This explains a lot.

[via]

Caption this picture of Justin Bieber is a post from: The Inquisitr

Judging by all the fun everyone had with John Mayer’s raunchy Playboy interview and very public, teary mea culpa, de-muzzled celebrities are an endless source of lulziness.

Robert Pattinson, the Harry Potter alum who now plays Edward Cullen in the screen adaptations of the Twilight novels, is a particularly fantastic source of interview WTF quotes. Pattinson famously dissed the character’s creepiness in an interview for E!, saying:

When I read it, it seemed like (grimaces) I was convinced that … Stephenie was … convinced that she was Bella, and uh, and you, it wasn’t, it was like it was a book that wasn’t supposed to be published, like reading her … her sort of sexual fantasy about some — especially when she says that it was based on a dream, and it’s like, “Oh, then I had a dream about this really sexy guy” and she just writes this book about it, and there’s some things about Edward that are just so specific that it’s like, I was just convinced that, that this woman is mad, she’s completely mad, and she’s in love with her own fictional creation and I — sometimes you, like, feel uncomfortable reading this thing, and I think a lot of people feel the same way, that it’s kind of voyeuristic, ah, and it creates this sick pleasure in a lot of ways.

This week, Pattinson got a bit crass in Details, and everyone’s running with one particular quote his Pattziness dropped in the interview:

“I really hate vaginas. I’m allergic to vagina. But I can’t say I had no idea, because it was a 12-hour shoot, so you kind of get the picture that these women are going to stay naked after, like, five or six hours. But I wasn’t exactly prepared. I had no idea what to say to these girls. Thank God I was hungover.”

…and a thousand Twilight induced Valentine’s Day girl-wank sessions ground to a screeching halt. What does that mean, everyone wondered, as the quote ricocheted through the gossip blogosphere? Is R-Pattz just a coochie hater, or does he like boy equipment better? The interview immediately segued to elephants and candy, so nobody knows.

And like Mayer, Pattinson adds in a bit of racial ambiguity:

Rob, did you know that every time you say actor or acting you lower your voice to a whisper?

He’s genuinely startled. “I do?”

Yes, so quietly it’s like you’re saying Negro.

He laughs, lightens up. “What if we were ‘acting‘ like ‘Negroes‘? Then we’d be fucked—we couldn’t hear anything. . . .

So, what do you think? Is Robert Pattinson a gay? Does he just hate women and/or black people? Was his quote clipped? Is Stephenie Meyer crying into her special Mormon underwear?

Robert Pattinson: “I really hate vaginas.” is a post from: The Inquisitr

Vagina mints- why has no one thought of this before?

Because it’s a horrifying, off-putting and misogynist idea, that’s why. The new “novelty” feminine mints (feminine being a euphemism for the part of the female anatomy that dare not speak its name, see video below) called Linger and priced at $7.99 a tin are a whole bowl of wrong for so many reasons- here are the first four.

Reason #1: The backstory. A nameless woman, who I assume is supposed to be the entrepreneur behind the concept of vaginal mints, tells the soft-core story of the first man who slipped her some cootch candy:

On a first time trip into the heart of India, I fell instantly for a soft spoken, aristocratic man. He was tall, built, and well dressed.  His voice was deep and husky, his eyes dark and intense, his skin the color of caramel…

(Fade to black…)

I was caught off guard when he kissed me deeply tasting of sweet mint… delicious!  He looked into my eyes then and said softly, “Now, let me Linger!”  That was the beginning of a long-lasting love affair. When I returned to the States, I brought the tingly sweet tasting sex mint with me. It’s been shared with friends and (believe it or not) family. It’s been shown to and discussed with our physicians. Now, this Internal Feminine Flavoring has been recreated to be shared so your lover can Linger with you!

Sadly for womankind, the skipped over bit does not include the woman asking incredulously “did you just put a mint… in my vagina?!?” before beating the man unconscious with her shoe, caramel colored aristocrat or not. But wrong keeps coming.

Reason #2: The website, in general. Bad web design, “brought to you by GoDaddy!,” is off-putting enough when they’re not shilling “internal feminine flavoring.” I wouldn’t trust the entities behind this site to sell me… well, anything more innocuous than crotch mints. In addition to looking like it was strung together in Front Page circa early-2000, there are bonus points for charity-appropriateness fail:

Reason #3: Sweeteners + vagina= infection. If you’re worried about getting visitors down south, as it were, a yeast infection doesn’t add to your hospitality down there.

Reason #4: As MotherJones points out, they’re just regular trade show mints, repackaged and repriced for your filthy, unminty hoo-ha. Although the subtext of the site is clear (Linger is designed for slow release-extending the time your partner will want to spend tasting the new you- translation: your vagina is gross!) I would counsel any woman who considers minting her delicate bits to please a man to consider the alternative. Chances are, if you’re that hygiene conscious, you’re already not-disgusting enough to mate with. Remember, like a liberal coating of Axe Body Spray, a mint can only cover, not clean what’s there. And if your partner complains about foreplay anyway, you can always lock them out without their pants and get a vibrator. More expensive, sure, but worth it for the lack of minty vagina stinging.

[Via Consumerist]

Just say no to lady garden mints is a post from: The Inquisitr

Gawker has an interesting post this morning proving that newspapers may have not quite lost their relevance yet.

One of the site’s bloggers pointed out a picture in today’s paper that appears to show the ex-Mrs. Pitt’s cash and prizes. In the snap, Aniston is on set, being shoved into a trunk by rumored beau Gerard Butler. The shot shows Jennifer, legs in the air, and apparently not wearing any panties.

Gawker describes the possible oopsie:

What is no laughing matter is, if you look really close, it looks like, well, Jen is smiling at the camera…and her face isn’t visible. Like a color commentator for the celebrity set, we have circled and blown up the offending area. While we’re no experts in these matters (we were initially distracted from her womanhood by Butler’s ass in the bent over position) it looks like we’re getting the whole kit and caboodle. This has got to be the first time we’ve gotten into an actress’ personal space getting into a car rather than out of one.

So can you really see Jennifer Aniston’s vagina? It’s definitely… ambiguous. Click through for a larger, unobscured version of the picture. It kind of reminds you that while a cease and desist letter can get a pic pulled within minutes, try getting an embarassing snap unseen by the whole of New York City.

Whoops- did the newspaper print Jennifer Aniston’s hoo-ha? is a post from: The Inquisitr

It appears to be a video ad spot for some feminine hygiene product but thanks to Random Good Stuff for the link 

Yes folks it’s the vagina spy cam is a post from: The Inquisitr