Women do some rather insane things to achieve modern standards of beauty. We wear shoes that do terrible things to our feet. We don bras that dig into our chest and push our breasts into strange conformations. We slide on pantyhose to firm our stomachs, makeup to hide our imperfections, and hair dye to diminish our grays. And we have this strange habit* of yanking other body hair out from the root, be it our eyebrows, underarms, legs, or pubic hair.
Yes, I do have a point here (besides making men squirm). The August issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases has a forthcoming article that details (very carefully details, so squeamish, beware) what can happen with a bikini wax gone bad--and it's every bit as bad as you think. More after the jump.
The article is a case report of a 20-year-old Australian woman who reported to the emergency department with fever and swelling of the genitalia. She noted that she'd received a Brazilian wax two weeks prior. For those unfamiliar with the procedure, a Brazilian is about as severe as bikini waxes get. You cover the hair on almost the entire region--"pubis, vulva, and anus" as they note--with hot wax, and then rip the wax off, pulling the hair follicles along with it. One description of the procedure:
After underwear is removed a beautician asks the client to lie down and raise the legs. Talc may be sprinkled all over the bottom, anus and vagina areas. Hot wax is then spread over all these areas and then ripped off with cotton strips.
The end result is a smooth and hairless area with little regrowth for weeks, without having to worry about razor burn, shaving bumps, chemical depilatories, or (heaven forbid!) unsightly stray hairs.
The particular individual described in the case report, however, already had untreated type 1 diabetes--a risk factor for a number of infections, including those caused by group A streptococci (Streptococcus pyogenes). This is the bacterium responsible for "strep throat" as well as serious invasive disease, including streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STSS) and necrotizing fasciitis (the "flesh-eating disease.") In the days following her bikini wax, she came down with a fever, and had swelling and pain in the waxed region (along with a "copious vaginal discharge.") Still, she didn't seek medical attention for another week, when she was in really bad shape. She presented to the ER with not only "grossly swollen" external genitalia, and pain so extreme that she had to be put under general anesthetic just so her physician could perform a gynecologic exam. She was so swollen that, according to the legend to Figure 1 (which you can find online, as the article is freely available), "she was unable to pass urine, and the vaginal space was obliterated by edema."
Ouch.
The patient also had a rash over her chest and neck. From these clinical signs and the subsequent isolation of S. pyogenes from a urine culture and sample of the vaginal discharge, she was diagnosed with streptococcal cellulitis and toxic shock syndrome, and was also found to have an active herpes simplex virus type 1 infection.
The doctors treated her with a panel of antibiotics (and antivirals, when they found the HSV-1 infection), and she left the hospital after 10 days of treatment.
You might think the story ends there. You would, of course, be wrong:
Six months later, the patient again attempted to remove her pubic hair by shaving herself; however, she had difficulty visualizing the area. She subsequently developed a recurrence of herpes and cellulitis of her vulva. She was readmitted to the hospital and was treated with valaciclovir and penicillin, and her condition improved...Despite her traumatic experiences, the patient was keen to undertake further removal of pubic hair.
The paper is as much about the psychology of beauty and the lengths one will put themself through as it is a report of the infection. STSS can be a deadly infection, especially when it is complicated by necrotizing fasciitis. Yet despite her recurring streptococcal infection, she was "keen to" submit to future hair removal procedures.
The fact is that there's no perfectly safe way to do this, especially for someone with her strikes against her--diabetes (which already compromises her immune system), and history of streptococcal infections. It's noted that when she originally was waxed, even though it was carried out at a beauty salon, that there was still significant pain involved, along with vulval bleeding. Each of these abrasions creates an entry portal for colonizing microbes, which can then lead to an invasive infection. Additionally, salon employees may have no knowledge of these risks, or training in ways to minimize them:
Beauty salons can offer a range of innovative therapies, the complications or infectious risks of which are little documented. Facials that involve manual comedone extraction, dermabrasion, or harsh chemical peels pose the risk of infection and are often performed without the use of gloves. There are no uniform standards for infection-control practices in beauty salons in some countries and, although certain health departments publish guidelines regarding infection-control practices, these are variably enforced. Random sampling of nail salons in England demonstrated low rates of hepatitis B immunization among technicians, poor use of gloves, reuse of single-use instruments, and inadequate knowledge of universal infection-control precautions.
Finally, this paper provides the best line I've ever seen in a science journal: "In addition, pubic hair can be styled into various designs and can be dyed." However, no figures for that one--bummer.
Literature Cited
Dendle, C. et al. Severe Complications of a "Brazilian" Bikini Wax. 2007: Clinical Infectious Diseases. Vol. 45: page numbers forthcoming. Link.
Image from http://www.suddenlyslimmer.com/images/spa_uploaded_images/Thumb12_24_2006Queenwaxing.jpg
*Yes, I am aware that some guys wax as well, that they're a growing market and all that jazz. I still think it's mostly a female thing, though.
Comments
You're right. This was more than I wanted to know!
Posted by: J-Dog | June 26, 2007 11:27 AM
As a guy, I've never understood how bald-below became fashionable. I've always preferred girls with curls.
Posted by: Roy | June 26, 2007 12:42 PM
Roy, you beat me to it. Hairlessness signals pre-adolescence. Also, it makes it harder to navigate. In this context, I vote bush!
Posted by: Martin R | June 26, 2007 12:46 PM
Women do some rather insane things to achieve modern standards of beauty.
Modern women actually have it rather well in this regard -- we know enough about chemistry to ensure that simple make-up won't poison your skin, make you go blind, and so on.
