Talk:Pubic hair/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

odd pics!

it's odd that pics on a page to illustrate pubic hair show trimmed and highly sparse examples of pubic hair!

please can someone put average, natural pubic hair pics on?

I wouldn't go to the wikipedia article on dogs and expect pictures of shaven, emaciated poodles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.84.234 (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The male one does look like it may have been shaved. The female one, it's not clear from the pic it may very well be natural even if it seems short/sparse to you. I would presume there is a wide variation in the length of pubic hair and 'average' is a fairly meaningless concept. Definitely more images would be useful, but don't assume this is unnatural without evidence Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Function?

What's the function of pubic hair? You grow hair on head for warmth and protection. Eye brow is to prevent sweat get into your eyes. But what's the point of pubic hair? Lightblade (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no widely accepted answer to that question. -- Donald Albury 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be two reasons: 1. to act as a trap for sexual scent (pheremones)and thus attract a mate (well, that's what I read...). 2. to prevent chafing from moving limbs. (1) seems to me to be more credible than (2). Both can apply to axillary hair too, apparently. Nick Michael (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

the female pic is not totally natural

As noted by others in this page the female pubic hair of the picture features a female who has trimmed her pubic hair or it was shaven and then grew back. I think that we should put a picture of somebody that has unshaven full-developed pubic hair as it reflects the reality better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.87.213 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. It amazes me that people can give up so much of their freetime editing wikipedia pages but noone can be bothered finding a more natural and representative picture for the female when there are hundreds of thousands in existence....User:retroguy90 —Preceding comment was added at 00:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is a pointless argument. Many men, and many women, trim their pubic hair. Finding "pubic hair grown wild" is no more or less encyclopedic on either gender than using public hair trimmed. The same goes for head hair. In the end, we simply want to show what public hair looks like - whether it is a crazy wild bush or a trimmed triangle, it doesn't really matter for our purposes. --David Shankbone 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I still see no evidence that the pubic hair of the female was even trimmed. The only argument so far is 'it's too short to be natural' which is always a poor argument Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

aniaml pubic hair

Do animals have pubic hair or is it just restricted to humans because animals have fur all over their bodies i the first case?--169.232.119.213 (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples of regions

"Some examples of regions where this is typical are ancient Persia, Turkey, Albania and ethnic-Albanian portions of Kosovo, and in many other cultures throughout the Mediterranean."

Citation needed, especially for the "Kosovo" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojan Grgurov (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Entirely Straight?

The article says that public hair can be 'entirely straight'. This may make me sound incredibly naive, but...is that actually true? That just seems unusual.

Rdr0 (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove the pictures

There could be kids at school researching this for sex-ed! I say we remove the pictures and replace it with a school-safe diagram. We all know what pubes look like. Who's with me? --Candy-Panda 09:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR. Real pictures let people see what pubic hair looks like in real life, and not just some idealized representation thereof.--Prosfilaes 08:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"There could be kids at school researching this for sex-ed! I say we remove the pictures and replace it with a school-safe diagram. We all know what pubes look like. Who's with me?"

oh lord.....lets tell them that babies come from a magic place in the blue sky too ok!? If they are indeed researching for such a topic,teachers understand that! Grow up!

If you're looking at wikipedia to see what they look like then it's prety conclusive you havent seen them and dont know what they look like. It's not as if the pictures are actualy of couples having sex (Pi 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Okay, we all know what they look like, but how about other versions? It should be shown as it could be informative, as many pictures on wikipedia are. The text in many articles are scribbled by irresponsible people and no matter how good the grammar, the meaning is never clear, as it describes something bizzare that only pictures can demonstrate. Gentlelife (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Education board approved images are widely accepted and can’t be mistaken as an attempt at “pre-sexing” as can the current photographs. Wikipedia isn’t here to yank prepubescent children into adulthood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.48.162 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Evolution?

