Oscar-nominated Christoph Waltz and Jamie Foxx in “Django Unchained.” Rex Features via AP Images

Not only has there been controversy about the content and the excessive use of the N-word in the hit movie Django Unchained, there is new outrage by some over the Django action figures that recently went on sale. Some complain that the selling of slave dolls is not only racially insensitive but also “trivializes the horrors of slavery,” as the Huffington Post reports. The dolls are available on Amazon.com. (Pictured below.)

So far, the controversy seems to have served the film rather well. Although it came in second place this past weekend, topped by Texas Chainsaw 3-D, which debuted at number one earning $23 million, Django is proving to have strong box office appeal, especially with African-American moviegoers. As we reported last week, African Americans are going to see the movie in record numbers and may help make this Tarantino’s bestselling movie ever. And it has been a crossover success.

Thus far the film starring Jamie Foxx as a freed slave bent on revenge, has earned a total of $106.4 million since it was released on Christmas Day. And, according to EUR, the flick could easily top $200 million during it run in the States and Canada. Could all this discussion about what’s offensive backfire on the film’s current ticket surge? Or intrigue more people to go out and see the film?

We’re going to predict continued box office success since the film is now Oscar-nominated, named just this morning in the Best Supporting Actor (Christoph Waltz) and Best Picture categories (Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kerry Washington were shut out of acting noms, and Tarantino wasn’t nominated for Best Director).

Movies with Oscar nominations typically get a box office bump, as viewers flock to see the films that have may win the big prize before awards night (February 24). Django will certainly benefit from that, particularly as the conversation shifts from simply talk about the content of the movie to whether the Academy should recognize the movie despite that content.

Django is scheduled to end its showings in the States in a few weeks.

If you’ve ever struggled with a ferocious furry unibrow, you know the struggle to get rid of it or to at least hold it at bay is real. I had a friend in high school who had a mean unibrow with a side of Groucho Marx, and she was still getting dudes! It wasn’t until we started going to Homecoming dances and other events as teens that she actually did something about the unibrow, turning it into some FIERCE, clean, arched brows. But if you ask former Teen Mom star Farrah Abraham, now 21, the mother of the adorable 3-year-old Sophia, a unibrow needs to be rid of as soon as possible.

When she noticed that Sophia was growing a unibrow that wouldn’t “go away,” Farrah took action and decided to try and wax it to save her daughter the embarrassment of having to walk around with a full furry brow at three years old. She looked at it in the same vein as clipping nails that are growing too long, or hair that is growing at a crazy pace, even though the process to get rid of Sophia’s unibrow was a messy and complicated one. After explaining why she did it and how she felt it benefited Sophia in the long run, she was surprised to see that people were a lot less understanding than she expected. Here’s what she had to say about why she did it, which included because “she felt bad for her”:

Sophia’s UNI-BROW , when is it time? (More #SULIA)

SOOOOOooooo, this is a touchy subject the Unibrow thing.

But recently I could not ignore it, like I know I’ve seen madonna’s duaghter have a stand out uni brow, I remember when I was little I had a unibrow, but I couldn’t remember if there was an age limit, a rule!

So here I am faced with a standout historical moment in motherhood when I can confirm to myself that my little, adorable,most cuddle-able cutie, baby girl has a Unibrow , I felt bad for her, and I started asking friends…. is this hair just going to fall out… is it just hormones at this age?, well the hair didn’t go away and others started saying it was here to stay.

So I told sophia (my daughter who is a late 3 years old) of the little issue on her brow, and I showed her how I waxed mine off, so I tryed to wax her, the second a dab hit the Uni, she touch it with the towel she had in her hand,

UHHH so now, wax was in the towel, and I yanked it back ASAP, but fuzz was not stuck to the wax stuck to her Uni, OMG moment, So now sophia was freaking out, so I had to act like it was a cool science project to get the wax off.

PLOT TO END THIS: Sophia feel a sleep, I got my tweezers and Pluck-pluck-pluck……soph was now saying ouch or anything and still was asleep, I got most of it off and then finally she woke up..I went to sleep .

The next morning I showed her and told her how well she did and she didn’t even know, She was more intrigued now to be ok with upkeeping her non-unibrow. I could tell she was proud.

Ah I feel like a good mom:) other moms tell me your ideas!

