Briefly on O’Donnell

In a way, I find the whole thing kind of baffling. It’s hard for me to understand what kind of guy would have a naked woman in his bed and be all “ew, pubic hair” and then brag about it in public. Does he not understand that women’s bodies have a lot of variety? I don’t like the “they want women to look like a little girl!” argument either. First, it’s just hair. Cut it, dye it, trim it, remove it, grow it out as far as it will go–whatever floats your boat. As long as you’re doing it for fun and not because some douchebag requires it of you, I do not give a shit.

But second, I was in a bachelor’s bathroom the other day and his Penthouse was right by the toilet. I, being an intrepid blogger, picked it up and looked at it, and, of course, the women in it were hair-free. I didn’t particularly find that disturbing. After all, when your aim is to give the viewer as clear a shot of things normally obscured by labia and hair, it makes sense to hold the labia apart and remove the hair. What I found disturbing was that almost all of the variations in coloring that you’d normally find on a woman’s nether-regions, regardless of age, were gone. If you are familiar with labia, you know that everything inside them is kind of slick and more the color of the inside of your mouth than of your skin and some areas are darker or lighter than others.

Not on these gals. It was all flesh colored except right around the vaginal opening and around their very small inner labia and clitoris. So, instead of this great fleshy moist region (hairy or not), there was this almost unrecognizable non-pink hairless landscape with only the tiniest hint of moisture right at the vaginal opening. It was as if this had been photoshopped to this. It’s not just the shrubbery that’s missing. There appear to be vital working bits gone. And the kinds of working bits that work for the person with the cooter. It’s as if everything that suggests a female sexual response more complex than “rub this one spot; poke this one spot” is erased.

And that, to me, is where the “they look like little girls” critique falls short. This goes beyond making your cooter resemble a little girl’s. This gets into a cooter aesthetic that removes all individuality and variance and humanity from a part of our bodies most associated with being embodied in a human body.

You’d think a man who came to understand he didn’t actually know one way women’s bodies might differ from each other would be kind of embarrassed, that he’d tell that story as if he were the fool. But not this dude. He’s all “Amirite?” It does not occur to him, even briefly, that he’s the one who looks like a dumbass in that story. That’s bewildering. And would be hilarious except that there’s a real woman at the butt end of this.

But what also troubles me is that O’Donnell does not and has never had a prayer of winning. That’s no knock on her. Those are just the facts on the ground. So, why does she have to be knocked down so hard? Is it a warning to other female politicians? That part of running for office is this kind of bullshit?

Just who is supposed to be learning a lesson here, I wonder?

8 thoughts on “Briefly on O’Donnell

  1. You know, I can think I’m very in touch with national political culture and then someone posts something like this and I realize I have no fucking idea of what you’re talking about. I don’t have cable and I don’t listen to talk radio. Newspapers (NYT, US Today, my local) aren’t talking about some guy opining about pubic hair. Thank God, that’s a conversation I didn’t have to have with my proto-pubescent daughter today.

    I’ll go off and “enlighten” myself, but I have to say that this is one of those times when we’re so distracted from the issues we need to focus on that I’m actually sad for voters who have to put up with this shit.

  2. It’s funny that you mention Penthouse, because I read the stupid story and thought it sounded suspiciously like a letter to Penthouse, some schmo bragging about how a sexy sexy lady showed up at his door and wanted him soooo bad.

  3. nm, glad to know I’m not the only one who thought “Ruskin? Really?” Couldn’t figure out why he’d be a hot topic, though.

    And lest you think I’m just all “fum faw, this stuff is beneath the dignity of the serious person, snooty snooty…” — nope. I’m just astonished at how segmented the public sphere has become.

  4. I just need to say that the links to those photos were fantastic. I had no idea what to expect. I clicked with a bit of trepidation. And I currently feel super good about my own cooter after reading this story through those pictures.

    Maybe it’s secretly a plot by the pro-O’Donnell folk to get us to empathize with her. Probably not. But that almost sorta works for me.

  5. Bridgett, yeah, my own reaction was sort of, “who, what? I am sooooo out of it. But wait, I’m actually not out of it, generally speaking. So, what? WHAT? Where is this being discussed?”

Comments are closed.