Ugh.

On their Facebook page, Honi Soit have published a piece written by the 18 women whose vulvas are depicted on the cover. Mamamia has published an edited version of their explanation below:

Eighteen vulvas. All belong to women of Sydney Uni. Why are they on the cover of Honi Soit? We are tired of society giving us a myriad of things to feel about our own bodies. We are tired of having to attach anxiety to our vaginas. We are tired of vaginas being either artificially sexualised (see: porn) or stigmatised (see: censorship and airbrushing). We are tired of being pressured to be sexual, and then being shamed for being sexual. The vaginas on the cover are not sexual. We are not always sexual. The vagina should and can be depicted in a non-sexual way – it’s just another body part. “Look at your hand, then look at your vagina,” said one participant in the project. “Can we really be so naïve to believe our vaginas the dirtiest, sexiest parts of our body?” We refuse to manipulate our bodies to conform to your expectations of beauty. How often do you see an ungroomed vulva in an advertisement, a sex scene, or in a porno? Depictions of female genitalia in culture provide unrealistic images that most women are unable to live up to. “Beautiful vaginas are depicted as soft, hairless, and white. The reality is that my vagina is dark and hairy, and when it isn’t it is pinkish and prickly,” said one of the participants in the project. We believe that the fact that more than 1200 Australian women a year get labiaplasty is a symptom of a serious problem. How can society both refuse to look at our body part, call it offensive, and then demand it look a certain way? As one participant put it: “When it comes down to it, my vagina is just another part of my body, which can be viewed in a number of different ways, but the majority of the time is completely neutral, just like my mouth or my hands. It is not something to be ashamed of; it is not my dirty secret.” Just before we went to print, we were told that our cover was illegal, possibly criminal. But why? According to the SRC’s legal advice, this publication might be “obscene” or “indecent”, likely to cause offence to a “reasonable adult”. But what is offensive or obscene about a body part that over half of the Australian population have? Why can’t we talk about it – why can’t we see it? Why is that penises are scrawled in graffiti all around the world, but we can’t bear to look at vaginas? … Here they are, flaps and all. Don’t you dare tell me my body offends you.

Honi Soit are right.

There is a reason these images need to be published.

There is a reason that the media need to start publishing more realistic representations of women’s bits. Because at the moment women are being held up to an impossible and not-real standard that is being applied to every single body part.

Faces must be pimple and wrinkle-free.

Breasts must be pert. And large. But not too large.

Stomachs must be smooth and abs distinctly visible.

Thighs must be skinny. Boxy gaps must be boxy.

Behinds must be curvaceous.

Legs must be waxed.

And vulvas must be pretty.

In porn (where, lets face it, most young people are learning about sex today, before they even get close to having sex) vulvas are waxed, and cleaned, and anything but natural-looking. And that’s before the photoshopping even begins.

In men’s magazines labias are digitally removed and skin imperfections smoothed away, until all that remains where a vulva once was, is a Barbie-like lump.



The only way women will stop comparing themselves to these unrealistic images, is if the media starts pushing the envelope and publishing images of what women actually look like. Honi Soit spoke to Mamamia about the guillotining of their cover.

Their editorial team said:

Our original intention was to publish a cover which women would find empowering, not to do something controversial or sensational. We felt that the twin influences of pornography and censorship (for instance, the fact that the cunnilingus scene in Blue Valentine earned the film a more restricted rating than it would have if the film had depicted fellatio) meant that women attach shame or fear to their vaginas, and feel that they have to conform to a certain standard of beauty (small labia, etc.). The cover and the 18 vulvae were intended to say to women that they were normal, that it didn’t matter what they looked like, and that they didn’t always have to be sexual. We (naively) didn’t think this would be a legal problem. We certainly didn’t think there would be any issues of criminal law. The SRC lawyer has expressed concern that the original cover, and the printed version (with slightly transparent bars over the vulvae) are in breach of s 578C of the NSW Crimes Act, as the images are “indecent”. As a consequence, the covers are probably going to be guillotined off tonight or tomorrow morning and the papers redistributed. We want to know why, in 2013, the distribution of images of a body part that 50% of the population has by a student paper known to push boundaries on a university campus (meant to be a liberal place where all ideas are welcome and debated) could possibly be criminal. Also, if this is indeed the law, we’d be interested in seeing it changed, although don’t have any specific plans for a campaign at this stage.

So, MM-ers. It’s over to you, should vulvas be publishable? Or not?



[poll id=”130″]