

    I will say, though, that your pic is more cautionary, more compelling, and likely way better than what we’d be paying $50 to see if we joined the feckless pink-ribbon consumers. So I’m clicking your site heartily, and sending over some bucks of my own. Boobless bucks, in fact.

  167. Hi Twisty. I’m here from Redneck Mother. No boobie pictures though.

  168. Thanks for the opportunity not to post my boobs anywhere on the internet. Good work!

  169. Twisty, you rock. I have always dreamed of not sending you a picture of my boobs, and now my life is complete! Thank you.

  170. soapboxblog.com

    I’m clickin’ in for a buck! This is actually a great way to get some money donated for research toward prevention. You rock, Twisty.

    Women are worth saving.

  171. This is so unlike me; the deadline is midnight, so I have hours to procrastinate. For this special challenge, however, I am ActionBoobWoman and just gave my $20 to BCA in Twisty’s name. I’ll spare you the photo, however.

  172. politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com

    Not sending any Canadian boobs your way today.

    Oh and hey, have you seen this meme? I should’ve tagged Twisty…

  173. Not only am I not sending you a picture of my boobs, I’m not sending you pictures of all the boobs belonging to all the people I don’t know. But you can have those extras for free.

  174. ringmar.net/diane/index.html

    I was alway told I had two mosquito bites on my chest–so maybe you can send a dollar to malaria research since I am not sending in a picture of my stings.

  175. *disengages Romulan Lurking device*

    Here are no breasts.


  176. into-something-beautiful.blogspot.com

    Delurking to say I seriously love your blog.
    Fortunately, I love it enough to not send a picture of my boobs.
    I won’t even send a chest shot of the dog we dissected in lab today. That’s how much I love your blog.
    Back to lurking, now.

  177. no boobs, breasts, or rack here.

    But a whole heckuva lot of admiration for you, Twisty.

  178. Sharon Batt is the author of Patient No More: The Politics of Breast Cancer. And these two articles on breast cancer, among others:


    Sierra Magazine
    Cancer, Inc.

    They make the chemicals, they run the treatment centers, and they’re still looking for “the cure” — no wonder they won’t tell you about breast cancer prevention.

    by Sharon Batt & Liza Gross

    Every October, the sponsors of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month go into overdrive to spread their message, “Early detection is your best protection.” Organizers stage walks, hikes, races, and other events around the country “to fill the information void in public communication about breast cancer”-the sponsors’ official goal. For the most part that void is filled with the mantra: “Get a mammogram.” As for reducing risk, the campaign’s elaborate 1998 promotion kit says only that “current research is investigating the roles of obesity, hormone replacement therapy, diet, and alcohol use.”

    In other words, the people who bring you Breast Cancer Awareness Month tell you to find out if you already have the disease. And they tell you to take personal responsibility for staving off what’s become a scourge throughout the country. What they go to great lengths to avoid telling you is what the country can do to help stop the scourge at its source.

    It’s no mystery why prevention gets the silent treatment. The primary sponsor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, AstraZeneca (formerly known as Zeneca), is a British-based multinational giant that manufactures the cancer drug tamoxifen as well as fungicides and herbicides, including the carcinogen acetochlor. Its Perry, Ohio, chemical plant is the third-largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the United States, releasing 53,000 pounds of recognized carcinogens into the air in 1996.

    When Zeneca created Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985, it was owned by Imperial Chemical Industries, a multibillion-dollar producer of pesticides, paper, and plastics. State and federal agencies sued ICI in 1990, alleging that it dumped DDT and PCBs-both banned in the United States since the 1970s-in Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors. Any mention of what role such chemicals may be playing in rising breast cancer rates is missing from Breast Cancer Awareness Month promos.

    After acquiring the Salick chain of cancer treatment centers in 1997, Zeneca merged with the Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra this year to form AstraZeneca, creating the world’s third-largest drug concern, valued at $67 billion. “This is a conflict of interest unparalleled in the history of American medicine,” says Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. “You’ve got a company that’s a spinoff of one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of carcinogenic chemicals, they’ve got control of breast cancer treatment, they’ve got control of the chemoprevention [studies], and now they have control of cancer treatment in eleven centers-which are clearly going to be prescribing the drugs they manufacture.”

