Our Vaginas, Ourselves

33 thoughts on Our Vaginas, Ourselves

1. Pardon my curiosity, but why on earth do you know what a merkin is?

2. Here is a related article with details and interviews, Designer Vaginas.

3. Magnus, she may be only a woman but she is literate. What’s your excuse?

4. Maybe she is a Peaches fan.

5. Omg, ouch, ouch, ouch. I’d like to kick the person who thought of Designer Vaginas in their nether regions many, many times.

6. Oh, so body choice only applies to the choices you want them to make?

   If a woman wants to have her vagina changed, what’s the issue? Nobody’s making any of you do it.

7. Some people want to have their healthy limbs cut off, too, but that’s generally frowned upon.

8. Oh, so body choice only applies to the choices you want them to make?

   If a woman wants to have her vagina changed, what’s the issue? Nobody’s making any of you do it.

   No one’s saying that it should be illegal or punishable, and I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a country that didn’t allow women to do insane things to their nether regions if they saw fit. The question is why this practice, which seems at the very least insane, is popular or profitable.

9. On the plus side, keep writing about vaginoplasty and I’ll be able to crack walnuts with all the Kegels those articles make me do.

10. Well, it happens because women decide they want to do it.

    What’s the problem? Yeah, it’d be great if everyone could feel great about the body they have, and not feel like they needed to compare or improve, but they don’t, always. If this surgery makes the women who have it feel better, what’s the issue? Freedom is supporting people’s rights to make the choices that we hate.

11. Excuse? Well, stupidity I guess. I didn’t know about malkin either. But your definition of “litterate” is pretty high, merkin is not exactly an everyday word (I hope).

    (Jokes aside, English is not my native language.)

12. I saw that article; it was good, but I wish it went further. I loved to interview women who get these vaginal surgeries and see hoe they frame this. I also feel that internet porn and the general proliferation of porn has been a big contributor to this problem. Yes it’s great that we can see our vaginas now and don’t treat them like a mystery, but now we have a vagina standard (just like perky D-cup breasts). I don’t know what the hell it is? Can somebody tell me? I guess I haven’t seen enough porn.

    (I am also reminded of why I am very uncomfortable with the idea of the bald vagina on an adult woman–reminds me of child molestation and it opens up this form of objectification.).

13. I meant I would love to interview….haven’t done it yet. And how not hoe. LOL!

14. We carry our signs of arousal – our receptivity – on the inside

    WTF? Receptivity? An erection is usually “receptive” to various kinds of stimulation, but who uses that word for it? God, misogyny is creepy.

15. And the clitoris is neither “on the inside” nor in the vagina.

16. “Mrs Byrne’s Dictionary”, by Josepha Haifetz Byrne, also defines merkin as “a mop for swabbing out cannons.”

17. Pingback: “My Name is Pussy…” No More » Sexerati

18. Like most plastic surgery, there is a small percentage of women who need this surgery – it would be nice if they could be financed by those who want the surgery, and perhaps this doctor is one of the plastic surgeons who does do this (Im an optimist).
    I dont think it’s exactly “gender equalizing” since I think that a surgeon would try to repair real damage anyway but at least this way you are creating “experts”.

19. The bald vagina is not supposed to invoke pre-pubescent girls; try to keep in mind that most men have almost never seen the vulvas of prepubescent girls, at least not after our puberty, so why would we be attracted to them?

    It’s a concession to cunillingus. It’s much more pleasant to do without a mouthful of hair.

    I still don’t see why women having this surgery is a “problem” except to anyone who views themselves as the ultimate arbiter of what other people can do to their bodies.

    And I’d like to see a little more evidence before we start framing this issue as “men demanding body changes from women.” I’ve rarely heard men fault a woman’s vulva for not meeting some kind of “standard”, except in some extreme cases of uncleanliness or the like.

20. Chet, most men are or have been fathers of girls. The majority have seen a prepubescent vulva. Your drinking buds ain’t the universe.

    But you’re right about the whys and wheretofores.

21. Actually, I have said before that I think the completely shaved pubic mound (as opposed to the Brazillian minimal tuft or the landing strip) is an outgrowth of the BDSM community. Being especially naked and exposed in the genital region is sort of a sub thing, and I think it (complete shaving, not extensive trimming) has come to be first a kink signifier and then a way for vanilla folks to feel edgy.

22. The idea that a bare vulva is linked to pre-pubescent girls is partly because so many of the other female beauty standards are related to pre-pubescent girls, so it all fits together nicely. Lack of hair on the legs, lack of hair under the arms, extreme skinniness, large eyes, etc.

    I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s true in general and certainly not that it’s not the *direct* reason for all men who like the look, but I don’t think it can be so easily dismissed. If it were about cunnilingus then women not shaving their legs and armpits wouldn’t be such a big deal.

23. Women shaving their armpits and legs are entirely a product of 20th century marketing. Razor companies did a huge marketing push around the turn of the century and pretty much changed the social norm.

24. I’m not so sure about that, Robert. At least not for non-Western cultures. A friend of mine is Indian, and has told me that Indian women have been removing body hair one way or another for centuries. Threading, for instance, is very new here but very old on the Subcontinent.

25. I admit complete cluelessness when it comes to other cultures. I’m just going from a report I read some years ago about the big marketing push in the US when razor companies were looking for more markets.

