Talk:Bikini waxing

Objection to the picture

The picture that is repeatedly placed upon this article is not identified as a picture of a brazilian wax or of any kind of waxing. Do we know that the picture was of a waxing? Could it be shaving? Could it be a hormonal or pharmacological issue that led to a lack of hair? Unknown. Does the lack of hair extend throughout the area described by the article? The picture does not show. Does the picture show how it is done? No it does not. It is original research to declare that this picture is of brazilian waxing.

It may be of prurient interest, but the picture is also unnecessary to the article. It does not contribute any helpful or useful information. It is really of no encyclopedic value.

Since it is both Original Research and Unnecessary, it should not be included. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 5Q5 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted an image that was neither educational or descriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.33.15 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree!!! Let's delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.221.66 (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have already deleted it about half a dozen times. But, it keeps resurfacing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how many times you delete, the pornographer wannabes that load these subjects with the pictures that serve no purpose other than the prurient. Those in the pornographer class are one of the biggest obstacle to Wikipedia ever becoming a REAL encyclopedia. Until adults stand up for decency this site will never serve a better purpose than looking up celebrities or brushing up for Trivial Pursuit. Steve (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You might note, you are replying to a message posted over 2 years ago. The later ones are at the bottom of the page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There was no warning for these pictures at all. None. How does wiki even know these "women" are legal age or that these pictures were taken with their consent? And I have to disagree. These are not "tasteful" photos--since when is a spread-leg layout tasteful? Perhaps to a person used to reading porn.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.155.59 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 

Let's talk about this picture....

Pros: It's a relatively tasteful nude photograph

Cons: It doesn't obviously, unquestionably show the results of a "Brazilian" wax. A similar state could have been achieved through shaving, or merely a frontal wax. We would need a far more graphic depiction to see the full results of the article's subject.

IMO, the most encyclopedic option would be to see a somewhat clinical depiction of a Brazilian waxing being administered, but I think the image in question is a reasonable compromise, in the absence of such a picture. Whether you or others find it of "prurient interest" is neither here nor there. Consider the subject of this article for a moment and ask yourself what sort of picture were you expecting to see?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the description of the image says it not an image of waxing, Brazilian or otherwise. Is it really necessary to put an image of a bald "pussy" in the article, especially if it fails to depict the topic, and also represents WP:OR to an extent? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The description[1] does claim the image shows a "Brazilian waxing." There are concerns here--but the image file description is not one of them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I support bringing back those great pictures. Those pictures were a very good demonstration of brazilian waxing. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(reduced indent) Don't worry. Any porn site would most obligingly provide pictures of loads of bald pussies. Those "great pictures" are not really necessary, and are not even wholly representative of a Brazilian (if the article is to be believed). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be necessary to prove that a particular image was from brazilian waxing in order to include it. As long as it looks like brazilian waxing, there should be no objection to including the image to this article. One thing that's now missing after the images have now been removed is that the previous image added value to the article in that showed that brazilian waxing removed hair from the bung as well. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says - It can be thought of as a more extreme form of bikini waxing. The majority of types of Brazilian waxing leave a small line of pubic hair above the vulva, commonly known as the "G-Wax." If that is to believed, the images only portray an "extreme form" which may not be the right approach in depicting something. Like, would you prefer to portray a Siamese twin when depicting a human being? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The image was just put back in, I undid it. -Zeus- 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell is this picture back? I was searching Wikipedia for "Brazilian", and I didn't even know what "waxing" was about. And then all of a sudden there's a "bald pussy" on my screen - on a Wikipedia page, and for no reason at all! I don't care about nudity, but I guess I would care if I had children, and anyway people who may see my computer screen do care about it. Basically, (almost) everyone here seems to agree that the picture shouldn't be there, but it keeps coming back (note the anonymous edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bikini_waxing&diff=240264800&oldid=238845511). I think it's just unacceptable and, under these circumstances, I'd call it plain vandalism. (BTW: just removed it.) Eumedemito (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it again. I don't have a problem with some kind of picture illustrating the results, but it seems to me that the latest picture that keeps coming back is a bit too prurient. Surely there are many other images that would illustrate the subject without being pornographic? The former "pool" picture was much more appropriate. If you are one of the people who keep bringing it back, at least be up-front and discuss it here on the discussion pages instead of just getting your jollies with this picture. 98.118.253.194 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:CENSOR and WP:NOIMAGE. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the people that are complaining about expected when they went to an article about bikini waxing. Wikipedia is not censored. If these were fair-use images, I'd agree with their removal, however these are free images that are exactly what the article describes. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 13:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rationale behind Bikini waxing

