Talk:Pubic hair/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Style

I cleaned up the style section so that the bullets were actual styles and not removal methods. [1]

Pubic hair and SSC

Actually, pubic hair IS a secondary sexual characteristic. It's just not listed in the SSC article. --Dante Alighieri 12:37 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

No. Secondatry sex characteristics are characteristics that distinguish the two sexes of a species, but that are not part of the reproductive system (i.e. primary sex characteristics). Both male and female adults have pubic hair (like leg hair and underarm hair) so it is not a secondary sex characteristic. Slrubenstein
Well, there you go being right again. Damn you. :) --Dante Alighieri 12:52 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Shaving not only for erotic actors

I've moved this paragraph out of the article. It sounds like that only porn stars shave:

Some people remove their pubic hair, for example, for aesthetic reasons; they call themselves smoothies. Pubic hair may also just be trimmed. Most female erotic actors (porn stars) trim or shave their pubic hair, and so do a few of the male actors

Statistics discussion

Did someone seriously purpoted to write a statistic ? Let's be serious. Ericd 22:24 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Can the contributor of the table cite their sources, please? -- Karada 16:01 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, a citation would be very helpful. Personally I find it hard to believe that fewer than 25% of Europeans do as much as trim their bikini lines. My friend (European) is has commented on the untrimmed pubic hair she sees in the onsens here in Japan -- she says she's never seen any evidence of trimming here, something that really surprised her at first. Her findings corroborate my own limited experience. This is of course purely anecdotal, but I seriously doubt that Japan and Europe have similar pubic hair trimming/shaving habits. -- Tlotoxl 09:20, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Here is the truth about the source of the statistics at least for a part : I wrote : "Trimming or completely removing pubic hair is a common practice in the Arab world." Then someone mailed me "can you give a percentage ?". I answered (relunctanly) "I think it's a common practice for at least 80% of married women". Then that was turned into a table... I don't know what's the source for other regions. But for the Arab world it's not a serious work because :

  • I don't consider myself as a reliable source at least for percentages,
  • There's serious statistical biases as many arabian womens (probably the vast majority) won't shave they pubic hair everyday but only on some occasions, as many european women will shave only in summer also 80% of married women isn't 80% of womens...

I also think that "European women" doesn't mean anything. It's generally admited that there's serious differences about armpits and legs shaving in European countries. They must also be serious difference about pussy shaving.

Thus I vote for deleting this table.

About the Arab wolrd there's two elements that could be useful for the article :

  • Pubic hair depilation is a service offered in hammans.
  • Some units of the French army systematized the practice to verify the quality of pubic hair shaving of fellagah's women to know if their husband were near home or not (IMO that hasn't increased the popularity of the French colonialist in Algeria).

Ericd 17:26, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Doubt over the statistics

I'm from India. I'm male. I don't think, most of the women in India do shave pubic hairs. I really doubt the validity of the table. May I know where did you get this table?

Sigh. Looks like Wikipedia will have to give someone a science grant and they'll have to go to India and find out. I volunteer me :)

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Table and cultural differences

Just unremoved the Eric's table as it is useful to know the cultural differences. --Rrjanbiah 10:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have also added the alert message for the table. So, if anyone find it any mistakes, they can make changes. --Rrjanbiah 10:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please document the source for this suspicious table. RickK 05:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please refer the previous discussions.--Rrjanbiah 05:33, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The previous discussions do not document a source. RickK 05:36, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like you're in hurry... Anyway, look at the previous explanation about Eric and how he approximated the table info.--Rrjanbiah 06:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have read and re-read this discussion four times, and I have yet to see ANY source cited. Instead of just pointing me back to the top of the page, cite ONE source. RickK 14:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Improving Table

This sounds like original research to me. We should probably can it. PlatinumX 05:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SexEditorials.com survey on shaving

At the site SexEditorials.com, I found a fairly extensive page entitled Confidential Male Sexuality Poll [2]. One of the poll items was entitled Men's experience on shaving pubic hair. The results are below, expressed as a percentage of the responses for the question, with n in brackets:

  • I shave all my pubic hair entirely (1268): 16.2%
  • I shave a lot of it, but leave some (1944): 24.8%
  • I only trim the excess hairs, but leave most (2156): 27.6%
  • I leave it grow naturally and do not trim or shave at all (2021): 25.8%
  • I do not have any pubic hair to begin with (72): 0.9%
  • None of the above describes me (364): 4.7%

The source of the poll data is the site itself (the site motto is "We depend on you for the content of this site"). Therefore the sample is representative of the visitors to the site, a large proportion of which is likely made up of those seeking such statistics. I would say that the sample is at least roughly representative of those of us discussing this topic here.

The site appears to contain a fairly large amount of information and seems relatively serious in tone, but I cannot vouch for its overall credibility. There is an accompanying female101.com site [3] that is less extensive. : Wrongbutton 07:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Currently the article have info on female alone. So, we should also add male cultures too. I have also collected some info on Indian cultures on shaving and will bring to the talk page sometimes later. --Rrjanbiah 06:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Data on Indian practices and sources

This is about Indian practices. I was collecting some info on this subject. The data is much informal and non-scientific.

  • Practice of shaving (both armpit and pubic hair) is on increase among both men and women
  • Girls who shave armpit also shave pubic hairs and vice-versa.
  • Armpit and pubic hair shaving is high among elites and urban than ordinary people
  • Shaving is not forced as cultural values. But, there are some exceptions--it is being forced to few barathanatyam dancers and cinema artists.
  • Media and pornographic material forces shaving practices. It means, people see it and found it is important than told by someone else to shave. Hence, the internet and globalization increases shaving practices. It is not common couple of years ago.
  • Urban men shave their armpit and usually trims and rarely shaves pubic hairs. And they're very less in numbers
  • Girls who have been going to "beauty parlours" are told to shave as practice of beautiness. "Beauty parlours" are increasing because of beauty consciousness fever among girls and women--though it is still considered as urban culture
  • Many girls especially village girls use turmeric as hair removal solution. Usually it is applied to body of female children. Anyway, it can't controll the growth of adult hairs.
  • Many men are still alergic to pubic hair shaving. Especially they don't like a girl to shave. [4] [5] Some men even have the idea that only prostitutes shave pubic hairs

My approximation is 20% shave, 10% trim, 70% not modified. But, Gillette India survey says 27% women shave; even if it is true, the modifying population is still less. So, final approximation (if Gillette survey is true (not padded)): 27% shave, 10% trim, rest not modified. But, the current table shows Indian subcontinent--which includes Pakistan, etc. So, the numbers may slightly differ.

Couldn't get more links from internet. Here are few links related to the topic:

  • Says Sujatha Viswanath, product manager, Gillette India, "Our research shows that 27 per cent of women shave, but most of them use men's shaving systems. And most women use razors for underarms and bikini areas; for exposed parts of the body they still wax." [6]
  • "Indians gals hv bushy Pubic Hairs" [7][8]
  • some insults against the practice [9]

--Rrjanbiah 13:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments on advantages Vs disadvantages

I think the listed advantages and disadvantages are almost entirely POV despite being expressed in the 3rd person. Take Some sexual activities can appear sloppy at best (for that matter, aren't most sexual activities (between interested parties) sloppy by definition?) I think this list should be removed or rewritten, but I have to admit I'd rather just point out how bad it is then actually rewrite it myself. -- 133.5.120.130 12:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice if you tell what you refer as POV. We can then rewrite for NPOV. (Personally I think, it is informative) --Rrjanbiah 13:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plea to remove unscientific, ridiculous table

The table is a complete joke and should be removed. It is unscientific, incomplete, based on a few user's perceptions, and just plain pathetic.

Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia, not this.

Remove.

Support (remove)

  1. Cantus 10:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose (keep)

#~~~~


REMOVED SECTION

Out of mercy, I have just sliced this entire section. It is embarrassing in terms of quality. Badly written, no attribution, and it admits to be speculation by a few. Holding back laughter and tears.... (147.8.224.157)

Discuss your "specific" points. Don't spoil others work. And see the talk page and discuss the issue. Don't be moronic. --Rrjanbiah 10:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi, thanks, but I don't think removing the table without consensus is going to be any help. Someone will just revert you. Please vote in the above poll I have made so we can reach an agreement. Thanks. --Cantus 10:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To User:Rrjanbiah: I am not the anonymous user who deleted the section below. Any admin can tell you that. --Cantus 10:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is your points? If you can't help, leave the article. There are many people working on this article. --Rrjanbiah 10:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have attempted to re-edit the whole article, trying to keep the most important points in there, and only what is provable and able to be sourced. There was so much speculation and personal opinion that was kept out. Thanks. Foiegras 01:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No more discussions with sock puppet. *thread plonk* --Rrjanbiah 05:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Too bad you won't discuss the changes. However, you'll see that every edit made is indeed justified and reasoned out. It's a much more acceptable article now. Fuzheado | Talk 06:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Too bad that you jumped here without knowing what is going here. Whom didn't discuss? What was reasoned out? What is wasn't accepted? What is accepted now? Who is trolling? --Rrjanbiah 06:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's quite easy to see what's going on - lots of statistics with no citations, and complaints by many folks going back exactly a year ago (July 16, 2003) about this exact issue. Hopefully you see there was consensus about problems with this article. Fuzheado | Talk 07:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What is the source or citations or research page for the current article? If you look at the talk page and the history, you can find that the questioning of the table is very old; no one did questioned recently as it is much improved/improving by many people. As for the table is concerned, it is much informative to understand the cultural differences. Somewhere I read that many American women believe that all the people in the world shave their pubic hairs--which is not true. If you look at the edit history, you can find that many previous contributors believed that pubic shaving is "cultural" in India and 80% women did that---which is again wrong. So, eventually the content is more informative to the international audience. If you have any solid statistics or better research then you could have fixed it than removing it. If everybody start deleting things that they don't like, there won't be any articles in Wikipedia. This really questions about the future of Wikipedia. --Rrjanbiah 07:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Dead horse, dead horse. There is no justification for keeping that embarassing table in the article. Deal with it. --Cantus 09:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • plonk* --Rrjanbiah 09:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regions and practices

Pubic hair shaving practice is not common around the world. In few countries it is common and in few countries it is weird. For few Muslim countries it is a cultural norm and in few other countries it is personal than cultural. For razor vendors, it is must to know cultures and practices.

