I made a curious discovery recently. I’m not sure when but apparently the new male “beauty” standard in porn is to be completely hairless — and I’m not talking about the chest either. I’m talking, penis, sack, and everything else nearby: smooth as a baby’s bum. Now, I am not a huge consumer of porn so I’m not sure exactly when this revolution occurred but having once noted the change it now seems to me to be the standard.
Now, flash back a couple of years to a time when Brazilian waxing was all the rage and everyone from teenage girls to middle aged soccer moms were getting stripped to the skin in the name of beauty and tiny tiny bikinis. It was THE thing to do for awhile. I’m not sure how popular the Brazilian still is for women but either the fad has worn off or it has gone so mainstream that no one really talks about it anymore.
Here is a little video of women’s reactions to the procedure (NB: there is one guy in there as well). Other than demonstrating that the procedure is not wholly pain-free, the video is also useful because it shows a fairly diverse range of women getting the procedure done — of course, I can’t be sure it is a representative sample.
The standard critical view, at the time, is that the point of the painful and potentially infectious exercise was to make a woman seem, whatever her age, prepubescent. Because the procedure was essentially an homage to pedophilia, the argument went, it was perverse. So, not only was it a painful and sometimes dangerous procedure for women, it was also psycho – sexually unhealthy.
Of course, I am sure there are many women who would say otherwise (I haven’t been able to find any kind of formal defense of the practice on-line). Moreover, if nothing else, whatever explanations women provide for leg shaving and waxing, I am sure can easily be transfered to their genitals in a pinch (tee hee, sorry couldn’t resist).
At the time, I was fairly sympathetic to this critical assessment and, at the very least, it seemed this was one more instance of female beauty standards being physically oppressive.
Then, I made my recent discovery about porn and its brazil nuts (Do you get it now? Huhn, huhn!) and I am questioning that initial assessment of the Brazilian. Maybe, there is something more going on with Brazilians and female hair removal in general than an attempt to infantilize female sexuality. After all, I am pretty sure these guys aren’t getting waxed to seem prepubescent. Moreover, it also occurred to me that men’s facial hair historically has also been politicized. The choice to wear or not wear a beard at one time was pretty significant. Even today, guys who wear beards are often trying to communicate some kind of message of personal identity. My impression is that it is something like “I’m well-meaning, sincere, and like to RPG.”
At any rate, my question is this: why are guys in porn — and probably now outside of porn as well — going hairless and at the very least trimming. Is it because the removal of hair makes them look larger? Or is this like shoes? Perhaps, the female obsession with hairlessness has simply transfered to male sexual identity just like the attention to good shoes. For example, getting one’s chest wax ain’t going to make your wee-wee look any bigger.
And, more generally, what is the deal with body hair and its removal? Is the seemingly cross-gender desire to remove hair an homage to prepubescence or is something else going on? It is a class thing? Maybe body hair is associated with living and surviving out-of-doors. Or, maybe this is all just a way to monetize male bodies as well as female bodies.
I also thought I’d include this little video I found because it nicely highlights the female fear of genital hair and neatly shows how consumerism is caught up in the manufacture of our beauty standards.
For more post likes this, click here.


Amanda
March 4, 2009
I thought that for porn it was a size issue. The male package definitely looks bigger when it’s surrounding area is hairless.
For regular people I think trimming is just polite…for both sexes. You shouldn’t have to work to find it. Plus, hair in the teeth? So gross.
I’ve always wondered why we have such a distinction between the hair on our heads and the hair on our bodies. We work so hard to remove body hair and then we work even harder to present our head hair. So it’s not just a hair aversion thing.
sterlinglynch
March 4, 2009
Good point about head hair. I had forgot to consider that aspect. And it is relevant for both sexes. Men are obsessed about loosing their hair. Women are obsessed about making sure it is well presented (and loosing it later in life). There is also all kinds of symbolism and issues of personal identity with respect to its length.
On the one hand I accept the point that less pubic hair will make the wiener look bigger — but it needn’t be waxed right down. Trimming should be good enough. So why the full monty? And I can imagine it is pretty painful too. Then the in-grown hairs. Oie vey! Why also the waxed chests and backs? Surely, there is more going on here than just wiener size.
