I don't believe true feminism means we have to have a libertarian/individualistic conception of people as the free owners of their own bodies who just "do what they want to."—mbrockYou don't believe that "true feminism" means that women are the free owners of their own bodies who do what they want to? What kind of crazy conception of feminism do you subscribe to??
'He's never seen it,' a friend recounted to me about his good-looking, sexually active collegiate son. What, I asked? 'Snatch,' he replied.
This is uncomfortable for bearded old me, but I've never seen it as evidence of women forcing me to do anything. So, as *wrong* as shaving and waxing seems to me, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy with the argument that it's bad that men look for this kind of grooming in women.—seanyboyBut, see, it's not comparable. Not only is the scope and intensity of societal expectations about female appearance vastly greater than it is about male appearance, but these expectations are widely institutionalized and they are an organic part of a larger system by which who women are, what they are allowed to do and to be, is subordinated to their utility to men as sexual objects and baby factories. It's not even the case that there's a consensus among women against beards.
I know this is your subjective opinion, but my desire to be angered at what is essentially a body based "Your favourite band sucks" is so very, very, very strong.—seanyboyYeah, and that particular value judgment, and that she expressed it publicly, are both exceptional, not common. You find it extremely provocative and yet in relative terms it is a tiny and insignificant bit of social pressure in contrast to the thousands of examples of stuff like it that women are subjected to every single day.
You don't believe that "true feminism" means that women are the free owners of their own bodies who do what they want to? What kind of crazy conception of feminism do you subscribe to??Sorry — that wasn't such a good formulation. I'm not sure if I know how to express my take on individual freedom, but please rest assured that I don't think, for example, that men do what they want to while women don't, or that anyone's body is owned by someone else.
— Ivan Fyodorovich
This trend is another manifestation of consumerist sexist cosmetic beauty culture; its offensiveness is entirely insofar as this is about women altering their bodies to be sexually appealing to men (or the second-order effect of "feeling good about" herself" because she feels attractive) at the systematic, institutionalized urging of mass media and the consumer beauty industry. [...]posted by mbrock at 7:52 AM on October 15, 2011 [3 favorites]
Male preferences, as institutionalized by industry and mass-media, which take those choices from her is sexism in one of its most powerful forms—and it doesn't matter whether the preference is for the removal of pubic hair or if it's that the "natural look" is more attractive.
So, as *wrong* as shaving and waxing seems to me, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy with the argument that it's bad that men look for this kind of grooming in women. I wouldn't like to be involved with someone who did shave, and it seems wrong for me to judge someone who idealises those that do.So here's the thing. In order to maintain the hairless-down-there look, I'd be spending over a thousand dollars a year on Brazilian waxes, not to mention enduring quite a bit of pain on a regular basis. What you're saying, essentially, is "I prefer for women not to have to spend a significant portion of their income having the hair on the most sensitive parts of their body ripped out by the roots, so I can't really judge men who do expect that." We all have our preferences, but I'm not sure I think that means we have a reasonable expectation of having our preferences met, when they impose pretty major burdens on other people.
"When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.Maybe she had a Wookie Bush? You know, like a fur bikini. Since we're on the subject...I never understood the "Landing Strip" or a little soul patch like tuft. Maybe I'm just an all or nothing kinda guy.
Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest."
Obviously? Like, I can understand preferring no hair, but I can't even begin to understand being turned off by its presence."
How else can you reach the treasure made by the gods?!
I am still not understanding how an aesthetic desire/recommendation that women trim a certain spot of hair is oppressive patriarchy when your average man to appear in public (not just private) is going to trim/remove facial/neck hair, nose hair, maybe ear hair, unibrow hair, etc.—crayzI thought I covered it pretty thoroughly in this comment. Maybe I didn't make as much sense as I thought I did?
Realistically I always wonder whether preferred pube grooming is as much of a dealbreaker as some men say it is...—immlassI wonder this, too. But I have to say that some of the comments here discussing personal experience and second-hand information about what is expected among younger people right now is disturbing me. I had no idea that this had gone beyond a preference and a sort of trendy-sexy-thing and into the prescriptive and shaming "women with pubic hair are disgusting" territory. I was already uncomfortable with shaving merely being so prevalent; this, if true, is much worse.
