…and this is a 
Mammals have hair. Get used to it.
Category: Weirdness
Posted on: June 26, 2007 8:04 PM, by PZ Myers
Tara has successfully grossed me out. She has an article on the unfortunate consequences of a bikini wax—a massive infection that turned the vulva and perineum into something resembling an over-ripe melon. And the woman who had this problem repeatedly tried to depilate afterwards!
I've never quite gotten the appeal of this practice. Is it to appeal to men with pedophilic tendencies? Or is it more of a desire to look like you've got a mollusc in your crotch? Everybody has their own little kink, so if hairless pubes appeal to two people, I'm not going to worry about it…but it seems to me it ought to be OK for a woman to want to look like a female mammal, and that individuals ought not to feel obligated to follow a very weird and highly artificial standard of beauty to the point where they suffer severe illnesses.
Comments
I think that should be "hairless pubis". "Hairless pubes" is a contradiction in terms.
Posted by: Caledonian | June 26, 2007 8:06 PM
"it ought ought to be OK for a woman to want to look like a female mammal"
Hear, hear!!!!! What PZ said.
(Cal: the "pubis" is a bone, therefore--usually--hairless. It should therefore be "hairless mons pubis.")
Posted by: CCP | June 26, 2007 8:12 PM
Thank you, CCP.
What he said.
Posted by: Caledonian | June 26, 2007 8:14 PM
Humans are remarkably weird sexual creatures, and sexual desires often follow no logic. I refrain from commenting on others kinks as long as both involved parties are consenting.
Some people like them extra hairy, some people like them hairless. Whatever floats your boat, there isn't a superior opinion.
Posted by: Robert | June 26, 2007 8:31 PM
OK, breaking out the "pedophiliac tendencies" in a discussion of body waxing forces me to point out that most men shave their faces regularly.
Posted by: outlier | June 26, 2007 8:33 PM
Speak for self, hooman!
Posted by: Bigfoot | June 26, 2007 8:35 PM
Doesn't the evolutionary tendency of homo to lose hair indicate that shavers are just impatient with the rate of evolution?
Posted by: Homostoicus | June 26, 2007 8:39 PM
Thanks PZ. I absolutely agree. I don't find the shaved look sexy at all.
In fact, I don't even get the obsession that women have with purging their underarm hair. Does that make me a communist?
Posted by: embarrassed | June 26, 2007 8:41 PM
First of all, ew.
Second, preferring my mammals furry, I cringe every time I hear an ad on the radio for hair removal services. It's not just women, either; I don't understand the obsession in some gay circles with removing body hair. My roommate (who's not quite as furry as a wookiee, but is certainly close) decided to experiment with Nair once, to look more like the kind of guy he's interested in; he looked like a giant red baby when he was done, between the hairlessness and chemical irritation of his skin. No thanks.
Posted by: Michael Vieths | June 26, 2007 8:54 PM
Really, now. Everyone does arbitrary things in the interest of enhancing their social appeal, frequently inspired by social convention. Some people find that surgery, exercise, tattoos, starvation, steroids, piercing, shaving, fashion, self-help programs, fragrances, drugs, alcohol, etc., make them more confident of the way they present themselves to the world. On the scale from healthy to neutral to dangerous, shaving and waxing are pretty close to neutral, despite one or more anecdotes to the contrary.
Let people do their thing, and bring themselves closer to what they want to be. Even if they choose to engage in risky body modification or other unhealthy behavior, that's their business. I'm not going to believe that people have never heard of infection, etc., so no use claiming ignorance. And if someone absorbs unhealthy aspirations from the media or whatever, I'll direct the blame to their own lack of critical thought before I campaign to adjust people's fashion sense and BMI through massive cultural revision.
Not that the original post suggests that, but you know the issue will come up.
Oh, and to Embarrassed (#8): No, of course favoring a natural body doesn't make you a communist!
It makes you a hippy.
Posted by: Spaulding | June 26, 2007 8:55 PM
I'm going with Robert on this one.
...and it isn't only practiced by women, btw...
Posted by: Curtis | June 26, 2007 9:17 PM
Don't look at the picture. Don't look at the picture. Don't look at the picture.
Posted by: H. Humbert | June 26, 2007 9:19 PM
I am under the impression this hairless thing was originally... um... *ahem*
all about the teeth, as it were. It then became a fad.
Posted by: GodlessHeathen | June 26, 2007 9:24 PM
I've never quite gotten the appeal of this practice. Is it to appeal to men with pedophilic tendencies?