Region Men Women
not modified
[%]
trimmed
[%]
fully shaved
[%]
not modified
[%]
trimmed
[%]
fully shaved
[%]
USA/Canada       <10 60 30
Europe       > 75 < 15 < 10
South/Latin America no information
Africa (w/o Arab countries) no information
Arab world       <20 80
Australia no information
South-East Asia       85 5 10
India 70 20 10 65 10 25
Chinas/Koreas       85 5 10
Japan       85 5 10
Nudists       25 10 65
BDSM cultures       15 5 >80

The above table is a rough approximation by few Wikipedians. If you know solid statistics, please feel free to edit this page or post your comments at the talk page

  • In Germany, almost 50% of the sauna-visiting females under the age 40 fully shave their pubic hairs. This seems to be the recent trend as in 2004. Anyway, the sauna-visiting population is not representative.
  • With regard to the people of the Amazon basin, such as the Yanomami, who are predominantly naked in their daily life: Most adults pluck out all body hair. This may be to discourage parasites, or because body hair is considered unsightly. Adults and children groom one another's head hair for lice and ticks, but such attention paid to the rest of the body may be problematic. Children often have their heads shaved during illness.

Human development

I added this stuff at request of user:Rrjanbiah. Much of it is already in puberty article, with a bit more detail. I leave the discussion of cultural aspects of pubic hair to the rest of you. If you think I added more than people want to know, or if you want to keep this article mainly cultural, feel free to delete or modify. Alteripse 12:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. If you can improve the article in anyway, please do that. The discussion on cultural aspect is about shaving as it make some senses. --Rrjanbiah 13:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"adult" hair

The reason I used the term "adult hair" instead of just hair is that all children have light, fine, short hair in the area. We generally don't refer to this as pubic hair even if it is in the pubic region because it is not androgenic. You can argue that we should, but we usually don't. From my standpoint pubic hair is the hair that is longer, coarser, curlier and most importantly, results from rising androgen levels. If you really want me to spell it out, I actually charge people hundreds of dollars for my opinion on whether a child's hair is truly pubic hair or not: in general, "if it ain't a cm long and curly, it ain't pubic hair." I am not averse to using a more graceful term than "adult" hair although I thought most people would understand "adult hair". Should we say "longer, coarser, curlier hair"? I have to say, I feel pretty stupid arguing about pubic hair, but hey, here we are. What do you think would be the best way to say it? Alteripse 03:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alteripse, thanks for the explanation, I agree about the odd argument over pubic hair. Perhaps it's that the term "adult-type" is medical parlance, but odd sounding to laypeople (of which I'm one). I'm wondering if there is a more gentle introduction to the distinction between adult-type hair versus pre-pubescent vellus hair. Fuzheado | Talk 04:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Let me sleep on it. Alteripse 04:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I haven't yet thought of a brief understandable alternative to "adult-type hair." If we say "longer, coarser, kinkier," someone will ask "than what" or point out that some people have pubic hair that is fine or non-kinky. Can we have some other opinions? Is "adult-type" insufficiently meaningful or unclear? Any suggestions after reading the above exchange? The first line of the article is technically inaccurate as it stands but I am not about to start the most embarrassing revert war in wikipedia history. I wonder if a certain supreme court justice is available... Alteripse 01:24, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well I won't edit war over it, I was just wondering whether the first line could simply say that the hair was in whatever region, then in the sentence afterwards, you could make the distinction that it was adult hair versus vellus hair. That's all. Fuzheado | Talk 04:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
kinkier is not a good word in an article on a sexual topic, unless it means kinkier. --Taejo 7 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

skeptical of sun bleaching

"This is due to the lack of "sun bleaching" that the hair experiences."

reference? i know mine is very similar to my beard hair, which changes color and texture somewhat abruptly in front of the ears. my theory is that there are two different types of hair (which is noticeable in other places as well), and it has nothing to do with the sun. reputable science would be useful here. - an anonymous wikipedian :-)

slide the picture

can you slide the picture down the page below a screenfull please? i clicked on it at work accidently. phew, no one was looking. i'm not being bold in case this is a contentious issue. - Omegatron - How do you look up a section on pubic hair accidently? 01:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a lovely piece of art -- L'Origine du monde by Gustave Courbet, which I had the pleasure to view a few years ago at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. It's also about as sexual a picture as can be imagined; I don't see any discussion regarding the appropriateness of this recent insertion, though -- and the pubic hair isn't what I really notice first when I look at that picture. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing is wrong with it. I think somebody should move it down. Its not censoring it. Anybody who reads the whole thing will find it. CaptainAmerica 12:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like it if there was also a representation of mens' pubic hair. So much of the article focuses on women.
Barbara Shack 13:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)I agree. Can anyone get us a picture of a nice attractive man?

Copyrighted photo of Madonna?

The image at the top right of this article appears to be a photograph of the American Pop Singer\Actress Madonna. I believe that it is one of several published in Penthouse magazine in the late 1980's. I am not a copyright fanatic, however...?

68.57.196.39 18:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Made some Changes

Greetings and Blessings,

I've reorganized this article because it seems that there were several headings that were fundamentally about the same thing.. shaving pubic hair, and they often restated the same points. I feel the organization has been greatly improved, and I've only removed the things I felt were out of place. I submit them for your scrutiny, and I hope you agree with my reasoning.

bushpie, hairpie, furburger

I believe these are references to the female genitalia, not pubic hair. I've never heard any men refer to their pubic hair by those names.


It is a common practice in the Islamic world for either sex (men usually prefer trimming or shaving, women prefer complete removal by waxing or shaving)

This was already mentioned.


In the 1990s, a permanent method of hair removal evolved with many opting for more permanent removal of pubic hair. This method involves the use of focused, high power light. This type of depilation falls under two main categories: intense pulsed light (IPL) and laser epilation. IPL uses broad spectrum (white) light, and laser epilation uses a very specific wavelength (color) of light to destroy the hair-producing gland, the follicle. Unlike some temporary methods, light epilation does not cause razor bumps, ingrown hairs or dermatitis. It is still controversial as to which method, IPL or laser, is the most effective.

Not that the paragraph isn't informative, but it has little to do with pubic hair, specifically. It should instead be included in an article about hair removal, as its domain is more than just pubic hair.


Before shaving became common in Western cultures (particularly North American), the presence of such hair was viewed as a sign of sexual maturity. Now, to the contrary, the social requirement to shave such hair has now become for many a rite of passage.

Sorry, I just didn't like this sentence. Stating that shaving one's pubic hair is a "social requirement" and a "rite of passage" seems too POV. In mine and many other's opinions, pubic hair is still a sign of sexual maturity. Therefore, it is not an accuracy description of the West. The fact is that shaving pubic hair is a lifestyle choice, and is not by any means a "social requirement" like the sentence suggests. Perhaps the author could edit the sentence then resubmit it.

J.H

Beared

Is Hair On Your FAce Concitered PUBIC HAIR? NO

1990s

Is there some citation that anyone can give which evidences that the shaving of pubic hair became popular in the 1990s, as opposed to, for example, the 1980s? If not, I'm going to revert it again soon. I don't think that claim is accurate. -- Dpark 00:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove "possible reasons" section

This section looks like it belongs to uncyclopedia. Gakrivas 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It reads like someone's personal essay. Should be removed. Alexander 007 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the Reasons section (pasted below) is absurd. Where to begin? 1) Pubic hair does not "trap" crab lice; they grab on because they want to stay there. 2) Crab lice do not cause genital herpes! 3) The last sentence is just ridiculous. Daily cleansing alone will do the trick, and the editorial use of "attractive" does not belong in this article.Xandergr8 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Pubic hair also has a tendency to trap "crab lice" that cause genital herpes. Removal of the majority of pubic hair, combined with daily cleansing, will ensure that the vagina stays sanitary, healthy, clean, and attractive.

Herpes is actually due to a virus. I accept that people shave off parts of their pubic hair that’s not covered by their underpants (or swimwear). But why EVERYTHING? Does it really make it easier to keep clean? It seams to be a rationalization like the “hygienic” argument for circumcision. I mean that it is completely needless and maybe even slightly disadvantageous! Shaving your sexual organs do NOT make access easier. That only makes them more visible, which is why porn actors do it. (I don’t like pornography.) It might also make them more pleasant to lick. I have not tried and I don’t want to!

It is claimed that some indigenous tribes in Brazil completely lack pubic hair. This is probably comparable to Thor Heyerdahl’s claim that Native Americans have no facial hair. In reality they have but much less than Europeans. Furthermore, most ethnic groups considered facial hair to be ugly, so they were careful to remove it. If some Brazilian tribes seem to totally lack body hair it might be due to strong aversion against it (and consequently careful removal). It is also possible that 80% of them really are unable to grow it. But 100% is impossible considering human genetics! (Races – in the biological sense – don’t exist.)

2006-12-01 Lena Synnerholm, Mästa, Sweden.

Remove "hygiene, especially during menstruation"

How exactly is shaving one's pubic hair during menstration (or any other time) a valid substitution for let's say.. bathing regularly? I would really like to see some *scientific evidence* or some good, logically sound opinions to support "shaving for hygiene." If some feel it helps to reduce "odor," then we can clarify the point. However, I think the the current argument as it stands is misleading and not at all helpful. If there are no objections I will eventually edit or remove the point.

J.H 07:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxi?