Also, I recall now that the plucking / removal of hair is often associated with a bunch of psychological disorders. Could it be an expression of control?
Paper Bag Princess
March 4, 2009
I think we should should still be suspicious – this is far more mainstream for women than it is for men. That’s telling I think.
Weird that the first video calls the bikini area a ‘war zone’.
Yes, there are people who compulsively pluck their hair out – from their heads, eyelashes – everywhere. I think it is related to OCD, so yes, it must be about about control. People who suffer from it talk about it a lot people who cut themselves talk about it – i.e. it is soothing. Robbie Davis-Flloyd talks about hair removal in the hospital as a mean of making one strange to oneself – patriarchal control – I don’t know if that’s relevant…
Pffff. Sorry, I got nothing. Looooong day at work. ‘Puter crash. Lost afternoon’s worth of work!!! *sigh*
sterlinglynch
March 5, 2009
Good effort, good effort. Go team!
ourboy
March 11, 2009
More often than not, people develop grooming habits that have little or nothing to do with sexual/gender roles and deeper politico-social issues. Some folks just don’t like pubic hair. I happen to prefer it on women and partially because it represents full sexual maturity. But if men or women prefer hairless pubic regions, I don’t assume they do so because of some deep-seeded identity issue.
sterlinglynch
March 11, 2009
Thanks for the comment!
Your point is well made and well taken. I am very sympathetic to the view that it takes a certain type of person to see everything through the lens of sexual/gender/social/political significance with a capital “S”. Moreover, that type of person is often in the minority and is very often wrong for always using that lens. You are right. For a great many people, the choice may be mostly meaningless in capital “S” way.
Claire
March 15, 2009
In late republican Rome and the early empire, it was the fashion for men to pluck their chest hair, arm hair and leg hair (or have a slave do it, anyway), as it was a high class fashion at the time for men to be ‘smooth’ as it were. Am not sure about the pubic area, though I wouldn’t be surprised if this was included.
So the ‘bare chest’ fashion of our culture is by no means new.
in addition, in Islam pubic hair (on women anyway) is seen to be unhygenic, and so is ritually removed (as a ‘part of religious dictates’) and as recently as the 1980s women in this country had their pubic hair shaved prior to childbirth as, again, it was seen as ‘dirty’ and ‘potentially harmful’ to the baby.
So this seems to be nothing new, alas.
sterlinglynch
March 15, 2009
Claire. Thanks for that reply. Very helpful.
So the desire to be smooth all over has been around for awhile and is not especially gender-specific either.
So I guess the question that remains: why body did the removal of body hair — as opposed to head hair — became associated with physical beauty and why did body hair — as opposed to head hair — become associated with dirtiness?
Julie
March 29, 2009
crabs? lol. To address your initial posting: waxing does hurt. I think laser hair removal is becoming more popular for both girls and guys, and yes, it does hurt too but at least once it’s gone, it’s gone! I personally don’t look at hair removal as an act done because of oppression or perversion. It serves two purposes: 1) it’s more comfortable to have minimal bush in the pants, and 2) if you’re going down on a girl, isn’t it nicer to have easy access to the parts!
This goes for guys too! Yes, trimming may make your penis look bigger, and it’s so nice not to have to hear the crunch of three-sided hairs against your face when you’re doing business.
sterlinglynch
March 30, 2009
Is that all it takes to avoid crabs!
Thanks for the additional thoughts.
Julie
March 30, 2009
…actually I think crabs can still live for about a week if you shave off you hair. (I don’t know this from personal experience BTW). meh.
shenanigansandredtape
September 4, 2009
1) Crabs can, indeed, live on after pubes are shaved.
2) This, of course, goes for no other kind of depilation, and I have no knowledge of men’s sensitivity re: shaving, but I CAN suggest that one reason that ladies do it is that the naughty bits (to quote Monty Python), once cleaned of interfering hair, becomes more sensible. A lot. So some ladies shave/wax/laser because it just FEELS better.
sterlinglynch
September 4, 2009
Hello! Thanks for reading and your comment!
