Talk:Pubic hair

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)

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.

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)