Talk:Pubic hair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Pubic hair was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Is it really part of an encylopedia to show different styles of Pubic hair? I would expect it on a cosmetician site or like that but I don't think that styles of pubic hair is really a topic worth mentioning. Oh yeah and stop fighting about the pictures.

Evolutionary purpose?[edit]

The article could use an explanation of why hair grows in adults' pubic area (or if there's no known/specific reason, then a statement of such). The general mechanics are of course described, but there doesn't seem to be any reference to its ultimate purpose. - Vague | Rant 18:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said in an earlier comment above I'm not sure myself, but the page on Secondary sex characteristics lists public hair as an example in humans and in my mostly unprofessional opinion (I have a biology degree but have never studied pubic hair specifically) it seems likely, prehaps as a way to distinguish post-pubescent indivdiuals (ie. potential mates) from those not yet able to concieve children. I've made a very small edit to the lead with a link to the secondary sex characteristic page, but if anyone has more detailed information to add that would be brilliant. Danikat (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I came here to see the latest research on the same issue, actually facial hair and pubic hair. They are striking examples - we are after all "The naked ape" and have lost most of our hair. Why has some of it stayed, but only a few types? For eyebrows and eyelashes there are obvious reasons for protecting the eyes. Then there is the hair on our heads, there is armpit hair, pubic hair, and facial hair on men. Most of the rest is gone. Sure, some men and also women have a lot of hair elsewhere, but not everyone. It's generally very light. There is a big evolutioanry question - why has it been so important to keep beards and mustaches on men (it surely can't be to keep this nake ape warm during the winters, when the rest is so naked, a beard by itself won't help!)..Similarly for pubic hair.
One guesses that helping our "naked ape" ancestors stay or become interested in one another, or to distinguish "ready" from "not yet ready" might be large parts of it. I'd think that by 2013 there would be more on the (even if tentative) science on this. I hope someone can add when they find some research!
It might even make sense to create a wikipedia page that covers both facial hair on men and pubic (maybe also head and armpits) and focus on "why evolution favored keeping these, while throwing away most of the rest (just compare us to, or contrast us sharply from bonobos and chimps ) Not sure what to call it, "Vestigial hair in humans" or something. Regardless of whether such a new page is created, this entry on pubic hair, definitely is lacking information on the evolution of, and evolutionary purpose of, humans keeping this type of hair while going bald or near-bald (almost) everywhere else.Harel (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
As well as serving as an indicator of the sexual maturity of of the person on which it grows, pubic hair serves as a dry lubricant allowing free movement between the skin of the scrotum and that of the thighs when walking or running in the natural state of undress. Similarly, in a woman, it allows free movement in the region of the uppermost parts of the thighs.
As part of a sexual invitation display, especially where the skin is pale and the hair dark, it provides a clear contrast between its dark appearance and the pink of the aroused woman's vulva.
During coitus, it facilitates comfortable movement of the skin of the scrotum and adjacent to the penis of the man and that adjacent to the vulva of the woman, regardless of the skins' humidity.RJPe (talk)

Officially use the new photo set[edit]

Variation of pubic hair on a mature male (left), and a mature female (right).

I suggest to replace the current photo gallery (including this photo) with the right one. Actually the change had been done months ago but it was reverted several times to the original version. Now this new section is created to put an end to this argument. The new gallery has better quality with higher resolution and has a good compare between male and female, no reason to reject. Moscowsky-talk- 00:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, new photo is clearer, hair also gets more dimentional when viewing from side. (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll replace the current photo with the suggested one 72 hours later from now if there is no objection received. Moscowsky-talk- 10:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The replacement is done per this discussion. Moscowsky-talk- 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Moscowsky: You as an individual cannot do something "Officially" (how could you have such a thougt?); it appears very strange that you insist to show a unsuitable image (erected, with trimmed pubic hair)? What drives you to this behaviour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't help smiling when reading your comment. I didn't insist anything. The image was added after discussion in talk, no objections were received in 8 months. Your complains about "official" "erected" "trimmed" seem sophistry. If you have better image, please suggest it by starting a new section, i'll be supportive if your image has better quality; but please stop being fanatical about File:Pubic hair male 1247.JPG and calling the current stablized image "vandalism" (you did it at least 4~5 times already). Please reach consensus before doing the same thing again, else it may be considered as real vandalism per wikipedia policy. Moscowsky-talk- 02:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


It would be cool to get some non-white photos, and I suggest this for all the genitalia related articles. I'm not sure where to fund such photos, but having only white photos re-enforces that white is the standard- that White is Human (Example from other parts of society: band-aids, make-up, 'ethnic' hair products having their own tiny and hard to find section, etc) But humans came in all colour, shapes and sizes!

Transitional (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)transitional

No evidence suggests that the photos in the genitalia articles are all from white people, they're just not dark-skinned. If you check the Commons, you'll find that there're very few qualified dark-skinned photo available. Days ago I tried to promote this photo (which was uploaded from to Commons) to be used in the penis article, but it gets copyright trouble and has already been deleted. Anyone who owns good quality dark-skinned photos please donate, it will be a great help to improve the articles. Moscowsky-talk- 10:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
80% pics in Commons are blurry with poor taste and nothing of worth, more better photos are needed from whoever. Hope more black dude can upload nice dick photos65.49.68.188 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Diversity and unrelated to photos, in the second-to-last paragraph in the Development section, the wording "In the Far East, however, straight black head hair is matched by pubic hair that has been described as 'black, short, straight and not thick but rather sparse...'" is objectionable. The "Far East"? I thought this was discarded an an uninformative, archaic term. And the quote is rather generalizing, not including many populations that would fall under the "Far East" such as South East Asians, Mongolians, or Ainu. Frankly, it's a little creepy and hints at the objectification of Asian women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)