Lisa of Sociological Images succinctly describes the concept behind “vajazzling.”
In any case, the video below, in which a woman documents the vajazzling of her “vagina,” reveals that the term refers to the placing of a field of tiny crystals where your public hair would be. So, first you essentially replace your pubic hair with shiny objects.
Succinctly but not completely. That should read shiny, sharp cut-glass crystal objects! Which at the very, very least would tend to limit one’s partner’s interest in face-to-face intercourse. And assuming men are being honest who say they don’t want pubic hair in their mouths ought to be just even more balky about chipping their molars on Swarovski crystals.
My guess is that the hair-in-the-mouth thing is a red herring. As Holly says, if men are so all-fired indiscriminating and sex-crazed they sure are a demandingly picky bunch. And nothing says demanding like “scrape off your pubic hair with a razor, or pull it out with hot, sticky wax,” I’m guessing saying “and encrust it with jewels instead” just seems extra special.
My second guess, though, is that it’s scarcely any of my business how an intimate partner chooses to groom herself and no business at all of mine how anyone else goes about it. Part of privilege would be assuming people who get themselves vajazzled are interested in men’s opinion in the first place.
For some inscrutable
Submitted by Holly Pervocracy (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 05:02.For some inscrutable technical reason, your posts aren’t showing up on the front page. I can see them by following the Facebook links, but on the realadultsex.com front page, the top post is still “Anti-Feminism and Misandry: More Reasons Why Real Men Should Never Feel Threatened by Feminism.”
I don’t know if it is male
Submitted by BluntHammer (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 08:58.I don’t know if it is male privilege or not… but I do think both parties in a relationship
dohave to be respectful of our partner’s preferences. I wouldn’t come home with my cock pierced, knowing my current partner isn’t into that. Likewise, she wouldn’t come home with a huge tat on her neck & arm because she knows I find it a huge turn off. And the same is true if I got Ball-jazzled, or she got vajazzled.If someone wants to get va- / ball-jazzled, more power to them. I just think it is always a good idea to not do something that is going strain the relationship, at the least talking to your partner about it first.
ok for some reason.. if you
Submitted by BluntHammer (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 09:05.ok for some reason.. if you put a dash in front and behind something.. it crosses it out. I didn’t even notice it until my SO pointed it out to me. Sorry.
What the hell. I’m going to
Submitted by chingona (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 10:52.What the hell. I’m going to go ahead and say I disapprove of this, even if it’s none of my business what someone else does with her crotch. And there is a lot of stuff that women do to their bodies for appearance’s sake that men will swear up and down they either don’t care about or even don’t care for, and yet it’s hard to imagine women thinking these things were a good idea in a world with a different sort of relationship between men and women as classes. The nice, succinct way of putting this is escaping me at the moment, but the whole notion that women’s bodies are both their greatest asset and yet fundamentally unacceptable in a state of nature comes straight out of patriarchy, and I don’t think you get to vajazzling without that foundation.
Though, as some commenters at
Submitted by chingona (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 11:01.Though, as some commenters at Sociological Images pointed out, once you’re taking off all the hair, it’s not that weird to do some extra adornment. Like drawing in your eyebrows after you wax them off, except sparkly. Sparkly crotch eyebrows.
I covered this last month,
Submitted by Blue Gal (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 11:58.I covered this last month, and I do not take the stand that this is one of those “whatever floats your boat” issues. This is an insane conspicuous (or not, but who would do that and NOT have an audience for it?) consumption issue.
The “spa treatment” people promise the crystals last an entire five days.
There’s a motherfutzing recession on, and that fifty dollars they’re spending to rhinestone their pussy could go to feed some Haitians.
Women of America: the good Lord did not put you on this planet to replace your panties with fake diamond glue-on. All things in moderation, people.
Okay, now the front page
Submitted by Holly Pervocracy (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 13:19.Okay, now the front page works! On the actual content: eh, it’s people’s own crotches. And it’s their own money, and no, I’m NOT giving every dollar I don’t need to live to Haiti—I’m giving some, but I’m also spending some money on fun, and that’s my right.