-Farrah

Who knew the unibrow was that touchy of a subject? While I’m all for teaching children the importance of personal grooming as they grow, I don’t think waxing was the way to go. I mean, she’s three year’s old, she’s just becoming more aware of herself, so I doubt Sophia’s little self was standing in the mirror agonizing over her eyebrows. And I don’t know why she felt bad for a 3-year-old. Who does she need to impress at this early stage in her life? But hey, as a new mom (especially a young one), you live and you learn, right?

But what do you think? Should she have waited to groom Sophia’s eyebrows? Or is it not really not that big of a deal?

So who is trying to see Django Unchained tomorrow?

With all the media hype surrounding the film, the good reviews, the Golden Globe nominations, and the talk of sold-out shows, we can assume that the answer is “a lot of people.” But someone that we now know will not be down for Django whatsoever is Spike Lee. In an interview with VIBETV, when the famed director was asked about his opinions of Django Unchained and if he planned to see the film, he was pretty emphatic in his no, saying, “I cant speak on it ’cause I’m not gonna see it. All I’m going to say is that it’s disrespectful to my ancestors. That’s just me…I’m not speaking on behalf of anybody else.”

Spike isn’t the first person to say something like this. FOR MONTHS, I’m talking, early in the year before the damn movie was midway into production, a lot of folks were crying foul, saying that Tarantino would try and make light of an extremely dark and ugly time in history that has affected so many. He had done something similar before in a positive (yet still uber-violent) way to pretty great reviews and an Academy Award win, when he released Inglourious Basterds. The movie was also a fictional revenge tale, but was centered around Jewish people from different backgrounds plotting to take out Hitler and Nazi leadership. Some of the reservations about Django I could understand. Let’s keep it real, Quentin doesn’t really keep things PG, and I know many people were and are still worried about images in the film, including a possible rape scene, being too graphic and uncomfortable for the sake of “art,” as well as use of the N-word in the dialogue. As someone who has seen all of his movies, I can understand why someone would be a bit worried. But there’s a difference between being worried about a movie, and trying to pan it when it hasn’t even come out yet. When you flat out condemn the movie, say that it’s another “Here Comes The White Man To Save The Day” type of work, or say something in the same vein as Spike’s comments, I always think to myself: How can you judge something so meticulously that you haven’t seen?

Seriously, that’s like someone saying they don’t want to meet and get to know you because people in your family have a personality that rubs them the wrong way. How can you assume something negative about someone you haven’t met? There’s something about people continuously saying the movie will be this and will be that and that equals why they won’t see it that comes off extremely close-minded. Can we all just keep it really real? If the storyline isn’t your cup of tea, then it’s totally okay to say that is why you don’t want to see it. If you’re not a fan of Quentin Tarantino movies, then you can say that is the reason you don’t want to see the movie or even be bothered with talking about it. But to discredit and make assumptions about the work, and the work of the fine actors in the film, just seems really unfair, and as a controversial director in his own right, I would have assumed that Spike Lee would understand why it’s not cool.

I’m a big fan of the movies of both of these men, and yes, they live for controversy because they like to think outside the box. This type of thinking has garnered them both a following, but also many critics. If I say there’s a new Spike Lee Joint coming out, a lot of people will roll their eyes because they don’t like Spike. They’ll assume it’s anti-white or something outrageous because they might not have understood where a classic movie like Do The Right Thing was coming from, or because they don’t like him as a person based on things they had seen or read. But to say a new movie of his, say a Red Hook Summer, is trash because of certain controversial scenes involving child abuse that you HEARD about, doesn’t make sense right? But people did it, and allowed that to overshadow the whole rest of the movie’s accomplishments. I’m sure Spike didn’t appreciate that.

As many people out there who close their minds to the great work Spike does because he makes some out-of-pocket comments from time to time, does some very different stuff in his moves and does some questionable things in everyday life, I wouldn’t think he would shut down a movie he hadn’t seen based purely on his assumptions about it. But then again, it seems he has more of a beef with Quentin than he really does his movies, as he clearly doesn’t like the director trying to tell black stories on-screen and the way he goes about doing so with the N-word (see his critiques of Tarantino’s film, Jackie Brown).