Posted by: Agnostic | June 26, 2007 1:00 PM
Roy, I think "bald below" is popular for two reasons: porn and thongs (or similar low-front, no-back bathing suit bottoms). Both of which are pretty sad excuses, and truly, even as a guy, I'd not be upset if they both disappeared from the planet in the next 30 seconds...
My wife is all-natural, and that is the way I love her. No makeup, no waxing, no high-heels, no hair dye (although she does shave some parts, but not all :-) )... And yes, she does shampoo and use soap, so don't get the wrong idea. She's clean, but natural...
This should be a national news story, to alert ladies that there is real danger in doing some of these things. Alas, though, it will be buried, and more will suffer the same fate as this poor individual...
Posted by: RichB | June 26, 2007 1:12 PM
RichB, I very much doubt this will make the news like it should. Big media serves its customers -- the advertisers, not the public -- and the advertisers make money selling 'beauty' products, not healthy practices.
There've been a number of news reports on infections from beauty parlors, but they rarely make network news, only local news.
Notice in how many 'glamour' pictures the model has raccoon eyes. For some reason (well, several billion reasons a year) women buy into the cosmetics model of 'beauty', ending up thinking the wearing of facepaint is normal.
Posted by: Roy | June 26, 2007 1:35 PM
Roy, 100% agreed ... Sad, but true ... Makes me glad I have two boys ... Although, I have been and will continue to impress upon them that reality differs substantially from what advertisers would make us believe.
I also think that any man who "loves" a woman, but only thinks she is beautiful in a push-up bra, full geisha makeup, and 4" stilettos is only fooling himself and his partner. Anyone (man or woman) who is such a slave to "beauty" that they endanger their health or their partner's health is not someone I or my kids should be around...
Posted by: RichB | June 26, 2007 1:46 PM
I had always thought that bikini waxing sounded horrible, but this is a whole new level of horrible.
On a similar (but less gross) note, the Washington Post did a good article about what wearing "cruel shoes" does to women's (and some men's) feet.
Posted by: Liz | June 26, 2007 2:03 PM
I agree with RoyB, it's very likely to be a porn thing. Almost all current (non specialized/fetish) porn shows women with vestigial or no pubic hair (I agree with MartinR, it looks so pre-adolescent) and even for men it's not at all unusual to see shaved scrota or even no pubic hair. The thing is, many guys like it that way on women. A friend of mine once told me that his now wife once shaved her pubic hair and, more or less literally, she couldn't get him off of her.
I wonder if definitive laser depilation can be applied to the area in question (for those who have their mind set on it), and what would be the risks involved. Would applying a germicidal ointment on the wax depilated area, as is done with tattoos, help?
Posted by: Ribozyme | June 26, 2007 2:35 PM
It's inconsistent to argue that lack of pubic hair is repulsive due to pre-adolescent appearance. Females don't get facial hair until adolescence; ergo, shaving / waxing / bleaching their facial hair must suggest pre-adolescence, and be repulsive for the same reason as with pubic hair. But no one bats an eyelash about facial hair. Actually, ditto for armpit and leg hair.
So, you can prefer the natural look down there, but the reasons must be uncoupled from "pre-adolescent" arguments.
Posted by: Agnostic | June 26, 2007 2:54 PM
I don't buy into the shaved looks adolescent line. It seems to be characterizing men that like no hair as closet pedos. Is it a pron influencing society effect? Maybe, but talking with my female friends, lots of girls like the trimmed or shaved look for comfort, feeling clean, having a secret, etc.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 26, 2007 3:40 PM
Robster, do you know at what age not long ago and for most of the 1 million year human existence were girls considered to be ready for sex? Usually after their first menstruation. It has been said that there has been an evolved preference in males for the younger women, which would be the more likely to have greater fertility.
Posted by: Ribozyme | June 26, 2007 4:18 PM
I stopped reading at 'ouch'.
Posted by: Dale | June 26, 2007 4:19 PM
Ugh. Ouch. As a man, I'm glad I've never waxed anything!
I'd also like to mention that I've tagged you for the Thinking Blogger Award! Your site always makes me think! Please check out my site for rules if you're interested in continuing the meme.
Great blog, and thanks for making me think!
Posted by: Translator | June 26, 2007 4:51 PM
Ribozyme, pubic hair development typically begins a year or so before menarche, so a lack of hair would suggest that that said woman was not sexually mature, and would undergo negative selection from males. No hair = too young would be a more appropriate system if we were wholly ruled by evolutionary cues.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 26, 2007 5:05 PM
Robster: I can't speak from experience, being a guy, but I remember having my first ejaculation before there was any visible growth on my pubes and armpits. I would expect that to be similar in girls. This is just an opinion, I need to check a textbook, unless you are an expert in human sexual development.
Posted by: Ribozyme | June 26, 2007 5:35 PM
NP, Ribozyme. I had to look it up myself. Been a few too many years since anat&phys. Capacity for ejaculation is an early event in males when compared to menarche.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 26, 2007 7:04 PM
I'm afraid everyone has entirely missed the point.
These various additions and subtractions to and from the body are not about reaching a faux pre-adolescent state or a culturally fixed standard of beauty. They are about demonstrating:
1) sufficient resources to spare time
2) sufficient resources to spend money
3) knowledge and technique (as an indirect indicator of neural function)
4) ability to go to the edge of a dangerous place and return.
Remember, H. sapiens is one of the only mammals in which females display numerous secondary sexual characteristics. It is the fact the case that much female behavior can be understood by thinking of it as male like.
Scraping razors on one's delicate parts is actually a very male-like thing to do. (Not that I do it or anything...)
