The Naked Truth article in The Guardian

Setun

Slightly random topic to bring up, but I was reading an article titled Pubic Hair Removal: The Naked Truth in the Guardian last week. It was in their most read articles section, and surprisingly today, almost a week after it was initially published, it's still the second most read article in the life and style section. Personally, I found the article slightly frustrating (although well written :rolleyes:) with its lazy generalisations and aggressive attitude towards men, and women to an extent. For example:

But men in the non-porn world are not dedicating themselves to full deforestation, writing about it in major publications as though it's a serious consideration, or putting pressure on other men to do it. Men are not as cowed, self-hating, obedient or biddable as women in this regard.

Will a woman really do everything she can to meet every passing fad, even if it's uncomfortable, time-consuming, irritating, expensive, troubling, humiliating? And look at the reward: intercourse with a porn-adoring male who actually loathes women's real, naked, hairy bodies?

Upon seeing some real hair on a real woman for the first time they may well vomit or faint, or both. That is something I'd like to see: a man so dizzied by the shortfall between reality and his own ignorance that his brain can't take it and he loses consciousness.

I'm not quite sure if she's being facetious, or perhaps she's stuck in the militant feminism of the 70s. Haven't we moved on from the "All Men Are To Blame" ideology? Aren't there plenty of men who just get on with their life without forming any secret societies to define how women should fashion their body hair? Or maybe it's the freemasons

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/11/womens-pubic-hair-removal-porn

Elle Collins

The woman has a very valid point. Many men make it perfectly clear to women that any sign of public hair is disgusting, out of order, and not to be tolerated. I've seen comments along those lines here on boards and experienced them in my own personal life. What else do people imagine cultivated these attitudes if not porn?

--Kaiser--

The reason I prefer women to be 'deforested' (as it is so quaintly put) is that it makes cunnilingus much easier and more pleasurable for the female. By and large, male pubic hair doesn't get in the way of oral sex.

I find it strange that some women are disgusted at other women shaving their privates yet they themselves wouldn't be caught dead without shaved legs and armpits.

Count Duckula

Elle Collins wrote: »

The woman has a very valid point. Many men make it perfectly clear to women that any sign of public hair is disgusting, out of order, and not to be tolerated. I've seen comments along those lines here on boards and experienced them in my own personal life. What else do people imagine cultivated these attitudes if not porn?

I don't think you can blame porn as much as general societal standards. It's not porn that insists women should have hairless legs, for example, nor is it porn that demand women shave their armpits.

I'm not saying that it's any more fair, mind you, but just that it's more of a society-wide thing that women are meant to be these hairless creatures rather than one inflicted by porn. I mean, you don't get women in highly religious countries where porn is illegal or at least unwatched having hairy legs and armpits.

Also, I think you're being a bit overboard with stating many men say "any sign of public hair is disgusting, out of order, and not to be tolerated." That sort of militant, generalising attitude is what drags topics into gender wars!

Personally, I don't give a hoot about my girlfriend's pubic area, other than for hygiene reasons. When I'm... down there, I don't want pubic hairs sticking up my nose, so I do prefer them trimmed short. It tends to be cleaner and fresher smelling when they're trimmed, too. I don't expect it shaped, waxed, shaved, styled or even bald. Just trimmed quite neatly to keep everything attractive down there.

28064212

A man who likes a woman without pubic hair despises adult women so much that he wants us to resemble children

No surprise she brought this incredibly ridiculous argument into it. Anyone who looks at an adult woman's pubic area and thinks it looks like a child's has serious problems. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pubic hair question.

Elle Collins

Count Duckula wrote: »

I don't think you can blame porn as much as general societal standards. It's not porn that insists women should have hairless legs, for example, nor is it porn that demand women shave their armpits.

I'm not saying that it's any more fair, mind you, but just that it's more of a society-wide thing that women are meant to be these hairless creatures rather than one inflicted by porn.

I think you have a point here, but actually I find these 'general societal standards' more worrying for women, not less.

