Friday, February 10, 2006

Spout Off: Gender Grooming

Another Spout Off within a week of the last one? Well, don't get too used to it. Do look forward to more happening with these; I know that JJ has specific things in mind.

Beyond this, I'm looking to expand a touch, and so:

Grooming. We all have our preferences. One woman's sexy stubble that tickles, is another's painful crotch burn and eyesore. One man's hot French chick, is another's way too butch dyke (or one man's pleasant shag rug, is another's Searching for Dr. Livingstone. Women, please share your equivalent to this phrase).

Please allow me to introduce this entry's spouters! In this corner, from Philadelphia, a woman not too afraid to shy away from cute euphemisms for "vagina," the baby attacked Patrice! And in this corner, from Seattle, a fastidious word fetishist, fuckwad and closet-gay extraordinaire, Rob!

All right, kids, have fun. Ladies first:
----------
Okay.

Let me start off by breaking down the societal norms of hair growth for men and women, in this country, based on areas that women and men tend to have hair that needs to be groomed. For women, there's the head, obviously. Moving down, we have the eyebrows, above the lip, the underarms, the "bikini" area, and the legs. For men, there's the head and the face. Just those two.

What's interesting about this is that men, typically, are more hirsute than women. They tend to have more instances of back hair, neck hair, and ass hair. And the hair they have in the same areas that women are supposed to shave tends to be much more thick - think bushy eyebrows,underarms and crazy leg hair.

So while we don't ask men to shave their backs and their necks and their asses, we do ask women to shave their legs and their underarms and their hoohas. (The hooha-shaving will be discussed in depth a few paragraphs from now.)

The debate at hand is what parts of the body SHOULD each gender groom? For most hairy areas, for women, it's all or nothing. Or rather, it's nothing or nothing. Legs are supposed to be hair-free and smooth, as are underarms. If you're unfortunate enough to have a fem-stache, that is either supposed to be waxed away or bleached. The only areas where it's acceptible to leave a faint trace of the hair that NATURALLY grows in that area are the eyebrows (unless you're my mother in law, who has tattooed eyebrows and regularly waxes that area. for reals, yo.) and the crotchetal area.

Meanwhile, men can choose to have a beard or be beardless. And in terms of beards, there's a ton of different styles to be had - the soul patch for the minimalist, the ZZ Top special, the goat...hell, you can even shave zigzags into your beard. Conversely, men are the only folks that can shave their head and not look like a cancer patient. (Of course, they also have to deal with hair loss way more than women do, but since that doesn't support my argument, I don't care.)

So the question, for me, is this: How is it that society has deemed the natural occurence of hair on our bodies as normal for one gender, and unsightly or even disgusting for the other? Clearly, women and men are both repulsed by excess female body hair - even me. In fact, I took a shower while in the throes of early labor expressly to shave my legs, lest I be stubbly for when the entire universe was looking into my birth canal. Why??

Oh, I'm sure it has to do with feminine this or that. Bah. We don't wear bustles or bloomers anymore, so why do we hang onto old social mores that dictate how much hair we can have on our bodies? I just don't get it. And even though I don't get it, I'll still continue to shave my legs and armpits because I will feel like a disgusting hippy if I don't. I'm not part of the solution, I'm part of the problem. So are you.

And now, let's talk about the hooha. When I was a teenager, it was a standard thing to shave your bikini line, because bathing suits were getting tinier and you didn't want anyone to know that you, just like every other human on the planet, have pubic hair. For some reason, we had to keep that a secret. Anyways, the shaving really only had to be done up to where the suit ended.

Nowadays, people are doing landing strips, "brazillians", and going completely hairless. Completely hairless! I can see only one advantage to this practice: no hair stuck in the teeth while performing cunnilingus. And if you find the man or woman who is dining SO OFTEN at the Y that they have to insist that a woman have no hair whatsoever, I need to meet him or her.

I do see about a million disadvantages to the practice, though. First of all, THESE WOMEN LOOK LIKE CHILDREN. Creepy. Real creepy. Second, shaving down there isn't an exact science. I'm talking folds, peaks, valleys...it's not the same as shaving a leg. And you're going at your most sensitive parts with a fucking RAZOR BLADE (or, if you're me, 4 blades, a la Shick Quattro) which, when you think about it, is real, real dumb. Third, there's upkeep. Like major, daily upkeep. And if you skip a day, there's some hard-core itching. So once you go bare, unless you're waxing (and I don't even need to paint THAT mental picture for you) you're pretty much going to have to stay hairless. Or schedule a long weekend at home where no one cares if you're scratching your labia raw.

And conversely, I see only male porn stars shaving their pubes, and that is supposed to be only to make their wangs look longer. (And ps, doesn't fool anyone, dude.) And when I do see a shorn male, it looks...freakish. I mean hell, dongs are freakish already, and we shouldn't advocate making them appear even freakisher.

So where does that leave me, specifically, on the whole gender grooming issue? Men have it easier. Social convention forces women to continue to shave. I hate shaving. I will continue to shave. I am part of the problem. I suck. But then, so do you.

Thank you. Good night.
--------
(Rob?)

I believe it was Cary Grant who once said, "If I am forced to look at a fellow and talk to him, the least he could do is comb his hair and brush his teeth." I believe it was also Cary Grant who was addicted to LSD, but that's beside the point. When he wasn't beating off purple tigers that were landing on his face and imagining "a world of healthy, chubby little babies' legs and diapers, and smeared blood, a sort of general menstrual activity taking place," Mr. Leach was waxing spot on about a plague that has racked humanity since the advent of the shower: Grooming standards and some people's failure to adhere to them.

It never ceases to astonish me how many people refuse to take pride in their personal appearance. Yes, I know not everybody was born with voluminous hair and perfectly straight teeth, but that doesn't mean we, as a whole, can't daily run a brush across either. Even if your genes have saddled you with some pendulous facial protuberance or other frailty that society deems less than beautiful, why wouldn't you put a little effort into mitigating or drawing attention away from your plight? Grooming practices are relative to the individual; personal taste, style and genetics are all factors in how we take care of ourselves and the way we look. Being as such, your personal appearance is an aspect of self expression. As terrible as it may be, humanity is one big prejudiced, reactionary, judgmental high school clique. How you look speaks volumes: Who you are, for what you stand, how much money you make, what you do for a living, sexual proclivity, dietary habit and even religious belief is information available to the world at a glance, all because of your personal appearance. Regardless of whether this is right or wrong it's the way things are and it's ridiculous that anyone would present themselves in any way other than their relative best. Yet we see it everyday…

…and we see it mostly in men. Beige asked for us to be fair; not to go too easy on our own gender. As far as men's grooming standards go, I'ma get fucking fierce. It pains me to see other gentlemen walking about either completely clueless as to how absurd they look or delusional to the point that they think they look good. Starting with the easiest: Hair. There is no reason why men's hair should be anything less than orderly. With the bevy of products, implants, shit…even surgery available, a man with a full head of hair has no excuse not to have decent looking coiffeur on any given day. Men's hair should reflect them personally and…for the love of god…be topical and/or current. Mullets and bowl cuts are never acceptable. Ever. For men with hair that is thinning or balding, you can still look good. Take a leaf out of Stewart or Willis's tome: Keep it short and sexy. Comb-over = youwillbemasturbatingtoscrambledcablepornin yourmother'sbasementfortherestofyourlife. Please have some self respect. I grow weary of laughing at you.