Keeps 'em off the streets.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | June 26, 2007 9:24 PM
Pubic waxings seem like an odd thing to apply the naturalistic fallacy to.
Posted by: Patrick | June 26, 2007 9:28 PM
You speak as if this is some sort of new thing. Relatively hairless women (and men) are an ancient aesthetic. Frankly, it is rather amazing that people have been shaving long before decent razors were practicable. The desire for smooth skin seems a fairly common one that transcends many cultures and ages. Just look at old drawings, paintings and sculptures.
On Fresh Air, with Terri Gross, veteran pornographer Larry Flint noted how the aesthetics of pubic hair have changed 180 degrees from the 70's, when more was "better." The trend may well be cylical. Columnist Dan Savage notes that heterosexual men commonly shave and contends that the practice originated in the gay community. Notably, the gay community has an appreciation for smooth men and furry men in different extremes. The practice of men shaving is common enough that Panasonic markets the Body Groomer as a shaver specifically for the genitals using cheeky animated Flash ads depicting before and after Kiwi fruits.
I hardly think that this trend is one that you can pin strictly as being new, nor exclusive to women, and I hardly think one tragic example constitutes a trend any more than that photo of an attempted fence climber who slipped and punctured his face with a fence spike is an indication of a rash of tragic fence climbing. Anecdotes are not sufficient evidence to claim a significant trend.
Posted by: scote | June 26, 2007 9:33 PM
Also, check the history of glabrousness. Ancient egyptians removed pubic hair for numerous reasons. It's also part of muslim tradition.
Posted by: Curtis | June 26, 2007 9:33 PM
There's a picture?? I didn't see one.
It's bad, but my guess is that this has more to do with the fact that she's 20. Ten or 15 years from now she'll be embarrassed as hell about this. Probably she is embarassed as hell about it now.
I doubt it has anything to do with fetishes though. A lot of women do this so they don't look like they're hiding a cat in their bikini bottoms. Frankly, I don't blame them.
Posted by: Leni | June 26, 2007 9:35 PM
By all accounts Julius Caesar was one for plucking all of his body hair. I imagine that the pain had something to do with his wanting to conquer the world.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | June 26, 2007 9:40 PM
My wife speculated that the development of the grappling techniques in Brazilian jiu jitsu went hand in hand, as it were, with the development of Brazilian waxing.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | June 26, 2007 9:43 PM
Comfort, feeling/looking sexy, something special for partner, current trends, better/more oral... all reasons that have come up in discussions with some of my female friends as to why they trim. The last is my main reason I prefer hairless, not closet pedo tendencies. In fact, the pedo thing is very non critical thinking, not typical for PZ, as is the anti mollusk statement. A bearded clam is one thing, but what guy wouldn't like to have a bigger mussel.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 26, 2007 9:45 PM
What??? I thought vagina dentata was just a myth--oh, er, never mind...
Posted by: scote | June 26, 2007 9:45 PM
I'll bring over my comment from Tara's blog:
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 9:46 PM
I've always assumed that it's just the natural progression from the very same neotenous tendancies which cause women to not have hair over most of the rest of their bodies. I've heard the burdened-with-outrage comparisons to pedophelia, and certainly there's some truth to this, but no more so than there is truth to the fact that we prefer beardless women to bearded women is essentially pedophelic im nature.
This is an arc we've been on, as a species, for as long as we've been a species.
Posted by: Dave Littler | June 26, 2007 9:49 PM
OT
Well, I hate to get too far off topic but should we be greatful or not that there is no muscle involved in the later. I'd hate to think about the Nautilus machine at the gym for such a thing--and you just know people never towel the exercise machines off properly.
Anyways, back on topic. Is there really a high inherent risk of massive infection from waxing? I'm afraid to RTFA in case there is a picture. I know that there have been a number of bad infections from pedicure foot baths in my area, though I don't know why PZ hasn't gone off on women for having their toenails expertly groomed: women are mammals, they have nails, get used to it....
Posted by: scote | June 26, 2007 9:51 PM
I have experimented with shaving and not shaving my armpits; when not shaven, after a while they tend to get very smelly very quickly even with deodorant.
Also for men:
http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/body-care/waxing/363883/
Sack, Crack and Back Wax
Posted by: khan | June 26, 2007 10:00 PM
I like my men hairy and bearded, and my boyfriend likes his women hairy (but unbeared). Luckily, we found one another.
