“I do multiple intrinsically non- and/or anti-feminist things a day. It doesn’t change who I am or what I stand for – but those things also don’t become feminist just because I’m the one doing them.”

The following is a quote by feminist author and body image activist extrodinaire, Kate Harding. I’ve been a long time fan of Ms. Harding. She frequently writes things that blow my mind and alter my thinking on issues regarding women, bodies and general life stuff. Now she’s done it again.

This particular statement was taken from a recent article entitled ‘Why I Lose My Mind Every Time We Have The Name Conversation’. The piece is about women’s who take their husband’s names at marriage. Kate fully acknowledges that:

a) becoming Ms. HisLastName is a choice that women have a right to make.

b) it can be thoughtful, meaningful, positive option for many women.

c) you can be Ms. HisLastName and a feminist and that’s totally cool.

Harding explains that women who take their husband’s names are still awesome, feminist gals making a valid life choice. But the fact that it’s a choice doesn’t magically separate the convention from it’s roots in patriarchal ownership. And being a feminist does not negate the fact that, generally speaking, our society tends to regard men’s identities as fixed and women’s as fluid.

Harding’s specific thoughts on married names were all kinds of interesting. But it’s the passage I quoted that resonated. I identify strongly as feminist, sex-positive, a queer-ally and bunch of other things. While reading the article, I realized that part of me does feel like everything I do, should fall in line with my belief that social oppression is for suck and it needs to go away now. And I will try to rationalize all of my actions within the context of those beliefs.

Case in point. I recently wrote a piece for Already Pretty about burlesque. I wrote my own experiences doing burlesque and tied that to a larger point about performers using the art form to challenge conventional perceptions of what sexy body looks like. Body image politics + personal experience = Instant Awesome Blogpost.

I thought it would be an easy assignment. Instead it was a frustrating struggling that went on for days. Eventually I finished the article and even though I wasn’t entirely satisfied, I submitted it. I figured this was just one of those crappy, writer’s block kind of weeks, nothing more.

But after reading Kate Harding’s piece I can see why I had a hard time. I was writing about burlesque subverting body image norms and I was trying to say that my participation was part of that subversion. But it’s not.

I’ve done burlesque with all sorts of people who fall outside the young, thin, able-bodied, cis-gendered, heteronormative ideal our society tends to uphold as “sexy”. I think how awesomely cool it is to see people broadening the standards of beauty and sexuality, while being hella hot and talented. I support the shit out of that kind of thing. But here’s things:

I am a younger-looking, slender, able-bodied, cis-gendered, heterosexual woman. Pretty much everything about the way I look and the way I present myself  falls in line with conventional ideas about what sexy is supposed to look like. Some might say that being as a person of colour takes me a bit outside the “norms” of sexiness. But even then I find that there’s a trend toward glamourizing/idealizing POCs – especially if they have European-esque features, which I pretty much do.

I love performing. I love dressing up and wearing costumes and being a big, exhibitionist show-off with my body. I also believe, passtionately that we need to make more room in this world for the many, may types of sexy that are out there. But that’s not what I’m doing when I do burlesque. I can’t do that when I do burlesque because our society has already made lots of room for my type of sexy and it has done so at the expense of other people.

None of this means that I shouldn’t be doing burlesque or that I can’t derive joy from the experience. And it doesn’t mean that I don’t support or believe that we need more sexy diversity (and maybe a better term).

I’m going to change over time. I will get older. The shape and likely the size of my body will change. There’s no guarantee that I will remain able-bodied throughout my life. If I still choose to twirll my tassles while rockin’ the wrinkles and low boobs, I WILL be sticking to the patriarchy and ageism and bunch of other sex-negative, body-negative bullshit. But I’m not now, so I probably shouldn’t pretend that I am.

Like everyone else, I make choices. Many are informed by desire to work towards a less oppressive, more inclusive society. But they’re also about what’s right for me and sometimes that’s the status quo. Instead of trying to rationalize those choices, it feels I can say, “This system/convetion/idea unfairly penalizes or excludes others. I don’t like that, but I am choosing to work within this system because there are still benefits for me as an individual.”

To put it another way, not everything I do is about fighting a social battle. And I realize after reading Kate Harding’s words, that I don’t have to rationalize it or get defensive. I’m a person, a part of this society. There’s some messed up shit happening but that doesn’t change the fact that sometimes it works for me.

