Talk:Bikini waxing/Archive 2

Citation

The link right after the line about hair on Middle Eastern women being considered unhygenic or unattractive or whatever (near the bottom of the firs paragraph, number 2 right now, links to an Australian waxing article), doesn't verify any of the preceding information. --Anchoress 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the citations. They (about 8 of them) were all links to the same tiny article. There is a bit of info in the article, but it does not support the specific information the links were supposedly citing. Also, weirdly, the same link was inserted about 6 times in a row. It seems more like spam than actual citation. The link is still in the external links section. Anchoress 14:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

American Pie Reference

Isn't the american pie reference a bit useless. At no point does it mention that the area is bare because of a Brazilian wax? IF that passes as a source, then we could add the episode of Coupling where Gina Bellman's character is the same (great line - Steve: "If you think that you can get me back by stripping you must be completely" (looks down)" and totally shaven". (whoops...forgot to sign) Sabalon 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the american pie reference is useless too. Slawdogg 09:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Slawdogg

The American Pie reference should be removed; it is not even related to Brazilian waxing. The Jennifer Aniston reference should be stricken as well, or at least moved to a "cultural references" section. --Kiyoshi67 22:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image discussion

Weird that the pic was outlined w/a suggestion to discuss it, but no discussion was started.

Anyways, I don't have any problem with a pic of a brazilian wax, but that particular pic isn't a good example, IMO. There are some good pics on the labia page. Maybe we could use one of those. Anchoress 06:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is an entirely appropriate picture.--87.65.175.96 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you say it's an appropriate picture? It doesn't show a Brazilian wax. The model's mons are almost entirely in shadow, and her perenium isn't showing at all. A Brazilian includes not just the mons, but the area around the vagina and anus. We need to show that in order to actually demonstrate a Brazilian, otherwise it's just a nudie pic. Anchoress 02:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the picture featured there? It's one thing to show breasts, but genitals too? 68.163.156.51 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a page about brazilian waxing. If we do not show genitals, we simply cannot have a picture to illustrate the article.--Gruk 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO these photos are totally unnecessary and are just an excuse to load the encyclopaedia up with gratuitous nudity - they're not encyclopaedic in any shape or form. Call me a prude if you like. One is more than enough and there's no need for tits as well, so I've replaced it with a cropped version. But frankly I'd prefer none. — Moondyne 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the pic is a good example of a brazilian wax. It is tasteful and there is no way to illustrate a wax with out nudity. Slawdogg 10:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Slawdogg

It isn't, tho. First, it isn't close up enough to show whether it's a wax job or just a shave, and second, just missing hair on the mons doesn't equal a Brazilian, even if it is a wax job. Anchoress 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this picture is very useful, but perhaps a before and after shot may be better? 220.101.34.84 12:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The image on the german article seems to be of higher quality and somewhat less graphic at the same time. May be it can be used here? 68.183.61.79 07:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that it's a Brazilian tho? How do you even know it's a wax job? I agree with the comment somewhere on this page that it should be a during shot of the whole perenium - perhaps with the little paper g-string the technicians use. I have no probs with nude pics on this site, but just a pic of a bare muff isn't an illustration of a Brazilian wax job. Anchoress 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a size code to the image template and reduced the image size to make the article more suitable (and legal in many places) for viewing in public libraries. The image can be clicked on to enlarge. 5Q5 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing Bottem image

I am removing the bottem image because:

1) It is not focusing on the type of wax job but instead looks just like nudity.

2) It is obvious that it is not a wax, but instead is a shave job. (the image title is even "All Shaved")

-Unloud 13:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Paper G-string?

If the woman is wearing a paper G-string how can you reach to wax?

2006-12-02 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I disagree

I am Brazilian, and I got very surprised the first time I've heard this "Brazilian Waxing" for the first time, a couple of years ago. The reason was because I don't recall that waxing all the pubic hair and leaving a small line of hair above the vulva was ever popular in Brazil. The Brazilian girls do wax and shave, but not leaving a line above the vulva.