Posted by: helen | June 26, 2007 10:01 PM
I agree with the Robster that the visual enjoyment of a bare mons veneris etc has nothing to do with pedo tendancies. As Mary implied, its about the exposure of a fully grown sexual woman.
That being said, au naturale is just fine too, although landing strips are just ridiculous!
Posted by: KiwiInOz | June 26, 2007 10:09 PM
oooh... a topic with an "ick/huh?" factor!
Thank you Mary [#23], for the forthright explanation, which I can heartily second. I can only offer this additionally: It's also easier to keep the area clean during menstruation. 'nuff said.
As far as pedophilia, I also immediately thought of guys who shave their beards, too. Are they trying to look like young boys? No. I imagine that most of the reasons men shave their beards are the same (although with maybe a slightly different dynamic) as womens who shave "down there."
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | June 26, 2007 10:09 PM
"Is there really a high inherent risk of massive infection from waxing?"
Of course there isn't.
And to carry PZ's argument to its logical conclusion, why ought'nt we find women with hairy breasts attractive? Hm?
Posted by: notthedroids | June 26, 2007 10:11 PM
My girl pointed out that women don't particularly care for what can get trapped in pubic hair. Have you ever cut your head and gotten blood in it? Under a hat? For hours?
Right, then.
Posted by: Moody834 | June 26, 2007 10:13 PM
oh, and the aptly named "Venus" razor works fine... Not sure I'd feel comfortable with someone waxing my naughty bits.
;-)
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | June 26, 2007 10:16 PM
What a disappointment. When I first read the topic title I thought we were going to be treated to pictures of hairy dolphins and whales.
Posted by: Robert Bell | June 26, 2007 10:24 PM
You want the real reason for shaving in the ancient world?
Lice! Seriously, the scorched earth policy works pretty well for getting rid of and preventing contamination by the little blighters. In ancient egypt it was the norm for men and women to go hairless, and the rich would wear wigs.
Posted by: Wildcardjack | June 26, 2007 10:26 PM
Good call, scote.
Brazilian waxing's certainly not my thing; still, I've heard worse.
Posted by: RavenT | June 26, 2007 10:27 PM
I thought my argument was that standards of beauty shouldn't be so narrow that some women feel compelled to risk their health to meet them, not that breasts look better with a pelt.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 26, 2007 10:27 PM
It itches.
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | June 26, 2007 10:33 PM
[quote]Or is it more of a desire to look like you've got a mollusc in your crotch?[/quote]
I'm not sure someone who regularly wishes for 6 more arms has room to question the desire of another to more closely resemble an oceanic invertebrate. Rather a case of the pot calling the kettle brushed stainless as I see it.
Posted by: Random Critic | June 26, 2007 10:35 PM
A little light trimming is usually all that's required to present "the bearded clam" to its best advantage. Anything more than that is overkill, and as you mention, can be unhealthy.
Posted by: Mooser | June 26, 2007 10:40 PM
I'd have to second Spaulding's observation that of the many things men and women do for social reasons, shaving and waxing do not seem to rate too highly on the "risk their health" scale. Your concern for women's health should apply equally to leg and underarm shavers, as well as men who shave their faces--not to mention ear, eyebrow and aureola pluckers. Although the skin in pubic region can be more delicate, the principles involved are the same, so the concern seems primarily motivated by your disdain for the particular aesthetic in question rather than the actual magnitude of dangers posed by depilitation.
Posted by: scote | June 26, 2007 10:41 PM
I've recently been converted to the hairless camp. Let's just say, the transition made me feel like I've been having sex with my clothes on all this time. Much more surface area is exposed and there's more space to ummm...work. I won't go back.
Posted by: Beth | June 26, 2007 10:41 PM
"I thought my argument was that standards of beauty shouldn't be so narrow that some women feel compelled to risk their health to meet them[.]"
Waxing the undercarriage is hardly a health risk. Millions of women do it all the time with nothing but a bit of pain afterwards. It's tempting to turn every unfortunate accident into a grand statement about society's ills.
If the story were about breast augmentation I might buy it.
Posted by: notthedroids | June 26, 2007 10:42 PM
Pedophilic? Seriously? This seems beneath a science blogger. For me it is a personal preference for hygiene (or the perception of hygiene. Oh, and the 'two people,' comment is way way way off.
