Talk:Pubic hair/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Pubic hair (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 >

Contents

Style

I cleaned up the style section so that the bullets were actual styles and not removal methods. [1]

Pubic hair and SSC

Actually, pubic hair IS a secondary sexual characteristic. It's just not listed in the SSC article. --Dante Alighieri 12:37 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

No. Secondatry sex characteristics are characteristics that distinguish the two sexes of a species, but that are not part of the reproductive system (i.e. primary sex characteristics). Both male and female adults have pubic hair (like leg hair and underarm hair) so it is not a secondary sex characteristic. Slrubenstein
Well, there you go being right again. Damn you. :) --Dante Alighieri 12:52 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Shaving not only for erotic actors

I've moved this paragraph out of the article. It sounds like that only porn stars shave:

Some people remove their pubic hair, for example, for aesthetic reasons; they call themselves smoothies. Pubic hair may also just be trimmed. Most female erotic actors (porn stars) trim or shave their pubic hair, and so do a few of the male actors

Statistics discussion

Did someone seriously purpoted to write a statistic ? Let's be serious. Ericd 22:24 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Can the contributor of the table cite their sources, please? -- Karada 16:01 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, a citation would be very helpful. Personally I find it hard to believe that fewer than 25% of Europeans do as much as trim their bikini lines. My friend (European) is has commented on the untrimmed pubic hair she sees in the onsens here in Japan -- she says she's never seen any evidence of trimming here, something that really surprised her at first. Her findings corroborate my own limited experience. This is of course purely anecdotal, but I seriously doubt that Japan and Europe have similar pubic hair trimming/shaving habits. -- Tlotoxl 09:20, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Here is the truth about the source of the statistics at least for a part : I wrote : "Trimming or completely removing pubic hair is a common practice in the Arab world." Then someone mailed me "can you give a percentage ?". I answered (relunctanly) "I think it's a common practice for at least 80% of married women". Then that was turned into a table... I don't know what's the source for other regions. But for the Arab world it's not a serious work because :

  • I don't consider myself as a reliable source at least for percentages,
  • There's serious statistical biases as many arabian womens (probably the vast majority) won't shave they pubic hair everyday but only on some occasions, as many european women will shave only in summer also 80% of married women isn't 80% of womens...

I also think that "European women" doesn't mean anything. It's generally admited that there's serious differences about armpits and legs shaving in European countries. They must also be serious difference about pussy shaving.

Thus I vote for deleting this table.

About the Arab wolrd there's two elements that could be useful for the article :

  • Pubic hair depilation is a service offered in hammans.
  • Some units of the French army systematized the practice to verify the quality of pubic hair shaving of fellagah's women to know if their husband were near home or not (IMO that hasn't increased the popularity of the French colonialist in Algeria).

Ericd 17:26, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Doubt over the statistics

I'm from India. I'm male. I don't think, most of the women in India do shave pubic hairs. I really doubt the validity of the table. May I know where did you get this table?

Sigh. Looks like Wikipedia will have to give someone a science grant and they'll have to go to India and find out. I volunteer me :)

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Table and cultural differences

Just unremoved the Eric's table as it is useful to know the cultural differences. --Rrjanbiah 10:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have also added the alert message for the table. So, if anyone find it any mistakes, they can make changes. --Rrjanbiah 10:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please document the source for this suspicious table. RickK 05:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please refer the previous discussions.--Rrjanbiah 05:33, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The previous discussions do not document a source. RickK 05:36, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like you're in hurry... Anyway, look at the previous explanation about Eric and how he approximated the table info.--Rrjanbiah 06:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have read and re-read this discussion four times, and I have yet to see ANY source cited. Instead of just pointing me back to the top of the page, cite ONE source. RickK 14:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Improving Table

This sounds like original research to me. We should probably can it. PlatinumX 05:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SexEditorials.com survey on shaving

At the site SexEditorials.com, I found a fairly extensive page entitled Confidential Male Sexuality Poll [2]. One of the poll items was entitled Men's experience on shaving pubic hair. The results are below, expressed as a percentage of the responses for the question, with n in brackets:

  • I shave all my pubic hair entirely (1268): 16.2%
  • I shave a lot of it, but leave some (1944): 24.8%
  • I only trim the excess hairs, but leave most (2156): 27.6%
  • I leave it grow naturally and do not trim or shave at all (2021): 25.8%
  • I do not have any pubic hair to begin with (72): 0.9%
  • None of the above describes me (364): 4.7%

The source of the poll data is the site itself (the site motto is "We depend on you for the content of this site"). Therefore the sample is representative of the visitors to the site, a large proportion of which is likely made up of those seeking such statistics. I would say that the sample is at least roughly representative of those of us discussing this topic here.

The site appears to contain a fairly large amount of information and seems relatively serious in tone, but I cannot vouch for its overall credibility. There is an accompanying female101.com site [3] that is less extensive. : Wrongbutton 07:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Currently the article have info on female alone. So, we should also add male cultures too. I have also collected some info on Indian cultures on shaving and will bring to the talk page sometimes later. --Rrjanbiah 06:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Data on Indian practices and sources

This is about Indian practices. I was collecting some info on this subject. The data is much informal and non-scientific.

