All Up In My Snatch


41 Responses to “All Up In My Snatch”

  1. royaltrux says:

    I’m too stunned to laugh. I’ll get over it…

  2. invictus says:

    Ahem. Right. Sorry.


    OK, got it out of my system now. Maybe.

  3. Paul Bruno says:

    As my copyrights are violated almost every day without regard I applaud this hilarious situation. 

    • Teresa Nielsen Hayden says:

      Book covers are technically under copyright, but the usual practice is to let anyone reproduce them as long as they don’t alter them — after all, they’re advertisements for the book. ABC Denver’s only misstep was to grab the wrong cover image.

      • Paul Bruno says:

        Book cover distribution is contract specific. The point is, even professionals who know better take what they want without considering the source and the copyrights of that source.

    • TheOmbudsman says:

       News coverage is generally considered “fair use” though.

      • Paul Bruno says:

         The staff member who pulled that photo obviously did not take the time to note the source of the downloaded photo. If they did they would have noticed that it came from a cheeky blog. Best journalistic practices say document your source. If the source is not documented how can anyone be sure the photo is available for use without charge?

         I agree that most news sources can use a promotional book image under fair use but any image of the cover is not the official promotional image. All major publishers use an official promotional image because of concerns about image quality and version, also many book jackets are regional or retailer specific.

  4. OldBrownSquirrel says:

    In terms of clueless-people-grabbing-images-off-the-net terms, I’m reminded of angry people waving posters featuring both Osama Bin Laden and Evil Bert:

    Also, puppet Kim Jong Il:

  5. Apocatequil Death says:

    This wins on so many levels.

    • Lexicat says:

      And yet, also fails, because, we really don’t need any more lambasting of women because they have sex, because they have sex with people one does not like, or because they are having sex while not having it with one’s self.

      Fuck the anti-slut sentiment. It is anti-woman.

      • P1rat3 says:

        While I agree with you in general, I don’t see the laughs being derived from this altered cover as slut-shaming Paula Broadwell. All that happened is that someone added a couple of words to the already pregnant title “All In”, to make a juvenile joke about the adultery that both parties committed in the course of researching and writing the book.

      • Quiche de Resistance says:

        Excellent comment, and I certainly agree with you on the need to eliminate slut-shaming. But this is not necessarily that.
        Women can use “offensive” slang as much as men, ideally in a non-slut shaming context. He was all up in HER snatch, he was educated by HER is a clear implication. In our sexist society I’m sure most will see it as a put-down of her, but I like to see it in a sexually empowered woman way.
        I also LOVE the implied meaning that Petraeus was schooled by Broadwell AND Vernon Loeb.

      • It’s amusing (in a not very fun way) to read this comment, surrounding by adverts for a T-Shirt brand that fill their ads with as much boob as possible.

      • Boundegar says:

        You forgot to add “It’s not funny!”

      • acerplatanoides says:

        Do we need more lambasting of women who use their vaginas to manipulate the patriarchy for their own personal gain?

      • sdmikev says:

        oy vey, get a sense of humor already.  no need to be offended by everything. jumping jesus on a pogo stick.  IT’S FUNNY!

        • Quiche de Resistance says:

          Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows that a burrow owl lives in a hole in the ground!  Why the hell you think they call it a burrow owl?!

      • Apocatequil Death says:

        This isn’t anti-woman but it is indicative of a farcical situation more akin to a Carry On… film then a “scandal” involving the CIA, FBI and the military. This has become a cosmic joke not only on the characters involved but the media as well. Even you got something out of it, you get to be holier then thou on the internet. Good for you.

  6. marklar marklar says:

    See what happens when you legalize weed

  7. Rickenbacker4001 says:

    Alex from Death and Taxes is claiming that they made the image and thought nothing of it till a news crew picked it up.
    They explain it here.

  8. DJBudSonic says:

    More of a comment on the quality of news reporting these days than anything else.

  9. Ant Duke says:

    Too funny?..

  10. zotlerg says:

    Call me cynical, but I can’t help thinking this was all done on purpose.

  11. acerplatanoides says:

    Someone looked in the wrong tube.

  12. jandrese says:

    You live by Google Image Search, you die by Google Image Search.  

  13. Shinkuhadoken says:

    Maybe it’s just me, but I thought the title “All In” had enough innuendo on its own.

  14. DJBudSonic says:

    Having worked on many production teams in my day this is more likely the result of the old ‘data placeholder’ snafu.  Someone was making up the gfx and inserted this image in place of the real one, then, to their horror, they went to lunch and the segment got aired before they could switch back. For the same reason I used to populate test data bases with actual information, not whatever the programmers might put in, which was usually offensive.  That way, when you forget that the client has demo access, they don’t run your test pages and end up ordering “42  $1000 Boogers” to be shipped to “Mrs. Buttface, 123 Lane, Anywhere, KS, 55555″

  15. oasisob1 says:

    It’s not photoshopped. Those are her real shoulders.

    • Halloween_Jack says:

       You know, having seen this posted a few different places, I keep thinking, damn, she’s got some powerful, Michelle Obama-league guns. She must have set some records for chin-ups at West Point.

  16. giantasterisk says:


  17. Donald Petersen says:

    Probably it’s just due to the unsophisticated circles in which I move, but I can’t remember ever seeing before the words “my” and “snatch” right next to each other.  Maybe there are lots of women who refer daily to “my snatch,” maybe even with justifiable pride, but I don’t believe I’ve met them.

    It’s never struck me as a term one applies to one’s own ladyparts, is all I’m saying.  Correct me if I’m wrong.

    More to the point, however, is the hilarity of the post.  I lol’d when my wife showed it to me, almost as hard as she did.

Leave a Reply