Jump to content

Talk:Bikini waxing/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Disagree with the removal of the image today associated with this article

I have to disagree with the action taken today 20080927 with the removal of the photo. The poolside photo of the female showing the upper portion of her pubic region. I came here looking for a good description and visual of a brazilian waxing. This photo put all doubts aside I had and helped me to grasp the understanding of what I was looking for. It is obvious it was removed because it was a nude photo. Well, I think the photo had the utmost taste to it. It did not show an open "crotch shot." It showed just enough of what you needed to see to compliment the article. When the penis page can have 3 or 4 penis pictures posted all over it, I find it very unkind to this article to remove that photo. It was very tastful, accurate and fitting. I say we place the photo back up that was removed today 20080927 with a partial filename of poolside. And BTW I was not the one who posted it. I just found it informing and when I was sharing the article later in the day, found it had been removed. I say we should put it back.

I'm gonna have to agree here. This article seems to demand the information that that image provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.144.68 (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had to restore the image for a second time. It is entirely consistent with other articles on body modification such as the tatoo article or genital piercing to illustrate the article with images that show examples of such processes. Even though the image doesn't explicitly state it is the result of a wax the results are consistent with those that are. The only legitimate reason for removing the photo would be if the effect clearly couldn't be produced by waxing, or clearly states that the effect was not the result of waxing. Neither of those criteria apply to the image in question. The case for replacing the photo would be if one could be found that clearly stated it was the result of the waxing process or better illustrated the process. In this case it would be appropriate to remove the current photo and replace with another. However, the recent changes to the article have been clearly to remove the photo without making any attempt to replace it. This can only constitute a censorious agenda and consitutes vandalism to the article. If it persists then article protection will have to be applied for. Betty Logan (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Refs

One editor is diligently tagging it for refimporve and such, without explaining or pointing out anything on the talk page. Since I have reasons to believe he would not make use of the talk page, can some one lend some hand there? Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is very well referenced - probably overly referenced if anything. The editor should discuss the issue on this talk page or he should add a 'fact' tag to the actual statement which he thinks is unreferenced. By just saying the section is poorly referenced isn't constructive and if he adds in any more of these tags they should be removed unless they are specific. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is not probably overly referenced except Different types section. Some handful references cover the Process section. Other statements in this part are still unreferenced which lacks verification.--NAHID 18:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not go against a third party decision. The article is well referenced. If there is a statement in the article that you think is unverified then list it here so it can be discussed. Saying the section is poorly referenced when many references have been provided is not a satisfactory reason for tagging the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The article might be well referenced but not the particular section itself. Can unreferenced statements be verified? Most of them lacks citation which is essential for verifying its content. If you go through the second paragraph:

The procedure starts with baby or talcum powder being spread liberally over the area to be waxed. This prevents the hot wax from sticking to the sensitive skin. Then, as in other forms of waxing, hot wax is spread over the area from which hair is to be removed. The wax is allowed to harden briefly, then one edge of the wax strip is pulled up and used as a tab to quickly pull off or zip the rest of the wax, in the direction of hair growth. Then it progresses to systematically removing the hair from the genital area, buttocks, and anus. This procedure removes the wax, hair, and any dead skin cells lying on the skin surface. The person performing the wax will then finish with tweezers to remove any stray hairs that the waxing missed. Finally, the remaining pubic hair (the so-called "landing strip") is either trimmed with scissors, or waxed off. The remaining hair may even be in a particular pattern (hearts are a popular option), or dyed.

And American wax section:

For a regular American wax strip wax is preferred over hard wax, and is used all over but the labia. Any bikini or similar undergarments worn by the client is tucked in and covered with paper towel. A small applicator may be used on both sides of the bikini area to create a clean and even line. Using an antiseptic cleaner and using the are with powder after the cleaner dries up is standard. Wax is applied with a large spatula in the direction of hair growth, which is downwards. It is applied in strip 2 inches wide and 4/5 inches long up to the femoral ridge. Since the hair on the pubis is coarse and grows horizontally and inward, a second application wax is often required. The all the wax strips are pulled away when the wax is set but still pliable. It is pulled against the direction of hair growth while keeping the skin taut. The pulling ideally is done as swift as possible.

None of them contain any single citation except the last statement of "American wax". Not so many references available there. The purpose of that template is to get attention form other editor in order to improve the section.--NAHID 20:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The American waxing part has all the reference it needs. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A single reference is enough since the American Wax section describes a single process which is described in the cited book. It is not covering lots of individual facts so each statement doesn't need a separate citaion. However, I agree that an extra reference might be beneficial for the second paragraph of 'Process'. It is not clear which reference it draws its information from. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, a more constructive way would not be to tag the whole section, but to identify which parts of that second paragraph may be challenged or something. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So, you wanted it on the talk page?

First you complain against a certain paragraph and it's reliability, tagging it all over with "citation needed" tags, and also posting it as of dubious verifiability. Then when it is removed, you go all out to reinstate it, reverting two times already. The second time I requested in the edit summary "can you explain on the talk page why did you restore material that you have identified as unverified, and is already mostly present elsewhere in the article?". But, you decided not to go for the talk page, rather you just reverted with an edit summary that says "can you explain on the talk page why did you remove material, and in which part they mostly present".

