I’m enjoying the men crossly replying to this “actually, the deputy leader of the Greens didn’t hypnotise a woman to make her breasts bigger, he hypnotised her to make her BELIEVE her breasts were bigger” and… lads, are you under the impression the problem with this story is the resulting boob size?
This is not some kind of boob transubstantiation versus boob consubstantiation issue. The problem either way is… oh good grief do I really have to explain this? Absolute clown shit
“Of course he didn’t believe he could actually enlarge the breasts. He was merely engaging in a confidence trick, attempting to delude a woman”
Sun journalist posing as a customer: "Can hypnotherapy make my boobs bigger?"
Hypnotherapist: "No, it cannot. That's not how it works at all. But it can make you *think* they're bigger."
How is this hypnotherapist trying "engaging in confidence trick, attempting to delude a woman (Sun reporter)?
He didn’t actually say that! You’re welcome to look at the original piece to find out what he did say.
www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798...
You are feeling busty ... very busty! Can you really THINK your boobs bigger?
You are feeling busty … very busty! Can you really THINK your boobs bigger?
Ok, that's tawdry and gross. But the Sun's story also says it worked, at least temporarily, which seems very unlikely to me.
That seems rather beside the point
So the article is hard-hitting factual journalism from the Sun, apart from that one bit that obviously isn’t, but the rest of totally is though, honest. Got it.
Struggling to follow your logic here, not least because you seem to keep moving the goalposts. Are you claiming they made the entire piece up? Because I don’t think Polanski is claiming that.
I'm trying to find out whether we should be treating this article as irrelevant tabloid fluff or a hard-hitting expose that needs to be taken very seriously indeed. It reads like the former to me but everyone in your replies seems to be treating it as the latter, and I'm confused as to why.
May 13, 2025 11:39