  • Practice of shaving (both armpit and pubic hair) is on increase among both men and women
  • Girls who shave armpit also shave pubic hairs and vice-versa.
  • Armpit and pubic hair shaving is high among elites and urban than ordinary people
  • Shaving is not forced as cultural values. But, there are some exceptions--it is being forced to few barathanatyam dancers and cinema artists.
  • Media and pornographic material forces shaving practices. It means, people see it and found it is important than told by someone else to shave. Hence, the internet and globalization increases shaving practices. It is not common couple of years ago.
  • Urban men shave their armpit and usually trims and rarely shaves pubic hairs. And they're very less in numbers
  • Girls who have been going to "beauty parlours" are told to shave as practice of beautiness. "Beauty parlours" are increasing because of beauty consciousness fever among girls and women--though it is still considered as urban culture
  • Many girls especially village girls use turmeric as hair removal solution. Usually it is applied to body of female children. Anyway, it can't controll the growth of adult hairs.
  • Many men are still alergic to pubic hair shaving. Especially they don't like a girl to shave. [4] [5] Some men even have the idea that only prostitutes shave pubic hairs

My approximation is 20% shave, 10% trim, 70% not modified. But, Gillette India survey says 27% women shave; even if it is true, the modifying population is still less. So, final approximation (if Gillette survey is true (not padded)): 27% shave, 10% trim, rest not modified. But, the current table shows Indian subcontinent--which includes Pakistan, etc. So, the numbers may slightly differ.

Couldn't get more links from internet. Here are few links related to the topic:

  • Says Sujatha Viswanath, product manager, Gillette India, "Our research shows that 27 per cent of women shave, but most of them use men's shaving systems. And most women use razors for underarms and bikini areas; for exposed parts of the body they still wax." [6]
  • "Indians gals hv bushy Pubic Hairs" [7][8]
  • some insults against the practice [9]

--Rrjanbiah 13:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments on advantages Vs disadvantages

I think the listed advantages and disadvantages are almost entirely POV despite being expressed in the 3rd person. Take Some sexual activities can appear sloppy at best (for that matter, aren't most sexual activities (between interested parties) sloppy by definition?) I think this list should be removed or rewritten, but I have to admit I'd rather just point out how bad it is then actually rewrite it myself. -- 133.5.120.130 12:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice if you tell what you refer as POV. We can then rewrite for NPOV. (Personally I think, it is informative) --Rrjanbiah 13:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plea to remove unscientific, ridiculous table

The table is a complete joke and should be removed. It is unscientific, incomplete, based on a few user's perceptions, and just plain pathetic.

Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia, not this.

Remove.

Support (remove)

  1. Cantus 10:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose (keep)

#~~~~


REMOVED SECTION

Out of mercy, I have just sliced this entire section. It is embarrassing in terms of quality. Badly written, no attribution, and it admits to be speculation by a few. Holding back laughter and tears.... (147.8.224.157)

Discuss your "specific" points. Don't spoil others work. And see the talk page and discuss the issue. Don't be moronic. --Rrjanbiah 10:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi, thanks, but I don't think removing the table without consensus is going to be any help. Someone will just revert you. Please vote in the above poll I have made so we can reach an agreement. Thanks. --Cantus 10:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To User:Rrjanbiah: I am not the anonymous user who deleted the section below. Any admin can tell you that. --Cantus 10:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is your points? If you can't help, leave the article. There are many people working on this article. --Rrjanbiah 10:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have attempted to re-edit the whole article, trying to keep the most important points in there, and only what is provable and able to be sourced. There was so much speculation and personal opinion that was kept out. Thanks. Foiegras 01:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No more discussions with sock puppet. *thread plonk* --Rrjanbiah 05:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Too bad you won't discuss the changes. However, you'll see that every edit made is indeed justified and reasoned out. It's a much more acceptable article now. Fuzheado | Talk 06:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Too bad that you jumped here without knowing what is going here. Whom didn't discuss? What was reasoned out? What is wasn't accepted? What is accepted now? Who is trolling? --Rrjanbiah 06:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's quite easy to see what's going on - lots of statistics with no citations, and complaints by many folks going back exactly a year ago (July 16, 2003) about this exact issue. Hopefully you see there was consensus about problems with this article. Fuzheado | Talk 07:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What is the source or citations or research page for the current article? If you look at the talk page and the history, you can find that the questioning of the table is very old; no one did questioned recently as it is much improved/improving by many people. As for the table is concerned, it is much informative to understand the cultural differences. Somewhere I read that many American women believe that all the people in the world shave their pubic hairs--which is not true. If you look at the edit history, you can find that many previous contributors believed that pubic shaving is "cultural" in India and 80% women did that---which is again wrong. So, eventually the content is more informative to the international audience. If you have any solid statistics or better research then you could have fixed it than removing it. If everybody start deleting things that they don't like, there won't be any articles in Wikipedia. This really questions about the future of Wikipedia. --Rrjanbiah 07:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Dead horse, dead horse. There is no justification for keeping that embarassing table in the article. Deal with it. --Cantus 09:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • plonk* --Rrjanbiah 09:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regions and practices

Pubic hair shaving practice is not common around the world. In few countries it is common and in few countries it is weird. For few Muslim countries it is a cultural norm and in few other countries it is personal than cultural. For razor vendors, it is must to know cultures and practices.