Is there some source for the trivia at the end...about the word "taxi" being the collective noun for detached pubic hair? Joyous | Talk 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously someone's idea of a joke. I've removed that section. Flapdragon 11:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

It's obvious that both of these people have trimmed pubic hair. Shouldn't this be noted? I added "(trimmed)" to the picture discription which was removed by someone's subsequent edit. They said this couldn't be proven. Well it can't be proven that they weren't trimmed either and common sense observation dictates that they were trimmed. Both have dark corse hairs which typically grow much longer than pictured (left un-trimmed). Nothing wrong with having a picture depicting trimmed hair, most people (at least in western culture) do trim or sculpt their pubic hair to some extent. It just needs to be noted. --Person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.21 (talkcontribs) at 10:44, June 29, 2006

There is great natural variation in color, thickness and extent of pubic hair, just as there is of hair on other parts of the body. It looks to me like both pictures are within the natural range of variation. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the reference to trimming when it was first added. It is far from obvious that they are trimmed. I'd say it's actually pretty obvious that they are not. If you look at the picture of the woman you can see that the central area is quite bushy but that the hairs extend out from that point over the top of her legs and across her body to the full extent of the image. If it were trimmed you would see either stubble-spots or a hairless smooth body at the edge. Both pictures appear to be of people of European descent with lightish coloured hair. Thick "bushes" are quite uncommon in such groups. Paul B 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok. After considering your comments, I concede that it isn't "obvious" they are trimmed (though still highly possible). Since there are great variations (as Donald said).
Paul, I don't see how trimming (female pic) would necessitate "stubble-spots or a hairless smooth body at the edge" (that would be shaving). I didn't think she was trimmed because of a fairly small area of pubic hair (which it seems you must have thought, a reasonable assumption btw). I thought so (trimmed) because of the hair's texture. I mean she doesn't have the corsest type of hair, but still corse (not fine hairs). So that would leave me to believe that the hair would be longer (left untrimmed).
I would say (considering both your comments) the female looks to be most likely trimmed (but not decisive) and it could be either way for the male (taking into consider corseness,pigmentation, and hair lengths). Not a close trim mind you (for female), but looks like she went down to an even half inch all over (hair density varies, but length looks even all over). I'm revising the picture summary (when you click the pics) for the male from "likely trimmed" to "possibly trimmed" and leaving the female summary as "likely trimmed". I will leave the "pubic hair" picture captions as you have edited (not mentioning whether trimmed), since it would be superfluous to caption "likely trimmed" and "possibly trimmed". So good revision on your parts. Maybe it would be appropriate to post another set of pics to show the variations in pubic hair. 208.252.179.23 21:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence of trimming whatsoever. I'm not sure what this distinction is between "trimming" and "shaving". Are you suggesting that some hairs are plucked and others cut short? Again, I see no evidence for this rather unlikely scenario. Click on the image to see the detailed version. The hairs are quite long and straggly. Frankly the pattern of the woman's public hair is almost identical to my own partner's, and to my previous girlfriend's, neither of whom trimmed, plucked, shaved or cropped their natural assets. Paul B 08:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Paul, I didn't suggest anything other than trimming (not shaving, plucking, etc...). I'll go over this again to explain what I was originally thinking. I've been swayed over now.
I thought the hairs in areas of greater natural density looked the same length as the outer straggly ones (where there is less natural density, nothing to do with plucking or shaving). Thus leading me to believe the hairs were trimmed to make an even length all over. Since areas of naturally higher hair density should be longer due to higher androgen sensitivity.
Examining the hi-res pic more carefully (still difficult to follow hairs), yeah the hairs do seem longer in areas of higher density (contrary to what I previously thought). So you're right that there is no evidence. I reason that my deduction was from bias of my previous experience and difficulty in seeing the details (even in large pic). I'll remove the "likely/maybe trimmed" from the set of picture summaries.
My thoughts are still that more examples (pictures) would be preferrable to show the variations. Maybe I can submit a pic of myself and you can all laugh and say it should be captioned that I must have spilled some Rogaine on my genitals. Hahaha. --Person 208.252.179.27 01:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. I think more images would be useful, so that we had a sense of the variety, maybe even to illustrate racial differences etc. Add a pic of yourself by all means. There is a danger in having too many images, partly because the page may look cluttered, and partly because it might turn into a pubes appreciation page, but there good reasons to illustrate the extent of human variation. Paul B 14:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why only females? It just seems... like that shouldn't be? Are there any famous paintings or pictures of male-ness? gren グレン ? 10:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous male nudes with public hair. Only in images of woman has the inclusion of hair been a major issue, which partly justifies the presence of more images of women than of men. Paul B 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems someone added a photo of male pubic hair. I'm not clear why it was necessary to post one with a semi-erect penis, however. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I placed a picture of a male shaving his pubic hair. It was not obscene. In fact, the penis was covered by his heand. However, the image was deleted from Wikimedia Commons and is no longer available to post here. I would be happy to re-post, if I could get more of a guarantee than Wikimedia won't delete it. It just seems appropriate to me as we do have pictures of males and females with pubic hair (though trimmed slightly) and only a picture of a female with bubic hair shaved. I thought rather than posting another picture of a male with shaved pubic hair which shows the penis, it might be more appropriate to just show a picture of a male in the act of shaving. [[User:Svartulfr1}} 20:26 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Good God do we really need a gallery of shaved and styled hair too? That last gallery seems gratuitous. Kinda nasty as well, with protruding labia etc. - seem intended to shock or titillate rather than to educate. The whole gallery should be removed IMO. Illshow 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Someone left this comment on the article page:

This may need to be checked for plagarism. An almost identical explanation exists here --TaO! 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's too short to amke a definitive judgement on whether it is a copyvio. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

An extremely rubbish version of it appeared in the article (possibly from an anon). I reworked it into its current slightly less rubbish state. If it constitutes a copyvio then by all means delete it because, to recap, it's rubbish. Soo 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Images removed

I have removed image:L'Origine_du_monde.jpeg and Image:Male pubic hair.jpg because I do not think they are appropriate for this article. L'Origine du monde is a fine piece of art and has its own article, but female pubic hair is already illustrated in the article, and L'Origine du monde is, IMHO, overkill, and I suspect it was placed at the top of the article for its shock value. I also removed the image of a semi-erect penis used to illustrate male pubic hair. Erections are illustrated in other article, but this article is about pubic hair, not penises or erections. An image of male pubic hair with a flacid penis and that emphasizes the hair and not the penis, would be appropriate for the article. I request that the images I removed not be added again unless and until a consensus to do so has been demonstrated in this talk page. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I assumed that Image:L'Origine_du_monde.jpeg was used because it's a fine piece of art - more pleasing to the eye (of many people) than a clinical image. Also, the currently-used image Image:Pubic hair.jpg is up for deletion due to licensing issues - see [10]. FreplySpang (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think a clinical tone is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. In particular, image:L'Origine_du_monde.jpeg is much more than an image of pubic hair. As the article L'Origine du monde says:
The framing of the scene, between the thighs and the chest, emphasizes the erotism of the work. Moreover, an erect nipple and the redness of the vaginal lips suggest that the model had just had a sexual encounter.
Erotic images are appropriate in discussing eroticism or, in cases like L'Origine du monde, inarticles about the images. I don't think eroptic images have a place in Pubic Hair. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This article isn't just about pubic hair, as one would read in a medical journal, but also about pubic hair's role in culture and art. Therefore, L'Origine du monde certainly has a place here. Of all the images in this article I find L'Origine du monde to be one of the more appropriate (i.e. least trashy). All in all, I say keep it. J.H 10:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It is better to have an non-erect picture but could one that shows pubic hair better
"'The framing of the scene, between the thighs and the chest, emphasizes the erotism of the work. Moreover, an erect nipple and the redness of the vaginal lips suggest that the model had just had a sexual encounter." That is point of view, an image such as this clearsy shows pubic hair and is in my opinion great at illustrating it, especially since this woman seems to have plenty. I say keep it. Now as for erect vs. flacod penis, let me say this. Would you say for the article for the human arm, that someone waving or throwing a football in a picture does not belong in the article because the article is not about hand gestures or football, i think not. Honestly the majority of the time i see pubic hair on a man or women is when they are aroused and i am about to or in the act of having sex with them the fact that the penis is hard is irrelevant, i dont think its encyclopedic, i believe it just bothers you and i believe wikipedia is not censured. I think its an improvement to an article to show pubic hair on both in aroused (sex, masterbation) and unaroused (skinny dipping, advertisement, sunbathing) forms.

In addition i find a picture of pubic hair that has been shaved to be lacking, and does anyone else think that anal pubic hair should be included? Qrc2006 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos

No offense, but can we find pictures of people that aren't obese to use?

MSTCrow 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The Nude Maja doesn't seem the slightly bit obese, and L'Origine du monde might seem a little obese, but not heavily, and if Joanna Hiffernan was the model, that might be a misperception, at least according to the full-body paintings. Moreover, I don't see any reason why we must seek out and destroy any picture that doesn't fit one culture's concept of beauty. Even if they were objectively ugly, I see no reason to censor the normal human form.--Prosfilaes 18:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Learning is more pleasant when the specimen is not of less than attractive status. Why are you talking about works of art, I'm only talking about the first two pictures in the article.
MSTCrow 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't talk about the pictures, because you can't see anything in the pictures, and what I could see didn't lead me to the conclusion that they were obese. I don't find them unattractive, and I don't particularly approve of a drive to force all pictures to fit a particular standard of beauty.--Prosfilaes 18:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Huge flabby thighs and fat rolls ballooning the scrotal region are signs of obesity. It's not a beauty issue, it's a health issue, and I believe specimens used as examples should be healthy.
MSTCrow 16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Still not seeing it. It was a beauty issue when you started this discussion. Specimens used as examples should be relatively typical, not some rarified ideal of health that most of us will never approach.--Prosfilaes 18:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not using any idealized, impossible state of health as a criteria. Most people in the world are not obese. In the US, here, yes, many are, but not everyone is, and there are millions of people with healthy bodies who would suffice. I don't think it makes sense to posting worst case scenario pics.
MSTCrow 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This is very tiresome, and even absurd. Neither figure is obviously obese. There are no "fat rolls" or any sign that the pictures represent a "worst case scenario". The way the male figure's penis projects is slighhtly odd, but not in any way abnormal. Paul B 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to find alternatives, or to do some photographing yourself. FreplySpang 16:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would propose a group of pictures to show the wide diversity across the globe in pubic hair: someone with heavy hair, light hair, trimmed hair (which the current ones appear to be); as well as caucasian, latino, black, Indian, other Asian, etc. -- PL 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

No references. --SeizureDog 05:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

*Aww, it failed the good article nomination? Ok, I will try to find some references. Thanks for reminding us to look for references. --Starionwolf 03:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

....as "other" apes.

[Paul Barlow (evolution is not "highly debated" by scientists. Even if it were, it would not matter. Humans are included in this category.) ]

And scientific theory has been wrong and reverted how many times? Once evolution is a scientific law and not a theory will it become NPOV. The aim of the article is to educate, not interject someone's own POV.

Classifying humans as apes is POV especially since evolution is a highly debated topic. To say “Humans have the same number of hair follicles as other apes” is injecting the writers own POV on evolution and adds nothing to the article itself, where as editing the sentence to say “Humans have the same number of hair follicles as apes” is just a scientific comparison, is NPOV, and does nothing to hurt the validity or substance of the article.

3 reverts to add humans to the ape family sure looks like an insistence to inject someone’s own POV on evolution especially since the original edit did nothing to change the point or accuracy of the article.

This only proves my point that in reading this article it distracts the reader needlessly to the debate on evolution. I donated to Wikipedia twice because of its NPOV policy and would like to see it up held in this and all articles!