Speaking of tired, will someone please put the mustache to sleep? There are approximately 4 men on whom a mustache is palatable and they were all in Tombstone. Facial hair is another excellent way for most men to express themselves. I've attracted the attention of many a lady-type with my facial hair (I am not kidding). Why would anyone wield this foil so poorly, nay, fall on it by wearing ridiculous facial hair? A mustache and it's bizzarro opposite, The " Lincoln", are examples of fashions that should not even be options. There should be some sort of gene that causes men's faces burn horrifically if they have a mustache or Lincoln for more than 3 minutes. Once again, it depends on the individual. On some people, these things work. For most, however, a full beard (kept neat according to taste) or sideburns (up to and including chops) are as far as you should go. Goatees are pretty post, but still acceptable.

Gentlemen, I would like to introduce you to a friend of mine. She's little, highly squeezable but can still take a goodly amount of abuse…which is great because I've taken her places so ugly it would leave hardened criminals pissing themselves in the corner of their cells. Her name is tweezers. Use her. In your nose. Fucking PLEASE. I know it's not a place we normally look when we're giving ourselves the once over before stepping out the door, but if I can see tufts of hair sprouting from your nostril like amber waves of grain, it's time to harvest, motherfuckers. Don't leave them for me to watch flapping in the wind as you talk because, trust me, that's all I'm focusing on. I fear them as the animated Japanese school girl fears the tentacocks of cephalopodaic manga demons. While you're at it, Thufir Hawat, don't be afraid to use that bitch to hedge your flocculent brow. You don't need to go sculpty or nothin' but if you got a coupla caterpillars up there, you might want to think about morphing them into beautiful butterflies.

Now, before everyone gets all, "Damn, Rob…I thought you were a guy. Why you getting' all Queer Eye on us?" you should know that there are some grooming habits for men that I abhor. For instance: Waxing, for men, should be reserved for the back only. Guys who wax their bodies and go completely hairless are fucking pussies and should have their testosterone card revoked tut de suite. Furthermore, men's hands and bodies should be, at least, a little calloused. Lotions, balms and salves that soften your skin also soften your masculinity. While I'm a big fan of bathing in general, the length of a man's shower, minus however long it takes to rub one out, should never exceed 7 minutes. As George Carlin once put it so adroitly, " Let me tell you something, my well-scrubbed friends. You don't always need to shower every day. It's overkill. All you really need to do is wash the four key areas: armpits, asshole, crotch and mouth. That's all. And you can save yourself a lot of time by simply using the same brush on all four areas."

Obviously, the above statement on bathing is something of a simplification. I stand firm on how long a man's shower should take, however I disagree with Carlin on the frequency of bathing. If you go out in public every day, you should clean your body… every day. The only thing more offensive than having to look at your unkempt and ugly ass, and this goes for the women, too, is having to smell your unkempt and ugly ass. Olfactory presence is key. It's true that scent is keenly tied into memory. Do you want to be mistaken for the smelly person? Men: Use underarm deodorant and, if necessary, an aftershave or cologne that compliments you and your body chemistry. Nothing more. It's not a sin to put some thought into this either, guys. Find a good scent and it will last you for years. Ladies: Do the same but feel free to go further with it. For you, complimentary scents that also work with your body chemistry is the sexy twist of the knife that adds insult to injury. I've encountered women whom I normally wouldn't think about sexually but because they smelled so god damned good, my mind wouldn't let me go anywhere else. Smell good. It's crucial.

Speaking of the ladies, I find it much more difficult to harsh on you and your grooming practices. What with societal standards telling the average woman that she must work her ass off to be beautiful as a rule, it kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth to be authoritative about how you must groom to putt par with me. But, fuck it. I'm not here to pussyfoot about the issues. I'm here to tell you how things should be.

Basic rule of thumb*: If it's going to be exposed, it should be hairless. Of course I'm talking about legs, underarms, face or any other visible part of the body where unseemly hair might sprout. If you're going to be wearing feminine clothing such as a skirt, crop or halter top or a strappy dress, your body should look feminine to compliment the statement that you're making with your clothes. Body hair is not feminine.

Hair on the head, however, in usually always feminine, no matter what the style. (The exceptions, of course, are once again, mullets and bowl cuts…er, sorry…Dorothy Hamiltons.) Short hair, long hair, no hair: Usually all good to me. I ask that women put some thought into how the hair frames their face when they go to get it styled/cut. At the time of this writing I can't stop thinking of this girl I know who has hair shorter than most men but how it frames her face and compliments her personality freaking kills me it's so stunning. I also ask that women not be afraid to be adventurous with their hair when they style it in the morning or before they go out. If you can pull it off, don't be afraid of the braids or the pig-tails or the braided pig-tails. If it works on you…it works on you. Nobody's gonna think you're some little hussy with an Electra complex looking for a spanking from daddy…but does it really hurt if secretly they do?

You know, I can take or leave finger nails aesthetically. I do like the look of a set of well manicured nails, and I love the feel of fingernails on skin/scalp, but I don't need them. If you're gonna grow them out, keep them at a relatively uniform length. If you want to get yourself a nice manicure, go for it. It can only help. You don't need to have spectacularly painted nails, but you should keep them looking good with at least a bit of clear lacquer, if just to keep them strong.

That all said…pedicured toes with a little french tip equals hhhhhhhhHHHOT!

Finally, ladies: Make up. I'll be honest, you don't need it. I'll be doubly honest, you look better with it. When you want to look tasty, a little base or powder will do. When you want to look hot, add some eyeliner. When you want to look positively stunning cum fuckable; lipstick and mascara. That's all. Don't go nuts. That's our job.

