Whatever rumour brought you to this page... There is no reason to put Visine on nipples, and there's no reason to believe anybody's doing it. And it was never suggested on the TV series CSI that anyone does it.
Over 2 years ago, I noticed the search term "Visine on Nipples" turned up on another web site's referral stats. I thought it a funny fluke. But then when I blogged it myself. And from then on it seemed that every couple of months, I would find one day where I would get numerous hits to my site from the Google search for Visine on nipples.
Someone posted a comment to my blog entry that the term "Visine on nipples" came from an episode of the television series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. So I then assumed that the surges from time to time were indication that the episode in question had aired in re-run. But then a few months ago, the hits to my site from that search query became almost consistent and regular. I now have multiple daily hits to my site from queries related to nipples & eye drops.
After searching various web sites & forums for why anyone would put Visine on their nipples, I learned that there was a modern urban myth type rumour going around on forums (message boards) & such, that they heard on a CSI episode that putting Visine on nipples will make nipples erect, and that it's used as a sort of "sex trick".
I felt fairly certain from the get-go that this probably wasn't true. I hadn't heard about this before, and Visine's been around for a long time. And it really didn't match with the way Visine works on 'red eyes'.
The internet is certainly repleat with intricate descriptions of sex tips & tricks, but yet not this one - outside of the CSI references. And nobody on these forums said they were actually using Visine on their nipples themselves.
Since my site was the top search result for this myth, I felt compelled to debunk it. And set out to do so in January 2005.
I'm not a doctor, biologist, pharmacist, nor a chemist. And I certainly wasn't going to do any home experiments. So I set out to prove it a myth by watching CSI on rented dvds, to confirm or explain the catalyst & perpetuation of this myth. I've since become a fan of the show, and have now watched every episode of the first 3 seasons, and the first 2 dvds of the 4th season. (This is a total of 20 dvds - about 60 hours worth of viewing. And I have more in my Netflix Queue.)
Contrary to what many people seem to think, no episode of CSI ever claimed that Visine (or any eye drops) would make nipples erect, and no episode ever claimed that this was ever known to be used as any type of sex trick.
And Visine is never mentioned by name on the show. (I guess Visine's not paying for any product placement.)
However, after watching the episodes which obviously inadvertantly started this rumour, I imagine that it was "vaguely suggested" if you didn't actually pay attention to the details of the show. I find this ironic, since the show is all about details - so one wonders why someone would watch and not pay attention to the details. But no matter...
If you want to know exactly what I have learned about the episodes which sparked this urban myth, I explain the truth of the CSI episodes below.
(Please be warned, the explanations contain SPOILERS on the plots of these episodes.)
In the "Pilot" episode, (premiere episode of the series), the plot involves "trick rolls". This is where women pose as hookers, drug their victims unconscious, and steal their belongings.
In the episode, the women hookers were putting a drug called scopolamine on their nipples, so that when the 'johns' would put their mouth on the hookers' nipples, they would wind up ingesting the scopolamine, which then knocked the men out. The 'trick' had an adverse effect for the hookers. It backfired, because the girls wound up falling unconscious after their robberies, because eventually the scopolamine was absorbed into their system through the skin on their nipples.
The crime scene investigator characters on the show found the drug hidden in eye drop bottles belonging to the suspect women hookers. They also found discolouration from the scopolamine on the women's nipples, and on the victims' mouths. Which is how the investigators deduced what was going on.
Nowhere in the episode was it suggested that there would be any sexual reason for them to be carrying eye drop bottles. Plus, this is prime time network television, so they never actually showed anyone putting eye drops on nipples in the episode.
A quote from the character Greg Sanders: "No, it's scopolamine. It's a chemical used for motion sickness. This eyedrop bottle's a front. One drop of this stuff and she's out cold."
There wasn't even any actual eye drops in the episodes. Just eye dropper bottles used as a container for the drug.
In the episode called "Revenge Is Best Served Cold" (premiere episode of Season 3), there is a reference to eye drops on nipples. Though again, nobody ever actually says "Visine on nipples" or "eye drops on nipples".
