in which we revisit the notion of “synthetic vagina” and the men who lust for such… things

so there were some capital-L Legitimate Distractions this week that prevented me from doing my best to complete my “comedy mission” in a timely fashion, which i won’t get into here because i don’t think REAL LIFE has anything to do with internet shenanigans (and vice versa), and so you’ll just have to take my word on that, okay? i do think we’re pretty honest about our failures to provide comedy here.

ANYWAY, we’re going to go with the old reliable method of “ripping on random news events,” which i admit was never the original intention for this illustrious website back in its formative days, but hey, it seems to be working alright, right? sure. and i may even have reference to some past story-types as well. so let’s get to it:

the combination of this adult storefront and the “Action News” logo may give you an entirely mistaken idea about what kind of crime went on in this story

robber uses semi to smash adult store and steal sex toy

now, YEARS ago (as in, 2007), we had an NC-17 anthropology entry (which we haven’t even had any of since 2009, to be honest) that discussed the confusing topic of “synthetic vaginas.” and when i say “confusing,” the high points basically boiled down to me being confused about:
–who the hell is supposedly buying these things
–who the hell is supposedly USING these things
–the purpose of fucking a synthetic vagina modeled after that “some famous pornographic actress”

the latter is not going to be addressed or resolved today, but this story might relate somewhat to the former two.

“Deputies in Lorain County are on the lookout for a man who pulled a ‘crash and grab’ with a stolen tractor-trailer truck in an AdultMart and stole an $800 sex toy.”

so this tells us that, at the very least, there is either ONE guy out there desiring sex with a synthetic vagina (my original research turned up no results on that score) or one guy who’s got a buyer lined up for a synthetic vagina (which would actually hit BOTH of the categories i got no results for). that said, i don’t think “crazed criminals driving into things” is a legitimate market for any product you expect to bring you financial security, so there still has got to be more research to be done.

also… an $800 sex toy? i don’t claim to know what the current retail price for these kinds of things is, but $800 sounds very expensive for a piece of plastic that a lonely man ejaculates into while pretending he’s having sex with a girl. i HAVE to assume it’s modeled on the genitalia of some famous pornographic actress.

“Definitely weird. It’s kind of crazy to steal a vehicle that’s that expensive to break into a story to get some kind of sex toy,” said Det. Tony Kovacs, with the Lorain County Sheriff’s Department.”

and you know, Detective Kovacs, i don’t think we even have to go that far. it’s kind of crazy to break into a store to get some kind of sex toy PERIOD, whether or not there’s an expensive truck involved. i would even be willing to go so far as to claim it’s kind of crazy to fuck a synthetic vagina (or lust after one) at all, but i’m worried i might alienate some people because, you know, this IS the internet we’re on right now.

“John Tirbaso, who owns JT Container Recycling in Elyria, got a call from deputies early Monday morning. He was told his semi-truck had been stolen and used to drive through a building for a burglary. “I even said, ‘Wow, you know this economy is bad, I guess this stuff is going to happen’, then, when he told me what happened it just threw me off,” Tirbaso said.”

i love the relatively nonchalant attitude towards hearing his truck was used in the criminal acquisition of some kind of high-end pocket pussy, but i think it IS fair to point out that this kind of crime might still relate to the bad economy. it’s not like the average guy finds it easy to scrape together the $800 you need to purchase such quality replica genitals.

“[The burglar] used it to back into the AdultMart, smashing the glass door of the store and ran inside to steal a sex toy basically,” Kovacs said. When asked to describe it, Kovacs said, “It’s basically the lower half of a female body.”

first, the really sad part is that this is all the burglar stole, which means this isn’t about an economic issue like not being able to afford a product or making money through crime, but rather, is probably about the obsession that comes from not being able to fuck the synthetic vagina one cannot afford. truly heartbreaking.

second, it is always the Best Thing when you make police officials awkwardly answer questions like “could you explain what EXACTLY the criminal tried to steal?” and as always, this is why i could never work as a police official.

local television reporter: “could you explain what EXACTLY the criminal tried to steal?”
officer janklow: “yeah, it was a synthetic vagina. there’s a bunch of expensive ones modeled on the poontang of famous porn stars. lonely internet nerds who may or may not wear wizard cloaks instead of coats are always buying and fucking the shit out of these plastic wells of sadness.”

…or some local jurisdiction could hire me and we could see how it goes. i keep my options open.

“Kovacs says the crook went straight for it, like he had been in the store before. Then he got back in the semi and drove it back to where he stole it from. “It’s got to be a half-hour drive from here,” Tirbaso said.”


seriously, though, of COURSE he’d been in the store before. of COURSE he went straight for it. this was clearly not a crime done for profit, but a noble deal done for LOVE… of a plastic replica of the sexual organs of a woman who gets paid to have sexual intercourse on camera for a living.

