Your Pubic Hairs Are Freaking Me Out

bethlynn00
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 08:31 am: [report]

You know I am into the au naturel when it comes to pubic hair, I hope it comes back in style, but if I were a restaurant I wouldn’t want customers thinking about pubic hair and my food…maybe that’s just me.

VannaMarie
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 08:32 am: [report]

While it is an eye-catching and edgy advertisement, I am not quite sure how it could be found offensive or sexist? Perhaps the statement about the “pink boxes”, but they do not say anything negative… Now if they had included the names of their desserts, I could see that being more controversial…

TotallyRidiculous
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 08:36 am: [report]

I’m not sure it was so much the pubic hair that the magazine objected to, as the rest of the add…especially considering we are talking about Portland Oregon, here.  But I agree, it’s not particularly appetizing.

papayalily
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 08:40 am: [report]

Personally, I prefer shaved - and I prefer my girlfriends to be shaved. While I’m not offended by the ad, I do wonder if I’ll end up with pubic hairs in my mouth the same way you do with a different kind of pink box.

SamL
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 08:40 am: [report]

I totally agree with VannaMarie.

Personally I like the cheeky appearance of some pubic hair in this context, despite being totally bare myself…. (...even I used to have pubic hair!)

I really like the ad and I’m surprised Bitch refused to run it. I would have thought, obviously like the Doughnut guys, that it would be right up their strasse!

Maybe it was the use of the expression “pink box” that offended them!

camille905
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 08:46 am: [report]

I think the ad is rather cute….and seems more a celebration of femininity than not.

Linz
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 08:48 am: [report]

@TotallyRidiculous what do you mean by “especially considering we are talking about Portland Oregon, here.”  What does that have to do with the ad.  Honestly, I can’t tell if you’re complimenting or making fun of the town.

bogart4017
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 09:02 am: [report]

I love the natural look—just not in an ad for a restaurant.

francismeow
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 09:25 am: [report]

I really don’t think the issue is pubic hair. I think the offence (for me, at least) comes from the fact that a woman’s body is being used to shill a product…a frequently used tactic in advertising that reduces women to their sexuality/desirability…

lea322
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 09:38 am: [report]

Restaurant isn’t the word I would use to describe Voodoo. It’s a place you go for cooky yet delicious pastry after the bars close. It’s got a very “Portland” feel to it, and it’s definitely a landmark, but restaurant sounds like too classy of a label for it! The ad makes sense with the vibe they put out.

pragmatryst
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 10:40 am: [report]

It is quite clear that this advertisement is another attempt by a patriarchal society to reinforce the agenda of sacrificing women at the alter of male pleasure.  In the print ad, a faceless au natural proto-female is presented in a cutesy double-entendre comparing her so-called “pink box” with the signature pastel containers this “edgy” bakery uses to house its yummy fried confections.  This might seem fairly harmless at first glance, but in reality it is a thinly veiled allegory where the woman is the utilitarian vessel burdened with the task of carrying around the carefully packaged “goodies” to be enjoyed at the whim of the proto-male consumer.  As if this weren’t bad enough, the fact that men are granted the additional power role as sole possessors of the coveted “frosting” in this scenario and the subversive implications become quite obvious.  The fact that Bitch Magazine was astute enough to recognize the misogynistic undertones in play shows that they are clearly at the top of their game in protecting their naive readership from harmful subjugation at the hands of irresponsible doughnut peddlers.  Thank God they averted this crisis.

I Go To 11
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 11:33 am: [report]

When I pick up a box of donuts, the last thing I want to find is pubic hair. For that reason, this ad grosses me out.

barisaxchick
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 02:03 pm: [report]

I am a feminist and from Portland, and I don’t see how this ad is considered offensive. Sure, the pubic hair might gross some people out, but I don’t see what the problem is? “Good things come in pink boxes” is definitely a double entendre, but that’s Voodoo, they’re fun and kooky. I’m sure some people find Voodoo Doughnut offensive, but part of why my friends and I enjoy going there is that they’re silly and don’t worry about offending some people.

Oh, and Triple Chocolate Penetration totally rocks my world.

vegan_eskimo
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 02:18 pm: [report]

That’s VooDoo donuts for you!  Lol!

You think that add is funny, you should see the male underwear that has VD Donuts’ slogan on the back “The Magic is in the Hole”, lol!

Seriously, this ad is more female-positive then any other underwear ad possibly ever!

My fave VooDoo Donut HAS to be the Vegan VooDoo Doll!

majicksand
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 02:23 pm: [report]

I think they should run two ads side by side—frosted and unfrosted.

kellieann
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 02:41 pm: [report]

People are too sensitive! If you don’t like it don’t eat there!

jambadreamer07
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 02:45 pm: [report]

I feel like there should be some effort to at least keep yourself groomed down there, just people keep thier eye brows tweezed… but that doesn’t mean a brazilian. Besides, the girl in the picture obviously waxed the sides of her vag lol.

pragmatryst
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 02:51 pm: [report]

@kellieann: “People are too sensitive! If you don’t like it don’t eat there!”

