Website Sells Pubic Lice

A British website called crabrevenge.com will help you prove that there is literally nothing you can't find online by selling you pubic lice. A disclaimer on the site says the creators "do not endorse giving people lice," and the lice are for "novelty purposes only." The company also boasts about a facility "where we do all of our parasite husbandry and carefully considered selective breeding." Three different packages are available: "Green package - One colony that can lay as many as 30 eggs for about $20. Blue package - Three colonies to share with your friends or freeze a batch or two for about $35. Red package - A vial of 'shampoo-resistant F-strain crabs' which can take up to two weeks to kill for about $52."

Comments

And what are they feeding the lice on ?

[unity100]

huh ? is it even legal ? leave aside ethical ?

Re:And what are they feeding the lice on ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm normally a laissez-faire kind of guy, but seriously... what do we need to do to get this shit shut down?

Regulations. Laws. Common sense. Morality. A clue. The ability to live with being a hypocrite.

All of the things that "laissez-faire" economics usually figures the market will resolve for itself, and yet is completely incapable of fixing -- because it assumes benign, rational humans who make good choices, and an underlying mechanism where things like murder for hire, arms dealers, bioterrorists, and asshats can't happen. It totally ignores human nature, and the fact that people aren't always nice, and don't always give a shit about the welfare of others.

This is the logical result of laissez-faire capitalism -- basically, anarchy. Only in anarchy, someone's ability to hunt you down and kill you regulates the system. As soon as you have any concept of law, to not think you need to apply that to your economic system is just plain stupid. Because someone is going to try to fuck someone else over.

You simply can't be a strict laisez-faire guy and believe that you have any right to shut this kind of thing down -- well, I guess you could hire someone to kill them, but that might be a little extreme.

Everyone likes to think this so called "free market" is inherently moral and will arrive at "good" and "just" decisions, when in fact, it's inherently amoral. It doesn't give a shit -- if people are willing to pay for it, it must be inherently good.

Re:And what are they feeding the lice on ?

[xquercus]

I'm not the pope, but I'm going to have to put "intentionally giving people crabs" in the unethical column.

Since when is the Pope an authority on ethics?

Re:And what are they feeding the lice on ?

[Andronicus]

Hey, uuh, there's nothing immoral or unethical about purchasing the lice from the vendor.

Where you can start making these value judgments is when a purchaser subsequently decides to USE the previously purchased lice in some particular way you or society in general, might find objectionable.

To make the argument you'd made above, Anon Coward, is to misunderstand the subject. Free markets don't "fix" anything, sir. They are what has taken place when separate parties agree to do a deal. The "fix" is not to restrict free exchange, it is to protect property rights.

Most of the posts here had the understandable knee-jerk "eww, who would buy THAT?!" reaction...and I think this very fact shows how a free and unfettered market would normally act to keep this sort of activity very limited indeed.

As for the asshats who buy, and then use the lice thus obtained for the purpose of infesting someone against their will, or otherwise depriving them of property somehow as a result of the lice, now that's were natural law can come in. That's not a free market problem.

Anon Coward, you have to ask yourself carefully to define what a free market really is: It's the collection of _voluntary_ exchanges between parties. When the market is free, both sides want to do the trade, or it doesn't happen.

Wanting to kill a trade because you, as a non-party to the contract being undertaken, find it in some way objectionable in the end is the same sort of imposition upon another's natural rights as the case of someone using the lice they bought to infest YOU against your will.

Both YOU and HE then (if, and only if, he actually does go on to use the lice maliciously), ought to be made to suffer sanction. YOU for wanting to forbid all such voluntary exchanges because they offend you, and HE for choosing to do harm to you or deprive you of your rightful property by choosing to use the lice against you.

The <quote>Because someone is going to try to fuck someone else over</quote> part doesn't happen at the free/unfettered market level, because this is not an exchange. The malicious person spreading the lice he bought on your bath towel, thereby later infesting you, committed violence against you, and that's a matter of law.

Now, there can still be fraud in a free exchange, which is also a matter of law. Fraud is the intentional misrepresentation of the terms of an exchange, so as to create a false idea about what will actually be exchanged in the mind of one of the parties, usually with the object of depriving the misled party of property without the expected compensation.

The law's first duty is (should be) to enforce property rights. People often forget that you own (at least ought to) your own body too, so someone committing violence against you is, in essence, depriving you of the legitimate right to exercise control over your own property.

Laissez-faire capitalism is difficult to accomplish under true anarchy, because parties to exchanges can never have much confidence that their respective property rights would be upheld.

The first thing that societies interested in free-market exchange see is in their interest is standing up some sort of mutually agreed upon outside governance to assure enforcement of property rights. This allows markets to develop efficiently, as parties are relieved of the burden of maintaining each their own enforcement capabilities.

Re:And what are they feeding the lice on ?

[Jiro]

But it's poorly thought out and misses the main issue, despite using a lot of buzzwords. Its answer is basically that since buying lice only results in harm when they are used against someone, it should be okay to sell the lice and that nobody should be stopped unless they try to use them on another person.

