Talk:Pubic hair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pubic hair article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Pubic hair was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Archive
Archives
  1. Before Feb 2007

Contents

[edit] Variations 'gallery' - Poll for removal

Reading the article, I am immediatly struck with the notion that the gallery in the 'variations' section detracts from the article as a whole. There seems to be no reason for it other then as an excuse to include more photos of genitalia. The other photos of the article more then support the contention that there are myriad variations in the amount and look of pubic hair. Further, any variation in the photos included in the gallery is due to the way the hair's been trimmed, not from and genetic diversity. While I believe the article would be better without it, I would like a consensus before considering removal.--Lepeu1999 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove.

Support (remove) --Lepeu1999 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Oppose (keep) Oppose (keep)

Support (remove) really is not needed, considering if you were really dieing to see it you could... --Furiso

Keep and improve. --Guinnog 06:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose (keep) (repeat of what I said under "gallery" in italics) Lepeu1999, I don't see any pictures illustrating differences besides in the gallery. Like I said initially, my idea was to start a gallery which would get different looking people to submit, and thus show the variations. Although the gallery initially comprised of only caucasians, more variation is gradually being introduced via submissions.

Some of submitions are possibly trimmed (as I argued earlier under "Images"), but that is irrelevant. There are differences shown besides trimming. I'm not sure that the pictures need to be as prominent as they are. So, I wouldn't be against shrinking the thumnail size if it's too distracting (thumbnails originally were smaller when I made it). Wits 18:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I shrunk the thumnails from 200px to 150. Doesn't sound like much but it fits the page much better. Wits 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as anyone could have predicted, someone has taken the additional available width on the page as an invitation to post another photo.

Oppose: keep and improve. Maybe a 4-pic-per-gender maximum? It did make it fit much better. Fishies Plaice 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Keep. The very topic should let viewers know what they might see. There is nothing pornographic about the pictures. Pictures are a great way of explaining things in a way words cannot. If you want to make the thumbnails smaller or move them, that would be fine. Lewie 14:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support Excessive and unnecessary in my opinion. CPAScott 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose (keep) Improves the article by illustrating in greater depth and variety what the article is about. Mathmo Talk 09:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Support (remove) The Chest hair and Abdominal Hair articles used line drawn diagrams. This gives an entire gallery of full color pictures. I think it is obvious that this is done for enjoyment rather than true informational purposes. I recommend doing what the other body hair articles do and use line drawings. It would also make the article more accessible to more people. There are many people who won't or can't read an article with photographic nudity than those who would refuse to read one that doesn't. Including the pictures effectively bars millions of people from reading it.

Support (remove). One image of male and female would be plenty - why have eight? Totally unnecessary and merely gratuitous titillation. I like nude pics as much as the next guy, but they have no place in an encyclopaedic article like this. In fact, it reduces Wikipedia's credibility - AND it attracts vandals like blood to a shark.
Nick Michael 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually Nick Michael, that should be "like a shark to blood." Just sayin.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.112.50 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
Support (remove). Cut gallery down to one male and one female example. RJASE1 Talk 13:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work RJASE1! How did you choose the ones you left? Just curious...
Nick Michael 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I got involved was because of the vandalism going on with the images...I figured someone would be unhappy no matter what I did. Hopefully the two images remaining (along with the others further down) are an acceptable race/gender sample. RJASE1 Talk 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Let's hope the extra space doesn't attract more of the same...Nick Michael 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Though I think the pictures do not really demonstrate the variations the preceding statement talks about. All four pictures show the similar type of pubic hair. If different pictures which actually explicate the variations could replace it, perhaps it would make more sense.Saurabh Rahurkar 21:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's not been any sort of consensus here, so removing the gallery is too soon. So, let's discuss the key issues and try to resolve this. As I see it, we have several opinions. Firstly, some people point out that pubic hair is variable. There is a difference in distribution patterns and density of hair between, say, Image:Gen_21.jpg and Image:Male_pubic_hair_caucsn.jpg. Or between Image:Poilspubiens.jpg and Image:Natural pubic hair.jpg. Some people think the article should illustrate these variations. On the other hand, some people think the pictures are just an excuse for pictures of genitalia, and would prefer line drawings. However, no-one has suggested any line drawing alternatives. It seems to be the best solution would be to find good line drawings illustrating variations. Failing this, maybe a solution could be to limit the variations to 2 male and 2 female, trying to pick photos illustrating a bit of the range of variety? Possibly the 4 I have above? Fishies Plaice 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a very good link already mentioned in the article, viz: Pubic Hair Distribution which does exactly what you want. However it is admittedly limited to female patterns and distribution. This is really much more useful than the photos in the article, and if a male counterpart of this site can be found, would you agree that it be substituted for the multiple photos? Nick Michael 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather have it in wikipedia. I'm always wary of relying on external sites to do our work for us, as they can disappear and aren't bound by all our guidelines. But still, that would be better than nothing. Fishies Plaice 11:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You forgot me. 'OPPOSE' (Keep). Mainly because you cannot rely on external link to stay up for a long period of time before finally going away and disappearing. I recommend a maximum number of images and removed some of the unneccessary ones (ie: the artwork depicting a japanese woman with a squid on her) that doesn't contribute to the article itself. Yoryx 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need THAT many pics

Really ppl...we get the idea.TNTfan101 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the first gallery (voted for keeping it). But since then another gallery has been added for shaved hair which goes way overboard. It contains some voyeuristic photos with spread eagle legs (probably cropped from copyrighted porno pictures), obviously bad photoshopping (in one pic), semi-erection with semen dripping down his leg, etc... Totally inappropriate. Wits 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it shows you clicked on the pic to see the semen, ha ha! But I agree with you wholeheartedly: it's totally inappropriate, and unnecessary gratuitous titillation. What's more, the caption of the picture to which you refer mentions the word 'balls' - very encyclopaedick, don't you think? Perhaps you could add your vote and comments to the poll for removal at the top of this page.
Nick Michael 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW, having all those pics also seems to attract the vandals like blood does a shark... Nick Michael 08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Hey Nick, I clicked the pic for purely "encylopedick" reasons. I swear. Hahaha. Anyways, I previously added my vote/comments for keeping the "variations" gallery. Although it (variations gallery) could use improvement perhaps. It's good that the inappropriate (as previously detailed) "shaved" gallery was removed.

