Showing the World Your Cooter

I’ve been trying to understand the rash of celebrity cooter sightings lately and I just don’t get it, so I thought I might throw it open to discussion.


I realize there’s a lot of ways this could veer off into a discussion of how porn has become mainstreamed, but I keep thinking that the porn discussion might actually be a distraction.  Still, there’s something “Girls Gone Wild” about it.


But can I tell you what strikes me about it?


Why don’t we go flashing our cooters around?  Yes, in part, because it’s indecent.


But also, “Good girls” don’t go running around town without underwear on because bad things might happen to them.  Isn’t that the implicit threat?  Don’t go flashing it around if you don’t want someone to decide he can lay claim to it?


Be enticing.  Don’t be so enticing that men “can’t help themselves.”


Here’s what I wonder.  Is this a flaunting not just of social conventions but of power?  “I have so much power that, even if I were running around town with my cooter hanging out, nothing bad can happen to me.”?  Or, if the paparazzi is mostly male, is it a way for these young female celebrities to rub it in the camera man’s face–”You matter so little to me, your view of me is so unimportant, that I dress as if your gaze has no power over me.”


I don’t know what to make of it.  But it seems like there’s something going on there.

About these ads

26 thoughts on “Showing the World Your Cooter

  1. If the women showing their cooters weren’t vapid idiots, I might think you are onto something. Remember who you’re talking about — it’s merely a desperate cry for attention.Sometimes white trash is just white trash.

  2. I fear that having her cooter photographed could scar Britney for life. Sort of like how that c-section scarred her for life, as seen in the photo of her cooter.

  3. All right. Squarespace and I are going to have a fight here in a second. Coble is trying to post the following:Weird. I was just going to write a post about this myself, but then came over here first.An aside note: It bugs me how many of these photos of shaved Labia Majora are called "Vagina photos". That’s like showing a picture of a bare neck and calling it a "breast photo".I think the rash (ha!) of these pix has something to do with the fact that the particular girls in question have been gaining a lot of celebrity from their personal objectification. They’ve allowed themselves to be objectified in a tradeoff for power. So it’s a wierd conundrum. They figure they’ll sacrfice a level of self-respect in order to obtain power and then be respected for their power. It’s a lesson straight from the Madonna playbook. They now have power but it is rooted in their objectification. In order to retain their power they must periodically reobjectify themselves in some titillating way. Hence all the labial shots.

  4. It’s the same problem with the Vagina Monologues. The play’s about the cooter, but called the vagina. Also, I hate to admit my ignorance, but is there a technical term for the whole kit & caboodle?Vulva is just the outer area, right? Vagina is the vagina. Is there a word for the whole thing? Well, other than cooter?I hadn’t thought of the Madonna connection, but I think you’re exactly right, there.I guess the thing that strikes me most, and this is just purely from a personal aesthetic place and I’m not a straight man, so maybe the experience is different for them–and bearing in mind that I love scruff and interesting smells–but I’ve now seen Paris Hilton’s cooter both relaxing in social settings and at work in her infamous porno, and I don’t find her remotely sexy. And now that she’s "mentoring" Brittany and Lindsey, I’m having a hard time recognizing them as sexy.Something about their self-presentation is an enormous turn-off for me. And not that everyone has an obligation to present themselves in ways that I find sexy, but that’s what’s weirdest to me–all of the signals for "find me irresistibly sexy" are there: youth, visible vulva, etc., but it has the opposite effect on me.

  5. Wait, Britney had any self-respect left after that statue? Compared to it, an honest money shot is kind of refreshing.

  6. Waxed down cooter to simulate the pre-adolescent vulva. Ick. That, coupled with the C-sec scar? Double ick. I’m not sure who could get turned on by clearly well-used (faking it as never used) merch. I assumed the panties-free approach meant that she and Paris are having a little upskirt finger fun, but one can also do a coke freeze on the ladyparts if one’s nose is getting overworked. I think taken in total that it’s supposed to mean "Hey, I’m really not two little kids’ mother, y’all. I’m here for the party I missed while married to Chucklehead — hope y’all didn’t start without me…"

  7. "I’m not sure who could get turned on by clearly well-used (faking it as never used) merch."Speaking of which, am I the only person who thinks it’s weird that the "gentleman’s club" off Demonbreun is called "Deja Vu"? I mean, if you’ve seen it already you get up and go to a different titty bar, right?I don’t really know who that statue looked like. The fact that she’d want such a thing ….

  8. Let us of course caveat by saying that whatever you do with your cooter that feels good to you–waxing, braiding, dying it green, whatever–is your business. But the thing that has always struck me about a bald cooter on a grown women from the perspective of how it looks is that I don’t think it looks like a pre-adolescent vulva so much as it looks like a mannequin.On porn stars, it makes sense. And for reasons of personal pleasure, it makes sense, if that does turn you on more than hair. But as for it being the expected standard of how a woman should look? That makes no sense to me.As for Spears, yeah, maybe you’re right.NM, did she commission that statue? I thought that guy did it just to get some publicity for his art show. Hmm.

  9. I assumed that she had commissioned it, but I don’t actually know. I didn’t hear/read anything about her asking that it not be displayed or publicized, though.Ya know, maybe the recent picture was a deliberate attempt to get the statue out of people’s heads.I can’t believe I’m discussing Britney Spears. I hereby apologize to the deity for wasting precious moral time and vow to stop.