The usually quite painful act of body waxing is probably most accurately to do with ancient sexual habits, in which the "ideal" female - bride or otherwise, was barely pubescent. It unquestionably works on males on a "basic" level as any female can confirm who has "bikini-waxed" and then engaged with the same partner ......

.... if he's a latent pedophile. Many males are not latent pedophiles and we would really like to see, for a change, a totally ADULT bring-it-on female totally transformed by raging hormones to have a real-woman (not little-girl) face, real-woman thighs, real-woman legs, a real-woman pelvic flare-out below the waist, and a real-woman pubic area. Just like we could see everywhere all around in the mid-1980s. But I guess some men shrink from the sight of a real grown-up woman.69.86.65.12 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

It DOES make a female "appear" much younger.

(inserted quotation)

Fri Mar 25 2011 14:20:16 GMT+1000 Bikini waxing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In Middle Eastern societies, removal of the female body hair has been considered proper hygiene, necessitated by local customs, for many centuries.[4] In Islam, this is known as an act of Fitrah. Evidence of pubic hair removal in ancient India dates back to 4000 to 3000 BC.[5]

The removal of pubic hair by Western women became more common when bathing suits became abbreviated, starting in 1945.[1] Changes in lingerie styles have also encouraged the removal of pubic hair throughout the years.[2](p139)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_waxing#The_Landing_Strip

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.238.11 (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's also inaccurate to say that in ancient times the ideal woman was barely pubescent. The ideal bride yes, but the motive there was to reduce the oppertunity for sex and therefore children out of wedlock - allowing the husband to feel confident that any children he raised were his own. Historically whether you found your partner attractive was irrelevant to marriage, which was more about establishing a clear succession or inheritance. It is also worth noting that until relatively recently life expectancy was much, much shorter than it is today. If you weren't likely to live much past 30 you couldn't afford to wait long to begin having and raising children. So once again it was a practical consideration rather than anything to do with what men might find attractive.

Finally on a personal note I can tell you that this female has found male reactions to a full shave (never waxed but the result looks the same) range from approval to disgust and even anger but the one thing I have never heard is that it makes me look younger. Danikat (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You're writing as if the only conceivable rationale for the fact that you've never heard that it makes you look younger is that it does NOT make you look younger. It DOES make you look younger and that's the motive. So what's the reason you've never HEARD that it makes you look younger? (And when we say "look younger" we may be talking, approximately, looking younger than 10 years old, because for at least some females that's the last age at which they had no pubic hair.) You'll never be TOLD it makes you look younger because that would be confessing their secret pedophilic fantasy to you. They might be ASHAMED to be pedophiles or they might not be ashamed of it but would realize that if their pedophilic desires were not kept secret there would be consequences: you might break up with them; they might lose friends, social standing, etc.69.86.65.12 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Expression Brazilian Waxing

Translated from here. I was fixing a link in an article, in response to a disambiguation notice, when I found this matter, in a disambig page of the word Brazilian. In other words, one of the meanings of the word "Brazilian" would be this alleged kind of waxing. In front of this bizarre information, I went to research and there is really a neologism like this in the english language cited in some reliable sources. Nonetheless, in a short research in Google, Brazilian reliable sources recognize this expression only in english or link it to the act os waxing whatever the pattern. So if there will be no reasonable opposition I will clarify this in order to readers not think that most Brazilian women make the total waxing, proposition that is absolutely false. E. Feld ^talk 16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't stop it from being called a Brazilian. Remember, no one in Bikini wears a bikini. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm... the section on Brazilian doesn't actually say what it is. Just where it comes from and what problems with it are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.82.206 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing history

There is insufficient discussion of the history here. For example, it is (glaringly) missing any coverage of the ancient Greek preference for the partial or total pubic depilation, a preference adequately recorded as early as the 5th century (first act of Aristophanes' Lysistrata). Thorough treatment of the evidence is given by Martin Kilmer in "Genital Phobia and Depilation" in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1982. This article should also probably be a subsection of one titled "Pubic Depilation", as "bikini waxing" falls under the category of "pubic depilation", not vice versa. Currently, this is the only wikipedia article on pubic depilation. This is insufficient coverage of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.103.50 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ref to two versions of article POV?