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 26, 2007 8:17 PM
Greg, I'm afraid you've missed the point along with everybody else.
Many women shave or wax for reasons of personal comfort. Or, they find it sensual. Or, whatever. The thing is, since women are different, you aren't going to find any single reason for why they do it.
Posted by: outlier | June 26, 2007 8:39 PM
DON'T SHAVE/WAX, etc.
Bring Back Hairy Pussies!!
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | June 26, 2007 8:59 PM
I've shaved my labia for years for one reason only: naked labia = extra sensitivity and pleasure during sex. My husband asked me to try a full Brazilian just once because he would wanted to see me absolutely exposed, and because he found that my hair got in the way during oral sex.
So I got my legs sugared once in a salon before I tried the Brazilian, and that definitely hurt. (I sugar my legs now at home and find that with the patchy, cyclic regrowth, it barely smarts at all.)
Two weeks after that first exposure to sugaring, I got my first Brazilian. (Note: I don't have diabetes, and the spa seemed to follow reasonably hygienic procedures.)
Believe it or not, getting the hair stripped from my labia and environs was not painful at all. On a scale of 1 to 10, it barely registered as a 2-3. However, the front thatch of hair on the mons, especially the area just above the labial cleft, hurt like a mofo, probably because the growth was denser or because the hair was more deeply or firmly rooted But I felt better pretty soon and yes, it was definitely sensual.
It was odd to look in the mirror afterwards, though, as I was embarrassed to see my own cleft. I didn't think I looked pre-pubescent, but just obviously, overtly sexual. Men are used to seeing their genitalia out in the open, but most women have them shrouded with hair once they're adults.
I might go back for what some people call the Mommy Brazilian (stripped labia, untouched mons) just because it is much more effective and easier than shaving, and not painful at all. But I'll have to be really, really motivated to get my mons stripped again. I'm glad I tried it once, but I don't feel compelled to do it again.
Posted by: Mary | June 26, 2007 9:41 PM
Oy! If you haven't checked out the link and taken a look at the picture then you've missed the REAL yipes-producer! This woman's lucky to be alive and with her pelvis intact. She apparently has 'labial syncytia and adhesions', meaning bad scarring, as a result of all this. That'll put a crimp in her sex life!
Posted by: Carpus | June 26, 2007 9:45 PM
Fur bikinis are murder!
Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 26, 2007 9:46 PM
I like hairy people. So does my boyfriend. He has armpit, pubic, and leg hair, and so do I. Why shouldn't women be hairy? I am a primate, and primates have hair. Thank you, Tara, for bringing this conversation to the public.
Posted by: haydin | June 26, 2007 9:47 PM
I don't think anyone should feel obliged to remove their body hair, but I don't think they should feel dumb if they like to remove it, either. It's a matter of taste. I like to shave my pubic area sometimes. It's cleaner - as with armpits, the hairs are a place for odors to hang out. On the other hand, it's nice to have a little fur in the wintertime. As for hairlessness being a turnoff because it looks prepubescent, do you see many people making that argument with respect to men shaving their facial hair?
Posted by: fullerenedream | June 26, 2007 10:25 PM
First of all, I will NEVER look at this picture.
Second: "Sugaring?" Do I even want to know what this is? Am I missing something?
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 26, 2007 10:27 PM
Sugaring uses a room-temperature paste made of sugar, lemon juice and water instead of hot wax. It's supposed to be less painful than waxing because it sticks only to the hair and dead skin cells, plus you don't risk accidental burns from overheated wax. It cleans up really easily, too, as you just need to wipe any sticky remnants with a warm, wet cloth.
Posted by: Mary | June 26, 2007 10:54 PM
The question is is there something to like about going through a quite painful procedure that needs to be repeated periodically because you feel you aren't attractive enough to someone else the way you are? Did this woman like what she went through? It seems that she has some serious self acceptance issues if after the first experience she decided to do it again.
At least with tattooing, piercing and even cosmetic surgery (other activities that fill Greg Laden's criteria) you only have to do it once. That's why I mentioned definitive hair removal methods, such as electrolysis, laser or intense pulsed light. Anyone who uses them more definitely complies with two of Greg's suggested criteria: money to pay for the more expensive procedure and intelligence to go through the pain only once.
Posted by: Ribozyme | June 26, 2007 10:57 PM
Tara Smith wrote:
Given this woman's medical history, should she have been referred to laser depilation by a specialist instead?
Posted by: Dark Matter | June 26, 2007 11:03 PM
Laser hair removal is very expensive and, sadly, something you need to do several times before achieving anything close to complete results. The procedure may be too uncomfortable to complete in one session, but even if you do manage to do that, the cycle of hair growth requires several visits. Plus, many reputable laser hair removal places will do bikini lines but won't touch the labia at all.
Right now I shave and will probably get a partial Brazilian again. As I said already, neither choice actually hurts. If I decide for whatever reason to go au naturel again, I can do so, while laser depilation, once completed, is permanent. I don't feel especially stupid for making these choices. :)
(However, the hapless and self-destructive woman in the article needs to quickly acquire some common sense, but given that she wasn't even managing her diabetes properly, I'm not too optimistic about that.)
Posted by: Mary | June 26, 2007 11:06 PM
Mary, you go girl!
Haydin, to each their own. Variety is spice, after all.
So I finally got around to clicking the link, and the bikini wax paper is filed under, get this...
A BRIEF REPORT!
What? Oh come on. Laugh, damn you!
Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 26, 2007 11:08 PM
Da*n it! I forgot the close bold tag.
Posted by: Ribozyme | June 26, 2007 11:15 PM
I'm just disappointed that the word "taint" (used as an anatomical term) did not appear in either Tara's post, the ensuing comments, or the case report Tara linked.