For the variations gallery we should add a set of agreed upon guidelines (only readable by editors). Such as limits on numbers of pics (I think 4 per gender is fine), reinforce purpose of gallery, etc... I understand why you think having multiple photos would encourage vandalizing (monkey see monkey do). But my thought are that if properly done it may actually discourage it. If proper visuals are instituted (with rules/limitations stated in editing space), that could mean less people will be randomly uploading inappropriate pictures to try and fill the void. Wits 18:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well RJASE1 actually took it upon him/herself to delete all eight pics a day or two ago, in spite of no consensus having really been reached. I hoped no one would see, but we were caught by Fishies Plaice, who has an eagle eye for disappearing pubes, and reverted it, as is indeed his/her right. I must say, I'm fed up with having to scroll past these pendant dongs. How about having eight female photos and no male? Cheers Nick Michael 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was browsing through some of the media for deletion and came across this. Quite frankly, that's just too many images. I don't see a problem with the article having AN image, but we really don't need several to show off several variations of genitalia. 65.6.50.112 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So sign the poll below! Nick Michael 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo gallery - options

The above discussion is months old now - I count 6 signed votes for gallery removal and 4 signed votes for retention (plus a couple of unsigned retention votes and some additional support for removal in the other thread). I was hoping to consolidate consensus into a new thread (this one) and close it out within a couple of weeks.

I'd like to put forward the following two options:
Option 1. Keep the gallery as is, limited to four male and four female images.
Option 2. Eliminate the gallery and reduce images in this section to one male and one female example.
RJASE1 Talk 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

Option 2. I'm no prude (I even supported the current image in the Ejaculation article) but having an open gallery of this type is vandal-bait. God knows we already have enough self-made images of male genitalia. I think one each archetypical male and one female image are enough to get the encyclopedic point across, when combined with all the other examples shown further down in the article. RJASE1 Talk 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Option 2. And I'm not a prude either. In fact, rather the contrary ;-) But these photos do not lend credibility to Wikipedia and attract vandals like honey does bees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Michael (talk • contribs) 07:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Out of those two options, I'd go for Option 1. The point of the variations gallery is to illustrate the variations. As I said above, I think that we should have at least two females and two males, with the illustrations chosen to show variations. And I don't care whether those are line drawings or photos. Fishies Plaice 12:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I favor Option 2, but that is not a vote. I doubt that we are going to settle this now, despite the length of the earlier discussion. Calling this a vote is not good, either. Voting generally does not work for settling disputes on Wikipedia. We may eventually want to take this to mediation or maybe Request for Comments. -- Donald Albury 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Favor option 1 in order to illustrate variation. Line drawings are better than nothing, but non-provocative photos (which I think we have now) are better than line drawings. Xandergr8 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 - There's not really any variation in these images. If there were an encyclopedic reason to show lots of images, I'd support it, but there really isn't. One of each sex is fine. — Omegatron 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 - I just found it horrific that those pictures are there at all, without even any sort of warning!! Shouldn't there be some sort of banner?? I mean, those photos are practically porno...shouldn't we be concerned about some kid wandering into here?? --Promus Kaa 16:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Action Taken

Per the consensus here, I cut the gallery down to 1 each, male and female. I also took the male image I selected and cropped it to just the pubic hair and the base of the penis. Not out of prudery, but because I personally find the penises distracting when what we're trying to illustrate is the pubic hair. The best picture was probably the first one in the gallery, but I deliberately chose the second image because it was of an African-American male, and there has been a long-running complaint that Wikipedia's body part images tend to be almost exclusively caucasian, and I think that's a fair complaint. Nandesuka 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. — Omegatron 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You have an interesting interpretation of what "consensus" means. 5 for and 2 against is not consensus. (Thanks for the compliment about the pic.) Xandergr8 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The most important factor is that the gallery as it was was ugly and actually acted against illustrating the topic it was in support of. I think it's fair to describe the discussion above (all of it, not just the last "vote") as a rough consensus. But the net result is that the article is now more readable, and the illustrations more useful. Nandesuka 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent: at last someone's had the balls... er, the bottle to do it! Nick Michael 06:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose

Needs some information either here or in androgenic hair about why we grow hair in only certain places and what evolutionary purpose it is theorized to serve. — Omegatron 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Nick Michael 03:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, I was perplexed to find no explanation being given as to why we have pubic hair. Saurabh Rahurkar 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. As of right now the page basically just says "Yep, we have pubic hair, and here's some people's opinions on it." There needs to be more information on the page. --Promus Kaa 16:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed here, this is the exact annswer i came here looking for, wanted to answer a question on http://www.golivewire.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.144.178 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caution

Caution Wikipedians, Since this article has a picture of people's penis, anus, and testicles in it, a lot of anonymous users could come here and vandalize this whole page by making fun of those pictures. I'll say to suggest that disable editing that article.Pro Game Master87 09:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the pictures

There could be kids at school researching this for sex-ed! I say we remove the pictures and replace it with a school-safe diagram. We all know what pubes look like. Who's with me? --Candy-Panda 09:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR. Real pictures let people see what pubic hair looks like in real life, and not just some idealized representation thereof.--Prosfilaes 08:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)



"There could be kids at school researching this for sex-ed! I say we remove the pictures and replace it with a school-safe diagram. We all know what pubes look like. Who's with me?"


oh lord.....lets tell them that babies come from a magic place in the blue sky too ok!? If they are indeed researching for such a topic,teachers understand that! Grow up!