In the plot of this episode, a man playing poker for hours suddenly drops dead from unknown causes. Tetrahydrozoline, which is said to be the active ingredient in eye drops, is found mysteriously present in his drink. A woman poker player at the same table is seen on the casino's security cameras as having been putting eye drops in her eyes regularly during the entire time of the poker game. But there's no way she could've put her eye drops into the dead man's drink without the security camera seeing.
They then track the Tetrahydrozoline down to a waitress who brought the man his drink. The waitress admits she put her eye drops, (another brand than the woman poker player - but neither brands were specifically referred to as Visine). According to the woman, she put the eye drops in the old poker player's drink, to try to give him diarrhea. The character of Sara calls it "server's revenge". Nobody in the episode bothers to specifically debunk that urban myth either, but the characters sure seem to think that eye drops in a drink is potentially deadly - in some circumstances at least. But in the end, the story was that the Tetrahydrozoline in the eye drops was merely some sort of catalyst in the death of the old poker player, who had been giving himself lead poisoning for years by eating large quantities of chocolate from some part of western Africa where they drive cars that use leaded gasoline.
The part that references nipples comes when Greg Sanders is flirting with the character of Sara through the episode. And he's given the woman poker player's bottle of eye drops to test in the lab.
Quote from Greg Sanders (looking at a bottle of eye drops) "So we meet again. Lita Gibbons wasn't putting this on her nipples, was she?"
He said this to the character named Sara, and Sara responds as if he's made a sexual innuendo, when in reality Greg Sanders was simply making reference to the case in the Pilot episode (previously mentioned here), he even says "Sorry, old case." And if you listen to the "commentary" option on the dvd release, you can hear one of the writers (or the director?) confirm that. The character of Sara of course didn't understand the reference Greg Sanders was making, because the character of Sara was not in the Pilot episode, and not involved in the "trick rolls" case involving a drug dispensed with an eye drops bottle. And so of course she assumed it was a sexual comment simply because it was a comment about nipples, and a comment made to her by him (since he's obviously flirting with her earlier in the episode).
One interesting & amusing quote from the episode "Revenge Is Best Served Cold":
The character Grissom, upon another character mentioning the eye drops again, says, "Irrelevant. We've been chasing eye drops to death."
I know the feeling!
And if you wish to contact Pfizer yourself on usage of their Visine product , if the product can or is safe to be used on nipples: Pfizer | Contact
(Pfizer Consumer Products: 1-800-223-0182 - Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
I'm sure they'd love to hear from you about putting Visine on your nipples!
I think this is the only urban myth CSI actually started, but a few urban legends have been used in various episodes of CSI:
Urban legend of "Server's Revenge" (Visine being used as a quick laxative) was featured in the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episode called "Revenge Is Best Served Cold" Snopes.com - (Mickey Red Eyes)
Urban legend of a scuba diver found in a tree, burned in a forest fire was featured in the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episode called "Scuba Doobie-Doo" Snopes.com: Horrors (Corpus Crispy)
Urban legend about someone poisoned by wearing a used dress soaked with embalming fluid was featured in the CSI: New York episode called "'Til Death Do We Part") Snopes.com: Horrors (Dressed to Kill)
I've seen this before, and found it referred to again... The Gender Genie "Inspired by an article in The New York Times Magazine, the Gender Genie uses a simplified version of an algorithm developed by Moshe Koppel, Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and Shlomo Argamon, Illinois Institute of Technology, to predict the gender of an author."
I copy/pasted the original text written by me, (minus quoted stuff), from my most recent 36 entries, dating from November 2004 to present...
Words: 8740
Female Score: 12843
Male Score: 20130
The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!
Okay, well, no reason to shout it please!
Apparently The Gender Genie declares my writing style as 61% male, and only 39% female.
