An aside about bush

A few months ago, I got a letter in the mail that a ridiculous parenting magazine that I subscribed to for shits and giggles was going to cease publication. I think perhaps people realized how incredibly stupid it was to spend over $1000 on a dress for a toddler. The letter stated I had two options: role my subscription into one for Allure, or get a refund for the remaining months. I chose the latter as, though I may be a glutton for punishment in some circumstances, this was certainly not one of them.  While I appreciate the photography of magazines such as Vogue and Harper's, the Allure lot has never been one to impress me. There is essentially NO content in these magazines. Sure, Vogue may be inundated with ads, but they make up with it with amazing photography spreads. The Allure ilk offer dozens of perfume ads and regurgitated articles on how to have sex/look sexy/something else about sex. We get it. Sex. I have no problems with sex. I have problems with these magazines making it seem like an overly complicated process. I once picked up a magazine with a "new" sex position. It involved running towards your partner, jumping onto his shoulders so your crotch is in his face and throwing your arms up like a cheerleader. Call me a cynic, but it sounds like something like that was concocted after one too many girly drinks and reruns of "Sex in the City". Empowering, indeed.
Despite following the details of the letter to get my refund, I soon found a copy of Allure in my mailbox. I did make a half-hearted attempt to flip through the magazine before tossing it after almost succumbing to perfume sample-induced asphyxia, but there was absolutely nothing of note. It was noise and crap. While I should have followed this issue up with a second call to cancel this subscription, I got side-tracked as usual. A few days ago, a second issue of Allure landed in my mailbox. This one caught my eye, thanks to the headline consisting of Catherine Zeta-Jones being naked. What can I say, I'm a sucker for free naked? As I thumbed through the magazine, I saw that there were several other celebrities posing pseudo-naked. I was disgusted, and not due for the lack of nip either. First off, there was Kara "never heard of you prior to American Idol that my husband made me watch" DioGuardi, who claims that taking her clothes off was taking a risk. Right. Of course it is. Because we like to make the naked body such a huge freaking deal. To top it off, she drove home her feelings of freedom and confidence with her body by stating that in her 20s, she had issues with binge eating and was a horrible size 6 or 8, while now she's a glorious size 2. Uh...what? You know how many women would be content to be a 6 or 8? But we should aim for a 2, right? That gives me all the confidence in the world.
As I flipped through overly airbrushed pic after another, one glaring tweak was really bothering me - the complete lack of bush. If a magazine is going to act like it's doing something controversial and empowering and cutting edge, why start erasing parts? In the pic of Emmanuelle Chriqui, for example, she's standing behind a semi-sheer curtain and yet seems to be missing a nipple and public hair. Same in Catherine Zeta-Jones' pics. I realize it's popular for waxes and shit like that, but am I really supposed to believe that these actresses are completely bald in their nether regions? I'm going to say the more likely scenario is that what hair they did possess was removed via Photoshop, due to the odd obsession to have pre-pubescent pubic areas. I realize that showing bush is probably against some publication guidelines for Allure, so why even put models in positions where the area is even slightly shown?
What I'd like to see is for publications to stop making a big deal out of an actress taking her clothes off and subsequently labeling her as courageous. Sure, it's courageous as long as we continue to criticize our own bodies and act like the naked body is so dirty and taboo.
Also, I'd like my goddamn refund.