If you're looking at wikipedia to see what they look like then it's prety conclusive you havent seen them and dont know what they look like. It's not as if the pictures are actualy of couples having sex (Pi 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Tentacle porn

The tentacle porn picture is kind of irrelevant to the article. Just because the woman in the picture just happens to have pubic hair, does that mean we have to include every kind of weird sexual fetish porn just because it features some pubes? --124.180.65.165 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article discusses the depiction of pubes in art. The image demonstrates that at the time it was made, at least some Japanese art did depict pubes. 21:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

new image
new image
older image
older image

A user keeps adding an image replacing the previous "afric am tightcrop" (which he claims, for no apparent reason, actually depicts a "latino" individual). While there is some good reason for preferring "white" bodies in this case - since they allow the hair to stand out more sharply, I think this is overidden by the preference for racial diversity which has been several time proposed here. Can we have some consensus to avoid silly edit warring from competing exhibitionists again. Paul B 12:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No, I said the model I have used for pubic hair is from Ecuador: he's Latino. He's not white. You misunderstood the edit summary. The photo of the "afric am tightcrop" is of exceptionally poor quality. It is blurry and the color is odd. Racial diversity is still present with a Hispanic male. And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call me an exhibitionist, since the model is not me, Paul Barlow. Saying that is the definition of a personal attack - discuss the edits, not the editors. --David Shankbone 12:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for misunderstanding, however "latino" just means south/central American. It's not really a racial concept. It's a linguistic one. We have had longstanding problems with exhibitionism, so I make no apologies for mentioning the fact that we need to work wth consensus to avoid that problem David Shankbone. Paul B 12:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You should apologize. First, I'm a long-standing contributor and leveling charges as to my motivations for putting a photograph up is completely irrelevant to the discussion page for this article. You neither know me, nor my motivations, and instead of making charges that I'm trying to get my bush up on a page you should perhaps contact me first. It's called, Paul Barlow, WP:CIVIL and No Personal Attacks. --David Shankbone 12:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Your tiresome sanctimony is simply evading the issue. I said nothing about you wantinmg to get your "bush" anywhere. I said, David Shankbone, "Can we have some consensus to avoid silly edit warring from competing exhibitionists again." Paul B 13:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm the one involved, I'd be the exhibitionist. Perhaps you should use language more precisely and in its commonly used ways. You are first equating the problematic word Race with African-American. The model I used is from Ecuador. Second, we are here for quality, not to get African-American pubes on the pubic hair page. The model I used could be Asian - you don't know. It's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. --David Shankbone 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I couldn't resist sticking my oar into this pube war... I prefer the new photo because the penis has been masked, and that avoids any element of exhibitionism. Why not start a vote on it? Nick Michael 13:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote away! Paul B 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
a photo in which the hair has not been shaved or trimmed would be more representative. Race is not important, just use a good-quality photo that shows pubic hair in its natural state. P 68.162.124.47 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The Shankbone photo is obviously better quality and therefore is the most appropriate at this time. I don't see how the racial issue has any bearing whatsoever.TAnthony 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The older one is a better picture (Pi 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Shankbone photo