After having read these 2 blog posts recently: Trish Wilson's Blog: Oh, Not Again! And A Month Early unrequited narcissism - goddman those ukranian mail order brides
It seems to me that if I could figure out a way to pretend I'm a man, write vitriolic controversial political themed entries, and simultaneously post a sexy & sultry photo of myself on my main page - I would be incredibly popular! Thank goodness it's not my fondest ambition - that kind of feat would surely be tiring!
I'd always wondered why some women have very sexual e-mail addresses, or use very sexual nicknames on forums and such. This puzzled me when I first set out on the internet and encountered such nicknames.
Surely everyone on the internet for even just a few weeks will come across some, such as: hotlips4u, softnsilky, hornybaby, sweetnsexy, sugarkissmamma, etc.
Heck, even if you only use the internet for work purposes you might come across such nicknames, because some women use e-mail addresses like that to conduct business correspondence. I've heard of people actually sending resumes for corporate jobs using those types of e-mail addresses.
Why would a woman choose such a nickname when she's going to be judged first by her internet nickname? Even in a strictly social environment, it would seem to me that it's inviting sexual objectification right from the get-go. I would've thought actually defeats the once often pushed idea that someone can get to know someone else's mind before their body on the internet.
And then it occurred to me... it's the way to "dress provocatively" in places on the internet where otherwise no one would know if the girl was wearing a low cut dress sans bra & down to the belly button, a mini-skirt without underwear, or deliberately letting g-string underwear show in some butt cleavage.
No wonder why it struck me that women with such nicknames were "on the make".
And no wonder why it would never occur to me to choose a nickname like domebigboyimeasy. Because I'm not 'on the make'... I don't want to get mixed up in sexual contexts on the internet with people who would objectify me.
I was particularly put off of internet dating services, when I heard women using the service have actually been recommended to use such sexual nicknames, because apparently it significantly boosts the offers a woman will get from men on the service. Frankly, from my point of view, that doesn't speak well of the men on the service. And it confirmed my suspicion that internet dating services are really just the internet equivalent of meeting in a bar... 'the meat market'.
Am I saying it's wrong for a woman to tend to her appearance and want to look attractive? Not at all.
Do I think it's wrong that people pick each other up for meaningless affairs based on cheap carnal lust in 'meat markets'? Definitely not my business to tell other people what to do or not to do.
But do I think showing butt cleavage is attractive? Not at all.
So you won't see me sporting a nickname on the internet like sweetloverpie.
The first odd phone call my friend received, she didn't know what was going on, of course.
A woman left a message on her answering machine saying something like, "I'm going to be coming down this weekend, and I was wondering what I should wear. What is the dress code?".
The story kind of reminds me of how on Keeping Up Appearances, Hyacinth Bucket would get calls to her white slim-line telephone with last number automatic redial, for a Chinese restaurant, and she was always very put out by people trying to give her orders for Chinese take-away.
If my friend were Hyacinth Bucket, she'd probably assume it was someone planning to attend one of her candlelight suppers, and the person was duly concerned about appropriate dress for the occasion. But as it is, my friend was wondering who the hell was this stranger that was thinking of stopping by uninvited, and why did she imagine she had a dress code at her house?
As it turned out, my friend's home phone number is very similar to the phone number of a local theatre.
And since that time, she receives regular phone calls from patrons planning to attend this theatre, attempting to make reservations, with questions about the dress code or address, etc. For some reason, answering the phone like a home phone, and an outgoing message on the answering machine that sounds like a residence, not a business, has not deterred people from believing they'd reached the theatre.
My friend contacted the phone company about this inconvenience, for everyone involved, and inquired about getting her phone number changed, even though that would of course cause some inconvenience to herself. But the phone company refused to change the phone number for free, and it would take something like a $50 fee to change her phone number. My friend, doesn't have that kind of money to just throw around because some theatre patrons are pressing the wrong buttons on their phones.
Others have had some hilarious suggestions about what to do with the situation.
One person suggested having a bit of fun... And informing patrons that the dress code for the theatre is things like "Medeival" or "Pirates" or "Sleepover" or "Circus", and then going to the theatre on that night herself, to see who shows up in a suit of armor, a peg leg & an eye patch, pajamas, or an orange wig, big shoes & a ruffle.
