[Ed note: We ran a shorter version of this story in the Scoop column of yesterday's print newspaper, but we didn't include a photo of the ad in question. So, here it is, in all its hairy glory.]
Voodoo Doughnut owner Tres Shannon doesn’t understand why Bitch magazine declined from running his store’s new clothing ad in their publication. According to him, the only thing that might be controversial about the ad is the fact that the woman, whose underpants-clad privates are being depicted in the ad, is unshaven. “It’s just pubic hair,” says Shannon. “I thought Bitch would be happy the woman isn’t plucked and shaved, but all natural like a real woman.”
According to Shannon, Bitch magazine came to him months before to host one of their parties in his doughnut shop. Shannon complied, then decided he wanted to continue their partnership by running a Voodoo Doughnut ad in their magazine. “I mean, they came to me first and asked me for my help, and you’d think they’d want to return the favor.”
“I recognize the ad is edgy,” says Shannon. “But I thought Bitch was all about edginess.”
Bitch spokeswoman Jaymee Jacoby says the mag is not ad-driven and reserves the right to reject any images that might “offend the readers that support us.” And although Jacoby wouldn’t comment about whether or not it was the pubic hair that made their executive team feel it was too offensive, she did say that they felt the ad objectified a woman’s body in order to sell their clothing.
“We went back and forth on this issue, and it comes down to how our readers would interpret the ad as a whole,” says Jacoby. “We felt that our readers would feel that the ad goes against our mission statement to be anti-sexist.”
Shannon disagrees, but adds that he does not have a personal vendetta against the publication. “They’ve been nice about it, but the whole thing is just confusing,” he says. “They okayed an ad by Voodoo Doughnuts, but were surprised by what they got.”
- Voodoo Child: A peek at Voodoo Doughnut Too Tres and
- Voodoo Doughnut, #2? Even thou
- Miss Dish • Doughnut vs. Doughnut [RESTAUR
- Voodoo Does the Dew, Dude! If it wer
- What a Bitch: Feminist Mag in a Financial Crunch I first r
Tags: Adverstisement, Bitch magazine, controversy, Downtown, Tres shannon, Underpants, Voodoo donuts
It’s cute when hipsters try to out-hip each other. If it’s not “edgy” or “ironic”, then it’s not worth considering.
Pop, once again, eating itself.
While this ad is not eye-meltingly offensive, it’s just tacky. I doubt Bitch Mag was put off by an uncoiffed bush, but that showing pubes went out with the Black Crows.
For a business to go straight to the press after getting an ad denied is pretty indicitive of a few things. First, in all the jobs I’ve worked in advertising, there’s always a little push and pull about what will work and what won’t. That’s why there’s a dialog. According to the story Bitch Mag agreed on another ad, but perhaps Voodoo felt like they could get more press for no money in running to the W.Week.
Any business that deals with Voodoo after this little vendetta is crazy.
The only real question is whether Tres Shannon is pig-ignorant, disingenous, or really enjoys inciting controversy.
I guess Bitch (rightfully) concluded that pubic hair, and donuts, aren’t the best match.
Sure doesn’t make me want a dounut.
Sounds like Tres is the bitch!
Can a donut be the lowest form of bun?
A feminist magazine doesn’t want to take an ad that objectifies women.
Voodoo Donuts just lost a customer on this one.
I’m still A-OK with both parties…
Refreshing, funny, out there, sounds like Voodoo!
I love how this man’s interpretation of Bitch’s mission is to be “edgy.” Gee, didn’t realize being honest about sexism, feminism, and sex equated to edgy in 2009. Hey Tres, there’s a clue out there with your name on it.
“According to the story Bitch Mag agreed on another ad, but perhaps Voodoo felt like they could get more press for no money in running to the W.Week.”
Buy one, get one free? That’s one (savvy) way to stretch a limited ad budget, I guess.
I could care less about the flash of pubic hair. It’s the reference to a woman’s vagina as a “pink box” that I find offensively objectifying. The ad would do better in a rag like Maxim.
You said it, brother…sister…whatever.
Time to retire the the naming of pieces of women’s body parts. Too heifer-like.
Exactly. It’s dehumanizing – I’ve never heard of this donut place, but if I do, now I won’t go there.
I personally got the image of a doughnut featuring a hole. That, in reference to a lady’s parts, which many associate as simply a hole, is gross and tacky, methinks.
It’s just gross. Probably won’t eat a voodoo doughnut again – I don’t want to think of curly brown public hair while I eat.
Also, the fact that the words on the panties say “good things come in pink boxes”…it’s like glorifying a man’s genitalia. (Maybe that’s just me that thought that…but who knows.) I don’t think Bitch magazine would care for that aspect of the ad either, if the issue came up. (…haha, no pun intended!)
*edgey,* eh? last I checked, juvenile slang for the Scary Mystery Hole, spunk jokes and heteronormativity were pretty darn status quo.
Not everybody wants your boston creme in her axe wound, skippy. Plus I hear it promotes yeast.
…aaand with the use of “heteronormativity” we have reached maximum whiny political correctness. Be sure to check in next week when the Mercury covers the rejection of an ad for fixies featuring testicle jokes.
It’s an underwear ad…get over it people
Would you like cream in your donut?
All to-go boxes at Voodoo Doughnut are pink. The ad is play on words for people who assume that they are referring to body parts. Interesting. Personally I applaud the guy for getting this much free publicity. Brilliant!
Are any of the above commentators even from Portland? Or are you from the burbs…? This is Portland! Home of Storm Large, and Blaze Schaffer. We have an army of proud female stripers who don’t have body issues. We have the largest nude bicycle ride in the world. Yer all a bunch of uptight whiners.
I am not from Portland, My vagina is 8 miles wide!, but Bitch is a nationally circulating magazine. I may or may not be aware of how crazy freaky and sex-and-female positive Portland is, and I certainly am not familiar with Voodoo Doughnuts (I actually am, but I’m speaking at large here), so it stands I would have no idea they’re doughnuts literally come in pink boxes. I wouldn’t get the joke, but would only see the sexualization of a woman purely for commercial purposes.
You people are so petty and hypocritical. Your slogan of “keep Portland weird” seems to only apply if it fits within your own personal preferences.
As pdxcomic pointed out, the humor appears to have gone above your heads. Get over it, it’s a funny ad.
I am impressed at a fairly literate string of comments. Voodoo managed to jiggle a few folks. I imagine that was intent.
So lets at least be honest.
Whether or not the image and words are worth wrangling over, it is silly to deny that it is a provocative image. To claim “pink boxes” could only refer to donuts unless you have a (your prejudice here) mind is to deny what you are looking at.
Personally, not in good taste.(pun not intented, but oh well) But should they publish it? Their choice. Should we care? Several places sell donuts, and many sell mags. Share your thoughts with the businesses. Personally? byebye Voodoo. Last thing I want is hair in my food, and pubes head that list.
What does more harm? An image of underwear and the discussion that follows, or our ignoring larger issues that we can affect? Pick your cause- Darfur, Aids, Healthcare, hunger, blowhards, (NO, pun not intended)- there are lots of things we can take on that matter more than pubes.
How to best end objectifying women? Easy- Stop objectifying women! Can that happen? Will sex ever be unpopular? Not if biology class was correct. So admit what it is, and then you don’t have to behave that way.
Yes, sex sells, but delicious food sells even better. So why not have an ad that actually features a gorgeous doughnut? 100% of the ad’s viewers would salivate at that.
Isn’t all make up, hair style, fashion objectifying the body? Isn’t looking in a mirror objectifying the body? Isn’t being in a body objectifying the body?