For instance, I personally recommend Wikkipedia to friends and acquaintances and I’m sure my evolutionist friends would read that sentence without a problem, but a creationist (or someone like me who is indifferent but knows evolution hasn’t been proven yet) may stop there and question Wikipedia solely due to someone’s point of view being expressed in an article. It would be drastic, I agree, but Wikipedia’s NPOV is what draws many people here and I would hate to see someone throw out the baby with the bath water. LOL, especially if it was due to one word that puts humans in the family as apes in an article on Pubic hair!! --Egill 15:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution has been proven to the satisfaction of all serious scientists who specialise in the area. But in essence, that's beside the point. Evolution nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter whether Cheetahs and Lions evolved, or were both created separately by God, or even artificially manufactured by space aliens. The fact remains that they are both members of the cat family. These families were constructed by taxonomists quite independently of evolutionary theory. Cheetahs and Lions are still cats whether they evolved from a common ancestor or not. Humans are categorsed in the ape family, whether they evolved or not. Paul B 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Humans are apes. They share common DNA, and they share many more obvious signs of relation. "Orangutan" comes from man of the forest, and in 1640 "Scientists who examined these rare specimens were baffled, and described these first chimpanzees as "pygmies" (see chimpanzee). This is not a new realization here.--Prosfilaes 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting reversion battle. I have to admit that I had to look up ape to find to and understand the definition. It is interesting that my Webster dictionary gives all the examples except humans. I double checked in my American Heritage dictionary and found they did the same. I know the scientific community includes humans as apes from a species classification but it appears this definition is at variance with what is generally accepted from a language perspective. Because of the differing perspectives, I believe it would be of benefit to readers to provide more clarity in the article by listing examples for the comparison.

The details of human hair go beyond my expertise but I see a few areas for clarification that perhaps more knowledgeable writers could elaborate on. The sections explains that humans have the same number of hairs as gorillas etc. but how many hairs is this? Furthermore what does the total number of hairs on a human have to do with pubic hair. I fail to see how this fact explains the presence of pubic hair. And it brings other questions to mind. Do Gorillas and chimpanzees have hair that develops or changes as a result of puberty? My sense tells me that the entire 'number of hair follicles' sentence should be deleted unless it can somehow substantiate the premise of the paragraph.

Just an onlookers thoughts and questions. Hope this helps. Gtrav 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, really picking nits here! I'll add my two cents. Egill, I see the current version of the article currently refers to "gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans" in the sentence in question, but it might have been simpler to just substitute "other primates" for "other apes", no? "Primates" is the accepted scientific name for the order that humans and the apes all belong to, and thus it seems a more neutral term. Moreover, "ape" does not have a literal meaning that includes humans, at least according to American Heritage (http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/A0360900.html). Given its other connotations (mimic, clumsy or boorish person) it does seem a term worth avoiding. By the way, evolution is a theory and will never be "proven" in the way that inertia or antisepsis can be proven. Not in our lifetimes, anyway. Gravity is also a theory, and I suspect you believe in that. But I could be wrong! --PL 03:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pubic hair in art cluttered

The section Pubic Hair in Art seems a bit cluttered with photos... Maybe they should be thinned out a little to improve the look of the article? The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife while a good illistration seems a tad out of place, and may disturb some people veiwing the article. While I have no problem with it, I know some people may veiw it badly in this article since it deals with beastiality.

I don't know why it's out of place, but this shunga shows "straight" sex, if a rather strained position. Any preferences? Paul B 14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Two Lovers
Katsushika Hokusai, The Adonis Plant (Fukujusô) Woodblock print, from a set of 12, ôban ca. 1815

It does seem to be a nicer image... Much less disturbing to unsuspecting users.

who gives a fuck if it is "disturbing" WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSURED and if someone does not want to be disturbed they should not have sex, go in a locker room, watch movies, leave their house, take off their clothes, look at their own genitals, or LOOK UP ARTICLES ON PUBIC HAIR. Qrc2006 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shaved.jpg image

User:Bob O'FLYNN loaded an image of a dog over the image that used to be in this article. His only other history was to vandalize three articles. If someone still has the original image, upload it again. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Changes

I have switched Image:Pubic hair.jpg for Image:Poilspubiens.jpg because the new image is a personal shot done by a wikipedian [11] rather than a photo with writing on it attributing it to another website (which doesn't currently say its license conditions). Fishies Plaice 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also added Image:Vulva15Cropped.jpg to the Style section, because the page does not yet have any photos of styled pubic hair. Currently we only have photos of natural and fully shaved hair. Again, this is a personal shot by a wikipedian- Image:Vulva15.jpg. Fishies Plaice 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If there must be a shot of styled hair, could we use one that is less disgusting at least? This one is revolting. 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

A couple others suggested as I agree that there should be a gallery (or group of smaller thumnails) that show the large variations in pubic hair patterns. Both between ethnicities and within them. Caucasians for instance are composed a many sub ethnicities with tendencies for different pubic hair patterns. Most people are mixed anyhow. So I think it would be limiting to say "well there is already a picture of a caucasian (white), negroid (black), mongloid (asian) etc.. person" when in reality there can be as much variation within these "races" as in comparison to others.

There should obviously be a limit on submissions, but up to a few different pictures for each "race" (which is composed of many ethnicities) sounds reasonable to me. If the gallery seems to be overwhelming with that amount of pictures, it could be then moved to a seperate sub-article. But I think for the time being the gallery should be left here to encourage different looking people to submit. Just my opinion, and I'll be understanding if the consensus says it goes. --Wits 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a nice idea, but currently we don't have enough images to make it work. However, if it is done, I'd recommend not duplicating pictures? We don't need an image twice in one article. Fishies Plaice 12:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also try to get some better-looking pictures too. Most of the ones on the current page are poor quality and blatant exhibitionism. Soo 12:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose for this gallery other then titilation? Seriously, what is the need? To show the variations in pattern? With one exception, none of those variations appear to be 'natural' but are a result of modification. We've already got text commenting that modifying pubic hair is a fairly common practice in some societies. My personal opinion is that this section detracts from the tone of the article. I would recomend its removal.--Lepeu1999 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The gallery at the moment is just exhibitionism. Genuine visual evidence of ethnic variation would be fine, but at the moment it looks like people showing off their assets. Paul B 19:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that the exhibitionism of the many of the photos detracts from the article, it is customary to discuss a proposal before calling for a straw poll (see Wikipedia:Straw polls). -- Donald Albury 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, what would you like to discuss about it? Rather then just going in and deleting it, I'm trying to get a dialogue going so if people ARE in favor of it they can chime in.--Lepeu1999 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I am in favor of removing most of the images in the article. But as soon as you do remove one, editors will be pouring to defend their right to post any image they want to, no matter how ugly and inappropriate. Even you do get a consensus here to remove images, I suspect it won't last long. -- Donald Albury 00:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I am fine with having a gallery here, as we do on many articles. I would resist deletion, but would not be against improvement. Referring to exhibitionism in regard to these people who have freely donated intimate photos to illustrate an article that many find embarrassing seems to stretch WP:AGF, unless there is any actual evidence to suggest that. --Guinnog 01:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've no problem with the images per se, my issue is what's the point? We need to illustrate there are visual differences in pubic hair? Don't the photos already in the article do that? Frankly the photos there don't show much difference - they all appear to be from caucasians with brown hair. Photos should support and enhance the article, not just be posted for the sake of posting photos. My issue has nothing to do with modesty, prudery or anything like that at all, I simply believe the photos there now are not necessary and do not enhance the article.--Lepeu1999 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Lepeu1999, I don't see any pictures illustrating differences besides in the gallery. Like I said initially, my idea was to start a gallery which would get different looking people to submit, and thus show the variations. Although the gallery initially comprised of only caucasians, more variation is gradually being introduced via submissions. Read back if you want more of my thoughts on the gallery. Wits 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, but what is the point of doing it? This is an encyclopedia article. I don't believe the gallery idea enhances the article itself. It's nice sure, but any photos added should only illustrate the points being made in the text. Pubic hair looks different on different people, fine, but is that a major enough point to warrant a full set of photos? I don't think so. What WOULD be nice is something on the different stages of pubic hair growth - illustrating how it prgresses from vellic hair to full fledged mature growth. For various reasons I don't think that could be done in photographs, but there are diagrams out there. Finding a non-copywritten one would be the issue.--Lepeu1999 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with previous comments - keep but improve. PL 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need pictures? Every1 knows what it looks like. That's a little excessive. Y'all. Juppiter 07:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Images are too suggestive == —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanbis (talkcontribs)

Suggestive of what? Of pubic hair. (By the way, anyone else notice how the penises are all leaning the same way?) 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's too suggestive, considering there already are other photos and it's an article entitled "pubic hair." -Emiellaiendiay 21:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for pubic hair

I'm going to attach an original research tag. It proposes several theories without giving any sources. 199.126.137.209 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

evolutionary POV=

What do people think about including an explanation as to why pubic hair is present in humans from an evolutionary perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.172.131 (talkcontribs) 12:36, 28 December 2006

I feel that it would be very tricky, you are running into POV problems. But if you feel that you can write it from a NPOV and properly reference it then go ahead and put it on the talk page so we can see it. It could be possible. Mathmo Talk 15:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated photo

Why has the first female photo been repeated at the top of the article? We certainly don't need the same photo to appear twice in the same entry. Please delete the first occurrence. Xandergr8 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However I was reverted when I removed, and the next editor to remove it was also reverted. To avoid a revert war, we need to decide here on whether that photo should be at the top of the article. There was a defacto consensus a while back to move the images down from the top of the article to avoid a "shock" effect on first loading the article. I would like to see if there is still support for that. -- Donald Albury 16:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I like have a lede photo, but the duplication doesn't seem useful. I'd say keep the first, replace the second with another photo. Fishies Plaice 18:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Dalbury that moving photos "below the fold" makes sense given the history of this article and previous responses to having a photo front and center. An extra photo above the rest serves no useful purpose. Xandergr8 22:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't need a picture at the beginning of the article, it will only be deleted anyway. And its repeat of a photo already on the page. Remove. Latinflava 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

When we find a replacement photo for the first image in the gallery we can put that in the gallery instead, otherwise there is no need to change about the page. So before we go any further, does anybody have an image they can show to be used there instead? Mathmo Talk 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The gallery is fine the way it is. Just need to delete the first photo up top. P 06:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I know that image is already used in this page, but we can use it twice. We should place an image on the intro in order to illustrate the what this article is about. --Haham hanuka 10:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to put a picture at the top of the page to illustrate the article. -- Donald Albury 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Most other articles have such an illustration. Anyone following a link ending in "Pubic_hair" is unlikely to be all that shocked by, erm, pubic hair. It's hardly the most shocking image to found on Wikipedia. I agree that the duplicated photo is bad, so we should find another one. Soo 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the optimal solution is to replace the first image on the gallery (to avoid duplication) and to move this image to the intro (like I did). Unlike most of the images on this article this image is only about public hair. --Haham hanuka 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Dalbury that we just don't need an image at the top of the page to illustrate the article. There are plenty of wikipedia articles that reserve imagery for further down the page. I object not only because of the duplication but also for pragmatic reasons: we are basically trolling for all the censor types to have at it. Xandergr8 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[12]It seems like most of your edits here are about censoring this article. --Haham hanuka 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. This discussion is not about censorship; it is about how to improve this article. Personally, I think that this article is over-illustrated, to the point that it detracts from the article. Fighting censorship is not about seeing how many pictures of naked people you can stuff into this article. We need to be talking about how to improve the article, and I must say that adding more amateurish photos of people showing off their pubic hair is not my idea of improvement. -- Donald Albury 12:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Variations 'gallery' - Poll for removal

Reading the article, I am immediatly struck with the notion that the gallery in the 'variations' section detracts from the article as a whole. There seems to be no reason for it other then as an excuse to include more photos of genitalia. The other photos of the article more then support the contention that there are myriad variations in the amount and look of pubic hair. Further, any variation in the photos included in the gallery is due to the way the hair's been trimmed, not from and genetic diversity. While I believe the article would be better without it, I would like a consensus before considering removal.--Lepeu1999 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove.