Posted by: kemibe | June 26, 2007 11:26 PM
There's many people that do loads of potentially harmful stuff because they DO feel they aren't attractive enough, but not all of them. Reasons to do a brazillian wax? yes, possibly because she isn't "pretty enough", but mostly because it feels and looks nicer, softer, fresher (a plus in hot climates) and as mentioned, because it increases sensibility. And men love it (the porn influence is most likely a factor here). And laser is quite expensive compared to waxing, yet the results last a lot longer than shaving, so there's a reason people keep at it, not necessarily because of acceptance issues.
Now, boobjobs? that's another story :)
Posted by: jherazob | June 26, 2007 11:27 PM
The lengths to which this woman is willing to sacrifice her health make me sad - it wasn't just the hair removal, but also the article's mention that her diabetes was poorly controlled as a result of noncompliance with her insulin therapy.
One note to add to the shave/no-shave debate. It is possible and easy to compromise with what one of my college friends called the "crew cut," which involves getting an inexpensive electric hair clipper (the kind men use for their beards or some people use for their haircuts) and utilizing it with the smallest clipping attachment. It's much safer - hardly ever a cut, and since it doesn't pull the hair out by the roots, the risk of inflammation/ingrown hairs/infection is much lower. Obviously, it's not a method for those who think that no hair=most beautiful, but for people who want the extra sensation or for whatever reason (I have an older friend who "clips" to mitigate the stickiness she feels after a particularly bad hot flash), it can be a much safer alternative.
In addendum, the increase in waxing is not limited to women - I saw a male patient not that long ago who had impetigo of the chest from waxing-related infections. Brazilian-style waxes are growing in popularity among men as well. So the next article you find might include a picture of male genitalia as horribly misshapen as the woman's was in this article.
Posted by: Alexis | June 26, 2007 11:54 PM
First off, it is a generational thing, and it does have something to do with porn, and also with the fashion industry (most fashion models are "all bare down there" as a matter of practicality). The Paris Hilton sex tape of a few years ago helped quite a bit as well, I am sure. Younger women in their 20's are way more likely to do it than older women. I have known (and slept with) several women who have had it done, none of them regularly, and all of them agreed on a couple points: receiving oral sex was way more intense and sensual, and that it was a lot of trouble-- for them, too much trouble-- to maintain. And itchy as it grew out again.
I am going to to vote for it, with apologies to the poor woman in Australia. It is a huge turn-on for me. Frankly it makes oral sex more fun for both partners, according my limited polling sample, and it's also, I think, sexy in that it is an act of sexual assertiveness. It is a way for a woman to assert that she is actively preparing that part of her body for the aesthetic pleasure of herself and her partner. Unlike other beauty procedures, it's not at all public; the only ones who know are oneself, one's partner, and maybe the folks in the changing room at the gym, so I do think it's a little different case. I don't buy the pre-adolescent thing at all; quite the opposite, I think it's a way of taking control of and acknowledging one's sexuality by preparing one's body for it in a visible way.
And by the way, waxing for men is in vogue now too, not only down there, but lots of twenty-something men have their chests waxed on a regular basis. The porn aesthetic cuts both ways (in this case it's gay porn driving the look). Would I get my chest waxed? If I thought it would lead to incredible porn star sex, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I don't think it would help-- at my age I'd just end up looking silly.
Posted by: eugene_X | June 27, 2007 2:47 AM
I will happily admit that I really dig fur free. It has nothing to do with an interest in young girls, or anything like that. Hell, young twenties are rather a turn off to me. I just like the way it looks. I really like the way it feels. And I really hate picking pubes out of my teeth. While I can see how other people might find it odd, believe me, there are far stranger and far more disturbing fetishes out there.
My partner and I, both keep our pubes, very well shorn. Actually, Alexis' suggestion is about the best. It keeps the hair from being short enough to cause the infernal itching from hell, that occurs just a day or two after shaving. That, and the razor treatment is exceptionally uncomfortable for men, as I can attest. The only time my partner fully shaves, is if I do it for her, she always manages to cut herself when she does it, I on the other hand, have never cut her. Sex between people that are shaved, or tightly trimmed, is just awesome.
That said, you will never, ever - seriously, never catch me, or my partner, doing anything with wax.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 27, 2007 3:51 AM
I should add, that in most other places, I am all about the natural. Hairy legs and pits - I'm all for it. That would be the hippy in me, or at least the ones I've, err, dated. . .
Posted by: DuWayne | June 27, 2007 3:55 AM
(Note: Partially cross-commented at Pharyngula)
First and foremost: this woman is an idiot.
However, as long as we're on the subject of hair removal, my own take is this: I'm also somewhat skeptical of the sanity of anyone who undertakes a hair-removal treatment that involves pulling it out by the roots. But as far as shaving goes, both my wife and I prefer her genitals hairless. There are several reasons for this. Since she has difficulty with precise hand movements when she can't really see what she's doing, I wind up being the one operating the razor, which makes for a nice intimate moment, fulfills her stronger-than-usual fondness for feeling "taken care of," and generally does not result in cutting unless the blade is dull (disposable razor blades are good for this, since a fresh blade is much more effective and less likely to nick the genitals in question). She finds the increased sensation and decreased menstrual messiness appealing, particularly since it's comfortable for my tongue to go more or less everywhere, and I certainly have no problem with dilligence in ensuring that no stubble occurs to trouble her. For my part, I rather like the tactile sensation of smoothness and warmness, but the reason I actively prefer her hairless is twofold: first, I've never had a problem with hair catching in teeth, but loose hairs tend to get caught partly under my tongue which is extremely irritating and unpleasant (non-gay males and non-straight women, don't tell me you've never noticed this), and second, the position we usually wind up using for oral sex tends to press my nose lightly against her mound, which, if there's hair there, tends to result in a few of them slipping into my nostril, where the movement of her hips rubs her mound against my nose and in turn the sides of my nostril against the hair, rapidly irritating said nostril and leading to a result which defies tasteful description.