Region Men Women
not modified
[%]		 trimmed
[%]		 fully shaved
[%]		 not modified
[%]		 trimmed
[%]		 fully shaved
[%]
USA/Canada       <10 60 30
Europe       > 75 < 15 < 10
South/Latin America no information
Africa (w/o Arab countries) no information
Arab world       <20 80
Australia no information
South-East Asia       85 5 10
India 70 20 10 65 10 25
Chinas/Koreas       85 5 10
Japan       85 5 10
Nudists       25 10 65
BDSM cultures       15 5 >80

The above table is a rough approximation by few Wikipedians. If you know solid statistics, please feel free to edit this page or post your comments at the talk page

  • In Germany, almost 50% of the sauna-visiting females under the age 40 fully shave their pubic hairs. This seems to be the recent trend as in 2004. Anyway, the sauna-visiting population is not representative.
  • With regard to the people of the Amazon basin, such as the Yanomami, who are predominantly naked in their daily life: Most adults pluck out all body hair. This may be to discourage parasites, or because body hair is considered unsightly. Adults and children groom one another's head hair for lice and ticks, but such attention paid to the rest of the body may be problematic. Children often have their heads shaved during illness.

Human development

I added this stuff at request of user:Rrjanbiah. Much of it is already in puberty article, with a bit more detail. I leave the discussion of cultural aspects of pubic hair to the rest of you. If you think I added more than people want to know, or if you want to keep this article mainly cultural, feel free to delete or modify. Alteripse 12:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. If you can improve the article in anyway, please do that. The discussion on cultural aspect is about shaving as it make some senses. --Rrjanbiah 13:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"adult" hair

The reason I used the term "adult hair" instead of just hair is that all children have light, fine, short hair in the area. We generally don't refer to this as pubic hair even if it is in the pubic region because it is not androgenic. You can argue that we should, but we usually don't. From my standpoint pubic hair is the hair that is longer, coarser, curlier and most importantly, results from rising androgen levels. If you really want me to spell it out, I actually charge people hundreds of dollars for my opinion on whether a child's hair is truly pubic hair or not: in general, "if it ain't a cm long and curly, it ain't pubic hair." I am not averse to using a more graceful term than "adult" hair although I thought most people would understand "adult hair". Should we say "longer, coarser, curlier hair"? I have to say, I feel pretty stupid arguing about pubic hair, but hey, here we are. What do you think would be the best way to say it? Alteripse 03:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alteripse, thanks for the explanation, I agree about the odd argument over pubic hair. Perhaps it's that the term "adult-type" is medical parlance, but odd sounding to laypeople (of which I'm one). I'm wondering if there is a more gentle introduction to the distinction between adult-type hair versus pre-pubescent vellus hair. Fuzheado | Talk 04:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Let me sleep on it. Alteripse 04:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I haven't yet thought of a brief understandable alternative to "adult-type hair." If we say "longer, coarser, kinkier," someone will ask "than what" or point out that some people have pubic hair that is fine or non-kinky. Can we have some other opinions? Is "adult-type" insufficiently meaningful or unclear? Any suggestions after reading the above exchange? The first line of the article is technically inaccurate as it stands but I am not about to start the most embarrassing revert war in wikipedia history. I wonder if a certain supreme court justice is available... Alteripse 01:24, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well I won't edit war over it, I was just wondering whether the first line could simply say that the hair was in whatever region, then in the sentence afterwards, you could make the distinction that it was adult hair versus vellus hair. That's all. Fuzheado | Talk 04:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
kinkier is not a good word in an article on a sexual topic, unless it means kinkier. --Taejo 7 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

skeptical of sun bleaching

"This is due to the lack of "sun bleaching" that the hair experiences."

reference? i know mine is very similar to my beard hair, which changes color and texture somewhat abruptly in front of the ears. my theory is that there are two different types of hair (which is noticeable in other places as well), and it has nothing to do with the sun. reputable science would be useful here. - an anonymous wikipedian :-)

slide the picture

can you slide the picture down the page below a screenfull please? i clicked on it at work accidently. phew, no one was looking. i'm not being bold in case this is a contentious issue. - Omegatron - How do you look up a section on pubic hair accidently? 01:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a lovely piece of art -- L'Origine du monde by Gustave Courbet, which I had the pleasure to view a few years ago at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. It's also about as sexual a picture as can be imagined; I don't see any discussion regarding the appropriateness of this recent insertion, though -- and the pubic hair isn't what I really notice first when I look at that picture. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing is wrong with it. I think somebody should move it down. Its not censoring it. Anybody who reads the whole thing will find it. CaptainAmerica 12:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like it if there was also a representation of mens' pubic hair. So much of the article focuses on women.
Barbara Shack 13:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)I agree. Can anyone get us a picture of a nice attractive man?

Copyrighted photo of Madonna?

The image at the top right of this article appears to be a photograph of the American Pop Singer\Actress Madonna. I believe that it is one of several published in Penthouse magazine in the late 1980's. I am not a copyright fanatic, however...?

68.57.196.39 18:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Made some Changes

Greetings and Blessings,

I've reorganized this article because it seems that there were several headings that were fundamentally about the same thing.. shaving pubic hair, and they often restated the same points. I feel the organization has been greatly improved, and I've only removed the things I felt were out of place. I submit them for your scrutiny, and I hope you agree with my reasoning.

bushpie, hairpie, furburger

I believe these are references to the female genitalia, not pubic hair. I've never heard any men refer to their pubic hair by those names.


It is a common practice in the Islamic world for either sex (men usually prefer trimming or shaving, women prefer complete removal by waxing or shaving)

This was already mentioned.