“The crooks actions left Tirbaso asking the same question many are, “How did he jump out of the truck and run down the tracks, carrying this stuff?” Tirbaso wondered.”

because when you’re doing something for LOVE, it allows you to do seemingly superhuman things. it’s sort of like when a mother lifts a car off of her trapped baby; in this case, the mother is “a lonely man who’s semi-skilled at stealing large trucks,” the lifting is “fleeing on foot at a rapid pace carrying something bulky” and the baby is… well, let’s just say that i have just realized how horrible this analogy has become. also, the baby is “a synthetic representation of a adult film starlet’s naughty bits.”

“Tirbaso looked at some surveillance video and is sure it wasn’t one of his employees. While Tirbaso got his truck back, the crook did several thousand dollars worth of damage to both the truck, and gates he rammed getting out of the JT Container Recycling lot. Still, Tirbaso still can’t help but laugh. “It’s kind of funny I think,” he said.”

again, the healthiest of attitudes. because even if insurance doesn’t cover the damage 100%, you’re always going to have one amazing anecdote to tell at cocktail parties and other social events. and if someone at one of those events seems incredibly embarrassed for no good reason, you may just have outed that mystery thief … or, at the very least, you’ve done a little research into WHO THE HELL KEEPS BUYING THESE DAMN SYNTHETIC VAGINAS.

20 kg giant frog
well, why WOULDN’T you eat this giant frog you randomly found in Malaysia? it seems like a phenomenal idea to everyone!

giant child-sized frog discovered in Malaysia… and then eaten for some reason

on this website, we have tried to caution people about the problem with consuming mysterious items you find out on the water, whether they be possible aliens you catch (and later eat) or mysterious bricks of “cocaine” that make you go berserk (and later die). and yet the internet keeps reporting to me people DO NOT LISTEN to this sound advice. the latest event: the discovery and consumption of a giant frog. wait, what?

“Do you believe that a giant frog weighing a whopping 20kg had been spotted?”

to be honest, i actually AM willing to believe this has happened. it’s not that outrageous of a notion, but then i also find cryptozoology “interesting” (in addition to “laughable”). so this Chinese guy in Malaysia THEN claims that his “friend” was with a Malaysian who caught a 20kg frog and took an awkward photo of it… which is where i note that when the story involves what your “friend” saw, it’s probably just a sad lie.

“According to him, the enormous animal was captured by an Orang Asli by the riverside. His friend was startled upon seeing the creature because previously, he had never seen a frog with that size in his entire life. The man added, his friend offered to buy the frog for RM500 but the Orang Asli demanded RM1,000 instead. As the friend was not having enough money with him at that time, he went home to get more money.”

thank you for unnecessarily spelling out why someone finds a giant frog to be startling: because giant frogs are giant. WHOA. also, another indication that this story is not entirely on the level is that you’d THINK this Chinese guy’s friend could say “hey, bring that frog to my house and i’ll pay you there.” but it’s not like this story is going to get MORE logical…

“”When my friend returned to the Orang Asli’s house with the money, he discovered that the giant frog had been slaughtered and eaten. It was also learnt that the Orang Asli fell ill after consuming the frog and until today, he is still bed-ridden and unable to move around,” he said.”

and so, this story actually combines the worst of BOTH previous “what not to do with mysterious items you find out on the water”:
–this Malaysian devoured the frog, much like those Russians, in violation of scientific discovery and common sense (as well as economic principle, since i doubt he got RM500 worth of food from that turbo-frog meal);
–this Malaysian is probably going to go insane and die from his illness, much like that Floridian who inhaled the mystery brick. STOP EATING MYSTERIES OF NATURE, PEOPLE.

“He added, the Orang Asli did not allow any photo taking but his friend took a photo of the frog in secret.”

(sarcastic eye roll) HOW CONVENIENT. anyway, when all you have is a photo and a sick Malaysian, you don’t have a cool frog discovery, you have a lame story and, i guess, a sick Malaysian. so it goes.

some donkeys, for whatever reason
while searching the internet for “bad mothering lawsuit,” i got a result of this picture of donkeys. i don’t question the internet

‘bad mothering’ lawsuit dismissed

can you tell from that title alone that it’s going to make me flip out? i think you can.

“Raised in a $1.5 million Barrington Hills home by their attorney father, two grown children have spent the last two years pursuing a unique lawsuit against their mom for “bad mothering” damages allegedly caused when she failed to buy toys for one and sent another a birthday card he didn’t like.”


so, okay, these children were raised in a fancy home by their father, who is also a LAWYER, which tells us that if their mother really was a legitimately TERRIBLE mother, he’d probably have had custody easily. and they’re fucking GROWN children, which means this can’t be an issue that’s addressing a pressing issue of child-rearing. and as soon as we get to “sent another a birthday card he didn’t like,” i think it’s clear that these children need to be beaten into severe injury by a team of goons. but, okay, maybe this is misleading?