The Man of Mans has written what I think is a pretty rad letter regarding a popular, but in my opinion, disturbing new song. I’m posting it here with his permission.  The letter quotes  song lyrics which might be triggering for some. As always, take care of yourself and skip this post if you’d like.


Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you to express my concern over the song “Kiss You Inside Out” by Hedley, which is currently receiving significant airplay on your station.  I find the content of this song highly objectionable and do not feel it is appropriate music for the radio.  I recognize that your mandate is to play contemporary hit music, and that this song is quite popular.  However, I believe that as a privately owned radio station, you have the right to play, or not play, whatever you wish, and I hope that you will exercise that right and remove “Kiss You Inside Out” from your rotation.

I first heard “Kiss You Inside Out” on your station (which I listen to regularly) approximately two weeks ago, and was immediately struck at how the words and tone of this song strongly hint at sexual assault under the guise of romance.  I include here the first part of the lyrics in their entirety (as found on lyricsmode.com) to provide full context, but I have taken the liberty of highlighting lines that I find particularly problematic.

I don’t know if you’re ready to go
Where I’m willing to take you girl

I will feel every inch of your skin
And you know I can rock your world
Imma be the calm in the storm you’re looking for
I’ll be the shipwreck that takes you down
I don’t mind if you lie in my bed
We can stay here forever now.
Ouuu oohhh
Turn off the lights
Take off your clothes
Turn on the stereo
Ouuu oohhh
Give up the fight
I’m in control

Why don’t you let it go.
Yeah, I wanna know you inside out
I’ll spend my life trying to figure out
Just close your eyes and shut your mouth
And let me kiss you inside out.

The entire song reads as an attempt to initiate sex that is coercive and demanding.  The highlighted portions above (the latter of which are repeated 3 times) show this most strongly, implying consent has not been given, or even asked for, that the woman has no control over the situation, and that she should keep her mouth shut and accept what is happening.

I find the message of this song extremely offensive, all the more so because the music behind it clearly shows that this is supposed to be a love song, implying that women should actually want to be with a man who expresses himself in this way.  This is not a song about love, it is a song about rape, and as such, it has no place on the airwaves.

Because this is a letter as opposed to a conversation, I feel obliged to try and speak to what I imagine may be some arguments against my request.  I am not implying that you or your station will make these statements, but I have heard variations on them from many people on several occasions, so as said, I feel obliged to pre-respond to them.

“This song is romantic; it’s what women want.”

Romance has always been portrayed in an incredibly narrow way in popular culture, and at no time has this portrayal been particularly indicative of “what women want”, in part because there is no such thing; women are far too large a demographic to collectively “want” anything.  But I believe it is fair to say that virtually no one wants to be sexually assaulted, and that very few women would describe being coercive and demanding as romantic traits.  The real problem with songs like this is that they make it harder for everyone, but especially young and impressionable people, to tell the difference between appropriate and inappropriate sexual behaviour.

“It’s no worse than anything else out there.”

First, I hope that your station strives to a higher standard than this.  Second, as said above, amongst the dozens of songs I hear on the radio every day, this song immediately stood out as particularly offensive.

“You’re taking certain lyrics out of context.”

I feel the full context, which can be seen above, only strengthens the distastefulness of the highlighted lyrics.

“Not playing a song because you think it’s offensive is censorship.”

Every company has a code of ethics under which it operates, and it has the right to not engage in practices that violate those ethics.  This is not censorship, it’s a private company conducting business in the way it sees fit.

I hope that you are willing to take a stand against the misleading and dangerous portrayal of sexual assault as love, and that you will choose to no longer play “Kiss You Inside Out”.  Thank you in advance for your consideration.


Do you have anything to say about this song? Please share you thoughts in the comments.

If you’d like to contact KISS FM directly, you can reach them here.  You can also contact KISS FM’s parent company Rogers Digital Media (Radio) here.


image by wickeddollz

Once again, a Conservative MP wants to fiddle with current abortion laws. Mark Warawa has proposed a motion asking the House of Commons to condemn sex selective abortions.

I don’t like sex-selective abortion. I still support a person’s right to choose one.

