This week Kim Kardashian’s SKIMS dropped what is possibly its most provocative product to date: the “Ultimate Bush” micro-string thong, a barely-there panty outfitted with synthetic pubic hair in a variety of colors, textures, and lengths. The launch campaign leaned heavily into tongue-in-cheek visuals (a retro 1970s style game-show video entitled “Does the Carpet Match the Drapes?”) and within hours the pieces sold out and a waitlist began. As public reaction exploded across social media, commentators and critics lined up to decry the design as obscene or absurd. The debate over what this thong “means” has become a flashpoint in conversations about body image, commercialization, and the politics of women’s hair.
From the outset, many voices dismissed the bush panties as tasteless or crass. The New York Post framed the launch as “shocker” territory and quoted critics calling it “obscene.” On Instagram and X, users reacted with incredulity: “Who asked for this???”; “I’m calling 911”; “Literally insane.” Others suggested the campaign felt like a gimmick or a clickbait marketing idea rather than a serious piece of functional lingerie.
Some criticism has been steeper, rooted in the idea that Kim Kardashian is not celebrating pubic hair so much as caricaturing it by turning a body feature into spectacle for the sake of profit. In queer and lesbian online circles, commentators have accused SKIMS of stolen valor, arguing that bush aesthetics have long held significance in feminist and queer resistance, and are now being appropriated and packaged for mainstream consumption. Women have often been shamed for body hair; now, the same feature is being turned into a novelty accessory with a price tag.
If there’s a defensible argument for this product, it begins with reclaiming body hair in the face of grooming norms and restrictive beauty standards. In that frame, a panty that affirms and foregrounds pubic hair could read as playful protest, a way to desensitize the gaze around what is acceptable, visible, or erotic.
But that reading only goes so far.
SKIMS Profits Off Misogyny and Liberation
The deeper problem isn’t the hair; it’s what SKIMS is doing with it: selling an exaggerated, synthetic, stylized version of a body feature, treating it like spectacle or a fetish object. That is where the grossness lies.
Beneath the commercial spectacle lies a deeply patriarchal layer. Women’s bodies have long been regulated, sexualized, and scrutinized by a male-dominated society, from grooming expectations to judgments about modesty and morality. Pubic hair, in particular, has historically been framed as “unhygienic” or “unattractive,” with women shamed for natural growth while men’s bodies remain largely free from similar policing. SKIMS’ product, marketed by a celebrity empire built on sexualized visibility, turns this private, policed aspect of the female body into a public novelty.
This is not a grassroots movement. The product is coming from a celebrity-driven empire, which already commands disproportionate cultural influence. For everyday women, expectations around body hair remain policed, shamed, and stigmatized. Meanwhile, a synthetic version is sold at a markup to those who want to “perform” the look. It’s a classic double standard. SKIMS positions itself as body-positive, but it’s still operating within, and profiting from, the very beauty system that profits off insecurity. How can Kim K tell us to show off our natural body form by wearing faux-bushes while selling us tummy-control shapewear on the same website?
In short, the Ultimate Bush is a major flop. Who knows what Kim was trying to do, but it came across as insensitive. No matter what way you look at it, the concept is just weird. I understood the nipple bra because it had an actual purpose in fashion. It allowed those who were uncomfortable or unable to participate in “Free the Nip” to take part in the movement. But who is going to know you’re wearing the bush panty? To me, this campaign seems to be a desperate attempt to ride the wave of the “Bush is Back” movement among young women. But please just grow your own bush if you want one so bad.