Count Duckula wrote: »

I mean, you don't get women in highly religious countries where porn is illegal or at least unwatched having hairy legs and armpits.

How would we know, given they are covered from head to toe in the Burka?

Count Duckula wrote: »

Also, I think you're being a bit overboard with stating many men say "any sign of public hair is disgusting, out of order, and not to be tolerated."

I actually wish I was dramatising some of the comments I've read and heard.

Count Duckula

Elle Collins wrote: »

How would we know, given they are covered from head to toe in the Burka?

Because for someone to be devoutly religious and anti-pornography they must be Muslim?

Logical Fallacy

People should probably read this and the accompanying PDF, lazily sprouting "it's all porn's fault" is boring.


http://hellonhairylegs.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/a-hairy-history-the-removal-of-body-hair/

Elle Collins

Count Duckula wrote: »

Because for someone to be devoutly religious and anti-pornography they must be Muslim?

This line of debate is really deflecting from the subject at hand.

You've already stated: "I'm not saying that it's any more fair" that women are socially pressured to adjust their physicality in these ways. Surely you'd contend then that pornography dictating women should do so is hardly "fair" either?

Logical Fallacy

Elle Collins wrote: »

This line of debate is really deflecting from the subject at hand.

You've already stated: "I'm not saying that it's any more fair" that women are socially pressured to adjust their physicality in these ways. Surely you'd contend then that pornography dictating women should do so is hardly "fair" either?

Like i said, the pornography argument is lazy as hell. Ancient Greece was ****ing MAD for hairless women. You couldn't exactly log on to Pornhub back in the day.

Dig deeper.

Also, you are the one who made the Muslim reference originally, no point in giving out that it's being expanded upon.

Otis Driftwood

Pubic hair on partners doesnt bother me (within reason of course).

Trends dictate what people will do.

Yes,you could argue the point that porn has influenced this type of trend however pick up an issue of Cosmopolitan or similar magazines and the overwhelming majority (that Ive seen at least) proclaim the benefits of being bare downstairs.Hell even a poll in tLL pointed that the majority of voters (females I hasten to add ) preferred some degree of hairlessness with varying reasons for doing so from aesthetic reasons,sexual reasons etc but there didnt seem to be many that pointed that the reason they did it was because society dictated it.

As for the below snippets from the quoted article

who actually loathes women's real, naked, hairy bodies?

and

Upon seeing some real hair on a real woman for the first time they may well vomit or faint, or both.

What irredeemably retarded sentiments.

Jesus if I was female Id keep it completely bare if for no other reason than to disagree with that clap trap.:rolleyes:

Count Duckula

Elle Collins wrote: »

This line of debate is really deflecting from the subject at hand.

You've already stated: "I'm not saying that it's any more fair" that women are socially pressured to adjust their physicality in these ways. Surely you'd contend then that pornography dictating women should do so is hardly "fair" either?

The reason women feel the need to be largely hairless is not because porn tells to, it's because society and the expectation of men does. And men don't expect it because porn tells them to, they expect it because other men tell them to.

Porn shows what people want to see. It's not some great cultural trendsetter, forcing women to have bare pubic regions for no other reason that because they want to make their actresses. Why would the actresses do that if it weren't the "norm"? Porn might reflect the problem, but it's not the cause of it.

Count Duckula

Also, having had a look through some of the author's other articles, I think this one makes slightly more sense. The woman is a deranged man-hater, and I don't mean that as some sort of laddish put-down, I mean she bloody HATES men.

Look at some of these:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/11/womens-pubic-hair-removal-porn (Getting rid of pubic hair plays to the fact that all men are paedophiles and porn-obssessed and all men are evil.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/05/bidisha-thought-for-day-romance (Romance sucks and all men are evil.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/29/bidisha-pregnancy (Fathers treat the mothers of their children like dirt and all men are evil.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/30/casual-sexism-misogyny (all men are sexists. Also, all men are evil.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/01/bidisha-thought-for-the-day-marriage (Marriage is for idiots and husbands treat their wives like dogs. All men are evil.)

I think you get the point.