    Even the nation’s leading cancer organizations are not immune from corporate influence. The American Cancer Society has the vice president of a major herbicide manufacturer sitting on its board of directors. High-ranking officials in the National Cancer Institute routinely accept lucrative posts in the cancer-drug industry. Such tangled financial interests explain why the cancer establishment-the medical institutions, corporations, and agencies that control cancer research, treatment, and education-continues to ignore mounting evidence that many cases of cancer are avoidable.

    These conflicts may also help explain why, 28 years and billions of dollars after President Nixon declared war on cancer, the risk of breast cancer is higher than ever. In 1950, an American woman faced a lifetime risk of 1 in 20; today that risk has more than doubled to 1 in 8. Breast cancer will strike some 175,000 women in the United States in 1999, and kill 43,000. The cancer business is booming, but the selective brand of awareness the cancer industry promotes comes at a price.

    Samuel Epstein predicted 30 years ago that cancer rates would increase, citing an explosion in the use of synthetic chemicals. From 1940 through the early 1980s, production of synthetic chemicals increased by a factor of 350. Billions of tons of substances that never existed before were released into the environment. Yet only some 3 percent of the 75,000 or so chemicals in use have been tested for safety. Forty of them are recognized human carcinogens.

    The widespread presence of carcinogens in our environment is clearly linked to rising cancer rates, Epstein says. He points to a number of avoidable risk factors, but pollution, estrogenic medications, toxic ingredients in consumer products, and carcinogens in the workplace top his list of culprits. One thing ties all these things together, he says: “Corporate recklessness.”

    Signs of that recklessness are most evident in the workplace. Of 4 million women employed in the chemical industry, Epstein says, “about a million are exposed to chemicals which have been shown to cause breast cancer in rodents.” In cases where scientists conducted epidemiological studies, women exposed to these chemicals had higher rates of breast cancer. Evidence that women in the plastics industry face increased risk emerged over 20 years ago. A study published in the Journal of Occupational Medicine in 1977 noted higher-than-expected breast cancer deaths in women exposed to vinyl chloride, which not only produces mammary tumors in animals even at very low doses but causes breast, liver, brain, and nervous-system cancers in humans.

    Living near hazardous-waste sites also appears to increase risk. “A number of intriguing studies show that breast cancer rates are higher in places that have toxic-waste dumps,” says Sandra Steingraber, who explored the links between toxic hot spots and cancer incidence in her book Living Downstream (see “Rachel’s Daughter”). A 1985 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that in New Jersey-a state with 111 Superfund sites-breast cancer mortality among white women increased the closer they lived to a dump site.

    Many of these chemicals-and waste dumps-are produced by companies with a financial interest in cancer products. “General Electric is a major polluter in PCBs in the Hudson River. GE also manufactures mammogram machines,” says Ross Hume Hall, a biochemist who advised the Canadian government on environmental issues in the 1980s.

    An estimated million pounds of PCBs lie buried at the bottom of a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson, where GE dumped PCB oil until the mid-1970s, contaminating the entire 200-mile length of the river below Hudson Falls. Although PCBs (a family of 209 organochlorine chemicals) were banned in 1977, the chemicals persist in soil, air, lakes, and oceans. Classified by the EPA as probable human carcinogens, PCBs are found in the fatty tissue, sperm, blood, and milk of animals and humans the world over. Although PCBs vary in their effects, several studies link some PCBs to human breast cancer.

    Faced with a government-proposed cleanup plan that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, GE launched a local media offensive assailing the measure as unnecessary because the river is “cleaning itself.” These PR efforts (which happened to be aimed at a community with one of the highest breast cancer rates in the United States) prompted EPA Administrator Carol Browner to complain to the New York Assembly in 1998: “GE would have the people of the Hudson River believe, and I quote, ‘living in a PCB-laden area is not dangerous.’ The science tells us the opposite is true.”

    Responding to mounting evidence of organochlorines’ harm, in 1992 a staid scientific advisory group, the International Joint Commission (IJC), proposed a global phaseout of whole classes of the roughly 15,000 chlorinated compounds in use. (The IJC advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on pollution in the Great Lakes region.) Among the evidence was research from Israel showing that three organochlorine pesticides detected in milk and other dairy products caused 12 types of cancer in 10 different strains of rats and mice. After public outcry in 1978 forced the Israeli government to ban the pesticides-benzene hexachloride, DDT, and lindane-something remarkable happened. Breast cancer mortality rates, which had increased every year for 25 years, dropped nearly 8 percent for all age groups and more than a third for women ages 25 to 34 by 1986.