[edit] Consensus

I'd like to get consensus (again) to remove Image:Pubic_hair_by_David_Shankbone.jpg from this article. My objections to this picture are: it is a technically poor photo, it is very poorly lit, it is improperly isolated (containing too much extraneous detail that has nothing to do with pubic hair, which makes it distracting), and the article already has enough other adequate illustrations. Please comment. Nandesuka 02:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. Forget "not censored": Given the simplicity of the concepts involved, the article is amply illustrated with two images, and both of those are quite adequately from fine art. This is just ancillary hair. If the reader is human, then there is no great mystery involved. Those who are pre-pubertal probably aren't a bit mystified, and those who aren't don't need an illustration at all. Therefore, the other concepts -- popular culture, taboo, etc. -- might need illustration if they are sufficiently difficult to explain. They aren't. Therefore, with no need for a photo, with the photo being of low quality, with the photo having extraneous elements, and with it essentially jockeying, so to speak, for space with better, less fetishistic, photos, there is no question but that the image should be deleted. Geogre 03:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding Nandesuka's arguments: 1. The poorly lit argument is a bit silly, since the there is no difficulty seeing and I don't see how your "technical" ability to judge a photo is apparent; and 2. Most of your arguments are more centered around cropping the image than removing it. Which is fine. What is especially amusing is that the female photo is practically the exact same area of detail as the male, but Nandesuka doesn't argue against it. Instead, this appears to be more of a personal issue with me. There is no consensus (again) to remove the photo, and if you like to make fictional statements, perhaps provide fictional diffs. We can open this as an RfC; however. But I'll crop the photo, since that's not such a big deal to remove the offensive "extraneous detail" you are so very distracted by. --David Shankbone 03:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The female photo is, first of all, a technically good photo, by which I mean it is sharp and properly lit. There's really no mystery as to what makes a photo properly lit, and I don't see how one can argue that your photo is (if you're confused about this, the primers at istockphoto.com go into lighting, and what good vs. bad lighting is, in some detail). Second of all, although you are correct that the female photo has more context than is necessary, it is at least more properly isolated (witness the black background, for example). That being said, I wouldn't object to tighter cropping of that one, either.
The bottom line is that I'm in favor of images that enlighten and illustrate, and opposed to images that detract and distract. My personal opinion is that your image, in this article, falls into the latter category. Nandesuka 04:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The photo is cropped, which rendered much of your argument moot; and I think the casual viewer would not look at it and say, "This is poorly lit and unsharp" but you are welcome to hold such an opinion. --David Shankbone 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In an effort to compromise, I cropped the photo. Re: Geogre's arguments, I disagree. I think photographic representation is always helpful in articles and I don't think the standards should be "can we get by with as little as possible" just because it shows a nether-region. We are here to unabashedly educate. Additionally, without the photograph, there is no representation of male pubic hair except for a statue that is not particularly good at illustrating the subject, and in Nandesuka's words, contains a lot of "extraneous detail" as does much of the art. --David Shankbone 04:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Male and female pubic hair are not different from one another. Even the pattern of hair growth isn't different. It's not mysterious. We have all those words there to describe the hair, and anyone who can read them and is still puzzled by masculine pubic hair is not going to be helped by a photo. Furthermore, since showing male pubic hair involves the penis, and because the penis obscures the pubic hair, we would be far better off with line art, where the perspective can be controlled, where lighting isn't in doubt, and where we can simply excise distracting elements. This is in addition to the present photos being of poor quality. Geogre 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, clearly that is not the case that the penis obscures the pubic hair, since in my photo it is more than apparent without the penis being in the way. Additionally, if the penis is so integrated with pubic hair, than it is more than appropriate it be in the photo, regardless. There simply isn't a good reason not to have a photograph, except for puritanical reasons. Art is not the real thing, it's an artist's depiction that is not wholly accurate. It doesn't replace the encyclopedic value of showing what the article is about, in the flesh, or the hair, as the case may be. Your poor quality argument is only an afterthought to the notion that you simply don't want photos of pubes in the article. Time and again, this issue has come up on Wikipedia, and time and again, photos have won out. The general community consensus on this issue almost every time has been that sex acts are illustrated, the body itself is photographed. Do we really need to raise this again and again and again? We can do an RfC if the need be. --David Shankbone 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not tell me what my motivations really are. My argument is consistently that, first, your photo is poor, second, that any photo is unnecessary, third, that photos in this particular article are imbalanced, and finally that illustrating because you get a kick out of it is not sufficient reason for ignoring all the previous. I'm sorry that you feel compelled to show your friend's naughty bits. I'm sorry that you believe it is important to have your, and only your, images pasted up on the wall, but your private needs are not our concern. Our concern is the article. We have two long time users, both administrators, weighing in to say that these photos in this place are poor and one saying that even a good photo would not be necessary, and denigrating these users and trying to trot out the oldest straw man in existence is not helping matters. It escalates them, and turns the attention from the photo to you, as a user. Geogre 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's break this down: 1. It means absolutely nothing who is an admin and who is not in this discussion, and if you lend more credibility to admins than other opinions, that is your problematic hierarchical thinking that goes against the very principles of wiki. Let's put it this way: if five admins agreed and five editors disagreed, there is still no consensus. If we want to match head to head contributions as "long time users" I'll match my User page against anyone's, thank you very much (and some of us have turned down repeated requests to be an admin); 2. That you consider natural things such as pubic hair "naughty" (your word) is the problem, and what I alluded to in the first place ("puritanical reasons"). For being the golden calf of an admin, you tell me not to ascribe motivations that were apparent from your original argument, then you reveal the motivation, then you go into an entire screen about my own. You're all over the place, my dear friend. 3. The quality argument not only falls flat--as everyone can see with their own two eyes--but you argue it as an afterthought, not wanting encyclopedic depictions of the subject because, in school marm prose, they are "naughty". 3. The argument you raise that there is no "mystery" is irrelevant - we aren't here to reveal mysteries, but to educate. Whether you think the education is naughty or nice doesn't matter as much as artwork and artistic license with the subject can't replace the value of having a photograph. Mystery revealed. I bow. Cue gong. --David Shankbone 12:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I hate to contradict an obvious expert in the subject, but this very serious article maintains you are wrong about male and female pubic hair patterns being similar. In fact, if we were to illustrate the details described in the article, David is going to have to fork out for an awful lot of film... Nick Michael 07:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I love the entry level sarcasm, but precise differences require, as you say, a whole lot of film, and I would argue that your source is not correct. The amount of individual variation means that getting into the differences without documenting ideopathy is impractical in images. Let's try words and line art. Geogre 11:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That article is actually quite interesting. I agree it would be difficult to summarize it in photos, since the entire point of the article is "there are many types of pubic hair and they cross gender boundaries" (note the conclusion: "The classical division into "masculine" and "feminine" types is found to be unsatisfactory.") And, of course, this is a study of only whites. I'd love to find a way to work it into the article, but it feels like it might be too esoteric. In any event, it feels somewhat orthogonal to the photo quality issue. Nandesuka 12:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the new Shankbone photo is ridiculous. So much "extraneous detail" has been cropped that it could easily be mistaken for a close-up of part of a rather worn coconut mat. Couldn't we at least have a model who does not appear to be in the early stages of alopoecia (I had to look that up!). After all, the article is about pubic hair, so why illustrate it with such a sparse example? Er... not that I'd know, of course... Nick Michael 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So you would prefer this version? --David Shankbone 11:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrrrrgh!! You can see the crabs! I think this one should go into your 'magnum opus' collection... I hope that's not a detail of one of your politician or lawyer photos.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Michael (talk • contribs) 12:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