Elle Collins

Count Duckula wrote: »

The reason women feel the need to be largely hairless is not because porn tells to, it's because society and the expectation of men does. And men don't expect it because porn tells them to, they expect it because other men tell them to.

What you're presenting here is a chicken-and-egg situation. I don't think it's relevant whether the expectation of men influences women either directly or via fetishes reflected in the pornography so many men subscribe to; I think what is relevant is that, either way, women are influenced to adapt their physical selves for the benefit of men.

--Kaiser--

Elle Collins wrote: »

What you're presenting here is a chicken-and-egg situation. I don't think it's relevant whether the expectation of men influences women either directly or via fetishes reflected in the pornography so many men subscribe to; I think what is relevant is that, either way, women are influenced to adapt their physical selves for the benefit of men.

How is this different from make-up, push up bras, high heels et alia?

Setun

What really grabbed me about the article - apart from the central argument - was the fact that she essentially refers to all men and all women, seemingly without exception. Maybe her editor has hired her as an agent provocateur, knowing that controversy will ensure people will read her articles in the future. But really - how useful is it to blame "Men"? I'm a man, and I haven't started any crusades personally, and I'd also go as far as assuming that other men aren't organising body fascist vigilante gangs examining women's bodies either.

So why exactly is it men's fault? Does she mean it is the fault of the few powerful men who control the media channels that dictate fashion and trends to us? Or is it the fault of men for tolerating - and not challenging - the assumption that we don't necessarily want nubile nymphs that look more like dolls than humans? Grooming tips and advice dominates women's and men's magazines, maybe the (male or female) editors of Cosmopolitan and the other glossies should take the lead as they seem to be the ones promoting it incessantly. Although the cultivation of body-fear is how these magazines ensure consumer subscription: "god forbid I fall out of step with the current body trends, better keep buying that magazine." :rolleyes:

Maguined

Why is it wrong to have a preference?

Even if you just assume that it is men wanting women to be hairless why is this a bad thing? people can have a preference and a desire all they want it doesn't make it wrong, it's up to individuals to decide if they want to spend the effort and time to meet these preferences in order to attract those people.

Beards on men is largely out of fashion, many women will not be attracted to a man with a full beard, there is nothing wrong with women that do not like beards, they are perfectly entitled to their own personal desires and tastes just as a man is allowed to have a personal desire and preference for their partners pubic hair. It is not like they are demanding women groom a certain way, its just a personal preference so there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

The "natural" and "real" woman having hair debate is also pointless, its not natural to brush your teeth but that does not mean plaque and rotten bleeding gums is more attractive because it is more natural than minty clean teeth.

The whole article is pointless nonsense.

strobe

Elle Collins wrote: »

What you're presenting here is a chicken-and-egg situation. I don't think it's relevant whether the expectation of men influences women either directly or via fetishes reflected in the pornography so many men subscribe to; I think what is relevant is that, either way, women are influenced to adapt their physical selves for the benefit of men.

......and men are influenced to adapt their physical selves to appear more attractive to women. .....and gay men are influenced to adapt their physical selves to appear more attractive to other gay men ........and lesbians are influenced to adapt their physical selves to appear more attractive to other lesbians ........and male chameleons change themselves from a distinguished and respectable browny green colour into something an acid head would have nightmares about just cause they know the chicks dig it.



Get over it.

strobe

Count Duckula wrote: »

Also, having had a look through some of the author's other articles, I think this one makes slightly more sense. The woman is a deranged man-hater, and I don't mean that as some sort of laddish put-down, I mean she bloody HATES men.

Look at some of these:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/11/womens-pubic-hair-removal-porn (Getting rid of pubic hair plays to the fact that all men are paedophiles and porn-obssessed and all men are evil.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/05/bidisha-thought-for-day-romance (Romance sucks and all men are evil.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/29/bidisha-pregnancy (Fathers treat the mothers of their children like dirt and all men are evil.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/30/casual-sexism-misogyny (all men are sexists. Also, all men are evil.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/01/bidisha-thought-for-the-day-marriage (Marriage is for idiots and husbands treat their wives like dogs. All men are evil.)