In the 1990s, a permanent method of hair removal evolved with many opting for more permanent removal of pubic hair. This method involves the use of focused, high power light. This type of depilation falls under two main categories: intense pulsed light (IPL) and laser epilation. IPL uses broad spectrum (white) light, and laser epilation uses a very specific wavelength (color) of light to destroy the hair-producing gland, the follicle. Unlike some temporary methods, light epilation does not cause razor bumps, ingrown hairs or dermatitis. It is still controversial as to which method, IPL or laser, is the most effective.

Not that the paragraph isn't informative, but it has little to do with pubic hair, specifically. It should instead be included in an article about hair removal, as its domain is more than just pubic hair.


Before shaving became common in Western cultures (particularly North American), the presence of such hair was viewed as a sign of sexual maturity. Now, to the contrary, the social requirement to shave such hair has now become for many a rite of passage.

Sorry, I just didn't like this sentence. Stating that shaving one's pubic hair is a "social requirement" and a "rite of passage" seems too POV. In mine and many other's opinions, pubic hair is still a sign of sexual maturity. Therefore, it is not an accuracy description of the West. The fact is that shaving pubic hair is a lifestyle choice, and is not by any means a "social requirement" like the sentence suggests. Perhaps the author could edit the sentence then resubmit it.

J.H

Beared

Is Hair On Your FAce Concitered PUBIC HAIR? NO

1990s

Is there some citation that anyone can give which evidences that the shaving of pubic hair became popular in the 1990s, as opposed to, for example, the 1980s? If not, I'm going to revert it again soon. I don't think that claim is accurate. -- Dpark 00:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove "possible reasons" section

This section looks like it belongs to uncyclopedia. Gakrivas 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It reads like someone's personal essay. Should be removed. Alexander 007 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the Reasons section (pasted below) is absurd. Where to begin? 1) Pubic hair does not "trap" crab lice; they grab on because they want to stay there. 2) Crab lice do not cause genital herpes! 3) The last sentence is just ridiculous. Daily cleansing alone will do the trick, and the editorial use of "attractive" does not belong in this article.Xandergr8 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Pubic hair also has a tendency to trap "crab lice" that cause genital herpes. Removal of the majority of pubic hair, combined with daily cleansing, will ensure that the vagina stays sanitary, healthy, clean, and attractive.

Herpes is actually due to a virus. I accept that people shave off parts of their pubic hair that’s not covered by their underpants (or swimwear). But why EVERYTHING? Does it really make it easier to keep clean? It seams to be a rationalization like the “hygienic” argument for circumcision. I mean that it is completely needless and maybe even slightly disadvantageous! Shaving your sexual organs do NOT make access easier. That only makes them more visible, which is why porn actors do it. (I don’t like pornography.) It might also make them more pleasant to lick. I have not tried and I don’t want to!

It is claimed that some indigenous tribes in Brazil completely lack pubic hair. This is probably comparable to Thor Heyerdahl’s claim that Native Americans have no facial hair. In reality they have but much less than Europeans. Furthermore, most ethnic groups considered facial hair to be ugly, so they were careful to remove it. If some Brazilian tribes seem to totally lack body hair it might be due to strong aversion against it (and consequently careful removal). It is also possible that 80% of them really are unable to grow it. But 100% is impossible considering human genetics! (Races – in the biological sense – don’t exist.)

2006-12-01 Lena Synnerholm, Mästa, Sweden.

Remove "hygiene, especially during menstruation"

How exactly is shaving one's pubic hair during menstration (or any other time) a valid substitution for let's say.. bathing regularly? I would really like to see some *scientific evidence* or some good, logically sound opinions to support "shaving for hygiene." If some feel it helps to reduce "odor," then we can clarify the point. However, I think the the current argument as it stands is misleading and not at all helpful. If there are no objections I will eventually edit or remove the point.

J.H 07:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxi?

Is there some source for the trivia at the end...about the word "taxi" being the collective noun for detached pubic hair? Joyous | Talk 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously someone's idea of a joke. I've removed that section. Flapdragon 11:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

It's obvious that both of these people have trimmed pubic hair. Shouldn't this be noted? I added "(trimmed)" to the picture discription which was removed by someone's subsequent edit. They said this couldn't be proven. Well it can't be proven that they weren't trimmed either and common sense observation dictates that they were trimmed. Both have dark corse hairs which typically grow much longer than pictured (left un-trimmed). Nothing wrong with having a picture depicting trimmed hair, most people (at least in western culture) do trim or sculpt their pubic hair to some extent. It just needs to be noted. --Person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.21 (talk • contribs) at 10:44, June 29, 2006

