It’s called bikini wax!

THE HIRSUTE FEMALE (II)

Some time ago I posted a comment called “The Hirsute Female” so this is my second run at the topic. The issue is not so much one female’s disgust at seeing the pubic hair of another female in the pool but rather why she was disgusted in the first place. Why are females disgusted at the sight of other females’ pubic hair? Is there a rational reason or does the disgust originate somewhere deep in the female’s psychology in respect to her own body?

The first thing to note is the central role the body plays in the female’s identity. She identifies herself much more closely with her body than the male – assuming he is not a narcissist. In fact, she could be said to BE her body in ways in which the male is not and so her bodily appearance is central to her in her interaction with others. In ways that are foreign to the male, she sees herself “in the eye of the other” where “herself” here, of course, is her body.

The second thing to note is the sharp gender distinction our culture imposes in relation to bodily hair. For the male bodily hair, unless excessive, is a distinguishing mark of his masculinity. Indeed, the male adolescent awaits with anxiety the first appearance of his bodily hair, particularly his beard which announces the arrival of adulthood. For the female, in contrast, bodily hair must be waxed or shaved off at the first opportunity. So, we’re back to the original question: What is it which disgusts females about other females’ bodily hair including their own? Is it connected with the idea of proper female grooming, particularly as it relates to their pubic hair?

But the third thing to note is that is something primal or deeply psychological about the female’s perception of her pubic hair which is not satisfactorily resolved by the usual connotation of “grooming” which is normally associated with being clean and neat. The possession of a full tuft of pubic hair, however, goes beyond the simple idea of grooming. It gestures to something deeper, something more primal. The female with a full tuft of pubic hair is considered “unclean” in a very profound way. Her tuft of pubic hair is the visible manifestation of a moral failure. She is disreputable, perhaps even derelict. She is a slattern. She is probably also morally degenerate. But, given that the female’s pubic hair grows naturally, why is this visceral loathing in the eyes of other females?

The final thing to note is that our culture has traditionally infantilized the female, aided of course, by the cosmetics industry. She has traditionally been seen as the “weaker sex,” as dependent upon the male both for her status in the world and often for her very physical survival. In Simone de Beauvour’s words, she is a member of “The Second Sex.”

However, the times are changing. There is a combination of factors ranging from the increased presence of females in the workforce, increasingly in management positions as the “glass ceiling” begins to crack, with more than half university places being held by females and all powered by the powerful ideology of feminism which refuses to have the female take second place to the male where physical strength is no longer a factor The times they are indeed a’changin’.

My guess is that the female in the pool with the full pubic tuft was a feminist upper-management female lawyer who had just signed a lucrative contract for her law firm. Her tuft is just a marker of her upward mobility. It was the disgusted mother who embodied the obsolete, downwardly mobile female. She may have been disgusted but she doesn’t realize that her time has passed. Simple motherhood doesn’t cut it any more, at least not until the feminist upper-management lawyer is ready and the male had better be ready to perform.

The word is out! The bush is in!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Stephen Harper (10/18, 945PM)

Thank you for your input, Stephen. But we have a cultural-lag problem here. After years of cultivating luxuriant bodily hair, female European astronaught lawyers are only now beginning to shave their legs, pits and pubic tufts. In other words Stephen, they are on the upside of the graph – eliminating pubic hair – while the lady at the pool was on the downside – letting her pubic swatch flourish. I’m not sure how we can resolve this asymmetry between European and North American female pubic hair, Stephen. Perhaps you have some thoughts on the question.

: Tommyjules (10:11PM)

Tommy, if you set a quota on pubic hair bitches you would also have to set quotas on the others. This would require a weighting system, possibly on a sliding scale, to accomodate the different kinds of bitches. One thinks of traffic bitches, men-are-pigs bitches, panhandling bitches, and so on. How would you weight them, Tommy? Would the quotas for each kind vary? And how about those dealing with maddening inequalities relating to proper male-female dating behaviour? You know Tommy, the kind of bitch you like, with the girl spilling her beer over the guy at the dance? I’d be very interested in seeing the details of your quota plan, Tommy. Write back soon cross-referencing your weighting system and the different kinds of bitches. Get to work now.

: The Sanctimonious Twit (10:33PM)

Did you note that Mr. Meaty did not respond to your question regarding his sailing lessons? How do you interpret his lack of response, ST?

: Ivan Sonofabitch (10/19, 6:38AM)

A nice riff on synonyms for the pubic tuft, Ivan. I was wondering if there would be a comparable number for the male equivalent. I doubt it, since I don’t think that females ponder male genitals that much, but I could be wrong. Do you have a Thesaurus handy? This could be both interesting and informative.

: Woggie (7:22AM)

Woggie, would she be wearing panties under her skirted swimming suit? How far would her skirt come down? Would it be long enough to cover her tuft when she was reclining on her beach chair at the side of the pool, perhaps enjoying a cool martini? Do you wear a skirted swimming suit at the pool, Woggie? Do you wear panties underneath so that your tuft is concealed? Let us know soon.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: NurseHezz (10/19, 10:56AM)

“Society has made it offensive, when at one time a hairless monkey was considered hideous and perverted.”

An excellent post NurseHezz but you failed to take the question far enough. That question, of course is, “Why has society’s view about the hairless monkey changed?” What is going on? Why has the full bush generally become, so to speak, in bad odour? And this is true not just for many (most?) females but also for many (most?) males as well who, as far as I can determine, are attracted by the hairless monkey. Why has the hairless monkey assumed its iconographic position?

I hypothesized previously that society in general and the female body in particular have become “infantilized.” We collectively yearn for an earlier, idyllic state of childhood which was not blighted by sin – in the present case embodied in female pubic hair. While her hair on the top of her head may be her glory, her hair between her legs became an object of horror. It embodied her carnal, sinful nature.

Of course, one might ask as to the reasons for this monumental change. I think it might be an aspect of present-day romanticism, a flight from the aridity of impersonal contemporary existence. In its present guise, romanticism assumes the form of “archaism,” that longing for the golden age of innocent youth which has long passed and which, of course is irretrievable. However, that does not stop our yearning. We do what we can and we, or at least the female, shaves off her pubic hair.

What do you think of my hypothesis, NurseHezz? Write back soon.

: madeinthe80’s. (3:52AM)

Unfortunately, I am not familiar with that song which “cheerio” evokes in your memory. Would it be possible to elaborate? Try to be coherent.

: Ivan Sonofabitch (10/20, 8:52AM)

Would it be possible to give the derivation of the word “merkin”? I’ve checked two dictionaries and it is in neither. For some reason I think it refers to a small cloth which hung over the pubic area of the female in primitive societies. A sort of flap. Similarly, “minge” does not appear in the dictionary. Here’s your chance, Ivan. Don’t blow it.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

CONTEMPLATIVE AROUSAL: THE FEMALE BODY AS A WORK OF ART

: Ref: Ivan Sonofabitch (10/20, 11:06AM) Wikipedia: “The Merkin”

When I saw the female modelling the merkin I was aroused. But, reflecting on my arousal, I distinguished two kinds: (1) Pure Hormonal Arousal (PHA) and (2) Contemplative Arousal (CA).

(1) PHA is the sort of arousal the male has for the female body but it is primarily sexual in nature. It seeks penetration, intercourse, orgasm. It is the sort of arousal the male experiences at puberty and then on into his 20’s but it gradually diminishes – it never disappears totally – and becomes more contemplative. PHA shades off into CA. The female body is seen less in terms of a sexual object and more as a thing of beauty, as a work of art.

(2) The merkin model stimulated CA in me but, of course, with clearly identifiable currents of PHA. I studied her body closely and attempted to articulate just why I experienced CA. There was the swell of her stomach as it gently rose from her merkin to her barely visible navel. Her rounded thighs and hips aroused me as well and then there was her vulva, concealed teasingly by her merkin. Would one want to lift the edge of the merkin and peek beneath. No. This would transform CA into PHA and would destroy her body seen as a work of art. Indeed the merkin itself, in its place, stimulates the male imagination which is the preponderant part of all male arousal but particularly that of CA.

It is true that PHA does influence CA. For example, viewing a beautiful work of art in the museum is purely CA, unalloyed by PHA. But CA cannot be reduced to PHA. It has a separate ontological status. However, as far as I know, the majority of females mistakenly think that all male arousal is basically limited to PHA but this is wrong. As a male I can attest to that. The question which then arises, of course, is the nature of female arousal for the male. Is their arousal mainly PHA or is there a strong CA element in it? Do females regard the male not just as a sexual object but rather his body as a work of art? Does the male body play any role in female arousal or is the focus on his character traits? Or is it something else? What, then, is the content of female arousal for the male? Would any females care to reply? Depending on the eloquence and insight of the reply I think I might become aroused which, of course, takes CA out of the physical realm altogether and places it totally in the imagination. Bring it on!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: madeinthe80’s (10/21, 4:51PM)

Yes I agree entirely that the female has a more “logical” approach in the sense that she seeks a male capable and inclined to provide for her and her offspring, but that was never my point. What I was after was the nature of female arousal itself. I was thinking about your contrast of the visual male and the aural female – the male eye versus the female ear – and this ties in with a another hypothesis of mine, to the effect that female arousal is generally reactive. She is aroused by the voice of the aroused or “interested” male. I don’t think it’s a matter of him being intelligent, witty, or a master conversationalist which might work wonders on a picnic or in the bingo hall but rather she reacts to his voice which gives sincere evidence of his arousal.

Given the fact, as you point out, that we are sexual beings I don’t think that anything like a “gender-free environment” has ever existed. Both genders are programmed to play their role in reproduction but those roles differ dramatically – the passive female “yin” and the active male “yang” as the Buddhists might say. But I think “civilization” is necessary in the sense that such impulses should be regulated – not “controlled” in the negative sense you seem to suggest. Civilization, if nothing else, does presuppose “civility” which precludes our return to an unrestrained “state of nature” so beloved of the Romantics but which, in practice, has decidedly negative aspects. Anyway, thanks for your interesting points.

Do you agree with my hypothesis about the “reactive” nature of female sexual arousal?

: Xanderine (5:08PM)

You are probably right about the European and English views of female pubic hair. I have lived in Italy and Spain but, unfortunately, the topic was not on my agenda at the time so I took no notes. However, I think that the similarities in their views might be just another case of the homogenization of what were once marked differences in this as in other areas. An interesting research thesis topic: “Changes in the Views of Female Pubic Hair as an Aspect of Economic Globalization.” Would you be interested in giving it a whirl? I could be your thesis adviser. Also, would you be able to comment on the pubic hair of English females? I think this might provide considerable Contemplative Arousal for many on this site, myself included. Write back soon.

: Ivan Sonofabitch (6:17PM)

No Ivan, no boys or even simulacra like Mia Farrow. Of course, if she were to be photographed in the manner of the Merkin Model, I might change my position on this. I do think, however, that I am getting clearer on the objects of my Contemplative Arousal. They fall somewhere between the coarse birch-whipper on the one hand and gamine-like females as in the case of Mia Farrow. Speaking about the coarse birch-whipper, my wife and I had occasion to stroll about the red light district of Amsterdam one evening. Prostitution, of course, is quite legal and the district is quite a draw both for tourists and the johns themselves. The girls sit in their chairs in picture windows – sometimes they dance about to attract custom – but I happened to see an old whore whose face was indescribably depraved. She was, quite literally, frightening to behold. The birch-whipper reminded me somewhat of her. No, definitely not an object of Contemplative Arousal.

: Boru (10/21, 7:15PM)

You mustn’t fret Boru. Woggie and I are just having our bit of fun.

: Woggie (10/22, 6:26AM)

Boru, look at Woggie’s reference to “also for a laugh.” That sums it up. Of course, Woggie herself might be having more serious lustful feelings for Montrealman. I mean, who can blame her?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Ivan Sonofabitch (10/22, 10:22PM)

Yes Ivan, that may be so but it is because of your coarse Slavic peasant background.

(12:54PM)

You must treat Woggie like a lady, Ivan. Did they teach you nothing on the Steppes?

: Woggie (12:33PM)

Was that post for me? If it was, it was incoherent. If it wasn’t, it was also incoherent.
When will you be going into the pool in your pantyless long-length swimming gown, Woggie? When you emerge will it cling enticingly to your luscious curves? Write back soon.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Ivan Sonofabitch (10/22, 5:25PM)

Yes, Woggie’s “Bridle” Shower indeed. That rather proves my point, don’t you think?

Are you listening Woggie? Are you going to take that from the Bouncing Boyar? Did you want to stick something between his teeth or, alternatively, did you want to kick him right up between his short stubby legs? Come in Woggie, come in!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Ivan Sonofabitch (10/23, 9:10AM)

What about “The Slobbering Slav?”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Ivan Sonofabitch (10/27, 4:54PM)

The Useless Uke? The Boorish Bohunk?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Ivan Sonofabitch (10/24, 3:40PM)

Yes Ivan, I was wondering if you had that right.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!