I think you get the point.

What a nut. Classic case of "the boys never wanted to kiss me due to my hideous ugliness therefore all men are evil bastards".

I call them like I see them.

Count Duckula

My argument in response to this - because I can see where she's coming from - is that if women are feeling put upon or worse because their men expect them to be essentially hairless, why do they keep shaving / waxing / trimming? We speak now of liberated, assertive women, and yet in this situation they seem to content to do what men demand (even though it's unnatural, annoying and painstaking) and take out their frustrations by complaining about men wanting it.

Surely the best reponse would be to say, "it's my body, not yours, and I don't give a monkey's bright red behind what you think when it's causing me distress to do it". If every woman decided to take back the power and just let their body hair grow, I guarantee you men would swiftly come to accept it. After five weeks of not having sex it'd dawn on them that, actually, that hair down there's not so bad after all.

For women to continue shaving / waxing / trimming even though it's distressing and they don't want to, simply because men tell them to, they're allowing themselves to be viewed as the submissive gender. It smacks of them still viewing their self-worth by what men think of them, which is precisely the situation we as a society are trying to grow out of.

strobe

Count Duckula wrote: »

My argument in response to this - because I can see where she's coming from - is that if women are feeling put upon or worse because their men expect them to be essentially hairless, why do they keep shaving / waxing / trimming? We speak now of liberated, assertive women, and yet in this situation they seem to content to do what men demand (even though it's unnatural, annoying and painstaking) and take out their frustrations by complaining about men wanting it.

Surely the best reponse would be to say, "it's my body, not yours, and I don't give a monkey's bright red behind what you think when it's causing me distress to do it". If every woman decided to take back the power and just let their body hair grow, I guarantee you men would swiftly come to accept it. After five weeks of not having sex it'd dawn on them that, actually, that hair down there's not so bad after all.

For women to continue shaving / waxing / trimming even though it's distressing and they don't want to, simply because men tell them to, they're allowing themselves to be viewed as the submissive gender. It smacks of them still viewing their self-worth by what men think of them, which is precisely the situation we as a society are trying to grow out of.

For the same reason men don't just say, "it's my body, not yours, and I don't give a monkey's bright red behind what you think when it's causing me distress to do it" when talking about shaving their face every god damn single day or doing about 50 sit ups every morning and 50 at night to have a six pack instead of a beer belly?

I think the implication that men demand and men tell them to, as highlighted above, is miles off in most cases. A lot of men don't find hairy legs attractive (no need to focus on pubic hair here) women know this, so they voluntarily shave/wax their legs so more men will find them attractive. A lot of women don't find beards attractive, men know this, so they voluntarily shave their face so more women will find them attractive.

If a girl I was seeing never so much as trimmed her pubic hair and said she wasn't ever going to, I wouldn't demand she did, I'd just dump her and find someone who did or would, cause I don't find bushy pubic hair attractive. Most men don't. Girls know this. So they trim or wax or shave.

I really think it's that straight forward and trying to make it into an example of the tools used by the patriarchal overlords of society to subjugate women any way they can, or any other watered down flavour of that, is........well..... surreal.

Count Duckula

But it runs deeper than that. Why do you find a woman's natural hair (which is still less coarse than a man's, but his is fine to not tidy or trim or wax or shave) so repulsive? It's ridiculous - it'd be like finding breasts repulsive.

In fact, even worse than that, it'd be like finding nipples repulsive. Body hair is something we both have and yet for some reason in one gender it's seen as wrong.

trebor28

Elle Collins wrote: »

What you're presenting here is a chicken-and-egg situation. I don't think it's relevant whether the expectation of men influences women either directly or via fetishes reflected in the pornography so many men subscribe to; I think what is relevant is that, either way, women are influenced to adapt their physical selves for the benefit of men.

what man ever wanted to see women in ponchos like was the case a few years ago when they came back into fashion?

strobe

Count Duckula wrote: »

But it runs deeper than that. Why do you find a woman's natural hair (which is still less coarse than a man's, but his is fine to not tidy or trim or wax or shave) so repulsive? It's ridiculous - it'd be like finding breasts repulsive.

