If you had to put your hand up and guess which fashion brand put a not naked, but partially clothed model with a healthy undergrowth visible through her sheer knickers on its adverts who would you say? How many milliseconds before you came up with American Apparel? And you’d be right too.
But, what is the effect of this type of picture? Do you
a) wince with disgust that someone clearly hasn’t been keeping up with their pruning?
b) cheer because – at last – there’s an acknowledgement in the fashion world that ladies do actually grow stuff down there? or
c) sigh wearily at another cheap publicity stunt from the brand with the sleazy rep to uphold.
Have we all become emotional and squeamish about this kind of pic – which, let’s be honest isn’t even particularly how nature intended, it’s still very manicured, primped and preened . . .OR are women secretly relieved when they see pictures with a touch of fuzz on, terrified that under their jeans and pants they are ABNORMAL for not bothering to keep up a meticulous routine of depilation, apart from one or twice a year before swimming or holidays (if that)????
BAck in 2003, a certain Mr Tom Ford released Gucci ads featuring a big letter G shaved into the aforementioned area and it caused an UPROAR, of the most dramatic proportions. However, whenever an ad for, like, shower gel goes up which basically depicts a hairless mannequin-like lady, no-one bats an eye. So do we now view a few strands of hair as more offensive than none, in places where normally, you’d have some, unless you’d taken steps to remove it, OR is it annoying purely because brands are cynically trying to grab our attention with a flash of lady garden, when the product for sale doesn’t really have anything to do with lady gardens, hairless, in full bloom or otherwise.
Or is it a good thing?
We’re flummoxed. So you’ll have to let us know.