Um, actually, maybe its just cuz I like spiders and bugs and such, but I think its kinda hot.

Sorry.

Maybe I'm just in a pissed off mood today, but does anyone else see that photo as implying that cunts might be full of horrible, evil, terrifying cooties that will make a poor young guy's dick drop off?

no, crys-- i thought the same thing. then again, i'm also in a pissy mood...

I can see that... I would guess that the implication they are trying to make is that if you don't use protection, you get, uh, tarantulas.

I still think it's pretty cute tho. Aww! Cute little spider! I want to pet it! Oh, the biting and the pain and the hey hey hey! Glayvin!

I'll be in my bunk.

Or maybe the spider represents the guy invading the girl's panties. You don't really know whether the spider is going in or coming out.

Either way, I have to admit I also think it's strangely hot.

It looks like a new version of this and this.

Dammit, the first pic was bad enough. Then curiosity made me click on feministe's links to the other two pics. If I wake up screaming from a horrible nightmare, I'm going to be pissed. I really don't like spiders.

I once had a dream where I had ants crawling out of my vagina. It wasn't hot.

Crys T - That's the impression I got. I don't think condoms protect against spiders, though. The certainly don't work against crabs.

On the plus side, I'm never going to have sex again after seeing that picture, so I don't need to worry about crabs, spiders, or exploding penis syndrome :-)

oh... that's a spider? i thought she had just dreaded her pubes...

What to Do if You Find a Nest of Centipedes in Your Vagina

Ok, now I am pissed.

The third faultline is the conflict between environmental ethics and economic rationality. The rise of environmental ethics is a sustained challenge to an economic rationality increasingly regarded as an impoverished theory of choice-making. This rationality implies a value set and resulting behaviours and states that the sum of profit-maximizing individual choices and self-interest-driven behaviour through ‘the invisible hand’ in the longer run equates to public good. A central fault is that it assumes that the environment is a free exploitable resource. ‘Rational’ choice and its associated economic system have led to environmental degradation and massive pollution.

Eco-efficiency on its own is only a small part of a richer web of ideas and solutions that requires a fundamental rethinking of the structure and reward system of commerce. This implies developing a regulatory and incentives regime attuned to encouraging resource efficiency by combining innovations in business practice and public policy. It implies a different taxation system which in essence makes what is considered good for us tax-free and taxes heavily what is bad. This might relate to encouraging recycling, creating local energy-efficient building standards or the public sector acting as a role model in using alternative sources of energy. To what extent have cities got the independence and power to operate in this way?