  • That's hysterical. What's even funnier is the thought of asking someone like Floyd Abrams to submit to such a photo for the sake of free culture. --David Shankbone 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To the photographer

David, please stop reverting your own photographic work back into the article. I've no objection if some other editor wants to do it (as long as they're participating on the talk page), but for you to be obdurate in this way regarding your own creation is a clear conflict of interest, and is quite inappropriate. Please stop. Nandesuka 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest, you are unable to cite any policy or guideline, and right above this discussion consensus was reached to include it. The COI argument is ridiculous and you are using it to get your way, but are unable to find anything to back yourself up. Your behavior is very inappropriate. You are edit warring, without consensus. --David Shankbone 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

  • David Shankbone: An earlier consensus, above, was reached to replace a poor quality photo of male pubic hair with one that I took. I am a frequent contributor of photographic images (see User:DavidShankBone. The photo is clear and crisp, IMO, and other Users agree it should replace the previously existing male pubic hair photo. User:Nandesuka does not like the photo and doesn't want it replaced, but removed entirely. User:Geogre wants no photographs, even though body articles are illustrated with photographs, traditionally, and sex acts are illustrated, typically. Other Users as seen above have voted to use this photo, including User:TAnthony and User:Nick_Michael. --David Shankbone 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • SandyGeorgia: I fully concur with Nandesuka and Geogre, and have encountered issues of COI with Shankbone attempting to insert his unnecessary photos in other articles (Hugo Chavez). These images aren't necessary, and the COI is an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, good lord, Sandy, are you really dragging out the old Hugo Chavez puppet issue again? That was a year ago, and I still feel my argument had merit; just because others did not doesn't mean I'm wrong. I thought we already talked about that, and I have no idea what bearing it has on this discussion, just like the 2,000 pages my photos illustrate--some of which are considered "invaluable" and for which I have been awarded many a barnstar--don't have any bearing on what we are talking about here. But for you, it all comes down to one photo of a Hugo Chavez puppet that was used in an award-winning, NEA-funded show? Okay... --David Shankbone 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are two separate issues here, in my opinion. The first is whether this image -- not any of the thousands of other images you have taken, many of which I'm sure are absolutely awesome, but this image -- is a good image, and whether it appropriately illustrates the article. I believe this image is a bad image, and I believe it poorly illustrates the article, and in fact detracts from the article. You disagree. That's fine. Presumably others will comment on this issue as well, and we can proceed from there.
The other issue is that I feel you are simply too close to your own work to evaluate it dispassionately, and I feel that edit warring to re-insert your own artistic product into a Wikipedia article is at best in poor taste, and at worst a conflict of interest. Sandy is, it seems to me, speaking to this second issue. Nandesuka 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The COI argument falls flat and is unsupported in any guideline or policy (please quote and not just link, if I'm wrong). What *is* supported is that your behavior is inappropriate to remove an image that has been on the article for two months while we are discussing it. Open an RfC about it if you think I've acted so dastardly, but this isn't the place to discuss your edit warring, which you have been talked to about before. If Sandy is going to bring up one episode from a year ago to hurt my credibility here, then I will use my countless other edits and photographs to prop it back up - it's that simple. --David Shankbone 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how many people are going to have to tell you they believe your behavior is inappropriate before you change it? I am sure that you have many fine edits and superb photographs here at Wikipedia. That doesn't really improve the quality of this particular image. Nandesuka 17:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The same question can be posed to you - here you are edit warring again when you were told not to do so until consensus was reached; however, here you have consensus to use this image that you were removing. But it will take more than you, edit warring, that's for sure. Considering that your behavior, and mine, has been raised to admins who have not reprimanded me, but you, should tell you something. --David Shankbone 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid ad hominem argument. Thanks. Nandesuka 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:KETTLE. Thanks. --David Shankbone 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Shankbone, I'll "drag out an old issue" as long as your editing practices remain the same and cause a large waste of editor time. I supported/agreed with the idea you wanted to convey in the Chávez image, but it was a terribly low-quality picture (I believe it's now deleted?), it was not of an encyclopedic nature, and it was not appropriate for the article in the slightest. You don't appear to acknowledge when your images aren't of the quality warranted for an encyclopedia, and that's where your conflict comes in. And edit warring over your own images is disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Sandy, this seems a bit personal. Out of 2,000 images a handful have been controversial and I believed in the images, and you consider it disruptive. So, noted, you have some personal issue with me (which another outside editor made note of) since per the comments below the issue is a bit more nuanced than my being "disruptive". --David Shankbone 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeffpw: As an editor who has never worked on this article, but was asked to take a look at it and comment, I think photos are necessary. Yes, one can use paintings if one is offended by actual naked people, but photos show the reality, while paintings interpret the reality, and are thus POV. David's photo accurately depicts the subject of the article and is in no way distasteful or offensive. Further, this RFC seems to have a highly personal tone, with other editors using it to settle grudges from the past. I certainly hope I am wrong about that, but don't think so. In any event, I think the photos (both of them) are useful and want them to stay. Jeffpw 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As long as I am answering an RfC and not getting into an edit war, I would say that I am happy for David to use his photo to illustrate the article. David writes above that Nandesuka wants the image removed, but from what I read, Nandesuka is more concerned with the quality of the pic than anything else. Why not come to a compromise and let David submit another pube pic (and I'm sure he has lots...) that may give satisfaction to more people? I have already said that the thing is a bit motheaten... Nick Michael 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Dev920: It seems very strange that people are arguing that a picture of male pubic hair shouldn't be allowed at all on an article on... pubic hair. All articles on the human anatomy should have pictures of those human parts, both male and female, and I don't see why this article should be any different. I don't think the image is great, but unless any of the male contributors to this discussion are willing to pull down their pants and oblige, traditional policy on Wikipedia is to go with whatever we have UNTIL a better image is found. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Dev920: Can you comment on this image as a replacement? Image:Pubic_hair_afric_am_tightcrop.jpg? That was the image that was on the article before David began an edit war to replace it with his artistic product. Consensus as to which image should be used is roughly divided, above (see the "Images" subheader. My personal feeling is that the afric_am_tightcrop image is technically worse, but manages to illustrates the subject better. Nandesuka 13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think while that photo is hairier, it is also much worse technically and doesn't illustrate the hair as well as David's photo does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 20:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
  • Agne27 As a simple observer I think the photo that Nandesuka mentioned above is of horrible quality and shouldn't be used. It's very dark and blurry. David's photo is of much better quality however the other version actually distinguishes itself as being an image of male public hair more then the current one being used. Though overall I think the current article is well....a little too bushy. :) It seems like there are more images then needed. I do see value in a some illustration of the topic matter but 7 images? Maybe the cut it down to a male and female pic and one "artistic" image. AgneCheese/Wine 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. One female, one male, and perhaps two artistic renditions (male/female). I think the page was heavily loaded with art pubes to make it seem like photographs were unnecessary. If a better male photo comes along that trumps mine, I'm fine with it being taken down. Same for female (although none of my female friends want me to document their body). --David Shankbone 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Of the two photos under discussion, David's photo is editorially preferable, simply on grounds that the older photo is blurry (to my inexpert eyes, the composition is about the same). A more natural male photo might be preferable, if the technical quality were as good, and a corresponding female photo would be a good idea too. At present, David's photo is a significant improvement over the alternative. Thatcher131 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Anchoress I agree with Agnes27. David's photo is superior to the old one. Anchoress 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm with Thatcher on this, David's photo is a considerable improvement over the older image Nandesuka prefers and some of the behaviour shown here is quite unfortunate, no editor should be treated in the way David is being treated here, especially an editor who contributes so many high quality images. Nick 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I too think David's photo is better. It is by no means his finest work (technically or aesthetically), but it's considerably better than the small, grainy image it replaces. The idea of using line art or other artistic interpretations as a replacement for real images is utterly bizarre and illustrates (if you'll pardon the pun) nothing more than squeamishness about a fairly mundane part of the human anatomy. Calr 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The current photo (David's) is better than the old one. It's also better than not having any picture of male pubic hair. I do, however, have a bit of a problem with the photo's representativity. In contrast to Jeffpw's statement that "photos show the reality, while paintings interpret the reality, and are thus POV", I think the selection of the photographed subject is equally POV. For the reader's sake, I think the caption should mention that we're looking at a shaved model. Until a better image is presented (whether photographic or drawing), I don't see why this picture should not remain in the article. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This was just added to the talk page in a section above. My assumption is that the user added it to the wrong section, so I'm quoting it down here ("The older one," in context, refers to the african american tightcrop image). Nandesuka 13:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The older one is a better picture (Pi 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
This is an irrelevant comment since the RfC is over my photo, not between the two photos. Nandesuka's own link was to "Shankbone Photo" and not to the earlier discussion; I guess he just wants to include anything that supports taking down mine... --David Shankbone 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
David: Please do not remove my (or anyone else's) comments from this talk page again. That does violence to the very idea of discussion. Nandesuka 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
David: You say on my talk page that you are "open to the conversation." I'm having a hard time accepting this, given that you are complaining on various talk pages that I am not "allowing discussion to take place" while at the same time trying to remove or, apparently, hide my words. I'll ask you one more time: please stop refactoring my text. Please stop doing violence to my words. The first step in having a conversation is allowing the person you're talking to to actually speak. Nandesuka 14:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
LOL - wow, I wrote on your Talk page an olive branch, and you just smacked it back at me. Okay, if you want to ignore User:Raul654 and what he wrote right below here, go for it. But please stop acting the Pubic Hair Warrior. --David Shankbone 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • VanTucky I know I'm a late comer to the discussion, but it is my firm opinion that an image is vitally necessary, and that David's image fits the bill here. This COI notion is probably the worst idea I've heard concerning images on Wikipedia. It sounds like a great way to comprehensively discourage people from contributing their work for our use. His photos, in quality and in consideration of the fact that we know that they come from a reputable source (just imagine, "I didn't give permission to have my public hair be photographed for Wikipedia readers!) I say there is no better option. VanTucky (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I was drawn here from the RfC. It is quite cut and dry for me. Articles need photos where appropriate, this article needs more than just fine art pictures. The photo is inappropriate as it does not illustrate the topic. A photograph of someone with pubic hair would be appropriate. Technically I think the photo is fine as it focuses on the right area and uses the photographers shadow to cover the penis in essence framing the pubic region and keeping the photo on topic. Photo needed, well taken, poor subject to use as an example.AlanD 08:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Base principles and David's photograph