Support (remove) --Lepeu1999 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Oppose (keep) Oppose (keep)

Support (remove) really is not needed, considering if you were really dieing to see it you could... --Furiso

Keep and improve. --Guinnog 06:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose (keep) (repeat of what I said under "gallery" in italics) Lepeu1999, I don't see any pictures illustrating differences besides in the gallery. Like I said initially, my idea was to start a gallery which would get different looking people to submit, and thus show the variations. Although the gallery initially comprised of only caucasians, more variation is gradually being introduced via submissions.

Some of submitions are possibly trimmed (as I argued earlier under "Images"), but that is irrelevant. There are differences shown besides trimming. I'm not sure that the pictures need to be as prominent as they are. So, I wouldn't be against shrinking the thumnail size if it's too distracting (thumbnails originally were smaller when I made it). Wits 18:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I shrunk the thumnails from 200px to 150. Doesn't sound like much but it fits the page much better. Wits 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as anyone could have predicted, someone has taken the additional available width on the page as an invitation to post another photo.

Oppose: keep and improve. Maybe a 4-pic-per-gender maximum? It did make it fit much better. Fishies Plaice 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Keep. The very topic should let viewers know what they might see. There is nothing pornographic about the pictures. Pictures are a great way of explaining things in a way words cannot. If you want to make the thumbnails smaller or move them, that would be fine. Lewie 14:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support Excessive and unnecessary in my opinion. CPAScott 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose (keep) Improves the article by illustrating in greater depth and variety what the article is about. Mathmo Talk 09:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Support (remove) The Chest hair and Abdominal Hair articles used line drawn diagrams. This gives an entire gallery of full color pictures. I think it is obvious that this is done for enjoyment rather than true informational purposes. I recommend doing what the other body hair articles do and use line drawings. It would also make the article more accessible to more people. There are many people who won't or can't read an article with photographic nudity than those who would refuse to read one that doesn't. Including the pictures effectively bars millions of people from reading it.

Support (remove). One image of male and female would be plenty - why have eight? Totally unnecessary and merely gratuitous titillation. I like nude pics as much as the next guy, but they have no place in an encyclopaedic article like this. In fact, it reduces Wikipedia's credibility - AND it attracts vandals like blood to a shark.
Nick Michael 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually Nick Michael, that should be "like a shark to blood." Just sayin.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.112.50 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
Support (remove). Cut gallery down to one male and one female example. RJASE1 Talk 13:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work RJASE1! How did you choose the ones you left? Just curious...
Nick Michael 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I got involved was because of the vandalism going on with the images...I figured someone would be unhappy no matter what I did. Hopefully the two images remaining (along with the others further down) are an acceptable race/gender sample. RJASE1 Talk 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Let's hope the extra space doesn't attract more of the same...Nick Michael 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Though I think the pictures do not really demonstrate the variations the preceding statement talks about. All four pictures show the similar type of pubic hair. If different pictures which actually explicate the variations could replace it, perhaps it would make more sense.Saurabh Rahurkar 21:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's not been any sort of consensus here, so removing the gallery is too soon. So, let's discuss the key issues and try to resolve this. As I see it, we have several opinions. Firstly, some people point out that pubic hair is variable. There is a difference in distribution patterns and density of hair between, say, Image:Gen_21.jpg and Image:Male_pubic_hair_caucsn.jpg. Or between Image:Poilspubiens.jpg and Image:Natural pubic hair.jpg. Some people think the article should illustrate these variations. On the other hand, some people think the pictures are just an excuse for pictures of genitalia, and would prefer line drawings. However, no-one has suggested any line drawing alternatives. It seems to be the best solution would be to find good line drawings illustrating variations. Failing this, maybe a solution could be to limit the variations to 2 male and 2 female, trying to pick photos illustrating a bit of the range of variety? Possibly the 4 I have above? Fishies Plaice 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a very good link already mentioned in the article, viz: Pubic Hair Distribution which does exactly what you want. However it is admittedly limited to female patterns and distribution. This is really much more useful than the photos in the article, and if a male counterpart of this site can be found, would you agree that it be substituted for the multiple photos? Nick Michael 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather have it in wikipedia. I'm always wary of relying on external sites to do our work for us, as they can disappear and aren't bound by all our guidelines. But still, that would be better than nothing. Fishies Plaice 11:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You forgot me. 'OPPOSE' (Keep). Mainly because you cannot rely on external link to stay up for a long period of time before finally going away and disappearing. I recommend a maximum number of images and removed some of the unneccessary ones (ie: the artwork depicting a japanese woman with a squid on her) that doesn't contribute to the article itself. Yoryx 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we need THAT many pics

Really ppl...we get the idea.TNTfan101 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the first gallery (voted for keeping it). But since then another gallery has been added for shaved hair which goes way overboard. It contains some voyeuristic photos with spread eagle legs (probably cropped from copyrighted porno pictures), obviously bad photoshopping (in one pic), semi-erection with semen dripping down his leg, etc... Totally inappropriate. Wits 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it shows you clicked on the pic to see the semen, ha ha! But I agree with you wholeheartedly: it's totally inappropriate, and unnecessary gratuitous titillation. What's more, the caption of the picture to which you refer mentions the word 'balls' - very encyclopaedick, don't you think? Perhaps you could add your vote and comments to the poll for removal at the top of this page.
Nick Michael 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW, having all those pics also seems to attract the vandals like blood does a shark... Nick Michael 08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Hey Nick, I clicked the pic for purely "encylopedick" reasons. I swear. Hahaha. Anyways, I previously added my vote/comments for keeping the "variations" gallery. Although it (variations gallery) could use improvement perhaps. It's good that the inappropriate (as previously detailed) "shaved" gallery was removed.

For the variations gallery we should add a set of agreed upon guidelines (only readable by editors). Such as limits on numbers of pics (I think 4 per gender is fine), reinforce purpose of gallery, etc... I understand why you think having multiple photos would encourage vandalizing (monkey see monkey do). But my thought are that if properly done it may actually discourage it. If proper visuals are instituted (with rules/limitations stated in editing space), that could mean less people will be randomly uploading inappropriate pictures to try and fill the void. Wits 18:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well RJASE1 actually took it upon him/herself to delete all eight pics a day or two ago, in spite of no consensus having really been reached. I hoped no one would see, but we were caught by Fishies Plaice, who has an eagle eye for disappearing pubes, and reverted it, as is indeed his/her right. I must say, I'm fed up with having to scroll past these pendant dongs. How about having eight female photos and no male? Cheers Nick Michael 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was browsing through some of the media for deletion and came across this. Quite frankly, that's just too many images. I don't see a problem with the article having AN image, but we really don't need several to show off several variations of genitalia. 65.6.50.112 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So sign the poll below! Nick Michael 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo gallery - options

The above discussion is months old now - I count 6 signed votes for gallery removal and 4 signed votes for retention (plus a couple of unsigned retention votes and some additional support for removal in the other thread). I was hoping to consolidate consensus into a new thread (this one) and close it out within a couple of weeks.

I'd like to put forward the following two options:
Option 1. Keep the gallery as is, limited to four male and four female images.
Option 2. Eliminate the gallery and reduce images in this section to one male and one female example.
RJASE1 Talk 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes

Option 2. I'm no prude (I even supported the current image in the Ejaculation article) but having an open gallery of this type is vandal-bait. God knows we already have enough self-made images of male genitalia. I think one each archetypical male and one female image are enough to get the encyclopedic point across, when combined with all the other examples shown further down in the article. RJASE1 Talk 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Option 2. And I'm not a prude either. In fact, rather the contrary ;-) But these photos do not lend credibility to Wikipedia and attract vandals like honey does bees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Michael (talkcontribs) 07:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Out of those two options, I'd go for Option 1. The point of the variations gallery is to illustrate the variations. As I said above, I think that we should have at least two females and two males, with the illustrations chosen to show variations. And I don't care whether those are line drawings or photos. Fishies Plaice 12:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I favor Option 2, but that is not a vote. I doubt that we are going to settle this now, despite the length of the earlier discussion. Calling this a vote is not good, either. Voting generally does not work for settling disputes on Wikipedia. We may eventually want to take this to mediation or maybe Request for Comments. -- Donald Albury 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Favor option 1 in order to illustrate variation. Line drawings are better than nothing, but non-provocative photos (which I think we have now) are better than line drawings. Xandergr8 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 - There's not really any variation in these images. If there were an encyclopedic reason to show lots of images, I'd support it, but there really isn't. One of each sex is fine. — Omegatron 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 - I just found it horrific that those pictures are there at all, without even any sort of warning!! Shouldn't there be some sort of banner?? I mean, those photos are practically porno...shouldn't we be concerned about some kid wandering into here?? --Promus Kaa 16:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Action Taken

Per the consensus here, I cut the gallery down to 1 each, male and female. I also took the male image I selected and cropped it to just the pubic hair and the base of the penis. Not out of prudery, but because I personally find the penises distracting when what we're trying to illustrate is the pubic hair. The best picture was probably the first one in the gallery, but I deliberately chose the second image because it was of an African-American male, and there has been a long-running complaint that Wikipedia's body part images tend to be almost exclusively caucasian, and I think that's a fair complaint. Nandesuka 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. — Omegatron 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You have an interesting interpretation of what "consensus" means. 5 for and 2 against is not consensus. (Thanks for the compliment about the pic.) Xandergr8 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The most important factor is that the gallery as it was was ugly and actually acted against illustrating the topic it was in support of. I think it's fair to describe the discussion above (all of it, not just the last "vote") as a rough consensus. But the net result is that the article is now more readable, and the illustrations more useful. Nandesuka 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent: at last someone's had the balls... er, the bottle to do it! Nick Michael 06:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Purpose