There is great natural variation in color, thickness and extent of pubic hair, just as there is of hair on other parts of the body. It looks to me like both pictures are within the natural range of variation. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the reference to trimming when it was first added. It is far from obvious that they are trimmed. I'd say it's actually pretty obvious that they are not. If you look at the picture of the woman you can see that the central area is quite bushy but that the hairs extend out from that point over the top of her legs and across her body to the full extent of the image. If it were trimmed you would see either stubble-spots or a hairless smooth body at the edge. Both pictures appear to be of people of European descent with lightish coloured hair. Thick "bushes" are quite uncommon in such groups. Paul B 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok. After considering your comments, I concede that it isn't "obvious" they are trimmed (though still highly possible). Since there are great variations (as Donald said).
Paul, I don't see how trimming (female pic) would necessitate "stubble-spots or a hairless smooth body at the edge" (that would be shaving). I didn't think she was trimmed because of a fairly small area of pubic hair (which it seems you must have thought, a reasonable assumption btw). I thought so (trimmed) because of the hair's texture. I mean she doesn't have the corsest type of hair, but still corse (not fine hairs). So that would leave me to believe that the hair would be longer (left untrimmed).
I would say (considering both your comments) the female looks to be most likely trimmed (but not decisive) and it could be either way for the male (taking into consider corseness,pigmentation, and hair lengths). Not a close trim mind you (for female), but looks like she went down to an even half inch all over (hair density varies, but length looks even all over). I'm revising the picture summary (when you click the pics) for the male from "likely trimmed" to "possibly trimmed" and leaving the female summary as "likely trimmed". I will leave the "pubic hair" picture captions as you have edited (not mentioning whether trimmed), since it would be superfluous to caption "likely trimmed" and "possibly trimmed". So good revision on your parts. Maybe it would be appropriate to post another set of pics to show the variations in pubic hair. 208.252.179.23 21:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence of trimming whatsoever. I'm not sure what this distinction is between "trimming" and "shaving". Are you suggesting that some hairs are plucked and others cut short? Again, I see no evidence for this rather unlikely scenario. Click on the image to see the detailed version. The hairs are quite long and straggly. Frankly the pattern of the woman's public hair is almost identical to my own partner's, and to my previous girlfriend's, neither of whom trimmed, plucked, shaved or cropped their natural assets. Paul B 08:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Paul, I didn't suggest anything other than trimming (not shaving, plucking, etc...). I'll go over this again to explain what I was originally thinking. I've been swayed over now.
I thought the hairs in areas of greater natural density looked the same length as the outer straggly ones (where there is less natural density, nothing to do with plucking or shaving). Thus leading me to believe the hairs were trimmed to make an even length all over. Since areas of naturally higher hair density should be longer due to higher androgen sensitivity.
Examining the hi-res pic more carefully (still difficult to follow hairs), yeah the hairs do seem longer in areas of higher density (contrary to what I previously thought). So you're right that there is no evidence. I reason that my deduction was from bias of my previous experience and difficulty in seeing the details (even in large pic). I'll remove the "likely/maybe trimmed" from the set of picture summaries.
My thoughts are still that more examples (pictures) would be preferrable to show the variations. Maybe I can submit a pic of myself and you can all laugh and say it should be captioned that I must have spilled some Rogaine on my genitals. Hahaha. --Person 208.252.179.27 01:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. I think more images would be useful, so that we had a sense of the variety, maybe even to illustrate racial differences etc. Add a pic of yourself by all means. There is a danger in having too many images, partly because the page may look cluttered, and partly because it might turn into a pubes appreciation page, but there good reasons to illustrate the extent of human variation. Paul B 14:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why only females? It just seems... like that shouldn't be? Are there any famous paintings or pictures of male-ness? gren グレン ? 10:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous male nudes with public hair. Only in images of woman has the inclusion of hair been a major issue, which partly justifies the presence of more images of women than of men. Paul B 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems someone added a photo of male pubic hair. I'm not clear why it was necessary to post one with a semi-erect penis, however. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I placed a picture of a male shaving his pubic hair. It was not obscene. In fact, the penis was covered by his heand. However, the image was deleted from Wikimedia Commons and is no longer available to post here. I would be happy to re-post, if I could get more of a guarantee than Wikimedia won't delete it. It just seems appropriate to me as we do have pictures of males and females with pubic hair (though trimmed slightly) and only a picture of a female with bubic hair shaved. I thought rather than posting another picture of a male with shaved pubic hair which shows the penis, it might be more appropriate to just show a picture of a male in the act of shaving. [[User:Svartulfr1}} 20:26 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Good God do we really need a gallery of shaved and styled hair too? That last gallery seems gratuitous. Kinda nasty as well, with protruding labia etc. - seem intended to shock or titillate rather than to educate. The whole gallery should be removed IMO. Illshow 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Someone left this comment on the article page:

This may need to be checked for plagarism. An almost identical explanation exists here --TaO! 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's too short to amke a definitive judgement on whether it is a copyvio. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

An extremely rubbish version of it appeared in the article (possibly from an anon). I reworked it into its current slightly less rubbish state. If it constitutes a copyvio then by all means delete it because, to recap, it's rubbish. Soo 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Images removed

I have removed image:L'Origine_du_monde.jpeg and Image:Male pubic hair.jpg because I do not think they are appropriate for this article. L'Origine du monde is a fine piece of art and has its own article, but female pubic hair is already illustrated in the article, and L'Origine du monde is, IMHO, overkill, and I suspect it was placed at the top of the article for its shock value. I also removed the image of a semi-erect penis used to illustrate male pubic hair. Erections are illustrated in other article, but this article is about pubic hair, not penises or erections. An image of male pubic hair with a flacid penis and that emphasizes the hair and not the penis, would be appropriate for the article. I request that the images I removed not be added again unless and until a consensus to do so has been demonstrated in this talk page. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I assumed that Image:L'Origine_du_monde.jpeg was used because it's a fine piece of art - more pleasing to the eye (of many people) than a clinical image. Also, the currently-used image Image:Pubic hair.jpg is up for deletion due to licensing issues - see [10]. FreplySpang (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think a clinical tone is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. In particular, image:L'Origine_du_monde.jpeg is much more than an image of pubic hair. As the article L'Origine du monde says:
The framing of the scene, between the thighs and the chest, emphasizes the erotism of the work. Moreover, an erect nipple and the redness of the vaginal lips suggest that the model had just had a sexual encounter.
Erotic images are appropriate in discussing eroticism or, in cases like L'Origine du monde, inarticles about the images. I don't think eroptic images have a place in Pubic Hair. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This article isn't just about pubic hair, as one would read in a medical journal, but also about pubic hair's role in culture and art. Therefore, L'Origine du monde certainly has a place here. Of all the images in this article I find L'Origine du monde to be one of the more appropriate (i.e. least trashy). All in all, I say keep it. J.H 10:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It is better to have an non-erect picture but could one that shows pubic hair better
"'The framing of the scene, between the thighs and the chest, emphasizes the erotism of the work. Moreover, an erect nipple and the redness of the vaginal lips suggest that the model had just had a sexual encounter." That is point of view, an image such as this clearsy shows pubic hair and is in my opinion great at illustrating it, especially since this woman seems to have plenty. I say keep it. Now as for erect vs. flacod penis, let me say this. Would you say for the article for the human arm, that someone waving or throwing a football in a picture does not belong in the article because the article is not about hand gestures or football, i think not. Honestly the majority of the time i see pubic hair on a man or women is when they are aroused and i am about to or in the act of having sex with them the fact that the penis is hard is irrelevant, i dont think its encyclopedic, i believe it just bothers you and i believe wikipedia is not censured. I think its an improvement to an article to show pubic hair on both in aroused (sex, masterbation) and unaroused (skinny dipping, advertisement, sunbathing) forms.

