Skip to content

Sexist Beatdown: FUCK IT THIS TIME LET’S JUST TALK ABOUT VAGINA CRYSTALS Edition

People: It has been a trying week, and particularly evening, over at the Tiger Beatdown Headquarters. Tiger Beatdown loves you, and Tiger Beatdown cares. But also? SHIT HAS BEEN HAPPENING, over at the Tiger Beatdown. This shit pertains to, though is not exclusive to, the matters of (a) Tiger Beatdown opening a Tumblr account, (b) Tiger Beatdown’s Tumblr account making Tiger Beatdown happy for a number of The Personal Reasons, like New Friends and Such, and (c) Tiger Beatdown SOMEHOW BEING INSULTED LIKE THREE TIMES BY DAVID KARP THE VERY FOUNDER OF TUMBLR TODAY, IN A REALLY UNACCEPTABLE MANNER, WHAT THE FUCK.

Like, here is the Tiger Beatdown Feelings Journal, in handy Emoticon format, for you today:

:)

:(

:0

:D

>:-(

I hope that clarifies everything! Anyway. It’s a Friday night, kittens! And you know what that means: it’s time to stew over the shitty behavior of an Internet social networking wunderkind and watch Battlestar enjoy your totally sexy lifestyle! Which includes, of course, your vagina. Hey: how sparkly is your vagina? Is it TOO sparkly, do you think? Probably not! Probably what your vagina needs is to look MORE LIKE THE RUMP OF A SPECIAL-EDITION MY LITTLE PONY THAN USUAL. Which is to say: more sparkly! And with various cute designs on it! Look: This lady has put sparkles on her vagina. Also on or near her vagina, she has put “Jason,” who is very into her vaginal sparkles! Jason is totally creepy PS! But probably you should have sparkles on your vagina. For Jason!

Yes, it is time to talk about Vajazzling. With Amanda Hess of Washington City Paper’s The Sexist! Look. What ELSE are you doing tonight, right?

ILLUSTRATION: This was, for real, the most informative thing about Vajazzling that I could find on the Internet. Although I don’t think that is her vagina, actually? I COULD BE WRONG.

SADY: I have to tell you, to see you here today is as dazzling a sight as a gloriously bejeweled vagina!

AMANDA: Ah, yes. A butterfly bejeweled vagina or a kitten bejeweled vagina? For vaginas come in many forms of bejewelery.

SADY: I myself am having my vagina bejeweled with the face of Biggie Smalls.

AMANDA: From what I understand, the only shape in which you can not bejewel a vagina is the shape of a vagina, as I suspect the motivation of Vajazzling is to distract from the idea that the vagina is there, and it is in fact a vagina.

SADY: RIGHT? Like, I mean: I hate to be a jerk here, but if you need my vagina to dress up for this party, my suspicion is that it is not going to be much of a party. Not to be all second-wave, but the continuing impulse to make ladyparts look less like themselves and more like gifts you would get from your dingier variety of novelty shop, next to the lava lamps, bespeaks some ill to me.

AMANDA: The good news is that for the most part I think everyone believes this to be a ludicrous practice. Then again, I have not rolled with Jennifer Love Hewitt’s posse, so I may not be aware of the full scope of opinions on how much a woman’s vagina ought to look like the back of a 7th grade girl’s cell phone.

SADY: Right. I mean: I think “Vajazzling,” much like Chat Roulette or the Sex & the City bus tour of New York, is one of those things that everybody writes about because no-one actually thinks it is a good idea. And yet… there are people on Chat Roulette? And I don’t know, man. Like: I talk to girls about their Maintenance Routines, and it seems like there is always some new and trendy way to deal with what is going on there.

AMANDA: There are people who can write from experience: “Then we had sex, and none of the crystals fell off.”

SADY: WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT AT SUCH A MOMENT????????

AMANDA: Yeah. And there’s not a ton of self-reflection going on there. Even the most obvious of questions—like, Why am I bedazzling my vagina? And why has the dude I’m casually dating suddenly taken an interest in my genitalia?—are not being asked.