Needs some information either here or in androgenic hair about why we grow hair in only certain places and what evolutionary purpose it is theorized to serve. — Omegatron 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Nick Michael 03:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, I was perplexed to find no explanation being given as to why we have pubic hair. Saurabh Rahurkar 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. As of right now the page basically just says "Yep, we have pubic hair, and here's some people's opinions on it." There needs to be more information on the page. --Promus Kaa 16:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed here, this is the exact annswer i came here looking for, wanted to answer a question on http://www.golivewire.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.144.178 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Caution

Caution Wikipedians, Since this article has a picture of people's penis, anus, and testicles in it, a lot of anonymous users could come here and vandalize this whole page by making fun of those pictures. I'll say to suggest that disable editing that article.Pro Game Master87 09:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tentacle porn

The tentacle porn picture is kind of irrelevant to the article. Just because the woman in the picture just happens to have pubic hair, does that mean we have to include every kind of weird sexual fetish porn just because it features some pubes? --124.180.65.165 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article discusses the depiction of pubes in art. The image demonstrates that at the time it was made, at least some Japanese art did depict pubes. 21:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

older image

A user keeps adding an image replacing the previous "afric am tightcrop" (which he claims, for no apparent reason, actually depicts a "latino" individual). While there is some good reason for preferring "white" bodies in this case - since they allow the hair to stand out more sharply, I think this is overidden by the preference for racial diversity which has been several time proposed here. Can we have some consensus to avoid silly edit warring from competing exhibitionists again. Paul B 12:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No, I said the model I have used for pubic hair is from Ecuador: he's Latino. He's not white. You misunderstood the edit summary. The photo of the "afric am tightcrop" is of exceptionally poor quality. It is blurry and the color is odd. Racial diversity is still present with a Hispanic male. And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call me an exhibitionist, since the model is not me, Paul Barlow. Saying that is the definition of a personal attack - discuss the edits, not the editors. --David Shankbone 12:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for misunderstanding, however "latino" just means south/central American. It's not really a racial concept. It's a linguistic one. We have had longstanding problems with exhibitionism, so I make no apologies for mentioning the fact that we need to work wth consensus to avoid that problem David Shankbone. Paul B 12:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You should apologize. First, I'm a long-standing contributor and leveling charges as to my motivations for putting a photograph up is completely irrelevant to the discussion page for this article. You neither know me, nor my motivations, and instead of making charges that I'm trying to get my bush up on a page you should perhaps contact me first. It's called, Paul Barlow, WP:CIVIL and No Personal Attacks. --David Shankbone 12:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Your tiresome sanctimony is simply evading the issue. I said nothing about you wantinmg to get your "bush" anywhere. I said, David Shankbone, "Can we have some consensus to avoid silly edit warring from competing exhibitionists again." Paul B 13:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm the one involved, I'd be the exhibitionist. Perhaps you should use language more precisely and in its commonly used ways. You are first equating the problematic word Race with African-American. The model I used is from Ecuador. Second, we are here for quality, not to get African-American pubes on the pubic hair page. The model I used could be Asian - you don't know. It's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. --David Shankbone 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I couldn't resist sticking my oar into this pube war... I prefer the new photo because the penis has been masked, and that avoids any element of exhibitionism. Why not start a vote on it? Nick Michael 13:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote away! Paul B 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
a photo in which the hair has not been shaved or trimmed would be more representative. Race is not important, just use a good-quality photo that shows pubic hair in its natural state. P 68.162.124.47 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The Shankbone photo is obviously better quality and therefore is the most appropriate at this time. I don't see how the racial issue has any bearing whatsoever.TAnthony 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The older one is a better picture (Pi 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC))


Shankbone photo

Consensus

I'd like to get consensus (again) to remove Image:Pubic_hair_by_David_Shankbone.jpg from this article. My objections to this picture are: it is a technically poor photo, it is very poorly lit, it is improperly isolated (containing too much extraneous detail that has nothing to do with pubic hair, which makes it distracting), and the article already has enough other adequate illustrations. Please comment. Nandesuka 02:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. Forget "not censored": Given the simplicity of the concepts involved, the article is amply illustrated with two images, and both of those are quite adequately from fine art. This is just ancillary hair. If the reader is human, then there is no great mystery involved. Those who are pre-pubertal probably aren't a bit mystified, and those who aren't don't need an illustration at all. Therefore, the other concepts -- popular culture, taboo, etc. -- might need illustration if they are sufficiently difficult to explain. They aren't. Therefore, with no need for a photo, with the photo being of low quality, with the photo having extraneous elements, and with it essentially jockeying, so to speak, for space with better, less fetishistic, photos, there is no question but that the image should be deleted. Geogre 03:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding Nandesuka's arguments: 1. The poorly lit argument is a bit silly, since the there is no difficulty seeing and I don't see how your "technical" ability to judge a photo is apparent; and 2. Most of your arguments are more centered around cropping the image than removing it. Which is fine. What is especially amusing is that the female photo is practically the exact same area of detail as the male, but Nandesuka doesn't argue against it. Instead, this appears to be more of a personal issue with me. There is no consensus (again) to remove the photo, and if you like to make fictional statements, perhaps provide fictional diffs. We can open this as an RfC; however. But I'll crop the photo, since that's not such a big deal to remove the offensive "extraneous detail" you are so very distracted by. --David Shankbone 03:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The female photo is, first of all, a technically good photo, by which I mean it is sharp and properly lit. There's really no mystery as to what makes a photo properly lit, and I don't see how one can argue that your photo is (if you're confused about this, the primers at istockphoto.com go into lighting, and what good vs. bad lighting is, in some detail). Second of all, although you are correct that the female photo has more context than is necessary, it is at least more properly isolated (witness the black background, for example). That being said, I wouldn't object to tighter cropping of that one, either.
The bottom line is that I'm in favor of images that enlighten and illustrate, and opposed to images that detract and distract. My personal opinion is that your image, in this article, falls into the latter category. Nandesuka 04:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The photo is cropped, which rendered much of your argument moot; and I think the casual viewer would not look at it and say, "This is poorly lit and unsharp" but you are welcome to hold such an opinion. --David Shankbone 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In an effort to compromise, I cropped the photo. Re: Geogre's arguments, I disagree. I think photographic representation is always helpful in articles and I don't think the standards should be "can we get by with as little as possible" just because it shows a nether-region. We are here to unabashedly educate. Additionally, without the photograph, there is no representation of male pubic hair except for a statue that is not particularly good at illustrating the subject, and in Nandesuka's words, contains a lot of "extraneous detail" as does much of the art. --David Shankbone 04:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Male and female pubic hair are not different from one another. Even the pattern of hair growth isn't different. It's not mysterious. We have all those words there to describe the hair, and anyone who can read them and is still puzzled by masculine pubic hair is not going to be helped by a photo. Furthermore, since showing male pubic hair involves the penis, and because the penis obscures the pubic hair, we would be far better off with line art, where the perspective can be controlled, where lighting isn't in doubt, and where we can simply excise distracting elements. This is in addition to the present photos being of poor quality. Geogre 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, clearly that is not the case that the penis obscures the pubic hair, since in my photo it is more than apparent without the penis being in the way. Additionally, if the penis is so integrated with pubic hair, than it is more than appropriate it be in the photo, regardless. There simply isn't a good reason not to have a photograph, except for puritanical reasons. Art is not the real thing, it's an artist's depiction that is not wholly accurate. It doesn't replace the encyclopedic value of showing what the article is about, in the flesh, or the hair, as the case may be. Your poor quality argument is only an afterthought to the notion that you simply don't want photos of pubes in the article. Time and again, this issue has come up on Wikipedia, and time and again, photos have won out. The general community consensus on this issue almost every time has been that sex acts are illustrated, the body itself is photographed. Do we really need to raise this again and again and again? We can do an RfC if the need be. --David Shankbone 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not tell me what my motivations really are. My argument is consistently that, first, your photo is poor, second, that any photo is unnecessary, third, that photos in this particular article are imbalanced, and finally that illustrating because you get a kick out of it is not sufficient reason for ignoring all the previous. I'm sorry that you feel compelled to show your friend's naughty bits. I'm sorry that you believe it is important to have your, and only your, images pasted up on the wall, but your private needs are not our concern. Our concern is the article. We have two long time users, both administrators, weighing in to say that these photos in this place are poor and one saying that even a good photo would not be necessary, and denigrating these users and trying to trot out the oldest straw man in existence is not helping matters. It escalates them, and turns the attention from the photo to you, as a user. Geogre 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's break this down: 1. It means absolutely nothing who is an admin and who is not in this discussion, and if you lend more credibility to admins than other opinions, that is your problematic hierarchical thinking that goes against the very principles of wiki. Let's put it this way: if five admins agreed and five editors disagreed, there is still no consensus. If we want to match head to head contributions as "long time users" I'll match my User page against anyone's, thank you very much (and some of us have turned down repeated requests to be an admin); 2. That you consider natural things such as pubic hair "naughty" (your word) is the problem, and what I alluded to in the first place ("puritanical reasons"). For being the golden calf of an admin, you tell me not to ascribe motivations that were apparent from your original argument, then you reveal the motivation, then you go into an entire screen about my own. You're all over the place, my dear friend. 3. The quality argument not only falls flat--as everyone can see with their own two eyes--but you argue it as an afterthought, not wanting encyclopedic depictions of the subject because, in school marm prose, they are "naughty". 3. The argument you raise that there is no "mystery" is irrelevant - we aren't here to reveal mysteries, but to educate. Whether you think the education is naughty or nice doesn't matter as much as artwork and artistic license with the subject can't replace the value of having a photograph. Mystery revealed. I bow. Cue gong. --David Shankbone 12:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I hate to contradict an obvious expert in the subject, but this very serious article maintains you are wrong about male and female pubic hair patterns being similar. In fact, if we were to illustrate the details described in the article, David is going to have to fork out for an awful lot of film... Nick Michael 07:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I love the entry level sarcasm, but precise differences require, as you say, a whole lot of film, and I would argue that your source is not correct. The amount of individual variation means that getting into the differences without documenting ideopathy is impractical in images. Let's try words and line art. Geogre 11:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That article is actually quite interesting. I agree it would be difficult to summarize it in photos, since the entire point of the article is "there are many types of pubic hair and they cross gender boundaries" (note the conclusion: "The classical division into "masculine" and "feminine" types is found to be unsatisfactory.") And, of course, this is a study of only whites. I'd love to find a way to work it into the article, but it feels like it might be too esoteric. In any event, it feels somewhat orthogonal to the photo quality issue. Nandesuka 12:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the new Shankbone photo is ridiculous. So much "extraneous detail" has been cropped that it could easily be mistaken for a close-up of part of a rather worn coconut mat. Couldn't we at least have a model who does not appear to be in the early stages of alopoecia (I had to look that up!). After all, the article is about pubic hair, so why illustrate it with such a sparse example? Er... not that I'd know, of course... Nick Michael 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So you would prefer this version? --David Shankbone 11:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrrrrgh!! You can see the crabs! I think this one should go into your 'magnum opus' collection... I hope that's not a detail of one of your politician or lawyer photos.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Michael (talkcontribs) 12:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

