Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/06/12/litigious-woman-pranked-with-phallic-gummy-candy.html
…
7 Likes
I’m picturing giggling and not much more. The problem is you lady.
29 Likes
comes in pasta form too. amazon “warning: increases in size when cooked” …and gollll.ly but that brings up some fun "Frequently bought together"s
11 Likes
As we know, the classical world was nothing but wall-to-wall barbarism; from which nobody ever claims their civilization descended.
9 Likes
Or, you know, they could just look down at their genitals and see the exact same thing. How is this an issue, other than this person being too embarrassed about talking about the human body to another human being?
14 Likes
Oh, no, I hope nobody sends her any products from Witty Yeti in their famous “discreet packaging”.
11 Likes
Disappointing that the traditional usage is not that of coat rack.
1 Like
She worried she “could not provide an adequate and appropriate explanation” to them and feared that their discovery of the package “would leave them confused, scared and emotionally distressed.”
“Someone played a practical joke on mommy.” seems like an “adequate and appropriate explanation.” Maybe add “But mommy doesn’t find it very funny.”
If your ten-year-old and your seven-year-old aren’t familiar with the idea of pranking someone, they’re so sheltered they’re going to have a very rude awakening when they step out of your walled garden into the real world.
8 Likes
Though much as I appreciate their discoveries, literature, and art, I don’t know that I would want to copy anything about sexual mores from ancient Greece. 
7 Likes
Lemme guess: jars of Alfredo sauce?
6 Likes
Yep. I guess if anyone wondered what kind of person was getting funny-shaped candy and confetti, she immediately leans on “won’t someone please think of the children?”.
Me, I think young children would be enjoying eating all of her gummies and the level of offence she’s claiming would pretty much amount to a self-own. There’s a reasonableness standard applied to court cases, yes? 
7 Likes
She could dispose of the evidence by literally eating a bag of d**ks.
22 Likes
9 Likes
Could be the legal response put forward by Cloud Peak and Rain Parade.
2 Likes
Why was she keeping it around for the chance that her kids would find it?
Was there some angry, spite-filled snacking as she finds bag-o-dix so tasty?
What I wonder is what’s keeping her from just throwing it in the trash?
Is she afraid her kids would dig through the trash? Just double bag the sac of sacks…
will the claim be tossed out?
Surely the preposition should be ‘off’?
4 Likes
2 Likes
Her membership in the too-Puritan-for-Puritanism Club could be in jeopardy. Indeed what of the many many children she has over particularly to deceive about human body parts and maturity, who will be disaffected by the presence of curiously-shaped candy, and/or its proximity to her Pompom sugars, Lemony knots, and Red-Hot Zippers?