I hate to belabor, but how we look is who we are. Yes…we are all beautiful on the inside but if we don't take care of what's on the outside, who's going to want to get close enough to find out? Personal appearance is also a form of expressing yourself. Without it, you may as well be a formless voice…a stream of ones and zeros…a series of…posts… on…the we…

Wait…can I take back some of the shit I've been saying?

*Apropos that I should begin what could easily be a sexist tirade with a sexist cliché.

49 Comments:

At 12:52 PM, Blogger JJisafool said...

Y'know, I can't really disagree with his thoughts on the aesthetic of female body hair, just because of what I like. Some women I've been with haven;t shaved armpits, and that look plenty good on some and not so much on others, but as a default, I'd say shave.

Down below, I prefer more than a landing strip, but less than a juniper tam.

But, I wonder why. Why is this what I prefer? Is it because that is what I first saw in magazines and such? Is it entirely a cultural creation?

I remember when I was 8 or 9, I was a little afraid of pubic hair. I would pretend that I was like a king and all the girls I liked at school were my wives and all had to shave.

Good Lord, did I just admit that out loud?

Anyway, maybe I should justcrawl back in my hole now.

 
At 2:51 PM, Blogger Missuz J said...

I was blessed with fairly light and sparce hair on my pits, legs and cooter. I think it might be because of this that I'm a seldom shaver. If I know I'm going to be wearing a tank top, shorts, or swimming suit around strangers, I shave legs and pits--that's it. If not--I don't.

I actually went a year without shaving my legs when I was 19, kind of on principle, and kind of out of laziness. My little brother refused to stand next to me in public places when I wore shorts, but other than that, it didn't seem to matter too much to anyone.

Of course--I've been married since I was 20--and that makes a big difference. Looking and smelling inoffensive, and looking and smelling, well, alluring are two totally different things.

 
At 4:40 PM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

As a fan of a good juniper tam . . .

Seriously, first off: Rob's grooming tips for men are well taken, though he knows as well as I do that some moustaches are grown for roles, so we have to grant actors certain facial-hair exemptions, provided they have evidence that they're not just "trying it out". But I happen to have a little electric trimmer I use to zap my nose hairs, ear hairs and unibrow.

On the other hand, while I support the right of anyone to wax anything, as a hairy torsoed Celt, I kind of resent the shame I reflexively feel for my back hair. Especially considering that I'm a supporter, even a fan, of full body hair on the female.

I'm not against the shaving of pits or legs, mind you, or some reasonable trim of the pubic patch. But at the same time, there's something pleasantly feral for me about unchecked growth (provided it's clean and groomed according to standards already laid out in other posts). It implies a certain rejection of the norm, which I nearly always support in principle.

When I saw Faun Fables open for Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, my eyes kept drifting back to Dawn McCarthy's pit hair, as the very sight of such made me think, indeed, daydream about the spectacular and voluminous bush it implied (before Dawn tells security never to let me into another show, I should mention that she can rest assured that her sharp intelligence and musical daring were and are still the primary draw).

The fact is that even the shaving of the pubic region seems to be the norm in that one area of our culture--pornography--where that area is consistently on prominent display. Anything more than a soul patch is fetish territory in this day and age. Patrice notes that it reminds her of children, and she may be onto an uncomfortable truth about the matter: body hair, on men or women, is a sign of age (or the sense of bodily self-acceptance that theoretically comes with age, which we callously label "letting one's self go". Even Rob's willingness to allow for waxing of back hair on men seems like a cryptically homoerotic appropriation of this youth obsession, the desire to possess--and, indeed, become--the objectified embodiment of eternal youth, hairlessness and 0% body fat. We don't want to be adults, and we don't want our objects of desire to be adults, either. At least that's how it often looks from out here.

 
At 6:42 PM, Blogger Stine said...

Oh my GAWD, where to begin.

First of all, Patrice, thank you so much for your spot-on, concise description of coiffing the pubes. I mean I'm not sure some male folk realize the implication of "inny" vs. "outy". This is hard work people. And yes, you are right, I am part of the problem. I sat and read your post and berated myself for being 100% to blame for the gender discrepancy in grooming body hair. I mean shit, I spend half my life doing just that. And it sucks. It sucks that in our society this point of view, is status quo:

Basic rule of thumb*: If it's going to be exposed, it should be hairless. Of course I'm talking about legs, underarms, face or any other visible part of the body where unseemly hair might sprout. If you're going to be wearing feminine clothing such as a skirt, crop or halter top or a strappy dress, your body should look feminine to compliment the statement that you're making with your clothes. Body hair is not feminine.

And again, I shave my pits, legs, my cooch and its accoutrements, and I do it with this stoopid ass view in my mind that I need to look like Bambi fucking Vixen Ly and I watched on porn last night. And so I shave, and continue to chase the forest that is headed down my legs to my feet. Lolita pussy is just not natural.


(Inserted lesbian feminist moment)
And to say body hair isn't "feminine"...I mean what the hell does feminine mean? I thought it meant of or relating to women or being a woman. I was born with hair, my genes have mapped the way it continually crawls down my thigh and up my ass like the Nile River, I have a uterus and ovaries(y), then by good goddamn, if I looked like friggin bigfoot, the body hair is feminine.

Again, I'm part of the problem. I am a product of my society and my upbringing. I am the one who would be horrified if I saw some bitch walking down the beach in her designer bikini sproutin' out all over. Will this viewpoint ever change? I dunno.

I think Ly makes a good point, we want to hold on to what we were. We strive for what will never be again. It is also biology. I want to shave my legs, pits, and my cooch because it just might make me prettier, more desirable as a mate, and more fuckable than that cow over there.

I am a whore.

 
At 8:27 PM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

I'm SO glad you're a whore. Just know you needn't be a shaven whore on my account.

 
At 7:57 PM, Blogger the beige one said...

awww, if you two weren't married, this'd be a great love connection...

 
At 7:05 AM, Blogger patrice said...

first of all, I think it's funny that rob and I took this assignment in 2 different directions. and I also think it's HYPER NEAT(tm) that rob ripped into menfolk while I took a stab at the laydeez.

however.