26. I won’t comment on shaved pits of legs and what it means. Since I shave mine during the summer months, my perspective is different. When it comes to shaved pubes, I fully support that. Vaginas are very sexy and I love being able to actually see them unencumbered by hair that hides all the details. My GF doesn’t do it too often, she doesn’t like the itchyness as it grows back. But occassionally she gets kinky and has me shave her (it is always a team activity). The fun lasts weeks;-).

27. Most men are the fathers of girls? Robert, can you substantiate that position?

    I’m not yet convinced even that the female beauty standards mentioned above actually are intended to invoke pre-pubescence. Shaving of the leg and armpit? Is it possible that peopke are simply rejecting on women what is strongly masculine – lots of body hair? Seems much more likely to me than a universal trend for pedophilia in men.

    I’m attracted to women who shave those areas. I’ve never been attracted to pre-pubescent girls, or pre-pubescent anyone for that matter. So clearly, hairlessness in those areas isn’t meant to signify or evoke pre-pubescence, at least to people like me. And why would it? By definition, pre-pubescents are neither sexually receptive nor fertile. What would be the purpose of being attracted to them? Certainly youth is attractive, and the evolutionary reason for that should be clear, but an appearance of youth to the extreme of prepubescence? Useless from an evolutionary perspective.

28. The shaving of body hair as an invocation of extreme femininity isn’t a weird idea at all. It goes along quite well with some of the other beauty stereotypes – breasts and sometimes butts exaggerated in size, for example – but not for others -s kinniness is a major one. In any case, I don’t think it can be attributed to any single factor.

    Evolutionarily, impregnating girls under, say, 16 in general is a pretty bad idea, because in nature, even if they can physically get pregnant (and most of them can) they’re not going to have healthy pregnancies and many of them aren’t going to survive the births or will be severely injured during them.

    But evolutionarily, pubic hair is AWESOME because it “traps” the scent of arousal, armpit hair and as you said, other body hair signifies post-pubescence. And overweight women should be preferred to skinny women. The only image of beauty consistent with evolution would be: an “average” to slightly overweight woman with shaven legs but a hairy vulva & armpits, wide and fat-heavy hips, large breasts, and heavy periods.

29. There’s not really any scientific evidence for asserting that the function of pubic hair is to trap arousal scents or produce pheremone-like odors. Another, possibly more likely explanation is that pubic hair cushions the pelvic area during intercourse.

    (Heavy periods? That would be selected against, not for.)

    But, yeah. The evolutionary image of beauty is curvaceous and large-breasted, symmetrical and fit. And that’s an image that has remained popular throughout human civilization, including our contemporary society.

30. Shaving of the leg and armpit? Is it possible that peopke are simply rejecting on women what is strongly masculine – lots of body hair?

    In what sense are all post-pubertal women “strongly masculine?”

    Women who grow noticeable, copious hair on their faces or chests would indeed be rejecting ‘masculinity’ when they depilated those areas. But growing hair on the armpits and groin and legs is a sign of physical, adult, femininity. This is a biological truth, whether or not it offends your sense of aesthetics. What you’re doing is deciding that anything that happens to both men and women alike is “masculine.” You would do as well to say that women who become more interested in sex and academics as their bodies and minds mature are embracing “masculinity,” because common humanity is supposed to be a masculine possession.

    Of course, some people do say that.

31. Well, though I’m pretty sure that heavy periods don’t mean that a woman is more fertile, they’re as much of a pointless exaggerated trait to select as large breasts are held to be – lighter periods can mean a woman is less fertile.

    And I disagree very strongly that current images of female beauty are “curvaceous, symmetrical, and fit,” but I suppose that since you take the exact opposite view it’s not worth arguing over.

32. Women who grow noticeable, copious hair on their faces or chests would indeed be rejecting ‘masculinity’ when they depilated those areas. But growing hair on the armpits and groin and legs is a sign of physical, adult, femininity.

    You undercut your own premise by conceding mine. After all, post-pubertal women do grow lip hair as well, but interestingly enough you haven’t styled lip hair removal as some kind of male-enforced beauty code. Maybe because you don’t like lip hair on women? (Or even men as well, maybe.)

    And that’s what it’s all about. The things that you find attractive or unattractive about women are perfectly fine and legitimate preferences for appearance; the things that I find attractive, as a man, are simply examples of patriarchal, pedophillic standards of beauty.. It’s a double standard.

    Women don’t have to shave those areas, or any area they don’t want to shave. There’s no law about it. A lot of men and women don’t find that attractive, however, and so they feel pressure to do so – just as I feel pressure to be fit, smell nice, shave, and project an appearance of affluence and wealth because that’s what men and women, largely, find attractive on a man. To the woman who cares about me, I express a preference about her appearance – because she asks – and she complies as far as she finds comfortable and convinient; when she expresses a preference to me I comply as well. Because we care enough about the other person to appear pleasing to them.

    There’s no law that says you have to do what is attractive. I think a casual look around anywhere where people gather pretty much proves this is the case. But no one is an island, as it were; we want things from people, like their attention, or their consideration, or to have sex with them. Is it really unreasonable to be expected to make a concession to that person’s preferences if you’re trying to get them to do something with or for you?

33. And I disagree very strongly that current images of female beauty are “curvaceous, symmetrical, and fit,” but I suppose that since you take the exact opposite view it’s not worth arguing over.

    Well, it depends where you look. I didn’t mean to suggest that this image was the sole standard for beauty in our culture, by any means; but there’s plenty of places where curvy women are held up as idols of beauty.

    But, yeah, not worth arguing. We may not agree on what “fit” or “curvy” really mean, anyway. You may find “curvy” what I find “overweight.”

Comments are currently closed.