I’m not defending Tarantino, because, real talk, this movie could be a total failure and could rub a lot of people, including myself, the wrong way. And hey, it wouldn’t be the first time someone thought they were doing something epic that actually turned out to be a hot a** mess. But I would rather see the film and come to such a conclusion that it is or isn’t a mess, than to automatically assume it will be a hot a** mess and tell the whole world on camera, in a story, or in a comment section (no shade, I’m just saying). You don’t have to support mainstream directors trying their hand at stories of slavery and the struggle of black folks. (i.e., The Help, Twelve Years A Slave, The Butler, etc. Though the latter are directed by black men, clearly a lot of people don’t like that these are the stories people in Hollywood consistently want to work with) But before you question why someone gets an Academy Award nomination for such work, or pass judgment on the film, or throw shade at it for being loved by others, it would be nice if you actually had something to base your opinion on…you know, like actually having seen the movie and what not. But hey, to each their own.

Django Unchained hasn’t even come out yet and already it’s got people talking like crazy. Scheduled to be released on Christmas, the film is about a slave named Django who is freed by a bounty hunter who needs his help to hunt down a gang of killers that only Django has seen. If you’ve watched one of the trailers from the film, you probably already know that there will be blood, an inevitable rape scene, and some interesting language. And while Tarantino has won a Screenwriter of the Year award for his storytelling with this film, some people, many of them black, have been critical about the movie, and have been since the year began. In an interview with VIBE, Kerry Washington, Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio talked about the controversy surrounding the movie, and why they felt a new take on slavery was so important. Because as Jamie says in the interview, “Every two, three years there is a movie about the holocaust because they want you to remember and they want you to be reminded of what it was. When was the last time you seen a movie about slavery?”

According to VIBE, everyone from actor Nate Parker (who was in the running to play Django) to Tyler Perry and critical folks all over the place seemed a bit troubled about the story and its oh so interesting script, and claimed that slavery was not taken seriously in the film. But the actors say the film is a realistic depiction of slavery based on the research they’ve done, and that Tarantino did massive research on his own to bring some of the biggest atrocities of our nation’s history to light:

LEONARDO DICAPRIO: We knew there was going to be controversy. The question is: What is not a realistic depiction? I would argue that it is. It is Quentin’s re-creation; this character doesn’t exist. There’s nobody that is documented to do what Jamie’s character has done at the time. But the documentaries I saw went even further.

JAMIE FOXX: Put it this way: I completely understand what you’re saying. ‘Cause as black folks we’re always sensitive. As a black person it’s always racial. I come into this place to do a photo shoot and they got Ritz crackers and cheese. I’ll be like, ain’t this a Itchbay. Y’all didn’t know black people was coming. What’s with all this white Isht? By the same token, if there is fried chicken and watermelon I’ll say ain’t this a Itchbay? So, no matter what we do as black people it’s always gonna be that. Every single thing in my life is built around race. I don’t necessarily speak it because you can’t. But the minute I leave my house, I gotta put my other jacket on and say, ‘‘Hey, Thomas, Julian and Greg.” And I gotta be a certain person.

DICAPRIO: Thomas, Julian and Greg?

VIBE: Those are white people.

FOXX: No some of those people are black. But when I get home my other homies are like how was your day? Well, I only had to be white for at least eight hours today, [or] I only had to be white for four hours. Everything we do is that. When you’re talking about the script, of course it’s going to be controversy. I remember talking to Tyler Perry about it. [In Perry's very serious voice] ‘‘Ah man, the script, man. Have you read it?” When I finally read it, I called Tyler and we had a conversation. I said, ‘‘I got a different take on it than you did.” And we shared. And I called Tyler while we were shooting it. I said, ‘‘Do you know that Quentin Tarantino knows all of your Isht on TV. I don’t even watch all of your Isht.” He said, ‘‘Really?” The difference is the Quentin Tarantino Effect. I ran into Spike Lee at the BET Awards. You know Spike, he’ll let you have it whether it’s good, bad or ugly. And he said, ‘‘I’m not going to say anything bad about this film. It looks like y’all are getting it

KERRY WASHINGTON: This is not a doc. This is a Quentin Tarantino film. But I remember there was this one moment in the script where Jamie’s character was put in an awful crazy medieval metal mask. I said, ‘‘That’s some sick thing Quentin thought up.” And when I went to the production office to meet about my wardrobe, I saw into the research office. Twenty photos of real masks like that. It made me sad. I realized as much as my degrees and everything I’ve read on slave narratives [should have informed me], I didn’t even know that they wore masks like that, that people did that to us. It took a Tarantino movie for me to know that that’s not some crazy thing out of his imagination. That’s how it went down.