I would be offended if this threatened to become a mandatory thing, if women with unbedazzled crotches were considered drab and unattractive, but since it’s just a fun novelty, I have no problem with people having fun with it.
I could totally do it cheaper than $50 though. (Although that price seems about right for doing it to someone else, given the amount of time required and the stranger’s-crotch factor.) I’ve got a whole thing of crystals here and some spirit gum. In fact…
To be fair.. the people who
Submitted by BluntHammer (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 13:28.To be fair.. the people who are doing this with their 50$ wouldn’t spend it on some Haitians anyway. (BTW, why do we care about Haiti but not Chile??... just kinda strange.)
And I could easily see it becoming just that, Holly.. for some men/women. Much like piercings/shaving/tats, some things are attractive to some, and VERY unattractive to others. That is why I think if you have a partner, it is important to get their opinion as well. But I digress. I could easily see a man/woman saying “Oh.. you don’t X-jazzle. Yeah, huh.. cool” .. and then go talk to someone who openly does. (Or doesn’t if said person DOES ball-/va- jazzle.)
And yes… when I saw something about this a week or so ago and started to talk to people, I have had men and woman ask “I wonder if there is a spa where I/guys could get this done.”
What I’m thinking is that
Submitted by K (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 15:16.What I’m thinking is that it’s rather hetero & intercourse-centric to automatically jump to “But how do you have SEX?!” re: vajazzling. Maybe the lady getting vajazzled (or vul-vazzled) has no interest in hetero PIV sex.
The other thing I’m thinking is that – you know, I can buy plastic shiny rhinestone things at the craft store for like $5/bag… I usually use them for crafts & clay but it’s there… What’s the adhesive they use in movies for makeup & stuff? Spirit gum? Chewing gum? Double-sided tape? Like… if cost is a factor, I could do this at home for less. I’d be bad at it at first, but I’d get good after awhile. And they wouldn’t be glass crystals but eh who cares? Sparkly is sparkly and if they get lost eh I’ll vacuum them up later.
Yes I’ve actually thought seriously about this.
Really, with this – and yes, even the dye stuff – I can definitely imagine scenarios where such things might very well be genuinely comforting for no one’s sake but the individual’s. Not common scenarios. Rare ones. Odd ones. Ones that despite their unusualness shouldn’t be overlooked.
[“What I’m thinking is that it’s rather hetero & intercourse-centric to automatically jump to ‘But how do you have SEX?!’” Yup, that’s what I was thinking when I stuck in my big disclaimers at the end. The beginning was a more covert disclaimer that it’s probably done for reasons other than directly sexual ones. I’d think for any partner, let alone for one’s self, it would be like having sand or cracker crumbs in bed with you. Either between the two of you or, as they were coming off, between you and your own sheets.
As for sticking stuff to yourself, in general I’d probably go more for pearls and beads over faceted stones but that’s just me. There are plenty of people in the festival arts who attach all sorts of cool, sparkly, spiky objects to themselves.
With all those caveats out of the way, personally I’m not bedazzled with jewel-encrusted skin and socially I’m still wary of cosmetic pressure on people in general and women in particular. As I think Sungold said a month or so ago, it’s hard to imagine making cosmetic decisions without being influenced by social pressure. Thanks, K. —fl]
Nice to see you got your blog
Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 20:51.Nice to see you got your blog un-snafued, or whatever the term is. Like Holly, I was only seeing a feed on my Google Reader.
But oh, figleaf, I am such a broken record on the theme of social pressure in cosmetic decisions, and I’ve been nattering on about it ever since I’ve known you. So I have no idea which instance you’ve got in mind. Maybe you’re just thinking of the last time Chingona and I both weighed in on the politics of pubic hair and sort of ganged up on you, in the fondest way possible. (I wrote about the pressure to go bare again earlier this week and was flooded with comments from folks – mostly in my general age range, 35 and up – who felt alienated by the pressure for women to have what one commenter likes to call a “bald vulva.”)
