October 16, 2009 | 8 Comments

Bitch Says No To Pussy—And We Wonder Why

Bitch Says No To Pussy—And We Wonder WhyBitch Magazine—a feminist publication you may have heard of—recently rejected the above ad for VooDoo Doughnut’s branded clothing line. Their rationale? They felt it was sexist, and objectifies a woman’s body in order to sell clothing.

But what makes this story really interesting is that Bitch isn’t your ordinary “no naked ladies, please” feminist magazine—as things go, they’re pretty pro-sexy. In the past, they’ve run ads for porn sites (including a porn site run by yours truly); they’ve also sponsored burlesque festival Tease-O-Rama (a move they got a good deal of flack for).

So what, pray tell, makes this specific act of sexiness one that’s anti-feminist? Is it the fact that the sexiness is gratuitous? Is the pubic hair just a bit over the line? Is it the line about good things in pink boxes? We’re scratching our heads over here—but we’d love to hear your thoughts on the issue.

· Rejected Ad Of The Week: Bitch Turns Down Pussy (animalnewyork.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Author:Lux Alptraum

View all posts by Lux Alptraum →
  • Anonymous

    i think it’s the cock reference. good things come in pink boxes, pussies are pink boxes, cocks come in pussies, therefore cocks are good things. as self-proclaimed feminist bitch would call a cock a bad thing, no? #advertising

  • Beaker

    To me it’s a great photo. Doughnuts. Holes. And another type of hole :-)

    It could have been much more suggestive, but isn’t. I don’t see what the fuss is about.

  • piggythewonderdog

    I think it’s the “hole” (vagina) = “hole” (donut) reference which may make some people uncomfortable. Although, this ad doesn’t bother me.

    I wonder if the tables were turned, would it be acceptable, like instead of having genitalia referencing donuts, have donuts referencing genitalia. i.e. If it were a picture of some deep-fried treats that look like our favorite male & female sexy bits for instance.

    Me personally, I haven’t thought about it, because yummy donuts usually end up in my belly way before I think of how sexy they look. #advertising

  • Anonymous

    Ha ha. As a Portlander, I’m 20 mins. away from Voodoo Doughnuts. :) I’m liking this ad. The doughnuts are okay. I recommend the Mango Tango.

  • Anonymous

    as a portlander who works in old town around the corner from voodoo, and knows the staff. i have to say, that all of the ladies that work their are feminists. voodoo is a fun, rad, awesome, liberal, radical place..come on bitch, i love your mag, but some of us can take a joke. besides, home girl has some bush, and that’s a pro lady lady..

  • Anonymous

    My guess is that the other things that are mentioned (a porn site operated by someone with a known female-positive agenda, burlesque, which also tends to be femme-positive) are different kettles of fish than an advertisement that blatantly sexualizes and objectifies a woman’s body for commercial purposes, arguably the epitome of exploitation. I don’t know if I agree with that rationale, but I see it as being a reasonable one on the part of the magazine editors. #advertising

  • Anonymous

    just because a company uses sex(ism) to sell their product, doesn’t automatically make it sex positive. the ad makes me squirm in a bad way. i’d rather seek out erotic material instead of being hit over the head with this type of stuff #advertising

  • Anonymous

    What’s the deal with “objectification” anyway? What does that even mean? You have an ad with a pretty woman or handsome man, someone driving a car skillfully, someone climbing a vertical cliff, someone fixing a car, someone running fast … they all focus on a subset of that person’s overall properties. But somehow the only bad one is a woman whose sexuality/beauty is in focus. I think it’s bullshit. #advertising