Latest comment: 5 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Merger with hair removalEdit

I don´t think the two articles should be merged since the topics are different and the article would be very long. I´d prefer to remove the tag. Gardenparty (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

No, but ...Edit

The comment with heading Glabrousness v. Acomoclitic below was added a year ago and is still not resolved but in my view it is clearly part of the same problem as this heading covers. Right now on Wikipedia we have the following articles all on closely related subjects:

... and quite possibly others that I have not caught here, but their treatment is partly repetitive, partly conflicting, and partly uncorroborated by references.

I am strongly of the opinion that this article Glabrousness should not be merged with Hair removal, but that here (in Glabrousness) the discussion of human cases of it should be limited to the medical causes of natural or iatrogenic hairlessness (as is seen in the case of such well known individuals as Matt Lucas and Duncan Goodhew who of course has alopecia universalis) or the side effects of chemotherapy.

All discussion of hair removal by any method and for any motivation —— thus most of what is on this page —— should be moved to the article Hair removal where there should be a unified list/survey of methods with a set of links. Then all the separate articles for the separate methods should be reviewed to rationalize coverage of topics, remove both repetition and conflicting statements, etc. Iph (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are two separate articles dealing with similar topics, but the topics are not the same. I recommend removing the tag and keeping the articles separate NitrogenTSRH (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

history and fashionEdit

The way this was written makes it seem that female shaving is a 20th/21st century phenomenon. Not so. Female deplilation gained and lost popularity as often as male shaving did - it just became 'wrong' to talk about it during the Victorian era. Interestingly enough, shaving became popular again in the late 19th centuries as a form of modesty, not sexual expression. Axilary hair was considered to blatently sexual and women shaved to mimic the art work of the time. Look at the furor Goya raised with his hint of pubic hair. --Lepeu1999 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


While I approve of the subject, is there any real reason for the close-up of the female genitalia other than prurient interest? Sure it's a photo of a hairless vulva, but the Venus painting earlier in the article is more on topic as the article is about hairless bodies, not just vulvas. It's a very attractive vulva, but I believe its inclusion takes away from the article and I'm deleting it.--Lepeu1999 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photo was readded w/o comment here in the discussion page. I have posted a note in the user's talk page asking why. If I don't get a response I will remove the photo again. I am anti-censorship, but that also brings the responsibility not to post images 'just because we can'. Those kinds of actions cause us to lose credibility. The image is tasteful and attractive, but I question how necessary it is for the article - the term refers to a lack of body hair, not just pubic hair. An image showing the entire body being hair-free would be more on topic. This photo belongs in the article on pubic hair or vulvas.--Lepeu1999 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left a note on the re-adder's talk page and here. I haven't heard anything back regarding the photo so I'm removing it again.--Lepeu1999 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for the delayed response, I'm in mid-exam season. Apologies also for missing your earlier note hear about that particular image, I missued it. While I have reservations concerning the use of the "is it really necessary" arguement when it comes to censorship, I think you may have a point in this instance. As I am not clear on my position, I will not pursue this any further. --Oldak Quill 14:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A different photo was readded. I removed for the same reasoning as above. Also it was a commercial image and therefore copywrited.--Lepeu1999 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I said that it was socially accepted and even desirable for females to remove body hair to enhance their perceived femininity., I was referring to the females themselves who found the practice desirable. If they didn't, they wouldn't do it, would they? Does that self-evident truth need a citation? There are plenty of examples of this practice - many beauty parlours even offer a "full Brazillian" as a service - so there is a demand out there for it.

This article neither promotes not condems the practice, so I don't see any justification in the accusation of it not being neutral.

I've been trying to trace an etymology for this word. I assume it's Greek but can't find any specific info. Does anyone know any better? Agentsoo 10:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, the article got moved. How disappointing. Soo 21:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested change:

in Western cultures it is socially accepted and desirable for females to remove body hair to enhance their perceived femininity.


in Western cultures it is socially accepted and, sometimes even desirable for females to remove body hair to enhance their perceived femininity.

--Vitor cunha 6 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

How about: in Western cultures removal of female body hair is well accepted in society. In fact removal of female body hair is used to enhance women's femininity << and some kind of comment about how widespread this practice is >>

Noun formEdit

Following the general Wikipedia/encyclopedia model, shouldn't the article be "acomoclitism" (or whatever the noun form is)? -EdgarAllanToe 20:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know what the adjective for acomoclitism is? my dictionary isn't big enough.

Is it acomoclitic? I guess it wouldn't be acomoclitist because that would be a person who discrimates against those who have a preference to go without pubic hair.

Censorship requestEdit

Is the June Palmer picture nessecary? I know it's nice looking and this is the internet but my eight year old cousins use wikipedia and what if they go and research some school project on puberty and instead of the drawn "nasty" stuff they've already been exposed to see this full blow filth ( I honestly don't consider it filth) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of eight-year-old cousins, or anyone else. And has a Hell of a lot of more explicit sexual content that that picture, so you better stop them right now. ➥the Epopt 20:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What's the antonym to glabrous? i.e. someone who prefers hair not to be shaven? I think whatever it is there should be a link to it. -- 21:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Glabrousness" is the quality of being hairless, and has nothing to do with a preference; its antonym is "hirsute." "Acomoclitic" means "prefering glabrousness"; its antonym would be "trichophilia" or "chaetophilia." ➥the Epopt 14:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Someone tagged the page with the NPOV template, but hasn't raised any concerns here (which they are required to do if they use that template). If no specific issues are raised here before 20 March, I will remove the NPOV tag. ➥the Epopt 20:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-Agreed, the NPOV should be removed, since I see no reason why there is concern.Scotsworth

Naturally glabrousEdit

Is there a gene of natural glabrousness, or is it just a disorder (I guess there are people with predispositional genes - so there's just a chance for their children to have it)? I've seen some people (men) having no beard at all! What about women - e.g. those that do not need to shave legs - oh how convinient! How does natural glabrousness affect skin (for example: is there some typical face (dis)configuration of naturally glabrous people (e.g. women - no matter they are women (I mean - no beard) - that absence of certain structures inside skin certanly must affect the outlooks of such faces)). I would like to see examples of such people - I ask: where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:42, November 10, 2006

  • Oh, I seeee... You are refering to all the posts from that IP. That is not a private computer, I see there are some posts of some other people in connection to this IP - if one sign it it wouldn't be correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:25, November 18, 2006
The IP address is shown after edits are saved. Sign your comments. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glabrousness v. AcomocliticEdit

    • Proposed Major Edit

Some time ago, I noticed that my original Wikipedia entry of Acomoclitic had been changed to Glabrousness and a search for Acomoclitic now gets redirected to this entry. As a result, some of the early sections have been understandably changed to reflect this new definition. But these two words do not mean the same thing. A search on Google reveals many sources showing that the word Acomoclitic describes people who have a preference for hairless genitals on themselves or others. This is quite different from Glabrousness, which is having "an anatomically abnormal lack of hair or down" such as baldness. These are two separate words that require two distinct entries in Wikipedia. Unless someone can come up with a strong reason why not, I will remove the entries that made up my original contribution and reinstate them back in their place as a description of the Wiki entry for Acomoclitic. There can, of course, be a cross reference in both articles, if necessary. Carterton 13:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I propose that both these terms—Glabrousness and Acomoclitic—are neologisms. Neither Merriam Webster nor Ninjawords has an entry for either word. Is there a reputable reference that actually has these words? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glabrous is present at but acomoclitic seems like a neologism. I've removed the paragraph about it. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In the Glabrous skin section:

On the human body, glabrous skin is skin that is hairless. It is found on fingers, palmar surfaces of hands, soles of feet, lips, and penes.

I assume that "penes" is the plural of "penis," in which case I seriously doubt that this part has glabrous skin, being the owner of a clearly non-glabrous penis. Does the contributor have a source for this inclusion to the list of glabrous areas?—An Sealgair (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't the contributor, but I believe they may be correct. If I'm not mistaken, hair only grows on the root of the penis and not anything beyond the shaft. Certainly not the glans. Someone else will have to find a source on that though. TiffyWiki (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hair does indeed not grow on the glans, or the foreskin for that matter. The reason for this is that the glans and foreskin are, like the eye or lining of the mouth, not covered in skin at all, but rather a mucous membrane. If anyone wishes to incorporate this bit of information into this or any other related article, I have no objection.
Two other minor issues that probably aren't major enough to warrant an entirely new section, concerning the following sentence:

"At present, this has resulted in the "Brazilian waxing" trend involving the partial or full removal of pubic hair, as the thongs worn on Brazilian beaches are too small to conceal very much of it.

First, unless I am mistaken, the "partial or" can be removed, as a Brazilian wax is, by definition, the complete removal of pubic hair. If it doesn't remove the pubic hair in its entirely, it's not a Brazilian wax, merely a regular bikini wax. And, second, unless you hang one over your pubic region by tying it around your waist, thongs will not cover any pubic hair, seeing as how thongs are a type of footwear similar to sandals, and are too small for any adult, no matter how thin, to get even one leg through, much less both. I can only presume the editor meant to refer to "thong underwear" or "a thong bikini". This confusion is, unfortunately, quite ubiquitous, although I feel this makes its clarification more important rather than less. Alexis (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Botany, not just bottomsEdit

I came to this article from that on woodruff, which describes the leaves of that plant as glabrous. Since it is a botanical term, as well as an anatomical one, it might be worth mentioning that meaning in a subsection. Ideally, i'd suggest there be separate articles on Glabrousness (anatomy) and Glabrousness (botany) (and possibly even Glabrousness (fashion)), and a disambiguation page. Provided there was enough content to justify a separate botanical article, anyway.

All this hinges on finding someone who knows about glabrous leaves, though. Not me!

-- Tom Anderson 2008-04-13 18:36 +0100

Good idea. Then we could maybe finally get rid of those ridiculous interwiki relations here, such as pt:Glabro vs. de:Schamhaarentfernung. Particularly the interwiki to that Portuguese mini-stub (botany-only) is a constant pain, and I just don't know how to permanently get rid of it. --Alib (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

La Naissance de VenusEdit

I've readded Duval La Naissance de Venus.jpg. I feel the photo is relevant to the article and significantly helps explain the article itself through its depiction and was not distasteful. I propose it stays. Was there actually any reason for its removal? TiffyWiki (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The phrasing "Encouragement by commercial interests may be seen in advertising. At present, this has resulted in the "Brazilian waxing" trend involving the partial or full removal of pubic hair, as the thongs worn on Brazilian beaches are too small to conceal very much of it" (emphasis mine) seems misleading-- according to an article by the Atlantic cited by wikipedia's Bikini Waxing page, the Brazilian is called "Brazilian" because it was originally offered by a salon owned by Brazilians, not because Brazilian beaches attract skimpier thongs. Unless there's a better citation for the link between Brazilian waxing and Brazilian beaches, I propose changing the wording to "Encouragement by commercial interests may be seen in advertising. Smaller swimsuit bottoms encourage the removal of most or all pubic hair, a process known as [[Bikini waxing|bikini waxing]," leaving out what feels like an unsubstantiated allusion to some kind of perceived Brazilian exhibitionism. (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glabrousness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glabrousness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]