Like Chingona, I don’t think the pressure to groom one’s vajayjay (and lord I hate that term, but that’s the nonexistent body part that gets vajazzled) is remotely intelligible without patriarchy in its rump, zombie form. It also doesn’t make sense without oppositional sexism – because honestly, the odds of men doing this are about as high as my six-year-old really wanting a Pretty Sparkly Princess scooter – he jokes about it, but actual desire is somewhere less than zero.
I suppose there are limited situations where, as K notes, a woman might playfully try it out for herself. Such situations are surely very unusual. Given that virtually all pubic grooming is about pleasing a partner, it’s really hard to imagine vajazzling being much different. (The Onion had a marvelous spoof on pubic depilations for Valentine’s Day.)
But why does the glitter head straight for the genitals? For instance, if I just wanted to be sparkly, I could stick sequins or rhinestones to my bare shoulders, or my breasts peeking out of a camisole, or my belly – there are so many options that wouldn’t limit the viewership to only my sex partner, and that would be a whole lot more fun socially. (Physically? I keep picturing an hot glue gun – yikes!) And yeah, I’m thinking of “partner” pretty heteronormatively, not just because that’s how I roll, but because I can’t think of any lesbians I know who would go for a sparkly pubic region.
So figleaf, I appreciate your not wanting to say, “Oh, this must be all for us menz,” because coming from a man, such statement could be read as an expression of privilege. I wouldn’t read it that way from you, personally, but I appreciate your taking note of your position. Nonetheless, I’m going to renew the tradition of me piling on you with Chingona :-) and suggest that vajazzling really is unthinkable in an egalitarian society. I think we can safely say that this is overwhelmingly about the menz, even if it’s not your thing, even though you’d never presume on a partner in that way.
Practices like this – including rigid standards for public grooming, which are way more widespread than the sparkles – are also fundamentally alien to a society where sexual attractiveness would actually map onto the potential for sexual pleasure. That’s one aspect of your original post that I thought really rocked, figleaf. Yeah, sure, you could do it doggy style (and I’d never say no to that, oh no!) BUT then you don’t see the pretty sparkly thingies. And does any grooming choice that limits either partner’s movements in sex ever increase anyone’s pleasure?
Personally, I like body glitter, but the kind we used to wear to Grateful Dead shows was a whole lot cheaper. It also is not liable to get lodged in anyone’s urethra (which is my nightmare vision of vajazzles). I don’t suppose one would want to apply that body glitter like Astroglide, heaven forfend. But it was trippy and fun, and no one was suggesting I apply it anywhere near my tender, happy ladyparts.
[I think I was thinking about that last time with you and Chingona. Or I should say that was the time you finally got the top off of my prior, stubborn position. I’m actually a little more sanguine than you about this being something that would only be done with the lurching carcass of Patriarchy looming like a brain-dead but still-dangerous zombie in the background. (That was nice and, I think, startlingly accurate metaphor by the way.) But that’s mostly because of a couple of lectures on the anthropology on body modification from back before the big tattoo renaissance that began in the 1980s. So the way I’d put it is that patriarchy isn’t so much why women wouldn’t do it as why men wouldn’t decorate their… um… vajizzles? with sparklies as well. So as you say it’s the oppositional nature of it, not that it’s being done at all. Otherwise I’m going to stick with my decision to a) abhor the way it appears to be happening at the moment but also b) continue to assume that my approval or disapproval on sexual grounds should not be the metric for judging the phenomenon. Thanks, Sungold. —fl]
Like Chingona, I don’t think
Submitted by Dw3t-Hthr (not verified) on Fri, 2010-03-12 21:38.Like Chingona, I don’t think the pressure to groom one’s vajayjay (and lord I hate that term, but that’s the nonexistent body part that gets vajazzled)
... I’m pretty sure the vulva is real …
I think the body part in
Submitted by chingona (not verified) on Sat, 2010-03-13 07:31.I think the body part in question is the mons pubis or mons veneris. I’ve always the considered the vulva to be the actual genital area (labia and what’s between them, etc.) The skin above your pubic bone and below your belly isn’t your vulva. And it’s definitely not your vagina.
ps – figleaf – you may know this, but I think your site is messed up again. of course, when everyone else was having problems, it looked fine to me. Now it looks really weird, though still functional.
