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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 26, 2004 Peer review Reviewed
September 10, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
          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.


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)

Inappropriate Images[edit]

Please use an illustrated diagram as opposed to an actual THING!!!Grathmy (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Real-life images are being used proportionately for educational purposes, whereas diagrams would give lower-quality information. If you're really offended, click the links in the big message boxes at the top to find out how to hide the images. BethNaught (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Grathmy (talk · contribs), I'll go ahead and be the one to state that you should see WP:Not censored and WP:Offensive material. If there were, as WP:Offensive material states, equally suitable alternative images that are less offensive than the real-life images, the alternatives would be fine to use. And by "equally suitable alternative" in this case, what is meant is that the images will be as educational as the real-life images. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a matter of being "offensive", or "censorship", when it's at the top of the page. See WP:IMAGE LEAD. It is not necessary to show all of the male genitals -- at least not in the infobox. "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page..." --Musdan77 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about pubic hair, so there is nothing surprising about images of the pubic area. Using an image just because it shows less of some male genitals (not all male genitals are external) would be censorship, and would damage the quality of the article. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you read WP:IMAGE LEAD? Everyone knows what the article is about, but that doesn't mean that we expect to see a big ugly picture of male genitals at the top of the page. There is an image showing female genitals on the page -- but not in the infobox. That is reasonable. The male image doesn't have to be cropped, but it doesn't need to be in the infobox. There's no good reason why the lead image can't just be the female one. It's not censorship to move (rather than remove) an image. And it would not "damage" anything. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
No, not everyone knows what the article is about, that's why the article has an infobox. The article applies to both males and females, and the lead should not prioritize one over the other without a much better reason. Is there some particular reason, other than its supposedly "ugly" content, why this photo is not suitable? Grayfell (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say that there's "nothing surprising" about images because of the subject, then you say "not everyone knows what the article is about". If someone comes here without knowing what "pubic hair" means, then they should have gone to a dictionary. That's not what Wikipedia is. And, no, that's not what an infobox is for. Like I said, "There's no good reason why the lead image can't just be the female one." Of course, it "applies to both males and females", but that doesn't mean there needs to be both in the infobox. It doesn't imply a priority, by following WP:IMAGE LEAD. The other option would be to crop it. I can't speak for anyone else (but I'm sure I'm not alone in this), but when I first came to the article I was taken aback (almost shocked) by it, and every time since, it's just disturbing. I can't really find the words to describe it (I hope someone else will chime in on it). But, surely you'd have to admit that it's not the most flattering picture (to say the least). --Musdan77 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, but I don't think this is a contradiction. Anatomy articles, especially ones related to sex, shouldn't assume pior familiarity, but neither should readers be surprised when an article illustrates the topic. I don't understand what is "unflattering". Who is not being flattered? If this is an aesthetic concern, you should propose a replacement, but there is nothing inherently inappropriate about depicting human genitalia in an article about pubic hair. There are many differing perspectives on what is and is not appropriate, but downplaying useful, informative content solely due to personal discomfort over the subject matter is indeed censorship. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
What I find "unreasonable" is that Musdan does not want the male genitals in the infobox because they are "ugly", yet is happy to keep the female genitals there. Seems a bit sexist, and what is "ugly" about a normal part of the human male body? --TBM10 (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The female genitalia is not shown in the infobox. I wouldn't want that either. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Grayfell, Again, no one is saying that the image (or one like it) shouldn't be in the article. That's not the issue. But, it doesn't need to be the Lead Image (and shouldn't be). The article is not about genitals (or sex either, for that matter). You haven't said that the female one should show genitalia in the infobox. Seems like a double standard. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Pubic hair covers much of the male genitals and scrotum, as shown in the lead image; it is a perfectly appropriate image. --TBM10 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Musdan, if you would like to suggest replacement photos that more clearly illustrate the topic, do so. I'm a little skeptical that such images won't be exactly as anatomically detailed, for obvious reasons. This is what people look like, and this is what the article is about. Trying to dance around this is only going to make it awkward and more sexual by adding attention to the private nature of the subject, like pasties. It still seems like censorship to me to downplaying relevant and informative information because it might potentially be construed as... as what, sexual? explicit? obscene? It's still not clear what the actual reason is, other than personal discomfort. Whether the image is removed completely or moved to a less prominent place it is still censorship. In both cases it is making a value judgement about the suitability of the image based on subjective opinions, and using that to influence the article outside of its encyclopedic value. The image is relevant, informative, and suitable under Wikipedia's guidelines. The comparison to the image of female pubic hair is a distraction, because that image clearly illustrates female pubic hair. The other image clearly illustrates male pubic hair. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You keep bringing up things that no one else has been talking about - and then you make insinuations about what I'm saying. And you still haven't answered my question about whether you've read WP:IMAGE LEAD. It doesn't sound like you have. I'm not going to repeat it, but you can go back and read what I first wrote in this section. I still stand by every bit of it. Nothing has been said to change those facts. I was expecting someone else to back me up, but since no one has, I guess there's nothing else for me to say. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You quote: "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page..." Good luck arguing that readers would not have expected to see the genital areas of a man a woman when navigating to an article about pubic hair. --TBM10 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Of course I've read WP:IMAGE LEAD. I'm trying to answer what I think your concerns are. If I'm missing something, perhaps it's because, by your own admission, you're having a hard time articulating exactly why you find the image so shocking. I've said that I think it's important to include both male and female images, and you've said merely that it's not necessary. That isn't a sufficient reason, as I see it, and considering the context I do not think the image is specifically more shocking than any suitable replacements, so I don't really understand where you are coming from. The article isn't precisely about genitals, but it's literally and figuratively so close that it seems very hard to understand why this isn't part of the exception specifically listed as an example in the MOS article. Grayfell (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

'Hair does not contain...'[edit]

What does 'Hair does not contain intrinsic value that automatically attracts the opposite sex' mean? And if it means anything at all, why does the person who wrote it think it true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No idea. I've trimmed that paragraph. --NeilN talk to me 15:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)