Also, the thong shown in the picuture, which back is just a line, was never, never, never considered "fashion" in Brazil, neither as underware or to use on the beach. I have seen this type of thong in many different countries I've visited, but not in Brazil. A thong like that in Brazil would even look tacky. I've seen many differnt types of thongs and bikinis and panties in Brazil, including the small ones, but never like that one. Brazilian bikinis are typically smaller than the regular bikinis in US or Europe, but bigger than what is usually called "thong" out of Brazil.

"Brazilian Waxing" sounds to me like something that was invented somewhere else and someone decided to call "Brazilian" for some reason.

I can be wrong, but this is what I know from my personal experience. I would even like to hear other Brazilians opinion in this discussion. Any other Brazilian around?

Entire article misconceived?

Purely from the lexicographer's point of view, of observed usage of the terminology, I agree with this Brazilian contributor's opening comment (I have no comment on their other comments). The article currently still states (20080128) that "The majority of types of Brazilian waxing leave a small line of pubic hair" which — as I understand usage — is untrue. Any bikini waxing removes some hair, and styles that don't remove absolutely all the hair may have various colloquial names; but usage that has come to my attention appears to be that "Brazilian" does refer specifically and uniquely to the style leaving absolutely no pubic hair at all.

The way the bulk of this article stands at this date, is almost as though this article was written by someone with two misapprehensions: first, they supposed that "Brazilian waxing" was simply a synonym for "bikini waxing", and second, they were unaware of the existence of (and didn't bother to look for) the article on bikini waxing. My vote would be to merge most of the content of this article with that on Bikini waxing, but retain separately here a short definition (assuming that can be agreed) and an explanation of the uniqueness of the "Brazilian". That is to say, if (as is the case if I understand correctly) "Brazilian" is a term (one of several? "Hollywood" is apparently another) signifying total removal i.e. leaving no pubic hair at all, retain here only a summary or even wider discussion (if well attested data are available) of the factual evidence about beach (or other contemporary) Brazilian culture that gave rise to this term having this particular meaning in the realm of body care. Iph (talk)

if you have reputable citations on this perhaps you can justify this article being differentiated from the other. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Revise External Links On This Page

The external links provided on this page do not serve the purpose, they are not even relevent. In my own suggestion I would want to have this link http://www.geoamaan.com/index.php?View=entry&CategoryID=4&EntryID=46 Methods Of Bikini Line Waxing be placed under external links heading as its very informative as far as bikiniline waxing is concerned.hope you will take notice of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.162.253 (talk • contribs)

I haven't looked at the article links yet, but the external links guidelines advise against adding links unless they contain information that could not be added to the article, which does not seems to be the case with the link you have suggested. If the other article links are not relevant, then by all means remove them. Kevin 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have looked at the page, I see that there are no external links anyway, except those that are part of the references section, where they are there to support individual statements. Kevin 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Growing in popularity?

I am just wondering is this procedure gaining in popularity? It seems to me that it has gained a mainstream acceptance in many countries over the past few years. Porn has played a large role in the development of bikini waxes, I believe. Albert Cheng 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the people who keep re-editing and putting in citations from 3 publications need to get a grip. Seriously, we don't need you telling us that hair removal is unnatural or perverted. Your ethics and worldview are not encyclopedic, nor appropriate. I have removed your alarmist and opinionated quotes and weasel words 4 times already. It is not a debate for whether or not you personally think brazilians are appropriate, you miss the whole point of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.213.37 (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't edit the Bikini Waxing page at all. I just referred to it! Albert Cheng (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?

A certified aesthetician should always act in an entirely professional manner. Examples of non-professionalism include: 1. Non glove wearing 2. Stray hair leaving 3. The use of the tongue to test for smoothness 4. The use of a camera 5. Slipping the finger in

Never use an aesthetician/beautician who adopts such practices. They are probably a registered sex offender. justicemanlolz —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Use of tongue to test the pubic area for smoothness and consistency" and "Using of a camera to document the procedure and result of waxing" and "Slipping of finger into the waxed or unwaxed vagina" ????! LOL now that I'd like to see, it does sound like something out of a cheap porn movie or one of those "Funny Videos".