I hadn’t considered that possibility. Now that you mention it, I think of one of the pieces from the Vagina Monologues. There is a monologue in which a woman complains about the increased sensitivity caused by the lack of public hair. For her, the sensitivity is uncomfortable. Of course, it stands to reason, for some women, this increased sensitivity could lead to increased pleasure.
shenanigansandredtape
September 4, 2009
Actually, one thing that I dislike about the Vagina monologues is that I find them to be kinda sex un-friendly. I mean, yes, there are monolgues that celebrate sex, but by and large I think that they come down on the Dworkinist (is Dworkin an ism yet? Not sure…) side: “sex is exploitative and bad and hurts and women don’t enjoy it”. And IMHO the sex-positive monologues tend to be funny/humorous (“I’m 50, on my back in a room with a bunch of other old women, and I finally found my clitoris!” Or “I’m a dominatrix, and I like to make ppl scream, but in a good way” Or “Re-claim cunt! It is a good word that I like! C stands for…”) while the sex-as-exploitation ones make me want to cry, and have stayed with me much longer. But I haven’t seen it for years, and I should probably see it again. And plan to this February.
For someone who is unabashedly sex-positive and talks about shaving her cooter (her words), read Bitch, PhD. Here’s her post about shaving, being femme, and DIY fetish photos: http://bit.ly/bBLC6
sterlinglynch
September 4, 2009
Very useful link. Thanks. And she is right: attitude / confidence is crucial. The other visual artifacts (heels) can act like symbols / symptoms of that confidence / attitude but it is that attitude /confidence that matters most. That’s why some women can be goddesses with body hair or in jeans and T-Shirts and why some well-built and hairless women are not especially attractive in even the teeniest mini-skirt.
And yes I agree about your assessment of the Vagina Monologues, however, I would say the key message is “sex is bad with men”. The vast majority of the sex positive stories were women alone or women with women and all the sex-negative stories involved men. More charitably, so it doesn’t fall into Dworkin territory, the message is probably more like: “let’s admit and discuss that sex is often bad with men” and “let’s recognize and celebrate that masturbation or sex with women can be wonderful.” It was — and for a lot of women remains — a valid story to tell.
Adorkable Thespian
September 6, 2009
Damn! This post has LEGS!
I disagree that TVM is sending the message that sex is bad with men. A few years ago, I performed ‘Because He Liked To Look At Them’. The monologue focuses on a woman who is utterly humiliated by her girl bits until she meets a man, totally and utterly into her and her vag.
I do see the sex-negative aspect but I think that’s a reflection of fact that we live in a sex-negative society. Despite the fact that female physical architecture is sensational – clits, Gspots and related nervetastic parts – girls often learn to disassociate themselves from their physical bodies…especially the sexual parts. Our good stuff is kind of tucked away. It’s hard to feel good about sex when you’ve been conditioned to stay away because Nice Girls don’t go to Pussytown.
As a society we’re also highly penetration centered. Not knocking penetration, but for most women I know, it’s preferable a la mode, rather than a la carte.
Watching/performing the monologues, the common thread I notice is that all of the negative stories involve who are/were disconnected from from their vulvas (The sex-educator in me bristles a little bit at the title’s inaccurate terminology). As a woman TVM is a call to embrace (touch, stroke, toy with) my body.
sterlinglynch
September 6, 2009
This is the third most popular post on this site.
Does anyone have a copy of the script handy? I don’t, otherwise I’d do a quick count of the number of negative sex stories and how many include men. I’m not convinced that one positive sex story is sufficient to outweigh the weight of the other stories. But this is all based on my memory of the show which is very fuzzy and may be a little skewed.
Adorkable Thespian
September 6, 2009
I lent Robin my copy. When I get it back, you’re welcome to it.
BTW, I thought this was interesting: http://feministing.com/archives/006530.html
sterlinglynch
September 6, 2009
Sweet. I wanted to read them after I saw it, so that’d be great.
Also, thanks for the link. Well worth reading.
And for the casual reader following this thread, FYI: you can check out my assessment of a local production of The Vagina Monologues, right here.