In other words, no one should endanger their health pursuing any standards of beauty, but appreciating the condition of oral sex not leaving the woman's pubic hair full of snot hardly requires or implies a specific preference for a "pre-adolescent" look. :/
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 27, 2007 4:15 AM
The reason humans have hair in the places they do, is to provide a proper niche for commensal skin bacteria. These are the autotrophic ammonia oxidizing bacteria (the subject of my research and my blog).
This is the reason the scalp is thin and well vascularized, to allow for rapid diffusion of NO and nitrite produced by these bacteria from the ammonia and urea in sweat. Similarly underarm hair is to provide a source of NO and nitrite close to the lymph glands. Pubic hair is to provide a source of NO and nitrite to protect the various orifices from infection.
Of course bathing does remove these bacteria, and because they are slow growing (doubling time ~10 hours), they take a long time to grow back (a month or so without sufficient innoculation).
These are obligate autotrophs. They don't grow on any media used to isolate pathogens. They can't cause disease because they don't have the enzymes systems to metabolize organic compounds. They derive ATP only by oxidizing ammonia into nitrite. They suppress heterotrophic bacteria probably by oxidizing quorum sensing compounds.
If you have a sufficient biofilm of these bacteria, you don't need to bathe to remove the heterotrophic bacteria that cause odor.
Posted by: daedalus2u | June 27, 2007 7:21 AM
I can think of another function of pubic hair. It's a lubricant. The hairs function like roller bearings between partners.
I have a much simpler explanation for the prevalence of all the extreme pubic trimming in modern societies: herd mentality. Who would be doing this of their own volition? Not I. I choose to accept the human body in its natural state. The body is not a document to be edited, with the cuts dictated by what, exactly?
Furthermore, the hairless look on a woman creeps me out. Pubic hair is a sign of maturity. Rejecting it signifies a desire to regress to childhood. It also may be a desire to evolve to a hairless state, sorta like the eloi in "The Time Machine."
Posted by: JohnP | June 27, 2007 9:37 AM
Ribozyme: You are perhaps unaware that, if one takes modern hunter-gatherers for reasonable physical approximations of how our ancient ancestors probably lived, then due to low body fat menstruation often (generally, even) didn't begin until age 15-16.
Female sexual maturity is "artificially" speeded up due to a number of factors in "modern" life; and the fact that historically girls have, in some cultures, been considered ready for marriage at 13 did not put them at any less physical risk from pregnancy and childbirth. In fact the risk of morbidity and mortality from pregnancy and childbirth is astronomical at the current usual age of menarche. An "evolved preference for younger women for sex" has practical limits higher than you seem to think.
=============
Aside from that...this woman really, really needs to work on her priorities. Possibly to the point of needing psychiatric help.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | June 27, 2007 9:50 AM
JohnP: Who would be doing this of their own volition? Not I. I choose to accept the human body in its natural state. The body is not a document to be edited, with the cuts dictated by what, exactly?
Aesthetic preferences? Comfort? Convenience? Conformity? Any or all of these may be at work.
Furthermore, the hairless look on a woman creeps me out. Pubic hair is a sign of maturity. Rejecting it signifies a desire to regress to childhood. It also may be a desire to evolve to a hairless state, sorta like the eloi in "The Time Machine."
Such certainty. Such nonsense.
Women like the one in the article are behaving like herd animals, but not everyone who choose to wax, shave or otherwise groom wants to regress to childhood or become a freakin' Eloi, nor are the men who like the look closet pedophiles.
For example, my husband, who was so enthusiastic about me trying out the full Brazilian, never, EVER cared about me shaving my armpits or legs. They could be clean-shaven, grown out completely, or at some stubbly in between state, and he just did not care one way or another. He did care about getting hairs up his nose when he went down on me, and he really, really liked looking at my exposed vulva. The fact that stripped labia intensified my sexual pleasure was a super additional bonus for him.
You're free to groom yourself as you please, and to have whatever aesthetic preferences you like. I'm not insisting that you agree with my aesthetic and sexual preferences. But it is ridiculously arrogant to sit back and declare that a bunch of people you don't know must want to revert to childhood or become some sort of bloodless futuristic alien.
I'll put this in really simple terms: shaving doesn't hurt me. Only a portion of the full Brazilian hurt, and I can easily have a partial one done that I am perfectly comfortable with. The increase in sexual pleasure makes this elective bit of grooming worth it, and it has nothing to do with being a young woman with herd mentality. I'm almost 50 years old, damn it, and I certainly know my own mind. You don't, so please stop posturing as if you do.
Posted by: Mary | June 27, 2007 10:14 AM
I'm with Mary- I love getting waxed down there. I don't do it just for my husband or because I don't think I'm pretty enough. I do it because it feels awesome- both during sex and just to play with- and I like how it looks. The waxing doesn't really hurt and when the hair does grow back (if I let it) it is really super soft and nice (as opposed to shaving which leaves a blunt end on the hair).
that said... thank jebus I don't have diabetes!
