Both the Huffington Post and the New York Times have recently gotten really interested in girl-on-girl action (but don’t worry, this has nothing to do with Lindsay Lohan and Sam Ronson. Absolutely nothing. Seriously. Nothing). They’ve gotten so interested, in fact, that they’ve dedicated whole columns to trying to figure out why it seems like chicks dig other chicks.

Let me break it down for them (and you, if you really don’t know): chicks dig chicks because we’ve been taught to dig chicks.

Why do women seem to have a more fluid sexuality than men – at least that anyone will admit? Because since we came shrieking out of the womb, we’ve seen images of women in every stage of undress – including naked. Advertisements for razors with long, leisurely shots of legs. TV shows that have a mandatory wardrobe of tight clothes and short skirts. A bajillion movies where tits and ass flash across the screen so often that we eventually forget guys even have body parts. Music videos full of bling and boob. Reality TV where hot tubs are as mandatory as microphones. Porn (who could forget porn?). I mean, it’s not an old argument that the media is saturated with the female form.

So why are we all puzzled that girls get a little aroused when they see other naked or semi-naked girls?

I’m no scientist, but if all I saw were images of broccoli strewn over the airwaves for 25 years, I’m sure I’d think pretty differently about broccoli. The media would have formed my appreciation of broccoli. Broccoli would be part of my daily life.

See what I’m getting at?

And in the same way, if tomatoes were also all over the airwaves, but not as prevalent as broccoli, I’m sure I’d be more comfortable around broccoli (in this analogy, tomatoes equal the male form). Sure, chiseled chests and naked guys are around, but brocc – I mean, the sexualized female form – is more prevalent.

Vegetables aside, it’s obvious to anyone with a brain that society tells most of us what to do and how to think, and for 25 years, I’ve been taught to equate the female form with sexuality, pleasure, and beauty.

So don’t get all surprised if my pulse runs a little quicker when I stumble across a nip slip on the internet. It doesn’t mean I’m gay.

It just means society is working.

I adore the whole designer-lines-at-discount-stores trend, and more specifically I love love LOVE Topshop, the stylish UK chain that’s finally coming to New York in the Fall (Yay!). But dear lord, Kate Moss, you’re making my life difficult.

A month or so ago, Topshop launched the latest collection from Moss, which, frankly, hasn’t been doing that well so far. Critics point out that Moss seems to be designing clothes for, well, herself; so unless you’re tall and ridiculously skinny and possibly a recovering coke addict, her clothes probably won’t look good on you. They will look good on her though! Super!

This new collection is no different (ridiculously long floor-length dress: if you’re shorter than 6’, it can double as a broom!), but with an added bonus: it’s all really ugly! Let’s take a quick look, shall we?

This scarf print dress looks just like something I sewed myself…in middle school.

What the…what IS this? I don’t know. This looks like the back of something, not the front. What do you wear under it? And it costs 150 pounds…that’s more than $300!!!

Ohhh, so THAT’S where grandma’s old blanket went!

I only really like one thing in the new collection, this “50’s Style Dress”.

Good Kate, I’m glad you figured out that some of us have a waist! And hips! However, I’m willing to bet that even the larger sizes are too small in the boob area (we know you don’t have boobs, love, but we do).

Overall, a disappointment. C’mon Topshop, you can do better than this!

Reebok must have heard those imagined thoughts (because I certainly never thought them) and created a product that pretty much defies all logic but still probably sells well: the scented sports bra!

For a mere $28.95, your breasts can smell like they just brushed their teeth…or something. What’s the value in having minty fresh boobs?

I guess for the sweaty chicks among us, the minty scent can mask the otherwise offensive odors that may eminate from our chest, right? I mean sports bras and boob sweat go together like Bret Michaels and strippers!

But honestly, I’ve never noticed that boobs may need a little scented boost. So, the only other reason that this unnecessary product could possibly exist would have to be the aromatheraputic properties of peppermint.

Maybe your sinuses need a little clearing out in the midst of your kickboxing class.

Maybe your 10-mile run could use a little spicing up (especially on the streets of Manhattan). Or, maybe you’re just out to catch the eye (or nose) of that dude in the weight room who looks to actually have an IQ of over 50.

Is this stupid product absolutely ridiulous, um, yes. Does it smell good? Mixed with gym sweat…no. But all you hippy chicks on your way to Pilates…enjoy!

And for the rest…I hope you catch that mint-loving jock!

No? Well, someone has.

The Faveo Freedom Bra, invented by “scientist / business woman” Joanne Morgan, is supposedly the next best thing in undergarments, but looks to me like the next best thing in uncomfortable.

After buying a strapless dress and having no bra to wear with it, Morgan decided that instead of returning her purchase, she as going to whip something up herself. “I started to experiment with new ways to invent a bra.”

Morgan is quoted as saying, “I had my Eureka moment after a couple of glasses of wine.”

Her “Eureka moment” seems to consist mostly of a belty-strap thing that squeezes each individual boob and a piece of fabric that goes over the front. How this actually provides support or is even worth buying is beyond me, but maybe that’s just because I’m not a “scientist / business woman”.

Want to see more? Check out the instructional video after the jump!

What do you think? Would you drop $50 on this bra / belt / fabric that squashes your boobies?