Merge discussion

Enter thoughts regarding a merge with Bikini waxing. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article mostly has information relevant to Bikini waxing, not particularly Brazilian waxing. The information that's left excluding the redundant stuff isn't material enough for a content forking. It also fit much better into the Bikini waxing article, i.e. in context of the bigger picture (yes, everything this article has, apart from the formatting and the copywriting style exists very much in the other article). Therefore the idea is to merge now, and split later when there's enough stuff. In contrast, so far the only reasons for a separate article I have seen are - (a) vanity (as in, "this should have a separate article"); (b) misreading of process (as in "out of process redirect"). I can be wrong, though. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was preserving a merge concept that someone else suggested. But I also sort of agree with it. Even more...I think both articles might legitimately merge to Waxing. That may be someting to look at later. For now.. I see no reason for them to be separated from each other. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has changed quite a lot since the last time I read it carefully, and not for the better. I think it's been edited to conform to Bikini Waxing to facilitate the merge. The fact is, brazilian waxing is NOT bikini waxing - when I get home from work I'll be editing the lede to say so - in large part because men are frequent recipients of brazilians, and they don't wear bikinis. Anchoress (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This was the version the last time you edited that I can find. That version explicitly calls it an extreme form of bikini waxing and says it takes place in the bikini area. Incidentally, you would need to find references saying that men get brazilians and that they do not wear bikini briefs for that to not be WP:OR. Im not saying this couldn't be used in a talk page as an argument for your position but that the article cannot say it without references. However, I do not agree with you that men do not wear bikinis. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I think some of the editing took place because so much of the article was uncited. Uncited stuff in a crufty article should just be removed. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning for not merging both to waxing was simple. I wanted to keep this in alignment with both bikini and waxing articles (may be the pubic hair articles aligned as well). But, well I apologize for not realizing the third reason for separating the articles - "Brazilian wax is not Bikini wax". If that can be established, there indeed is need for separate articles. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In Australia at least Brazilian and bikini waxing would be considered technically quite different things. This aside I think that the concept of "Brazilian waxing" as being a cultural symbol, of being particularly "risqué" above that of traditional fashion process merits that it should be kept as an independent article. Whether this extrapolates that Bikini waxing should be kept separate from an over-all Waxing page is a different argument I think. Elena the Quiet (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently all the sources I could access from both the articles put Brazilian wax as one form of bikini wax. Is there any source that says otherwise? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there is only one argument of merit against the merge - "Brazilian wax is not bikini wax" - and that remains unverified (and possibly a mistaken notion), a merge may still be the right decision. I agree that we have not reached a consensus, but then requiring consensus and failing to participate in the consensus building discussion may not be very compatible. I think, if there is no argument presented against a merge, we might as well go for it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement, but you might seek an RfC to get a wider audience for consensus. Also bring notification to whoever started both articles on their talk page. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this to RfC. But, there still seems to be little improvement. Can we remove the generic bikini wax information from this article first? Apparently the existence of a lot of text (no matter how loosely relevant) is probably giving this article a look of high importance. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You have no objection from me to merge them completely. But if you get an objection you might want to see what the RfC does. If you merge, I would get rid of the RfC.--Blue Tie (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep separate but provide a main article link. I just found this merge discussion. Since I'm the one who began and referenced the controversy section over at Brazilian waxing, let me add my position. I feel that since Brazilian waxing does have a significant controversy aspect to it, which common Bikini line waxing does not, it deserves its own article; otherwise the Bikini waxing article begins to look as though it has too much focus on the BrazilW controversy. All that needs to be done in my opinion is to have a brief paragraph on Brazilian waxing in the Bikini waxing article with a link to the separate BrazilW article. Here's the wiki code for that. Insert it in the Bikini waxing article somewhere appropriate: {{main|Brazilian waxing}}. Most of my original controversy section from the Brazilian waxing article has already merged into the Bikini waxing article, which I feel should be restored back. 5Q5 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep separate Anchoress (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reason? --Blue Tie (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have several, which I've enumerated in different discussions. Anchoress (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you do a recap? Or, at least, provide a link to that discussion? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen a reason. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can't take eternity. If there's no further objection and an argument to support the objection this article should be merged now. The time is here. Hopefully the merge will also be able to address the issues with images and the controversy section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I count the vote above as Merge: 2 (Blue Tie, Aditya); Keep separate: 3 (Anchoress, Elena the Quiet, 5Q5). A Brazilian wax is not a bikini wax by virtue of the fact that women get it done for nudity and sexual reasons, not for wearing an item of visible clothing, as a bikini wax implies. The term Brazilian wax was invented by Brazilian sisters running their own salon in NYC, so they apparently have no problem with the country designation. The Brazilian has controversy associated with it, which is why I am not in favor of mixing that with and adding potential confusion to the bikini waxing article. A brief paragraph on the Brazilian in the bikini waxing article with a main article link {{main|Brazilian waxing}} to here would suffice or it could even just be a See also link there. 5Q5 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What gave you the impression that straw polls are encouraged here? At the Wikpedia, polling is not a substitute for discussion. Hypothetically speaking, fifty nonsensical votes count as nothing against five well-judged arguments. As for the argument you presented here - the story of Brazilian sisters - is there any reliable source that validates it?

