Bikini fur and fur bikinis
in The last taboo
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact manchesterhive@manchester.ac.uk for pricing options.

ACCESS TOKENS

If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

This chapter discusses the grounds for reading animal fur as body hair. This is because body hair and fur are connected with, and substituted for, each another in a variety of ways. The chapter first considers an advertisement for an anti-fur campaign launched by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in 1999/2000. The advertisement in question features, in PETA's own words, ‘a woman in pink panties whose bikini line is in dire need of waxing, with the caption, Fur trim. Unattractive’. The outcry surrounding this particular PETA campaign advertisement peaked in the publicity around an open letter of protest written by Galen Sherwin (the then president of the New York City Chapter of the National Organization for Women) and the response by Ingrid Newkirk (president of PETA). Diagnosing the cultural enforcement of shaving, waxing and depilating as the problem can only result in an equally culturally determined unshaven body, as long as the notion of the connection to the natural body remains inviolate.

The last taboo

Women and body hair

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 26 14 0
Full Text Views 11 6 1
PDF Downloads 11 5 1