Basic rule of thumb*: If it's going to be exposed, it should be hairless.

okay. yeah, I'm part of the problem. yeah, I'm not bucking the system. but holy shiza, can you fucking BLAME me? I am not upset at rob specifically, as this is a notion that is held by most men...ly excluded. (btw, props to stine for landing this exquisite being.) but I am upset at men as a whole, however pigeonholed that idea is, because that very true statement just SUCKS.

so - rob points out that a man should, at least, shower each day. that he should run a comb through his hair. perhaps tweeze some nose tufts. but he wants women to be hairless.

okay. I get it. but I have to say - DON'T YOU EVER, EVER GET PISSED OFF at how much time or money we spend trying to live up to this ridiculous double standard. don't whine that we take too long in the shower. don't complain that we have to have 16 types of lotions and soaps. for fuck's sake. can you imagine if women only had to worry about combing their hair and washing (with one type of soap!) their bods each day?

in addition, if you're going to put that much pressure on the females to adhere to that kind of standard, do not, I repeat, do NOT get pissed if we seem to have lots of doubts about how we look. if hairless equals feminine, and I have to do this or that to be considered OF MY OWN FUCKING GENDER, then so be it - just no complaining from the hairy-assed men.

 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger the beige one said...

well, okay, and all, but I absolve myself if the woman I'm dating continues to obsess over these things despite my objections.

Personally, I'd like for women to relax about these items...I mean, make up isn't that necessary, ditto shaving (and I never understood what the hairless cooch thing was about).

Rant at the patriarchal hegemony, please, but don't use me as a substitute for it. Not my fault, and I keep asking you to not comply, so leave me out.

Danke.

 
At 10:29 AM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

Here's where the beige and I are on the same page--These standards suck, but I don't know if those of us who don't hold you to them are in much of a position to answer for them.

And Patrice--if it's any comfort, I use at least 2 kinds of soap in the shower, one for my face and one for my body, plus I scrub my face and head with exfoliating gloves to keep the pores clear and give my shaven head that sleek Yul Brynner shine. Obviously we add shampoo to that list when I have to grow hair for a show; and as for facial hair, I like to wash and condition it every day so it's soft and not scratchy (for oral sex purposes). :^)

 
At 10:49 AM, Blogger the beige one said...

I use at least 2 kinds of soap in the shower, one for my face and one for my body, plus I scrub my face and head with exfoliating gloves to keep the pores clear and give my shaven head that sleek Yul Brynner shine. Obviously we add shampoo to that list when I have to grow hair for a show; and as for facial hair, I like to wash and condition it every day so it's soft and not scratchy (for oral sex purposes).

And I...don't do any of that.

 
At 10:51 AM, Blogger patrice said...

I can totally understand the two of you not wanting to be lumped in with all the hairhaters, but still. we can't tell that's what you think just by looking at you, so until you pull me aside and say "hey, I like hair" I *have* to assume you're like the VAST majority of men who don't like female body hair.

and even if I were with a man who didn't mind that I had unshorn legs or pits, that doesn't mean it's going to be comfortable for me to go out in public like that.

it's a social phenomenon. until more men and women do feel comfortable challenging these norms, they'll continue to be the norms. and anytime you're not in the norm, there's repercussions. and that sucks. and like I said, I'm as much to blame as anyone else.

I just am not sure that saying "I don't feel that way" is removing blame either. unless you put your opinion out there for the general public to see - like, say, renting a sandwich board or getting t shirts made, which is really what I'd like you guys to do.

 
At 11:02 AM, Blogger the beige one said...

like, say, renting a sandwich board or getting t shirts made, which is really what I'd like you guys to do.

that's starting to run into some money...tell you what, the moment I see a t-shirt reading "Hmmm mmm! I Loves Me Some Hairy Pie" I'll buy it and take a picture of myself in it.

 
At 11:17 AM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

Fair enough, patrice. I've had the bruises to prove that deviating from the norm is often embarrassing and sometimes potentially dangerous. I think what we struggle with is the notion that, in addition to figuring out whatever other shit is going on in our lives, we still occasionally have to answer for trouble women have living up to demands that we aren't imposing on them. My basic trouble with the whole line of reasoning is that it's hard enough being Lyam without bearing the responsibility of being a "man", a group to which I belong by default but not really by design. I mean, come on: I'm separated by at least a few evolutionary hiccups from a sizable plurality of the usual representatives of my gender.

Of course, just because I'm not imposing said standard doesn't mean that you don't still experience its weight, so the point is taken. But what it illustrates, again, is that anything we can say about gender kind of falls apart when confronted with a living, breathing individual. The best any of us can hope to do is continually assert free agency.

 
At 11:18 AM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

P.S. - I don't know that a "I Love's Me Some Hairy Pie" T-shirt is gonna fly at work.

 
At 11:43 AM, Blogger rob said...

Oh hu-freakin’-ZZAH!! Words cannot express how ecstatic I am that this debate invariably and predictably came to my two favorite topics of discussion: The effects of societal standards on the American woman’s grooming practices…and vaginas.

I can’t wait to dive in.

I purposefully stayed away from my thoughts on pubic grooming as I was sure it would have come up without my help (trust me…passivity in regards to genitalia in not easy for me to pull off). Furthermore, my thoughts on how a woman trims her hedges are more complicated than what little justice a black or white “shave or don’t shave” argument can do for them. What it boils down to is that the genitals, for either a man or a woman, is one of a person’s greatest sources of power (I’d posit the greatest, however that’s a debate for later on) and no one has any right to tell you what you should and shouldn’t do with them.

That said, the real (and most interesting) question remains: Why? If it’s such a pain in the ass, why do women subject themselves to the torment of grooming thus? The answer is painfully simple: Because our society, a society built by men, has told us for ages what looks good and we go along with it. I won’t argue or defend whether this is right or wrong as this would be moot and, honestly, futile. Why? Because women, for the most part, roll with it. Women are told that smooth legs, soft underarms and trimmed bikini lines are pretty. Women believe it. Women act accordingly. How could I argue the merits/demerits of such a widespread philosophy when its subjugated masses are also its greatest advocates?

As young as two years old, most girls dream of being pretty. They play with Barbie dolls, trick-or-treat as fairy princesses and get into their mother’s makeup. To argue whether this is a learned behavior or instinct is, once again, moot as by the time those girls are women they are conditioned into believing that there are a series of different hoops through which they must jump in order to be deemed attractive. Now, don’t focus on whether that’s right or wrong (for now…but I definitely want to talk about it in a little bit), focus on whether or not it’s true and how it affects what people consider attractive.

“…what the hell does feminine mean?”

I’m really glad you asked that, Stine. In sooth, that’s exactly where I wanted this multilogue to go. In discussing feminine grooming I think it’s important for us to define what grooming ultimately makes someone appear feminine. After all, it’s femininity that ultimately attracts the vast bulk of men.