Why do some women find a man's natural facial hair so repulsive? It's ridiculous - it'd be like finding arms repulsive.

We can play this game all day Count. It won't get anyone anywhere.

In fact, even worse than that, it'd be like finding nipples repulsive. Body hair is something we both have and yet for some reason in one gender it's seen as wrong.

I know lots and lots and lots of women who find really hairy men a massive turn off. Lots. How many times has Brad Pitt or one of the other male Hollywood sex symbols taken their top off in a movie lately and had a big hairy belly? So it's not one gender. Take exhibit A here http://www.flickr.com/photos/dragonden/3348291970/ we'll call him Bob. Now Bob's not a particularly bad looking fellow. Strong jaw, seems in pretty good shape, kick ass tattoos. But poor Bob wouldn't get a look in with a huge number of women because he is quite hirsute. I'm sure some women would love his hairiness and I'm sure some men would love a girl with big hairy armpits, but most won't. I'm also sure some women might start going out with Bob and after a while ask him to wax or shave or trim his long flowing back hair. Despite it being completely natural.

=============================================================================================

Why is this the case? Why do so many women find beards a turn-off? Why do so many men find hairy legs a turn-off? I dunno, my good Count. Why do you think it is?

Cicero

Count Duckula wrote: »

The reason women feel the need to be largely hairless ....it's because society and the expectation of men does.

Hair in men, is a BIOLOGICAL secondary sex characteristic -just one of many factors that distinguishes males from females...it's no big mystery really...and it's certainly a lot deeper than mere ..."men telling women" what they should do...and women conforming to that stereotype....personally, I think that theory is poppycock...(no pun intended)...:p

fits

Dehairing alone just doesnt cut the mustard these days.

Clitter's where its at now...

http://thegloss.com/odds-and-ends/video-vajazzling-is-out-clitter-is-in/

Count Duckula

Cicero wrote: »

Hair in men, is a BIOLOGICAL secondary sex characteristic -just one of many factors that distinguishes males from females...it's no big mystery really...and it's certainly a lot deeper than mere ..."men telling women" what they should do...and women conforming to that stereotype....personally, I think that theory is poppycock...(no pun intended)...:p

Wait, are you implying that hair in women isn't a biological characteristic? What, do you think women slather themselves in superglue and go rolling around on a hairdresser's floor?

Cicero

Count Duckula wrote: »

Wait, are you implying that hair in women isn't a biological characteristic? What, do you think women slather themselves in superglue and go rolling around on a hairdresser's floor?

Secondary sex characteristics are behavioural motivators....I don't recall mentioning superglue

Logical Fallacy

Cicero wrote: »

Secondary sex characteristics are behavioural motivators....I don't recall mentioning superglue

Body hair is also a secondary sex characteristic in females. To think , or to argue, otherwise is way off.

Jesus Wept

She is an ignorant retard, plain and simple.

Wibbs

strobe wrote:

Why do some women find a man's natural facial hair so repulsive? It's ridiculous - it'd be like finding arms repulsive.

Bingo. Plus facial hair in males is very much a secondary sexual characteristic. Pre pubescent men/boys don't have it. The removal of which infantalises the man in a more public fashion than removal of pubic hair on a woman ever does. Yet most women or a goodly proportion prefer clean shaven men. So that makes many women closet kiddie fiddlers? Eh no. OK then, you stop trimming down south and we'll stop shaving, on a daily bloody basis*, up north and we'll both end up looking like two out of three members of ZZtop. Most women will say that they prefer clean shaven because it feels smoother and less rough and that's cool(and I say that as a beardie), well that's the same for pubic hair. It's a lot more work to dig through if its 70's hippie bush.

The-Rigger wrote: »

She is an ignorant retard, plain and simple.

QED right there.




*Not me I gave up that guff years ago. Au natural all the way for me now.