Just to establish some base principles:

  1. Wikipedia-wide policy is to use "tasteful" pictures of anatomy.
  2. A picture is preferable to other media (e.g, paintings)
  3. It is not a conflict of interest for a photographer to want his pictures used in our articles. Unless someone can establish David has some motive in getting his photos used in our article that goes beyond simple pride in seeing his work used, there is no conflict of interest for David here.

With that said, I think the debate should be focused solely on the merits of David's photograph versus any other candidate photographs. On this point, I'm going to remain neutral, because I'm at work and I really shouldn't be looking at such things ;) Raul654 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I am stunned that David is being attacked for "conflict of interest." Who the heck do you think is going to provide free high quality photos to Wikipedia if you drive all the good photographers away? I'm sure not going to take pictures of my package, and I don't know any male models who would disrobe for me, either. It's one thing to say, "thank you for your effort but we prefer a different photo", it's quite another to say "Get lost you self-promoter." Pride can go too far and become OWNership, but in the cases I have witnessed, David's photos have been editorally preferable. Thatcher131 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I would even go farther and suggest that it might be acceptable for a professional photographer to post a link to his professional web site and his name and contact information along with the image description. There was a discussion on one of the admin noticeboard about how to get celebrities to submit GFDL-compliant high quality photos of themselves, and there was favorable response to the suggestion that the photographers could professionally identify themselves (on the image upload but not the caption in the article). If we are willing to do this to get a better picture of some actress or model then why not for pictures of more mundane subjects. Thatcher131 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to note that I share the surprise that COI has come up as an issue here. Are we to ban professional biographers from writing biographical articles? Professional programmers from writing scripts and Bots? Surely we should be glad that those with expertise are willing to assist us as volunteers. If someone has good quality images they are willing to license freely - that's great. The GFDL (or a compatible Creative Commons license) contemplates that they will be credited for that work - as text contributors must be credited for their work. To suggest taking pride in one's work is self-promotion is a bit much. The day Wikipedia has such prestige that we have hoardes of public hair image brandishing professional photographers squabbling over whose image should go in this article we can afford to be more discriminating - though I still suspect the only criterion should be quality/representativeness of the image. But the idea that David should be anything other than thanked for being willing to upload his wide ranging images is astounding. WjBscribe 06:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hair: trimmed or not?

The female picture appears to have heavily trimmed pubic hair. Is this appropriate for an encyclopaedia article documenting human anatomy? Oh dear, I do feel picky. Vashti 11:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I never liked to say so, for various reasons, but now Vashti (who is in a position to do so) has brought up the subject, yes, I think an article on this subject should be illustrated with pics "au nature". That includes the male one too. On your camera, David... Nick Michael 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually Nick, although I probably have about twenty to fifty images for almost every person I have photographed, I don't actually have a treasure trove (as it were) of bushes waiting to bust out all over like spring. Because I was busy reviewing and editing Lawrence Weschler (my third person this week - I'm tired) I didn't have a chance to review my repository of Ernesto photographs last night. I could probably have him come back in for another shoot, but contrary to perhaps popular belief (?) I don't have a harem of disrobed males with full bushels lying around my apartment. I would also need to ask him to let mother nature run its course. I may drop him a line...the things I do for the cause of free culture. If anyone knows of a New York-based female willing to be photographed, please have her drop me a line. Nobody responded to my Craigs List ad. --David Shankbone 13:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Ah well, you'd have to come over here and see what you can find among our Swiss misses. Anyway, although you may not have a hirsute portfolio, and I may not quite agree with your 'doormat' contribution, I will support (but maybe not to the death) your right to contribute it here - faute de mieux... Nick Michael 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] No way is this GA

Really doesn't come very close to the GA criteria at all. Few citations, and there's lots of hazy information here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Old male photos were better

Look back at the several pictures that were on here several months ago (before gallery was removed). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pubic_hair&oldid=106637928 Most of those pics were better. Pics were non-trimmed or minimally trimmed, better lighting, etc... Why not pick one of those old pictures to replace the current one.

More context should be shown (such as with the female pic) so you can see how far the pubic hair spreads (in relation to body). Such as the "happy trail" many guys have. I don't see a problem with the penis showing, as pubic hair is also on the scrotum of most men and sometimes the lower shaft of the penis. Wiki isn't suppose to be censored you know. 208.252.179.24 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this editor. It's fine to have just one picture of each sex -- the old version with eight pictures was excessive. But the pictures should both be clear and show what natural pubic hair actually looks like, which the current male version [1] does not. I'm going to try replacing it with one of the old ones. Llajwa 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Whoops, I'm backing off, since I see there has been a great deal of debate about this already. However, I do want to comment that it seems weird for us to seem to be hiding the penis, and that the hair seems to be closely trimmed -- it doesn't look as natural as it should. Llajwa 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What's more interesting is that these comments presuppose that it is "natural" for a woman to trim her public hair, but not for a man. That sounds like POV to me. --David Shankbone 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, on the contrary, I think both pictures should be untrimmed for this purpose. Subjectively, to me the male image looked more closely trimmed than the female one. But I think they should both be full bush. Llajwa 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It depends on what we are trying to show. The location? The texture? How people handle their bush? What's the point of the photos? Everyone has their own perspective on what should be shown and why. One person's "full bush" argument is met with a "Many people don't keep a full bush" (it's probably evenly divided). Then the argument comes down to showing different ways people handle their bush, shave it, trim it, etc. In the end, it's not a very important argument as long as the two photos shown are quality images. Quality images of some bush should trump one POV or another in the the bush debate. --David Shankbone 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaced male picture with what I feel is a better one from the old gallery. Was promptly reverted with reasoning: "extensively debated and consensus was no dick pics in article". ?? I see no such consensus. 2 people saying something doesn't equal a consensus. The majority of comments I see are condoning either removal of the male pic entirely or replacement of the photo with a better one. So that's what I did.

