Talk:Pubic hair

Eurocentrism and lack of neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regular trimming is best health outcome should be highlighted

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

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

"Cosmopolitan study"

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

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