Yeah, same goes for the doughnut shop.

majicksand
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 02:54 pm: [report]

@pragmatryst: lol

ankle
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 06:04 pm: [report]

I wouldn’t mind getting rid of the word “pubic”

SamL
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 08:00 am: [report]

@pragmatryst. Your “feminist” analysis of this ad and those sexist and irresponsible doughnut peddlers, had me literally rolling on the floor.

Just a brilliant depiction of the complete bullsh!t we’re all forced to hear when pseudo left wing intellectuals get any platform to spout from. Love it!

To all those who think you’ll get a pubic hair with your doughnuts because of this ad…. get a life will ya!

spatula
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 11:09 am: [report]

@pragmatryst: “same goes for the doughnut shop” PRICELESS.

I don’t really see this as sexist or offensive, I don’t really have a reaction to it one way or the other. I too am a little surprised tthat the mag refused it. I do want a doughnut now, though.

kevinh
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 03:19 pm: [report]

perhaps they mistook it for a ad for Gillette Donuts….

Secret Story Time
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 04:27 pm: [report]

I think almost everyone today prefers their sex partner have little or no pubic hair, because it’s so much more enjoyable to see the action up close, and it makes oral sex more fun.

Secretia

Oreo
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 05:33 pm: [report]

I’m not a woman, so I can’t comment from a feminist perspective, but I don’t see how this ad could be taken as offensive to women.

I can somewhat understand why a parent wouldn’t want their child to come across this ad, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it wouldn’t have turned up in the Disney Channel magazine anyway.

There’s nothing wrong with a little harmless sexuality in advertising, especially when it’s done tongue-in-cheek and goes along with the atmosphere of the company (I doubt Nabisco would update a box of Cheese Nips using a bra).  Besides, there’s nothing dirty about it whatsoever.  It’s a woman’s body.  Are humans so afraid of their parts that the sight of pubic hair in a photograph is cause for organized protest?

papayalily
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 08:25 am: [report]

@SamL I don’t think anyone was suggesting that they would ACTUALLY find a pubic hair in a doughnut (although since I don’t live in Portland, I’ve never been to VooDoo Doughnuts and can’t personally speak to their health code standards). I think it’s more the idea of getting a stray hair in your mouth when you’re trying to enjoy a tasty treat that turns people off - and then they don’t feel like eating at VooDoo, which means that ad had the opposite effect, and is poor marketing.

TotallyRidiculous
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 08:28 am: [report]

@ Linz, I wasn’t making fun of or complimenting Portland.  I was pointing out that Portland is the kind of town where a lot of women don’t shave their pubes.  Seeing a woman without shaved legs or armpits is pretty common, too.  A lot of women don’t shave to prove a feminist point. So I doubt it was the pubic hair that the mag was objecting to.  I would think they are objecting to the use of the word “boxes.”

SamL
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 09:22 am: [report]

@Secret Story Time Love both your blog and your screen name…. Great idea!

On the pubes vs. nudes conundrum, I personally vote for nudes….. both men & women!

Not that I don’t like pubes; I do, it’s just I prefer the look, feel, taste and texture of smooth, sensual skin…

MuchoMacho
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 10:24 am: [report]

love the hair.  adds so much character…  love it.

remembercedricdiggory
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 06:14 pm: [report]

@Oreo; Bitch Magazine isn’t really…“for kids”...Well, it was definitely for me when I discovered it at the age of thirteen, and my mom didn’t mind the ads for sex toy shops, because she was proud I cared that much about feminism.

DFTCTB's
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 08:52 pm: [report]

This looks like my so’s 1970’s Hustler and it serves as a reminder of what pubic hair looks like…it’s been so long since I’ve seen a bu$h like that. Also, it’s hilarious.

NaomiK
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 05:57 pm: [report]

I doubt that that’s real pubic hair anyway. I’m guessing it’s a gherkin considering how models are expected to be groomed. I pretty sure that some people would call any ad that featured a woman sexist.

bettyboo
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 08:13 am: [report]

NaomiK - I think you mean merkin..?  your spellcheck getting a bit overzealous? :0P tho that has got me imagining the pic with a wrinkly green mini-cucumber sticking out the top like an alien penis which is quite amusing in itself.. :oP

NaomiK
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 08:51 am: [report]

LMAO Awkward! Oh, evil spell check. Yes, merkin is what I meant.

bonnykate
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 05:06 pm: [report]

I can see why Bitch turned it down, if they didn’t want to associate themselves with that business. But as far as pubes showing or not showing, this type of image isn’t any more offensive than something plastered across the window of a Victoria’s Secret store. Seriously, the Morality Police need to chill the eff out.

Symian
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 06:54 pm: [report]

I’m not that concerned with this woman’s choice of grooming habits.  Some people like the Treasure-Troll-in-my-panties look (men and women).  I just can’t see myself wanting a doughnut that’s advertised on ANY patch of hair (underarm, head, leg, assfro, wh’ever).  I suppose I’ll just have to stick with Dunkin or Krispy.

adamjs
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 11:12 pm: [report]

@NaomiK: until the correction, there I was thinking you were taking this to a whole new level and coming up with some new pickled fetish on the downward trip…