[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.”