In addition i find a picture of pubic hair that has been shaved to be lacking, and does anyone else think that anal pubic hair should be included? Qrc2006 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos

No offense, but can we find pictures of people that aren't obese to use?

MSTCrow 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The Nude Maja doesn't seem the slightly bit obese, and L'Origine du monde might seem a little obese, but not heavily, and if Joanna Hiffernan was the model, that might be a misperception, at least according to the full-body paintings. Moreover, I don't see any reason why we must seek out and destroy any picture that doesn't fit one culture's concept of beauty. Even if they were objectively ugly, I see no reason to censor the normal human form.--Prosfilaes 18:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Learning is more pleasant when the specimen is not of less than attractive status. Why are you talking about works of art, I'm only talking about the first two pictures in the article.
MSTCrow 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't talk about the pictures, because you can't see anything in the pictures, and what I could see didn't lead me to the conclusion that they were obese. I don't find them unattractive, and I don't particularly approve of a drive to force all pictures to fit a particular standard of beauty.--Prosfilaes 18:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Huge flabby thighs and fat rolls ballooning the scrotal region are signs of obesity. It's not a beauty issue, it's a health issue, and I believe specimens used as examples should be healthy.
MSTCrow 16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Still not seeing it. It was a beauty issue when you started this discussion. Specimens used as examples should be relatively typical, not some rarified ideal of health that most of us will never approach.--Prosfilaes 18:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not using any idealized, impossible state of health as a criteria. Most people in the world are not obese. In the US, here, yes, many are, but not everyone is, and there are millions of people with healthy bodies who would suffice. I don't think it makes sense to posting worst case scenario pics.
MSTCrow 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This is very tiresome, and even absurd. Neither figure is obviously obese. There are no "fat rolls" or any sign that the pictures represent a "worst case scenario". The way the male figure's penis projects is slighhtly odd, but not in any way abnormal. Paul B 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to find alternatives, or to do some photographing yourself. FreplySpang 16:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would propose a group of pictures to show the wide diversity across the globe in pubic hair: someone with heavy hair, light hair, trimmed hair (which the current ones appear to be); as well as caucasian, latino, black, Indian, other Asian, etc. -- PL 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

No references. --SeizureDog 05:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

*Aww, it failed the good article nomination? Ok, I will try to find some references. Thanks for reminding us to look for references. --Starionwolf 03:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

....as "other" apes.

[Paul Barlow (evolution is not "highly debated" by scientists. Even if it were, it would not matter. Humans are included in this category.) ]

And scientific theory has been wrong and reverted how many times? Once evolution is a scientific law and not a theory will it become NPOV. The aim of the article is to educate, not interject someone's own POV.

Classifying humans as apes is POV especially since evolution is a highly debated topic. To say “Humans have the same number of hair follicles as other apes” is injecting the writers own POV on evolution and adds nothing to the article itself, where as editing the sentence to say “Humans have the same number of hair follicles as apes” is just a scientific comparison, is NPOV, and does nothing to hurt the validity or substance of the article.

3 reverts to add humans to the ape family sure looks like an insistence to inject someone’s own POV on evolution especially since the original edit did nothing to change the point or accuracy of the article.

This only proves my point that in reading this article it distracts the reader needlessly to the debate on evolution. I donated to Wikipedia twice because of its NPOV policy and would like to see it up held in this and all articles!