I’d define “feminine” (aside from “of or relating to being a woman”) as the standard set by social mores, tastes and evolution relating to the quality that women possess that is uniquely theirs and sets them aside from men. Now, I know that I might be raising even more questions by calling it “a quality that women possess that is uniquely theirs…” and am willing to define that quality even further if necessary but for now, I’m banking that you all will go with me in agreeing that women possess a quality that is uniquely theirs and that sets them aside from men.

And one aspect of that quality is delicacy.

Awwwww shit…Rob just opened up Pandora’s Box, yo!

Women are inherently more delicate than men. They are thus by genetics. And before we get into how bad ass women are for being able to handle the pains of child birth and menstruation, know that I agree with you: Women kick ass in that department. However, in physical stature, feature and structure, women are, by rote, more delicate than men. Guess what; that delicacy is attractive to men. When women remove body hair, they are accentuating that delicacy and embracing their femininity. I will reiterate from my original argument: Personal grooming is a form of self expression. If you want to appear feminine, you will need to look feminine. Thus, as I said before, if you are going to wear feminine clothing, your body should look feminine to compliment the statement you make with that clothing.

After all, why do hairy men in dresses always get a laugh on stage?

Let’s see…what else? Oh yeah! Vaginas! How could I forget?

Hairy. Bald. In between. I’ve enjoyed them all. I will continue enjoying them all. I will say this: Groomed vaginas taste better.

I’ve got more to spit on the subject, but I think I’ve done enough for now.

 
At 12:20 PM, Blogger rob said...

One offs and replies

Lyam: Rob's grooming tips for men are well taken, though he knows as well as I do that some moustaches are grown for roles, so we have to grant actors certain facial-hair exemptions, provided they have evidence that they're not just "trying it out".

Yup. I do know. Thus, "Grooming practices are relative to the individual; personal taste, style and genetics are all factors in how we take care of ourselves and the way we look." But I will add, "circumstance" to that list for clarification.

...there's something pleasantly feral for me about unchecked growth (provided it's clean and groomed according to standards already laid out in other posts).

Heh...you're funny.

Patrice notes that it reminds her of children, and she may be onto an uncomfortable truth about the matter: body hair, on men or women, is a sign of age (or the sense of bodily self-acceptance that theoretically comes with age, which we callously label "letting one's self go". Even Rob's willingness to allow for waxing of back hair on men seems like a cryptically homoerotic appropriation of this youth obsession, the desire to possess--and, indeed, become--the objectified embodiment of eternal youth, hairlessness and 0% body fat.

While I agree that there could be some truth to that, I can categorically state that my distaste for excessive back and upper arm hair is strictly a matter of aesthetics, not age. I don't care if you're seventeen or seventy, too much hair on the back and upper arm is not attractive and should be managed if you expose those areas and want to represent pride in your appearance.

 
At 12:47 PM, Blogger JJisafool said...

Women are inherently more delicate than men. They are thus by genetics. And before we get into how bad ass women are for being able to handle the pains of child birth and menstruation, know that I agree with you: Women kick ass in that department. However, in physical stature, feature and structure, women are, by rote, more delicate than men. Guess what; that delicacy is attractive to men. When women remove body hair, they are accentuating that delicacy and embracing their femininity.

Inherently? I take issue with that. I think it is a matter of choices made, though damn long ago.

If a culture were to value, as the sexual standard, slight, delicate men and Amazonian women, we could just as easily be talking about how men are inherently smaller, as reproductive success, that linchpin of evolution, is affected by cultural standards of beauty.

That being said, it is hard to shake off the cultural influence on sexual tastes (and yes before anyone jumps in with this I do believe it is a negotiation between culture and genes, just not entirely one or the other). Even harder to shake off years of naturalized teaching of traits in gender or race, making what is complex and negotiated merely "the way it is."

 
At 1:26 PM, Blogger rob said...

If a culture were to value, as the sexual standard, slight, delicate men and Amazonian women...

Let's leave Ly and Stine out of this.

 
At 1:31 PM, Blogger patrice said...

question for rob - assuming you're right about men wanting women to be more feminine and, by definition, delicate - what's up with women hitting the gym and getting 6 pack stomachs? how about angelina jolie as tomb raider? is it that men like their women to be feminine and delicate and also muscular and athletic as well as smelling pretty and having nice hair in addition to looking their best with a touch of makeup and a good hairstyle?

for the rest of you... I totally understand that it must be annoying to be lumped in with typical men. I apologize. I am speaking in general terms when I do say things and I appreciate that you're not that way. however, unfortunately, you're in the vast minority.

 
At 1:34 PM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

If a culture were to value, as the sexual standard, slight, delicate men and Amazonian women, we could just as easily be talking about how men are inherently smaller, as reproductive success, that linchpin of evolution, is affected by cultural standards of beauty.

I, too, chafed a bit at the notion of inherent delicacy. However, there are actual differences in size and bone density, on average, to take into account. It's possible that, because of choices we made long ago, that we evolved to this state, the physical inequity is pretty much "inherent" in that no matter how much, say, amandak works out, and no matter how much I spend my time ironing shirts, I'll probably still be bigger and stronger; and that amandak and I are pretty good representatives of the average size and build of a man and a woman, respectively.

That said, the tendency of women to be smaller and more delicate than men doesn't seem to me to be much reason to create a mandate that they behave accordingly, which is the real crux.

I can categorically state that my distaste for excessive back and upper arm hair is strictly a matter of aesthetics, not age. I don't care if you're seventeen or seventy, too much hair on the back and upper arm is not attractive and should be managed if you expose those areas and want to represent pride in your appearance.

Aside from your use of the dreaded "should" word, I have to ask: How much hair on the back and upper arm is too much? And when you say it's not attractive, the question becomes, "To whom is it not attractive, and why?" As recently as the '70s, it seemed like hairy chests were in. Go see a Hollywood movie today, and the whole male torso is almost invariably hairless (except for Peter Krause, bless him . . . well, and Robin Williams, but does anyone think he's sexy?). So a norm, and possibly a reflected value, has changed in the interim.

 
At 1:41 PM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

what's up with women hitting the gym and getting 6 pack stomachs? how about angelina jolie as tomb raider? is it that men like their women to be feminine and delicate and also muscular and athletic as well as smelling pretty and having nice hair in addition to looking their best with a touch of makeup and a good hairstyle?

Some of that may be the effect of feminism, but I DO think there's something else at work. My reflexive response is to suggest latent homoeroticism, and I'll not abandon that entirely even as I steer away from it. I think that the "tough chick" has always been a heterosexual male fantasy, because it allows men to plug women into the action-packed fantasy lives wherein they envision themselves. If you imagine you're destined to single-handedly defeat the Nazi army, conquer the post-apocalyptic wasteland in a stock car or discover the lost treasures of the Inca, it's kind of a turn-on to imagine a hot babe taking the journey with you.