Posted by: Ryan | June 26, 2007 10:46 PM
PZ, the phrase you're looking for is "I blame the patriarchy."
Personally, I used to shave everything and now I don't shave anything. One too many infected ingrown hairs and one too many hand twitches at exactly the wrong moment cured me of ever wanting to get anything razor-like near there again. (You folks with the depilated pink bits must have awfully straight, well-behaved hair!) Frankly, any improvement in sensation one might have noticed (I can't say I did) is vastly and hugely overwhelmed by stubble (which feels awful and itches something terrible -- those of you who said that underarm hair itches, let it grow in until it gets soft!), the bloody boring time and effort it takes to keep it up (because, let's face it, "girl maintenance" activities are deadly dull), and those omnipresent ingrown hairs. Ow. One of those can ruin your whole afternoon.
Not to mention that if you do use a razor, as opposed to waxing (which I am admittedly way too much of a wimp to do), getting a razor nick under your armpit is misery, _and_ prevents you from using deodorant for days.
On top of that, all this shit costs money! Like I can't find better homes for those dollars I'd be spending on depilating myself -- my body isn't someone else's object, and if they can't deal with my au naturel legs, pits, and pubis, well, they can go scratch...
Why bother, seriously?
Posted by: Interrobang | June 26, 2007 10:54 PM
The practice of shaving one's whatzit bald or nearly so did not become widespread until about 8 to 10 years ago. I would speculate that today it is more common than not in the under-40 set.
Some won't go 100% and opt to leave a tiny little tuft -- the equivalent of a "soul patch" on a man's chin (I could substitute a word that rhymes with "patch" but will demur). This is apparently a token concession to being post-pubertal.
I don't blame women for shaving hither and yon. I am not a hairy guy, thankfully, but what little hair I do have I don't like and I have been known to eliminate almost all of it. Once I almost sliced my right nipple off in the shower, but have since wised up and learned to use a thumb to provide protective coverage.
Posted by: kemibe | June 26, 2007 10:55 PM
"[L]anding strips are just ridiculous!"
It's like getting oral from Hitler.
Posted by: notthedroids | June 26, 2007 10:56 PM
That female equivalent of the soul patch also happens to be in the area that I found to be the most painful spot to deal with. I'm sure that's just a coincidence. :)
Posted by: Mary | June 26, 2007 10:57 PM
"Why bother, seriously?"
Exactly. The attentions of someone who could attract someone else are sooooooo overrated.
I mean, why even bother showering?
Posted by: notthedroids | June 26, 2007 11:01 PM
"if they can't deal with my au naturel legs, pits, and pubis, well, they can go scratch..."
You must be beating them off with a stick 24/7. My condolences.
Posted by: notthedroids | June 26, 2007 11:03 PM
Re: #44
Shaving is nowhere near as good as waxing as far as sensation. Because, yeah, the stubble is like sandpaper. But if you can get those hairs out by the roots, it makes the skin all soft. It's in a totally different ballpark.
Posted by: Beth | June 26, 2007 11:03 PM
I should also note that both men and women get hairier as the progress through middle age, gaining more and fuller body hair. For some, waxing is an attempt to maintain parity. One friend of mine decided to go with what has been described here as a Mommy Brazilian in response to the inconvenience of hair around the anus--a condition more familiar to men than women. So, for her, waxing is not something she does for "narrow standards of beauty" that compel her to meet a social norm.
I think your conclusions were premature and, perhaps, more visceral than factual.
Posted by: scote | June 26, 2007 11:11 PM
Posted by: scote | June 26, 2007 11:18 PM
I'm male, and I shave my underarms and everything covered up by a pair of boxers. Yes, PZ, it's to appeal to pedophile wimmins.
Posted by: Dennis | June 26, 2007 11:26 PM
I suspect that if men grew thick hair on the shafts of their penises, it would be in fashion for them to shave or wax it--at least if they wanted to get oral sex.
Posted by: Guav | June 26, 2007 11:38 PM
Can't stand it for even a few days. I look like I have lice with all the scratching I do. :(
I got one of those razors that has little bars of soap attached to it, and I use gel on top of that, so it's really hard for me to cut myself accidentally.
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | June 26, 2007 11:52 PM
this may sound crude, but its pretty much the truth about why it appeals to men, or me at least. nobody likes putting their mouth on a big wad of hair.