    Unimpressed by such findings, the American Cancer Society (ACS) sided with the Chlorine Institute and issued a joint statement against the phaseout. This alliance between the world’s largest cancer charity and the chemical industry, says Epstein, amounts to a “frank hostility” to prevention.

    The American Cancer Society was founded with the support of the Rockefeller family in 1913. Members of the chemical and pharmaceutical industry have long had a place on its board. The society strengthened its industry ties in 1992, when it created the American Cancer Society Foundation to solicit contributions over $100,000. The foundation’s corporate-heavy board of trustees includes David Bethune, president of the multinational drug company Lederle Laboratories and vice president of American Cyanamid, a manufacturer of chemical fertilizers and herbicides.

    The Cancer Society’s anti-prevention efforts include opposing the now-defunct Delaney Clause, passed in 1958 to safeguard food from substances that cause cancer in animals, because the law “would severely limit the use of valuable pesticides and food additives and…probably increase food costs.” In 1977 and 1978, it opposed regulations for hair dyes that cause mammary and liver cancer in rodents. And since 1982, the ACS has insisted on unequivocal proof that a substance causes cancer in humans before taking a position on public health hazards.

    Ironically, this is the posture of the tobacco industry, which the ACS has long battled, and explains why decades after the U.S. Surgeon General warned in 1964 that smoking causes lung cancer, tobacco executives were still saying that smoking isn’t dangerous. It was the Surgeon General’s courage to act on what Steingraber calls “good but partial evidence” that would protect people “while the wheels of science slowly grind on.” Thirty-two years later, scientists finally isolated the carcinogenic agent in smoke and determined exactly how it causes lung cancer. True to form, the Cancer Society’s latest report on cancer prevention, the 1998 “Cancer Risk Report: Prevention and Control,” makes no mention of environmental factors.

    The primary source of support for cancer research in the United States comes from the federally funded National Cancer Institute (NCI). Senior executives in both the Cancer Society and the Cancer Institute routinely move through a revolving door to board and executive posts at companies that make cancer-treatment drugs.

    Such conflicts of interest extend to the petrochemical industry. While serving as chairman of the National Cancer Advisory Panel (a three-member committee appointed by the president) in 1990, Armand Hammer announced a drive to add a billion dollars to the NCI’s budget “to find a cure for cancer in the next ten years.” At the time, he was also chairman of Occidental Petroleum, which would later have to pay the federal government $129 million and New York State $98 million to clean up its infamous toxic dump, Love Canal.

    It’s no surprise, then, that reducing exposures to environmental carcinogens gets short shrift in the NCI’s breast cancer prevention efforts, and that the agency embraced a study in “chemoprevention” in 1992. The Breast Cancer Prevention Trial, involving over 13,000 women throughout North America, was designed to see if the chemotherapy drug tamoxifen would reduce the risk of breast cancer in healthy women. Zeneca supplied the tamoxifen, and the NCI provided $50 million in funding. With activists demanding prevention, says Cindy Pearson, executive director of the National Women’s Health Network, “the NCI needed a prevention initiative.” It chose what seemed the easiest way to go-a pill.

    Pearson’s group opposed the study at a Food and Drug Administration hearing. “Tamoxifen shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath as population-wide prevention,” she says. Studies later revealed that the women on tamoxifen developed 44 percent fewer breast cancers, but twice as many endometrial cancers, three times as many blood clots in their lungs, and 160 percent more strokes and blood clots in their legs. (Major studies in Italy and Britain found no reduction of breast cancer risk.) In October 1998, the FDA approved tamoxifen for healthy women at “high risk,” expanding AstraZeneca’s $526 million market for the drug to some 29 million more women.

    The National Cancer Institute’s latest “prevention initiative” will compare tamoxifen and Eli Lilly’s raloxifene-another drug that appears to reduce breast cancer risk-in tests on 22,000 women in the United States and Canada.

    While these advances in chemoprevention win funding and acclaim, less-toxic prevention efforts have met fierce resistance. When the International Joint Commission launched its organochlorine phaseout, the chemical industry first responded with a media offensive attacking the proposal, then went after women’s-health activists. In a memo prepared for the Chlorine Chemistry Council, the public-relations firm Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin outlined a strategy to “mobilize science against the precautionary principle”-the idea that when there is evidence of serious risks to public health, we must act to reduce those risks even in the absence of absolute proof. Singled out was a series of conferences on organochlorines and women’s health in 1994 that featured a keynote talk by Dr. Devra Lee Davis on synthetic chemicals. Davis, an epidemiologist, was a health-policy advisor in the Clinton administration at the time, a post the memo complained gave her “unlimited access to the media” and helped validate her “junk science.”

    Industry¹s efforts to stifle evidence of environmental links to breast cancer has even infiltrated the medical journals. Two incidents that grabbed national headlines involved The New England Journal of Medicine in 1997. The first, an editorial by toxicologist Stephen Safe of Texas A&M University, reviewed studies correlating chemical residues in blood samples with increased breast cancer risk. Safe judged the evidence unconvincing, dismissing public concerns as “chemophobia.” The Journal did not disclose that Safe had received research funds from the Chemical Manufacturers Association six months before his article appeared.

    On the heels of Safe’s editorial, the Journal ran a book review panning Sandra Steingraber’s Living Downstream. The author, a physician identified only as Jerry H. Berke, said Steingraber was obsessed with environmental pollution as the cause of cancer. Berke, it turned out, was a senior official at W. R. Grace, the chemical giant forced by the EPA to help pay for a $69 million cleanup of contaminated wells in Woburn, Massachusetts, the setting for the book and movie A Civil Action.

    These events had one positive outcome, says Steingraber: they revived an important public conversation that Rachel Carson, the anti-toxics pioneer, initiated toward the end of her life. “She was beginning to document the interlocking structures of industry and medicine and how the chemical industry may be using the medical literature as a mouthpiece for its own views.”

    Carson, herself a victim of industry attacks, saw no contradiction between preventing cancer and developing better treatments. But a “search for the cure,” she said, misrepresents the slow nature of scientific discovery. As we single-mindedly chase that elusive cure, we miss opportunities to prevent the cancers of the next generation. “It is a disservice to humanity to hold out the hope that the solution will come suddenly, in a single master stroke,” she warned in Silent Spring.

    Carson was dying of breast cancer when she wrote these words. No less tragic, the pattern of missed opportunities continues more than 35 years later.


    What You Can Do to Reduce Toxics

    Toxics activists in Sierra Club chapters and groups nationwide are working on two major campaigns to protect public health. In a global effort, the Club has joined the International POPs Elimination Network, an alliance of 100 non-governmental organizations advocating a worldwide ban of at least 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs), the most hazardous chemicals known to science. All of these “dirty dozen” chemicals are organochlorines that can travel thousands of miles through the atmosphere, linger in the environment, and concentrate in the fatty tissues of wildlife and humans. For more information, contact Michael Gregory of the Environmental Quality Strategy team at aztoxic@primenet.com

    And in the United States, the Club has teamed up with Health Care Without Harm, a coalition of more than 170 groups dedicated to environmentally responsible health care. The campaign focuses on reducing the toxic output of medical incinerators-the leading source of mercury emissions and second-leading source of dioxin. For more information, contact Doris Cellarius, HCWH coordinator, at doris.cellarius@sierraclub.org —Liza Gross

    More Resources on brest cancer research and treatment.

    Sharon Batt, a breast cancer survivor, is the author of Patient No More: The Politics of Breast Cancer. Liza Gross is Sierra’s copy editor.

    (C) 2000 Sierra Club. Reproduction of this article is not permitted without permission. Contact sierra.magazine@sierraclub.org for more information.

  179. Yet another woman not sending her boobs!

  180. Delurking now – Twisty, I was suspected to have breast cancer by my unskilled gynecologist three years back (being 20 years old then) and have to do very frequent check-ups since then. Reading your blog doesn’t make breast cancer appear harmless but somehow… so much more human. I’m really grateful that you share so much with us. You’re so inspiring.
    Thank you. And, by the way, I herewith spare you the sight of my boobs.

  181. Am I too late? I can see no boobs around here so I must be at the right place. I’ll just leave my no-boobs no-photo at the counter and sneak out again.