SADY: Right? Like, “Jason” — oh, Jason — is complimenting her with “this is the longest I’ve ever stared at a vagina.” And given that Jason has grown up in our modern, pornographically-enabled age, I… doubt that this is the case, actually? But it might be the longest he’s ever stared at HER vagina, and maybe that is the real issue here, you know?

AMANDA: Perhaps it is the closest he has gotten to like, putting his face close enough to maybe put his mouth on it?

SADY: “Sweetheart! I just noticed that there’s something down there! Have you taken a look at this, because it’s really wild!”

AMANDA: It is like people who bleach their assholes. How can you recover from an asshole-bleaching session and not wonder what the deal is with you requiring your asshole to be bleached?

SADY: Right. Like: I won’t put bleach in my eye. FOR ANYONE. I don’t care if you write me beautiful sonnets, if you are also like “and ah, the way you make me sigh / please stick some bleach into your eye,” the answer is STILL NO. And I really don’t think your asshole should be negotiable territory for bleaching EITHER. But what it reminds ME of, to take an even more extreme example, is that operation where you get your Business SURGICALLY CUT UP to be more attractive? ”Labiaplasty!” It is a thing! And people do it! And then a year later their boyfriends or whatever STILL FEAR THE VAGINA so they have to make it look like a My Little Pony with vajazzling, I guess.

AMANDA: I just wonder why they still want to put their dicks in it? I mean, take the anal bleaching example—you’re basically making your anus look less like an anus, so that your partner who enjoys placing their penis in your anus can do so without thinking about the fact that it’s actually a real functioning asshole? Same with all these guys who claim to enjoy Tab-A-in-slot-B old fashioned heterosexual sex which includes sticking penises in vaginas, but who hate vaginas, actually, because they are icky. How do they rationalize those thoughts?

SADY: I have no idea. I mean: I do think it has got to be a fear thing. (JASON’S INTERNAL MONOLOGUE: “Okay, champ, this is going great, but whatever you do just don’t look down! If you see the vagina, you’ll panic! Play it COOL, MAN.”) But also we need to note that although there ARE cosmetic procedures for penises, of the more or less invasive variety… nobody’s really requiring dudes (with penises) to invest in them, you know?

AMANDA: Yeah. My theory: Sexual repression + Capitalism + Sexism = Vajazzling

SADY: Right. It’s this very basic deal, as expressed by the fact that the Washington Monument is not an ovoid hollow in the ground, whereby penises are super and vaginas, although necessary, are basically H.R. Giger shit that would freak any reasonable person out. So you have to make them… like, really, REALLY infantilized, like to the extent of making them pink and sparkly and Lisa Frank binder-looking, to signify that they are female in the “harmless” sense rather than the “oh my God aaaaiiiiieeeeeeee” sense.

AMANDA: I am interested to know what a penis would look like if men were instructed to groom their penises so as to make them look less like penises.

SADY: Top hats? Draw a smiley face on it? I don’t know. I know you’re not putting crystals on that business any time soon. But when I start my new Dickerating business we’ll find out.

AMANDA: I understand the crystals may not adhere to the male penis for a sufficient period of time. But there are places where our genital situations are not so different. So … why aren’t men encouraged to wax off all of their pubic hair?

SADY: Well, some are! But I’ve known girls who have expressed the idea that for a man to do so would be a sign of His Secret Gayness, and thereby a dealbreaker. I mean, why aren’t men expected to shave their armpits? Hair is manly. For MEN.

AMANDA: So I just Googled the phrase “manlier penis”

SADY: OH GOOD. I ALWAYS KNEW IT WOULD COME TO THIS.

AMANDA: And I came across a Web site which suggests that men who want to visually lengthen the penis might want to trim their pubic hair, in order to create an illusion of sorts.

SADY: Wow. It’s like pulling a rabbit out of a hat!

