Talk:Pubic hair/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed merge with Pubic hair fetishism

Mostly repeated on target page and nothing notably relevant to page title of fetishism Iztwoz (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Move "Society and culture" and "History" sections into their own article?

There are an excessive number of pictures and lots of information that are for style and obviously not meant to illustrate the article as far as a biological discussion of pubic hair. I propose we move the whole "Society and culture" and "History" sections to their own article, perhaps called "Pubic hair styling" or similar. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But then...how would this article be comprehensive if it doesn't even cover culture/history? How is it a solution to remove the "Society and culture" and "History" sections because of a perceived sexism bias? Yes, I see that you came from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism, where an editor expressed concerns, just like the editor expressed concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. I stand by what I told the editor before: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 11#Quick survey.

The Facial hair and Eyebrow articles are poor comparisons. For one, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments should be valid if made. And it is very easy to add a clean-shaven picture of a man to the Facial hair article, since shaving facial hair is common. And imagery at the bottom of that article shows a variety of "absence of facial hair" images; it's just that they are not a complete absence of facial hair. The Pubic hair article mostly doesn't show a complete absence of hair either. As for eyebrows, people usually do not shave all of their eyebrows off. By comparison, it is very common for women shave off all of their pubic hair. And eyebrow styling vs. pubic hair styling? Like apples and oranges. Either way, it is simple enough to remove all or most of the images in the "Styling" section. No need to remove the "Society and culture" and "History" sections. And I do not see where in the edit history the aforementioned editor was reverted on removing images from this article.

One more thing: I must state something about the Nipple article since it was brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism. Unless counting the painting, it only has two real-life images of women. One image is the lead image, and it is there solely for anatomical purposes. It only shows the nipple. The second is in the "In culture" section. And considering that there is not the same taboo nature about topless women in some cultures as there is here in the United States and elsewhere, I find the image fitting. After all, the section is, in part, about "The culture tendency to 'hide' the female nipple under clothing has existed in western culture since the 1800s." Society does not care as much about male nipples. It doesn't care much about male pubic hair either, which is no doubt why we currently see more focus on women in the Pubic hair article. But again, it's simple enough to remove the extra images from this article. Another option is for someone to make a composite of different pubic hair styles similar to File:Baerte ohne text.jpg. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect from 'curlies'

I want to make it very clear that I do NOT object to graphic images on Wikipedia, I think it's very appropriate. However, I am concerned about people stumbling upon them by accident. I was looking for the evolution of DMOZ which I thought was on 'curlies.org'. I tried the url and it didn't work (yes, I got it wrong). So I searched Wikipedia for 'curlies', thinking that I had got the TLD wrong, and I would find the new directory. I got forwarded here, to "pubic hair" without any warning. Apparently the correct domain for the evolution of DMOZ is 'curlie'. So this is my issue: I don't think I should stumble upon graphic images that I didn't search for, just because of a slight pluralisation error. Anyone agree with me? AndyCivil (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No; a bit of aversion therapy is probably helpful. Klbrain (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

fetishism?

I've blanked mention in the lede of pubephilia. The statement has no citation and is never mentioned in the article proper, and there is no WP article by that name.

The implication seems to be that, if an individual can touch the pubic hair of another person and NOT become sexually aroused then she-or-he is somehow NORMAL, not possessed of a sexual fetish.

Perhaps the editor who added that claim meant to indicate individuals who are overwhelmed at merely seeing so little as a single detached hair. In that case, though, the focus has drifted a few steps past the article's actual topic, and is coatracking. Really, if it's a significant point it would have it's own Wikipedia article and, lacking such article, it's not worth mention — except perhaps as a bit of trivia appended at the end (and I'd contend that the See also mention is more than sufficient).
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The History Section

The history section of this page states "Evidence of pubic hair removal in ancient India is thought to date back to 4000 to 3000 BC." but there's no mention of earlier pubic hair removal in other places, such as Egypt and the source quoted has been misread. The book referenced for the sentence about India actually states: "In fact hair removal is thousands of years old, and archaeologists have evidence of men shaving hair off their faces as far back as 20,000 years ago. Sumerians used tweezers; Egyptians took their bronze razors to their tombs with them, and beeswax was also in evidence as a hair removal tool even back then. Evidence of depilatories date as far back as 4000 to 3000 B.C. Evidence exists in ancient India of chest and pubic being shaved."

There has clearly been a misunderstanding of the material. The definition of a depilatory is:"A preparation in the form of a liquid or cream that is used to remove unwanted hair from the body."

The book utilises a somewhat confusing writing style but it implies that depilatories, ie the beeswax mentioned a couple of sentences earlier, date back to 4000BC in Egypt where the people also took their razors to their tombs. The source doesn't provide a time frame for how "ancient India" is defined and articles such as "Sugaring -Modern Revival of an Ancient Egyptian Technique for Hair Removal" History of Hair Removal The History of Female Hair Removal All seem to clarify that Egypt was the location where depilatories were used 6000 years ago.

The section is incredibly problematic anyway and I would like to politely suggest that since there's already a wikipedia article on Hair Removal, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_removal there's really no need for this section to be here. Iynx (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Article Image Description

Should this be edited to clarify that this is what pubic hair looks like on white people?

Definitely. --Eden the plant nerd (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Lysistrata

AN early reference to genital grooming appears in Lysistrata( first performance 411 BC) a play of Aristophanes. A translation from the Greek is "Yes indeed, her bush has been most elegantly pruned". Chps (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Vague opinion that removal is ‘the norm’ in ‘some cultures’ (which?)

“ In some cultures, it is the norm for pubic hair to be removed, especially of females”

Vague and unfounded assertion without citation, suggest removal until at the very least solid citation is added to back up author’s opinion. The existence of public hair removal or estimated value of hair removal business is not a suitable substitute for proof that removal is the ‘norm’. 92.40.193.96 (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)