If anyone can find some information about why humans have evolved to generally only have thick hair in the pubic region and on the head -- as opposed to all over -- that would probably make the article seem a bit more complete. The "function" section seems like a good start, though. 99.168.79.19 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. I was quite surprised when I searched for the word "evolution" in the article, and it wasn't there. I then came to the discussion, and even though those arguments about the pics are fun to read, really wanted to see if I was the only one thinking about this. Apparently I'm not :-) dariopy (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Butt hair redirect

Why does "butt hair" redirect to "pubic hair" when there is absolutely no reference to it in the article? Don't butt hair and back hair deserve their own pages, or prehaps a combined page? Aren't there enough people out there that have one or both, that there should be an article to help them and to educate others about this?

Mogdonazia (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there should be a picture of a dude spreading his butt cheeks to illustrate butt hair for everybody. Seems about as appropriate as the rest of this article. unsigned on purpose

Other Colours of pubic hair

I am a bit surprised to see so much talk about pubic hair. I never saw the previous excess, but I did just add a photo to the gallery of (male) blond public hair, in part because I noticed how hard it is to find an image of such even in google search. The image added is user created (not that many will doubt that). It should also be free of controversy hopefully since it is just hair. it would seem to me that a photo for red pubic hair would also be a nice touch. Currently someone could leave with the impression that all pubic hair is dark. There are other colours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.130.163 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC) \

I agree with that

Reference to Alice Prin - suggest removal

"Artists model Alice Prin had no pubic hair.[3]" This seems very trivial and I think it is probably inaccurate as there is this picture of her which clearly shows pubic hair. Remove? Specialknives (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, it's pretty silly, and the source is poor. Paul B (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Graphic pictures?

Why do we need the picture of the penis and testicles (balls) or that of a spread vagina to show pubic hair? Can't the pubic hair be shown without showing the genitals. The pubic hair of the male can be shown without showing the actual genitalia and for female...we can easily have a woman standing erect and pubic hair obscuring the vajaja. One picture of each is enough. What do you say? Outsider2810 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we REALLY need pictures?

I know I'll probably come off as some sort of puritan, but I question whether we even need pictures in this article. Clearly it's a controversial topic (most of the debate concerns the pictures, not the text), and there is consensus on what exactly people need to see. I'd argue anyone of adult age doesn't need to see a picture of pubic hair to understand the subject. If they are adults, they have, or have had, pubic hair (unless there is some rare genetic condition I'm not aware of). Sure, some males have not seen female pubic hair, and vice versa, but pubes are pubes, regardless of gender. If appearance is the issue, there should be a seperate article for the lower abdomen. All that adding pictures does is encourage visits from people who just want to see nudity.

I'm all for scientific inquiry and don't feel morals should interfere with it, but if it's not adding any informative value, and is causing so much conflict, then why have it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosey Burns (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC) What did you expect? This is a wikipedia and the pictures give an example of the subject. I myself have never seen a women pubic hair in person and this describes and shows it perfectly. --72.74.112.169 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) WiseCrow

What conflict is it causing? Where does something become such a hot bed of topic because the two of you are against it? Some people come from religious background where are they aren't even taught what pubic hair even LOOKS LIKE. This is not offensive or done in a pornographic way, and I don't think it encourages anyone "seedy" to come here just to gawk at the photo...someone of that ilk wouldn't come to a page on Pubic Hair on Wiki there's many other spots one can visit. I can't understand how something so natural is so vilified by a scant few here on Wiki... 75.50.124.178 (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove the pictures. I am an American and offended by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.7.102 (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Who can possibly be offended by pubic hair? I mean - what's the offense? 93.73.230.207 (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The pictures are unnecessary. please. it is quite gross to look at a person's hairy private region. Everybody knows what pubic hair looks like, except for young children. and any child who decides to google 'pubic hair' because they dont know what it is doesnt need a picture to understand, or to be scarred by it 72.133.55.59 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The images are appropriate for the article and should stay. Wikipedia is not censored and is not therapy for you to work out your body issues. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd much rather see the female pubes first. I enter pubes in wikipedia and boom dick in my face. Is there a rule in wikipedia that says male pics need to be before female pics? Sounds sexist to me. And if there's something I hate, it's those damn sexists! Those sexists who polute earth, vote for repubesicans and put male pubes before female pubes. ENOUGH MALE FAVORITISM! FEMALE PUBES NEED EQUAL RIGHTS!

Is This For Real?

* Fauxhawk
hair is styled in Mohawk fashion without shaving the hair

* Mohawk
shaving the hair on the left and right, leaving the middle to be spiked

* The Butch/The Bull
trimming all the hair very short except for a small perpetual long patch (AKA rattail) resembling a popular hairstyle among lesbian women.[citation needed]

Ok, now people are free to do whatever they want with their pubes, but are any of these "styles" for real? I don't see how pubes could "fauxhawk", nor how a mohawk would differ from a "landing strip". The latter just sounds made up, in my opinion. I think these would all be very well covered by "other shapes/designs".
I sort of think these should be deleted from the list, maybe some slight additions made with other list items (eg, "A landing strip may be kept long, to resemble a mohawk", "Other styles and designs can be made by a combination of waxing, shaving or trimming the pubic hair.")
I didn't do this right out because I decided that someone who knows more than me can point out an example or two; maybe a mention in a magazine or anything really, that suggests these are actual things actual people have done. Dried cherry (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of female pubic hair

The photograph illustrating pubic hair on a female should perhaps be changed or cropped/modified. There is no reason to display a nude female pelvis when a close up of, for example, the pudenda (mons), would be sufficient to illustrate what pubic hair is. --68.175.44.30 (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC) or how about shaving some off to show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.138.133 (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pedophiles

Psychiatrists, it seems, have found that pedophiles exhibit an un-natural attraction to immature pubic hair. The article could maybe discuss this somewhat controverial matter in a separate section regarding medical and social issues surrounding opubic hair. ADM (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

Page is getting rather long. How about I set up an auto archive for 10 threads (minimum) and 1 year (minimum)? - same as I did for Talk:Anal–oral sex.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to object - Bot template is now in place. Archiving should happen automatically  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gender/Sex

There are a couple of times in the article that use the word "gender" when "sex" is actually the correct term in this case. Sex refers to anatomical differences, while gender refers to cultural and social expectations etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssorp (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Function/warmth

I doubt What's Happening to My Body?" Book for Boys is a decent citation. Its definitely not a decent academic piece of information. Also why would males want warmth in that area. It would increase fertility for that area to be cooler in males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.15.57 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pubic Hair Development in Men Needs a Feminine Complement

I noticed in the Development section that pubic hair development in males is delineated using the Tanner Scale, but no such delineation can found for women. Shouldn't this also be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.40.133 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Torso with pubic hair.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Torso with pubic hair.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

Yet again, one of the images has been changed (this time the female pubic hair img). This regular changing whilst usually harmless is also quite unnecessary. Could we perhaps agree a consensus for the 2 images, then put a notice in the article warning against modifying the images? I believe for the male img, File:Penisflaccidunc.jpg is ideal as it shows the location and extent of male pubic hair in a normal way on a normal-appearing penis, but the female img is regularly changed, I believe File:Female pubic hair.jpg was entirely acceptable and ideal until the most recent edit. Tbmurray (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User Tbmurray has taken over the ownership of this article from the community "Could we perhaps agree a consensus...". Bad practice.

I have hardly taken over this article. According to the records I've made just seven edits to it! I imagine that this article is visited by a significant number of young people in their teens who are interested in learning more about what is happening to their bodies, and that's why I believe this article should contain appropriate images. On the human penis article there is a consensus over lead image and a warning within the article not to amend it without prior discussion. I am merely proposing we do the same here on this important and popular article. (Not signing your comments, that's bad practice; and please avoid personal attacks in future). Tbmurray (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You should REMOVE these. You don't need pictures of ding dongs and hohos to show in the article. You should have a warning at the beginning of this article so parents can censor it. Wikipedia isn't a porn site and you've made it into a child porn site. 99.184.223.190 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Erica Davidson

Wikipedia is not censored and the two images in the article are hardly pornographic. --TBM10 (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that Wikipedia should not be censored as far as content, however, I am astonished as to the amount of attention given to pubic hair, as well as related subjects, such as pubic waxing, etc. I am not surprised that young teens visit this site, however, I think they are more interested in what is happening to the bodies of the other gender than their own. When I was a teen, I figured it out without resorting to an encyclopedia - I think the education was "Yeah, dude - those are pubes, everyone gets them, get over it." Hardly needed the attention we see here. In my opinion, giving this amount of attention to pubic hair when so little is needed gives credence to this, and related articles being a parody on society's views and so lessens the credibility of Wikipedia in general. Certainly, pubic hair depiction in art is a serious subject, and should be given a page specific to that topic and not thrown in with pubic hair in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.178.217 (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There is defiantly a lot of variety. Two pictures is the bare minimum. I agree with the above that the article could easily be the portal to more content and sub pages. And censoring is absurd. If you really didn't want to see pictures of pubic hair don't look at the article. It really doesn't happen by accident. 184.175.5.220 (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikpedia is not a text book for adolescents. It's an encyclopedia and like all encyclopedias aims to include all the factualy accurate information avaliable, especially since it's somewhat unique in being free from practical constraints like size or the cost of employing editors. So whilst what adolescents might want and need to know about their own bodies is certainly one aspect of this article it shouldn't define the entire scope of the page. Personally I'd say the article could use more information if anything. For one thing I'd like to know what function public hair serves biologically. Is it a secondary sexual characteristic? Is it health or hygine related? Is it somewhat similar to pentadactyl limbs as a seemingly random result of evolution? Is there a similar feature in other relatively hairless mammals? We've got good information on the development, how various societies feel about it, what you can do with it but almost nothing about why it's there in the first place. Danikat (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Male Image suboptimal

The image of the male pubic hair is suboptimal, showing trimmed pubic hair. It shows not naturally grown and uncut pubic hair; a reader with no background may think the actual image shows the typical reality, which it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.48.81 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The current image is fine. We don't need to find the hairiest photo possible for it to be legit. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ohnoitsjamie. It isn't "obviously" trimmed, and the image depicts the common extent and location of pubic hair well. If a user wishes to see variations in pubic hair, they can view many images at Wikimedia Commons. Tbmurray 20:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the weird argumentation: The male image is neither typical (trimmed hair) nor acceptable (unsharp poor image->should be nominated for deletion). What is the reason to insist on unreasonableness? GMOGR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.6.72 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary purpose?

The article could use an explanation of why hair grows in adults' pubic area (or if there's no known/specific reason, then a statement of such). The general mechanics are of course described, but there doesn't seem to be any reference to its ultimate purpose. - Vague | Rant 18:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said in an earlier comment above I'm not sure myself, but the page on Secondary sex characteristics lists public hair as an example in humans and in my mostly unprofessional opinion (I have a biology degree but have never studied pubic hair specifically) it seems likely, prehaps as a way to distinguish post-pubescent indivdiuals (ie. potential mates) from those not yet able to concieve children. I've made a very small edit to the lead with a link to the secondary sex characteristic page, but if anyone has more detailed information to add that would be brilliant. Danikat (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here to see the latest research on the same issue, actually facial hair and pubic hair. They are striking examples - we are after all "The naked ape" and have lost most of our hair. Why has some of it stayed, but only a few types? For eyebrows and eyelashes there are obvious reasons for protecting the eyes. Then there is the hair on our heads, there is armpit hair, pubic hair, and facial hair on men. Most of the rest is gone. Sure, some men and also women have a lot of hair elsewhere, but not everyone. It's generally very light. There is a big evolutioanry question - why has it been so important to keep beards and mustaches on men (it surely can't be to keep this nake ape warm during the winters, when the rest is so naked, a beard by itself won't help!)..Similarly for pubic hair.

One guesses that helping our "naked ape" ancestors stay or become interested in one another, or to distinguish "ready" from "not yet ready" might be large parts of it. I'd think that by 2013 there would be more on the (even if tentative) science on this. I hope someone can add when they find some research!

It might even make sense to create a wikipedia page that covers both facial hair on men and pubic (maybe also head and armpits) and focus on "why evolution favored keeping these, while throwing away most of the rest (just compare us to, or contrast us sharply from bonobos and chimps ) Not sure what to call it, "Vestigial hair in humans" or something. Regardless of whether such a new page is created, this entry on pubic hair, definitely is lacking information on the evolution of, and evolutionary purpose of, humans keeping this type of hair while going bald or near-bald (almost) everywhere else.Harel (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As well as serving as an indicator of the sexual maturity of of the person on which it grows, pubic hair serves as a dry lubricant allowing free movement between the skin of the scrotum and that of the thighs when walking or running in the natural state of undress. Similarly, in a woman, it allows free movement in the region of the uppermost parts of the thighs.

As part of a sexual invitation display, especially where the skin is pale and the hair dark, it provides a clear contrast between its dark appearance and the pink of the aroused woman's vulva.

During coitus, it facilitates comfortable movement of the skin of the scrotum and adjacent to the penis of the man and that adjacent to the vulva of the woman, regardless of the skins' humidity.RJPe (talk)

Officially use the new photo set

Variation of pubic hair on a mature male (left), and a mature female (right).

I suggest to replace the current photo gallery (including this photo) with the right one. Actually the change had been done months ago but it was reverted several times to the original version. Now this new section is created to put an end to this argument. The new gallery has better quality with higher resolution and has a good compare between male and female, no reason to reject. Moscowsky^-talk- 00:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, new photo is clearer, hair also gets more dimentional when viewing from side. 65.49.68.188 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll replace the current photo with the suggested one 72 hours later from now if there is no objection received. Moscowsky^-talk- 10:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The replacement is done per this discussion. Moscowsky^-talk- 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Moscowsky: You as an individual cannot do something "Officially" (how could you have such a thougt?); it appears very strange that you insist to show a unsuitable image (erected, with trimmed pubic hair)? What drives you to this behaviour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.111.134 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't help smiling when reading your comment. I didn't insist anything. The image was added after discussion in talk, no objections were received in 8 months. Your complains about "official" "erected" "trimmed" seem sophistry. If you have better image, please suggest it by starting a new section, i'll be supportive if your image has better quality; but please stop being fanatical about File:Pubic hair male 1247.JPG and calling the current stablized image "vandalism" (you did it at least 4~5 times already). Please reach consensus before doing the same thing again, else it may be considered as real vandalism per wikipedia policy. Moscowsky^-talk- 02:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Diversity

It would be cool to get some non-white photos, and I suggest this for all the genitalia related articles. I'm not sure where to fund such photos, but having only white photos re-enforces that white is the standard- that White is Human (Example from other parts of society: band-aids, make-up, 'ethnic' hair products having their own tiny and hard to find section, etc) But humans came in all colour, shapes and sizes!

Transitional (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)transitional

No evidence suggests that the photos in the genitalia articles are all from white people, they're just not dark-skinned. If you check the Commons, you'll find that there're very few qualified dark-skinned photo available. Days ago I tried to promote this photo (which was uploaded from imagefap.com to Commons) to be used in the penis article, but it gets copyright trouble and has already been deleted. Anyone who owns good quality dark-skinned photos please donate, it will be a great help to improve the articles. Moscowsky^-talk- 10:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

80% pics in Commons are blurry with poor taste and nothing of worth, more better photos are needed from whoever. Hope more black dude can upload nice dick photos65.49.68.188 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Diversity and unrelated to photos, in the second-to-last paragraph in the Development section, the wording "In the Far East, however, straight black head hair is matched by pubic hair that has been described as 'black, short, straight and not thick but rather sparse...'" is objectionable. The "Far East"? I thought this was discarded an an uninformative, archaic term. And the quote is rather generalizing, not including many populations that would fall under the "Far East" such as South East Asians, Mongolians, or Ainu. Frankly, it's a little creepy and hints at the objectification of Asian women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.169.84 (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

'Hair does not contain...'

What does 'Hair does not contain intrinsic value that automatically attracts the opposite sex' mean? And if it means anything at all, why does the person who wrote it think it true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.180.12 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate Images

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

Not going to happen. Real-life images are being used proportionately for educational purposes, whereas diagrams would give lower-quality information. If you're really offended, click the links in the big message boxes at the top to find out how to hide the images. BethNaught (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Grathmy (talk · contribs), I'll go ahead and be the one to state that you should see WP:Not censored and WP:Offensive material. If there were, as WP:Offensive material states, equally suitable alternative images that are less offensive than the real-life images, the alternatives would be fine to use. And by "equally suitable alternative" in this case, what is meant is that the images will be as educational as the real-life images. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being "offensive", or "censorship", when it's at the top of the page. See WP:IMAGE LEAD. It is not necessary to show all of the male genitals -- at least not in the infobox. "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page..." --Musdan77 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about pubic hair, so there is nothing surprising about images of the pubic area. Using an image just because it shows less of some male genitals (not all male genitals are external) would be censorship, and would damage the quality of the article. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you read WP:IMAGE LEAD? Everyone knows what the article is about, but that doesn't mean that we expect to see a big ugly picture of male genitals at the top of the page. There is an image showing female genitals on the page -- but not in the infobox. That is reasonable. The male image doesn't have to be cropped, but it doesn't need to be in the infobox. There's no good reason why the lead image can't just be the female one. It's not censorship to move (rather than remove) an image. And it would not "damage" anything. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No, not everyone knows what the article is about, that's why the article has an infobox. The article applies to both males and females, and the lead should not prioritize one over the other without a much better reason. Is there some particular reason, other than its supposedly "ugly" content, why this photo is not suitable? Grayfell (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say that there's "nothing surprising" about images because of the subject, then you say "not everyone knows what the article is about". If someone comes here without knowing what "pubic hair" means, then they should have gone to a dictionary. That's not what Wikipedia is. And, no, that's not what an infobox is for. Like I said, "There's no good reason why the lead image can't just be the female one." Of course, it "applies to both males and females", but that doesn't mean there needs to be both in the infobox. It doesn't imply a priority, by following WP:IMAGE LEAD. The other option would be to crop it. I can't speak for anyone else (but I'm sure I'm not alone in this), but when I first came to the article I was taken aback (almost shocked) by it, and every time since, it's just disturbing. I can't really find the words to describe it (I hope someone else will chime in on it). But, surely you'd have to admit that it's not the most flattering picture (to say the least). --Musdan77 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but I don't think this is a contradiction. Anatomy articles, especially ones related to sex, shouldn't assume pior familiarity, but neither should readers be surprised when an article illustrates the topic. I don't understand what is "unflattering". Who is not being flattered? If this is an aesthetic concern, you should propose a replacement, but there is nothing inherently inappropriate about depicting human genitalia in an article about pubic hair. There are many differing perspectives on what is and is not appropriate, but downplaying useful, informative content solely due to personal discomfort over the subject matter is indeed censorship. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What I find "unreasonable" is that Musdan does not want the male genitals in the infobox because they are "ugly", yet is happy to keep the female genitals there. Seems a bit sexist, and what is "ugly" about a normal part of the human male body? --TBM10 (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The female genitalia is not shown in the infobox. I wouldn't want that either. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Pubic hair covers much of the male genitals and scrotum, as shown in the lead image; it is a perfectly appropriate image. --TBM10 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Musdan, if you would like to suggest replacement photos that more clearly illustrate the topic, do so. I'm a little skeptical that such images won't be exactly as anatomically detailed, for obvious reasons. This is what people look like, and this is what the article is about. Trying to dance around this is only going to make it awkward and more sexual by adding attention to the private nature of the subject, like pasties. It still seems like censorship to me to downplaying relevant and informative information because it might potentially be construed as... as what, sexual? explicit? obscene? It's still not clear what the actual reason is, other than personal discomfort. Whether the image is removed completely or moved to a less prominent place it is still censorship. In both cases it is making a value judgement about the suitability of the image based on subjective opinions, and using that to influence the article outside of its encyclopedic value. The image is relevant, informative, and suitable under Wikipedia's guidelines. The comparison to the image of female pubic hair is a distraction, because that image clearly illustrates female pubic hair. The other image clearly illustrates male pubic hair. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep bringing up things that no one else has been talking about - and then you make insinuations about what I'm saying. And you still haven't answered my question about whether you've read WP:IMAGE LEAD. It doesn't sound like you have. I'm not going to repeat it, but you can go back and read what I first wrote in this section. I still stand by every bit of it. Nothing has been said to change those facts. I was expecting someone else to back me up, but since no one has, I guess there's nothing else for me to say. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You quote: "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page..." Good luck arguing that readers would not have expected to see the genital areas of a man a woman when navigating to an article about pubic hair. --TBM10 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Of course I've read WP:IMAGE LEAD. I'm trying to answer what I think your concerns are. If I'm missing something, perhaps it's because, by your own admission, you're having a hard time articulating exactly why you find the image so shocking. I've said that I think it's important to include both male and female images, and you've said merely that it's not necessary. That isn't a sufficient reason, as I see it, and considering the context I do not think the image is specifically more shocking than any suitable replacements, so I don't really understand where you are coming from. The article isn't precisely about genitals, but it's literally and figuratively so close that it seems very hard to understand why this isn't part of the exception specifically listed as an example in the MOS article. Grayfell (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Biological Purpose

Pubic hair appears to have no natural purpose. Female hair perhaps keeps the flies off, but not all ethnic groups have it.220.240.251.114 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing the topic of pubic hair. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pubic hair. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302010234/http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1126012472670 to http://www.e-infad.my/FMS_en/index.php?option=com_fatwa&task=viewlink&link_id=641&Itemid=59

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

style

Is it really part of an encylopedia to show different styles of Pubic hair? I would expect it on a cosmetician site or s.th. like that but I don't think that styles of pubic hair is really a topic worth mentioning. Oh yeah and stop fighting about the pictures.

I agree. The pictures in the infobox are legit, since they show the topic of the article, pubic hair. Individual preferences of how to show that vary, but at least there is a valid reason to include them. They add information to the article that is on topic. I agree with WP:Not censored and WP:Offensive material. However, pictures of people without pubic hair is just useless. Same with pictures on how to remove it, and pictures of styling pubic hair. I removed them, since they did not directly add information about the subject of pubic hair. This is about the SCOPE of an article. I suggest that if an editor wishes to restore the Style section, create another article titled "Styling Pubic Hair" Bobsd (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Apparently IdreamofJeanie chose to revert the aforementioned changes. The reasons behind my edits of the article were placed here, on the talk page. They also addressed concerns voiced by another editor. Reverting edits without any additional discussion regarding the points I made is boorish and just creates edit wars. If anyone want to remove my edits again, please have the courtesy to explain why on the talk page, prior to making them. Bobsd (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

please obtain concensus before removing these images again, as per WP:BRD. NB no discussion = no concencus. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that consensus was achieved prior to their original posting. By the way, the word you are looking for is consensus, not "concencus". And on your revision note, you were probably trying to say censored, not "censered." In any case, you win ... no edit war here, since you will obviously just revert all the changes back without addressing the issues I brought up. You talk consensus, but do not choose to engage in bringing that about. Much easier to just hit revert; which appears to be your raison d'etre on Wikipedia. I left you a note on your talk page, and I would be happy to explain my reasoning in more detail if you are inclined to discuss. Bobsd (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)