AMANDA: HOWEVER, “the ladies may want a manlier penis ‘ so to speak ‘ and this comes with pubic hair.” Someday, when we achieve full gender equality, washed up male actors will write books about illusory pubic hair techniques.

SADY: You know, I don’t necessarily NEED to have that much information about Freddie Prinze, Jr.? And yet, like you, I look forward to that day!


[UPDATE: Yeah. It was quite the evening! You had to put three links in that post Sady. And credit your co-talker. And get the fucking byline thing to work. Oh, what's that? You did ONE of those things, and it was linking to someone being a jerk on Tumblr? GOOD JOB SADY. GOOD PRIORITIES. BASICALLY JUST A SERIES OF STELLAR MOVES. Anyway, I fixed that important stuff. Sorry, everyone!]

46 Comments

  1. Rachel wrote:

    OH GOD. Man that guy’s a douche. I love how his last word on everything was “long posts are difficult to parse”, by which he clearly meant “you are obviously angry with me and I clearly deserved it and I hate it when girls point out that I am wrong, so I will pretend it is your fault for being wordy, and now I will stop listening to you.”

    This makes me feel rage-y. Good for you for having enough spoons to write all of that out. Sorry it fell on Karp’s deaf ears.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 2:28 am | Permalink
  2. BMICHAEL wrote:

    Hess,

    I think the anonymous reporter “Robin Sparkles” should get a Peabody Award (maybe a Veebody Award) for that line alone.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 7:45 am | Permalink
  3. Amanda (not Hess) wrote:

    While I suspect, much like you, that all this vagazzling nonsense comes from the same camp that wants ladies to purchase hot pink dyes to “restore the youthful look” of their saggy, faded vulvae and then preferably get a surgeon’s knife up in there, allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment.

    Jennifer Love Hewitt (who presumably started all of this with her interview) said that she decided to do this after a break up. She did not do it to impress a man, to make herself “look better” for sex. She did it with her best friend, in an attempt to pamper herself after going through a tough break up. She treated her vagina like she cared about it. This is, in my mind, equivalent to the lady who still wants to feel like a healthy, sexual being even after a tough break up and thus goes to her favourite lingerie store to grab some new lacy panties. I don’t see where sexism necessarily figures into it.

    Another example is the art-rave culture of wearing fun fur merkins or dying your pubic hair funny colours and shaving designs into it. This is especially prevalent at things like Burning Man. It is not meant to be an attempt to make the vagina look more like a kindergartener’s stuffed toy than a vagina. It is meant to complete a look, to be fun and silly and is based primarily on the amusement of the wearer. Again, no reason why decorating your lady bits has to be about sexual repression. Sometimes it could just be for fun or visual effect.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 8:13 am | Permalink
  4. Amanda (not Hess) wrote:

    Re: above

    Actually, on second thought, the entire goal of the fun fur might BE to make it look like a kindergartener’s stuffed toy, but not in a sexually repressive way.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 8:22 am | Permalink
  5. Jess wrote:

    I kind of want to try the Vajazzling?. There are possibilities! I like the idea of a big crystal explosion around my ladybits, with a pink “POW!!!” in the center? I feel like that would enliven my day. But maybe I spend too much time looking at my vagina.

    *Except in the way where I am way too lazy to do all that work.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 10:41 am | Permalink
  6. Samantha b. wrote:

    You know, it strikes me that there’s some sort of Coriolos Effect of vaginal maintenance going on here. Hasn’t the argument for waxing our very much unmentionables into an airstrip always been that this would finally make cunnilingus not such a long scary word for the manly men? And now the feminine we has decided that, really after all, we prefer the touch of 12 store bought rhinestones to that of the wet tongue?

    It also strikes me that Tumblr dude believes “empathize” to be a verb which functions only with subjects of, say, one’s own class and skin tone. A fairly trying notion, at best. So as they say in cult classic Japanese biker flicks, Godspeed, You Black Emperor.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 10:52 am | Permalink
  7. Rikibeth wrote:

    I could see the point of adding sparkles for, say, a burlesque performance. Hey, sequins you DON’T take off with the G-string! Burlesque is silly and over-the-top anyway, so it makes sense. Otherwise? It seems like a pretty foolish idea to me.