The article you are trying to keep separate itself says - "It can be thought of as a more extreme form of bikini waxing" - and it has been that way much before the argument "Brazilian is not bikini waxing" surfaced in the talk page. There's good reason for that, I guess.

Most of the sources used in this very article refer to Brazilian as bikini waxing. It is acknowledged that quite a few different types of Bikini waxing styles are (removing everything, or leaving a "landing strip"). It also is acknowledged that there are other names than Brazilian that applies to the style of removing everything, front to back, like Sphinx or Hollywood for instance.

Reverting a merge as out-of-process, claiming there's no consensus is fine. But, abstaining from discussion unless there's a direct call to merge soon is not fine. Even less fine is putting forward non-arguments as rationales against a merge and counting them as votes. We have process to help us, not for gaming or lawyering. There's another way to do this, get the article say that Brazilian is not bikini waxing and validate it by citing a few reliable sources appropriately.

That not happening, I'd sincerely propose that we start calling a spade "a spade" and make that merge. The bikini waxing article retains all the information provided here, apart from the long footnotes that set this article clearly apart from other Wikipedia articles. There is no reason to be confused, so far, unless confusion is what we are looking for. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have revisited the Bikini waxing article and it has once again been improved and addresses my concerns. I now support the merge, with a redirect placed on the Brazilian waxing page. One thing missing in the bikini waxing article (or am I mistaken?) is the referenced origin of the term Brazilian wax attributed to the Brazilian sisters. That can be found in this article in the intro (Faster Pussycast, Wax! Wax! via salon.com). That would be easy to add to the bikini waxing article. 5Q5 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but put that in with a grain of salt, please. This strange Brazilian sister story seems to be a claim made by the J-Sisters Salon, not supported by any other source. Even the article that quotes it puts it that way. Not too reliable a fact, eh? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Is the picture really necessary? Even if one ignores the fact it is borderline pornographic, there is still the matter that there is almost no information about the picture listed (is it taken from somewhere? does it fall under free use?) and it is almost entirely unnecessary. Even if we accept that the article needs a picture, does it have to be anything other than a drawing? 71.202.83.171 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See Image discussion below. Do not reply further here. I added a sizing code to the image so that its prominence on the page can be reduced by any editor. It can be made smaller by lowering the number. I agree that a large image is inappropriate and I note that in all of the references I added (most are mine) are for articles that use no picture when discussing Brazilian waxing. 5Q5 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Article needs improving (and merge discussion)

Update: The Bikini waxing article has undergone a great deal of improvement since I began this section and first post below with regard to the inclusion of Brazilian waxing and its accompanying controversy aspect and I now support deletion of the Brazilian waxing article and placing a redirect on that page to this article. Whoever is a regular editor here can go ahead and do that at any time as far as I'm concerned. There was additional discussion on the proposed merge at Talk:Brazilian waxing. 5Q5 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

