Finally settling an old bet

Many years ago, SuperBestFriend and I had an argument. It was a basic philosophical disagreement about the American economy, as friends are wont to have. If I were to venture a guess, I'd wager that Ben Franklin once had such a debate with his friends in the early days of American independence. The argument centered over the following question: Would Americans be more likely to buy a cookie that tasted vaguely like vagina, or a cookie that was laced with nicotine?

There were strong arguments for and against each cookie. A cookie that tasted like vagina would alienate roughly half the adult population- you'd lose straight women and gay men, but pick up a few lesbians and bi-curious cookie fans. On the other hand, many men and lesbians find themselves addicted to the miracle fruit that is the vagina, and would spend countless nights eating stacks of them. Lonely World of Warcraft players, realizing they may never know the joy of real vagina, would lessen their sorrows with a mouthful of vagina cookie.



The marketing campaign for the vagina cookie- sold under the Cookie Pussy brand name- would be aimed at males 18-35, but would also be marketed at WNBA games. During holidays, there would be seasonal varieties like Drunken Secretary At Your Office Christmas Party Cookie Pussies to compete with the various other holiday cookie varieties. There would also be not-so-subtle commercials showing Cookie Pussies being sprayed with milk, as a highly paid porn star stood by and simply said "Mmmmmm". The commercials would run just one time, then be sent via YouTube to about 8 billion people.

Nicotine cookies would alienate a large portion of Americans who have seen the negative effects of smoking. On the other hand, they'd get their base clientèle from people who ignored things like "doctors" and "reams of medical evidence" and focused on the fact that eating a nicotine cookie is just fucking cool.

Because of the uphill battle that nicotine cookies would face, they'd have to be marketed in a way that made them seem more desirable because they're only marginally fit for human consumption. And nothing says "eat me" like the chance to be a rebel, sticking it in the face of all those people who said you should try to live longer.



Thus, the marketing wouldn't hide from the negative side effects of the nicotine. The cookies- under the brand name Cookatine- would be marked as borderline risky. Consumers would have to be brave to try them, and people love demonstrating their bravery when it requires as little effort as possible. Cookatines would have the benefit of addicting the customers who tried them, which would fuel sales. After a few hours without a nicotine cookie, customers would start to get a bit antsy and begin reaching for another. The people who make those "Truth" commercials for cigarettes would make ads opposing nicotine cookies, and Cookatine devotees would see the Truth ads and only want to eat more Cookatines.

And so, American (and even non-American) consumers, I pose the question to you: Which cookie would be more successful?