When women are told "This is how your vagina should look," or "This is what a pretty vagina is like," what is being reinforced is that a woman's vagina is not her own private part, but instead something that is appropriate for others to judge. I'm not cool with that.—meeseYeah, that gets to the heart of the problem. And it's the answer to crayz's question above. The larger context for this is that in our culture, women's bodies are not truly their own. They're seen as serving the interests of A) men, and B) society in general. (And, of course, A and B are often implicitly assumed to be equivalent.)
...though it might be marginally more fair to ask me to do so if he was willing to do the same to his tender vittles.—emjaybeeI started a limited pruning of my pubic hair a few years ago for a combination of reasons. I was a little self-conscious about it, as I had no sense at the time that other men did this and I worried (just a bit) that it would be thought strange. Over time, I removed more and more hair because it just seems nicer, sexier, and my partners liked it.
More directly, we're making comments in a thread about a paper where a guy is judging how women groom their bodies by what messages this gives men.—meeseYeah, that's a striking, very objectionable, and very revealing aspect of this essay.
When a guy comes into a thread on this topic to point out their preferences, I'm left asking, "...So?" Why is a conversation about how women are meant to feel about their bodies the right place for men to point out their sexual preferences?—meeseI agree with this, but I'll risk erring by doing exactly that because I think it's relevant.
I have been studying student erotics for several years now and one thing is clear: young women who don’t love and don’t feel loved tend not to orgasm when they have sex. Hairlessness, which does not contribute to female pleasure, is entwined with the rise of the pornographic, with love’s erosion as a believable state of grace, with women’s uncomfortable capitulation to sex as a portal to fuller affection.That's really creepy. "Studying student erotics" sounds like code for, "Trying to have sex with my students." And "hairlessness does not contribute to female pleasure"? Speak for yourself! For some of us, actually, it does.
It's "women should do Y or they are gross."But also "women should do X or they are incapable of true intimacy, love and/or orgasm." Part of what I found annoying about the article is that the guy isn't just saying "I prefer women with ample pubic hair, because that's what I find sexy." He's saying "there's something very deeply deficient about women who don't have enough pubic hair." I just think it's sort of shitty to use that kind of shaming tactic to try to convince women to comply with one's grooming preferences, whether it's claiming that too much hair is dirty or too little hair is evidence that you can only have superficial, unsatisfying sex.
My pubes are not public property and it annoys me that random dudes on the internet think it's perfectly acceptable to tell me how I should groom my private parts to be sexually appealing to them like I should give a shit about what they want.—immlass
It's not "I like X, so it makes me really happy when my partner does that for me." It's "women should do Y or they are gross."—ForktineYeah. That this is so is why it's just not comparable to any of the expectations about male grooming. Few things make it as obvious that women are essentially the property of society, expected to maintain a utility for its benefit; this utility is sexual attractiveness to men, with the benefit men's.
But also "women should do X or they are incapable of true intimacy, love and/or orgasm."—craicheadYeah, but don't you think that that part of it has a lot to do with the moral panic over "hooking up" and young women having sex? Which is, in my opinion, part of a long tradition of denying women their sexuality by asserting that it only correctly exists as part of monogamous, romantic love...which itself is just one step away from the (still-extent) argument that it only correctly exists as a function of procreation...which itself is just a step away from asserting that it's not really supposed to be pleasurable for women in the first place.
The hairy ones are closer to nature, to animality.Well, I guess I'm somewhere in between, then? I'm not very hairy, naturally but I don't do much about it. So. How civilized am I?
American women are, in fact, striking a pornographic pose, one that first appeared in the hard-core porn films that were increasingly shaping the sexual imagination of legions of young men. The eye of the hard-core porn camera hovers over female body parts; it’s a visual excess of physical acts with a minimum of sentiment. It is not a love story. Porn displays pubeless bodies to emphasize the organs—the female genital slit (and the erect male shaft)—and thereby defines the standard of erotic desirability. As nether hair disappeared on screen guys increasingly wanted sex with girls who looked like the porn stars they’d fantasized about. They asked and women emulated.Pick a fucking verb tense and stick with it dude. This is like, 6th grade essay writing skill we're talking about. Help a reader follow your bullshit reasoning.
« Older "I've been called over the top," Steinma... | Futuristic Urban Mega-Structur... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by melt away at 9:33 PM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]