For instance, I personally recommend Wikkipedia to friends and acquaintances and I’m sure my evolutionist friends would read that sentence without a problem, but a creationist (or someone like me who is indifferent but knows evolution hasn’t been proven yet) may stop there and question Wikipedia solely due to someone’s point of view being expressed in an article. It would be drastic, I agree, but Wikipedia’s NPOV is what draws many people here and I would hate to see someone throw out the baby with the bath water. LOL, especially if it was due to one word that puts humans in the family as apes in an article on Pubic hair!! --Egill 15:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution has been proven to the satisfaction of all serious scientists who specialise in the area. But in essence, that's beside the point. Evolution nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter whether Cheetahs and Lions evolved, or were both created separately by God, or even artificially manufactured by space aliens. The fact remains that they are both members of the cat family. These families were constructed by taxonomists quite independently of evolutionary theory. Cheetahs and Lions are still cats whether they evolved from a common ancestor or not. Humans are categorsed in the ape family, whether they evolved or not. Paul B 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Humans are apes. They share common DNA, and they share many more obvious signs of relation. "Orangutan" comes from man of the forest, and in 1640 "Scientists who examined these rare specimens were baffled, and described these first chimpanzees as "pygmies" (see chimpanzee). This is not a new realization here.--Prosfilaes 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting reversion battle. I have to admit that I had to look up ape to find to and understand the definition. It is interesting that my Webster dictionary gives all the examples except humans. I double checked in my American Heritage dictionary and found they did the same. I know the scientific community includes humans as apes from a species classification but it appears this definition is at variance with what is generally accepted from a language perspective. Because of the differing perspectives, I believe it would be of benefit to readers to provide more clarity in the article by listing examples for the comparison.

The details of human hair go beyond my expertise but I see a few areas for clarification that perhaps more knowledgeable writers could elaborate on. The sections explains that humans have the same number of hairs as gorillas etc. but how many hairs is this? Furthermore what does the total number of hairs on a human have to do with pubic hair. I fail to see how this fact explains the presence of pubic hair. And it brings other questions to mind. Do Gorillas and chimpanzees have hair that develops or changes as a result of puberty? My sense tells me that the entire 'number of hair follicles' sentence should be deleted unless it can somehow substantiate the premise of the paragraph.

Just an onlookers thoughts and questions. Hope this helps. Gtrav 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, really picking nits here! I'll add my two cents. Egill, I see the current version of the article currently refers to "gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans" in the sentence in question, but it might have been simpler to just substitute "other primates" for "other apes", no? "Primates" is the accepted scientific name for the order that humans and the apes all belong to, and thus it seems a more neutral term. Moreover, "ape" does not have a literal meaning that includes humans, at least according to American Heritage (http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/A0360900.html). Given its other connotations (mimic, clumsy or boorish person) it does seem a term worth avoiding. By the way, evolution is a theory and will never be "proven" in the way that inertia or antisepsis can be proven. Not in our lifetimes, anyway. Gravity is also a theory, and I suspect you believe in that. But I could be wrong! --PL 03:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pubic hair in art cluttered

The section Pubic Hair in Art seems a bit cluttered with photos... Maybe they should be thinned out a little to improve the look of the article? The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife while a good illistration seems a tad out of place, and may disturb some people veiwing the article. While I have no problem with it, I know some people may veiw it badly in this article since it deals with beastiality.

I don't know why it's out of place, but this shunga shows "straight" sex, if a rather strained position. Any preferences? Paul B 14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Two LoversKatsushika Hokusai, The Adonis Plant (Fukujusô) Woodblock print, from a set of 12, ôban ca. 1815
Two Lovers
Katsushika Hokusai, The Adonis Plant (Fukujusô) Woodblock print, from a set of 12, ôban ca. 1815

It does seem to be a nicer image... Much less disturbing to unsuspecting users.

who gives a fuck if it is "disturbing" WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSURED and if someone does not want to be disturbed they should not have sex, go in a locker room, watch movies, leave their house, take off their clothes, look at their own genitals, or LOOK UP ARTICLES ON PUBIC HAIR. Qrc2006 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shaved.jpg image

User:Bob O'FLYNN loaded an image of a dog over the image that used to be in this article. His only other history was to vandalize three articles. If someone still has the original image, upload it again. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Changes

I have switched Image:Pubic hair.jpg for Image:Poilspubiens.jpg because the new image is a personal shot done by a wikipedian [11] rather than a photo with writing on it attributing it to another website (which doesn't currently say its license conditions). Fishies Plaice 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also added Image:Vulva15Cropped.jpg to the Style section, because the page does not yet have any photos of styled pubic hair. Currently we only have photos of natural and fully shaved hair. Again, this is a personal shot by a wikipedian- Image:Vulva15.jpg. Fishies Plaice 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If there must be a shot of styled hair, could we use one that is less disgusting at least? This one is revolting. 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

A couple others suggested as I agree that there should be a gallery (or group of smaller thumnails) that show the large variations in pubic hair patterns. Both between ethnicities and within them. Caucasians for instance are composed a many sub ethnicities with tendencies for different pubic hair patterns. Most people are mixed anyhow. So I think it would be limiting to say "well there is already a picture of a caucasian (white), negroid (black), mongloid (asian) etc.. person" when in reality there can be as much variation within these "races" as in comparison to others.

