Talk:Glabrousness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Merger with hair removal

I don´t think the two articles should be merged since the topics are different and the article would be very long. I´d prefer to remove the tag. Gardenparty (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] No, but ...

The comment with heading Glabrousness v. Acomoclitic below was added a year ago and is still not resolved but in my view it is clearly part of the same problem as this heading covers. Right now on Wikipedia we have the following articles all on closely related subjects:

... and quite possibly others that I have not caught here, but their treatment is partly repetitive, partly conflicting, and partly uncorroborated by references.

I am strongly of the opinion that this article Glabrousness should not be merged with Hair removal, but that here (in Glabrousness) the discussion of human cases of it should be limited to the medical causes of natural or iatrogenic hairlessness (as is seen in the case of such well known individuals as Matt Lucas and Duncan Goodhew who of course has alopecia universalis) or the side effects of chemotherapy.

All discussion of hair removal by any method and for any motivation —— thus most of what is on this page —— should be moved to the article Hair removal where there should be a unified list/survey of methods with a set of links. Then all the separate articles for the separate methods should be reviewed to rationalize coverage of topics, remove both repetition and conflicting statements, etc. Iph (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] history and fashion

The way this was written makes it seem that female shaving is a 20th/21st century phenomenon. Not so. Female deplilation gained and lost popularity as often as male shaving did - it just became 'wrong' to talk about it during the Victorian era. Interestingly enough, shaving became popular again in the late 19th centuries as a form of modesty, not sexual expression. Axilary hair was considered to blatently sexual and women shaved to mimic the art work of the time. Look at the furor Goya raised with his hint of pubic hair. --Lepeu1999 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

While I approve of the subject, is there any real reason for the close-up of the female genitalia other then purient interest? Sure it's a photo of a hairless vulva, but the Venus painting earlier in the article is more on topic as the article is about hairless bodies, not just vulvas. It's a very attractive vulva, but I believe its inclusion takes away from the article and I'm deleting it.--Lepeu1999 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The photo was readded w/o comment here in the discussion page. I have posted a note in the user's talk page asking why. If I don't get a response I will remove the photo again. I am anti-censorship, but that also brings the responsibility not to post images 'just because we can'. Those kinds of actions cause us to lose credibility. The image is tasteful and attractive, but I question how necessary it is for the article - the term refers to a lack of body hair, not just pubic hair. An image showing the entire body being hair-free would be more on topic. This photo belongs in the article on pubic hair or vulvas.--Lepeu1999 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I left a note on the re-adder's talk page and here. I haven't heard anything back regarding the photo so I'm removing it again.--Lepeu1999 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the delayed response, I'm in mid-exam season. Apologies also for missing your earlier note hear about that particular image, I missued it. While I have reservations concerning the use of the "is it really necessary" arguement when it comes to censorship, I think you may have a point in this instance. As I am not clear on my position, I will not pursue this any further. --Oldak Quill 14:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
A different photo was readded. I removed for the same reasoning as above. Also it was a commercial image and therefore copywrited.--Lepeu1999 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

When I said that it was socially accepted and even desirable for females to remove body hair to enhance their perceived femininity., I was referring to the females themselves who found the practice desirable. If they didn't, they wouldn't do it, would they? Does that self-evident truth need a citation? There are plenty of examples of this practice - many beauty parlours even offer a "full Brazillian" as a service - so there is a demand out there for it.

This article neither promotes not condems the practice, so I don't see any justification in the accusation of it not being neutral.


I've been trying to trace an etymology for this word. I assume it's Greek but can't find any specific info. Does anyone know any better? Agentsoo 10:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the article got moved. How disappointing. Soo 21:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested change:

in Western cultures it is socially accepted and desirable for females to remove body hair to enhance their perceived femininity.

to

in Western cultures it is socially accepted and, sometimes even desirable for females to remove body hair to enhance their perceived femininity.

--Vitor cunha 6 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

How about: in Western cultures removal of female body hair is well accepted in society. In fact removal of female body hair is used to enhance women's femininity << and some kind of comment about how widespread this practice is >>

[edit] Noun form

Following the general Wikipedia/encyclopedia model, shouldn't the article be "acomoclitism" (or whatever the noun form is)? -EdgarAllanToe 20:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the adjective for acomoclitism is? my dictionary isn't big enough.