I couldn't help thinking of Brigit Jones showing up to a fancy garden party in a Playboy Bunny type outfit, under the impression she was attending a "Vicars & Tarts" costume party.
Another suggestion my friend had was to basically blackmail the theatre into paying for her to have her phone number changed - promising to pull pranks like this if they didn't agree to foot the bill.
Personally, I don't think this speaks well of the phone company's customer service to their customers & community. But then, as was said numerous times in the film, The President's Analyst, "Everybody hates the phone company".
Reasons for hating diamonds & diamond engagement rings
These are pretty much the main reasons why I don't like diamonds, and I don't believe in diamond engagement rings.
It's a waste of money. As a form of jewelery, they serve no practical purpose, and there are plenty of other gems that look just as nice, if not better.
They're not rare. So owning one isn't owning something rare or mysterious anyway, if that's the perceived appeal.
It's not a good investment. The resale value isn't good. There's no collectors market. And De Beers controls large volumes of diamonds, and if & when that changes, and their stockpiles are let loose, diamonds will be worth only a tiny fraction of their current "value". The same will happen when the synthetic diamonds which are indistinguishable from real ones flood the market.
Advertising campaigns & marketing schemes have duped people. And who likes to be duped?
They could be used for vast improvements in technology, but they aren't, because De Beers favours making money off duping people who buy them for non-practical purposes.
They have been used, and are still used, to fund nasty wars in some parts of the world.
The people who mine diamonds often lack basic medical attention or adequate living conditions, never mind fancy baubles.
There are other ways to declare your love, validate your relationship, and symbolize committment, without spending money in such a reckless, materialistic, and unconsciencious fashion.
Diamond engagement rings are not an "age old tradition" - it's a rather new preference, propelled by an advertising campaign.
Even in our modern, materialistic world, it's possible to live, exist, function, and be happy, without ever owning a diamond. And many of the world's most lovingly matched couples have never needed a diamond to validate their relationship, or prove their devotion to one another.
Personally, I would never accept diamond jewelery as a gift of any sort, and definitely not a diamond engagement ring. Chances are if someone knew me well enough to be proposing marriage to me, they would know how I feel about diamonds. If someone didn't know, or they offered me a diamond engagement ring anyway, I would question their suitability as my partner in life.
I also wouldn't want a synthetic diamond, but mainly on the grounds that I think there are other gemstones that are much prettier anyway, and because I just don't care to buy into the whole showing off materialistic social game crap.
For those who think I'm insulting them, for having given or received diamonds... I realize that much of the population is ignorant to the truth. Which is the bulk of the reason why this page exists. It exists to inform, not to insult. After reading all this information, there's no longer an excuse - if you still feel good about your diamond(s), and are still insulted somehow, there's not much I can do about that. Someone else's displeasure with the truth does not make me guilty of personally insulting anyone.
The Straight Dope: Is a diamond's price a true measure of its value?
"I bet if your wife knew the real story she'd prefer her next gift to be a nice socket-wrench set. Diamonds are a con, pure and simple. The topic is vast, so we won't discuss worker exploitation or for that matter "blood diamonds" used to finance African wars. Instead I'll focus on whether diamonds are worth the exorbitant sums charged for them. Answer: Of course not. Prices are kept high by a cynical cartel that preys on vanity and stupidity."
Wired 11.09: The New Diamond Age
The diamond industry fought back. Early last year, De Beers began shipping improved, even more sensitive DiamondSure machines to labs around the world. Meanwhile, industry groups led by the Jewelers Vigilance Committee have pressured the Federal Trade Commission to force Gemesis to label its stones as synthetic.
The tussle goes to the heart of the marketing problem for Gemesis or any maker of synthetic gems: How will consumers feel about them? The mystique of natural diamonds is anything but rational. Part of the allure is their high cost and supposed rarity. Yet diamonds are plentiful - De Beers maintains vast stockpiles and tightly controls supply.