That's sounds okay as a theory, but the fact is that pretty much the only use of buying lice is to hurt someone. Yeah, there may be one or two people who have some non-injurious purpose for buying lice, but that's a vanishingly small proportion of all the purchases (and doubly so when the site itself claims the lice are for revenge). Yet the free market solution is to just ignore that and allow that vanishingly small percentage to justify letting it be legal to sell lice.

If your free market theory can't handle the concept of "this product is almost always used to violate someone's rights, so we should crack down on it if we can, even though the person selling the product is not himself the one violating the rights", then the free market sucks and we need something else. And it doesn't apply to just selling lice, but to selling plague bacteria and lots of other things.

That's just wrong on so many levels.

[realsilly]

That's just wrong on so many levels. I can see kids buying these and then using them to pick on other school kids they don't like. Such as putting them in some kid's underwear when he/she is showering after the gym class.

This type of item used as a gag gift could have serious consequences for the recipient. If it's a student who is the recipient, then schools kick them out until they're free and clear. Parents may miss work to be home with student. Lice spread easily.

There is absolutely nothing good from this. /facepalm

Re:That's just wrong on so many levels.

[Anonymous Coward]

How you reached that conclusion is beyond me. However, I would suggest you look into a spot in the next Winter Olympics - mental gymnastics surely should be a sport and (I suspect) would be one which you're quite good at. Your ability to leap to conclusions (with a triple lutz I might add) is akin to comparing apples and orangutans.

Next up: AIDS!

[citylivin]

You too can have your own strain of the HIV virus! Play jokes on your friends!

Uhoh, whoes got AIDS today? Everyone!

A lifetime of hilarity!

Bioterrorism?

[andrewme]

Would giving people lice like this perhaps fall under the "bioterrorism" category? Just a thought...

Re:Bioterrorism?

[DaveV1.0]

Bioterrorism is doubtful. But, criminal mischief, assault and battery, malicious wounding, and who knows what other laws it might fall under.

This should be illegal unless the lice are sterile

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Willfully spreading a contagious illness (which this qualifies as) should be illegal.
I would say that creating ANY resistant, contagious disease should be considered a crime against humanity in general and should be rewarded with a swift death.

Contagious disease is a GREAT way to inflict misery on a lot of unintended and innocent victims.

Honestly, I can think of no worse or more dangerous crime.

--PM

Re:this isnt the 70's

[MBGMorden]

Really depends on the crowd. 6-7 years ago the shaving fetish hit like crazy and you'd have to search to the ends of the Earth (ok, honestly, you'd probably be safe once you hit Mexico) to find a girl with some bush, but it's come back into style in the last year or two. Not universally, but a lot more girls are sporting bush than there was previously. Can't say that's a bad thing either.

Re:Technology?

[canajin56]

Selling lice = boring. Selling line ONLINE = new high tech invention! Works for patents, so it should work for Slashdot stories, too.

Re:this isnt the 70's

[D'Sphitz]

Nothing wrong with a nice bush

Wrong, pubes are gross.

Re:this isnt the 70's

[Shakrai]

If only we had running water and soap with which to handle this problem.....

Re:this isnt the 70's

[Shakrai]

If a 30yo woman has a gigantic bush but still has the mindset of a 10yo

I didn't say I wanted a "gigantic bush". Most of the women that I've been with trimmed. I just don't see the appeal in a completely shaved look. To each their own I guess.

Cutting to merely /short/ is too much work, and is uncomfortable.

Speak for yourself. I find razor burn/stubble and ingrown hairs to be much more uncomfortable than cutting.

Re:this isnt the 70's

[spazdor]

I agree. An adult vulva, waxed smooth, does not resemble a kid's.

Re:this isnt the 70's

[Anonymous Coward]

If a girl doesn't prefer men with beards, should I trust her with my son or is she a pedophile?

Re:this isnt the 70's

[drsmithy]

Gah. I do not get this at all. I can dig a little grooming, but what is the point of mimicking prepubescent hair growth patterns?

I know what you mean. That's why I only ever date women whose legs and armpits are at least as hairy as mine.

Re:This should be illegal unless the lice are ster

[stimpleton]

"Honestly, I can think of no worse or more dangerous crime."

A police officer manipulating evidence for pecuniary gain while his target spends years in jail, his finances, family, and anus in tatters?

No.30 on your list?

The Texas judge who sent hundreds of youth to a private jail, of which he had financial interest in. Those convictions being over turned long after his ruse was tumbled? No.99? Perhaps not even in your top 100?

Re:this isnt the 70's

[EdIII]

I agree. An adult vulva, waxed smooth, does not resemble a kid's.

I don't know if I agree, which is due to the fact, I can't make a comparison. I have seen plenty of shaved snatch thanks to the Internet (dear God thank you for the Internet soooooo much), but I have yet to see a 10 year old girls snatch. Don't plan on it either.

So yeah... as far as I know, they are exactly the same.

Re:this isnt the 70's

[MaskedSlacker]

Because we're comfortable with our sexuality? We're not prudes? We're nudists? I dunno, any of a thousand reasons.

Re:this isnt the 70's

[Anonymous Coward]

And isn't female.

Guys! Guys! I know it's surprising but females have seen themselves naked when underage!!!

Not being a douche to you...adolf...*cough*, just throwing out another possibility.