Given the current discussion around abortion, I feel that’s an important distinction to make. Sex selective abortion bothers me. A lot. It’s a choice that’s often driven by a belief that certain genders – often females – are of little to no value. It’s a perspective that I find personally offense being that I’m a feminist and a big believer in overall equality.

Do I fight misogyny? Hell, yes! But I will not make someone else’s body my battle ground.

Being pro-choice does not mean that I always approve of someone else’s choices. It means that I believe my approval, or lack, thereof, is irrelevant. It isn’t my body. It isn’t my life. Therefore it isn’t my decision. I don’t believe that anyone should be forced to continue a pregnancy or give birth based on my personal ethics. Because no matter how sound I think my ideals may be, I don’t have to live with the effects of that pregnancy. Nor do I have to deal with the consequences. The consequences being a child.

I totally feel those among you who are pissed off by sex selective abortion. I’m pissed off too! But then I think about the consequences of banning that practice specifically. I think about the logistics. Would people be forced to convince physicians that they were seeking an abortion for legal (read: valid) reasons? Would people from specific ethn0-cultural groups be subjected to closer scrutiny or denied an abortion based on racists assumptions?

What would banning sex selective abortion mean for the people – many of whom identify as women themselves – who already exist in a culture or household where they themselves are devalued? What would it mean for the baby girls they were forced to birth?

As a woman, I believe that equality is my birth right. But I’ve also come to understand that my ability to live in accordance with that belief is a privilege of my circumstance – my family, my community, my education and socio-economic status. Someone tells me girls aren’t awesome and I can bite back with “fuck you” or another similarly clever rejoinder knowing that my partner, my parents, my friends and most people around me will back me up.

But what if no one were there to back me up? What if I had been raised to see myself as less? What if my partner required my subservience? What if my community condemned my bid for equality?

What if I were pregnant and I knew the child I was carrying would be not be received as a wanted blessing but as a valueless blight? Would I be grateful to those advocating under the auspices of feminism and equality that I now had lost what little agency I had to spare myself and my child from further oppression? Would I see my pregnancy as a happy development and the birth of my baby girl as step towards gender equality?

Maybe. Or maybe I’d feel frightened and angry that some random politicians were forcing me to become even more vulnerable by giving birth to a child who would be even more vulnerable than I.

When it comes right down to it, my feeling about abortion is this: I don’t have to like your reason. No one should be forced to have baby if they don’t want to. Forbidding sex selective abortion won’t solve the problem of gender discrimination. What it will do is leave many people with no other option but to endure a pregnancy which will culminate in the birth of a child that isn’t wanted.

And that I cannot support.




This past weekend was the usual flurry of activity: late nights, early mornings, family, friends, dog training, tri training, a regrettable lunch at McDonald’s, hockey victories, Scrabble victories and a little karaoke.

The two day frenzy began Friday afternoon, when I attended a dress rehearsal of The Vagina Monologues.   I’ve been enamoured of the Monologues ever since I saw my first production, five years ago.  A couple years later, I had the pleasure of performing Because He Liked To Look At Them as part of Ottawa V-Day 2007. A memorable event, not for the privilege of performing in front of hundred but also because it was only three short weeks after my son was born.

I’ve a strong bias in favour of  organizations/movements such as V-Day who seek to end violence against women.  I have great respect for the people in Ottawa and around the world who raise money through performances and readings of The Vagina Monologue, to end violence against women. I applaud the women from all facets of our community who get on stage and perform.   The final production is always beautifully unpolished – tender and vulnerable in a way I find difficult to describe.

Empowerment. Activism. Theatre. Community. So much with the good.  And yet the sex educator in me can’t resolve the one annoyance I’ve always had with this show:


People often use the word “vagina” to describe external female genitalia. The vagina is the tube that leads from the cervix of the uterus to the outside of the body. The birth canal for some. The outer stuff – the clitoris, labias minora and majora and the urethral and vaginal openings are known collectively as the vulva.  It may seem like an unimportant distinction, hearing the vulva called the vagina peeves me deeply.

People who are smarter than me have made similar critiques about the Monologues misuse of the term “vagina”.  I’ve heard repeated suggestion that the play would be more aptly named “The Vulva Monologues”.  Even though the whole “vagina/vulva” issue is a semantic annoyance, I can understand why Eve Ensler chose to use “vagina” vs. “vulva” in the title.  I suspect the word “vagina” is more familiar and relatable for most people. Also? The play deals with what happening on to and because of genitals on the inside AND the outside. Ultimately, “The Vulva Monologues” would be an equally inaccurate title.

If  The Vagina Monologues was just the title, I could totally let it slide.  It’s the use of “vagina” in the play itself themselves.  For example, the opening monologue “Hair” makes repeated mention of a man wanting to shave his wife’s vagina.  Subtle variances in anatomy notwithstanding most vaginas don’t have hair. And they do, shaving would require tremendous feats of dexterity since


As children, many of us learned that “boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.”  Yeah…sometimes. Not always.  Sex doesn’t define gender. But also? The vagina isn’t the homologue of the penis. The clitoris is. I think it’s important to acknowledge those distinctions for many reasons, not the least of which is sexual pleasure. The vagina can be a source of sexy awesomeness for many people, but because of nerve endings and other anatomical designs, it’s not the central pleasure centre for many people. Meanwhile the vulva – the lips and specifically the clitoris tend to be quite potent in terms of the sensation they deliver. But stimulating the vulva often gets designated as “foreplay” – the thing that come before the sex – while vaginal penetration is billed as the main event.

Even though it can be wonderful for many of us, vaginal stimulation isn’t the sexual highlight. But there’s still kind of this expectation that it should be and I wonder if it’s due in part to the fact that we say that A)vulvas and vaginas are basically the same thing and B)  vaginas and penises are basically the same thing.

Besides, I just want people to call my bits what they are. We don’t call testicles a penis. We call them testicles. Or balls. Or nuts. Meanwhile the penis gets to be a penis or cock or whatever. The point is, there are distinct sets of words and we understand penis and testicles as related but distinct anatomical parts.  Vulvas and vaginas deserve the same respect.

Vaginas are awesome. As are vulvas. They’re connected but different in form, function and response. So one more time:


As for The Vagina Monologues they are mostly empowering, thought-provoking and awesomesauce.  But I can’t help but feel a little disappointed that Eve Ensler may have missed an opportunity to counter the vag-centric confusion around female sexuality.   I will continue to support and participate The Vagina Monologues and V-Day, even as I holler my new mantra in all caps:


photo by Ceridwen

It’s World Contraception Day! Celebrate and stick it to all those anti-choice, birth-control-denying haters…in song!

It’s possible that I’ve the Carly Rae Jespen original stuck in my head for several months now. Holla to my pal Courtney and The Radical Handmaids for passing this along. Thanks to these new lyrics people will stop looking at me funny when I start singing under my breath.

Oh wait…

Don’t let Ottawa’s buttoned-up exterior fool you. This here government town has got lots of HAWT happening, you just have to know where to find it.  Here’s a list of some cool, sexy events coming up in the nation’s capital.


September 5th

Trivia Night

What better way to kick off the start of the school year than by testing your knowledge! The Pride Centre and the GSAÉD are hosting a trivia night…and rumour has it there are prizes. 19 + event.

Time: Doors at 8:00. Trivia begins at 8:30

Place: 1848 Pub

Cost: N/A

September 7th

Women’s Queer Social

It’s Ladies’ Night! The evening begins with a delightful meet up over hot beverages at Second Cup followed by dancing at The Lookout you that The Lookout may require 2 piece of ID. Second Cup meet up is all-ages and The Lookout is 19+

Time: Coffee – 7:30. Dancing – 9:30.

Place: Second Cup at 171 Rideau Street.

Cost: Second Cup – Free. Lookout – possible cover.

September 9th

Fight For Life: A Fundraiser

Experience the excitement as students of Western Martial arts do battle, tournament style! Proceeds support the Youth Services Bureau’s participation in the AIDS Walk For Life. BBQ lunch available by donation

Time: 10 a.m. – 4 p.m.

Place: Hintonburg Park

Cost: By donation.

September 10th

The Naughty Bits Book Club

Ottawa’s smuttiest book club is back! Come discuss the finer points of Curvy Girls, an erotic anthology edited by Rachel Kramer Bussel. Tea and cupcakes will be served!

Time: 6:30 p.m.

Place: Venus Envy

Cost: Free.

September 13th

The FIRST Capital Variety Show!

This is Ottawa history in the making. Sexy burlesquers and sideshow inspired performers join forces to bring you a night of entertainment unlike anything our town has seen! 19+

Time: 9:00 p.m.

Place: Babylon

Cost: $10

September 15th

Ottawa AIDS Walk For Life

The 22nd annual event to raise funds for local organizations that provide HIV/AIDS related services in our community. Join the walk, raise funds or sponsor a local agency!*

Time: 5:00

Place: Marion Dewer Plaza – Ottawa City Hall

Cost: Free.

*(Unashamedly biased endorsement: Support Team PPO!)

Ottawa Slowdance Night’s Teacher Student Edition!

Get close and sway to the rhythm and this special installment of Ottawa’s coziest dance party! Come dressed in back to school garb and received $2 off the cover.

Time: 9:00 p.m.

Place: Raw Sugar

Cost: $10. ($8 with costume)


Give a little. Get a little.

It’s that time again!

On September 15th sexy, sassy team from Planned Parenthood Ottawa will be lacing up and taking part in The Scotiabank AIDS Walk For Life. The walk is a fundraiser for Ottawa organizations that provide education, care and support related to HIV/AIDS in Ottawa. And once again my part to collect some cash.  If you’re inclined to give a little money to great cause, I’ve got something special for you.

Just like last year your donation gets you an electronic tax receipt and...a Sexy Shout Out!  

In exchange for your generous contribution, I will write a one paragraph personalized blog post, extolling your alluring virtues. I also spread word of your enticing charms via Facebook and Twitter.  I can also send you your own copy of your sexy endorsement to use as you see fit.

You know you’re hawt! Now you’ll have it in writing.

Don’t delay!  Click here to support Team PPO and get your Sexy Shout Out today! 😉

Trigger warning. This entry contains discussions of rape and miscarriage. Please exercise self care when reading this post or skip it altogether if you prefer.

Dear Todd Akin. Every time you lie about sex, a pony gets punched in the face.


On Sunday an interview with Todd Akin, the Republican senate candidate from Missouri, went to air. Like many on the right-end of the political spectrum, Akin is anti-abortion. When asked about abortion in the case of rape, Akin replied thusly:

Sweet. Lord.

Like most of the Internet, I was agog at Akin’s tale of reproductive lockdown. The arrogance, condescension and concentrated levels of wrong in his statement were so extreme that I wanted to respond the way a toddler might. I wanted to smash things and let loose with ear-piercing screams because LEGITIMATE RAPE WTF!!? and shutting down conception IS TOTALLY NOT A THING!!! and who the eff gave this a MASTERS DEGREE and let him sit on a SCIENCE COMMITTEE!!! The world has gone crazysauce and I WANT MY MOMMY!!!

Subsequent to the interview, Akin claimed to have “misspoken”,  that he has “deep empathy … for the thousands of women who are raped every year”.  Let’s add “meaning of the word ’empathy'” to the list of things that Todd Akin is making up. Insinuating there’s rape but there’s also the not-rape that people call rape? That’s not empathy. That’s stone-cold douchebaggery!

But back to the idiocy about rape-as-contraception. It’s not true. Which I’m sure you know, but Akin went there, so now I have to put it into print. Rape does not reduce one’s risk of unintended pregnancy. Physicians and statistics tell us that rape survivors are just as likely to conceive as people who engage in consensual sex.

It’s no secret that I’m pro-choice. I do support access to the full gambit of reproductive health options, including safe, legal abortion.  But for me, pro-choice means more than that.  I believe that people have the right to choose how they care for their own bodies. I believe that people have the right to choose how to live their lives. And I believe that people have a right to live according to their own ethics and morals.

I’ve been on the choice side of the abortion debate for a long time. I’m passionate about my beliefs and I can be zealous in my advocacy. Over the years, I’ve been challenged by opponents and by my fellow supporters to consider my position on this issue and what it means to be pro-choice. Once upon a time, I would have told you it was only about ensuring a person’s right to safe, legal abortion. But now it’s more than that. It’s about defending a person’s right to self-agency. I believe in a person’s right to choose what they do with and to themselves and to act in accordance with their own needs, desires, morals and ethics.*  For me, being pro-choice puts me in the super-awkward position of accepting that abortion is not okay with some people. And even though I personally disagree with the anti-choice position, I feel I have to respect that many of the folks on the other side of the debate are as sincere in their beliefs as I am in mine and that they are acting/speaking according to their own set of ethics.

So it isn’t Todd Akin’s opposition to abortion that makes me angry.  If he believes that life and all the inalienable rights that accompany said life begin at conception, okay.  If he had said, “I don’t support abortion in cases of rape because I still consider that fetus a person who has the same right to life as we all do,” I wouldn’t like it, but I wouldn’t be all twitchy with rage.  No. What’s pissed me off is the way Todd Akin tried to defend his anti-abortion position by straight up lying about  “the female body” and its magical rape defending abilities.

It’s not easy having morals. They’re so comforting in the abstract – shiny, guiding principles that help us navigate life’s dilemmas. But morality is a tricky beast and living according to our principles is rarely as easy as we hope it will be. I can see why rape is an ethical sticky spot for people on the anti side of the abortion debate. I think it’s especially difficult for people who, unlike a certain Senator-wannabe, have legitimate empathy/sympathy for rape survivors. I think they do understand that having no choice but to carry to term in that situation is horrendously unfair.

There are instances where being pro-choice is equally challenging. I respect a person’s right to choose. That doesn’t mean I’m always comfortable with the choices people make. There are times when being pro-choice clashes in a yucky way with my feminist principles or even my sex-positive ones. The problem with ideals is that in practice, they’re rarely ideal.

Meanwhile, Todd Akin wanted to pretend that his anti-abortion beliefs are ideal, beyond reproach. Instead of accepting the inconvenient truth – that pregnancy as the result of rape is unjust – he spun a tale about how people who are raped can’t get pregnant. But some tales are just too tall. Akin perpetuating rape-myths to serve his own self-entitled sense of “rightness” doesn’t speak to his passion about preserving life. Instead it displays epic arrogance and acallous insensitivity toward rape survivors and what they’ve experienced.

Shame on you, Todd Akin! I call foul on your back-handed victim-blaming and junk science. No matter how strongly you feel about access to abortion, it does not give you the right to lie.




* Assuming that when those actions involve other people, there is consent.

Just a heads up. Sometimes there are consequences to being opinionated on the Internet. A few hours after posting my entry about the Sex: A Tell All Exhibition at The Museum of Science and Technology, I received an invitation from the producer of CBC radio’s Ottawa Morning to participate in a short, on-air debate about the merits of the exhibit with Dave Quist of The Institute For Marriage and Family Canada.

I was nervous as all get out, especially about the prospect of forming coherent sentences before 7:30 in the morning. But in the end, I think I did okay. At the very least I sounded like a human being*.

Some of you have already heard it, but if you missed it and you want to know how it all went down, you can listen to the clip here.

* Thank you, thank you, thank you to The MoMs and my friend/colleague Barbara for helping me prepare. Without them, my side of the discussion would have pretty much been “sEx mUSeuMs iS gOoD, bLaaArGH!”





Peeps, I must apologize.

Work is kicking my ass, The Green Bean was sent home from school with a bloody face and I seemed to have developed some sort of anxiety-related insommnia (or possibly insommnia-related anxiety).  I want to give you the skinny on some super-rad product, film, book but my brain is way addled, yo.

I’ll be back to my regular faves rave next week. In the meantime, funnier, smarter people than me are up to some epic awesomeness. Check out these links!

– Last week I had the…ahem…pleasure of catching a sneek preview of Sex: A Tell All Exhibit at the Science and Technology museum. This award-winning exhibition opens tomorrow for a limited engagement. I HIGHLY recommend my fellow Ottawans check it out while it’s in town!

In YOUR face, stupid bullshit book about the “types” of women!

– I am humbled by the tour de force known as Janet Mock – a writer, activist and advocate for trans women of colour. “I will never depart from my core belief that…girls like us matter.”

– The very sexy Laura Rad explains how a sexual checklist can help jumpstart a sexual negotiations with your partner.

Kate Beckinsale wants Republicans in her vagina.

– Are you under 30? Do you like to draw? The city of Ottawa is holding a logo contest for it’s new Sex It Smart campaign!

In YOUR face, Cosmo Magazine!

–  Possibly be the sexiest person I have ever seen on the Internet.

– Also? I do burlesque so I have an excuse to buy stuff like this!

– Hee! This video about big…shoulders…makes a fair point!

– Fashion blogger, Juanette is rockin some fierce Mother’s Day hawtness!