    Also, this shave-your-junk-to-make-it-look-bigger notion may be catching on among the younger dudes. I did in fact date one significantly younger dude who shaved and said that was the reason! I had two comments: “You might be overthinking this, you know,” and “suit yourself, but don’t give me stubble burn, okay?”

    If we were still dating I would be very tempted to ask him if he’d ever considered adding sparkles.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
  8. William wrote:

    Wait, you’ve been hiding all sorts of good stuff over at Tumblr? For authors here, please link to their stuff elsewhere! Do not make us get all google-stalkery on you.

    As long as you’re beating on the Tumblr dude, could you have him fix the problem where outsiders can’t follow a discussion? Whenever I try to track a Tumblr interaction, it’s like dealing with somebody on a bad cellphone: intermittent snippets of sense, plus me saying “what?” every 30 seconds.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
  9. BMICHAEL wrote:

    Dear William,

    I know that it’s quite materially prohibitive to join the élite society of Tumblr, but if you work hard enough and save and save, you just may be able to join before retirement age.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
  10. Sady wrote:

    @William: William! I would actually be totally enthused if you would get on Tumblr. You are super-nice, and I would like you to have some kind of blog, and Tumblr is basically Remedial Blogging. Like, Tumblr is to blogging as making out with someone in a cab is to getting married. Not a huge investment! Not a lot of pressure! Highly pleasurable throughout! Oh but PS the cab driver will apparently up and decide to behave in the manner of A GRAND DOUCHEPARADE at times. But never mind!

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
  11. Amy wrote:

    I can’t stop giggling at the idea of vagina “flair.” It’s a decorative surprise, y’all!

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
  12. LizM wrote:

    Is there such a thing as “douche privilege”? Because, if so, I think that guy has it. Okay, so I went through the tumblr thing, which was difficult, because I do not use tumblr! and I found it more difficult to peruse than a standard blog!* Anyway, I’m not gonna reiterate the whole thing in this comment on your blog (because that would mean I am probably a person who should have her own blog–possibly), but I did want to parse it just a little, if that is okay. Since you make the long posts, I hope you like the long comments.

    Okay, so homeboy** David wrote that you should “Let [him] direct you to Hanlon’s Razor. If clarification is the difference between suggesting someone is racist or empathizing with them, don’t open your mouth.” I had heard of the “Hanlon’s Razor” but could not remember what it was. It did not sound familiar, based on the context of his post. So, I looked it up with the Google and the Wikipedia!!! I found this: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
    First, Hanlon’s Razor does not say “Do not say shit to someone (or, don’t open your mouth, as it might be) when they have said something potentially offensive, because that offensive remark might possibly have been stupid rather than malicious!!! Rather, remain silent and allow that person to remain unenlightened (or stupid, see Fig. 1). Foremost, however, is your obligation to activate your lady-parts powers of empathy, and thereby to empathize with his stupidity!” I read it like three times. It just didn’t say that. So, on the understanding-Hanlon’s-Razor-and-its-myriad-potential-applications front, David gets a big Fail. On the woman-silencing-and-appealing-to-natural-female-empathy front, though, I concede he wins.

    Second, in the course of the Googling, I also learned that the rule is named for some guy who supposedly came up with it and submitted it to a humor book, such as used to exist before the Internet, some thirty years ago. In other words, he may as well have directed you to his classy vanity license plate emblazoned with the words “Back Off!” and a glamour shot of Yosemite Sam. That is, it is what the lawyer types call “dicta” rather than “binding precedent.” As in, “shit that might sound witty but about which you are not required to give a fuck.” But what I can’t understand is why he would expect you to “empathize” with him on the basis that he is “stupid.”