And speaking of that rape scene I told you about earlier…We all know that Quentin Tarantino can push the envelope like no other, it’s just what he does, and honestly, something he does well. But the actors spoke on the fact that they were like a family on set, and not only could Tarantino trust them to do their best, but they were given the opportunity to speak up when they felt the story should take a different turn, or if they felt the imagery should be toned down for the sake of the audience, especially the black audience:

FOXX: …Every slither of this film, we thought about it. And what was great about Quentin Tarantino is he welcomed our thoughts. And like most directors this is his baby. We had to make sure we were respectful, but we also had to make sure he could trust us. For example, there was a rape scene. Obviously that’s a dynamic moment. Like, I told him, black people watch a movie different that white folks. When you watch Inglourious Basterds, Jewish people have a more quiet response. [Whispers] ‘‘I can’t believe they did that.” When black people don’t like something it’s like: [louder] ‘‘Ay dawg, why Olivia Pope went down like that. That Isht is fucked up.” What I wanted to say and what we all knew was art is one thing and art is an acquired taste.

WASHINGTON: We didn’t want this story to get lost in the art.

FOXX: The way [Django] protected her, I get it. The way Quentin shot the scene still gives you the dynamic of what happened without the graphicness of us, me–Jamie Foxx, Eric Bishop–seeing Kerry Washington. Because there are certain things that we watch as black people that if we don’t agree with it, we not only turn off the movie but we turn off that person. When we feel like the character was compromised by the white establishment.

There are many other interesting tidbits about these actors (some of the best of our generation) and behind the scenes of Django, but you’ll have to check out the full interview at VIBE.com for all that. What do you think of the cover? And, what do you think about the comments made during the interview? Do you plan to check Django Unchained out?

Groan. Etsy, the site known for selling crafts, vintage clothing and assorted crap, is also being accused of trying to capitalize on Breast Cancer Awareness Month and selling racist memorabilia.

This week, the site sent a newsletter to subscribers titled “Tickled Pink” with the subhead, “Show your love to the women in your life with Breast Cancer Awareness Month.” However, upon further inspection, it turns out that only eight of the 24 products listed in the newsletter actually support causes related to breast cancer. So now the site is being accused of “pinkwashing” — highlighting things that are pink without contributing to the effort. (It’s similar to greenwashing, giving the impression of being environmentally friendly without actually doing anything to preserve the environment or aid in conservation efforts.)

Etsy’s lead merchandising specialist, Mary Andrews, told The Daily Dot:

We really appreciate the feedback and thoughtful discussion regarding the Etsy Finds email around Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Our aim in the email was to acknowledge this national campaign of awareness. While we do not promote specific shop charities, nor did we make claims to do so in the email, we do support acts of generosity and compassion within the Etsy community. The email was meant for awareness, and created in a supportive spirit. We will take all of this into serious consideration as we map out improvements to our emails and how we promote awareness within our community in the future.

Sounds like pinkwashing to us, even if it was unintentional. They wanted to piggyback on the public’s concern and enthusiasm about Breast Cancer Awareness Month to sell stuff and got called on it.

On to the second and totally not unintentional issue, a woman named Raquel Mack has voiced her anger over the site’s sale of Mammies, Sambos and other racist items. Mack points out that making these things available violates the site’s own policy about providing “items that promote, support, or glorify hatred toward or otherwise demean people based upon: race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation.” She’s started a Change.org petition that you can sign here. More than 1,000 people have already done so.

The NAACP has also gotten involved, contacting the site and getting this response, according to The Grio: “[O]ur members come from all walks of life, and may hold differing opinions of the legitimate  collectibility of certain types of historical items.” Translation: We’re sorry that you’re offended by this racist dreck, but we’re not inclined to do anything about it.

Moreover, The Grio points out that some of the items for sale are new items, being created specifically to be sold on the site, or even do-it-yourself kits so you can make your own hateful little toy, not historical items that have some sort of, perhaps, scholarly significance. Shameful and repugnant.

Image: UnHate Foundation website, from Benetton

If you’re unemployed and between the ages of 18 and 30, Benetton wants to help you out.

As an extension of last year’s controversial “UnHate” campaign that had world leaders making out with each other, the fashion label has launched its “Unemployee of the Year” contest, which will award about $650,000 (500,000 Euros) to 100 projects that seek to make life better in communities around the world.

“That is meant to counter the widespread complaints directed at jobless youth, Mr. Benetton said, charging them with being ‘lazy’ or being ‘anarchists,’ or that it is somehow ‘their own fault’ they are unemployed,” The New York Times quotes Alessandro Benetton, chairman of the company.