Alright. No problem at all. Here goes (I am going sentence by sentence of the part I removed, if you don't mind):

  • Sentence 01: The procedure starts with baby or talcum powder being spread liberally over the area to be waxed. (tagged by you)
    • Corresponding sentence in the article: Using an antiseptic cleaner and using the are with powder after the cleaner dries up is standard.
  • Sentence 02: This prevents the hot wax from sticking to the sensitive skin. Then, as in other forms of waxing, hot wax is spread over the area from which hair is to be removed.
    • Corresponding sentence in the article: No corresponding sentence, but that's implied already.
  • Sentence 03: The wax is allowed to harden briefly, then one edge of the wax strip is pulled up and used as a tab to quickly pull off or zip the rest of the wax, in the direction of hair growth. (tagged by you)
    • Corresponding sentences in the article: Then all the wax strips are pulled away when the wax is set but still pliable. It is pulled against the direction of hair growth while keeping the skin taut. The pulling ideally is done as swift as possible.
  • Sentences 04 and 05: Then it progresses to systematically removing the hair from the genital area, buttocks, and anus. This procedure removes the wax, hair, and any dead skin cells lying on the skin surface. The person performing the wax will then finish with tweezers to remove any stray hairs that the waxing missed. (tagged by you)
    • Corresponding sentences in the article: A pair of scissors or an electric razor may be needed first if the hair is curly or long it needs to be trimmed down using. Isolated hairs can be removed by using a tweezers or by electrolysis.
  • Sentences 06 and 07: Finally, the remaining pubic hair (the so-called "landing strip") is either trimmed with scissors, or waxed off. The remaining hair may even be in a particular pattern (hearts are a popular option), or dyed. (tagged by you)
    • Corresponding sentence in the article: No corresponding sentence, but not notable either.

You have managed to waste time of another Wikipedian successfully through this bickering. But, if you are satisfied, this little editor is happy. I am removing it again. Please, state any problem you have here, before your start an edit war. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Any statement tagged by "fact template" should not be removed. Because they are still helpful and it is backed by policy. Please be civil and no anger mood whenever you go through any discussion.'this little editor is happy' - let other editor to edit. Entries should not be taken care by one editor.--NAHID 18:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please, let other editors edit. Shouldn't be too difficult. Right? Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

With all the above fighting, the article had been left in a poorly edited state, with repetition & bad grammar. I've done a quick cleanup. (Of the English kind, not the Bowdler kind).65.32.236.156 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, fighting seems to be a way of life for this article. Just take a look at the archived discussions. Aren't we just cool? Jokes apart, some more copyediting help would be highly helpful (this one area of work always floors me bad). Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Combine with male genital waxing

How about combining this article with the one on male genital waxing and then add some photos of what that looks like? I don't see why there should be two different articles. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.226.241 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, is male genital waxing covered by the term bikini waxing? If so, it would make sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
There is very little overlap between the different types, methodology, and cultural significance of bikini waxing and male genital waxing. You'd end up with two completely separate sections so may as well keep them as separate articles. Betty Logan (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I think both are very different.--WiseCrow (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

wasn't there a video here before

There was a viedeo of waxing being carried out and it was later taken off .Can someone link me to it ? 124.157.173.102 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the history around the time you think you saw it. Biofase flame| stalk  00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently it was deleted for violating copyright: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Brazilian_wax.ogg. I remember the video though and it is widely available over the internet - a google search on "bikini wax video" brings it up on several pages: http://leenks.com/media359.htm. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


(Moved in from Talk:Landing strip (hair)) Dicdef

This is seriously just a dicdef. I've rewritten it, but unless it expands more, I think it might be best if it were moved to Wiktionary. I'll nominate it myself if I don't forget. -- Dpark 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree - entirely a Wiktionary candidate. Tim Pierce 13:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been moved to Wiktionary by now? It's annoying for people interested in aviation to be sent to an entry regarding pubic hair styling!T.E. Goodwin 10:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is nonsense It should be deleted.--Pensil (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Avoid useless references

This reference is useless:

Joannides, p. 233.

I wouldn't know where to start in trying to figure out what it refers to (I can't even check if it exists!), and I'm sure no one's going to go to the effort to find this publication and read page 233.

Good references can be written by using the "quote" value, like this: 

Some companies make examples.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://example.com|title=Homepage of Example Inc.|quote=We make examples}}</ref>

That way it's easy for anyone to verify the source has been accurately represented and anyone can see what part of the sentence is backed up by this source. Gronky (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Example

There's this sentence:

Some critics of the procedure believe that Brazilian waxing can contribute to making an adult woman look underage, citing this as one reason for its popularity in the pornographic industry.

There are four references given. Only one can be consulted online, and it doesn't contain any statement from any critic making the claim that Brazilian waxing is popular in the pornography industry because it can contribute to making adult women look underage. Either the person who added this reference didn't understand what references are for, or maybe the sentence has been changed since the reference was added.