    Next, there is the assumption that racism cannot proceed from ignorance but only from malice, and/or that only things that proceed from malice should be called out. I don’t have anything to add here, except that it is especially odd that he would think this was a clever retort in view of the parable you shared in which the one white guy was clearly racist, but the other white guy was also racist even though he didn’t “hate” anyone. Do you suppose he read it? Shorter version: “There are white racists who use the N word and hate black people openly, and then those who don’t do that but get all minstrelsy with their Chris Rock joke iterations and are also racist.” “But… I don’t hate anyone so I can’t be racist. LALALALALA can’t hear you shut it.”

    And then, AND THEN, he says that your “long winded posts are getting tough to parse”! Which I interpret to mean that he is incapable of producing, understanding or responding to anything longer than a soundbite (not necessarily that he is a moron–could be that he has no attention span because of the blogging and the RSS feeds and the tweets) and that this is your! fault! for writing something long! But that sounds bad, so it must be long-winded! And difficult to parse!

    So basically he is everything that is wrong with the internet. Dumb shit said, dumb shit taken out of context and seems even more dumb, author of dumb shit defends white male privilege at all costs rather than admit potential saying of dumb shit, anything longer than a paragraph is derided, and mansplaining wins the day.

    I can haz guest blog?

    *All exclamations points courtesy of Tiger Beatdown!
    **As I don’t hate black people, my ironic use of black slang from the early 90s cannot possibly be offensive, to anyone, ever. Q.E.D.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
  13. Samantha b. wrote:

    @Sady Okay, but the second Karp figures out how to monetize that shit, I’m outta there. If 3 out of 4 NY cabbies are indeed price gouging, so far they may be on to something Karp is not.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
  14. Scott wrote:

    Ha! I got several laughs out of this one, thanks.

    AMANDA: I am interested to know what a penis would look like if men were instructed to groom their penises so as to make them look less like penises

    I think they call it “circumcision,” but it’s widely practiced that most people don’t think of it that way anymore.

    It is, essentially, the mutilation of the male penis to make it more “attractive”

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 5:00 pm | Permalink
  15. William wrote:

    @BMichael: I’m still saving up for my LiveJournal account, and MySpace after that, but Tumblr’s definitely a strong third. Until then, I hope they clean up the experience for non-members.

    @Sady: I love you like candy, and if anybody could talk me into joining Tumblr, it would be you. And indeed, a snogging metaphor was a great try. But right now I need another thing to check and update like a thing I don’t need much at all. Heck, I almost sent you a proposal for some content for this very site, and then I realized that I might end up having to actually spend time writing it. And I think we can both agree that Tiger Beatdown is much more important than Tumblr, right?

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
  16. JfC wrote:

    Woah, secret tumblr account, so much to catch up on. Also Ryan North, the author of Dinosaur Comics is one of my favourite people and very approachable to fans. I may link him to this website.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
  17. BMICHAEL wrote:

    It is kind of insane when we think our discourse is bound by the sorts of constraints that stipulate you cannot, in fact, ever mention Hitler in the course of a discussion or build robots that harm human beings.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
  18. BMICHAEL wrote:

    @William

    I was in a surly mood. I’m sorry if I offended you. Tumblr isn’t just another thing to update. You won’t start to see your dashboard behind your sleeping eyelids. It won’t be the website you access 90% of the time you access a website…

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 5:50 pm | Permalink
  19. William wrote:

    @BMichael: No offense taken, and I’m sorry if I gave you an impression otherwise.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
  20. emjaybee wrote:

    My biggest problem with vajazzling is that it requires waxing your privates first. Why J. Hewitt or anyone would think of waxing one’s privates as part of any mode of celebration is a mystery I cannot comprehend. I like my celebrations to come with more liquor and less torture-type beauty rituals, myself.

