Talk:Glabrousness
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Tip: Anchors arecase-sensitive in most browsers. This article containsbroken links to one or more targetanchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error |
I don´t think the two articles should be merged since the topics are different and the article would be very long. I´d prefer to remove the tag.Gardenparty (talk)02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The comment with headingGlabrousness v. Acomoclitic below was added a year ago and is still not resolved but in my view it is clearly part of the same problem as this heading covers. Right now on Wikipedia we have the following articles all on closely related subjects:
... and quite possibly others that I have not caught here, but their treatment is partly repetitive, partly conflicting, and partly uncorroborated by references.
I am strongly of the opinion that this articleGlabrousness shouldnot be merged withHair removal, but that here (inGlabrousness) the discussion of human cases of it should be limited to the medical causes of natural or iatrogenic hairlessness (as is seen in the case of such well known individuals asMatt Lucas andDuncan Goodhew who of course hasalopecia universalis) or the side effects of chemotherapy.
All discussion of hair removal by any method and for any motivation —— thus most of what is on this page —— should be moved to the articleHair removal where there should be a unified list/survey of methods with a set of links. Then all the separate articles for the separate methods should be reviewed to rationalize coverage of topics, remove both repetition and conflicting statements, etc.Iph (talk)16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are two separate articles dealing with similar topics, but the topics are not the same. I recommend removing the tag and keeping the articles separateNitrogenTSRH (talk)16:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way this was written makes it seem that female shaving is a 20th/21st century phenomenon. Not so. Female deplilation gained and lost popularity as often as male shaving did - it just became 'wrong' to talk about it during the Victorian era. Interestingly enough, shaving became popular again in the late 19th centuries as a form of modesty, not sexual expression. Axilary hair was considered to blatently sexual and women shaved to mimic the art work of the time. Look at the furor Goya raised with his hint of pubic hair. --Lepeu199917:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I approve of the subject, is there any real reason for the close-up of the female genitalia other than prurient interest? Sure it's a photo of a hairless vulva, but the Venus painting earlier in the article is more on topic as the article is about hairless bodies, not just vulvas. It's a very attractive vulva, but I believe its inclusion takes away from the article and I'm deleting it.--Lepeu199914:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that it wassocially accepted and even desirable for females to remove body hair to enhance their perceivedfemininity., I was referring to the females themselves who found the practice desirable. If they didn't, they wouldn't do it, would they? Does that self-evident truth need a citation? There are plenty of examples of this practice - many beauty parlours even offer a "full Brazillian" as a service - so there is a demand out there for it.
This article neither promotes not condems the practice, so I don't see any justification in the accusation of it not being neutral.
I've been trying to trace anetymology for this word. I assume it's Greek but can't find any specific info. Does anyone know any better?Agentsoo10:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested change:
inWestern cultures it is socially accepted and desirable for females to remove body hair to enhance their perceivedfemininity.
to
inWestern cultures it is socially accepted and, sometimes even desirable for females to remove body hair to enhance their perceivedfemininity.
--Vitor cunha 6 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)
How about:inWestern cultures removal of female body hair is well accepted in society. In fact removal of female body hair is used to enhance women'sfemininity << and some kind of comment about how widespread this practice is >>
Following the general Wikipedia/encyclopedia model, shouldn't the article be "acomoclitism" (or whatever the noun form is)? -EdgarAllanToe20:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know what the adjective for acomoclitism is? my dictionary isn't big enough.
Is it acomoclitic? I guess it wouldn't be acomoclitist because that would be a person who discrimates against those who have a preference to go without pubic hair.
Is the June Palmer picture nessecary? I know it's nice looking and this is the internet but my eight year old cousins use wikipedia and what if they go and research some school project on puberty and instead of the drawn "nasty" stuff they've already been exposed to see this full blow filth ( I honestly don't consider it filth)—Precedingunsigned comment added by69.107.91.219 (talk •contribs)
What's the antonym to glabrous? i.e. someone who prefers hair not to be shaven? I think whatever it is there should be a link to it.--71.251.5.2121:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tagged the page with the NPOV template, but hasn't raised any concerns here (which they are required to do if they use that template). If no specific issues are raised here before 20 March, I will remove the NPOV tag.➥the Epopt20:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Agreed, the NPOV should be removed, since I see no reason why there is concern.Scotsworth
Is there a gene of natural glabrousness, or is it just a disorder (I guess there are people with predispositional genes - so there's just a chance for their children to have it)? I've seen some people (men) having no beard at all! What about women - e.g. those that do not need to shave legs - oh how convinient! How does natural glabrousness affect skin (for example: is there some typical face (dis)configuration of naturally glabrous people (e.g. women - no matter they are women (I mean - no beard) - that absence of certain structures inside skin certanly must affect the outlooks of such faces)). I would like to see examples of such people - I ask: where?— Precedingunsigned comment added by87.116.145.58 (talk •contribs) 20:42, November 10, 2006
Some time ago, I noticed that my original Wikipedia entry of Acomoclitic had been changed to Glabrousness and a search for Acomoclitic now gets redirected to this entry. As a result, some of the early sections have been understandably changed to reflect this new definition. But these two words do not mean the same thing. A search on Google reveals many sources showing that the word Acomoclitic describes people who have apreference for hairless genitals on themselves or others. This is quite different from Glabrousness, which is having "an anatomically abnormal lack of hair or down" such as baldness. These are two separate words that require two distinct entries in Wikipedia. Unless someone can come up with a strong reason why not, I will remove the entries that made up my original contribution and reinstate them back in their place as a description of the Wiki entry for Acomoclitic. There can, of course, be a cross reference in both articles, if necessary.Carterton13:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that both these terms—Glabrousness and Acomoclitic—areneologisms. NeitherMerriam Webster norNinjawords has an entry for either word. Is there a reputable reference that actually has these words? —Frecklefσσt |Talk20:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the human body, glabrous skin is skin that is hairless. It is found on fingers, palmar surfaces of hands, soles of feet, lips, and penes.
I assume that "penes" is the plural of "penis," in which case I seriously doubt that this part has glabrous skin, being the owner of a clearly non-glabrous penis. Does the contributor have a source for this inclusion to the list of glabrous areas?—An Sealgair (talk)12:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"At present, this has resulted in the "Brazilian waxing" trend involving the partial or full removal of pubic hair, as the thongs worn on Brazilian beaches are too small to conceal very much of it.
I came to this article from that onwoodruff, which describes the leaves of that plant as glabrous. Since it is a botanical term, as well as an anatomical one, it might be worth mentioning that meaning in a subsection. Ideally, i'd suggest there be separate articles onGlabrousness (anatomy) andGlabrousness (botany) (and possibly evenGlabrousness (fashion)), and a disambiguation page. Provided there was enough content to justify a separate botanical article, anyway.
All this hinges on finding someone who knows about glabrous leaves, though. Not me!
-- Tom Anderson 2008-04-13 18:36 +0100
I've readded Duval La Naissance de Venus.jpg. I feel the photo is relevant to the article and significantly helps explain the article itself through its depiction and was not distasteful. I propose it stays. Was there actually any reason for its removal?TiffyWiki (talk)07:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing "Encouragement by commercial interests may be seen in advertising. At present, this has resulted in the "Brazilian waxing" trend involving the partial or full removal of pubic hair,as the thongs worn on Brazilian beaches are too small to conceal very much of it" (emphasis mine) seems misleading-- according to an article by the Atlantic cited by wikipedia'sBikini Waxing page, the Brazilian is called "Brazilian" because it was originally offered by a salon owned by Brazilians, not because Brazilian beaches attract skimpier thongs. Unless there's a better citation for the link between Brazilian waxing and Brazilian beaches, I propose changing the wording to "Encouragement by commercial interests may be seen in advertising. Smaller swimsuit bottoms encourage the removal of most or all pubic hair, a process known as [[Bikini waxing|bikini waxing]," leaving out what feels like an unsubstantiated allusion to some kind of perceived Brazilian exhibitionism.
190.229.76.4 (talk)01:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link onGlabrousness. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online05:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onGlabrousness. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)05:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.PNG)
