being shaved is not humilating

CyranoJ said:

It's not an insult to state a fact (you can see it on display right here, complete with Chloe "jokingly" identifying as a "little stormtrooper"), but by all means, proceed as you please.

Click to expand...

Chloe bites tongue and says "that was long ago, have a nice cup of coffee instead" - I avoid those boards these days Cyrano. Too much temptation, don't remind me. Bad Cyrano. Bad boy. Sit. Chloe ruffles Cyrano's hair. "Now how about a nice shave." Bats eyelids seductively. "With a safety razor."

[I'll just go ahead and assume Chloe is now doing some version of "it was just for the lulz" there (pretty standard part of the playbook) and move on. I just like to put these things in context every once in a while.]

For @MoonlightandRoses: the thesis that body coverage in fashion tracks inversely with the degree of women's freedom from having to seek a marriage partner is genuinely interesting. I would note, though, that a lot of influence on some of the trends we're talking about here comes cross-culturally and I don't know if those dynamics can be read the same way in, say, both America and Brazil.

Lovecraft trying to pretend I'm an MRA is almost as funny as the time Lovecraft tried to "prove" I'd stolen a story prize from him by some elaborate, sorcerous writing formula. Good times.

lovecraft68 said:

Cyrano is a real man therefore condescending and judgmental when it comes to women AKA the lesser species in his eye. Just use the pepper spray in your purse, or if I recall prior conversations with you, show off some of your best dojo moves. Being nice is simply seen as 'she wants me' to his type of male.

Click to expand...

Good to see you back and on form.

Dojo? I'm doing AH64 Apache airstrikes and Hellfire missiles along with hot sex right now. And the challenges a girl faces shaving in Afghanistan. But that's a bit off topic. Anyhow, I like Cyrano even if he did get a little upset with me way back. My fault for poking a stick in the ants nest. Mea culpa. I'm reformed now.

ChloeTzang said:

Anyhow, I like Cyrano even if he did get a little upset with me way back. My fault for poking a stick in the ants nest. Mea culpa. I'm reformed now.

Click to expand...

If this is actually true, then good on you. I'll leave it alone now. I'd really rather just be able to appreciate your writing talent.

CyranoJ said:

If this is actually true, then good on you. I'll leave it alone now. I'd really rather just be able to appreciate your writing talent.

Click to expand...

Totally. I refuse to even look at those boards and I steadfastly ignore anything involving the P word. Not enough time in the day to write as it is and I'm not going to waste it on that stuff. Besides, I don't like upsetting people. Teasing, yes. Upsetting, no. I'll even apologize. It's a worry. So I'm as reformed as a girl can be without actually abandoning her opinions.

I'd rather write than argue

ChloeTzang said:

I'd tend to agree there, that it's more for women than for men. Going to have to go and do some reading on this one, I find the different views interesting. Especially relating them to my own views and why I do things.

Click to expand...

Tend to agree this - it's a variant on the notion that women dress to impress other women, and undress to impress men.

CyranoJ said:

If this is actually true, then good on you. I'll leave it alone now. I'd really rather just be able to appreciate your writing talent.

Click to expand...

Cyrano, once you understand that the entire left side of Chloe's body is completely withered and useless because she never gets to use any of it, and accept that it's OK for someone to spout bollocks on other forums, the AH Chloe is actually delightful.

I've been teaching her about the London School Of Economics, classic Oz rock, and how not to write really really bad American Australian ('prawns' are not 'shrimps' for fuckssake, Australians haven't uttered the words "bonza, Bruce," in over thirty years).

In return, I'm now up to speed on Apache helicopters, more gun shit than I will ever need to know, and Chinese Catholic schoolgirls. A fair exchange all round, I'd say.

electricblue66 said:

Cyrano, once you understand that the entire left side of Chloe's body is completely withered and useless because she never gets to use any of it, and accept that it's OK for someone to spout bollocks on other forums, the AH Chloe is actually delightful.

I've been teaching her about the London School Of Economics, classic Oz rock, and how not to write really really bad American Australian ('prawns' are not 'shrimps' for fuckssake, Australians haven't uttered the words "bonza, Bruce," in over thirty years).

In return, I'm now up to speed on Apache helicopters, more gun shit than I will ever need to know, and Chinese Catholic schoolgirls. A fair exchange all round, I'd say.

Click to expand...

Arvo EB. That's bonza, sport. Took a captain cook at what you wrote and fair dinkum, that's a ripper summo. Reckon I'll get a fair suck of the sauce bottle now and I don't have to do the Harry. Gonna slap a pineapple on the bar here, buy everyone a couple of stubbies coz don;t know about you but I'm dry as a dead dingos donger, then wrap my laughing gear around a dogs eye and there's buckley's chance anyone else'll get a look in on that. No porky's here, but I'd rather not drink with the flies. How about pulling up a pew and we can have a whinge about these wowsers together. No pashing tho, and definitely no rooting.

---^^^^---

[Edit: Ah, the heck with it. I'll just put this in a PM at some point.]

I thought everyone had decided to let this drop, so I was going to leave it alone, but that's beginning to look doubtful. Ultimately, my purpose is to push everyone back toward policing themselves, rather than acting as a babysitter.

But, the personal attacks and political discussion need to stop, or I'm going to remove the lot of it.

Nothing further from me.

Cyrano, you wrote “the thesis that body coverage in fashion tracks inversely . . .” We could have had an interesting discussion on that if you hadn’t called Chloe a “vocal fascist” which is an insult and therefore a violation of the rules of this board. I continue to stand by what I wrote and I particularly dislike you using what I wrote as a vehicle for your insult.

Moonlight and Roses,

I may not agree with your assessment, but it was presumptuous of me to put you in the middle. If I had that to do over again, I wouldn't do it. Sorry.

MoonlightandRoses said:

Cyrano, you wrote “the thesis that body coverage in fashion tracks inversely . . .” We could have had an interesting discussion on that ......

Moonlight and Roses,

Click to expand...

My fault M&R. Don't worry about it. It's a fascinating topic and I should have been a little more careful about my words there. Apologies, Cyrano, I didn't mean to wind you up and let's just follow the Mod's advice and let that one lie.

I am interested in the body coverage in fashion tracking inversely with the degree of women's freedom from having to seek a marriage partner - that really is interesting. Love to know what you guys think on that one. It's not something I'd every really thought about but it would be culturally based wouldn't it? I'm thinking you could look at some asian or african cultures and see very little body coverage but also very little in the way of freedom in seeking marriage partners. That observation would be more in line with european culture.

ChloeTzang said:

I am interested in the body coverage in fashion tracking inversely with the degree of women's freedom from having to seek a marriage partner - that really is interesting. Love to know what you guys think on that one. It's not something I'd every really thought about but it would be culturally based wouldn't it? I'm thinking you could look at some asian or african cultures and see very little body coverage but also very little in the way of freedom in seeking marriage partners. That observation would be more in line with european culture.

Click to expand...

I'm kind of curious -- and don't know much about -- how the analysis applies to South American countries which have influenced the leisure industry. For example, Brazil... heck, does the "Brazilian wax" even actually come from Brazil?

CyranoJ said:

I'm kind of curious -- and don't know much about -- how the analysis applies to South American countries which have influenced the leisure industry. For example, Brazil... heck, does the "Brazilian wax" even actually come from Brazil?

Click to expand...

Actually the Brazilian Wax apparently comes from New York. I was reading up on it's origins and it was called "Brazilian waxing" in New York as a marketing technique in 1987 when the J Sisters, seven Brazilian sisters, opened a waxing salon in Manhattan. They got a few celebrity clients and the Brazilian wax became famous .....

But as a waxing practice it was way older than that. Just, in Brazil it was tied in with smaller and smaller bikinis in the 70's......

ChloeTzang said:

Actually the Brazilian Wax apparently comes from New York. I was reading up on it's origins and it was called "Brazilian waxing" in New York as a marketing technique in 1987 when the J Sisters, seven Brazilian sisters, opened a waxing salon in Manhattan.

Click to expand...

Heh, I kind of suspected it might be something like that...

ChloeTzang said:

I am interested in the body coverage in fashion tracking inversely with the degree of women's freedom from having to seek a marriage partner - that really is interesting. Love to know what you guys think on that one. It's not something I'd every really thought about but it would be culturally based wouldn't it? I'm thinking you could look at some asian or african cultures and see very little body coverage but also very little in the way of freedom in seeking marriage partners. That observation would be more in line with european culture.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how easily one can make a generalization about this, because this topic encompasses a variety of different trends and cirumstances that may or may not have anything to do with one another.

For, instance, hygiene and body coverage are determined in part by geography and climate, which may have nothing to do with a woman's freedom. People in hot climates often (but not always) wear less. Maybe hair is less desirable in hot climates. I believe the Ancient Egyptians shaved all their hair off.

I don't see what's happening in this country, pubic-hair-wise, as reflecting broad historical or worldwide trends. What we are seeing now is the product of an increasingly visual media-based society. Idealized images of women's (and to some degree, men's) bodies are on constant display, often wearing very little. Hair, whether it's sprouting from armpits, eyebrows, backs, bellies, or pubic areas, gets in the way of fitting with this ideal. Hair is messy, and irregular, and it varies from person to person.

There's another factor here, maybe: high resolution photography and videography. It's probably not an accident that the shaved look got big in porn after video took over. In the 70s, when porn was seen in grainy and soft-focused films, hair was one thing. You couldn't see the detail down there as well, anyway, and hair didn't really "get in the way." But with high resolution video, it's a whole different visual ball game. The details of anatomy were exposed to view in a way they hadn't been before. I think it changed the way porn was seen, and that attitude has expanded to encompass the way we look at bodies throughout media and entertainment. We have a far more obsessive, detail-oriented, perfection-focused way of looking at the body than we did even one generation ago. It makes sense that hair would be seen as a kind of hindrance to the way we like to look at the body now. I don't see this way of looking at the body as changing. It is becoming cheaper and easier all the time to modify one's body to get closer to the "ideal."

For years now there have been stories about how hairiness is coming back, but with women's fashions being what they are, with tiny bikini bottoms and gym shorts and crop tops etc. on constant display, I don't see it. No amount of attitude adjustment is going to make people think hair sticking out the side of a bikini bottom looks good.

SimonDoom said:

.....For years now there have been stories about how hairiness is coming back, but with women's fashions being what they are, with tiny bikini bottoms and gym shorts and crop tops etc. on constant display, I don't see it. No amount of attitude adjustment is going to make people think hair sticking out the side of a bikini bottom looks good.

Click to expand...

And that's part of the ongoing cultural dichotomy we experience in the western world, between the Apollonian and Dionysian. I think I came across that first in one of Heinlein's books (Stranger in a Strange Land?) where he looks at that dichotomy within american culture.

I suspect the whole thing about body hair is just one aspect of that dichotomy. On the one hand you have the "bikini girls" (I kind of class myself in that just-made-up grouping) who remove body hair of aesthetic reasons, more or less (broad brush generalization) and on the other hand there's the "body hair girls" who don't remove body hair, for various reasons, some feminist, some rather more conservative, but the common theme there would be an attempt to de-objectify women as sexually attractive(?) - and you wouldn't see them in bikinis.

...............

ChloeTzang said:

and on the other hand there's the "body hair girls" who don't remove body hair, for various reasons, some feminist, some rather more conservative, but the common theme there would be an attempt to de-objectify women as sexually attractive(?) - and you wouldn't see them in bikinis.

Click to expand...

As always, there are exceptions to any rule.

The blog below belongs to a Tumblr photographic model who is a 'body hair girl' (to use Chloe's phrase), but she fails spectacularly in any attempt to not be sexually attractive.

She would be especially challenging to many hair-phobes, I think, because her portfolio contains images with little hair, most with hair, and when you see them all together as an expression of her woman-hood and her femininity, it's difficult to see these images as anything less than a celebration of herself, her dark beauty.

Anybody who can like one image (she does delicate girl very well) and not like another just because of the hair, would literally be seeing beauty only skin deep, I would think.

She's in your face, "I have hair, dare to tell me I'm not attractive," and it's that attitude which is part of her power. For my aesthetic, she's one of the most sexual women I've ever seen.

http://kyotocat.tumblr.com

ChloeTzang said:

And that's part of the ongoing cultural dichotomy we experience in the western world, between the Apollonian and Dionysian. I think I came across that first in one of Heinlein's books (Stranger in a Strange Land?) where he looks at that dichotomy within american culture.

I suspect the whole thing about body hair is just one aspect of that dichotomy. On the one hand you have the "bikini girls" (I kind of class myself in that just-made-up grouping) who remove body hair of aesthetic reasons, more or less (broad brush generalization) and on the other hand there's the "body hair girls" who don't remove body hair, for various reasons, some feminist, some rather more conservative, but the common theme there would be an attempt to de-objectify women as sexually attractive(?) - and you wouldn't see them in bikinis.

Click to expand...

I'm mulling that over, but I'm not sure it's a matter of a dichotomy. Which is Apollonian and which is Dionysian: hair or no hair? Presumably the wilder hairy look would be more Dionysian, but not if hair is being adopted as a political/ethical statement. In that case hair is more Apollonian than no hair. It's complicated. I think Dionysian and Apollonian are more like a braid than a dichotomy; they're always twined together. You never get one without the other.

We live in an odd world where there's more freedom to do and to be whatever you want, but where standards of beauty and in some ways the need to conform are more demanding than a generation ago (when I was growing up). It matters more now what your genitals look like than it did in 1977 (for men and for women). People approach it differently. For some it's a political statement. For some it's a matter of good oral sex without getting hair between the teeth. Some just want to look good in a skimpy bikini. But everybody's got a much stronger opinion about it than in the good old days when the subject of genitalia first attracted my interest, a few decades ago. There was no Internet, no tumblr, no Pornhub, no nothing like that, and when you managed to get your hands on a dirty magazine the reaction was a much simpler "Holy shit -- pussy!"