The budget for this marketing campaign is $26.2 million, so the Times points out that this is just a sliver of what is being spent, in total, to promote the Benetton brand. But it’s striking for its youth target. You can catch an ad for the campaign on The Cut, along with this quote from the press release announcing the campaign:  ”Unlike previous Benetton campaigns that have sparked controversy around an issue, this one has set up a Call to Action and a framework for HELPING the situation.”

What do you think of this campaign?

Who doesn’t have a favorite “Real World” season? Even if you no longer watch because you’re distracted by psuedo wives and singing competitions, I’m sure if I threw some of the names from this list at you, you could tell me your views on the drama these black folks brought into the house and why you did or didn’t enjoy seeing them on your TV thanks to MTV. This show definitely paved the way for most reality TV, and in the process of growing and getting more popular (or less), we’ve seen a few black folks who were just too interesting to forget. Let’s figure out where they are now, and what they’re looking like. By the way, we did pick our five favorite females from the show back in the day, but this is totally different. AND oh yeah, be prepared to click, per the usual.

Source: buddytv.com

Alton Williams

A Real World alumnus from his days on the first Las Vegas installment, Williams was a cutie and kind of a jerk, and he had his share of drama while on the show thanks to relationship triangles and such. In the end, he found himself in a relationship with cast mate Irulan Wilson, with the two staying together for three years and even living in LA together before breaking up in 2005. A popular castmember, Williams later went on to take part in the spin-off challenge, “The Gauntlet 2″ (he also was a contestant on the first Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet) on MTV, and with his athletic prowess, actually went on to win the challenge and a whopping $100,000. Since his time on the show, Williams is allegedly in a new relationship, and is also said to be a radio host. There are also rumors that Williams will make an MTV comeback, competing in the upcoming new season of MTV’s “The Challenge.”

Source: http://obnoxioustv.wordpress.com

Ever since Tom Cruise made public his adoration for Scientology years ago in a bizarre fashion (by publicly scolding Brooke Shields for taking medication to battle postpartum depression), Scientology has been getting somewhat of a bad rap in every form of media. People have tried to call it a cult and say that members are being brainwashed. I don’t know about all that, but I do know that when Cruise’s wife Katie Holmes allegedly divorced him to keep their daughter Suri from having to study the religion, every ex-member of the Church of Scientology came out of the wood works on TV to denounce the religion. For a few good weeks there, the religion was just getting a lot of shade. But in the process of doing some research on it, I found that many prominent black celebs are members or have taken classes to get them through hard times. Here are just a few…

Source:flipsidepa.com

Al  Jarreau

Your dad’s favorite singer, the award-winning jazz singer became affiliated with the Church of Scientology in the late ’60s. Back when people really started catching wind of the religion, Jarreau was noted as one of many celebrities who said that Scientology had changed their life for the better and even played a role in his success. However, these days, Jarreau is no longer affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Why he parted ways with it is unclear, but he’s just one of many who chucked the deuces to it all.

Source: What About Our Daughters

At what point does constructive criticism fail to be constructive?

What got me thinking about this was the recent dust up over a story, which happened earlier this month. See, what happened was, two weeks ago, Ebony Digital featured an article called, “Notorious to Glorious: Genarlow Wilson is No Child Molester and Never Was.”

The story, which was written by Chandra Thomas Whitfield, sought to highlight the current happenings of Genarlow Wilson, a man, who along with five other men were convicted of aggravated child molestation against a 17-year-old girl, and a 15-year-old girl. Wilson, who was 17 years old at the time, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the crime. However, he was released after serving nearly three years in a Georgia prison when a judge ruled that his sentence was ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. The online story highlighted what Wilson had been up to since his conviction; including being a college student a few credits short from graduating, and discussed how the label of sexual offender had negatively impacted his life.

The story itself was very sympathetic, showing how Wilson had been railroaded by an overzealous justice system, which seeks to give out the harshest punishment to folks with dark skin. However, there were a few problems with the story: For one, Whitfield had incorrectly wrote that Wilson’s conviction was overturned, when in fact, his conviction still stands, although his time in prison was reduced. It also said that the sexual contact between Wilson and the teenage girls was consensual, which is also not true considering that a teenager is legally incapable of consenting to sex. There were also issues with the title itself, particularly the inclusion of the word, “glorious” to describe a man convicted of sexual assault.