  • That's hysterical. What's even funnier is the thought of asking someone like Floyd Abrams to submit to such a photo for the sake of free culture. --David Shankbone 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To the photographer

David, please stop reverting your own photographic work back into the article. I've no objection if some other editor wants to do it (as long as they're participating on the talk page), but for you to be obdurate in this way regarding your own creation is a clear conflict of interest, and is quite inappropriate. Please stop. Nandesuka 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest, you are unable to cite any policy or guideline, and right above this discussion consensus was reached to include it. The COI argument is ridiculous and you are using it to get your way, but are unable to find anything to back yourself up. Your behavior is very inappropriate. You are edit warring, without consensus. --David Shankbone 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

  • David Shankbone: An earlier consensus, above, was reached to replace a poor quality photo of male pubic hair with one that I took. I am a frequent contributor of photographic images (see User:DavidShankBone. The photo is clear and crisp, IMO, and other Users agree it should replace the previously existing male pubic hair photo. User:Nandesuka does not like the photo and doesn't want it replaced, but removed entirely. User:Geogre wants no photographs, even though body articles are illustrated with photographs, traditionally, and sex acts are illustrated, typically. Other Users as seen above have voted to use this photo, including User:TAnthony and User:Nick_Michael. --David Shankbone 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • SandyGeorgia: I fully concur with Nandesuka and Geogre, and have encountered issues of COI with Shankbone attempting to insert his unnecessary photos in other articles (Hugo Chavez). These images aren't necessary, and the COI is an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, good lord, Sandy, are you really dragging out the old Hugo Chavez puppet issue again? That was a year ago, and I still feel my argument had merit; just because others did not doesn't mean I'm wrong. I thought we already talked about that, and I have no idea what bearing it has on this discussion, just like the 2,000 pages my photos illustrate--some of which are considered "invaluable" and for which I have been awarded many a barnstar--don't have any bearing on what we are talking about here. But for you, it all comes down to one photo of a Hugo Chavez puppet that was used in an award-winning, NEA-funded show? Okay... --David Shankbone 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are two separate issues here, in my opinion. The first is whether this image -- not any of the thousands of other images you have taken, many of which I'm sure are absolutely awesome, but this image -- is a good image, and whether it appropriately illustrates the article. I believe this image is a bad image, and I believe it poorly illustrates the article, and in fact detracts from the article. You disagree. That's fine. Presumably others will comment on this issue as well, and we can proceed from there.
The other issue is that I feel you are simply too close to your own work to evaluate it dispassionately, and I feel that edit warring to re-insert your own artistic product into a Wikipedia article is at best in poor taste, and at worst a conflict of interest. Sandy is, it seems to me, speaking to this second issue. Nandesuka 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The COI argument falls flat and is unsupported in any guideline or policy (please quote and not just link, if I'm wrong). What *is* supported is that your behavior is inappropriate to remove an image that has been on the article for two months while we are discussing it. Open an RfC about it if you think I've acted so dastardly, but this isn't the place to discuss your edit warring, which you have been talked to about before. If Sandy is going to bring up one episode from a year ago to hurt my credibility here, then I will use my countless other edits and photographs to prop it back up - it's that simple. --David Shankbone 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how many people are going to have to tell you they believe your behavior is inappropriate before you change it? I am sure that you have many fine edits and superb photographs here at Wikipedia. That doesn't really improve the quality of this particular image. Nandesuka 17:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The same question can be posed to you - here you are edit warring again when you were told not to do so until consensus was reached; however, here you have consensus to use this image that you were removing. But it will take more than you, edit warring, that's for sure. Considering that your behavior, and mine, has been raised to admins who have not reprimanded me, but you, should tell you something. --David Shankbone 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid ad hominem argument. Thanks. Nandesuka 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:KETTLE. Thanks. --David Shankbone 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Shankbone, I'll "drag out an old issue" as long as your editing practices remain the same and cause a large waste of editor time. I supported/agreed with the idea you wanted to convey in the Chávez image, but it was a terribly low-quality picture (I believe it's now deleted?), it was not of an encyclopedic nature, and it was not appropriate for the article in the slightest. You don't appear to acknowledge when your images aren't of the quality warranted for an encyclopedia, and that's where your conflict comes in. And edit warring over your own images is disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Sandy, this seems a bit personal. Out of 2,000 images a handful have been controversial and I believed in the images, and you consider it disruptive. So, noted, you have some personal issue with me (which another outside editor made note of) since per the comments below the issue is a bit more nuanced than my being "disruptive". --David Shankbone 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeffpw: As an editor who has never worked on this article, but was asked to take a look at it and comment, I think photos are necessary. Yes, one can use paintings if one is offended by actual naked people, but photos show the reality, while paintings interpret the reality, and are thus POV. David's photo accurately depicts the subject of the article and is in no way distasteful or offensive. Further, this RFC seems to have a highly personal tone, with other editors using it to settle grudges from the past. I certainly hope I am wrong about that, but don't think so. In any event, I think the photos (both of them) are useful and want them to stay. Jeffpw 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As long as I am answering an RfC and not getting into an edit war, I would say that I am happy for David to use his photo to illustrate the article. David writes above that Nandesuka wants the image removed, but from what I read, Nandesuka is more concerned with the quality of the pic than anything else. Why not come to a compromise and let David submit another pube pic (and I'm sure he has lots...) that may give satisfaction to more people? I have already said that the thing is a bit motheaten... Nick Michael 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Dev920: It seems very strange that people are arguing that a picture of male pubic hair shouldn't be allowed at all on an article on... pubic hair. All articles on the human anatomy should have pictures of those human parts, both male and female, and I don't see why this article should be any different. I don't think the image is great, but unless any of the male contributors to this discussion are willing to pull down their pants and oblige, traditional policy on Wikipedia is to go with whatever we have UNTIL a better image is found. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Dev920: Can you comment on this image as a replacement? Image:Pubic_hair_afric_am_tightcrop.jpg? That was the image that was on the article before David began an edit war to replace it with his artistic product. Consensus as to which image should be used is roughly divided, above (see the "Images" subheader. My personal feeling is that the afric_am_tightcrop image is technically worse, but manages to illustrates the subject better. Nandesuka 13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think while that photo is hairier, it is also much worse technically and doesn't illustrate the hair as well as David's photo does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talkcontribs) 20:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
  • Agne27 As a simple observer I think the photo that Nandesuka mentioned above is of horrible quality and shouldn't be used. It's very dark and blurry. David's photo is of much better quality however the other version actually distinguishes itself as being an image of male public hair more then the current one being used. Though overall I think the current article is well....a little too bushy. :) It seems like there are more images then needed. I do see value in a some illustration of the topic matter but 7 images? Maybe the cut it down to a male and female pic and one "artistic" image. AgneCheese/Wine 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. One female, one male, and perhaps two artistic renditions (male/female). I think the page was heavily loaded with art pubes to make it seem like photographs were unnecessary. If a better male photo comes along that trumps mine, I'm fine with it being taken down. Same for female (although none of my female friends want me to document their body). --David Shankbone 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Of the two photos under discussion, David's photo is editorially preferable, simply on grounds that the older photo is blurry (to my inexpert eyes, the composition is about the same). A more natural male photo might be preferable, if the technical quality were as good, and a corresponding female photo would be a good idea too. At present, David's photo is a significant improvement over the alternative. Thatcher131 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Anchoress I agree with Agnes27. David's photo is superior to the old one. Anchoress 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm with Thatcher on this, David's photo is a considerable improvement over the older image Nandesuka prefers and some of the behaviour shown here is quite unfortunate, no editor should be treated in the way David is being treated here, especially an editor who contributes so many high quality images. Nick 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I too think David's photo is better. It is by no means his finest work (technically or aesthetically), but it's considerably better than the small, grainy image it replaces. The idea of using line art or other artistic interpretations as a replacement for real images is utterly bizarre and illustrates (if you'll pardon the pun) nothing more than squeamishness about a fairly mundane part of the human anatomy. Calr 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The current photo (David's) is better than the old one. It's also better than not having any picture of male pubic hair. I do, however, have a bit of a problem with the photo's representativity. In contrast to Jeffpw's statement that "photos show the reality, while paintings interpret the reality, and are thus POV", I think the selection of the photographed subject is equally POV. For the reader's sake, I think the caption should mention that we're looking at a shaved model. Until a better image is presented (whether photographic or drawing), I don't see why this picture should not remain in the article. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This was just added to the talk page in a section above. My assumption is that the user added it to the wrong section, so I'm quoting it down here ("The older one," in context, refers to the african american tightcrop image). Nandesuka 13:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The older one is a better picture (Pi 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
This is an irrelevant comment since the RfC is over my photo, not between the two photos. Nandesuka's own link was to "Shankbone Photo" and not to the earlier discussion; I guess he just wants to include anything that supports taking down mine... --David Shankbone 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
David: Please do not remove my (or anyone else's) comments from this talk page again. That does violence to the very idea of discussion. Nandesuka 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
David: You say on my talk page that you are "open to the conversation." I'm having a hard time accepting this, given that you are complaining on various talk pages that I am not "allowing discussion to take place" while at the same time trying to remove or, apparently, hide my words. I'll ask you one more time: please stop refactoring my text. Please stop doing violence to my words. The first step in having a conversation is allowing the person you're talking to to actually speak. Nandesuka 14:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
LOL - wow, I wrote on your Talk page an olive branch, and you just smacked it back at me. Okay, if you want to ignore User:Raul654 and what he wrote right below here, go for it. But please stop acting the Pubic Hair Warrior. --David Shankbone 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • VanTucky I know I'm a late comer to the discussion, but it is my firm opinion that an image is vitally necessary, and that David's image fits the bill here. This COI notion is probably the worst idea I've heard concerning images on Wikipedia. It sounds like a great way to comprehensively discourage people from contributing their work for our use. His photos, in quality and in consideration of the fact that we know that they come from a reputable source (just imagine, "I didn't give permission to have my public hair be photographed for Wikipedia readers!) I say there is no better option. VanTucky (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I was drawn here from the RfC. It is quite cut and dry for me. Articles need photos where appropriate, this article needs more than just fine art pictures. The photo is inappropriate as it does not illustrate the topic. A photograph of someone with pubic hair would be appropriate. Technically I think the photo is fine as it focuses on the right area and uses the photographers shadow to cover the penis in essence framing the pubic region and keeping the photo on topic. Photo needed, well taken, poor subject to use as an example.AlanD 08:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Base principles and David's photograph

Just to establish some base principles:

  1. Wikipedia-wide policy is to use "tasteful" pictures of anatomy.
  2. A picture is preferable to other media (e.g, paintings)
  3. It is not a conflict of interest for a photographer to want his pictures used in our articles. Unless someone can establish David has some motive in getting his photos used in our article that goes beyond simple pride in seeing his work used, there is no conflict of interest for David here.

With that said, I think the debate should be focused solely on the merits of David's photograph versus any other candidate photographs. On this point, I'm going to remain neutral, because I'm at work and I really shouldn't be looking at such things ;) Raul654 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I am stunned that David is being attacked for "conflict of interest." Who the heck do you think is going to provide free high quality photos to Wikipedia if you drive all the good photographers away? I'm sure not going to take pictures of my package, and I don't know any male models who would disrobe for me, either. It's one thing to say, "thank you for your effort but we prefer a different photo", it's quite another to say "Get lost you self-promoter." Pride can go too far and become OWNership, but in the cases I have witnessed, David's photos have been editorally preferable. Thatcher131 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I would even go farther and suggest that it might be acceptable for a professional photographer to post a link to his professional web site and his name and contact information along with the image description. There was a discussion on one of the admin noticeboard about how to get celebrities to submit GFDL-compliant high quality photos of themselves, and there was favorable response to the suggestion that the photographers could professionally identify themselves (on the image upload but not the caption in the article). If we are willing to do this to get a better picture of some actress or model then why not for pictures of more mundane subjects. Thatcher131 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to note that I share the surprise that COI has come up as an issue here. Are we to ban professional biographers from writing biographical articles? Professional programmers from writing scripts and Bots? Surely we should be glad that those with expertise are willing to assist us as volunteers. If someone has good quality images they are willing to license freely - that's great. The GFDL (or a compatible Creative Commons license) contemplates that they will be credited for that work - as text contributors must be credited for their work. To suggest taking pride in one's work is self-promotion is a bit much. The day Wikipedia has such prestige that we have hoardes of public hair image brandishing professional photographers squabbling over whose image should go in this article we can afford to be more discriminating - though I still suspect the only criterion should be quality/representativeness of the image. But the idea that David should be anything other than thanked for being willing to upload his wide ranging images is astounding. WjBscribe 06:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hair: trimmed or not?

The female picture appears to have heavily trimmed pubic hair. Is this appropriate for an encyclopaedia article documenting human anatomy? Oh dear, I do feel picky. Vashti 11:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I never liked to say so, for various reasons, but now Vashti (who is in a position to do so) has brought up the subject, yes, I think an article on this subject should be illustrated with pics "au nature". That includes the male one too. On your camera, David... Nick Michael 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually Nick, although I probably have about twenty to fifty images for almost every person I have photographed, I don't actually have a treasure trove (as it were) of bushes waiting to bust out all over like spring. Because I was busy reviewing and editing Lawrence Weschler (my third person this week - I'm tired) I didn't have a chance to review my repository of Ernesto photographs last night. I could probably have him come back in for another shoot, but contrary to perhaps popular belief (?) I don't have a harem of disrobed males with full bushels lying around my apartment. I would also need to ask him to let mother nature run its course. I may drop him a line...the things I do for the cause of free culture. If anyone knows of a New York-based female willing to be photographed, please have her drop me a line. Nobody responded to my Craigs List ad. --David Shankbone 13:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Ah well, you'd have to come over here and see what you can find among our Swiss misses. Anyway, although you may not have a hirsute portfolio, and I may not quite agree with your 'doormat' contribution, I will support (but maybe not to the death) your right to contribute it here - faute de mieux... Nick Michael 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


No way is this GA

Really doesn't come very close to the GA criteria at all. Few citations, and there's lots of hazy information here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Old male photos were better

Look back at the several pictures that were on here several months ago (before gallery was removed). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pubic_hair&oldid=106637928 Most of those pics were better. Pics were non-trimmed or minimally trimmed, better lighting, etc... Why not pick one of those old pictures to replace the current one.

More context should be shown (such as with the female pic) so you can see how far the pubic hair spreads (in relation to body). Such as the "happy trail" many guys have. I don't see a problem with the penis showing, as pubic hair is also on the scrotum of most men and sometimes the lower shaft of the penis. Wiki isn't suppose to be censored you know. 208.252.179.24 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this editor. It's fine to have just one picture of each sex -- the old version with eight pictures was excessive. But the pictures should both be clear and show what natural pubic hair actually looks like, which the current male version [13] does not. I'm going to try replacing it with one of the old ones. Llajwa 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Whoops, I'm backing off, since I see there has been a great deal of debate about this already. However, I do want to comment that it seems weird for us to seem to be hiding the penis, and that the hair seems to be closely trimmed -- it doesn't look as natural as it should. Llajwa 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What's more interesting is that these comments presuppose that it is "natural" for a woman to trim her public hair, but not for a man. That sounds like POV to me. --David Shankbone 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, on the contrary, I think both pictures should be untrimmed for this purpose. Subjectively, to me the male image looked more closely trimmed than the female one. But I think they should both be full bush. Llajwa 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It depends on what we are trying to show. The location? The texture? How people handle their bush? What's the point of the photos? Everyone has their own perspective on what should be shown and why. One person's "full bush" argument is met with a "Many people don't keep a full bush" (it's probably evenly divided). Then the argument comes down to showing different ways people handle their bush, shave it, trim it, etc. In the end, it's not a very important argument as long as the two photos shown are quality images. Quality images of some bush should trump one POV or another in the the bush debate. --David Shankbone 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaced male picture with what I feel is a better one from the old gallery. Was promptly reverted with reasoning: "extensively debated and consensus was no dick pics in article". ?? I see no such consensus. 2 people saying something doesn't equal a consensus. The majority of comments I see are condoning either removal of the male pic entirely or replacement of the photo with a better one. So that's what I did.

As is described in wiki entry, male pubic hair spreads up towards umbilicus, towards thighs, and on testicles. You can't see this in shankbone's pick which lacks this context, is partially shaved (with razor burn), the rest shortly trimmed. Sure, the photo I inserted likely isn't a fully bush, but it is trimmed minimally enough to see the pubic hair pattern. As is the female picture. The 1st pic from the old gallery was just as good, but I picked the latino one for diversity. Either one would do though. Wits 15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response

Pretty much everyone agreed that dick pics are not what is wanted, even before I put my photo on there. The previous grainy greasy bush I replaced was cropped to take out the dick pic. There are umpteen arguments, as I mention above, about what photo should be used, that in the end the only way to really decide the issue is on quality, which includes clarity. But if this issue is to be taken up again, then before any edit wars over photo ensue (and seriously, I'm not beholden to my photo, I just think it's the best based on quality), then these questions should be decided:
  1. What is the purpose of the photo? To illustrate "pubic hair"? To show its location? To show what people do with their pubic hair? To show the texture of the hair? To show all the places it covers?
  2. Are these questions equal for men and women? If a woman shaves and shapes her bush typically, and typically many men do as well, is a natural "full bush" preferred for both, one or the other? If so, why?
  3. Is full genitalia necessary or preferred.

You were correctly reverted, Wits, because these issues were hashed out recently and you should have expected as much considering the entire purpose of your User name is to make controversial edits. Regardless, the editors of this page haven't figured out what the photos should do yet, and that needs to be decided before any more edit wars take place. --David Shankbone 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And he reverted me again. <sigh>. Is it just my imagination, or was there not a Loooooooong discussion about this and consensus about not adding dick pics achieved? Jeffpw 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, consensus was reached. I'll allow Wits to read everything above; I'm not going to do his work for him. --David Shankbone 15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talkcontribs)

Re-response

I've already read all the discussion Shankbone, thank you. We interpret things differently. The consensus was that you're photo was better than the previous "afric am tightcrop". I would agree with that consensus because of the poor quality of the previous photo. But you can't draw from that consensus (or earlier ones) on other's issues that weren't even being voted on. Although a few related comments were made.

A couple people stated support of cropping or censoring the penis, one doesn't want any real photos at all (I don't consider 1 or 2 people a consensus). A few people (including myself) thought it seemed inappropriate to be cropped so much. Most people said a better photo would be preferable (even those voting for your pic). You yourself say the best quality photo should be used. So when I do so out of good faith, your free to disagree (with it being better) and revert. But that doesn't mean it was wrong of me.

That I registered this user name for the purpose of editing locked articles (which are inherently controversial) has no barring on the merit of my edits. I don't attempt to make my edits controversial, only try to do what is best for the article. Shankbone, I'm surprised that you would twist the words of my user profile, seemingly in an attempt to discredit me. You seem to be a credible and genuine person, so I'll attribute that comment to reactionary oneupmanship or misinterpretation.

It's ok, only natural. But please stick to debating the merits of the article (and not assuming bad faith of me). I say this all only in explanation of my viewpoint, and I don't find you be wrong (although I may disagree) or in bad faith either. Obviously, your contributions to wiki have been of great use. I made the edit with the purpose of the photo better illustrating what was said in the wiki article.

The needed criteria you state for deciding on the photos are reasonable in my opinion. Since these criteria aren't decided on yet in consensus (1 or 2 people don't count as such), I saw no harm in making a good faith contribution on what I believe to be a better photo. But since both of you have vehemently opposed my doing so, I will leave the photos alone until there is a consensus on the photo criteria. I understand this is a collaboration and while I stand by my opinion, I won't try to force it on the article if the majority disagrees. I suggest we start a discussion topic on the reasonable criteria Shankbone gave as being needed to decide upon the best photo. Wits 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • You're welcome to open an RfC on photo criteria. I don't want to do so because primarily I am too busy; and secondarily I find the pubic hair photo wars to be too tiring. --David Shankbone 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Highly understandable. It is tiring to debate (pubic hair photos). I will probably RfC later (assuming no one else does). Wits 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)