There may very well be a case for arguing that, in addition to the citation of the article by Gibson (in the "Precautions" section) republished in the Guardian, my addition of details of its original publication (in a very slightly expanded form) is superfluous but I fail to see how this can be considered, in the edit summary, "POV". I'm happy enough to stick with one ref, and, if a choice is to be made, probably the Guardian republication (as a clearer RS), but dropping in baseless POV accusations is not helpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit redundant, but I think it may be helpful to include the original source of the piece, if just for a bit of insurance against The Guardian taking the story down. As for the POV side of things, I am not sure sure we should be contextualising her comments. To state she arrived at her views only through her "clinical experience" is to make an assumption that she hasn't researched the issue at all. She could have undertaken research, she could have read up on other people's research, she's just giving a medical opinion in her capacity as a GP. Betty Logan (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, so how about "Family physician Emily Gibson, M.D. expresses the view that shaving pubic hair "removes a cushion against friction, leaves microscopic open wounds and exposes you to infections"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, or anything along those lines; the key is for Wikipedia not to editorialize her opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

References to "body hair" should be changed to "pubic hair"

This sentence QUOTE In Western societies, removal of the female body hair has traditionally been considered appropriate when it has been visible UNQUOTE makes no sense. The hair on a woman's arms, head, and eyelids, and eyebrows is "body hair" (it is hair and it is on her body, right?), and it is visible, but its removal is not considered "appropriate" except perhaps a bit that turns eyebrows into a monobrow. Women who shave their heads, arms, and/or ALL of their eyebrows as a fashion choice (rather than to manage health problems or excel at swimming) are atypical "in Western societies". If you changed "body hair" to "pubic hair" then the sentence would no longer be nonsensical.69.86.65.12 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

This article is just not neutral-POV or encyclopedic in tone

The sentence QUOTE: The nude crotch—i.e., the total removal of pubic hair, such as in a full Brazilian or the Sphinx wax—is considered by many to be erotic and glamorous. UNQUOTE should have one of those little blue [who?] or [by whom?] footnote-like annotations after the last letter of "considered by many". Who indeed? Pedophiles? Males who, to maintain social standing, have sex with legal-age women but really imagine their lover's vagina being the vagina of a slightly pre-pubescent girl or the anus of a slightly pre-pubescent boy? The article isn't balanced if you don't also say that the it is ALSO considered by some to be as erotically appealing as the idea of having sex with a lubed orifice surgically formed from a longitudinal fold surgically sewn into a depiliated cow's-udder.

The sentence QUOTE: With the reduction in the size of swimsuits, especially since the coming into fashion and popularity of the bikini after 1945, the practice of bikini waxing has also come into vogue. UNQUOTE

is carefully written to give its author an "out" (which the author would take pains to engineer only if knowingly acting in bad faith). If I point out the untruth of pubic-waxing's being "in vogue" going back to the bikini, the author can say that TECHNICALLY the sentence means only that the pubic-waxing fad started LATER THAN 1945, which, technically, is true, since the 1990s is later than 1945. But the sentence is cleverly crafted to READ as if it says "bikini-waxing came into vogue right after the bikini", which is a lie. (I'll skip the objections that the bikini didn't debut until 1946, not 1945, NOR did it "come into vogue" when it debuted. It was rejected for years, as is well-documented by movies and adverts from the 1950s. Bikinis were not "in vogue" until the 1960s. Furthermore, the 1960s bikinis were cut wide enough to cover all the follicular roots of pubic hair, requiring only that pubic hair be shortened, but not removed, so that the END of the hair (not its root, which was covered up) couldn't extend past the edge of the cloth. The Internet is littered with non-porn 1960s images, films, and suf-music YouTubes that prove that bikini-shapes that don't requiring waxing were the mainstream until RECENTLY.