What about the other three? Are they also all wrong? Well, verification is hard (more effort than we can expect anyone to go to) and there's no quote, so it's quite possible that they are also nonsense references. Gronky (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

All the sources were listed, they just hadn't been properly page referenced. With minimal effort I was able to scan down the list and see with book "Joannides, p. 233." referred to (which incidentally you would have to do if it were a hardcopy). Page references have now been consolidated into one reference. Also, there is no requirement on references to directly quote their sources, or for them to be verifiable online. Quoting isn't done in academic referencing unless you are directly repeating what someone has said. Providing the reference details of the text and the page number is adequate for offline texts, since enough information has been presented for you to verify the content. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Quotes aren't always necessary, but can be requested if an editor thinks they're necessary in a particular instance. There's a tag for doing so: [need quotation to verify]. I suspect these references are being incorrectly used, so I'll add that tag. Gronky (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Equal health information

I am formally requesting that the "Potential dangers" section of this article remain and that whoever is deleting it to cease their actions. The "Potential dangers" section is also present in the articles for Waxing and Male genital waxing. Therefore, I can only assume that whoever keeps deleting it in the Bikini waxing article does not want women to have equal access to this basic and important health information. There is no reason why this information should not remain here.

Also, I agree with some other commenters that this article could easily be combined with the article on male genital waxing, which is comparatively short on its own and contains some of the same information in this article. Rmulhenny (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Rmulhenny

If you want to retain the information in the article then please supply a source for it as requested by User:Gillyweed in this edit. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability requires that challenged content iis sourced, and there are no exceptions. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures are important

Thanks Wikipedia for those pix. I know now the difference between a french 'landing strip' and a Brazilian "Sphynx" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.160.233 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

POV Flag

A quick glance at this section is terribly biased. There are multiple issues with virtually every sentence and the entire section is about as anti-brazilian as possible. It highlights non-existent medical issues, quotes anti-waxing celebs, and in general demonstrates that no one every should do this procedure under any circumstance. Despite this, this style of waxing is one of the most popular styles of waxing in the United States. Either the section needs removed, or it needs balanced. 98.22.228.255 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what

I think all the images on this page should be removed. Naked pictures on a waxing page are gratuitous. There are not pictures of shooting victims on the murder page now is there. Learn some taste. People ( including teens ) should be able to reference this page without embarrassment. I can see a curious teen getting caught by their parents right now. Want to prove me wrong? That these pictures are here for information and art? Replace all these pictures with fat women. You won't do it. 99.69.59.64 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC

Equating nudity to murder might not reflect a worldview. Certainly it does not reflect a Brazilian view. Aldo L (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Replacement with diagram

In a recent edit I replaced the current pictures of various "styles" with a much clearer diagram (File:Pubic hair styles.svg), which was then reverted (big shock there) without comment. Would anybody care to give a valid reason for why a single clear and concise diagram is not better? And don't spout Not Censored, thats not a free pass to include every picture, you like where a diagram can be more suitable--Jac16888Talk 13:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with replacing a picture with a diagram - all the sex positions articles have done that. Not sure if that's the best drawing, personally I prefer some of the single drawings at commons:Category:Pubic hair style diagrams.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This issue comes up time and time again, and the consensus is always to retain the current images. WP:CENSOR isn't cited to include the images, it is invoked to point out the invalidity of "suitability" or "appropriateness" as rationales for removing the images. If there is a clear consensus for replacing the images then they can be replaced, but I don't really see what clear advantage hand drawn diagrams have over photographic images in illustrating the appearance of a particular style. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Its a good thing I didn't remove the images for being inappropriate then isn't it. Yes I can see that there is always a consensus to have the images as opposed to no images at all, however this is a totally different edit. The fact of the matter is that a diagram illustrate the styles much more clearly than pictures do, as Ron pointed out there are alternatives to the one I added, there is a precedent for using diagrams as shown on many sex related articles, it reduces the number of people you get coming here to bitch "I saw a naked lady and I'm not happy", and it overall looks better and more encyclopedic--Jac16888Talk 04:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all I dispute that an article on bikini waxing is a "sex article", and since I don't know what the reasoning for using diagrams on the sex articles is, I am not sure it is applicable. When illustrating sex positions what you are doing is describing sexual technique; the illustration has an instructional aspect so diagrams may be better suited in this capacity i.e. you are illustrating a process rather than merely showing what something looks like. The need for illustrating hairstyles has no instructional element—the sole purpose is to show the appearance, and a photograph shows what something looks like far better than a diagram ever will. Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations also states that photographs are usually the best option if the primary purpose of the image is to show the appearance of something. The approach taken on this article is in keeping with other hairstyle articles which are illustrated with photographs rather than diagrams. The fact that you are trying to replace the images on the bikini waxing article and not the facial hair or hairstyle articles does make me question if yet again this is another attempt at backdoor censorship. This article belongs to the family of articles about hair (as demonstrated by the inclusion of the hair template), not sex, so if we are going to have consensus set through precedent on other articles then it should come from the hair articles. I am not convinced we should be drawing our rationale from the sex articles rather than the hair articles, and I not convinced that diagrams are superior to photographs for illustrating appearance. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It is entirely applicable since the images in question are of naked women, and you while the two are related, you cannot apply the same rules to this article that you do to Mullet (haircut). What a surprise you're accusing me of censorship, do you not think if i wanted to censor I would be for removing the other image as well? Your accusation is baseless, and the fact that the reasons I have given for why the diagrams are better have no mention of censoring its also irrelevant--Jac16888Talk 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)--Jac16888Talk 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)--Jac16888Talk 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
You are applying a censorship argument though if the fact that the images feature naked women is a factor in the considerations. The essence of WP:CENSOR is that we shouldn't apply criteria any differently on the basis that they show pubic hair and vaginas rather than heads and mullets. If the argument for replacing photographs with diagrams on this article stands, then it probably applies to the other articles documenting hairstyles. It seems to me if your argument has any merit then we should debate it in the wider context of all the hairstyle articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The argument of this being "porno" is debatable. I guess that few people get excited when seeing a woman trimming her excess body hair. This is not sexual in nature, just as a naturist beach is not sexual in nature. In the United States the photographs might be offensive, but I guess they are less so in Europe or in Brazil. Remember worldview, or at least the view from countries where this practice is popular. By the way, it is also right to show labia as they are referred to in the main text. Aldo L (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how you can argue that crude drawings is a "clearer" depiction than a photograph. Your claim that the content contains naked women should be a factor in whether pictures or diagrams should be used makes it clear that your primary motivation for the change is to remove pictures of naked women. NebraskaDontAsk (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures showing human female pubic nudity