  182. sege.blogspot.com

    You rock Twisty! Now I’m going to make my annual mammography appointment. Thanks for the reminder.

  183. Yo cjkoho, don’t be rushing on that mammogram, especially not every year:


  184. I’m not sending you a boob-o-gram, Twisty. So I’m in for a buck, too.

  185. Hey Twisty, I’m falling behind in my blogocommentary duties so here I am, at last, proudly refraining from sending you any images of my upper torso. Who could eclipse your own amazing photo in any case? Thanks for yet another measure that will effectively keep so many from being sucked, like plankton, into the great yawning maw of the patriarchy! I am bedazzled. Blame on I say, and on, and on.

  186. Sara said:

    Pony, you made my head explode. While I clean my studio carpet, can you just tell me if they’re going to make some post-mastectomy fashion dolls? How ’bout Uniboob Barbie complete with staples, drain and an assortment of things to cover her chemo-bald head? Will they come in different “skin” colors, or will they all be relentlessly white and dressed in pink?

    I so want to create a Fuck Cancer Uniboob Barbie! Thank you, I think I have found a new art project.

  187. saraarts.com

    I’d love to see it, trystero49. Please post pictures somewhere we can all see.

    Will you also make Pornsick Big Pharma Kingpin Ken?

    Shoot, you could create an entire tableau.

  188. From Women’s eNews:


    “Some believe research and public outreach–the core focus of
    U.S. efforts to fight the disease–miss the root causes of
    breast cancer.

    “A faction of U.S. health activists wish that breast cancer
    educational programs placed greater emphasis on preventing the
    disease by changing environmental conditions.

    “Judy Brady, an environmental justice advocate who lives in San
    Francisco, believes that up to 95 percent of cancer cases
    worldwide are caused by multiple exposures to human-produced
    carcinogens. “There’s only one way to prevent cancer, and that
    is to prevent exposure,” Brady said. “The one way to prevent
    exposure is to stop producing carcinogens. And that’s not in the
    picture at all.”

    “In the United States, Brady believes Komen’s corporate
    partners–such as automobile companies–prevent the foundation
    from addressing environmental issues that are the core causes of
    breast cancer.

    “The debate has been wrested away from us,” she said. “And now
    it is framed in terms of research and pink ribbons.”

    This is beyond outrageous. It’s as perverse as it gets. Fuck pink ribbons, symbol of femicide. I’m working in an attorney’s office right now (I know, I know, but hey, I have a mortgage) and one of the secretaries rolls up in this massive U-Ass (urban assault vehicle) sporting a huge, magnetic pink ribbon saying “Breast Cancer Survivor.” How clueless is that?

  189. Delurking! Not sending boob pictures! Also, did I read in that article that President Nixon declared a war on cancer? I see there’s a long, hallowed tradition of American politicians declaring war on entities other than, you know, hostile nations engaging in actual warfare. Bets as to whether the wars on terror and on drugs will advance at the same dizzying speed, anyone?

  190. No tata shots from me either.

  191. argh. my local stores are all infested with pink stuff for breast cancer awareness month. the 7-11 features icky pink pens and pink M&M’s. the drugstore has pink perfume, candy, snack foods, scarves, nail polish, and that’s just what i noticed on a quick trip. the supermarket went all out with pink stuff around the payment pad, pink ribbon donation cards, and a pink lady with pink flowers outside the door, calling “help fight breast cancer!”

    on the other hand, the news radio station had a piece on checking the charity before you give — some use only 3% for fundraising, and some spend a whopping 75% on roping more people in. plus, they said one BC charity’s CEO is pulling down $600,000 a year. [of course, they didn’t name names, so it wasn’t the most informative news report.]

  192. please forgive me for flogging a pink horse, but i almost fell over in the appliance aisle today, when i saw a pink breast cancer vacuum cleaner for $400. because nothing says “kill cancer before it kills you” like vaccing up the dust bunnies with a stylin’ machine, i guess. [i don’t know why they don’t throw in some faux pearls and high heels for the total mrs. cleaver look, while they’re at it.]

    anyway, the fine print says they’ll donate $40 to the breast cancer research foundation — just a little more than the local sales tax would be on this item.