    But, once one has gone ahead and waxed one’s privates, adding sparkles seems like a very small amount of additional bother, and at least doesn’t hurt. Unlike labiaplasty or bleaching or whatever other weird shit people do to their genitals.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 10:12 pm | Permalink
  21. Molly wrote:

    I’m with Scott here: men have been having their penises mutilated for a few millennia now. And although circumcision does provide some health benefits (I guess it’s supposed to be more sanitary?), what with modern science and all, the practice is pretty much unnecessary. These days, circumcision (at least among non-Jews) is an aesthetic decision.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
  22. genna wrote:

    This practice and your description of it had me almost in tears laughing. Also APPARENTLY I do not understand Tumblr, like, at all. I caught your terming it “doucheparade” though and may hold it at arm’s length for a little while.

    Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 12:10 am | Permalink
  23. Helen wrote:

    From the Tumblr blog

    David said: These long winded posts are getting tough to parse

    Translation: “I’m not used to reading stuff with more than, like, four sentences.”

    Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 5:00 am | Permalink
  24. Maud wrote:

    (Crushable staff, following the revelation by JLH of the existence of Vajazzling) “I thought about it constantly for weeks.”

    Possibly the saddest sentence I have ever read.

    As for, “These long-winded posts are getting tough to parse.” Goodness, for a thinky-type person who enjoys posing academic questions, I wouldn’t expect bringing ordinary reading comprehension skills to bear on a mere page-worth of paragraphs to be such a strain. Tsk, tsk, it must be true what they say about the internet eroding the young folks ability to concentrate. What a shame; that will certainly cut into the poor fellow’s ability to pursue any remaining academic interests.

    Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 9:11 am | Permalink
  25. CassieC wrote:

    Been fooling around with boy-types for a while, and in my limited experience, I never caught a nasty STD from a circumcised boy, but did from an uncircumcised one. Circumcision still is a statistically significant protection against genital warts (cervical cancer for the ladies!), and even AIDS.

    My point is just that circumcision has great practical benefits for ladies and men, from a health perspective: it’s not “decorative.” And no, I did not say circumcision protects anyone from AIDS: just reduces the odds of getting and transmitting it, which is still nothing to sneeze at.

    Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 1:58 pm | Permalink
  26. Elizabeth wrote:

    Terrible article, Sady! Who are you to say that vaginas don’t NATURALLY have sparkles, just because you possess one yourself? I graciously forgive you for being a woman; please enjoy this passive-aggressive emoticon. :)

    Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 6:58 pm | Permalink
  27. octopod wrote:

    You know, normally I’m pretty chill about the whole misuse-of-”vagina”-to-mean-”vulva” thing. But in this particular case it had me wincing the whole time?

    Rhinestones? In MY vagina? OWWWWWWW

    Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
  28. Dorian wrote:

    @CassieC But that has to do more with hygiene than anything–if people who aren’t circumcised are more likely to have STIs, it’s more a factor of an uncircumcised penis being marginally harder to clean than a circumcised one. (Though, for the record: It’s still not hard. Without going into too much detail, I am in a position to say so with confidence. People are just lazy, I think).

    Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
  29. Lauren wrote:

    One of the many things that I love about being a feminist is the idea that people (especially women) have the right to do what they want with their bodies. No one should force or guilt or shame anyone into shaving or waxing their pubic hair, or having their labia surgically altered, or putting rhinestones on their crotch (same thing applies to tattoos or piercings). But if someone wants to do any of these things, then that’s cool (there are obviously other issues with labiaplasty and I disagree with the procedure as a whole, but if someone is really uncomfortable with their labia, and does it for her own comfort or piece of mind, then I would have to support their decision). I shave my vulva. I have had it waxed before. I shave it because I like the way it feels, and I like the way it looks. My husband also likes the way it looks and the way it feels, but that’s a preference of his, and he never forced or coerced me into shaving, and he shaves his pubic hair, too (actually, he would love to get waxed, but that’s a lot of money). And he loves my vulva and my vagina the way it is, even if occasionally it’s not perfectly smooth. Again, it’s MY preference. My roommate doesn’t shave, and that’s HER preference (she’s tried it, and didn’t like it). She also thinks it would be kind of cool to put rhinestones on her vulva, but she doesn’t shave. So, while there might certainly be sexism involved in the reason why some women shave, wax, or vajazzle, there are those women who do it because they want to. Although, it would be horribly impractical to have rhinestones on your vulva when you have sex, and might just be irritating on a regular basis, and would probably get stuck in all your pretty underwear. Anyway, what I’m saying is that if someone puts rhinestones on their vulva, then that’s cool with me. Ultimately, everyone has different preferences, and different vulvas! And vulvas are beautiful in all shapes and sizes, and every one is different.