There should obviously be a limit on submissions, but up to a few different pictures for each "race" (which is composed of many ethnicities) sounds reasonable to me. If the gallery seems to be overwhelming with that amount of pictures, it could be then moved to a seperate sub-article. But I think for the time being the gallery should be left here to encourage different looking people to submit. Just my opinion, and I'll be understanding if the consensus says it goes. --Wits 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a nice idea, but currently we don't have enough images to make it work. However, if it is done, I'd recommend not duplicating pictures? We don't need an image twice in one article. Fishies Plaice 12:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also try to get some better-looking pictures too. Most of the ones on the current page are poor quality and blatant exhibitionism. Soo 12:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose for this gallery other then titilation? Seriously, what is the need? To show the variations in pattern? With one exception, none of those variations appear to be 'natural' but are a result of modification. We've already got text commenting that modifying pubic hair is a fairly common practice in some societies. My personal opinion is that this section detracts from the tone of the article. I would recomend its removal.--Lepeu1999 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The gallery at the moment is just exhibitionism. Genuine visual evidence of ethnic variation would be fine, but at the moment it looks like people showing off their assets. Paul B 19:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that the exhibitionism of the many of the photos detracts from the article, it is customary to discuss a proposal before calling for a straw poll (see Wikipedia:Straw polls). -- Donald Albury 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, what would you like to discuss about it? Rather then just going in and deleting it, I'm trying to get a dialogue going so if people ARE in favor of it they can chime in.--Lepeu1999 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I am in favor of removing most of the images in the article. But as soon as you do remove one, editors will be pouring to defend their right to post any image they want to, no matter how ugly and inappropriate. Even you do get a consensus here to remove images, I suspect it won't last long. -- Donald Albury 00:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I am fine with having a gallery here, as we do on many articles. I would resist deletion, but would not be against improvement. Referring to exhibitionism in regard to these people who have freely donated intimate photos to illustrate an article that many find embarrassing seems to stretch WP:AGF, unless there is any actual evidence to suggest that. --Guinnog 01:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've no problem with the images per se, my issue is what's the point? We need to illustrate there are visual differences in pubic hair? Don't the photos already in the article do that? Frankly the photos there don't show much difference - they all appear to be from caucasians with brown hair. Photos should support and enhance the article, not just be posted for the sake of posting photos. My issue has nothing to do with modesty, prudery or anything like that at all, I simply believe the photos there now are not necessary and do not enhance the article.--Lepeu1999 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
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. Read back if you want more of my thoughts on the gallery. Wits 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, but what is the point of doing it? This is an encyclopedia article. I don't believe the gallery idea enhances the article itself. It's nice sure, but any photos added should only illustrate the points being made in the text. Pubic hair looks different on different people, fine, but is that a major enough point to warrant a full set of photos? I don't think so. What WOULD be nice is something on the different stages of pubic hair growth - illustrating how it prgresses from vellic hair to full fledged mature growth. For various reasons I don't think that could be done in photographs, but there are diagrams out there. Finding a non-copywritten one would be the issue.--Lepeu1999 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with previous comments - keep but improve. PL 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need pictures? Every1 knows what it looks like. That's a little excessive. Y'all. Juppiter 07:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Images are too suggestive == —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanbis (talk • contribs)

Suggestive of what? Of pubic hair. (By the way, anyone else notice how the penises are all leaning the same way?) 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's too suggestive, considering there already are other photos and it's an article entitled "pubic hair." -Emiellaiendiay 21:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for pubic hair

I'm going to attach an original research tag. It proposes several theories without giving any sources. 199.126.137.209 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

evolutionary POV=

What do people think about including an explanation as to why pubic hair is present in humans from an evolutionary perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.172.131 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 28 December 2006

I feel that it would be very tricky, you are running into POV problems. But if you feel that you can write it from a NPOV and properly reference it then go ahead and put it on the talk page so we can see it. It could be possible. Mathmo Talk 15:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated photo

Why has the first female photo been repeated at the top of the article? We certainly don't need the same photo to appear twice in the same entry. Please delete the first occurrence. Xandergr8 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However I was reverted when I removed, and the next editor to remove it was also reverted. To avoid a revert war, we need to decide here on whether that photo should be at the top of the article. There was a defacto consensus a while back to move the images down from the top of the article to avoid a "shock" effect on first loading the article. I would like to see if there is still support for that. -- Donald Albury 16:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I like have a lede photo, but the duplication doesn't seem useful. I'd say keep the first, replace the second with another photo. Fishies Plaice 18:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Dalbury that moving photos "below the fold" makes sense given the history of this article and previous responses to having a photo front and center. An extra photo above the rest serves no useful purpose. Xandergr8 22:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't need a picture at the beginning of the article, it will only be deleted anyway. And its repeat of a photo already on the page. Remove. Latinflava 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

When we find a replacement photo for the first image in the gallery we can put that in the gallery instead, otherwise there is no need to change about the page. So before we go any further, does anybody have an image they can show to be used there instead? Mathmo Talk 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The gallery is fine the way it is. Just need to delete the first photo up top. P 06:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I know that image is already used in this page, but we can use it twice. We should place an image on the intro in order to illustrate the what this article is about. --Haham hanuka 10:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to put a picture at the top of the page to illustrate the article. -- Donald Albury 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Most other articles have such an illustration. Anyone following a link ending in "Pubic_hair" is unlikely to be all that shocked by, erm, pubic hair. It's hardly the most shocking image to found on Wikipedia. I agree that the duplicated photo is bad, so we should find another one. Soo 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the optimal solution is to replace the first image on the gallery (to avoid duplication) and to move this image to the intro (like I did). Unlike most of the images on this article this image is only about public hair. --Haham hanuka 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Dalbury that we just don't need an image at the top of the page to illustrate the article. There are plenty of wikipedia articles that reserve imagery for further down the page. I object not only because of the duplication but also for pragmatic reasons: we are basically trolling for all the censor types to have at it. Xandergr8 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[12]It seems like most of your edits here are about censoring this article. --Haham hanuka 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. This discussion is not about censorship; it is about how to improve this article. Personally, I think that this article is over-illustrated, to the point that it detracts from the article. Fighting censorship is not about seeing how many pictures of naked people you can stuff into this article. We need to be talking about how to improve the article, and I must say that adding more amateurish photos of people showing off their pubic hair is not my idea of improvement. -- Donald Albury 12:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)