In keeping with the theme for SistersTalk Radio’s anniversary show Monday night, I’m looking for interesting sex articles to discuss. I found a couple of amusing articles (here and here). Some of you might find it odd that Bitch (a self-proclaimed feminist
magazine rag) refused to run the following advertisement because (supposedly, since we don’t know for sure) it’s displaying a hairy bush:
Personally, for me, a hairy bush is a dealbreaker. But I don’t claim I’m a feminist magazine published to empower all women, so I can say that.
In my opinion, it’s not the hairy bush that bothers the folks over at Bitch. It’s the hairy bush peeking out of a pair of pink panties that bothers them. If that hairy bush was visible through the opening of a pair of plaid boxers, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. True hairy feminists don’t wear pink undies, correct?
Of course I’m joking.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Bitch rag can do whatever it wants and reserves the right to refuse any advertisement. But, does anyone else find it odd that a feminist magazine that’s struggling to pay its bills wouldn’t run an ad like this one? It seems pretty harmless to me, but then again, I’m not one of those kinds of feminists so I wouldn’t understand what “harmless” means to them.
And yep, I used the qualifier “those kinds” to describe those kinds of feminists. We’ll be discussing this more on SistersTalk Radio Monday night. Join us!
One of my Twitter followers said “Though, rather than the hair it may have been the male stereotype on the front of the panties that did it.”
Since we don’t know for sure, let’s assume (hypothetically, of course) that the reason Bitch refused to run the ad is because it supposedly objectifies women. Pfft! Call me an objectifier then because I love pretty pink vaginas – and a whole lot of sex positive lesbians would agree with me.