Veet’s ‘Don’t Risk Dudeness’ Ads Hope To Humiliate You Into Removing All Your Body Hair

Veet's sexist Don't Risk Dudeness ad campaign

Reach down. Touch your calves. Are they as smooth as the bottom of a baby who uses $300 beauty products on his ass? If the answer is “no,” then perhaps it is time to try Veet.

Aside from aspiring to Urban Dictionary standard of linguistic creativity and hitting somewhere around the level of a fourth grade boy writing in marker on his desk, the company’s new “Don’t Risk Dudeness” campaign would like to inform all you sick, twisted ladies out there that those prickly legs are ruining your love life. Your love life is heterosexual, adheres to societal conventions, and is integral to your existence, by the way.

The hair removal brand’s campaign consists of commercials letting women across the nation know that our legs are intended to please other people. The first being men, of course.

Oh no! A man waking up next to a man! How disgusting! But subtle homophobia and heteronormativity are just so humorous, obvs, because we don’t have any actual prejudice in America these days. And what matters is that this man is disappointed in this woman’s inconsiderate approach to how she cares for her body, because your entire grooming routine should revolve around how dichotomous your legs are from your partner’s.

The second ad features a stereotypical pedicurist:

The third is a cab driver who apparently only sees customers for their underarm hair and doesn’t do his job for the money:

And the final one being a woman attempting to save your life who is instead concerned with your leg hair.

Oh, but not the crotch! I’m ill or injured enough to be strapped to a gurney and taken away in an ambulance, but I’ll take any pain over the humiliation of you seeing my pre-summer bikini line! “Dudeness” is worse than death, after all.

Now, our readers are smart enough to know all the things that are wrong with these ads, so I feel like elaborating too much isn’t necessary because you’ve heard it all before: women are given set standards for how our bodies are supposed to look in order to “be womanly” and, if we stray the path, we risk being considered disgusting troll monsters. I personally go back and forth on whether I want to remove my body hair, or how much, or how, which by Veet’s standards means I go back and forth between being a troll monster–or at the very least, a man.

Not that we needed any evidence of this, but we literally just saw that women are still women regardless of whether or not they have underarm hair, leg hair, upper lip hair, or no hair. The question of how beautiful we can make our bodies for other people’s pleasing is irrelevant; if our bodies are beautiful to ourselves, then who hates which elements that are on them is unimportant. If you don’t like to wax, shave, sugar or zap, then don’t! If you want to remove your body hair and somebody says you’re being shallow, don’t listen to that either.

Oh, and if a dude freaks out because you have leg stubble, kick him the hell out of your bed.

Share This Post:
    • Kaitlin Reilly

      Looks like a certain company should check out those Ben Hopper photos. Women are naturally born with hair and CHOOSE to remove it — what makes waking up with it “dude-like?” Such a ridiculous commercial.

    • J_Doe5686

      Stupid commercials really! It reminds me of those ads from the 50s saying “you don’t wanna wake up with morning breath, you gotta keep him happy, blah, blah, blah…” Well, hair grow and I don’t have to shave every night to avoid waking up looking like a dude. It’s hair, not the end of the world.

    • Hayley Hoover

      Unbelievable. This stuff ruins my whole day.

    • BDC0213

      It sure is a shoddy marketing department that decides the best it can do is scare consumers into purchase. Especially with beauty products, (but yea, I suppose many consider this “hygiene”) I’m wanting to feel pretty, smell good, or have fun…No, actually, I’d just like these products to “work” as claimed. The best you can do is (jokingly) instill insecurity about my femininity to my cabbie or paramedic or dude from last night? It’s insulting all around. And not very funny to boot.

    • FemelleChevalier

      Seeing all these, I feel like I’m lucky enough that I didn’t grew up in a society where it is a norm to be hairless. I’m kinda glad that these are not that expected from us and are reserved only for the vain.

    • Sarah

      I agree with the article and hate these commercials as much as the next person…except the part where you say “if we stray the path, we risk being considered disgusting troll monsters.”

      I have a problem with this for a couple of reasons: by “troll monster,” do you mean the hairy guy in the ad? I think this does a disservice to the poor guy who is neither a troll nor a monster. This shows a shocking double standard in my opinion. A woman can’t look like the dude in the commercial, but neither should the dude? He is a troll? This is Veet’s “bad” as well. The poor guy hired to represent every woman’s nightmare, I can only imagine how he must feel lying next to the male hairless swimsuit model in vid #1. All I’m saying is, think about the guy that Veet meant to diss as well, not just the woman. Are men supposed to have that much hair too? Or do women equally shudder at the thought of both looking like and being with the ‘scary monster troll’? Should men be worried about looking like monster trolls?

      I am in love with a hairy man. I am hairy as well. We are all human beings and we have hair. It does not make us scary troll monsters- whether we are hairy men or hairy women.

      • Samantha_Escobar

        Oh gosh, no! I freaking love hairy men (and I think one of our writers wrote a whole feature on it a few months ago). What I mean by “troll monster” isn’t what that fellow is, but what he represents. The man in the bed is afraid of waking up next to him; the cab driver refuses to pick him up; the pedicurist is revolted by his legs; the paramedic is disgusted enough to stop assisting him. All of these people have aversions to this imaginary representation of what women suddenly “become” upon having stubble. The actor and what he looks like isn’t what I mean by “toll monster”; it’s the fact that he’s supposed to represent as a character that is problematic.

        That said, I can see how it sounded that way! Also, I always get bummed out with certain people hired to represent certain characters in things (the “ugly duckling,” etcetera), although if it’s a national campaign, I then remind myself exactly how much people I know who’ve been hired for those roles get paid and I feel a little less sorry for them because they’re getting paid remarkable amounts of money for those roles they and their agents selected.