Pages

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

A Vote For Bush...

When did pubic hair become non-sexual? For me, the answer is “never”. Whether on a male or a female, a thick and lustrous bush is a magnificent sight, especially if it’s been unwrapped just for you. The reason for my odd question is because it appears that those in the adult industry have decided that “hairy pussies” is a fetish.
Firstly, let me say that I understand why porn is almost totally devoid of pubes. If you run, say, a dress shop, you don’t grow trees in front of the window. You want people to see “the goods”. That’s not the part I find odd. It’s the apparent taboo value of something which is as natural as breathing.
My Oxford Dictionary of Australian English defines the word “fetish” as:
A non-sexual object (e.g. shoes) or a non-sexual part of the body (e.g. feet) which acts as a focus for the arousal of sexual desire.
So I repeat: when did pubic hair become non-sexual? Was it the same time that underarm hair became “men-only”?
In The Three-Day Hump, I designed my female character, Opal, as someone who’s a little off-kilter. A non-conformist, I suppose, a passive type of rebel. One characteristic I included was that she let her underarm hair grow. It meant that by NOT doing something she was different from the crowd.
Thank goodness for Abby Winters, I say. Natural Aussie girls-next-door with the doormats to prove it, doing arguably unnatural things with and to each other. Though they still shave under their arms...

4 comments:

Secretia said...

We, my boufriend and I, dislike pubic hair, we both like to see what is there and pubic hair gets in the way.

Secretia

Willsin Rowe said...

I get that. My preference is for a thick one (hee hee) but there's some fun to be had with shaping and complete removal as well. I just found it strange that being "as nature intended" should now be considered some kind of splinter group, almost a deviant one. I'm talking males as well as females.

In the blue hour said...

I am in the middle on this one... I have hair...but it keep it tidy...not a 1970's wild bushy thing. For me, no bush seems pre-pubescent, if that makes any sense at all. Plus my hubby doesn't seem to mind and I guess that's all that matters, right?

Willsin Rowe said...

Hell, yes, ma'am. That's my preference, too. Trim the sides, but otherwise, LET 'ER GO! To me, it's the same premise as "naked" vs. "seductively revealing". Again, just saying what I like, not what's "right"...