Is it acomoclitic? I guess it wouldn't be acomoclitist because that would be a person who discrimates against those who have a preference to go without pubic hair.

[edit] Censorship request

Is the June Palmer picture nessecary? I know it's nice looking and this is the internet but my eight year old cousins use wikipedia and what if they go and research some school project on puberty and instead of the drawn "nasty" stuff they've already been exposed to see this full blow filth ( I honestly don't consider it filth) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.91.219 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of eight-year-old cousins, or anyone else. And has a Hell of a lot of more explicit sexual content that that picture, so you better stop them right now. ➥the Epopt 20:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antonym

What's the antonym to glabrous? i.e. someone who prefers hair not to be shaven? I think whatever it is there should be a link to it. --71.251.5.21 21:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Glabrousness" is the quality of being hairless, and has nothing to do with a preference; its antonym is "hirsute." "Acomoclitic" means "prefering glabrousness"; its antonym would be "trichophilia" or "chaetophilia." ➥the Epopt 14:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

Someone tagged the page with the NPOV template, but hasn't raised any concerns here (which they are required to do if they use that template). If no specific issues are raised here before 20 March, I will remove the NPOV tag. ➥the Epopt 20:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

-Agreed, the NPOV should be removed, since I see no reason why there is concern.Scotsworth

[edit] Naturally glabrous

Is there a gene of natural glabrousness, or is it just a disorder (I guess there are people with predispositional genes - so there's just a chance for their children to have it)? I've seen some people (men) having no beard at all! What about women - e.g. those that do not need to shave legs - oh how convinient! How does natural glabrousness affect skin (for example: is there some typical face (dis)configuration of naturally glabrous people (e.g. women - no matter they are women (I mean - no beard) - that absence of certain structures inside skin certanly must affect the outlooks of such faces)). I would like to see examples of such people - I ask: where? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.116.145.58 (talk • contribs) on 20:42, November 10, 2006 (UTC); Please sign your posts!

  • Oh, I seeee... You are refering to all the posts from that IP. That is not a private computer, I see there are some posts of some other people in connection to this IP - if one sign it it wouldn't be correct.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.116.145.58 (talk • contribs) on 18:25, November 18, 2006 (UTC); Please sign your posts!
The IP address is shown after edits are saved. Sign your comments. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glabrousness v. Acomoclitic

    • Proposed Major Edit

Some time ago, I noticed that my original Wikipedia entry of Acomoclitic had been changed to Glabrousness and a search for Acomoclitic now gets redirected to this entry. As a result, some of the early sections have been understandably changed to reflect this new definition. But these two words do not mean the same thing. A search on Google reveals many sources showing that the word Acomoclitic describes people who have a preference for hairless genitals on themselves or others. This is quite different from Glabrousness, which is having "an anatomically abnormal lack of hair or down" such as baldness. These are two separate words that require two distinct entries in Wikipedia. Unless someone can come up with a strong reason why not, I will remove the entries that made up my original contribution and reinstate them back in their place as a description of the Wiki entry for Acomoclitic. There can, of course, be a cross reference in both articles, if necessary. Carterton 13:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neologisms?

I propose that both these terms—Glabrousness and Acomoclitic—are neologisms. Neither Merriam Webster nor Ninjawords has an entry for either word. Is there a reputable reference that actually has these words? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penes

In the Glabrous skin section:

On the human body, glabrous skin is skin that is hairless. It is found on fingers, palmar surfaces of hands, soles of feet, lips, and penes.

I assume that "penes" is the plural of "penis," in which case I seriously doubt that this part has glabrous skin, being the owner of a clearly non-glabrous penis. Does the contributor have a source for this inclusion to the list of glabrous areas?—An Sealgair (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Botany, not just bottoms

I came to this article from that on woodruff, which describes the leaves of that plant as glabrous. Since it is a botanical term, as well as an anatomical one, it might be worth mentioning that meaning in a subsection. Ideally, i'd suggest there be separate articles on Glabrousness (anatomy) and Glabrousness (botany) (and possibly even Glabrousness (fashion)), and a disambiguation page. Provided there was enough content to justify a separate botanical article, anyway.

All this hinges on finding someone who knows about glabrous leaves, though. Not me!

-- Tom Anderson 2008-04-13 18:36 +0100