--- my original first post for sake of talk page archiving ---

Another editor merged the Brazilian waxing article into this one and this Bikini waxing article is now in need of improvement. I contributed to the Brazilian waxing article, including the entire referenced controversy section there. I did not see the need for a merge and Wiki custom would have been to nominate the page first and allow other editors to vote on the proposed merge. That did not happen. The regular editors of this Bikini waxing article could have just added a section on Brazilian waxing and then a link to the "main article" for Brazilian waxing could have been provided. That also did not happen. I do not intend to rewrite this merged article (I am a guy and do not get waxed, so this is not a topic of intense personal interest to me and my earlier writing has now de-evolved because of the merge so my time unfortunately has been wasted). However, to assist any interested editors out there who want to improve this article or even restore the B-wax one, here is where you can view the original Brazilian waxing article that I last worked on (safe viewing--no photos). Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_waxing&oldid=172096175. Brazilian waxing Edit History: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_waxing&action=history. 5Q5 (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearing a few pieces of misunderstanding

• The merged article was not "de-evoloved" at all. "Everything" from the original article has been retained. What has so far been removed are:
  • Long quotes in the footnotes that were not adding anything. If you think some quote was important, try to put it back in the main text, not footnotes. If you want a collection of quotes on Brazilian waxing you can always try Wikiquote.
  • Irrelevant external links. That was done by a participation of multiple editors, and over time.
  • The format. A prose form has substituted the list form in the controversy section, which allowed for better contextualizing and less repeating. Also the repeat citations were formatted as repeat citations. Putting the same page of the same book three times in the references section may make the article "look" like heavily annotated, but that is not what Wikipedia is here for.
• The custom you mention has clearly been followed. There were merge tags on top of both the articles and a merge rational on the discussion page, all that lying around for quite some time. Though a merge doesn't "require" a consensus so far. Besides, the page that describes the custom/process (WP:MERGE) says explicitly - it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.
• If you are shocked to find the images here, please, know thatWikipedia is not censored. That one is a long standing policy.

But I can agree to you very much that the article needs improvement. You can do that especially by putting in information about American or French waxing. I am sure that with the books you quote, it would not be too difficult. Also you may try improving the "process" section which currently contains original research only, and stands in contradiction to the policies that says Wikipedia is not a manual. It also reads like advertisement, with all the "necessary" cautions included. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In all the books I looked through, I never encountered the phrases "American waxing" or "French waxing" or any variation of those terms. It was always just waxing, bikini waxing and Brazilian waxing. I didn't contribute to the process section, only the controversy and I ref'd the origin of the term Brazilian wax. I don't intend to rewrite anything here. I didn't vote for the merge and would not have. Bikini waxing should have been an article and Brazilian waxing also an article linked from bikini waxing. Too late now. Regarding the explicit nude pics, their inclusion now make the article instantly illegal to view on public computers nearly everywhere, including, ironically, Florida, where Wikipedia is headquartered. The bikini waxing industry will lose the audience as a result, not me. But some photo-posters now have bragging rights. Good luck on the article's future. 5Q5 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

More misunderstanding?

I seem to be missing the point. What are you really complaining about? From your three posts here, all I understand are:

• You think Brazilian waxing should have a separate article. But, you didn't explain why. I guess, I explained why it should be merged (check the talk page before you archived it by this edit). If your reasoning shows it needs a separate article, it will have one (I'll help, too). And, please, don't use arguments like "my time was wasted", as it would probably be considered irrelevant.
• You don't like the images. Remove them if you feel they are adding no value to the article (I am not hot for the images either). But, please don't use the censorship arguments to remove them, as that would go against core policies. And, if you do, remove the collapsing box as well (it is there to help people hide the images if necessary).
• You are worried that the bikini waxing industry would lose audience. That's not a problem. WIkipedia is not an advertising platform for any industry.
• You are not interested in developing the article. But, surely you care and that's why you are complaining. I am looking forward to your participation in developing the article very much.

If you try stating the reasons, you'll be surprised at how the Wikipedia community responds to your ideas. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has improved since my original comments and it looks and reads much better now. I have no problem with it, other than a verb typo I fixed in the controversy section, as follows: "The fact that Brazilian waxing make an adult women look underaged is used by..." It was seeing that typo that set me off, as you may not be aware that I won an award for my writing of the original controversy section in the Brazilian waxing article, but I am glad to see it survive now in another form. I do not expect to contribute to the article further. 5Q5 (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect. There's no reason to combine the articles. The Brazilian Waxing article is sufficiently notable and well-referenced to stand alone, it doesn't need to be consolidated. Also, most definitions of bikini waxing refer only to those parts of the body that show when wearing a bikini. Also, the bikini waxing article is awful. Anchoress (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't help disagreeing. Almost every reference of Brazilian waxing is bundled together with a reference to Bikini waxing, and vice versa. No one is disputing that Brazilian waxing is notable, but it also is a part of a bigger scenario and there isn't enough material to justify a fork (as opposed to a redirect link leading to the bigger picture that puts it into context). In fact much of the material of that article fits the general description of Bikini waxing much better (and, therefore, merged into the general picture). As for an awful article... I guess a stylistic difference or a scope for improvement is not good enough reason for a fork (as for me, I have edited the current article once more, and it is now far from awful). Can you, please, discuss before a revert (I did put the merger up for discussion when you asked for it)? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's consensus for the merge/redirect, and I don't see that your reasons to merge have merit. Anchoress (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of photos

Although I don't see the need for photos in this article, to any concerned, here is Wikipedia's guideline on the matter. 5Q5 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the images, the one of the male genitalia is not accurate. On its page it states that it's SHAVED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.167.131 (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all images. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a prude when it comes to nudity or sexual images; in fact, I enjoy them in the appropriate circumstances, but if words can describe the same thing effectively, thus preserving full access to the article by all ages of the public in libraries, schools, Internet cafes, etc., around the world, then I will side with that effort. Editors of this article who want photos should also know the option exists to include just the text link to the photo(s). Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial 5Q5 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for photos and videos on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sektor-05 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm far from a prude but I was pretty shocked by the inclusion of the picture of the brazillian right at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian males

"While mainly associated with females, the practice is engaged in by males as well." Sorry, but that is not the truth. I am brazillian and the men do not ever do it. Maybe the minority, but even though I refuse to believe since I do not know any friend of mine, who did it. There is even a prejudice against it. This line should be removed since it does not report the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurovalente (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said the men in Brazil does it? Why do you assume that men in other countries can't have done it? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} —Preceding comment was added at 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what Brazilians do? There are certainly Male Brazilians done elsewhere. For example: http://www.thewaxingstudio.com/menswaxing.html I'd like to see more info about it here. 71.145.175.250 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Depilar

In Brazil, depilar simply means "to remove hair", and translates as "to wax", whenever it is a "radical" or a "conservative" style. There is no Brazilian name or nickname I know for a full waxing (it's simply "to take everything off"), and AFAIK, it is not widespread at all, not even in Rio. A waxing style which leaves a small strip of hair is know as cavado. A small bikini is also considered to be cavado. This means "missing a good portion of peripheral material", either hair or fabric...

I don't quite know how to fix the article's text to explain that. I might try it eventually, but any help would be appreciated. -- NIC1138 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just give it a try (both depilar and cavado). If something goes wrong, it can be fixed easily. And, while you are at it, you may also want to address the misunderstanding stated in the post above. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I tried something... I think it's fine now. And about the male thing, I believe it's as unusual here in Brazil as in any other part of the globe, if not more unusual. There should only be a link to the [Male genital waxing] article. -- NIC1138 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

Discuss Merging with Brazilian wax on that talk page

Presentism in the article

To me this reads very ahistorical. See our article on merkin for instance. There is much more depth to depilation than is covered in this article. I think some re-organization is well and good, but if the modern practise is the focus of this article, what ever historical context is given, needs to at the very minimum be accurate and balanced. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is only a tiny bit on the history and the universality of depilar present in the article. Not enough. I'm sure it would be added in course of time, as was the case of most Wikipedia articles. If you have something available, please, add to the article. It needs a lot of help. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Point of View is the POINT!!

I think that the people who keep re-editing and putting in citations from 3 publications need to get a grip. Seriously, we don't need you telling us that hair removal is unnatural or perverted. Your ethics and worldview are not encyclopedic, nor appropriate. I have removed your alarmist and opinionated quotes and weasel words 4 times already. It is not a debate for whether or not you personally think brazilians are appropriate, you miss the whole point of wikipedia.