  10. It’s a high school level free media grab (and a weak minded stab at an ex-husband).For Hilton and Spears, their celebrity was always rooted in their objectification. Lohan at one time was considered to be a promising actress, however now she’s all at sea, and it’s not likely she’ll be doing anything of substance for the forseable future. It’s not a cry for attention, it’s a demand, and judging from the new blogs that have popped into wordpress.com’s top ten, nearly all boasting a comment on Spears pics, it’s clearly being heeded.In a business where self-respect is often sacrificed for career advancement, and regularly any publicity is good publicity, I don’t imagine these women feel they’ve sacrificed a thing. Were it not for Hilton’s regularly scheduled "leaked" photos and tape, no one would be talking about her outside of NY society gossip mavens. She is a name only in that she’s put herself out in the way she has (though some might say she’s got a certain fashion sense that makes her worthy of some attention). As a Hilton, she didn’t need the money; she wanted to be a "star." I suppose in an info/pop culture driven market economy, celebrity = a kind of power . . . just something abt "power" strikes me as being the wrong word to use here . . .About Spears though, it was pretty clear she’d be the topic of discussion after the divorce, so there’s something else at play, and likely less thoughtful considering the timing.

  11. That statue was AWFUL. Any self-respecting sculptor would have cringed at it, if it was supposed to, you know, actually LOOK like her. The funniest thing I saw on teevee about it was when Joel McHale quipped that all of a sudden Britney was popping up all over town with ‘The Soup’ sticker all over her cooter regions.I guess I am looking at the wrong websites; I only get pixilized shots!And the whole ‘kit and caboodle’ thing made me laugh, because technically, ‘vagina’ is the inside part of the package. But I think ‘cooter’ comes pretty damn close to conveying the meaning.P.S. to Sarcastro: You used ‘rash,’ but couldn’t come up with a ‘gash’ reference? I’m disappointed in you.

  12. Personally, I prefer the term poonaner when it comes to talking about the whole kit-n-caboodle. In regards to the statue – I thought it was beyond disgusting reading what the sculptor had to say about it – how he chose Britney because she was so "pure" and had good "morals" and was a perfect example of natural childbirth. Excuse me as I vomit in my mouth.

  13. See, that’s why I assumed the sculptor was full of shit and just mocking her. I thought it was supposed to look like Ashley Judd as some kind of comment on how everyone in Hollywood looks the same anyway.Poonaner. If that rhymes with bananer, I love it. The best words for it have that "oo" sound, just as a nod to the sound you make when it’s doing its thing, I think.

  14. "perfect example of natural childbirth"Um. The discussion at Twisty’s, where some midwives and folks who had gone through natural childbirth in various positions opined that you would suffocate the newborn with your butt elevated like that, and other folks more familiar than I with the world of hardcore porn pointed out that the pose is favored in some variety of mag or other, was, ah, enlightening.

  15. Can y’all clarify my confusion on this topic, please.I guess if you’re going to pay so much money and go through so much pain to remove all of your pubic hair, then I guess it makes sense that you want everyone to know about it. But … Once you shave it all off, then going commando with teeny tiny skirts would result in things much more frequent and intense that even Aunt B lovingly describes in her defense of skirts for everyone. Whereas if you leave the bush intact, then it seems that underwear might not be always so necessary as the fur keeps you warm and protected to some degree. Yet … When was the last time anyone saw an actual beaver shot?

  16. I suppose it should be. But I’m not really up on the whole New Wave Cooterness. As for actual beaver shots, I just saw one, but it was at Wikipedia. And boy, was I NOT expecting a beaver shot at Wikipedia.

  17. How about "Hoo-ha." As in "Brittney Spears is a perfect example of what happens when a bunch of middle-aged record executives decide to over-sexualize a 15-year old in risque music videos for monetary gain. Before even turning 25, she’s a has-been piece of white trash without the decent sense not to show her hoo-ha all over the place."

  18. Here’s the thing. I used to like Britney Spears records. I still think "Oops I Did It Again" is a great song – have you heard it covered by the titanically talented Richard Thompson – and I love love love "Toxic."That said, the girl ain’t none too bright, as sadly witnessed one night when a friend showed me the horrible video tape of her and K-Fed sitting around the dining room table after smoking up a whole bunch of hooch.Furthermore, as much as I try to avoid thinking about her, while skipping around the web killing time yesterday afternoon, I suddenly came across a promise to see Britney’s cooter, and I admit I couldn’t stop myself from taking a peak. I don’t find Britney sexy, never have, but, as with the Paris Hilton video, the power of celebrity nudity is hard to resist. Something, I think, about the idea that people with all that money and power still perform the same human acts as you and I do – not that we’ve ever done these acts together, you understand.And, look, there are 25 or so comments on this subject, which is a damn sight more than you get when you talk about Mrs. Wigglebottom (though you could try talking about her cooter, which she reveals to the world every single day, I presume). So, we can act like we don’t care, or we can realize that there is a frisson of something or other we get from celebrity cooter. I’d rather I didn’t get it, honestly, as there are far better things both pornographic and non-pornographic I could spend my time thinking about, but there it is, my real self naked as it were.

  19. Mr. Mantooth, in my humble estimation, comes closest to the truth here, though if you ask any clued-in person in the NYC "socialite" world, Ms. Hilton doesn’t count. She’s just a rich tramp, much like Ms. Spears.Question my judgment, but see this: http://www.socialiterank.com/?p=622 and look for the name that begins with Fab. I worked as a concierge where she lived while in college, and you could not hope to meet a nicer person, even with all the wealth and an admittedly healthy dose/splash of vanity that comes with birthright FU money, etc. brings with it. True, she knows what she’s doing is about building "her" brand, but she does do a lot of charity work in addition to building her own rep. Gawker, et. al. love to rip on her for all the usual reasons, but she isn’t out splashing her stuff all over the place to get attention. She’s classy enough to get attention with just enough skin showing and a willingness to throw in some of her time to raise money for those less fortunate, foundations, and the like.So, Gandalph, in addition to us agreeing on this one, I’d also like to congratulate the Heels on their 18th championship. See, I’m not all bad, eh? :)

Comments are closed.