Of course, this didn’t sit well with some of the online magazine’s readers, including Gina McCauley, writer and founder of What About Our Daughters, a website dedicated to combating negative portrayals of African American women in the media, who would be one of the first to ring the alarm. After vowing that her “online tactical team” was on the case, McCauley and her supporters unleashed a full fledge campaign not only against Ebony magazine and its advertisers, but also the mostly woman-led editorial staff, who would come to be christened by McCauley as the Ebony 4. In one particular blog post called, “Ebony Magazine Editors Don’t “Condone Rape” – Except When They Do!,” McCauley writes, “If they were honorable and decent, they would present a different perspective from rape and sexual assault survivors, but this isn’t about the truth, this is about a group of Black women who work at Ebony.com needing to be fulfilled by playing Mommy to a FULLY. GROWN. BLACK MAN.. in order to feel important.”

Ouch.

However, McCauley’s sentiment seemed to resonate with many readers of both WOAD and Ebony. The pressure from WAOD resulted in severe backlash prompting Ebony to respond. As of today, the story is gone and so is an editorial response the magazine had release to explain its decision to run the piece. In a statement called Moving Forward Together, the editorial board said the following:

“Your response to our story has further illuminated for us the importance of engaging around issues of sexual violence, of supporting victims, and of empowering our community with relevant knowledge and resources. We deeply regret that the perception of the article about Wilson (published on EBONY.com on July 9, 2012) led some readers to believe that we are less than sensitive to the plight of young women in sexual assault cases.”

Carefree’s latest ad campaign hasn’t been online for more than 18 hours and already people are up in arms—for no good reason. In contrast to readers here who wonder why we use the term va-jay-jay as opposed to vagina to describe female reproductive organs, some are questioning and even complaining about Carefree using the anatomically correct term for lady parts in their new ad.

The spot features a woman talking about a not-so-pleasant reality of womanhood, vaginal discharge, and blatantly says the word vagina which people have responded to almost as visceral as they would if it was the n-word. The Advertising Standards Bureau (ABS) told Ninemsn it received comments as soon as the ad went online last night and is already up to a total of five official complaints. Five may not sound like a lot but we’re talking about an ad that’s only been around for a day and the fact that we’re not just talking about clicking a thumbs down icon on YouTube, but people actually taking the time to file formal complaints with the ABS.

ABS didn’t elaborate on what it was about the use of the word “vagina” and the phrase ”vaginal discharge” that had people so upset but comments on NineMSN provide a little insight. Some women remarked:

Personally I find it unnecessary… Imagine if you will being the only female child among 3-4 brothers and only a father in the room when this add comes on, it is going to cause major embarrassment for a young girl in a scenario such as this, a little bit of foresight would be nice, seriously take the ad off.

I think these ads should be on at a more appropriate time. I don’t like my young son asking me what these products are for. I will explain it when it is age appropriate.

Were there any women in this marketing te[a]m? How the hell could people think this isn’t offensive. It’s not just the taboo around the words, it’s the demoralization of women and the fact that ads like this keep stopping women gaining respect.

Just to clarify, the ad came on well after 8:30 pm and campaign spokeswoman Debbie Selikman said the purpose of the ad was actually to eliminate the taboo the last commenter alluded to.

“It’s the first time a major brand has had the guts to use real words, not euphemisms or diminutive terms,” Ms Selikman said adding that Carefree’s research found most women wanted ads to refer to their anatomy using proper terminology and that other names for vagina typically had negative connotations and sent the message that women should be ashamed or embarrassed about their bodies.

“[This campaign] shows women have nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed about and should be confident of their body.”

If anything, I could see the fact that the woman in the ad is naked as unnecessary but there should be nothing offensive about using the correct terms for female body parts, particularly when nearly every swear word under the sun gets the greenlight by the FCC these days. Perhaps the people who are so stirred up about this ad need to get more in touch with their own bodies.

Check out the ad here. What do you think? Is it a step in the right or the wrong direction?

Brande Victorian is the news and operations editor for madamenoire.com. Follow her on twitter @Be_Vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• Reel Love: Our Favorite TV and Movie Couples
• NEVER STOP, NEVER GIVE UP: 7 Things You Should Never Stop Doing For A Woman
• WHAT ABOUT YOUR FRIENDS? Are These Celebs Still Besties?
• SIZZLING HOT: 10 Sundresses To Wear Now!
• You Know You Wrong For That! 6 Lies We Tell Our Girlfriends
• Rude or Real? Would You Mind A Woman Asking You Where You Got “Your Hair”?
• Where My Girls At? Sometimes Being Married Means Being Left Out