Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

I hope this doesnt get me banned from here


Creepster

Recommended Posts

but this is too important not to share ......................

 

 

 

Alright, American Apparel, we get it: You really like pubic hair.

The always controversial retailer got people talking yet again, this time with store window mannequins adorned with pubic hair. Gothamist spotted the mannequins in New York City at the East Houston Street location of American Apparel, which has been stopping people in their tracks. (But did they then go into the store to buy the brand's panties??)

The Huffington Post spoke to an associate at the store, who said that the mannequins went up at 3am on Thursday morning and were meant to convey the "rawness and realness of sexuality." They're aimed at drumming up sales around Valentine's Day, and it would appear it's already working: Curious pedestrians have been crowding around the store taking photos, and American Apparel has received a barrage of media inquiries.

American Apparel has a history of using pubic hair in its imagery, potentially for shock value (a trademark American Apparel strategy). Just last fall, the store sold a graphic T-shirt containing an image of a menstruating vagina with hair-down-there, which caused an online stir. Before that, American Apparel released a 2011 ad featuring a model in sheer underwear with -- you guessed it -- visible pubic hair.

It's clear Dov Charney, the founder and CEO of American Apparel, has no issue using jarring imagery related to female genitalia, either as a calculated move to court controversy or as an empowering statement on the female body (or both). Do these mannequins make you want to buy American Apparel clothes?

 

 

o-AMERICAN-570.jpg?8

 

 

are nippled mannequins off limits?

 

 

 

o-AMERICAN-570.jpg?1

more here

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16/american-apparel-pubic-hair-mannequins_n_4610688.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.celebrityhealthfitness.com/9087/shave-cameron-diaz-pubic-hair-fashion-trend/

 

Cameron Diaz is sporting a full bush these days and lovin’ it. She encourages women to let it grow down under in her new book, and now at least one edgy retailer is embracing public hair as fashion statement. So do you shave, or not and which way is healthier?
But one thing is certain, shaving is considered unhealthy.

Whether you use razor blades, electric shavers, tweezers, waxing or depilatories, your most sensitive skin is brutalized by the process, according to health experts. The tiny abrasions open the door to infections and other skin problems.

The region is especially susceptible to staph infections, boils and abscesses and hair-follicle inflammation. Freshly shaved vaginas are also more susceptible to herpes infections, which much enter through the blood-stream.

Plus, it’s only a matter of days before itchy stubble re-emerges and the process needs to be started all over again.

Pubic hair, on the other hand, can actually prevent bacteria from reaching sensitive vaginal parts, and also cushions and protects the genitals. It’s no coincidence that pubic hair emerges when women enter child-bearing age.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Hello, soccer fans [crickets, tumbleweed flies by]. The World Cup kicks off in less than 2 weeks and, well, 🇺🇸USA USA USA🇺🇸 and all. We beat Senegal 3-2 yesterday in a tune-up friendly at BoA, with Christian Pulisic finally entering the scoring column.  How will we do in the World Cup once our tournament kicks off on the 12th? Well, there are 48 teams (assuming Iran is there) and it feels like one of two thing happens: we get grouped for the first time since '98, or we make it to the Round of 16 for the third time in the last four World Cups. I tried out the lottery for an Atlanta game and struck out, so yesterday was as World Cup as I'll get for in-person ($285/ticket for like Norway vs $39/ticket for USMNT right beforehand was a layup).  The U.S. has a travel-heavy schedule in group play, playing in LA, Seattle and LA. Real road warrior mentality being built. Glad the east coast gets worse kickoff times for a NA World Cup than a Qatar World Cup.
    • Well, that's the thing. Drafting players only for their physical measurables as you are suggesting only really happened during 2024, and X unfortunately has become the poster child for that. To be clear, it's not necessarily about drafting RAS over skill, but RAS over NFL-readiness and/or a solid body of work. Lots of players show skill in college, but those skills don't necessarily translate to the NFL for a multitude of reasons. But, getting back to the main point, to be clear, I believe that our FO is still enamored with physical gifts (who wouldn't be?), but now they're letting Dr. Eric Eager's proprietary system--his "secret sauce" prioritize the players that the Panthers draft, and it seems like it weighs not only a solid body of work, relative to a college career of course, but consistent gradual improvement as evidenced by production pretty highly. 
    • Its a good article about how pathetically bad our past drafts ('23 and '24) have been. Building the team in '23 since we weren't ready yet and taking your qb in '24 made so much more sense in hindsight. Ladd McConkey over XL is pretty much a given but not sure it does as much to change Bryce's trajectory as the author suggests.  As bad as '23 and '24 drafts were, the '25 and '26 really give me hope.  
×
×
  • Create New...