5Q5 take your controversies and post them here. Many cultures who practice full body depilatation would find you very insulting. Like myself, I think you ruin this. You have 3 spurious sources and quote Fox News quoting a Journal of Medicine report? Get the original journal as a citation! 204.191.213.37 (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Missing information" flag added

I added a {{Missing information}} flag to the Controversy section because most of the controversy with the Brazilian wax look is its resemblance to immature (underage) girls. That is why the Controversy section was begun in the first place (I was given a Wiki editing award for doing the research and including it; therefore, your accusation as an unregistered editor that I am ruining the article is your POV and not shared by all other registered editors). Here on this archived page, editors can view an earlier version of the section and refute your claim of my having "3 spurious sources." An example of a reference that was removed, with a quote by a physician: Boston Women's Health Book Collective (2005). Our Bodies Ourselves. New York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster, p. 4. ISBN 0-7432-5611-5. “What often goes unsaid in discussions of waxing (blame the ickiness factor) is that, as a result of removing all the hair from the pubic region, grown women resemble prepubescent girls, and this is considered erotic." / The flag should stay up until the controversy point mentioned above, and which can be found in many mainstream published sources, as indicated by the references in the original section, is allowed in the article. 5Q5 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think you are a twit. And your references are ethnocentric and non-neutral. A physician talks about the body, a psychologist talks about why you have problems with people wanting to modify their image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.213.37 (talk • contribs)

A twit? Hahahahhaha... But, seriously, are you proposing that depilating genital hair has nothing to do with an eagerness to look underaged? Why, because some cultures have doing it for long? Well, I hope you noticed that those cultures also lowers the age of consent for women down to six years or eight years or something. In the West, where depilation is a fashion statement, its popularity is questioned (though the questions are often judgmental, but they are questions not made by Wikipedia editors). And, oh, in Japan... the underaged fetish runs huge, and spills beyond simple Brazilian. Watch a Japanese TV show and you'd see an inordinate number of adult women wearing schoolgirl skirts and pigtails. This fetish is real, and its connection to Brazilian is real, too. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your ethnocentric views are admirably displayed here. Thank you for putting both feet into your mouth. What kind of a barnstar do you give to twits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.213.37 (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the age of consent apply to all people...not just women? 142.166.206.221 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I can personally imagine diplomatic and respectful ways that every single one of the posts in this section could have been worded. I'm sure you all can too. If you don't feel like exercising that little bit of imagination, I think you ought to step back from this until you're ready to do so. - Vianello (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is not anymore aimed to make women look underage than men fully shaving their beards is. For some reason, bare shaving the beard is not polemic. Well, even breastfeeding can be polemic in some places. And even shaving the beard in some muslim or arab cultures, I think. Anyway, I think that these "critiques" and controversies should be somewhat more balanced, it's starting to look somewhat like conservapedia. One point that I believe I saw some people arguing is that in classic paintings nude women are often "brazilian waxeed". Are those paintings perversions, depicting underage girls with boobs and adult women hips? Not my guess. But again, Rodin's "the kiss" at least had encountered some recent polemic in conservative circles, perhaps even other classic nudes also have. --Extremophile (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Video of bikini wax process.

This video seems to be taken from a pornographic site, Hegre-Art.com, not sure of the legitimacy of using the video here. Link to original video with caution, it is a NSFW site, http://www.hegre-art.com/movies/simona_brazilian_wax.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.207.35 (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reported it as a possible copyright violation. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat poor description of the term in portuguese

The article says "In Portuguese, "to wax" is depilar, which means "to remove hair" regardless of the method.[13]". That's not different at all from English. "Depilar" means "depilate", it's "the same" word, which also does not imply any particular method. The wax method is specified with phrasings as "[depilar] com cera", or "depilação com cera", which means exactly "to depilate with wax" and "depilation with wax", respectively. Wax as a verb in Portuguese (at least Brazilian Portuguese) does not have this sense of depilation, it would be "encerar", and has only the sense of "to polish with wax". --Extremophile (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is it? Please, jump right in to get things right. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Barbuscia

Is it really relevant to have a specific persons individual experience referenced? I would imagine there are an endless number of testimonials about experiences with regard to hair removal out there. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)