The second reason I think this happens is an outgrowth of the first: If we can imagine a woman who's just a little more like us, we're imagining, in theory, a woman for whom we wouldn't be expected to change, because . . . well, she's like us, and she understands our resistance to change, she understands our liking for dark, malty beer. Also, maybe she's a lesbian, and she won't mind if we can't watch a Juliette Binoche film without getting hot and bothered for some Gallic tail.

 
At 2:26 PM, Blogger patrice said...

really, what I think it is is that men (in the collective, but not necessarily indicitive of you fine men here, which heretofore should be assumed, if possible) basically want their women to be...well...anything they want them to be. which is what all of us want, but for some reason (which one of you already mentioned) women seem to care more about what men think than men about women.

totally me included. to an extent.

my verification word is "pasiv".

 
At 2:53 PM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

"pasiv" is funny.

Granting that this may be atypical, I'm not sure that I care about ANYTHING as much as I care what women think about me. I think you'd be surprised by how much men DO think of what women may find attractive. But I think that a view of the matter put forth in everything from mythology to television is that women may think and want all of these things for and about men, but that what will ultimately attract them is a rugged individualism, a failure to cave to "your" desires for what "I" should be. It creates a little dissonance, because it supposes that what will really attract you is my refusal to succumb to what you find attractive. So we get our share of confusing messages, too.

Look, I'd re-design EVERYONE I know if I really had a say in it. Everyone would like my music, some people would have better hygeine, some people would dirty themselves up some, key people would develop a sudden interest in olive oil wrestling. If my views on how I'd redesign everyone are less gendered than is the norm, well, thank my mother. But my desire to create an ideal--rife with contradictions, to be sure, but rife with my contradictions--is probably not all that different from a more gendered idea for same, just differently manifested.

 
At 3:09 PM, Blogger Stine said...

JJ said: I do believe it is a negotiation between culture and genes, just not entirely one or the other)

- This is totally what it is. And just like the Kinsey scale, it is fluid and tenous.

Rob said:Thus, as I said before, if you are going to wear feminine clothing, your body should look feminine to compliment the statement you make with that clothing.

I think you do many men and women a disservice by "leaving Ly and I" out of this. I think you overestimate the number of men who are interested in women being "delicate". I mean I know there always has to be some generalization, but I think that this specific generalization has steadily been losing water since 1985. Just to be a pain in your ass, my question to you is why are you assuming that women will want to compliment their own inherent feminity (note - not delicacy)? Why "should" we, as women, do this? To get laid? To propigate the species and carry on our genes? Some primordial urge to beat out the other women for his "seed"?

And I think the appeal of Ms. Jolie as Lara Croft is twofold, I think Ly had a point in saying it had to do with latent homoeroticism, I too believe that deep down, there is a part of every man, that doesn't want the cellular biological responsbility. Man as submissive. Man as losing control, being controlled, and overpowered.

 
At 3:17 PM, Blogger rob said...

Patrice

…what's up with women hitting the gym and getting 6 pack stomachs? how about angelina jolie as tomb raider? is it that men like their women to be feminine and delicate and also muscular and athletic as well as smelling pretty and having nice hair in addition to looking their best with a touch of makeup and a good hairstyle?

I wouldn’t say that all men like their women that way but, yes. That would totally kick ass. Just as, I’m sure, most women like their men to be masculine and virile and also sensitive and artistic and will fix the air-conditioner and bring them raspberry tea and a hot pad when they’re crampy in addition to looking their best in a tie and a good hair style. Oh…and rippling pecs.

Ly

That said, the tendency of women to be smaller and more delicate than men doesn't seem to me to be much reason to create a mandate that they behave accordingly, which is the real crux..

Since when is the modern, American woman mandated, in terms of grooming, to behave in any way other than that of her choosing? Who’s starting to create said mandate? Did I miss a meeting?

Seriously, nobody’s forcing women to groom the way they please. Yes, societal standards teach them that they should do X to achieve Y where Y equals beauty, but nobody held a gun to Mary’s head, told her to get in her car on a Saturday, drive into town and plop $45 down to have her snatch and ass crack waxed. It was her choice.

How much hair on the back and upper arm is too much? The hairy guy in Sin City who was beating the crap outta Hartigan. That is too much.

To whom is it not attractive? Me, for starters; the bulk of American society for ultimates.

Why? Fantastic question. Because it isn’t aesthetically pleasing. Take your pick from my reasons or add your own: It takes away from the accentuation of the musculature of the arm and back…two of the most appealing aspects of the male physique; It’s too primal…excessive body hair on the male is reminiscent of animalistic traits which is one of the reasons we groom in the first place; Given that the prior two points deem excessive back and arm hair unattractive, both lead to an assumption that the subject lacks pride in their personal appearance which, to me, is the most unattractive facet of all.

As for hairy chests, I’m proud of mine and show it thusly.

 
At 3:36 PM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

Since when is the modern, American woman mandated, in terms of grooming, to behave in any way other than that of her choosing? Who’s starting to create said mandate? Did I miss a meeting?
Seriously, nobody’s forcing women to groom the way they please. Yes, societal standards teach them that they should do X to achieve Y where Y equals beauty, but nobody held a gun to Mary’s head, told her to get in her car on a Saturday, drive into town and plop $45 down to have her snatch and ass crack waxed. It was her choice.


Of course. But a "mandate" isn't a law or an act of physical force. It's a socio-cultural tide. I may not be required to own a computer, but the demands of modern life mandate that I own one.

How much hair on the back and upper arm is too much? The hairy guy in Sin City who was beating the crap outta Hartigan. That is too much.

Sure. But how far before that point did it become too much?

Because it isn’t aesthetically pleasing. Take your pick from my reasons or add your own: It takes away from the accentuation of the musculature of the arm and back…two of the most appealing aspects of the male physique; It’s too primal…excessive body hair on the male is reminiscent of animalistic traits which is one of the reasons we groom in the first place; Given that the prior two points deem excessive back and arm hair unattractive, both lead to an assumption that the subject lacks pride in their personal appearance which, to me, is the most unattractive facet of all.

Couldn't all of this be said of chest hair? Why, for you, do these feelings apply to one and not the other?

Funny footnote to that line of reasoning: To the Greeks, a large penis was a sign of animalism. Our views of how and why we wish to differentiate ourselves from the lower life forms are always changing.

 
At 4:47 PM, Blogger rob said...

Christ...this is rough to do at work. I start typing, head off for about an hour and suddenly there are 17 posts to which I must reply. I'll just start spitin'.

Ly

Really don't agree with your definition of "mandate" there, brother. Neither does Merriam-Webster. But that's beside the point. You made yourself clear with “socio-cultural tide”. And you’re right. You’re not forced to own a computer, but the demands of modern life whisk you away in such a socio-cultural tide that you can’t help but surf it into a Dell dealership; much like the ladies are whisked into a day spa.

My point is that the grooming that is done is done by choice.

How far before (hairy guy on Sin City) is too much? When is begins to take away from the accentuation of the musculature of the arm and back…two of the most appealing aspects of the male physique; when it begins to look too primal; when it begins to look like the subject lacks pride in their personal appearance. I’m not being glib, here. I’m sure you’d prefer an empirical measurement (“The tensile strength attractiveness in terms of back hair is breached when the hair length exceeds 1.5 inches or grows more than .5 inches away from the body, whichever comes first.”) but I won’t give it. I maintain, once again, that “grooming practices are relative to the individual; personal taste, style, (circumstances) and genetics are all factors in how we take care of ourselves and the way we look.” It’s up to the individual to judge, if he’s gonna show his hair back, whether or not his body hair is acceptable. It’s up to the individual to be found unattractive if he’s misjudged.

All I know is that I start thinning out the hair on my upper arm when I notice it. If I look in the mirror and see upper arm hair without seeking it out, it’s time to give the triceps a few quick swipes with the razor.

Why not the chest, then? Societal standards have deemed hairy chests, to some degree, OK. Maybe it’s spill-over from the 70’s. Maybe hairy chests are just plain fine. I don’t know. I don’t go around digging on them. What I do know is that, once again, there is a limit to how hairy the chest should be before it is no longer attractive. Men should think of it this way: If you’re gonna look like a gorilla, you’re going to attract only those who want to fuck gorillas. If you want to fuck gorilla fuckers, by all means, look like a gorilla…fucker.

Ugh…I gotta get back to work. More later.

 
At 5:28 PM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

I'd say the Bush administration has confused us more than any other source on the word "mandate", but my use of the word made sense in context. By a strict definitions, there are no mandates to be attractive; but I don't think, should I refer to a "mandate" to attract the opposite sex, that I'm likely to be misunderstood. Perhaps if I refer to it as "an imperative" you'd be more comfortable?

. . . when it begins to look too primal . . .

But given my example of the large penis being a sign of animalism, one might conclude that some symbols of being a lower order of life are considered desirable, while others are not. Why? And to what degree should we as individuals accept or reject the contemporary wisdom on the matter?

. . . when it begins to look like the subject lacks pride in their personal appearance.

So a guy who bathed regularly and flossed three times a day, but looked like he was wearing a sweater when naked, would still appear to lack pride in personal appearance?

I maintain, once again, that “grooming practices are relative to the individual; personal taste, style, (circumstances) and genetics are all factors in how we take care of ourselves and the way we look.” It’s up to the individual to judge, if he’s gonna show his hair back, whether or not his body hair is acceptable. It’s up to the individual to be found unattractive if he’s misjudged.

Fair enough. I assumed what we were talking about, though, was whether the norms by which one is "judged" are fair, whether they represent anything other than the whims of a fickle public. What I'm suggesting is that the norms are unfair; what I'm wondering is why and where they came from. Since you seem to be the apologist for the view that there's some useful standard here, you just happen to be whom I'm asking.

Back to a point in your paragraph above though:

I maintain, once again, that “grooming practices are relative to the individual . . .

. . . vs. . . .

What I do know is that, once again, there is a limit to how hairy the chest should be before it is no longer attractive . . . Men should think of it this way: If you’re gonna look like a gorilla, you’re going to attract only those who want to fuck gorillas. If you want to fuck gorilla fuckers, by all means, look like a gorilla…fucker.

On the one hand, you say it's relative; on the other hand, you throw a number of "shoulds" into your analysis, implying rightness (defer credit to JJ, who's been chastising me for all my shoulds). Aesthetic imperatives (believe you me, I won't be callin' 'em "mandates" anymore) are always tricky to assert.

 
At 7:15 AM, Blogger patrice said...

they wax ass cracks now?

 
At 8:53 AM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

Oh, yes. They also bleach the hairs around the anus. ;^)

Y'ever learn stuff you wish you didn't know?

 
At 12:39 PM, Blogger the beige one said...

much too much to think about, frankly...I'll just worry about losing the weight and dressing better...

 
At 12:53 PM, Blogger patrice said...

you know, I was thinking about this whilst on the can this morning. (ps, ly, yes, I guess we all learn stuff we wish we didn't know.)

how preposterous is it for me to get all up in arms about how men make women feel? whoever said up there that women aren't required by law (or whatev) to go buy all the grooming products they have was absolutely correct. and while the point is definitely valid that it's a societal norm (which, by the way, I did point out from the get go) that compels women to do the things they do - and men too - the shackles instantly fall off once each individual realizes "hey- I'm fine the way I am. I like the way I look with hair all up in this piece. fuck the razors."

I can't blame other people for my own decisions and I can't blame men for making women "feel" anything.

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

Yes, I think self-improvement and grooming, for most people, could use some minor adjustments and be calibrated to solid, health-oriented goals before we get to back-waxing, anal-bleaching and brazilians.

 
At 1:03 PM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

Patrice -

Yeah, I'm feeling you on that. Our self-acceptance, in the end, will have to transcend the social expectations that surround us. The question is not of who to blame, but rather, where does the norm come from, and does it offer any useful advice or is it just my culture's offering of yet another reason to flog myself (and not in a good way)? It's not that simple, of course, but it should be.

 
At 3:01 PM, Blogger the beige one said...

anal-bleaching and brazilians

I'm sure there's a web site dedicated to showing these...if not, at least a sub-genre in Japanese porn.

 
At 4:04 PM, Blogger the beige one said...

okay, enough of my silliness...

Here's an answer, not entirely in-depth, but one that pinpoints where the current fixation came from:

The Straight Dope

Love this guy's books, by the way...The site's way too big to delve into.

 
At 4:14 PM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

Interesting link, beige. That definitely puts the start date for this phenomenon later than I would have guessed.

One thing not really mentioned in relation to the hairless ancient Greek statues: Statues of men tended to be free of body hair as well. I think that's because idealized human beauty was intended to distance itself from the animal kingdom.

 
At 4:24 PM, Blogger JJisafool said...

