Jump to content

Hear Ye Men: Yet another blasted thread about hair removal "down there"

tiredofvampires

By tiredofvampires
in Sex and Romance

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JadedStar Collaborator

JadedStar

Posted
Posted

I agree with all who says if a man thinks this is a dealbreaker that's crazy, but i don't think people should be dinged for mere preferences.

 

It's really simple...girls who dno't want to shave pair up with the many guys out there who don't care. lol

 

That way we can all play in the same sandbox! Happily! Don't worry i'll bring the sand strainer to get all the pubes out of the sand....LMAO KIDDING KIDDING RELAX!

Link to comment
Sunshine75 Newbie

Sunshine75

Posted
Posted
I agree with all who says if a man thinks this is a dealbreaker that's crazy, but i don't think people should be dinged for mere preferences.

It's really simple...girls who dno't want to shave pair up with the many guys out there who don't care. lol

 

That way we can all play in the same sandbox! Happily! Don't worry i'll bring the sand strainer to get all the pubes out of the sand....LMAO KIDDING KIDDING RELAX!

 

Agreed. Preferences are fine. No big deal. But if a grown man would actually refuse to touch his pregnant wife because she can't see past the huge belly that contains HIS CHILD to shave her pubes, I would think there was something wrong with him.

 

And the image of trying to strain pubes out of a sand box is killing me.

Link to comment
tiredofvampires Proficient

tiredofvampires

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Agreed. Preferences are fine. No big deal. But if a grown man would actually refuse to touch his pregnant wife because she can't see past the huge belly that contains HIS CHILD to shave her pubes, I would think there was something wrong with him.

 

And the image of trying to strain pubes out of a sand box is killing me.

 

You see yeah, as I said a few hundred pages back, preferences are one thing, but there is a STRONG element of "NO WAY!!" here which is altogether different. I don't care whether "no way!" is stated just that bluntly or "bush is just nasty, that's a major turn-off" to me, that = no way. Because you aren't gonna be able to get really into the action well if you're THAT turned off, right?

 

And I would say though, why not include all non-pregnant women? I certainly wish I had the experience of pregancy, but sadly so far I don't...and I should be able to enjoy my natural state for all the same reasons. I'm not saying you're implying otherwise, I'm just clarifying that what's good for a woman in that case, so should it be for any other.

 

And ditto, with the sandbox and pubes! JS, you just think of everything, don't you, girl?

Link to comment
Sunshine75 Newbie

Sunshine75

Posted
Posted

Hmmm, you definitely have a point.

 

There's a good chance that the "NO WAY!!" element on here is "internet" talk. Boys being boys, or in this case, men being boys.

 

I had an ex that was having a loud, heated debate with his friends about how much he would never, EVER perform oral sex on a woman because it's "nasty" and women should be satisfied with what he offered them other than that.

 

I gave him a look. He gave me a look back. But I didn't say anything.

 

What was especially funny about that is that every time we got five minutes alone, guess where his face always managed to land??? Yup. My lap.

 

So who knows how these guys really are when they're with a woman. It might just be all testosterone, immaturity, and hot air on here. Then in real life, they aren't as callous as they are here?

 

And if they are, who cares? I'm not about to date them.

Link to comment
tiredofvampires Proficient

tiredofvampires

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm a Leftist feminist humanist, for the record. I don't like seeing lines drawn between categories of people.

 

That would be about how I would self-describe as well. Which is why this thread pisses me off so much. I am a "feminist" where female concerns are worth addressing and redressing, and a "masculinist" (you will probably find a more erudite word) where male concerns are worth addressing and redressing. (Quite busy I am these days, bustling between a thread that I created so that men will feel more confident of their "wares" and less subject to the wiles of shallow opinion and harsh mythology, and then to this one which is the counterpart for women. Which unfortunately is less about mythology and more about strongly held dislikes -- pointing up the "preferences" of men in the department of female genitalia to be much more real than the ones men imagine women hold against them. As my data is bearing out on that thread.)

 

No, I'm simply in the mood for some challenging intellectual discourse with an intelligent friend

 

Why, thankee.

 

I am not sure whether to go topically through your post, or in a more broad fashion, but my overall impression is that you have missed one of my most important reasons for taking the stand for remaining au naturel (ah I suppose if I'm going to keep using the term, I should at least be able to spell it properly and stop being lazy!) That being, that once a practice causes pain, irritation, permanent damage, or even minor ongoing or recurring discomfort, to me if it is being done for the sake of aesthetics, I question what the priorities are. And who is demanding that they be so.

 

You have extrapolated from my defense of being au naturel a slew of double-standards, and I will then take you even farther with that, by your lead. We could argue that any modification to our native state when we arrive out of the birth canal into this life is "unnatural." Diapers are unnatural, followed by clothes. Going to doctors is unnatural, since pestilence is a matter of nature too, and disease. Death by childbirth is natural, though brushing one's teeth so as not to have teeth falling out is not. Tampons are unnatural, so I should just forget them. A roof over my head is unnatural, since I wasn't born with one. Taking vitamins which I do myself, once in a while by the handful, is unnatural, since I should be getting all my nutrients from the food I eat (denatured and devitalized as it is due to our agriculturally unnatural practices.) Hmm, what else? Am I missing anything? I'm sure I am. Please feel free to fill me in on all the ways that I have overlooked my double standards when I defend the "natural" state of pubic hair only.

 

Oh yes! Taking planes. That's pretty unnatural. Imagine, me with my furry tuft 36 thousand big ones over Mother Earth. Pretty out there. And I dare say, hypocritical. TOUCHE, big time!

 

So I can perfectly well see where makeup, perfume and hair-brushing would fall into this argument. Which is very hard to argue, I admit. I am almost completely stumped. But I will forge on, hobbled as I am.

 

One must draw the line somewhere, at some level of "acceptable unnaturalness" and for everyone the line is placed differently. For some people, discomfort, pain, impracticality, cost, and possible medical or health disadvantages are no deterrant. To me, they are. (So why doesn't this play into a loved one's "preference"?) And for me, that is what shaving comes down to, personally.

 

On a side note, slavish adherence to what is "in", because it has been deemed so by what appears to me to be an idealized and unrealistic version of the human form is not where my concept of love resides (which includes and even embraces flaws, as well as a sense of total regard for one's beloved's "temple"). I do not see love reflected in the comments made by men who state their "preferences", but rather a standard by which the body has been separated from the soul that it houses, and that body has been disassembled into parts that are appreciated with almost machine-like abstraction.

 

So I don't decry going against nature just a little, for enhancement. I decry the disownment (if that be a word) of what is real, and the attempt to make glossy clones of one another, none of which have personality but rather meet some concocted criteria called "sexy".

 

You ask how we know that the matter of pube-shaving is an issue of women. Well, evidently, because it is not being leveled as some standard of sexiness to men in quite the same way as women. Who started this? I can't say for sure, but it is the male consumer who buys and watches the porn more than women, even in this day and age when it's more acceptable for women to participate in viewing -- and since the trends in porn have exploded in the last decade-plus with greater and greater emphasis on complete pubic bareness, I can't see how this doesn't factor in. And in fact, I see more men shaving as I've mentioned, and believe this is another extension of that. But it is still a more male-driven preoccupation. And I have yet to hear the same fury about men's back hair as women's pubic hair, so I have to conclude that female crotch hair is a bit the target here more than other targets.

 

And again, if it were just a matter of preference, like head hair styles, it wouldn't be much of an issue for me. It doesn't hurt to cut one's head hair. But for some, a grooming practice is painful, and yet that does little to deter the au naturel naysayers. I don't feel cared for in this climate, simply put.

 

I give it to you that I have no idea the evolutionary origins of hair combing, but I do believe that keeping one's "fur" clean and untangled is related to the urge to take a Goody brush and whack it through my hair each morning. And you asked whether I find this a patriarchally-mandated activity, and I answered no, whatever the function of doing it is. So this is not the same as some guy saying I have to whack my other hair off so he can even think of liking me that way.

 

No, I don't know the origin of red lips in ancient times...pray tell! I'm all ears. Especially if it's naughty. I have a good imagination, but that won't cut it here.

 

As for Rastafarians, I wouldn't know what their hair smells like with daily bathing, as I've only smelled the ones that shampoo irregularly. I trust youraccount on this one. But I can tell you this, that if I bathe everyday, which I do, I still don't think I could twirl my pubes into those matted and scruffy ropes if my life depended on it. And nothing I could do would convince my hair "there" to grow as long as dreadlocks. So something else must be at work on the pubes than on the head hair, which Nature knew was just the right amount of growth for protection and aeration, but just shy of the amount that could be turned into a public statement.

 

Okay, I think we've established that au naturel is a meaningless concept to you, except as it applies to pubic hair. Not a coup, but it does sort of diminish the rationale.

 

I am not sure how we've established that au naturel is a "meaningless" concept to me. We've established that it is a word of relative degrees, and that where "preference" becomes a widely embraced social mandate of beauty despite the cries of pain and discomfort of many whose voices have been drowned out by the less physically vulnerable, and to boot, those preferences are prioritized over more enduring bonds between lovers, to me that becomes a bit sad and wrong.

 

Self-pampering and creative enjoyment, ohhh. Silly moi redux! I thought women wore makeup to look attractive.

 

I reallllly MUST offer my array of lipglosses and eye shadows!! (Not that I use them much myself.) And you will see how self-pampering and creative it feels to achieve an attractive look, which many will care less about.

 

 

Link to comment
ghost69 Mentor

ghost69

Posted
Posted
no, i dont care enough about this topic and i think its all overcooked already.. personally i would pick something else to be perturbed about (if i were to write such a thread) like rapists, mysoginists, and chauvinists.

i personally dont care about the few men who try to get their woman to shave or trim, or whatever sorry gal will let a request like that rule their life and destroy their confidence or self-worth.. its all splitting atoms to me.

 

there are more than a few men. i guess a poll would need to be in order to determine preference. but i've never had this problem. i've never dated a girl that was bushy. it just never made it that far. but i can't look at a girl and tell, dam she got a bush. so when we get that far i know.

Link to comment
tiredofvampires Proficient

tiredofvampires

Posted
  • Author
Posted
there are more than a few men.

 

THANK YOU, GHOST!!!!! I hope the system'll let me rep you again now, for godsake!

 

i've never dated a girl that was bushy. it just never made it that far. but i can't look at a girl and tell, dam she got a bush. so when we get that far i know.

 

Ok, 1: I asked in an earlier post if you even HAD been with a gal with a bush, and what was wrong with it, what was the worst thing that happened, and you said something like "it didn't feel good". You didn't directly say "YES, I've slept with someone with that" or "NO, I've never actually done it" but I thought your answer meant you had. Now, sounds pretty clear you never even got that far to touch, see, make love to one. Am I right?

 

And 2: I'd like to know your MO. You see hawt looking girl. Can't tell if there's bush through clothing. So you get her in bed and horror of horrors -- she's got furr. What does our ghost do in that situation, can you tell us? Say, "Oh god. Big mistake, I'm sorry, I suddenly realized I need to go accross town and give a DVD back to a friend. BYE!!"

 

??

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...