Posted by: justin | June 27, 2007 12:02 AM
I will not comment on this thread other than to say that I am glad that shaving one's face is looked upon as "normal". I have the world's ugliest beard. It is scanty, it has bald patches in strange locations, it is asymmetrical, it is multicoloured, it has gone prematurely white - I could go on and on. Why should I inflict this horror on innocent passers-by? Thank the FSM for razors!
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | June 27, 2007 12:10 AM
Is it really possible that you need as few as two people to have sex?
Posted by: grasshopper | June 27, 2007 12:14 AM
This case exemplifies the kind that strikes me as poor for drawing a moral. The patient made several poor judgments: waiting so long to seek medical treatment after serious symptoms showed, insulting the area again soon thereafter, and ignoring the issue of several underlying risk factors. Without knowing the individual, it's hard to say how much of that is obsession with some beauty standard, how much refusal to face the reality of the underlying diseases (diabetes, HSV), and how much something else entirely. I agree with PZ that people shouldn't risk health to meet beauty standards. But I find that bites more as social criticism when the example is a common one, rather than a very peculiar case.
The other thing that grates on me about such peculiarity used as example is the distortion of risk assessment that goes along with that. If I point to someone who drowned after falling off a pier fishing, no one thinks that therefore recreational fishing is particularly dangerous. We just recognize that odd things happen: people choke on food in restaurants, get struck by lightening playing golf, suffer anaphylaxis from insect stings at picnics, and catch the flu in movie theatres. Nothing is safe. Not even staying home. Is waxing or shaving one's pubic hair particularly risky? I doubt it. But if enough people do it, some will die from it. That's guaranteed, regardless of what "it" is, and even if one can't predict what the causal connection will be. Does that in any form or fashion then condemn the activity? Or if we object to the activity anyway, is it then fair to say, "look! Someone has died from it!"
Maybe I haven't explained well why this irks me. But it does. And it has nothing to do with glabrousness.
Posted by: Russell | June 27, 2007 12:18 AM
Hear, hear!! (or perhaps, "Hair, hair!"
Posted by: Diego | June 27, 2007 12:37 AM
Must be something in the hair tonight. this was on digg
Posted by: RamblinDude | June 27, 2007 12:42 AM
justin at #56...
If you're putting your mouth on a big wad of hair, you're doing it wrong! The 'target' area for your attentions is that hair-free area in the middle. Personally, I refuse to discriminate towards a woman on this issue, having enjoyed both.
Posted by: justpaul | June 27, 2007 12:45 AM
I really wish you'd retract that asinine "pedophilic tendencies" speculation. It's insulting and base, and it sharply detracts from an otherwise noble point.
Pubic hair is one sign among many of pubescence. As such, adolescents have pubic hair, but are not mature. Likewise, no one can honestly confuse an adult woman for a child simply because she is shorn. In short, the presence of pubic hair is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish sexual maturity. If you're at all confused by this, I must remember to steer adolescents well clear of you. (And if it offends that I might suggest you're a danger to children, well, you have my empathy.)
Posted by: dak | June 27, 2007 12:47 AM
*ahem* Lets just say it gets things out of the way. And hair tickles the nose.
Posted by: The Anonymous Atheist | June 27, 2007 12:52 AM
I agree with PZ here. If our creator wanted us to fornicate hairlessly, he'd've designed us as such. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve (the second Eve having shaved her pubes).
Posted by: Patrick | June 27, 2007 1:09 AM
Well, actually he did for some of us...
So, the argument from Biblical naturalism--so wrong on so many levels, so ironic to use at Pharyngula. Of course, if you do buy Genesis (pick one), what makes you think Adam and Eve weren't smooth twinks? After all, they didn't go through puberty having been created as fully formed adults, and why would they have sex organs always? They didn't have kids until they were cast out of Eden.
And of course your argument means that clothes, deodorant, beds, sheets, toothpaste, toilet paper--whatever--are wrong, too.
Perhaps you were kidding???
Posted by: scote | June 27, 2007 1:32 AM
I don't know about everyone else, but I see PZ's comment as really showing his personality and philosophy.
Christians, or most humans, need to acknowledge that they are mammals. Let's all just get in touch with our mammal.
Posted by: Adrian | June 27, 2007 1:46 AM
i only had mine shaved once (as fair balance to my request that my girlfriend do it.) suddenly i had an extra 2 inches!
Posted by: djlactin | June 27, 2007 1:49 AM
Er, touch whatever you want. Me, I'm going to leave my cat out of this...