Can we PLEASE permanently remove all the pictures that depict pubic nudity? This is a public encyclopedia which people of all ages and backgrounds can access. A diagram will do the topic justice without offending those who do not wish to view it in graphic detail. People may disagree but this is a public site and respect should be shown to all viewers. Those who wish to gaze at hairless pubic areas can seek the enjoyment from pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creamriceking (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, in that I feel "innocuous" pages should not contain nudity. But this is a page about how you shave your crotch, so I don't think it's a stretch to expect there to be pictures of it. This is an encyclopaedia, you should expect relevant images on a page. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There also is an option of not viewing an image. It is there to help people who are offended by some picture or other. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If they used drawings instead, then wouldn't the drawings be offensive to some as well?BuboTitan (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? What is the purpose of the pictures? Aren't some sketchy drawings, for instance, NOT enough to illustrate the topic? I highly doubt even a single drawing at all is necessary, but it's surely unnecessary to show a few pics where labia minora (and thighs... They're not even properly focused pictures) are totally visible. The pictures are missing the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femmeseule (talk • contribs) 11:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are not missing the point. Lot of work has gone down in choosing the right images with a lot of editors involved. But, apparently you are missing the point. Wikipedia isn't censored, and if any user has a problem with any image he or she can turn the image off at his or her end. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding A diagram will do the topic justice without offending those who do not wish to view it in graphic detail.
Well, if you make a diagram, we might consider replacing the image with the diagram. But, since I can't find any diagrams of this subject, I see no reason even to discuss removing the image. --78.3.73.184 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I just introduced some short explanations for the reason of showing each photograph in their corresponding captions. The photographs may look "more encyclopedic" now. Aldo L (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable! Just an excuse to post explicit photos of female genitalia under the pretense of "science" and non-censorship. This "resource" is accessed by children. Have some decency. Compare these sexualized & explicit photos with the many photos posted on the entry for "Nudity." These explicit photos have no place in an all-ages accessible "encyclopedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.176.144 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If the standard is that children might view it, then there shouldn't be any encyclopedic entries on anything related to sex. I think scant few children stumble upon the entry for "bikini waxing" by accident anyway. But even if they do, there's no sexual activity depicted on the page. Just photos of nude people, no different than you will find in many medical textbooks.BuboTitan (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removal. Wikipedia should be useful to a wider audience, including those who don't want to see crotch shots. Someone mentioned that there is so picture on the murder page, and equally no pictures are required here. Wikipedia should not be NSFW. 68.183.194.247 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated before Wikipedia is not censored. There are many, many more photos on Wikipedia that are NSFW and far more explicit than these mild shots. If you don't want to see the photos then you have the option of turning them off. This is just a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
If someone doesn't want to see crotch shots, they should not come to a page about shaving the crotch. In addition, murder is not usually done for the aesthetic effects, while bikini waxing is done almost entirely for that reason, seeing as it is a cosmetic procedure. It makes sense to show how a cosmetic procedure will affect how the recipient looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.213.79 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Female pubic hair cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Female pubic hair cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Objection to the picture

The picture that is repeatedly placed upon this article is not identified as a picture of a brazilian wax or of any kind of waxing. Do we know that the picture was of a waxing? Could it be shaving? Could it be a hormonal or pharmacological issue that led to a lack of hair? Unknown. Does the lack of hair extend throughout the area described by the article? The picture does not show. Does the picture show how it is done? No it does not. It is original research to declare that this picture is of brazilian waxing.

It may be of prurient interest, but the picture is also unnecessary to the article. It does not contribute any helpful or useful information. It is really of no encyclopedic value.