As is described in wiki entry, male pubic hair spreads up towards umbilicus, towards thighs, and on testicles. You can't see this in shankbone's pick which lacks this context, is partially shaved (with razor burn), the rest shortly trimmed. Sure, the photo I inserted likely isn't a fully bush, but it is trimmed minimally enough to see the pubic hair pattern. As is the female picture. The 1st pic from the old gallery was just as good, but I picked the latino one for diversity. Either one would do though. Wits 15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Pretty much everyone agreed that dick pics are not what is wanted, even before I put my photo on there. The previous grainy greasy bush I replaced was cropped to take out the dick pic. There are umpteen arguments, as I mention above, about what photo should be used, that in the end the only way to really decide the issue is on quality, which includes clarity. But if this issue is to be taken up again, then before any edit wars over photo ensue (and seriously, I'm not beholden to my photo, I just think it's the best based on quality), then these questions should be decided:
  1. What is the purpose of the photo? To illustrate "pubic hair"? To show its location? To show what people do with their pubic hair? To show the texture of the hair? To show all the places it covers?
  2. Are these questions equal for men and women? If a woman shaves and shapes her bush typically, and typically many men do as well, is a natural "full bush" preferred for both, one or the other? If so, why?
  3. Is full genitalia necessary or preferred.

You were correctly reverted, Wits, because these issues were hashed out recently and you should have expected as much considering the entire purpose of your User name is to make controversial edits. Regardless, the editors of this page haven't figured out what the photos should do yet, and that needs to be decided before any more edit wars take place. --David Shankbone 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And he reverted me again. <sigh>. Is it just my imagination, or was there not a Loooooooong discussion about this and consensus about not adding dick pics achieved? Jeffpw 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, consensus was reached. I'll allow Wits to read everything above; I'm not going to do his work for him. --David Shankbone 15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talk • contribs)

[edit] Re-response

I've already read all the discussion Shankbone, thank you. We interpret things differently. The consensus was that you're photo was better than the previous "afric am tightcrop". I would agree with that consensus because of the poor quality of the previous photo. But you can't draw from that consensus (or earlier ones) on other's issues that weren't even being voted on. Although a few related comments were made.

A couple people stated support of cropping or censoring the penis, one doesn't want any real photos at all (I don't consider 1 or 2 people a consensus). A few people (including myself) thought it seemed inappropriate to be cropped so much. Most people said a better photo would be preferable (even those voting for your pic). You yourself say the best quality photo should be used. So when I do so out of good faith, your free to disagree (with it being better) and revert. But that doesn't mean it was wrong of me.

That I registered this user name for the purpose of editing locked articles (which are inherently controversial) has no barring on the merit of my edits. I don't attempt to make my edits controversial, only try to do what is best for the article. Shankbone, I'm surprised that you would twist the words of my user profile, seemingly in an attempt to discredit me. You seem to be a credible and genuine person, so I'll attribute that comment to reactionary oneupmanship or misinterpretation.

It's ok, only natural. But please stick to debating the merits of the article (and not assuming bad faith of me). I say this all only in explanation of my viewpoint, and I don't find you be wrong (although I may disagree) or in bad faith either. Obviously, your contributions to wiki have been of great use. I made the edit with the purpose of the photo better illustrating what was said in the wiki article.

The needed criteria you state for deciding on the photos are reasonable in my opinion. Since these criteria aren't decided on yet in consensus (1 or 2 people don't count as such), I saw no harm in making a good faith contribution on what I believe to be a better photo. But since both of you have vehemently opposed my doing so, I will leave the photos alone until there is a consensus on the photo criteria. I understand this is a collaboration and while I stand by my opinion, I won't try to force it on the article if the majority disagrees. I suggest we start a discussion topic on the reasonable criteria Shankbone gave as being needed to decide upon the best photo. Wits 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • You're welcome to open an RfC on photo criteria. I don't want to do so because primarily I am too busy; and secondarily I find the pubic hair photo wars to be too tiring. --David Shankbone 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Highly understandable. It is tiring to debate (pubic hair photos). I will probably RfC later (assuming no one else does). Wits 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] odd pics!

it's odd that pics on a page to illustrate pubic hair show trimmed and highly sparse examples of pubic hair!

please can someone put average, natural pubic hair pics on?

I wouldn't go to the wikipedia article on dogs and expect pictures of shaven, emaciated poodles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.84.234 (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The male one does look like it may have been shaved. The female one, it's not clear from the pic it may very well be natural even if it seems short/sparse to you. I would presume there is a wide variation in the length of pubic hair and 'average' is a fairly meaningless concept. Definitely more images would be useful, but don't assume this is unnatural without evidence Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Function?

What's the function of pubic hair? You grow hair on head for warmth and protection. Eye brow is to prevent sweat get into your eyes. But what's the point of pubic hair? Lightblade (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no widely accepted answer to that question. -- Donald Albury 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be two reasons: 1. to act as a trap for sexual scent (pheremones)and thus attract a mate (well, that's what I read...). 2. to prevent chafing from moving limbs. (1) seems to me to be more credible than (2). Both can apply to axillary hair too, apparently. Nick Michael (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the female pic is not totally natural

As noted by others in this page the female pubic hair of the picture features a female who has trimmed her pubic hair or it was shaven and then grew back. I think that we should put a picture of somebody that has unshaven full-developed pubic hair as it reflects the reality better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.87.213 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. It amazes me that people can give up so much of their freetime editing wikipedia pages but noone can be bothered finding a more natural and representative picture for the female when there are hundreds of thousands in existence....User:retroguy90 —Preceding comment was added at 00:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a pointless argument. Many men, and many women, trim their pubic hair. Finding "pubic hair grown wild" is no more or less encyclopedic on either gender than using public hair trimmed. The same goes for head hair. In the end, we simply want to show what public hair looks like - whether it is a crazy wild bush or a trimmed triangle, it doesn't really matter for our purposes. --David Shankbone 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I still see no evidence that the pubic hair of the female was even trimmed. The only argument so far is 'it's too short to be natural' which is always a poor argument Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] aniaml pubic hair

Do animals have pubic hair or is it just restricted to humans because animals have fur all over their bodies i the first case?--169.232.119.213 (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)