Talk:Pubic hair

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pubic hair article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 60 days

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Pubic hair was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 26, 2004	Peer review	Reviewed
September 10, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Anatomy: Gross High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Eurocentrism and lack of neutrality

Some sections of this article read almost like a attack on pubic hair rather than a source on it! European and American attitudes are treated as a universal norm, as if they don't exist at all and are just how pubic hair is treated everywhere. Even when other cultures are mentioned, the focus is entirely on pubic hair removal and negative attitudes towards it! Eden the plant nerd (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The depicted hair patterns and textures are also exclusively Caucasian, not at all typical of African or East Asian people. It is as if people other than Europeans are exceptions rather than examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:480:48A0:1D5D:BD3:8CA7:FDF (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is very true that generic images of people on Wikipedia tend to be Caucasian Americans and Europeans. I added a picture of an Asian male with natural pubic hair, and it was immediately reverted, despite my note that it was being added to expand the range of races/cultures and appearances included. I do appreciate that most editors and most people who contribute self-images to Wikimedia Commons are male Caucasian Americans and Europeans. I also appreciate that it may be difficult for non-professional photographers to create high quality images of Black skin since a single flash or other light source may not produce good results. The main problem, however, is that there are few Black people who contribute to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, just as there are few women. Tetsuo (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more diversity (ethnical & sex) on all human related articles. There are way too many naked white men on human related articles.

Ideally, we would have a gallery per article with a random picture loading when the article is loaded. That way we could have some diversity in the articles without flooding the page with dozens of pictures.

However, it seems to me like this is a project that goes beyond just one article, and I have no idea how to get something like that started on Wikipedia. Any hints? Nimlhûg (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vague opinion that removal is ‘the norm’ in ‘some cultures’ (which?)

“ In some cultures, it is the norm for pubic hair to be removed, especially of females”

Vague and unfounded assertion without citation, suggest removal until at the very least solid citation is added to back up author’s opinion. The existence of public hair removal or estimated value of hair removal business is not a suitable substitute for proof that removal is the ‘norm’. 92.40.193.96 (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pubic hair can also grow on the base/shaft of the penis

Shouldn’t the article reflect this? It only specifies the scrotum, but it appears to be quite common for the penis itself to have some hair growth too, and should probably be pointed out since so many men seem to think this isn’t normal. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:FCF1:F716:4084:D010 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True. In a very quick google search, I couldn't find a reputable source to cite, other than the study that mentions the percentage of men shaving the base of the penile shaft. Healthline mentions "a few hairs" and there some informal discussions (e.g. quora) about whether significant hair on the shaft is abnormal. I will add a quick mention to the intro and cite healthline.Tetsuo (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

regular trimming is best health outcome should be highlighted

this is a strange wiki. focus should be on health. keep it trimmed and clean so the bugs don't bite. don't pull it out or modify it excessively to create wounds. some people have lots, some dont. big deal. 2604:3D08:367F:F880:44E2:A48D:BA45:A287 (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be focus on health? This should be a neutral, factual article with a focus on pubic hair. Your opinions regarding health are irrelevant. But you are certainly welcome to include a section on health with plenty of references to other sources. Nimlhûg (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Cosmopolitan study"

> A Cosmopolitan study found that a plurality of respondents, both male and female, preferred partners who shave or at least trim their pubic hair.

Is cosmo a reliable source? Do they do statistically meaningful research? I'm thinking no, and I would suggest deleting the section on "Sexual attraction", or at least backing it up with better references. Nimlhûg (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]