“The alleged offenses include failing to take her daughter to a car show, telling her then-7-year-old son to buckle his seat belt or she would contact police, “haggling” over the amount to spend on party dresses and calling her daughter at midnight to ask that she return home from celebrating homecoming.”

OUTRAGEOUS! gentlemen, toss your powdered wigs and pop your monocles in fury at the audacity of this woman!

“Last week, when the court record stood about a foot tall, an Illinois appeals court dismissed the case, finding that none of the mother’s conduct was “extreme or outrageous.” To rule in favor of her children, the court found, “could potentially open the floodgates to subject family child rearing to … excessive judicial scrutiny and interference.””

a sound finding… but i am not sure it goes far enough. this does not seem like only an issue of the accusations not meeting a legitimate standard, but also, and forgive me for being negative about lawyers, an issue of yet another goddamn lawyer filing a goddamn nuisance lawsuit over some goddamn petty personal dispute. shocking, i know.

“In 2009, the children, represented by three attorneys including their father, Steven A. Miner, sued their mother, Kimberly Garrity. Steven II, now 23, and his sister Kathryn, now 20, sought more than $50,000 for “emotional distress.” Among the exhibits filed in the case is a birthday card Garrity sent her son, who in his lawsuit sought damages because the card was “inappropriate” and failed to include cash or a check. He also alleged she failed to send a card for years or, while he was in college, care packages.”

or in other words, these kids are basically convinced that their mother should have kicked out $50000-worth of things in their childhood, so they’re rectifying that now. wait, strike that: these kids want $50000 to spend on drugs (or maybe $800 synthetic vaginas, as i don’t know what Steven II, now 23, is into these days) and their (let’s assume here) millionaire lawyer says to them, “hey, i bet you can sue your mother for not gifting you properly and get that money.” and then he probably stomps a kitten to death just because.

“On the front of the American Greetings card is a picture of tomatoes spread across a table that are indistinguishable except for one in the middle with craft-store googly eyes attached. “Son I got you this Birthday card because it’s just like you … different from all the rest!” the card reads. On the inside Garrity wrote, “Have a great day! Love & Hugs, Mom xoxoxo.””


“In court papers, Garrity’s attorney Shelley Smith said the “litany of childish complaints and ingratitude” in the lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt by Garrity’s ex-husband to “seek the ultimate revenge” of having her children accuse her of “being an inadequate mother.” “It would be laughable that these children of privilege would sue their mother for emotional distress, if the consequences were not so deadly serious” for Garrity, Smith wrote. “There is no insurance for this claim, so (Garrity) must pay her legal fees, while (the children) have their father for free.””

this is actually a pretty solid summary. but i would go further, because it seems clear that this is less about making mother sad by calling her inadequate and more about that AND hurting her personally by making her spend time, legal costs and a $50000 penalty. to which i have to ask: where the fuck do these kids get off?

“Steven A. Miner, reached by phone, did not comment. In court papers he said he only filed the lawsuit after much legal research and had tried to dissuade his children from bringing the case.”

(additional sarcastic eye roll) i am sure he tried VERY hard to dissuade them.

“The Cook County judge who ruled on the case, Kathy Flanagan, declined to assess sanctions against Miner, but said the lawsuit amounted to nothing more than children “suing their mother for bad mothering.””

…and this is why i am not a judge.

terrible lawyer father: “so, your Honor, i think my children should be awarded $50000 because their mother failed to buy toys for her daughter and sent her son a birthday card he didn’t like.”
the honorable janklow: “i think this lawsuit amounts to nothing more than some fucking ridiculous bullshit. bailiff, please beat the hell out of these goddamn wiener kids.”

or maybe i SHOULD be a judge. again, i keep my options open.

“Steven A. Miner wrote that the case is no different from a patient suing a physician “for bad doctoring.” The children “do not view their (lawsuit) as an attack on mothering, but rather on accountability,” he wrote. “Everyone makes mistakes, but … there must be accountability for actions. Parenting is no different.””

here’s where the remark about how someone should be taking accountability for the stupid fucking decision to let your children sue their mother because she sent a birthday card they didn’t like because it wasn’t stuffed with cash. but you see, janklow, only OTHER PEOPLE need to take accountability for their actions. whoops, i forgot about that.

also, if you’re telling me this lawsuit is no different than suing for “bad doctoring,” i have to ask a) again, HOW hard did you attempt to dissuade them from filing this lawsuit? and b) is “bad doctoring” what you accuse of doctor of doing? isn’t the word you want “malpractice?”

anyway, these children are dicks and their father is a dick and the legal system, which continues to make me sad, at least worked out mostly right in this case. and i say mostly because i don’t think any bailiffs actually threw these kids a beating.

and that’s it for me this week. i’m spent. good night, internet.

Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *