So pubic hair on women is “back in fashion”. The fact that it ever went out of fashion is proof, which sadly isn’t needed, that this is a horrible, woman-hating world. The most horrible part is that it’s made some women hate themselves.
It’s so illogical, it’s almost beyond comprehension. For someone to think that pubic hair is wrong in some way – unsightly, unhygienic, unsexy, unwomanly… You might as well say noses are wrong, toes, fingernails.
They’re just parts of the human body, correct? And pubic hair is part of the mature human body, no? Therefore removing it a pile of steaming BS, QED.
Let’s take these “arguments” – sigh – against female pubic hair one by one. First, that it’s unsightly. Wrong: women without any look weird and kind of inhuman, like a mannequin or statue.
The aesthetic of the naked female is in perfect balance; some daft social trend only knocks this balance out of whack. I’ve done life drawing and nude photography – don’t worry, it was an art course, I haven’t turned into Larry Flynt – so trust me on this.
Second: pubic hair is unhygienic. Wrong! Because how could evolution have erred so badly on this one? There’s a biological reason for pubic hair; removing it causes all sorts of dermatological problems. Imma assume that Nature knew what it was doing here. (Besides, if this be true, how come men aren’t doing away with it too?)
I made this point once; the dude replied, “Evolution isn’t always right.” Evolution…isn’t always right! He actually said that.
Third: pubic hair is unsexy on a woman. Wrong again! There’s nothing less sexy than a totally hairless lady. For starters, it suggests she’s overly susceptible to stupid fashions or the goading of some idiot boyfriend who can’t handle a real woman; low self-esteem and emotional immaturity are never that sexy, really.
But even less sexy is someone looking like a pre-adolescent. It sort of does come down to that: any man who only fancies women with no pubic hair doesn’t really fancy women at all. He fancies little girls.
Personally? I don’t find little girls sexually attractive. And seeing grown-ups with no pubic hair reminds me of them, and that is creeeeeepy.
Four: public hair is unwomanly. See above.
I read recently one of those insidious, two-faced “how to be happy” articles, written by a woman in order to make other women feel very unhappy, which revolved around changing your physical appearance. (Coz we all know that’s the source of true happiness!)
Anyway, this genius had the cojones to say “remove all body hair, because you’re not a man – you’re a woman.” Well, no: as mentioned, if you have no pubic hair, technically you’re a child. The piece should have been headlined, “Self-hating cretin’s Top Tips on how to bag yourself a nut-less pederast as a boyfriend.”
Call me old-fashioned, but women are supposed to have pubic hair, breasts, rounded hips; same as men have facial hair, Adam’s apple and a dingle-dangle centre-stage, somewhat reminiscent of a forlorn party-goer who doesn’t know anyone there and is too shy to strike up a conversation with strangers, so is kind of hanging around, feeling awkward, hoping nobody notices him.
The saddest thing about all this crapola is this: how did it happen that women are the ones modifying their appearance in order to attract a mate? For God’s sake, women are physically GORGEOUS. Why do you think virtually every artist in history, of both sexes, concentrates on the female form?
Perfect topography, divine symmetry. A place, sublime and magical, that’s far beyond the sexual. All the secrets in the world inscribed on soft vellum and red silk, by a knowing hand in a flowing script.
A thing of beauty and a joy forever.
Us men, we’re the ones should be forced to remove this, add that and change the other. We’re lumpen, misshaped, caveman-esque, sort of ugly. Definitely ugly compared to you.
Women are beautiful, exactly as they were made. You should remember that – and if anyone tries to say otherwise, refer them to this.
- First published in U Magazine
Darragh McManus, author and journalist 
Leave a Reply