Spend ten thousand on a pair of rubber boobs, insure them for a million, have an 'accident' and collect the windfall.
Holly Madison, the US "reality TV star and model", has insured her D-cup jubs for $1m, lest they suffer a mishap during her Las Vegas extravaganza Peepshow. According to Reuters, the highly talented 31-year-old explained: "If anything happened to my boobs, I'd be out for a few months and I'd probably be out a million dollars. …
I think I honestly would rather wear fur than go naked. As a public service to all onlookers, really.
And nevermind that PETA also handily killed the possum fur trade, cutting off a profitable way to control the pests in NZ. Or for that matter the excess of rabbits in aussieland. That's animal welfare fundie extremism for you. It drives me to admit I really don't look at their ads for the interviews, no.
Believe it or not, there's lots of people who don't work for non-profit organizations, and for those of us who aren't privileged to participate in the implementation of governance it's considered "not on" to be looking at titties on chargeable time. Thus, NSFW.
tl;dr: Quit whining about "moralizing", you jerkoff! Those of us who have to work for a living appreciate the heads-up.
It's one thing to have a job with some slack in it. It's quite another to be (seen as) looking at porn on work time. The latter, even in many places where the former isn't a problem, could be a trip to HR, quite possibly of the sort where, instead of going back to your desk afterward, you're escorted by security to the lobby where you wait to receive a carton of your personal items and then depart the premises for good on pain of being arrested for trespassing.
(And look at it this way: if "no-one will notice", why would I be worried in the first place about whether the next link I click is going to have bare tits at the other end of it? The privilege of "no-one will notice" is reserved for officers at the VP level and above, that is, people who have office doors that close and office walls that aren't made out of glass.)
by 'workshop' it may be that you mean mechanic's shop, HVAC shop, &c., which have a rather more robust tradition of pin-ups and girlie calendars than many workplaces do. In that case, I've no argument at all, especially considering the degree to which intrusive, moralistic regulation has made that sort of thing impermissible in modern times.
So, you know, it goes either way depending on what point you were actually making. In order to salve my embarrassment, I'm just going to assume that my first response was merited and I'm giving you too much credit in hindsight, rather than that you had an excellent point which I misread and responded to in such a way as to make a complete fool of myself.
She's insured her breasts against any injury/malfunction which prevents her from working? Isn't that a bit like insuring your car tyres, incase you have a tyre related problem which causes you to have an accident or prevents you from getting to work?
Wouldn't it make sense to have a more rounded policy that offered broader protection incase of lose of earnings? Surely an injury to her leg or back etc. would result in the same loss of earning. Or do her breasts require an additional coverage because they aren't original equipment?
My taste is women is irrelevant: this is a simple matter of accurate language. "Burlesque performers" are by definition strippers and invariably (GIS is your friend) fat, so "fat stripper" has the merits both of accuracy and brevity.
That red herring aside, it's sad to see such value placed on a pair of plastic bolt-ons. Cyd Charisse's legs were (a) things of beauty (b) natural and (c) irreplaceable. If Miss Charisse had seriously damaged them in an accident her career would have been seriously affected so, publicity aside, the insurance made sense.
In this case, though any damage can be repaired by the technician who installed the fun/air bags, so anything in excess of standard medical insurance seems a tad excessive.
Yours for natural bodies, sex and BMI irrelevant.