Clever marketing may bring buyers around to manufactured diamonds. After all, there's no chance that they are so-called blood diamonds - stones sold by African rebels to fund wars and revolutions. And they aren't under the thumb of an international cartel accused of buying off foreign governments, despoiling the environment, flouting antimonopoly laws, and exploiting mine workers.
FRONTLINE: reports: the diamond empire | PBS
Second only to Christmas, Valentine's Day is the holiday when diamonds are most often given as the ultimate token of love. Central to the diamond's role as a romantic symbol is the belief that diamonds are one of the rarest, most precious gifts for a loved one. But it's only a myth--diamonds are found in plentiful supply. FRONTLINE examines how the great myth about the scarcity of diamonds and their inflated value was created and maintained over the decades by the diamond cartel. This report chronicles how one family, the Oppenheimers of South Africa, gained control of the supply, marketing, and pricing of the world's diamonds.
The History of the Engagement Ring
From 1880 De Beers were able to control the supply (and price) of diamonds but how were they going to control demand during a period when sales began dropping dramatically (up to 50%) in the 20s and 30s onwards through the great depression?
Just as platinum started to become popular in diamond engagement rings, diamonds were becoming less valued. Platinum was banned for all but war use during WWII and so the platinum diamond engagement rings as we know them today almost died out.
The answer to the problem was a new marketing campaign commissioned by De Beers that began in 1947.
The Holowach Blog: Diamonds are a girl's worst enemy
But, one might be able to forgive that. After all, it has become a sort of tradition, despite the origins. I would agree with that, except for the terrible way in which diamonds arrive at the shores of the U.S.
The South Africa-based De Beers cartel controls the diamond market overwhelmingly. By controlling existing sources of diamonds, limiting production, and if sometimes buying up surplus gems and stockpiling them, it can single-handedly control the price and market. So, the diamonds you're buying are worth a surprisingly shallow amount, but they have been overvalued hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars. You are being doubly duped.
....
After all this, if you still want that goddamn rock, then I can't stop you. But maybe the idea of thinking about child labor, AIDS-infected miners, and violent civil wars every time you look at that ring on your finger will give you pause to reconsider.
NEPA Whirl-Mart - Diamonds are a gullible girl's best friend
"But Donna Bergenstock, a marketing professor at Muhlenberg College, points out their scarcity is a myth, one created long ago by DeBeers, the South African company that's dug up most of the world's diamonds."
Diamonds are for everyone - Recently. A (We)Blog
Well I beg to differ, I’d say it’s not a symbol of eternal love if there’s a stockpile in a warehouse that’s collecting dust. Or if it is a blood diamond. I don’t plan on giving De Beers any of my money.
Howstuffworks "How Diamonds Work"
"Diamonds are just carbon in its most concentrated form. That's it -- carbon, the element that makes up 18 percent of the weight of your body. In many countries, including the United States and Japan, there is no other gemstone as cherished as the diamond, but in truth, diamonds are no more rare than many other precious gems. They continue to demand higher market prices because the majority of the diamond market is controlled by a single entity."
ZachEverson.com: Diamonds are for suckers: How De Beers transformed diamonds into a symbol of love
"Contrary to popular opinion, diamonds can shatter, crack, discolor, and lose value. And they are not rare. In fact, diamonds have been plentiful since 1870, when huge deposits were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa. 3 Diamonds are now mined in several African countries, as well as in Russia, Australia, and Canada. At first, De Beers controlled 90 percent of the diamond market and, by controlling supply, was able to maintain the illusion of scarcity — and keep prices high. Now De Beers controls about 66 percent of the market. 4 The newer players have not challenged De Beers’s artificially inflated prices, however, as they benefit from them too."
Harvard International Review: Dying for Diamonds
By selling diamonds, Africa's rebels have been able to resupply themselves almost constantly, prolonging their reigns of terror and brutality in countries like Angola that have not seen peace in years.
