Hirsute Women - Yay or Nay?

JupiterKid

Given the amount of men, especially younger men sporting beards these days? Do you think women should reconsider their grooming habits?

In the 1970s it was all the rage for women to be much more hirstute than today. And apparently it's making something of a comeback in the USA.

So, do you think women should be more natural in the hair department? Or is it sexist to expect bare armpits and Brazillians?

Winterlong

No hair below the ears - thanks!

RobbieTheRobber

I cant take anything you say serious now.

"Or is it sexist to expect bare armpits and Brazillians?"
fúck off!

Pac1Man

Definitely not.

ohnonotgmail

JupiterKid wrote: »

Given the amount of men, especially younger men sporting beards these days? Do you think women should reconsider their grooming habits?

In the 1970s it was all the rage for women to be much more hirstute than today. And apparently it's making something of a comeback in the USA.

So, do you think women should be more natural in the hair department? Or is it sexist to expect bare armpits and Brazillians?

i think a beard would look atrocious on a woman.

MrMorooka

Absolutely, categorically, yay. The more natural, the better.

gramar

Call me sexist I don't care but I find underarm hair on a woman quite revolting.

Harry Palmr

The obsession with lack of body hair is one of the odder developments in social etiquette over the last 15-20 years and yet permanently inking skin is so acceptable.

RobbieTheRobber

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The obsession with lack of body hair is one of the odder developments in social etiquette over the last 15-20 years and yet permanently inking skin is so acceptable.

Ever looked at an ancient greek statue?
Ever remember seeing a marvelously hairy bush sculpted into stone, on said statues?

pjohnson

The obsession with homeless/hipster beards should be eradicated.

Harry Palmr

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ever looked at an ancient greek statue?
Ever remember seeing a marvelously hairy bush sculpted into stone, on said statues?

Sure that was an artistic convenience. You try sculpting pubic hair or some fluff on the lower back!

ohnonotgmail

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ever looked at an ancient greek statue?
Ever remember seeing a marvelously hairy bush sculpted into stone, on said statues?

the point still stands though. up until the 1990's it was unusual to be completely shaved. Now it is unusual not to be shaved. In western culture anyway.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don't think it's sexist because personally I don't like body hair, so remove my own and expect someone I'm in close contact with to be groomed too, so if he's unkempt he'd be getting nowhere near me. Equality yo

MrMorooka

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The obsession with lack of body hair is one of the odder developments in social etiquette over the last 15-20 years and yet permanently inking skin is so acceptable.

Exactly, I would much prefer a natural look with some body hair over the ubiquitous crappy tattoos everyone seems to have.

Then again, it's all personal preference, isn't it? I'm a man, and I shave clean downstairs because I think it looks much better(on men). I would be more attracted to a woman who didn't shave the way I did, though.

RobbieTheRobber

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Sure that was an artistic convenience. You try sculpting pubic hair or some fluff on the lower back!

The removal of body hair is not new and not a western invention, neither has it been restricted to either sex.

Fúck it im quoting wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glabrousness

Cultural and other influences[edit]
In ancient Egypt, depilation was commonly practiced, with pumice and razors used to shave.[5] In both Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, the removal of body and pubic hair may have been practiced among both men and women. It is represented in some artistic depictions of male and female nudity,[citation needed] examples of which may be seen in some red figure pottery of Ancient Greece on which both men and women were depicted without body or pubic hair.

The majority of Muslims believe that adult removal of pubic and axillary hair, as a hygienic measure, is religiously beneficial.[6]

RobbieTheRobber

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the point still stands though. up until the 1990's it was unusual to be completely shaved. Now it is unusual not to be shaved. In western culture anyway.

If american porn in the 70's and 80's is your only reference then maybe.

ohnonotgmail

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

If american porn in the 70's and 80's is your only reference then maybe.

No, French and German too

Harry Palmr

The "Classical world" was inhabited by adults who liked to sleep with children (Pederasty) so there may be some cultural-artistic crossover there.

Parchment

gramar wrote: »

Call me sexist I don't care but I find underarm hair on a woman quite revolting.

Mens under arm hair is pretty revolting too!

Everybody knows that women are disgusting in their natural state and need interventions to make them attractive. You can't expect men to like hairy armpits. Their own are fine though, obviously. Ugh, women.


That said I harvest the body hair too, I'm too impressionable to shirk convention.

Murrisk

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ever looked at an ancient greek statue?
Ever remember seeing a marvelously hairy bush sculpted into stone, on said statues?

Any ones I can think of have hairy muffs, yeah.

Murrisk

Sex is a bit sore with a forest down there, I find. The hairs get pulled on.

_Whimsical_

I think it's quite depressing how we keep changing the goal posts on what a woman is. To be desirable she's intended to contort to accommodate all sorts of ridiculous fashions and fads while seeming easy going and not caring too much, an "au natural" lady who only spending hours and a large portion of her income being waxed and shaved and preened and painting her face and eyelashes. She'll spend hours in the gym and eat a limited diet to maintain a "healthy" physique .But she won't get muscly or too strong now, we wouldn't want that, that wouldn't be ladylike. She'll work to have skinny long legs and a tiny waist while still magically maintaining the fat in certain areas to have the whole "tits and ass" jiggle.