And somehow the act of
Submitted by chingona (not verified) on Sat, 2010-03-13 07:32.And somehow the act of commenting put it back to normal. So never mind and carry on.
Yeah, I meant that those
Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Sat, 2010-03-13 14:47.Yeah, I meant that those crystals are not going on anyone’s vagina. Or at least I hope not! It would give new, um, teeth to the idea of the vagina dentata.
I just hate the use of “vagina” or its über-cutesy nickname “vajayjay” to refer to the labia or the mons or the clitoris or really anything that’s not the vagina. I think it contributes to the mystification of women’s genitals in a way that colludes with old, old ideas about them being unmentionables even in an era when we’re under pressure to wax them bare.
And the zombie metaphor actually came from you, figleaf, originally. But I really like it.
While I respectfully disagree
Submitted by BluntHammer (not verified) on Fri, 2010-03-12 10:02.While I respectfully disagree that this couldn’t be possible “without patriarchy in its rump, zombie form”, I can agree with you Sun that there is a real chance that the woman who came up with this thought “Hey, I like this and my man will as well.” Hell, as a male I do things/wear things/style things in a way that will attract a partner, and even now that I am getting married I still do things I am comfortable doing.. for my fiancee. So if you ARE correct, and it is just a way for a woman to feel sexy/beautiful/ect… then what is the complaint?
(Also, I find it, as a male, slightly insulting for someone to say I will or will not do something based only on my sex…...)
I see this much less as “Is it sexist/is it not sexist” and A LOT more in line with tats, piercings and anything else. While I strongly disagree with bejazzle-ing my or anyone else’s crotch, I DO see it as a symbol of self-expression.
I do, however, VERY happily agree with your comment about anything that “limits either partner’s movements in sex” does not make sex BETTER. (Well.. unless you are both into bondage but that’s a whole different issue.) It is one of the reasons I don’t understand why some couples go out and get their genitals pierced at the same time. Maybe I am a coward, but really.. I just see a painful accident in the future for both.
In the video at Sociological
Submitted by chingona (not verified) on Fri, 2010-03-12 11:16.In the video at Sociological Images, the esthetician (I think that’s what they call them) says they did a ton of these for Valentine’s Day and they do a lot of them for anniversaries. So while in theory some women might really truly do it “for themselves,” it doesn’t sound like heteronormative assumptions around this practice are that misplaced in practice.
This makes me think about how
Submitted by Mary Kaye (not verified) on Fri, 2010-03-12 22:32.This makes me think about how when a woman says “This makes me feel sexy” it’s parsed as “This makes me feel sexually attractive” (implying, attractive to someone else). She can say “This makes me feel horny” but somehow that doesn’t cover all of the territory. I feel sexy when I’m dressed in certain ways, even though I know that my partner is not a very visual person and isn’t likely to respond sexually to how I’m dressed (as opposed to how I sound or what I’m doing with my body). It’s not horny exactly, it’s more situational. But there’s no word for this that doesn’t imply a viewer.
I wear robes or skirts for certain kinds of religious ritual even though no one sees me but the Gods, and I don’t suppose the Gods care what I’m wearing. But they have the right effect on my own state of mind.
If someone gets into a fun state of mind by beading her pubes, hey, more power to her. (Me, I’m too squeamish. I don’t even paint my nails; I hate the acetone.)
One of the things I REALLY
Submitted by Shay (not verified) on Sat, 2010-03-13 17:45.One of the things I REALLY hate about this whole moronic “Vajazzle” thing is that it’s bringing the term “vajayjay” back into common use! GAH!!!
>> Part of privilege would be
Submitted by Lulu (not verified) on Wed, 2010-03-17 07:26.>> Part of privilege would be assuming people who get themselves vajazzled are interested in men’s opinion in the first place.
FTW
That’s one of the things that always aggravates me when pubic hair(style) discussions take place. That it’s presumed the person in question would never do this (crazy) thing just ‘cause she likes it.