That and it's a bitch carving body hair out of granite.

 
At 8:46 AM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

Heh, heh.

Yeah, that too.

 
At 10:24 AM, Blogger amandak said...

whew, after reading all that, I don't know exactly where to start, but I'm going to throw out a few things.

I think women are more to blame in imposing standards of beauty on each other than men are in imposing them on women. I think we worry much more about what other women think of us than what men think of us if we're going to get honest about it.

I also think that personal preferences tend to arise from personal experience to a great degree. As an example, my dad was one hairy motherfucker, and as a result, I see hairy guys as masculine, protective, and sexy. (Yeah, sexy, page Mr. Freud.)

I think our societal expectations are becoming much more fluid, and I'm glad to see it. I see a lot more hairy pits in my yoga classes than I used to, and it doesn't bug me in the least. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop shaving my pits though, cause I'm also one hairy motherfucker, and that would just be too much.

Personally, I shave the nether regions on occasion, mostly just for a little variety. My honey is stuck with me for the rest of his life, and sometimes it's fun to mix it up a little. Besides, I like how it feels.

 
At 11:27 AM, Blogger thelyamhound said...

I think women are more to blame in imposing standards of beauty on each other than men are in imposing them on women. I think we worry much more about what other women think of us than what men think of us if we're going to get honest about it.

I think you're onto something here. A costuming teacher in college once pointed out that women wear makeup for other women because men "don't care". That may be further than I'd go with the generalization, as I, at least, appreciate some sense of aesthetic unity in anyone's appearance; but I'm also bugged if that unity seems too fake or impractical.

Funny enough, I think this ties in, just a little, with this note over on Patrice's:

I asked my husband to buy me something sexy for valentine's day this year, and he came home with very plain WHITE bra and panties. Ummm, honey? I haven't been a virgin in, like, YEARS!

Even a crypto-fag like myself, when trying to imagine what would look sexy on my wife, tend to defer to her birthday suit (which one can't really give as a gift), looks or outfits modeled on what I find attractive on women in cinema, music or other areas of pop-culture (risking the purchase of something that won't necessarily match well with her essence) or the old standby "the blood of my enemies"(which comes with all sorts of attendant legal troubles)*. We're versed in a different set of aesthetic imperatives ("Must look like I can singlehandedly take on Garrett's posse!"). I have known men with strong feelings regarding female body hair, but I find most of those misgivings are readily abandoned in the face of an actual woman showing any real interest.

As an example, my dad was one hairy motherfucker, and as a result, I see hairy guys as masculine, protective, and sexy.

Bless you, darling.

I think our societal expectations are becoming much more fluid, and I'm glad to see it. I see a lot more hairy pits in my yoga classes than I used to, and it doesn't bug me in the least.

Yoga classes tend to be hotbeds of both progressivism and hippiedom, so I'm not particularly surprised. :^)

As to societal expectations becoming more fluid, I think you will be right. I think the swinging of the pendulum right now, at least at the pop-culture level, seems to be towards hairlessness. I actually read someone theorizing that it had to do with the "queering" of American culture, that the ideals of male beauty are currently more reflective of gay male taste than female taste, hence the lithe, youthful, hairless boy that's seems to be the dominant image in the media today; and in light of that, why would women rush to embrace being the hairier sex? Interesting theory. I don't know if I buy it.

Anyway, I think that the swinging of the pendulum may portend an era of wider differentiation in how people choose to present themselves.

That doesn't mean I'm going to stop shaving my pits though, cause I'm also one hairy motherfucker, and that would just be too much.

See, I think that's the best reason to shave anything: because you want to. I don't really like myself in beards, no matter how "into" the beard 'Stine tends to be. It's just a thing.

Personally, I shave the nether regions on occasion, mostly just for a little variety. My honey is stuck with me for the rest of his life, and sometimes it's fun to mix it up a little. Besides, I like how it feels.

Now we're talkin'. The first time I encountered a shaven nether region in real life, it kinda blew my mind, because it was so new. One should toy with newness now and again, especially in the context of long-term relationships. Which makes all imperatives moot, unless one's mate is indifferent to variety.

*-Obviously exaggarated for comic effect. In fact, I really enjoy women in tailored tweed riding gear (if we're talking about real clothes), but that's expensive, as is good BDSM gear (which may be more in the spirit of what we're talking about, if a more extreme example thereof). I also like garter belts quite a lot, but am inexperienced in shopping for such.

 
At 6:42 PM, Blogger Jacques Roux said...

Brilliant!! Absolutely brilliant. I like the idea of a spout-off on a regular basis, which may just keep me coming back here on a regular basis. How do I sign up to be a contributor? I am absolutely full of biased, unfounded opinions and a vast array of topics.

 
At 10:04 AM, Blogger the beige one said...

I like the idea of a spout-off on a regular basis, which may just keep me coming back here on a regular basis.

What? My own personal rantings at the universe aren't enough for you?

I work and work and work for you kids, and this is the thanks I get.

keep popping in, JR, and commenting. That's all it takes.

 
At 1:27 PM, Blogger patrice said...

I totally agree with amanda. and I think I just wanted to pretend that I didn't for a while so I could bash men. why? well, why not?

the guys I work with wouldn't raise an eyebrow if I came in wearing a shirt from kmart and some "slacks" from 1993. that bitch up in marketing services? the one wearing the gauchos with pointy boots? she would totally rake me over the coals. she's who I think of when I get dressed, not the menfolk.

the only time I think about the menfolk is when I'm wearing something slutty.

 
At 3:04 PM, Blogger the beige one said...

Ladies, would you say it a deeply rooted version of "misery loves company?" I mean in terms of those who would rake you over the coals...

 
At 6:22 AM, Blogger patrice said...

no, I don't think so. I think it's just cold heartlessness.

seriously, I think some women tend to be more critical of other women so that they feel better about themselves. it's kinda sick, actually.

 
At 2:22 PM, Blogger rob said...

Shit...I haven't had a chance to respond to this in ages. I'll get something up later on tonight or, at worst, tomorrow.

 
At 11:54 AM, Blogger JJisafool said...

I see only male porn stars shaving their pubes, and that is supposed to be only to make their wangs look longer. (And ps, doesn't fool anyone, dude.)

I dunno, maybe I was inspired by this thread, but I did a little hedge trimming and now I look HUGE.

Well, huger.

 
At 9:26 PM, Blogger JJisafool said...

OK, ho-hum, when we gonna see some more postie postie action here?

And, are you gonna Lobo tomorrow eve? I have a movie to return to you. Perhaps a trade?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home