Posted by: TR | June 27, 2007 10:26 AM
Seems like a lot of women have poor images of themselves, and think if they don't cut their hair down there, they will feel ugly, or bad, or something negative. In most cases it's pretty difficult to convince them otherwise. It's a shame.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | June 27, 2007 12:01 PM
Will Von Wizzlepig -
While certainly some women shave there pubes for exactly that reason, many more women (and men) do so because they like it that way. Just like people who work out. There are some who do it because they feel compelled to look a certain way, even though they'd really rather not. Does that mean that everyone who works out and tries to stay fit, does so because society tells them too? Or could it be that some people just really enjoy it?
I would definitely agree that the woman in the article has some serious issues. That doesn't mean that all women who shave or wax, do so for the same reasons.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 27, 2007 12:45 PM
Luna_the_cat: You might be right (how does it work in the very few hunter-gatherer societies left?). But evolution isn't rational (as PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins would be happy to tell you) and if the tendency (the younger, the better) worked most of the time, the exceptions in which it actually reduces fitness would be superseeded. And in my case, it's just a theory. IMHO a shaved pubis/vulva looks pre-adolescent to me. One more thing, I live in Mexico, and due to living in a machist society (fortunately, that is gradually disappearing) it was not unheard of more or less regular men who had married a widow or divorced woman, that they would sexually abuse and sometimes even get pregnant the young daughters of the wife, whom they would find more sexually attractive. I think the tendency is there, just suppressed a little by civilization.
Since people are being very open about sexual experiences, etc, I might as well be so about how I see things. I'm a gay man, and HATE the shaven look in guys. I find it so narcissist. I like body hair although don't have a fetish for it (a large proportion of Mexican men is naturally smooth-chested and even smooth-legged, and that's fine with me). I specially dislike the shaved perineal area and scrotum so common in gay porn. No matter how much people talk about the comfort/cleanliness/sensation advantages of Brazilian waxing or whatever, if it has always have been so great, I bet most of those people didn't do it before it became fashionable. Herd mentality, no less, with a large helping of rationalization. And fashionable it has become, or else we wouldn't see businesses everywhere that offer the service. I also think the comfort argument comes from the American couch-potato-comfort mentality (I don't expect waxing to be all that popular in Europe, which is famous for hairy armpits and legs in women). What if genital hair gets caught in your teeth and under the tongue? Big deal! Just take a moment to take them out if they really make you uncomfortable (they don't do that to me). The silliest thing is that pubic hair tickles your nose. Whenever I deep throat, one of the thrills is going so far down that pubic hair rubs against my nose.
I have a question for Deadalus2u: can you somehow culture the autotrophic bacteria and apply them in concentrated form to the hairy parts of the body to replenish the lost ones from washing? I bet that would make a great deodorant.
Finally, an opinion on the tastefulness/aesthetics of such extreme fashion measures as Brazilian waxing. Who hasn't had regrets about the fashion excesses comited, specially when young? The enormous afros, extreme bell bottoms, giant platform shoes and polyester of the 70s, or the big hair, spandex, leg warmers, etc of the 80s. I feel that the anti-aesthetic results one sees in retrospective come from going to extremes in any fashion of the moment. Perhaps eliminating a little hair, such as shoulder and back hair in men, or excessive facial, arm and leg hair (that might look masculine) or pubic hair that comes out of your underwear/bikini in women, isn't so bad. The problem is when people think that more is better in fashion matters (like what I mentioned previously; just check the John Waters movies Hairspray and Female Trouble) and want to remove all or almost all body hair.
Posted by: Ribozyme | June 27, 2007 1:15 PM
This is a fascinating thread.
There are several women on this thread who are very clearly saying that they have their own reasons for depilating that have nothing to do with poor body image or porn culture. People ought to listen to them. It's really frustrating to read people sharing thoughtful and personal explanations of their choices and then see others decide that those of us who wax can't be right about our own motivations; we must be herd animals or feel ugly or bad about our bodies.
I'd certainly buy that the woman in the story has incredibly severe body-image issues. But this case study is just that, a case study. It doesn't mean that waxing is suddenly terribly dangerous; just that like all other activities it carries some risks, especially for immunocompromised people. It's about one person with one constellation of disorders, both medical and psychological, that was interesting enough to her attending doctors that they wrote it up for publication.
A type 1 diabetic who has a history of ketoacidosis due to noncompliance with her insulin regimen and is hospitalized twice for beauty-treatment complications? Diabulimia, anyone? http://diabetes.about.com/b/a/000122.htm
On the face of it, this woman has serious psychological issues relating to her body. She's hardly representative of all of the millions/billions of pople who remove some portion of their body hair for reasons of culture, comfort, or sensuality.
JohnP says: "The body is not a document to be edited, with the cuts dictated by what, exactly?" Says who? Who are you to decide whether and how women "edit" our bodies? Body adornment and modification are ancient human impulses. Of course, like any impulse, they can have pathological expressions, like the woman in the case study; or can be a happy and pleasurable choice for personal gratification.
Some things: Really, truly, honestly. Some of us like the way it feels. The first time I got it done (a Mommy Brazillian, going by the description above), I couldn't stop touching myself. It was so smooth. I'd never really felt that skin before. It was, and continutes to be, intensely sensual FOR ME. That my partners like it too is only a bonus. If I was suddenly celibate for some reason (what a dreadful thought!) I'd probably still get it done. It feels good and it does make menstruation and sweaty summer gardening days more comfortable. I'll probably grow all my hair out again in the winter, like I usually do, for warmth. Body hair is useful for that, funnily enough:) But for summer, bare is definitely much cooler.
