Kim Kardashian’s latest controversial product may be hailed as feminist, but I don’t buy it

1 month ago 13

Opinion

October 16, 2025 — 11.00am

When you work in media, there is very little that shocks you.

And so on Wednesday, when Kim Kardashian released a line of underwear crowned with faux pubic hair via her brand Skims, I was hardly surprised.

I was, however, annoyed.

Kim Kardashian has made millions through her shapewear and clothing brand Skims.Credit: Getty Images for The Business of Fashion

Don’t get me wrong. I am pro-bush (the nether-region kind, not the former US president). I think we should all let our freaky, hairy flags fly.

But Kim Kardashian has no interest in freeing us from the painful, expensive prison that is the billion-dollar hair removal industry. Feminists have long viewed body hair – and its removal – as a product of the patriarchy. The choice to keep it, then, is a political choice.

We also know that pubic hair plays an important role in our health, acting as a protective barrier against friction caused by walking or sex, regulating body temperature, and potentially warding against STIs.

Some may celebrate the release of Kardashian’s “fluffy undies” as a proud feminist statement.

But a feminist, or sexual health advocate, Kardashian is not.

Remember, this is a woman who has built a career – nay, an empire – on women’s insecurities. Her net worth is estimated to be $US1.7 billion by Forbes.

The slogan for her underwear brand Skims, “solutions for every body”, says it all – the implication being our wayward, leaky bodies are “problems” to be “solved”.

Whether it’s her cheekbones or her derrière, the reality star-turned-businesswoman-turned-actor has wielded undue influence over pop culture since 2007 (although some argue her reign may be coming to an end). Kardashian, the shameless capitalist, knows her body is the most powerful billboard there is.

Just a few months ago, the 44-year-old promoted a $600 at-home laser hair removal device on Instagram.

“I’ve really integrated this into my routine just so that I always have smooth skin. I mean, I’ve been laser hair removing for over a decade now and it’s not like I need it all the time, but I definitely need maintenance,” she says in the video.

Now, with this latest product, she’s selling body hair back to us. And it’s paid off.

Less than a day after Skims’ “Faux Hair Micro Thong” was released, the product – retailing for a cool $70 – had sold out. On Instagram, Kardashian shared slick visuals from a campaign video styled around a fake game show with the name, “Does the carpet match the drapes?”

It is not the first time Kardashian has made more than a buck on this kind of “stunt” marketing.

Last year, Skims released their “Ultimate Nipple Bra” (and later a “Pierced Nipple Bra” version), designed to make its wearer appear eternally cold and braless. Then came “shapewear for your face”, a Hannibal Lecter-esque contraption designed to sculpt the jawline.

Kardashian, not half the ditz many make her out to be, knows what she’s doing. She knows the media frenzy from these gimmicks (of which this article is inescapably a part) will keep her name in the headlines and her brand relevant.

Indeed, promotion of the thongs was followed by the announcement that Kardashian would appear on the popular Call Her Daddy podcast next week.

But here lies my problem with the “Faux Hair Micro Thong” and Kardashian’s commodification of body hair: it makes a joke out of women’s bodies.

Body hair and its policing are legitimate problems. We are taught to feel shame and anxiety about our pubes, and in turn spend money and brain power – better spent on more worthy issues – to “fix” it. For people of colour, body hair is also intertwined with the history of colonisation and racial hierarchies.

Kardashian turns this history into a meme-ified gimmick designed to drum up clicks and sales.

There are positives to Skims – a brand that has made a concerted effort to showcase models of different sizes, abilities and races in an underwear market that has traditionally privileged thin, white bodies. But this latest campaign feels cynical, greedy and not very original.

In 2003, Tom Ford (inspired by a Sex and the City scene) released a highly controversial advertising campaign for Gucci featuring model Carmen Kass with her pubic hair neatly shaped into the brand’s logo.

In February last year, designer John Galliano, then creative director of fashion house Maison Margiela, sent models down the runway in couture gowns and merkins (pubic hair wigs).

The show was followed by a frenzy of articles declaring “the bush is back” (no doubt followed a few months later by another flurry of articles on “the best way to prepare your bikini line for summer”).

Ford and Galliano at least had artistry and talent behind their bush-sporting models.

This is not to sound harsh or judgmental towards those who choose to remove some, or all, of their body hair. I, too, have spent more money than I care to think about on various methods of hair removal. I’m all too familiar with the way women, in particular, are taught to constantly survey their own bodies.

But I think it’s worth taking a moment to consider the reasons why we feel so compelled to do so – to find “solutions” to our bodies, as Kardashian’s brand espouses.

I do know this. A $70 faux hair thong is not the answer.

Make the most of your health, relationships, fitness and nutrition with our Live Well newsletter. Get it in your inbox every Monday.