Blood Diamonds: Tracing the Deadly Path of the World's Most Precious Stones
"Blood Diamonds is not driven by ideological ranting or self-righteous outrage. What gives the book its compelling rhythm is the simple, grim symmetry that Campbell lays before the reader. He contrasts, for example, the image of diamonds glittering on distant hands with the severed hands of locals who have never even seen the stones they are suffering for."
AfricaFiles | Diamonds are a war's best friend
Since the end of the Cold War, the conflict in Angola has developed into a bloody political and ethnic war funded by diamonds and oil, resulting in over half a million deaths. The fourth richest country in the world in terms of mineral resources, Angola is also the fourth poorest in terms of standard of living. Angola's natural resources, which should bring it relative prosperity, have been at the centre of the country's devastation. This article examines the role of diamonds in the Angolan conflict in the 1990s. It focuses on UNITA's involvement in the diamond trade and the activities of transnational diamond companies, particularly in light of UN sanctions.
Majikthise : Greed is forever: De Beers cops a plea
"De Beers is a hardened corporate criminal with a long US rap sheet. De Beers first ran afoul of US authorities during World War II for refusing to provide industrial diamonds for the war effort. The Justice Department pursued price-fixing charges against the company in 1945, 1957 and 1974."
Dangerous Diamonds - Scandals Behind the Sparkle of the World's Most Desirable Gems
Diamonds are forever - the ultimate luxury good in the status stakes. They also grind out the tools and precisions parts on which our advanced civilization depends. Diamonds can add glamour to the most beautiful woman; they also finance the cruellest of civil wars. Ever since Cecil Rhodes imperial adventures in the late 19th century, a single company has stealthily extended its influence on the global market for diamonds until it achieved almost total control.
(Further links found in the future will be added in the comments.)
I am the master of my image! (putting limits on other photographers)
I have now decided that henceforth I will wield ultimate control over the use of my image.
Surely if Paris' Eiffel Tower and Chicago's Millennium Park can be copyrighted, and thus ban public photography of them, then I should be able to copyright my own person.
This is one usage of this sort of maneuver that photographers could actually benefit from, since most photographers seem to particularly dislike having thier photo taken by other people.
But I wonder if my mother would then be able to issue permits to take my photo. Not that she'd make a lot of money at it, I'm afraid. But considering she's more or less responsible for my existence (as well as my late father), she could probably claim some artist's rights.
And perhaps those religious would have to petition God for a permit, I suppose, since most people of faith would consider God to have been my artistic creator. I wonder if there's any evidence in religious documents of God dictating anything akin to copyright on any natural wonders... I'm sure some Bible literalist could make a case of that.
It's a pretty complicated issue. (Unless of course you're BoingBoing or something.)
photo of a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night taken by Joanie K. in September 1984
Fast Company Now - Eiffel Tower: Repossessed
"The Eiffel Tower's likeness had long since been part of the public domain, when in 2003, it was abruptly repossessed by the city of Paris. That's the year that the SNTE, the company charged with maintaining the tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design, and in one feel swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. In short: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that. As a result, it's no longer legal to publish current photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission. Technically, this applies even to amateurs."
local6.com - News - Man Sells 'Jesus' Brick
A North Carolina man is selling a brick that appears to feature the face of Jesus, according to Local 6 News report. Ditto Dalcher said he was sitting in his home and noticed the face above his fireplace.
"It was actually about two years ago, I'm just sitting in here and I saw it," Dalcher said. "Actually I use this room -- just saw it up there on the
fireplace and it just sort of fooled me when I first saw it. It was pretty shocking."
Dalcher noticed how much money people were making off of the Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich and Jesus in a skillet and decided to share what he found, according to the report.
I still say the Jesus face on a styrofoam cup is a lot nicer. I suppose if I marketed it on eBay I might get some notariety. But I refuse to sell out this fine piece of art to the masses! (link via Trish Wilson's Blog)
superficiality >>If the facade is what's important to you, all you wind up with is an illusion. Disillusionment is the gift of substance.
-- Chloe<<
(more)