Speaking of partners, and cultural expectations: No one asked me to do it. None of my partners even knew I was going to get it done--I surprised 'em with my newly revealed parts. The boys liked it, and that was cool, but that was not the point. And I'm hardly the poster girl for beauty culture--I don't wear makeup, except toenail polish, and if it takes me ten minutes to get out of the house in the morning post-shower (including dressing and 'doing' my hair-hah!), I'm running way slow. So sorry, I don't buy that I've been pornified.
I'm not unaware of the dangerous pressures our society puts on women to conform to beauty norms. There are areas of society where waxing is the expectation rather than a free choice and I have a huge problem with that. It's expensive, for some it's painful, and for a small number it's dangerous. Nothing like that should be a requirement. However, I think that's got nothing to do with this particular procedure and everything to do with a society that teaches women that they are sexual objects rather than sexual subjects.
Pain: My experience is neither unique nor universal, but it didn't hurt for me. I'm a bit kinky, have a relatively high pain threshold, and have chosen other potentially painful body modifications along the way (tattoos, piercing). It was less painful than tattooing, for me, and I plan to get more tattoos. (The nipple piercing, on the other hand-yowza! But fun anyway.) I think of waxing as a (reversible) body modification along those lines. Body adornment and modification is an ancient human impulse. Of course, like any impulse, it can have a pathological expression, like the woman in the case study, or it can be a happy and pleasurable choice for personal gratification.
Posted by: Steph | June 27, 2007 1:32 PM
No matter how much people talk about the comfort/cleanliness/sensation advantages of Brazilian waxing or whatever, if it has always have been so great, I bet most of those people didn't do it before it became fashionable. Herd mentality, no less, with a large helping of rationalization.
I first became aware of pubic shaving from the Re-Search publication Modern Primitives, published in 1989. I thought it was a cool, slightly dangerous look, and I became an early adopter of partial shaving, sticking with it once I found out how pleasurable the results were.
But while I agree that more people are removing pubic hair now because it has become fashionable, it doesn't mean that everyone who shaves continues to do so just because they want to stay fashionable. Some people here have tried it, but found it painful, expensive, boring, time-consuming or just not worth the effort. And yet others continue to do it not because they're desperate to be part of the herd, but because they've discovered that they like it and that it has become fashionable enough that a much smaller proportion of people freak out when they encounter it. The herd mentality cuts both ways.
Posted by: Mary | June 27, 2007 1:35 PM
Ribozyme -
I shaved for the first time, when I was sixteen, fifteen years ago. Ironically, it was at the request of my first male lover. I quickly discovered that sex was just that much more fun shaved. At risk of horrifying those who think it's wrong, I have encouraged every partner I have had, mostly women, to shave their pubes if they didn't already. Most of them continued the practice, a couple of them make their partners shave too.
I honestly think that most people who do it, do it because they like it, not just because it's trendy. They probably did it the first time, because it's trendy, but then discovered that they like it.
What if genital hair gets caught in your teeth and under the tongue? Big deal! Just take a moment to take them out if they really make you uncomfortable (they don't do that to me).
It's not a big deal to you, for some (like me) it's a major turn off. I have been known to go quite flacid, after picking the pubes out of my mouth. To each there own.
The problem is when people think that more is better in fashion matters (like what I mentioned previously; just check the John Waters movies Hairspray and Female Trouble) and want to remove all or almost all body hair.
LOL, I actually had a really bad breakup once, that, coupled with having been on acid for a few weeks, caused me to decide to shave all of the hair on my body. It was a very bad idea. I mean really bad. I had cuts all over my scalp and managed to get a fairly ugly cut where my left eyebrow had been. When it was over, the only hair I had, was my right eyebrow and my butt hair.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 27, 2007 1:52 PM
The discussion is coming down to matters of taste (with the few exceptions of pathologies, like the case of the woman that started this thread). At least I'm not saying genital depilation is a bad thing in absolute value terms, only that I don't like it, in me or anybody else. The pro-wax faction have the freedom to like it, do it, and describe its perceived advantages. Leave us, te anti-wax faction, the freedom to dislike it and say why we dislike it.
Posted by: Ribozyme | June 27, 2007 2:05 PM
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C03E0DE1030F93AA2575BC0A9659C8B63
Cut it all off! No fleas, lice, or ticks!
Posted by: apy | June 27, 2007 4:29 PM
yow!!!! ... shaving my legs hurts, which is why at age 16 i did it once and never did it again
i shave my underarms or occasionally use a depilatory
i shaved my pubes once- surprisingly that hurt less than the legs but that itched horribly btw
now i just clip it short ... that started because i liked not hassling all that hair during my menstral flow
i only shave at all to keep from hassling with trying to keep that body hair as clean as i want it
Posted by: brightmoon | June 27, 2007 6:50 PM
Wah! Wah! Poor baby whining about "hard" women have it.
Posted by: . | June 27, 2007 7:11 PM
It's your body - do what you will with it. I'm not dictating anything, merely voicing my opinion. We're just blowing smoke through the intertubes here.
I was thinking, in particular, of the "extreme makeover" and the attitude behind this practice when I made the edit comment. I disagree that a woman's body is a document in need of improvement. I think of them more as moving works of art and beauty. A poor analogy, but it's all I can think of right now. I like them wholly natural, without a surgeon's knife or a tatooist's needle to fix things up. I just don't get body modification. It seems barbaric to me.
Ancient human impulses? The fact that people have been doing something for a long time holds no sway with me. People have been going to church and praying for millenia. I do neither.
