Comments on: Are you a pervert for seeing abstract and implied vaginas on book covers?

By: Caleb J Ross

Caleb J Ross — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 04:53:18 +0000

Good call. I think when actual female parts are used in selling sex–the breasts, the vagina, the clad part of bikini clad–it prevents people from seeing beyond the organ. Whereas when the organ is used in the abstract, we are allowed to have a true conversation. It’s like the title of that Deftones album, “Around the Fur.” Though I don’t know that the band mean for the album to be taken the way I took it, that’s what I get from it: what’s around the fur (pubic hair)?

By: Rebecca Jones-Howe

Rebecca Jones-Howe — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:17:12 +0000

I’m all aboard seeing more vaginas in the mainstream. I think they’re still a scandalous thing, despite the fact that you’ll see penis references everywhere. Is it perverted? Well, yes, but I think it’s in a positive way.

It’s a bit subversive, though, that you can show an open change purse in a sexual manner and it’s somehow more shocking than having a bikini-clad lady on there. Less skin, but it’s artistic in showing…more skin.

That’s selling sex the right way. As a female, I find it less discriminating.