Posted by: scote | June 27, 2007 1:52 AM
Leviticus 8:14 'The Lord wisheth not to look upon thy apertures and antennae; wished he thus he would not have covered them in the manner of beaver and squirrel tail (respectively).'
This is a very curious Pharyngula post for two reasons: 1) things will be awkward in the halls of the UM-M science faculty, at least for a while, knowing that PZ considers many of his colleagues closet-pedophiles (or wives thereto); 2) PZ's mammal-based argument seems (to me) analogous to the homophobic Adam & (St)eve argument, to which observation I tried in #65 to spoof.
Posted by: Patrick | June 27, 2007 1:58 AM
OT
...ahh...sometimes humor can be subtle. Perhaps different kinds of humor should be set in different fonts to identify it? I tend to favor Sarcastica Heavy or Ironic Oblique...
Posted by: scote | June 27, 2007 2:06 AM
Personally, I hate the shaved look. I like the hair.
I also had a chance to walk a mile in those shoes, and I suspect I'm not alone. I had a vasectomy (two's more than enough, thank you) for which I had to shave.
The shaving is bad enough; the regrowth was awful. It was so darned irritating.
I've been with my wife for over 20 years now, and I'd never dream of asking my wife to do this. I might nightmare it, but never dream it.
And yes, I always thought shaving fulfilled some sort of "I get me a 12 year old every night" sort of sick fantasy.
Posted by: MikeM | June 27, 2007 2:12 AM
Do I dare dissent and say that I actually do like the bikini waxes (not shaved! Merely restricted and groomed to a certain area and length)?
That being said I must point out:
1) I would never expect any partner to do anything for me if she didn't want to do it for herself first. Nor would I ever attempt to stop any partner for doing something for herself simply because I either didn't get it or didn't want her too.
2) Lots of men and women do these things for themselves rather than to please their partners, and I think that's exactly how it should be. I shave because I don't like getting food in my beard and I don't like getting in-grown hair folicles and I don't like the way a beard just makes me feel shaggy. (Of course, I hate shaving too so...) I had a girlfriend who likes beards but she had to suffer for coming later in my life than a girlfriend who made me pluck my eyebrows. Never again! And I will never ask any woman to do anything for me.
Also, I "like" it in the "Gee, that's kinda neat sense", not in the "Oh my god, that's so hot! And all women who don't look nasty" sense.
oh, and
3) I'm well aware that *I* would never voluntarily have a bikini wax, and that makes me saying I like them sound like a hypocrite but I'm not. Saying that I like them doesn't implies that I think women should do them, any more then hearing a woman saying she likes smooth chests mean I should get a full body wax.
Posted by: woozy(the silver otter) | June 27, 2007 2:42 AM
I must also admit to enjoying the shaved (or waxed) look. As with woozy, I would never request someone to perform it for my benefit, but I do appreciate it when it's presented.
I think that the appeal of it has less to do with the aesthetics of the look, but rather with the effort involved.
To put it another way, the fact that my girlfriend makes the time and effort to groom a part of her body entirely for my benefit is the nice part... the actual result is secondary.
Posted by: 01 | June 27, 2007 3:23 AM
I always find it funny when PZ hoists up his skirts and gets into a full-on Maude Flanders think-of-the-children flounce.
Less hair = more tongue. That's all there is to it. And everyone's happy.
Posted by: ben | June 27, 2007 3:54 AM
A few points:
Humans are mammals, the "pedophile" speculation is naive and uncalled for, and this woman is an idiot.
Now, possibly TMI but central to my argument: I'm also somewhat skeptical of the sanity of anyone who undertakes a hair-removal treatment that involves pulling it out by the roots. However, so 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 (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.
So, no. 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 "pedophilic tendencies." :/
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 27, 2007 3:55 AM
I would just like to clarify, that clean and smooth, has nothing to do with pedophilic tendencies. I'm only thirty-one and find early twenties disturbing. I just like the way it looks, the way it feels and I really hate picking pubic hair, out of my mouth. Also, I keep my pubes nice and tightly trimmed. My partner and I both do, as she can't shave herself without cutting herself and we can only really get away with me doing it once a week - and that's kind of touchy after the five year old decided to wake up and walk into the bathroom once, while I was shaving her. It may have been coincidence, but he ended up in our bed later, complaining of bad dreams. We just use the mustache guard on the clippers and all is good.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 27, 2007 4:06 AM
Khan @ 26,
I'd encountered the "back, sack and crack" wax for men on a UK semi-documentary about a beauty salon (probably Channel 4). The memorable phrase of the narrator was that it left the bloke's scrotum looking "like a napalmed hamster".