    Monday, March 15, 2010 at 1:10 am | Permalink
  30. charley wrote:

    seconding lizm’s guest blog proposal

    Monday, March 15, 2010 at 1:33 am | Permalink
  31. CassieC wrote:

    @Dorian: no, not just a personal hygiene thing. The lack of circumcision always provides a warm, moist environment (even if it’s regularly cleaned) which makes the skin there more susceptible to disease and more likely to store infectious stuff. Hygiene can only go so far, which is why there are statistically significant differences.

    Monday, March 15, 2010 at 6:29 am | Permalink
  32. JupiterPluvius wrote:

    Can this please not turn into a debate over male circumcision? Yes, many Jewish and Muslim parents choose it for their sons for religious reasons, and that’s a topic for discussion. Yes, some non-Jewish, non-Muslim parents choose it for their sons for other reasons (ideas about hygiene and aesthetics that are certainly arguable from both sides).

    BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THERE ARE LOTS OF BLOGS AND WEBSITES AND WEB FORUMS ALL ABOUT CIRCUMCISION. DOES EVERY DISCUSSION ABOUT WOMEN’S GENITALIA HAVE TO BECOME A DISCUSSION ABOUT MEN’S GENITALIA? EVERY SINGLE TIME?

    Sorry about the shouting, but Jeez, folks.

    Monday, March 15, 2010 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
  33. Samantha b. wrote:

    @Maud, because I am not a nice person, I will point out that the “academic” question in question here? It was inspired by a desire to quote a mash up, which, by definition, cannot be quoted. The original material of a White Panda, it in fact turns out, consists of no original material.

    Monday, March 15, 2010 at 8:20 pm | Permalink
  34. emjaybee wrote:

    Hey CassieC, if you don’t possess a penis (hell even if you do), it probably isn’t the greatest thing to walk around talking about how great it would be if all dudes cut part of theirs off to prevent disease. There are other ways to prevent disease, and not every intact dude is going to give you an STD, and overall that’s a really ugly stereotype you’re throwing around there. Most circumsized guys had it done to them as infants, which is pretty fucked up if you think about it at all, and you can’t talk about the health benefits separate from the “and then we’re going to cut off part of a baby’s penis” part. It’s hugely contentious issue and to a lot of people, completely abusive and immoral and tied up in greater issues of justice and bodily integrity. (apologies to Sady for the total derail).

    Monday, March 15, 2010 at 9:02 pm | Permalink
  35. Sady wrote:

    @Jupiter: Yes. I am in support of this measure. Let’s set aside the weiner talk for another day (not that it is not a valid topic of discussion!) and just talk about how to make our V for Vendettas prettier for our boyfriends. I’m getting a wizard airbrushed on to mine next week. Thoughts, anybody?

    Monday, March 15, 2010 at 10:33 pm | Permalink
  36. Rosa wrote:

    Do any of you read romance novels or reviews or review blogs? Because there is this concept, the “glittery hoohah”, that explains how someone can know he is your soulmate after the very first time you meet him which is also the first time you let him touch the glittery hoohah (GHH).

    That’s all I can think about, about vajazzling.

    (now it’s going to turn out that one of the regular commenters here is actually one of the Smart Bitches or something.)

