Skims’ Ultimate Bush Knickers: The fashion trend no one asked for

Let’s consider the obvious: women have been wearing underwear for centuries — briefs, boyshorts, high-cuts, thongs, you name it. The idea that we now need a dedicated undergarment for one’s pubic hair feels like a satirical sketch from 'Saturday Night Live', not a serious offering from a billion-dollar brand, writes Pat Kane, founder of Reuzi

Thu, 16 Oct, 2025 - 19:33

Pat Kane

In the ever-churning machinery of fast fashion, where trends are birthed not from demand but from the bottomless appetite for novelty, Skims — Kim Kardashian’s shapewear and loungewear brand — has launched its latest innovation: the Ultimate Bush Knickers.

No, this isn’t April’s Fool - we are in October. Yes, you read that right. These are undergarments designed specifically to accommodate pubic hair, or as the marketing spin goes, “celebrate your natural shape, untrimmed”. Have we forgotten that our natural bodies allows for untrimmed magic?

Let’s pause and be very clear: no one asked for this. Somehow, in the crowded world of modern fashion, where the lifespan of a trend is shorter than your average TikTok video, we’ve landed on bush-specific knickers.

It’s not that body positivity or celebrating natural bodies is inherently problematic, it’s quite the opposite. The problem lies in the way this product encapsulates everything wrong with the commodification of empowerment and the insatiable hunger for "the next thing".

Kim Kardashian's Skims is known for riding the edge of viral marketing, and to its credit, it knows how to dominate a news cycle. But with the Ultimate Bush Knickers, it’s crossed from bold to absurd.

Because that’s all this is: a momentary, loud, headline-baiting gimmick, not a meaningful evolution in body inclusivity. It’s not about comfort. It’s not about liberation. It’s about staying relevant, manufacturing conversation, and driving yet another stock-keeping unit (SKU) that will inevitably end up on clearance racks — or worse, but not impossible, in landfill.

Let’s consider the obvious: women have been wearing underwear for centuries — briefs, boyshorts, high-cuts, thongs, you name it — regardless of whether they had a ‘full bush’, a ‘landing strip’, or nothing at all. The idea that we now need a dedicated undergarment for one’s pubic hair feels like a satirical sketch from Saturday Night Live, not a serious offering from a billion-dollar brand.

And yet, here we are, pretending this is innovation.

What’s particularly galling is the faux-progressive branding Skims is slapping onto this. In interviews and promotions, it’s positioned as a liberating product for women who don’t conform to waxing culture. And sure, representation matters — but do we really need to buy a new pair of EUR 42 knickers just to feel seen?

Let’s not confuse consumerism with empowerment. Rebranding basic body autonomy as a product feature is not revolutionary. It’s manipulative. It's a calculated marketing move designed to tap into current social dialogues around body hair and flip them into dollars.

This isn’t inclusivity; it’s opportunism.

But perhaps the bigger issue here is the environmental one — because like most flash-in-the-pan fashion moments, this trend is destined for a short, flashy life followed by a long, slow death in a landfill. In an era when the climate crisis is escalating and the fashion industry remains one of the largest global polluters, did we really need to launch a whole new category of underwear with a single, niche function?

What’s the endgame here? Seasonal ‘bushwear’? Will we see a Paddy’s Day limited edition out soon?

Every unnecessary product contributes to a system of waste that we are already drowning in. Creating garments that solve problems no one has expressed (especially when those garments are likely made from synthetics, shipped globally, and bought on impulse) isn’t just silly, it’s irresponsible.

At some point, brands like Skims need to stop equating attention with progress. Wishful thinking, some may say, but hope is a verb and I am here for it.

Of course, some will argue that every niche deserves its moment. That if you don’t want bush knickers, you can simply not buy them. But this isn’t about consumer choice: it’s about the cultural and ecological cost of relentless novelty.

This product exists not because it solves a real need, but because the fashion industry runs on manufactured demand. One day it’s shapewear for your armpits, the next it’s padded thongs for your knees. All of it disguised as liberation, none of it actually necessary.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

And while we’re at it — let’s question the logic behind a design that offers extra room for pubic hair. Who, exactly, was experiencing friction burns from standard knickers? Where are these impassioned testimonials from the hairless frustrated masses?

The answer is simple: they don’t exist. Because again, this is a solution in search of a problem.

Skims is known for riding the edge of viral marketing, and to its credit, it knows how to dominate a news cycle. But with the Ultimate Bush Knickers, it’s crossed from bold to absurd. This isn’t about normalising natural bodies, it’s about monetising them in ever more inventive ways. And frankly, it feels cynical.

Pat Kane: It’s not that body positivity or celebrating natural bodies is inherently problematic, it’s quite the opposite. The problem lies in the way this product encapsulates everything wrong with the commodification of empowerment and the insatiable hunger for 'the next thing'.

So here we are, watching the latest chapter in the pantomime of trend-driven fashion unfold. The Ultimate Bush Knickers will get their moment on social media. They’ll be worn by influencers who will do anything for likes and comments, maybe even parodied on late-night television.

Then they’ll fade, quietly, into closets and donation bins, replaced by whatever novelty comes next. And in the meantime, the rest of us will still be here, scratching our heads… and not because our underwear’s too tight.