People have had body hair since the beginning of time. The species was not on the verge of dying out before Veet wax and the Venus shaver were invented. Men were not refusing sex, huddled in corners replused and traumatised by the site of a hair. Can we not just all grow up and let people be as they are and recognise that we're becoming entirely informed on issues like body hair, particularly public hair, by advertising, tv shows and porn. Someone's benefitting from the stupid slavish ways our tastes are created and it's not any of us. It's people creating products and businesses around catering to our dysphoric notions of what an normal body or face is.

Murrisk

Parchment wrote: »

Mens under arm hair is pretty revolting too!

+1. Social conditioning at its finest to only find female underarm hair disgusting. When in reality, nobody's is nice.

Outlaw Pete

Hairy legs, no, but hairy armpits on a woman of Italian descent I wouldn't be too bothered about.

For example... Who's that girl?

CalamariFritti

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the point still stands though. up until the 1990's it was unusual to be completely shaved. Now it is unusual not to be shaved. In western culture anyway.

Is it? I thought that only applies to porn stars.

Clean and tidy is one thing but there is no fkn way I'd shave my entire body.

MrMorooka

Candie wrote: »

Everybody knows that women are disgusting in their natural state and need interventions to make them attractive. You can't expect men to like hairy armpits. Their own are fine though, obviously. Ugh, women.

Plenty of men do like hairy armpits though(hi), so we don't like being lumped in with "all men" who apparently hate body hair. Just do what you like yourself and people who like it will like it and people who don't, won't.

MrMorooka

MrMorooka wrote: »

Plenty of men do like hairy armpits though(hi), so we don't like being lumped in with "all men" who apparently hate body hair. Just do what you like yourself and people who like it will like it and people who don't, won't.

Never talked about all men, didn't lump you or anyone else in anything.

greenflash

Personally I say yay. Not mad about hairy armpits or legs but it wouldn't stop me. It's a total turn off if a woman is completely bald downstairs, as a woman looking like a 9 year old girl is just wrong.

It's probably due to growing up in the 80s when a glimpse of pubic hair through lingerie in catalogues or wherever was one of the few thrills going.

There's worse things in life than getting a rogue pube stuck in your mouth. If I wasn't happily married man and I got a Barbie doll lookalike home, I'd send her home and tell her to come back when she's grown a bit of muff.

RobbieTheRobber

Murrisk wrote: »

Any ones I can think of have hairy muffs, yeah.

Right then name one of these statues with hairy muffs.

Winterlong

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Right then name one of these statues with hairy muffs.

Jane.
She was a girl I was with once who was like a statue with a hairy muff for all the life in her.
We did not meet up again.

valoren

I love hairy baz

_Whimsical_

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Right then name one of these statues with hairy muffs.

What about instead of statues you consider the couple of billion people who have existed and been lusted after since the dawn of time who have had body hair? Our existence on the planet is proof that body hair has not been an impedance to sexual attraction up until recent decades. You can ask your mum but in pretty sure she wasn't sporting a Brazilian before you came into being.

The origins of the bald look go back to porn, right? The producers hit on the idea of having all the lawns mowed so that the action was easier to see or something.

It's a fashion, like everything else. I see things like Full-Bush Brazillians being advertised locally lately, I think it's where everything on the undercarriage is whipped off but the full bush stays front and centre.

I know too much about stuff like this.

RayM

I couldn't care less. I certainly don't think there's anything unhygienic about women having underarm hair. I mean, I've never shaved mine and I swear you could eat your dinner out of my armpits. Don't though - it would be weird and uncomfortable for both of us.

RobbieTheRobber

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

What about instead of statues you consider the couple of billion people who have existed and been lusted after since the dawn of time who have had body hair? Our existence on the planet is proof that body hair has not been an impedance to sexual attraction up until recent decades. You can ask your mum but in pretty sure she wasn't sporting a Brazilian before you came into being.

What the fúck are you talking about!
All I have said in this thread is that hair removal is not new, not a western phenomena and not exclusively restricted to women.

Take your judgmental condescending attitude and shove it up your fathers hairy hole!

RobbieTheRobber

Candie wrote: »

The origins of the bald look go back to porn, right? The producers hit on the idea of having all the lawns mowed so that the action was easier to see or something.

It's a fashion, like everything else. I see things like Full-Bush Brazillians being advertised locally lately, I think it's where everything on the undercarriage is whipped off but the full bush stays front and centre.

I know too much about stuff like this.

Unless these are ancient egyptian/ greek /roman porn you are talking about, then it extends a lot further than that.

osarusan

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Take your judgmental condescending attitude and shove it up your fathers hairy hole!

Murrisk

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Right then name one of these statues with hairy muffs.

Happily when I've had a look. Meanwhile, name some clean-shaven ancient statues. You seem to be an expert!

RobbieTheRobber

Murrisk wrote: »

Happily when I've had a look. Meanwhile, name some clean-shaven ancient statues. You seem to be an expert!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=greek+statues

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Unless these are ancient egyptian/ greek /roman porn you are talking about, then it extends a lot further than that.

Yeah, I'm saying its a fashion and the current fashion had it's roots in porn. These trends come and go in cycles. First it's the bald look, then the pendulum swings around to such nonsense as the full bush brazillian - where you get to keep your pubic hair but - most importantly - still pay for a wax anyway.

Industries rely on the perpetuation of these fashions. If the trend was to wear the same three outfits in rotation for the rest of your life, jobs would be lost. Beauty industry jobs would be lost if it was the trend to keep your body hair, entire businesses are devoted to facilitating it's removal, it's in their interest to foster the idea that it's unhygenic, a turn off, and somehow unfeminine.

Why do you think everyone has groucho marx eyebrows lately? Because it's promoted as a trend, and now you have people who are employed to spend their entire days working on peoples eyebrows.

Pac1Man

Relax! Things are starting to get hairy in here.

Murrisk

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=greek+statues

I'm out and about, as I said, will do later. So anyhoo, any concrete examples yourself there.

RobbieTheRobber

Murrisk wrote: »

I'm out and about, as I said, will do later. So anyhoo, any concrete examples yourself there.

Greek statues are usually marble, not concrete. So no, no concrete examples :cool:

Murrisk

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Greek statues are usually marble, not concrete. So no, no concrete examples :cool:

Or apparently, any examples. As expected. :cool:

Cosmicfox

As a girl born with more hair than most I'll say nay because it really is the only option. Just try not doing it and see what happens.

I tried leaving it on my legs as a teen but people will comment and I got so fed up of the comments and people thinking it was some sort of feminist statement that I started shaving like everyone else and still do today. I'm quitepale with dark hair so maybe it was more noticeable on me

I hope the pressure to be body hair free starts rising for men as well though. Saw an article in the Mail about a hairy man feeling very self-conscious about it with all these bare-chested instagrammers so maybe it's starting.

Very annoying when the person commenting was a girl going on about hygiene while they were going out with a bloke with a forest under his arms (I always shaved my armpits even when I wasn't shaving my legs). Like how does that work?

RobbieTheRobber

Murrisk wrote: »

Or apparently, any examples. As expected. :cool:

:rolleyes:

Do you need me to google it again for you?
Its strange you are capable of replying to my comments on a thread on an internet forum but somehow incapable of looking at a page of image results from an internet search provider.
Yet you demand of me what you will not provide yourself. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

gramar

Murrisk wrote: »

+1. Social conditioning at its finest to only find female underarm hair disgusting. When in reality, nobody's is nice.

Nothing to do with social conditioning. It's revolting no matter what anyone else thinks or tells you what you should think. I happen to agree that nobody's is nice although the thread is about women.

I also happen to despise artichokes. Is that social conditioning too or do I just happen to not like artichokes?

_Whimsical_

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What the fúck are you talking about!
All I have said in this thread is that hair removal is not new, not a western phenomena and not exclusively restricted to women.

Take your judgmental condescending attitude and shove it up your fathers hairy hole!

We have one too many men with things shoved up their asses in this thread already, yes it's you, and it seems to be your head that's wedged firmly up there. Sorry for your trouble.

I was replying to your one sentence post, it wasn't out of context, you didn't provide any context. I was in no way condescending or abusive to you. You could've made your point without the hysterical abuse.

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Greek statues are usually marble, not concrete. So no, no concrete examples :cool:

Here's something for you to chew on, Robbie.

Somewhat NSFW.

LuckyLloyd

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I think it's quite depressing how we keep changing the goal posts on what a woman is. To be desirable she's intended to contort to accommodate all sorts of ridiculous fashions and fads while seeming easy going and not caring too much, an "au natural" lady who only spending hours and a large portion of her income being waxed and shaved and preened and painting her face and eyelashes. She'll spend hours in the gym and eat a limited diet to maintain a "healthy" physique .But she won't get muscly or too strong now, we wouldn't want that, that wouldn't be ladylike. She'll work to have skinny long legs and a tiny waist while still magically maintaining the fat in certain areas to have the whole "tits and ass" jiggle.

People have had body hair since the beginning of time. The species was not on the verge of dying out before Veet wax and the Venus shaver were invented. Men were not refusing sex, huddled in corners replused and traumatised by the site of a hair. Can we not just all grow up and let people be as they are and recognise that we're becoming entirely informed on issues like body hair, particularly public hair, by advertising, tv shows and porn. Someone's benefitting from the stupid slavish ways our tastes are created and it's not any of us. It's people creating products and businesses around catering to our dysphoric notions of what an normal body or face is.

Tremendous post!