There are miles of porn-footage and reams of porn-magazines from the 1970s and 1980s that prove beyond an iota of doubt that pubic-waxing was NEVER considered erotic, glamorous or good hygiene until VERY RECENTLY, and that men found fluffy pubic-hair to be arousing (for the reason that tan-lines are arousing).

The mere EXISTENCE of the nouns "beaver" and "pussy" has GOT to indicate that hairless pubic areas are RECENT. Those words make no SENSE if women have ALWAYS gone hairless.

In a 1970s National Lampoon comic-strip, two crab-lice sought a new home and so went up a woman's skirt. On finding her to be totally "clean-shaven" (an adjective that ALREADY states use of a razor rather than the waxing that was then still FAR in the future), they freaked out, deeming her an ultra-radical feminist Lesbian bisexual man-raping bomb-throwing Communist anarchist nipple-clipping punk-rocker, and fled in terror. In the 1970s to be bare down there was to be as far out of the mainstream, and to be as openly REBELLING against the mainstream, as possible. (And being hairless was also an allusion to crab-lice and, by implication, raging promiscuity.) Today's equivalent is a female sporting tattoos of blood-dripping thorns through her pierced-eyebrow rings. RECENTLY, the pubic-waxing industry has created the perception that the mother of Beaver (no pun intended) Cleaver simply MUST have waxed because she WAS so mainstream. Well, if she was a typical 1960s housewife, she most emphatically DID NOT wax. And the industry (whom I suspect of being major editors of this Wikipedia article) created the perception that NOT being hairless is radical punk. That perception just won't stand up against that National Lampoon comic-strip and many 1970s sources.

Pubic-waxing arose with pop-music lyrics about cuttin', rippin', and killin' ho's and bitches, when football-players were idolized for murdering or assaulting wives and girlfriends. Some men cannot perceive of sex (or ANY pleasure, sexual or not) in terms different from dog-fighting and car-crashes, and anything that degrades their partner feeds their psychopathic frenzy. Turning adult women into little children by waxing off their attributes of adultness is part of this sick game. Obviously I am editorializing here on this Talk page, but there should be some way to cover (objectively) the EXISTENCE of these opinions, this school of thought of which I am doubtless not the only member, in the article. To have NO discussion of pubic-waxing and violence, pedophilia, or the current cult of cathartic traumatic anti-pleasure is unbalanced and takes the POV of APPROVING of (or at least not DISapproving of) pubic-waxing. Wikipedia shouldn't be bending over backwards to avoid casting pubic-waxing in a negative light by presenting only the promotional ideology that describes it as positive or neutral.

As often as not I come to Wikipedia to find out when something STARTED. What was the first reggae song? As often as not I find what I'm looking for.

But this article says that pubic-waxing starts in 1945 and that's just an outright lie told by someone who KNOWS it's a lie. What is the SOURCE? The first reggae-recording, that is SOURCED! Where's the first advertisment for pubic-waxing in a mainstream newspaper? Where's a PHOTO of a street showing a pubic-waxing business before 1990? Before 1980? In 1950? I know I certainly never saw one that early. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

I have Romanian friends who want to re-write Wikipedia to show that Etruscan civilization started in Romania. There are Greeks who want to re-write Wikipedia to show that Newton and Leibniz merely transcribed Greek texts. There are African-descended Americans who want to re-write Wikipedia to show that the culture of the Classical Greeks was exported to Greece from Egypt, to which it in turn had been exported from sub-Saharan Africa. Hindus have revised California's schools' textbooks to censor such facts as the incineration of live widows and the caste system lest California schoolkids fail to idealize Hinduism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history

And in this article history is being re-written to make it seem like pubic-waxing is as old as the hills and has nothing to do with a cultural change towards extremist/cathartic sensory experience, violence, pedophilia, and antipleasure. It just ain't so. Get out the Playboys and Penthouses from the 1970s and 1980s and you'll be outraged to discover just how totally the pubic-waxing industry has whitewashed your perception of history!69.86.65.12 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson