Really, Globe and Mail?

For serious?


I mean, sure. Products about vulvas are pretty fucking popular right now. They don't even have the line of CLEAN PURE SOFT FRESH sprays mentioned in the article. But Zosia Bielski consistently uses the word vagina, rather than vulva, through the entire article.

"To the glee of marketers and chagrin of feminists, vaginas appear to be enjoying their 15 minutes of fame in the commercial world."

The marketers will always be dogs. Vulvalovelovely will always be awesome, and pretty cool. As a feminist, I feel no chagrin about a plush uterus and I'm just baffled by vajazzling. My chagrin comes from the apparent lack of knowledge about female anatomy. There's a difference between the vulva and the vagina, and it's rather marked in that one is outside of your body and one is inside. This is a simple delineation that almost anyone can understand!

"Now available in several Canadian salons, the practice has raised the ire of feminist bloggers, who rank it alongside other dubious grooming trends such as pubic hair stencilling and Brazilians. They also aren't especially fond of Linger, a new line of vaginal mints, or My New Pink Button – that's labia dye."

Woah woah woah. Almost every feminist blog I read has openly laughed at vajazzling, because it's just hilarious.

The mints had a reason. Awhile ago, someone started promoting these mints called Linger. Somebody got some mints to check them out and they are just regular fucking mints. It's like a yeast infection waiting to happen. I would never put a regular advertising company tradeshow mint in my vag, not even if they print the words "vagina mint" on the outside! Because it's unsafe!

The dye is kind of strange, but I'm not into any type of cosmetics. I find the dye as absurd as I find any other makeup.


All told, I'm not sure what the point of this article is: is it a feature piece on VULVA perfume, which gets a lot of page space? Is it about feminism, as the creator of Vulvalovelovely.com is quoted discussing feminism toward the end of the article? Is it about feminist-bashing (while not quoting any actual bashing feminists)?

I think it's about how the Globe and Mail's copy editors don't know the difference between a vulva and a vagina. I'd be interested to know why Zosia, or the Globe and Mail, decided on this distinction, and also decided not to interview any of the ireful feminists that are referred to throughout the article. God knows there's enough feminists on the internet that somebody would've had time to respond to a question like "how do you feel about vajazzling?"

Because really, typing "LOL" doesn't take that long.