Never felt the urge to wax after hearing that.
Posted by: Ross S | June 27, 2007 4:07 AM
Posted by: Manly Tears | June 27, 2007 4:09 AM
"Gee, that's kinda neat"
I presume you have no idea what "gee", when said with a hard "g", means in Hiberno-English.
It's funny because he said "gee".
Posted by: ben | June 27, 2007 4:14 AM
A long time lurker,and I choose to respond to a "shaving body hair" post...way to go..:-#
Liking the smooth side of things is NOT a sign of Paedophilia, it's convenient for Oral..as in, no irritating hairs in mouth etc. If my wife likes it (and I think she does.. if i am allowed to blow my own trumpet..!!!), then she co-operates in much the same fashion as I shave my face so that I am not like coarse grade sandpaper to kiss.
I came here from Dawkins, BTW, and I love the blog...so now I've broken my silence I hope to post comments more often..if I can keep up with the obviously greater science knowledge of you people..I am just a layman with a love of science in general and a healthy disrespect for organised child brainwashing, sorry, 'religion'.
Be gentle with me. Thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: ManicRevere | June 27, 2007 4:56 AM
Humans may be grossed out, but chimpanzees are probably applauding!
Posted by: windy | June 27, 2007 5:18 AM
To put it another way, the fact that my girlfriend makes the time and effort to groom a part of her body entirely for my benefit is the nice part...
Actually, I feel the nice part is that she knows herself well enough to know what she wants and that she's willing to talk to me about it that I like.
I honestly think of it as something women do for themselves and I'm grateful when they let me in on the details.
#80 I presume you have no idea what "gee", when said with a hard "g", means in Hiberno-English.
I assume it isn't clarified butter?
Um, isn't "Gee!" the proper response to something like this? I mean, Gee, c'mon.
Posted by: woozy(maybe I have low self-esteem) | June 27, 2007 5:56 AM
rather than the actual magnitude of dangers posed by depilitation.
Scote, did you read the article? Did you look at the picture? That was quite a magnitude of dangers, there. And I think the main point wasn't that oh, there was this problem and she got infected, it was that after that she did it again. And ended up in the hospital, again. And then still planned to do it again. That goes beyond "feeling better" or "personal preference". None of those arguments apply if you look at the picture of what happened to her. THAT isn't pleasurable or comfortable for anyone. Sure, you can't generalize from the anecdote of one messed-up person, but that is some evidence of a pretty powerful ingrained social meme for her to continue to think this is something she should be doing, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Carlie | June 27, 2007 6:23 AM
But the stubble shadow is a sign of a grown man - the kind who knows how to shave. ;-)
Really, facial hair has all sorts of problems, so the increased risk for infection from a shave is easier to motivate.
Other hair is mostly an estetical question, and for some a fetish. (There are methods that can amend problems mentioned above. Thankfully the marginal of this comment is too small to get into personal hygiene issues. :-) And signs of preadolescence/old age and sickness comes into it of course.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so one thing I react to is what PZ touches, the idea that a fashion is a standard. I rather like variation and surprises...
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | June 27, 2007 6:24 AM
Embarassed wrote:
I don't even get the obsession that women have with purging their underarm hair. Does that make me a communist?
No, just French. ;-)
Just kidding--the "natural look" is so common in Europe you stop noticing it after awhile; then you get kind of a reverse culture shock when you come back to the USA.
Posted by: JJR | June 27, 2007 7:04 AM
See, this bothers me. This is tantamount to saying a woman has to shave in order to meet some general baseline of attractiveness. This, if you ask me, is what we don't want.
I don't shave at all, by the way. I suspect my resolve is helped along by the fact that I'm not that hairy to begin with, but mostly I just think that it's important that women should feel like they have that option, so I'm going to stand up for it.
Posted by: Lynet | June 27, 2007 7:09 AM
I jus' wanna say how sorry I am the Rev Falwell got called. This the right place to do it, ain't it? They tole me this wuz a condolence book.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | June 27, 2007 7:10 AM
Lynet -this thread has been one big exercise in male entitlement and privledge complexes.
Of course he thinks women who don't shave are unhygenic. I'm willing to bet he thinks menstruating women shouldn't be allowed near swimming pools too. Girls are icky, you see.
Posted by: