People who get frothy about removing pubic hair?(98 Posts)
I do get the whole pre-pubescent/pornstar thing.
but what about legs and pits?
Is that not the same argument?
Despite not really giving two hoots what other people do (and I know the whole shave/trim/plait thing has been done to death) but it confuses me.
we may not need to get frothy about what people choose do to to their own bodies
but we certainly should about what is influencing young women today, what is expected to be the norm and and where those influences come from
OK, I've been afraid to give my opinion. But I'll go for it now.
DW had never done really done much with her bush for the last 8yrs. Occasional trimming, but not often. Never really bothered me. I was a little curious as I'd never slept with anyone who did remove there's, and people argue about it so much. But not curious enough to actually want DW to do it, IYSWIM. Plus, she was quite morally against it because of the pre-pubescent arguement.
A few months ago, she suddenly decided to shave it. Said she was curious and wanted to see what it was like. Then she said she preferred it that way, she says it's more comfortable and so has kept doing it since then. So it wasn't me influencing her and she is completely against porn - like, if-I-used-it-she'd-leave-me against it. So not that. She just prefers it for some reason.
From my perspective, she certainly doesn't look any less womanly. You couldn't mistake her full womanly figure for that of any girl. I can't say it feels much different during sex, except that it can get a little sand-papery some times. As for the hygiene arguement - let's be honest, either you wash yourself or you don't. Doesn't really make much difference.
The real difference is during oral sex. I don't need to use one hand to hold the hair aside to get in there now, and you don't get saliva welling up in that mound at the bottom of the triangle. So it does make that much nicer to give. Other than that, it doesn't make lot of difference.
Not going to say what I do with mine
However. Have noticed this (on this thread, and the many, many others before it):
1) Some posters attack those who get rid ('you're only doing it for your OH', 'looks like a plucked chicken', 'looks pre-pubescent', etc).
2) Some posters attack those don't get rid ('it's unhygienic', etc).
Unless we're all going to wave our fanjos in each other's faces, wtf does it actually matter? Each to their own and all that.
By my understanding, part of the reason for not painting pubic hair was because it was considered too natural and sexual, and paintings were often very idealised and less 'human'. Paintings of bushy women would have caused a scandal in certain times and places, and less hairiness was supposed to look more innocent (or possibly more controlled/tamed).
I had to have emergency surgery on my bits last week. Hadn't shaved my legs in about two months, pubes were out of control, not even trimmed. I just thought fuckit, I'm a feminist, the important thing here is not HAIR. I'm hairy, move on.
When I was recuperating from the op, the young woman in the next bed was screaming in agony, sobbing uncontrollably, with an ectopic pregnancy. Her mother among many other comforting words berated her for "not even shaving your legs"…the world is truly fucked.
I don't just stare at them. I just see a lot of art as part of my job.
Personally, I prefer the archaic weapons. But nudity seems to feature in a lot of painting FSR. My theory is that the artists don't get laid much, so they obsess about naked women.
Haha - me too Knight. I don't just stare at naked women when in galleries. I was just noticing them, thanks to MN.
Just FYI - I also see a lot of paintings that have no nudes in them. Like boats and trees and stuff.
On the point of paintings and sculptures, as I understand it artists would use prostitutes etc as models to get the main part of he paintings done. They would then scout out a woman with a desirable face to sit for a short period for the facial features or if it was a painting of a lady of social standing they would ask her to sit for a short time and paint her face onto the body they had already painted iyswim? Obviously I don't expect Ladys and Duchesses had nude paintings done but because the practice was to use prostitutes as models for paintings I expect they were painted as seen and would have been hairless for the reasons pp mentioned above.
I'm not sure it would have been idealised, exactly. It's probably mostly the country of origin. As I said, I regularly see gallery artistic works from all over the world, and lot's of those have pubes. Especially the French and British ones.
I shave all mine off when I can be arsed. Not because DH likes it or to look like a porn star and it's definitely not to make myself look like a little girl but because I prefer it that way. I find it's more comfortable without than with pubes
Thanks Knights! that has bugged me since about May.
I do also wonder if there is a degree of "idealism" in there. When painting got a bit more gritty (less idealised I suppose), you start getting more pubes.
I remove all hair underneath because I find it much more comfortable. I've done it since I was 14 - well before I saw any porn or had the input from any man
Venus was Roman, that's why. The Romans removed pubes millenia ago.
Absy, actually I have found the answer to that.
Shaving goes back to the Roman times, believe it or not. They considered body hair of any kind to be unsanitary, and removed it. It's been done in the Middle East for centuries as well.
The western trend is probably going to discust you. It began in brothels, when some prostitues would remove their pubes and replace them with mirkins (pubic wigs) to hide a syphillus infection. It wasn't done in other western setting, nor was other body hair removal until very recently. I know a 60 odd year old who has never once shaved her armpits, for example.
I've seen lots of 18th and 19th century paintings with plenty of pubes, along with many pre-modern photos and paintings (in an artistic gallery, obviously). It seems to have become mainstream since the 80s. Porn before then was full haired.
It seems to have gone viral since then, slowly. Perhaps because of porn, but it's also come about since the imitation of mediterranian women became commonplace (the tanning obsession, white skin used to be attractive until recently), who have removed pubes for many years "for hygiene reasons", so they say. Hence the term "Brazil Wax".
I've been wondering how "new" the whole pubic hair removal thing is. I know (think) in the Middle East it's been pretty common for centuries, but I wonder about Western Europe. A few months back, we went to a lot of art galleries in Madrid, and thereby saw a LOT of nude women (paintings, not actual people mind), painted throughout the centuries. I noticed that, pretty much up until the 1920s or so, female nudes are painted sans pubic hair.
Is this because 1) it was too much of a pain to paint or 2) it didn't "look nice" so painters didn't include or 3) it was common for women (or at least artists' models) to remove their pubes.
We'll probably never know ... (it's been bugging me for months)
and yeah, thanks MN for having all these discussions about pubic hair and the removal thereof, which then FORCED me to spend a lot of time staring at painted crotches and thinking about this.
glad you knew what I meant. I get het up at the idea of people not being able to choose what they do with their own bodies.
I didn't mean that I thought you were belittling FGM. I meant that it's very difficult to compare mail and female, becuase the effects are quite different.
See that's why I compared it to fgm. I know the impact of fgm is bloody awful, and I note that quite rightly it gets the bigger reaction.
Lip trimming, hair removal etc tends to e a choice. Fgm and circumcision isn't so although the effects differ I just meant to acknowledge why the circumcision vs not debates between men might get rather heated.
I did not mean to belittle fgm at all, it what I'm badly trying to say.
no one is saying that everyone who waxes or shaves all their pubic hair has been influenced by porn or what they believe men want (that has been influenced by porn)
but to deny that it has had an influence is naive, why are so many women dieting to the extreme, having plastic boobs, hair extensions, false lashes, botex, lips pumped up and ffs vajazales
sadly we are constantly bombarded with images of how women should look like, porn is far more mainstream that it ever has been and it is influencing young women and men on how women should look (and act) like
when i was young i never gave it a second thought what my vagina may look like to a man i had sex with. i may have trimmed my hair but now it is part of our grooming
Yes, but FGM is considered so bad because it means the woman is likely to experience agonising pain whenever they have intercourse, is likely to experience severe tearing during childbirth and will have no feeling during any form of sex.
Male circumsicion, if I understand it, does not have the same effect. That's why I went with comparing it to cosmetic surgery to trim the lips (which is something that is happening and is legal by choice).
Never thought of it like that. FGM (quite righlty) gets a huge response and it very emotive. Male circumcision seems to be going a similar way (from what I saw on another thread).
I suppose it would be like an arguement coming up on here that women should have their inner lips trimmed or something. You can only imagine how heated such a debate would get. Yes, some of us who still own foreskins were quite defensive of the little bits of skin we'd kept hold of.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.