    Monday, March 15, 2010 at 11:15 pm | Permalink
  37. Charlotte wrote:

    Okay, I just wanna say. I happen to see vajazzling– in a “why not” sense, not in a “so men will get boners for me” sense– as sort of hilarious and great? Like, if I was fabulously weathy and got my precious lady waxed, I can totally see putting crystals all up on it. Maybe you all would think me trampy, but nuts to that I say! I’d totally do it regardless of how my honey felt about it.

    Monday, March 15, 2010 at 11:51 pm | Permalink
  38. Vicki wrote:

    All I can think of is, what happens when someone–including the person whose vulva it is–starts stroking that area? I don’t find the idea of rhinestones rubbing on my hand appealing, much less on my tongue, and I don’t think my partners would appreciate it on their hands, or tongues, or genitalia.

    And that it turn suggests someone getting a shiny applique that says “look but don’t touch,” which is amusing in theory but I think would be weird and icky in practice. As in, it’s one thing to tell other people “hands off”–there are all sorts of reasons for temporary or long-term celibacy–and another to put anything there that would make a woman less comfortable touching her own body.

    Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 7:45 am | Permalink
  39. fannie wrote:

    I think I will go with a horse on mine, airbrushed to look as though it’s on the back of a jean jacket.

    Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
  40. cathy wrote:

    Sady. You write the way I think, except better. I just want to say you are brilliant.

    Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 4:34 pm | Permalink
  41. orestes wrote:

    Dear Vajazzle,

    I did not shave my vagina before applying your product and as a result I ended up tearing out several clumps of pubic hair on application. What remains is satisfyingly spangly, so hurray. Long have I wished for my vagina to resemble a cross between a wishing troll and the rhinestone design on the seat of a cheap pair of jeans. Truly, makers of Vajazzle, you are the fulfillers of dreams! My problem is this; your starter kit retails at 39.99 and for sure every cent was a cent well spent! However, I cannot help but think the same result could be achieved with a razor, a glue gun and a broken bracelet which in total do retail for less than your (reasonably priced!) starter kit. As a result i have set up a shop on ebay selling these three items as my own Vajazzle starter kit. Is this copyright infringement or simply capitalism in action?

    Yours Vaginously,
    Orestes

    Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 11:14 pm | Permalink
  42. JupiterPluvius wrote:

    Orestes, that sounds Vajestic.

    Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 12:48 am | Permalink
  43. If I were to do this (and yes, I’d stick to my vulva rather than my vagina, since “ribbed for his pleasure” does not usually include small sparkly glass bits up his – or my – urethra), I’d get one of those sticker sheets from the local craft store and get creative on the cheap.

    I’m thrifty that way.

    Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 8:17 am | Permalink
  44. TheBadassMuppet wrote:

    I only recently realized that the Vajazzles are identical to products I bought and used in the late ’90s. They were called Crystal Tattoos then, and, you guessed it: they were NOT meant for the vagina (or female crotch, which I’m guessing is what they actually mean.) They were suggested for your arms and ankles, just as decorative little designs/accessories, and I am positive genitals were never mentioned. This is not only stupid; it’s unoriginal!

    Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 11:35 pm | Permalink
  45. Sha Nay Nay wrote:

    I have to say, I totally agreed with Amanda(not Hess)’s comments! Maybe, just maybe, if everyone could get off of their soap boxes for 2 seconds, we might see that it’s possible that Vajazzling may not be repressive at all, but rather a form of sexual expression … and we should encourage sexual expression, right? ?? Right?!?

    Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 2:42 am | Permalink
  46. Elly Lou wrote:

    A. I want to vajazzle “thug life” on my vag.

    B. Does her bellybutton freak anyone else out? I dig that those are piercings but it really does make it looks like some bizarro sideways japanimation character.

    Saturday, May 8, 2010 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. Good girls don’t choke on carrots « Fuck Politeness on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 12:16 am

    [...] the point of this was that Sady and Amanda are extremely funny women, and I refer you both to the whole post in question and to the choking-on-carrot-with-laughter-parts: SADY: RIGHT? Like, I mean: I hate to be a jerk [...]