Since it is both Original Research and Unnecessary, it should not be included. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 5Q5 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted an image that was neither educational or descriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.33.15 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree!!! Let's delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.221.66 (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have already deleted it about half a dozen times. But, it keeps resurfacing. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter how many times you delete, the pornographer wannabes that load these subjects with the pictures that serve no purpose other than the prurient. Those in the pornographer class are one of the biggest obstacle to Wikipedia ever becoming a REAL encyclopedia. Until adults stand up for decency this site will never serve a better purpose than looking up celebrities or brushing up for Trivial Pursuit. Steve (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
You might note, you are replying to a message posted over 2 years ago. The later ones are at the bottom of the page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. There was no warning for these pictures at all. None. How does wiki even know these "women" are legal age or that these pictures were taken with their consent? And I have to disagree. These are not "tasteful" photos--since when is a spread-leg layout tasteful? Perhaps to a person used to reading porn.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.155.59 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's talk about this picture....


Pros: It's a relatively tasteful nude photograph
Cons: It doesn't obviously, unquestionably show the results of a "Brazilian" wax. A similar state could have been achieved through shaving, or merely a frontal wax. We would need a far more graphic depiction to see the full results of the article's subject.
IMO, the most encyclopedic option would be to see a somewhat clinical depiction of a Brazilian waxing being administered, but I think the image in question is a reasonable compromise, in the absence of such a picture. Whether you or others find it of "prurient interest" is neither here nor there. Consider the subject of this article for a moment and ask yourself what sort of picture were you expecting to see?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the description of the image says it not an image of waxing, Brazilian or otherwise. Is it really necessary to put an image of a bald "pussy" in the article, especially if it fails to depict the topic, and also represents WP:OR to an extent? Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. The description[1] does claim the image shows a "Brazilian waxing." There are concerns here--but the image file description is not one of them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I support bringing back those great pictures. Those pictures were a very good demonstration of brazilian waxing. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(reduced indent) Don't worry. Any porn site would most obligingly provide pictures of loads of bald pussies. Those "great pictures" are not really necessary, and are not even wholly representative of a Brazilian (if the article is to be believed). Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it should be necessary to prove that a particular image was from brazilian waxing in order to include it. As long as it looks like brazilian waxing, there should be no objection to including the image to this article. One thing that's now missing after the images have now been removed is that the previous image added value to the article in that showed that brazilian waxing removed hair from the bung as well. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The article says - It can be thought of as a more extreme form of bikini waxing. The majority of types of Brazilian waxing leave a small line of pubic hair above the vulva, commonly known as the "G-Wax." If that is to believed, the images only portray an "extreme form" which may not be the right approach in depicting something. Like, would you prefer to portray a Siamese twin when depicting a human being? Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The image was just put back in, I undid it. -Zeus- 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell is this picture back? I was searching Wikipedia for "Brazilian", and I didn't even know what "waxing" was about. And then all of a sudden there's a "bald pussy" on my screen - on a Wikipedia page, and for no reason at all! I don't care about nudity, but I guess I would care if I had children, and anyway people who may see my computer screen do care about it. Basically, (almost) everyone here seems to agree that the picture shouldn't be there, but it keeps coming back (note the anonymous edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bikini_waxing&diff=240264800&oldid=238845511). I think it's just unacceptable and, under these circumstances, I'd call it plain vandalism. (BTW: just removed it.) Eumedemito (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it again. I don't have a problem with some kind of picture illustrating the results, but it seems to me that the latest picture that keeps coming back is a bit too prurient. Surely there are many other images that would illustrate the subject without being pornographic? The former "pool" picture was much more appropriate. If you are one of the people who keep bringing it back, at least be up-front and discuss it here on the discussion pages instead of just getting your jollies with this picture. 98.118.253.194 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:CENSOR and WP:NOIMAGE. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure what the people that are complaining about expected when they went to an article about bikini waxing. Wikipedia is not censored. If these were fair-use images, I'd agree with their removal, however these are free images that are exactly what the article describes. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 13:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing history

There is insufficient discussion of the history here. For example, it is (glaringly) missing any coverage of the ancient Greek preference for the partial or total pubic depilation, a preference adequately recorded as early as the 5th century (first act of Aristophanes' Lysistrata). Thorough treatment of the evidence is given by Martin Kilmer in "Genital Phobia and Depilation" in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1982. This article should also probably be a subsection of one titled "Pubic Depilation", as "bikini waxing" falls under the category of "pubic depilation", not vice versa. Currently, this is the only wikipedia article on pubic depilation. This is insufficient coverage of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.103.50 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ref to two versions of article POV?

There may very well be a case for arguing that, in addition to the citation of the article by Gibson (in the "Precautions" section) republished in the Guardian, my addition of details of its original publication (in a very slightly expanded form) is superfluous but I fail to see how this can be considered, in the edit summary, "POV". I'm happy enough to stick with one ref, and, if a choice is to be made, probably the Guardian republication (as a clearer RS), but dropping in baseless POV accusations is not helpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit redundant, but I think it may be helpful to include the original source of the piece, if just for a bit of insurance against The Guardian taking the story down. As for the POV side of things, I am not sure sure we should be contextualising her comments. To state she arrived at her views only through her "clinical experience" is to make an assumption that she hasn't researched the issue at all. She could have undertaken research, she could have read up on other people's research, she's just giving a medical opinion in her capacity as a GP. Betty Logan (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, so how about "Family physician Emily Gibson, M.D. expresses the view that shaving pubic hair "removes a cushion against friction, leaves microscopic open wounds and exposes you to infections"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
That looks fine to me, or anything along those lines; the key is for Wikipedia not to editorialize her opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Expression Brazilian Waxing

Translated from here. I was fixing a link in an article, in response to a disambiguation notice, when I found this matter, in a disambig page of the word Brazilian. In other words, one of the meanings of the word "Brazilian" would be this alleged kind of waxing. In front of this bizarre information, I went to research and there is really a neologism like this in the english language cited in some reliable sources. Nonetheless, in a short research in Google, Brazilian reliable sources recognize this expression only in english or link it to the act os waxing whatever the pattern. So if there will be no reasonable opposition I will clarify this in order to readers not think that most Brazilian women make the total waxing, proposition that is absolutely false. E. Feld talk 16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't stop it from being called a Brazilian. Remember, no one in Bikini wears a bikini. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm... the section on Brazilian doesn't actually say what it is. Just where it comes from and what problems with it are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.82.206 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Rationale behind Bikini waxing

The usually quite painful act of body waxing is probably most accurately to do with ancient sexual habits, in which the "ideal" female - bride or otherwise, was barely pubescent. It unquestionably works on males on a "basic" level as any female can confirm who has "bikini-waxed" and then engaged with the same partner ......

.... if he's a latent pedophile. Many males are not latent pedophiles and we would really like to see, for a change, a totally ADULT bring-it-on female totally transformed by raging hormones to have a real-woman (not little-girl) face, real-woman thighs, real-woman legs, a real-woman pelvic flare-out below the waist, and a real-woman pubic area. Just like we could see everywhere all around in the mid-1980s. But I guess some men shrink from the sight of a real grown-up woman.69.86.65.12 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

It DOES make a female "appear" much younger.

(inserted quotation)

Fri Mar 25 2011 14:20:16 GMT+1000 Bikini waxing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In Middle Eastern societies, removal of the female body hair has been considered proper hygiene, necessitated by local customs, for many centuries.[4] In Islam, this is known as an act of Fitrah. Evidence of pubic hair removal in ancient India dates back to 4000 to 3000 BC.[5]

The removal of pubic hair by Western women became more common when bathing suits became abbreviated, starting in 1945.[1] Changes in lingerie styles have also encouraged the removal of pubic hair throughout the years.[2](p139)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_waxing#The_Landing_Strip

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.238.11 (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's also inaccurate to say that in ancient times the ideal woman was barely pubescent. The ideal bride yes, but the motive there was to reduce the oppertunity for sex and therefore children out of wedlock - allowing the husband to feel confident that any children he raised were his own. Historically whether you found your partner attractive was irrelevant to marriage, which was more about establishing a clear succession or inheritance. It is also worth noting that until relatively recently life expectancy was much, much shorter than it is today. If you weren't likely to live much past 30 you couldn't afford to wait long to begin having and raising children. So once again it was a practical consideration rather than anything to do with what men might find attractive.

Finally on a personal note I can tell you that this female has found male reactions to a full shave (never waxed but the result looks the same) range from approval to disgust and even anger but the one thing I have never heard is that it makes me look younger. Danikat (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You're writing as if the only conceivable rationale for the fact that you've never heard that it makes you look younger is that it does NOT make you look younger. It DOES make you look younger and that's the motive. So what's the reason you've never HEARD that it makes you look younger? (And when we say "look younger" we may be talking, approximately, looking younger than 10 years old, because for at least some females that's the last age at which they had no pubic hair.) You'll never be TOLD it makes you look younger because that would be confessing their secret pedophilic fantasy to you. They might be ASHAMED to be pedophiles or they might not be ashamed of it but would realize that if their pedophilic desires were not kept secret there would be consequences: you might break up with them; they might lose friends, social standing, etc.69.86.65.12 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

References to "body hair" should be changed to "pubic hair"

This sentence QUOTE In Western societies, removal of the female body hair has traditionally been considered appropriate when it has been visible UNQUOTE makes no sense. The hair on a woman's arms, head, and eyelids, and eyebrows is "body hair" (it is hair and it is on her body, right?), and it is visible, but its removal is not considered "appropriate" except perhaps a bit that turns eyebrows into a monobrow. Women who shave their heads, arms, and/or ALL of their eyebrows as a fashion choice (rather than to manage health problems or excel at swimming) are atypical "in Western societies". If you changed "body hair" to "pubic hair" then the sentence would no longer be nonsensical.69.86.65.12 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

This article is just not neutral-POV or encyclopedic in tone

The sentence QUOTE: The nude crotch—i.e., the total removal of pubic hair, such as in a full Brazilian or the Sphinx wax—is considered by many to be erotic and glamorous. UNQUOTE should have one of those little blue [who?] or [by whom?] footnote-like annotations after the last letter of "considered by many". Who indeed? Pedophiles? Males who, to maintain social standing, have sex with legal-age women but really imagine their lover's vagina being the vagina of a slightly pre-pubescent girl or the anus of a slightly pre-pubescent boy? The article isn't balanced if you don't also say that the it is ALSO considered by some to be as erotically appealing as the idea of having sex with a lubed orifice surgically formed from a longitudinal fold surgically sewn into a depiliated cow's-udder.

The sentence QUOTE: With the reduction in the size of swimsuits, especially since the coming into fashion and popularity of the bikini after 1945, the practice of bikini waxing has also come into vogue. UNQUOTE

is carefully written to give its author an "out" (which the author would take pains to engineer only if knowingly acting in bad faith). If I point out the untruth of pubic-waxing's being "in vogue" going back to the bikini, the author can say that TECHNICALLY the sentence means only that the pubic-waxing fad started LATER THAN 1945, which, technically, is true, since the 1990s is later than 1945. But the sentence is cleverly crafted to READ as if it says "bikini-waxing came into vogue right after the bikini", which is a lie. (I'll skip the objections that the bikini didn't debut until 1946, not 1945, NOR did it "come into vogue" when it debuted. It was rejected for years, as is well-documented by movies and adverts from the 1950s. Bikinis were not "in vogue" until the 1960s. Furthermore, the 1960s bikinis were cut wide enough to cover all the follicular roots of pubic hair, requiring only that pubic hair be shortened, but not removed, so that the END of the hair (not its root, which was covered up) couldn't extend past the edge of the cloth. The Internet is littered with non-porn 1960s images, films, and suf-music YouTubes that prove that bikini-shapes that don't requiring waxing were the mainstream until RECENTLY.

There are miles of porn-footage and reams of porn-magazines from the 1970s and 1980s that prove beyond an iota of doubt that pubic-waxing was NEVER considered erotic, glamorous or good hygiene until VERY RECENTLY, and that men found fluffy pubic-hair to be arousing (for the reason that tan-lines are arousing).

The mere EXISTENCE of the nouns "beaver" and "pussy" has GOT to indicate that hairless pubic areas are RECENT. Those words make no SENSE if women have ALWAYS gone hairless.

In a 1970s National Lampoon comic-strip, two crab-lice sought a new home and so went up a woman's skirt. On finding her to be totally "clean-shaven" (an adjective that ALREADY states use of a razor rather than the waxing that was then still FAR in the future), they freaked out, deeming her an ultra-radical feminist Lesbian bisexual man-raping bomb-throwing Communist anarchist nipple-clipping punk-rocker, and fled in terror. In the 1970s to be bare down there was to be as far out of the mainstream, and to be as openly REBELLING against the mainstream, as possible. (And being hairless was also an allusion to crab-lice and, by implication, raging promiscuity.) Today's equivalent is a female sporting tattoos of blood-dripping thorns through her pierced-eyebrow rings. RECENTLY, the pubic-waxing industry has created the perception that the mother of Beaver (no pun intended) Cleaver simply MUST have waxed because she WAS so mainstream. Well, if she was a typical 1960s housewife, she most emphatically DID NOT wax. And the industry (whom I suspect of being major editors of this Wikipedia article) created the perception that NOT being hairless is radical punk. That perception just won't stand up against that National Lampoon comic-strip and many 1970s sources.

Pubic-waxing arose with pop-music lyrics about cuttin', rippin', and killin' ho's and bitches, when football-players were idolized for murdering or assaulting wives and girlfriends. Some men cannot perceive of sex (or ANY pleasure, sexual or not) in terms different from dog-fighting and car-crashes, and anything that degrades their partner feeds their psychopathic frenzy. Turning adult women into little children by waxing off their attributes of adultness is part of this sick game. Obviously I am editorializing here on this Talk page, but there should be some way to cover (objectively) the EXISTENCE of these opinions, this school of thought of which I am doubtless not the only member, in the article. To have NO discussion of pubic-waxing and violence, pedophilia, or the current cult of cathartic traumatic anti-pleasure is unbalanced and takes the POV of APPROVING of (or at least not DISapproving of) pubic-waxing. Wikipedia shouldn't be bending over backwards to avoid casting pubic-waxing in a negative light by presenting only the promotional ideology that describes it as positive or neutral.

As often as not I come to Wikipedia to find out when something STARTED. What was the first reggae song? As often as not I find what I'm looking for.

But this article says that pubic-waxing starts in 1945 and that's just an outright lie told by someone who KNOWS it's a lie. What is the SOURCE? The first reggae-recording, that is SOURCED! Where's the first advertisment for pubic-waxing in a mainstream newspaper? Where's a PHOTO of a street showing a pubic-waxing business before 1990? Before 1980? In 1950? I know I certainly never saw one that early. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

I have Romanian friends who want to re-write Wikipedia to show that Etruscan civilization started in Romania. There are Greeks who want to re-write Wikipedia to show that Newton and Leibniz merely transcribed Greek texts. There are African-descended Americans who want to re-write Wikipedia to show that the culture of the Classical Greeks was exported to Greece from Egypt, to which it in turn had been exported from sub-Saharan Africa. Hindus have revised California's schools' textbooks to censor such facts as the incineration of live widows and the caste system lest California schoolkids fail to idealize Hinduism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history

And in this article history is being re-written to make it seem like pubic-waxing is as old as the hills and has nothing to do with a cultural change towards extremist/cathartic sensory experience, violence, pedophilia, and antipleasure. It just ain't so. Get out the Playboys and Penthouses from the 1970s and 1980s and you'll be outraged to discover just how totally the pubic-waxing industry has whitewashed your perception of history!69.86.65.12 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