  193. robynrosen.com

    I know I’m getting in here a bit late, but I just wanted to let you know that I’m not sending you pictures of my boobs, either!

    I’m very sickened that pornographers will try to make themselves look good in such a way. Grrrr!

    Thanks so much for your blog, too! It’s great to know that there are at least a few human beings in the world who actually know how to think rationally!

  194. OKEY DOKEY – no tit shots from me, my sister, my other sister and my two nieces. Not one. Love YOUR shot, though Twisty – beautiful.

  195. [insert lack of baby pillows shot here]

    Sorry I’m late. I got here as fast as I could…

  196. Bookyone

    Hi Twisty,

    As past present and future president of the IBTC, my non-boobs won’t be making an appearance today (or any day for that matter).

    You are where it’s at. :)

    Non-breast wishes from bookyone :)

  197. gsixzeconofy

    Mom nodded and we’ve kissed her shiver under my whimpers lindsay lohan fakes turned to say that again.

  198. Lizzeth

    My family has been hit hard by colon cancer (it killed 7 of my great-aunts), pancreatic cancer, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma, but not breast cancer. Pink for Breast Cancer never really bothered me until this summer, when my mother was diagnosed with colon cancer. Sometimes I look around at all of the pink and ask “Where are out ribbons?”

    Maybe I should do a Colon-a-thon. How much do you think people would pay to see pictures of colons, rectums, and colostomies?

  1. Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » The Anti-Boobie-Thon

    […] Read the post entitled “I Got Yer Boobython Right Here” at I Blame the Patriarchy so all this makes sense. Like Twisty Faster, if no one sends me photos of their breasts between now and midnight Tuesday, I’ll donate some respectable amount of money to Breast Cancer Action. […]

  2. What’s Cluttering My Couch

    […] And Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy is donating $1 to Breast Cancer Action for each person who refuses to send a photo of her boobs to the Boobie-thon. Click here to join the anti-boobie-thon. […]

  3. Ixnay on the Oobsbay Update at I Blame The Patriarchy

    […] I am delighted to report that, as of 7 PM Monday, 2,237 of you have somehow managed to refrain from sending me photos of your boobs. The number would be higher if I had realized sooner that I’d forgotten to put the Sitemeter code into this temporary blog template (yes, this is still the temporary. Don’t ask). […]

  4. Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Thanks For Not Sending Me Photos of Your Breasts!

    […] While this blog got more porn spam than usual thanks to the even more prodigious than usual deployment of the word “boobies” (and the blog also seems to have won a number of international lotteries it didn’t even enter), the Anti-Boobie-Thon came to a wonderfully  breastpixless close, so on Monday I’ll be mailing a check for at least $300 and possibly a bit more, to Breast Cancer Action, in honor of Twisty Faster.  For more about  other annoying approaches to breast cancer awareness, see “Show Us Your . . . Sexism” by Liz Losh at Sivacracy. […]

  5. Feministe » Where’s My Black-n-Blue Ribbon?

    […] At the risk of sounding as though I am trivializing breast cancer, it’s impossible not to notice which issue receives most of the awareness in October, and that it is coincidentally the issue involving fun bags. As Twisty noted earlier this month, breast cancer awareness does not equal breast cancer activism, and concern for healthy breasts does not equal concern for healthy women: I mean, from where I sit, breast cancer isn’t about boobs. It’s more about, oh I don’t know, death. […]

  6. Sabreland » Blog Archive » Uh… what?

    […] out one of my absolute favorite bloggers, Twisty at I Blame The Patriarchy. For every person that doesn’t send her a boob shot, she’ll donate $1 to Breast Cancer Action. Her deadline is midnight […]

  7. Boob Month is Here - The Pursuit of Harpyness

    […] Much of the advertising and marketing I’ve seen over the past few years emphasizes saving breasts more than saving women. It feels degrading to be reduced to, and valued primarily for, my body […]

  8. It’s Gratuitious Erotica Month! « I Blame The Patriarchy

    […] connection in the public consciousness between hottt! cleavage and deadly tumors. Remember that “Boobython” freakshow? How many other cancers can be successfully advertised with sex? Can you picture an ad for prostate […]

  9. By request: Booberday | Geek Feminism Blog

    […] And there’s Twisty’s long running crazysexycancer ‘adventures’. Get yer boobie shot here. […]

Comments have been disabled.