Posted by: JohnP | June 27, 2007 8:43 PM
The case is a fairly young woman- mortality at the age of 20, for me, was inconceivable; the adolescent/post-adolescent need to challenge mortality is pretty widespread. A serious medical condition could either bring a young woman's future into focus or be a source of bitterness or rebellion. Also, the causes of this scorned "herd mentality" surround women from an extremely young age nowadays. Even the Disney channel features perky girls covered in makeup and trendy clothes. By 20, the ones who have sensed something wrong with this may sport furry pits in protest. The majority do not, being relatively weak or knowing no alternative way to be beautiful.
I'd venture to guess myself one of the youngest women to join this discussion, at 26. I feel a need to defend rather than accuse this young woman because not only is it not easy growing up :( but as a friend to nieces 10 years my junior I think that the expectations from society/media on young women to be pretty and popular, and how to be, are stronger, harder to avoid, and more commercial, than when I was a teenager. I first heard about the brazilian early in college; there were certainly circles in which not to have one meant guys wouldn't sleep with you. Being a budding (and fairly frumpy) nerdy science-gal, I was not interested in any of these people. But there are really- quite a lot of them, even in the 'newly educated' portion of the population.
Finally, my opinion is that the strong anti-beautification comments here are almost as negative as unrealisitic societal visions of beauty. Ideally, girls would know there's not a *certain way* to be beautiful and be free to make choices to feel most beautiful. Understanding one's sexuality is an essential part of that.
(btw never had a salon wax but shave my pubes regularly b/c it's sexy and only shave my pits/legs when the hair gets in the way. of course lots of people see the pits/legs but only 2 get to see the bare down-there)
Posted by: laura | June 27, 2007 10:03 PM
Having recently suffered from cellulitis on my foot, I have no difficulty imagining how this looked and felt.
There are two things that blow my mind about this story. First, she waited a week after symptoms appeared before seeking medical attention? It took me less than 48 hours with my foot, and in retrospect that was too long. Okay, seeking medical attention about your genitals is more embarrassing that about your foot, but between the massive swelling, the bright colors, and the pain, oh, the pain, the need for treatment is obvious.
Second, I'm not sure what I did to get infected, but I really wish I knew, so I can never do it again. All of the doctors I spoke to in the hospital asked me if I had any cuts on my foot or any bug bites, and all I could say was that I didn't that I knew of. I really wish the answer was something like "I was walking barefoot on broken glass," so I would know to avoid that in the future. I can't comprehend her decision to continue to get waxed after her first round of infection.
Posted by: Matthew Morse | June 28, 2007 1:02 AM
Ribozyme, I have grown these in culture, and is does make a great deodorant. Absolutely fabulous. Completely odorless, works very fast, and there is no need to bathe or reapply.
Posted by: daedalus2u | June 28, 2007 8:36 AM
I agree that this woman really needs psychiatric help. Her behavior is beyond neglectful and downright self-destructive.
Otherwise, to each their own. I like my pussy nicely trimmed. Shaving is too much work and I don't have the money for waxing. That's just me, though.
Of course, I went through a phase in college where I shaved my head but not my armpits or legs. Most people thought I was a lesbian, and I didn't mind.
After college when I had to find a job, I reverted to more acceptable forms of self-expression.
Posted by: Ruby | June 28, 2007 10:11 AM
We silly ladies. We really need a man to come in and tell us what's what. Here's a idea - how about a national news story to alert the male-dominated media that the constant messages they send that the natural female body is disgusting is seriously damaging women? Oh wait, that would require that they see us as human.
The woman in the story is not stupid and does not need psychiatric help. It's just not that easy to resist decades of cultural conditioning, and nobody is stupid or sick for capitulating.
Posted by: Frumious B | June 28, 2007 11:24 AM
Daedalus2u: I sure hope you are already working on the patent! Or if you want it to be free for everybody, how does one go about culturing the microorganisms (I have some experience in basic microbiology).Bye bye hardened and stained shirt armpits!
Posted by: Ribozyme | June 28, 2007 12:42 PM
I shaved for years, waxed and then finally got lasered last year. I have a landing strip and nothing on the underside.
And it's fantastic. no shaving, no waxing, no bumps, no ingrowns ever.
I started waxing and kept waxing because the sex was so much better as a result. I mean, you can tell a huge difference in sensitivity. Plus, I just like the look of being groomed. I expect my men to groom themselves a bit too. Keep your shit on the up and up.
Maybe people are different if they have been married for years or maybe it's a generational thing. It seems the younger crowd is much more into it than the older. That's just a guess. Older women I have talked to seem much more taken abck at the thought of brazillian waxing. Younger women seem to be more open or in favor of it. Not all, but moreso than older from my conversation.
Posted by: Jana | June 28, 2007 12:54 PM
Frumulis B.... nice post. I totally agree with you too. I don't even know if I am a result of what is considered normal for the female body. I probably am. I know a couple of guys who were speaking about females grooming themselves. They basically discuss what girls do and what girls don't groom. I remember one of them slept with a girl wih a full bush who I know is a beautiful girl from another country. They talked about it as though she were dirty and kind of gross for being au natural. I felt so bad for her. I also made a mental note to never sleep with any of them. I got the feeling that a lot of men discuss our grooming habits with their buddies after hooking up or whatever. This seriously bothered me. They just talked about her like she was a freak.
I was already waxed and lasered when I heard this particular conversation so it didnt encourage me to do anything I wasnt already doing. I just found it extremely interesting that men are so against us being natural.
Posted by: Jana | June 28, 2007 1:02 PM
Three words....
Laser Hair Removal
Posted by: Dude | June 28, 2007 1:18 PM
Welcome to the era of coiffed pussies.
As a young man, I became sexually active in college in the 70s. Women weren't shaving anything then. Legs or pits, let alone vulvas