TLDR, and if the rest of the section is anything like the very first paragraph - nothing but a personal point of view rant as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Ad hominem attach by someone too lazy to respond to my facts. If you can't argue with the facts, you find something external to the facts to object to, such as my long-windedness (which isn't my fault. When Wikipedia is only a little bit wrong, I can be brief. When Wikipedia's mistakes are legion, my posts must be longer.)69.86.65.186 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
While the post was written in a very harsh and crude language, it still has a number of food for thought:
  • Is genital waxing really an old practice?
Yes, it is. Check out For Appearance' Sake and Encyclopedia of Hair: A Cultural History by Victoria Sherrow, The Anthropology of Sex by Hastings Donnan and Fiona Magowan, and Encyclopedia of Body Adornment by Margo DeMello. It has been there in ancient Egypt, Turkey and Greece. It was also present in medieval Europe.
The ancient Romans had cement capable of forming the Pantheon. Today we have cement capable of forming the Pantheon. If we follow your logic, the early-Renaissance Florentines had cement capable for forming the Pantheon, and so they used that cement to dome their Cathedral. But that's YOUR way of arguing. The TRUTH is that the early-Renaissance Florentines had no such cement and had to resort to other means to dome their Cathedral. In parallel with cement, the existence of bare female pubic regions in antiquity and in the present day doesn't prove that bare female pubic regions were a cultural norm in the USA before the 1980s, and the fact is it was NOT the norm to depilate the female pubic region before the 1980s.69.86.65.186 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
  • Did genital waxing, especially bikini waxing became popular in the 20th century?
Yes, especially in the Western world. Check out The Fashion Reader by Linda Welters and Abby Lillethun, America's Sexual Transformation by Gary F Kelly, and The EmBodyment of American Culture by Heinz Tschachler, Maureen Devine and Michael Draxlbauer.
Pubic waxing became popular in the 1980s or the 1990s. Those decades were part of the 20th century. Your logic is that, then, since the 1960s and the 1970s were also part of the 20th century, pubic waxing must've been popular in the 1960s and the 1970s. I can play that game too. Airplane travel was widespread in the 1990s. The 1990s were part of the 20th century. The 1900s before 1910 were also part of the 20th century. Ergo, airplane-travel was widespread in the 1900s before 1910. I'm just pointing out that you don't even seem to b TRYING to argue fairly.69.86.65.186 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
  • Did the porn industry played a role in popularizing Brazilian waxing?
Yes, a very big role. Check out Beauty and Misogyny by Sheila Jeffreys, Pop-porn edited by Ann C. Hall and Mardia J. Bishop, and Porn Chic by Annette Lynch. I believe Naomi Wolf has serious discussions on the issue, but I couldn't find it quickly online.
Why should we even RESORT to books about pubic-shaving in pornography or in daily life? You're citing authority on how many teeth the horse has (I assume you are familiar with that parable.) I say we go find a horse and count the teeth. Forget books about porn and show me mainstream non-fetish non-S&M porn predating 1985 wherein a substantial portion of the female pubic regions depicted are substantially hairless. That's the way to settle arguments. You get the PORN. You don't cite BOOKS about porn. See below and claim the $500.00 reward.69.86.65.186 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
As for claims like "The nude crotch—i.e., the total removal of pubic hair, such as in a full Brazilian or the Sphinx wax—is considered by many to be erotic and glamorous" and "With the reduction in the size of swimsuits, especially since the coming into fashion and popularity of the bikini after 1945, the practice of bikini waxing has also come into vogue" - if you feel they need to have verifiable sources referenced in-line, please, go ahead and tag them with those "little blue footnote-like annotations". Somebody or other is going to try to substantiate them, and if no body does so - you can remove the information perfectly withing Wikipedia guidelines.
Not my job. What I want is for Wikipedia's articles to alreaady be in decent shape when I arrive to read them. I don't see why I'm responsible for PUTTING them in decent shape. I don't even know HOW to edit a Wikipedia article-page, only the Talk-pages.69.86.65.186 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Thanks for the post. Though harsh and crude, it inspired me to find very interesting scholarly studies discussing the subject. It was very helpful. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
WHY would you seek out SCHOLARLY STUDIES on the subject of whether women in the USA editions of Playboy or Penthouse, between the advent of the bikini and the 1980s, increased their erotic appeal to men by removing all or almost all of their pubic-hair? WHY would you read a STUDY of the magaines when you could just LOOK AT the magazines?!?!?!? Are you DEMENTED? I think that many Wikipedians ARE. After LOOKING at the magazines in question you STILL would be UNDECIDED as to whether the women in them have a lot of pubic-hair (and therefore men liked that)? But then you ARE going to believe that the women in them have a lot of pubic hair if a SCHOLARLY SOURCE that you read TELLS you they do? Why not USE YOUR OWN EYES! Why is it that the writings which TELL us about the magazines ARE "sources" but the magazines themselves are NOT "sources"? Obviously you are not an attorney because attorneys hate second-hand evidence.69.86.65.186 (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
This gives a perspective on the hazards of bikini waxing. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bikini_waxing/Archive_3&oldid=1143362366"