Many women today remove, or at least trim & style their pubic hair. It’s almost difficult to believe that not a long time ago (read: 70s and even 80s) pubic hair was seen as a normal, even a desirable thing, at least in western cultures. For centuries, pubic hair was seen as a major turn-on, because of otherwise hairless female body (and some men even described female pubic hair as an arrow pointing down the female most sensitive parts).

Things are so different today that is somewhat difficult to find anybody, male or female, who likes pubic hair on women in its full, untrimmed state. While there are millions of women who don’t remove pubic hair in any way, it’s sure seen as an imperative, and something any attractive woman do.

The reasons for removing pubic hair are quite simple: it’s a fashionable thing to do today and women are seen more attractive that way. Simple as that. It’s not much of a mystery; women always perform certain things to alter their bodies and make them appear more attractive, and today’s standards say it’s what makes women “hotter”.

Therefore, it’s interesting to see this simple motive is not what many women (or men) use when talking about removing female pubic hair. The motive that most of the people mention is hygiene. In short, hairs are dirty and smelly, and should be removed so the area is clean and fresh. Many women believe this, and the last thing women want is to be dirty.

But the truth is quite the opposite: pubic hair keeps your body clean. If body hair was dirty and unhygienic, we wouldn’t have it on sensitive places such as around our eyes and in our nostrils. Eyelashes, and eyebrows are there to protect our eyes from dirt and they help keeping sweat out of our eyes.

Pubic hair works the same, especially on women. Hair is what prevents the dirt and sweat and germs to find their way inside your vagina. A naked pubic area is a perfect place for all sorts of infections, especially since the skin is often irritated after shaving or waxing. Combine that with unhygienic underwear (the one that’s not made of cotton, and sadly, sexy & tight underwear is often not made of cotton), and you have a perfect scenario for a vaginal yeast infection.

So no, pubic hair is not dirty and unhygienic. One would say it’s a body’s natural barrier against dirt and gems.

Besides hygiene, there are other motives that people mention, such as: I want to receive oral sex (hair doesn’t prevent it, as Colin Farrell was happy to inform us), I want to wear bikinis and sexy underwear, etc. Some women say they do care about what men thing, and men of today tend to hate pubic hair on women, so they remove it. While all of these reasons are good, it’s all back to the basic one: it’s a fashionable thing to do today.

Still, many women insist on removing pubic hair because of “hygiene”. Many men, bless them, also claim it seems “cleaner” that way. But, why kid ourselves? Women remove their pubic hair because it’s a fashionable thing to do today, even if it’s not healthy in the strict sense of the words. It’s nothing new: women always do things that aren’t good for their health in order to appear more attractive, and this one is hardly alarming (with good personal hygiene, it’s relatively easy to avoid an infection).

But it’s interesting to note that the real reason here is often hidden: so many people insist hair removal is a good hygienic practice. Why? Is it because they feel fashion (and/or male attention) aren’t legitimate enough reasons? Or because today’s people insist on healthy lifestyle so much they have to proclaim even unhygienic practices healthy in order to go with them?

I am a tomboy.

I’m not one of those masculine, “tough” tomboys. I don’t enjoy many “masculine” activities (such as watching football), and I didn’t like to play with car toys when I was a kid. But I am what you call a tomboy. I used to think it makes me “different” and “speshul”, but it doesn’t: there’s nothing more special about tomboys than there is to girly girls.

However, analyzing the way people perceive tomboys (and the tomboy label itself) can reveal a lot about culture and society. There isn’t one way to be a tomboy (and to be seen as such): some think sexual orientation and, above all, “masculinity”, or interests (and fashion style) are what make a tomboy.

The first thing that is interesting to note is that being a tomboy is more, or less, a neutral thing. However, it also brings some advantages, and only one disadvantage.

The disadvantage is the fact men (and also, women) will often not perceive tomboy as “truly female”. This can bring difficulties in dating and love/sex life for tomboys. Tomboys are often seen as less attractive than “girly” women, and men tend to be less interested in them. Because being “pretty” and getting a man are often seen as woman’s top priorities, it makes it seem women perceived as tomboys have an important disadvantage.

However, I believe the label brings many advantages. Because tomboys are often seen as not “truly feminine”, it can help them in other areas of life, such as work. Sadly, many people (mostly, but not exclusively, male people) don’t treat women as true equals. Women often find it difficult for people (especially males) to accept their ideas, or to prove themselves in professional setting (especially if the profession requires intelligence, education and authority). It’s not because they can’t do it; it’s because they are not taken seriously. So not being seen as “really feminine” helps people see you as a “regular human” and are more open to listen to your ideas.

Also, many women find tiring to be approached and harassed by random (male) people, or to be objectified. A woman as a human being becomes unimportant and a target of harassment. Just because she is perceived as an attractive female. Tomboys don’t have this problem: they can go on with they day without being harassed or reminded their intelligence, ideas and PhD don’t matter at all and that all they are are a piece of meat. Feminine women often don’t have that luxury.

So all in all, being a tomboy is not bad; it’s not “special” and it sure isn’t different than being a “girly” female. It does make people perceive you and treat you differently.

Stereotypes

Here are some common stereotypes about tomboys:

Tomboys are not feminine
It’s the one that make a tomboy, but it isn’t really true. Many tomboys are feminine; they just don’t think you have to dress or act a certain way, or to have some specific interests to be seen as feminine.

Tomboys wants to be men
This can’t be further from the truth. While there are women who’d prefer to be men, “tomboys” in conventional sense of the word are happy to be female. They simply don’t see their interests or way they act (or dress) as something that only boys can do.

Tomboys are ugly and unattractive
Being ugly has nothing to do with it. While it’s true many tomboys don’t like makeup and wear casual clothes, it’s hardly what make someone unattractive. It IS true, however, some men don’t go after tomboys, but there are many who do, and that’s one of the reasons being a tomboy is not such a disadvantage even in dating.

Tomboys like (sports, fights, etc.) and hate (fashion, shopping, makeup)
While it might be true some tomboys enjoy activities that are perceived as masculine, this can hardly be a rule. Many girly women, for example, enjoy sports; and many tomboys like shopping. People are different so what a particular person might or might not like is purely individual.

However, it is true some traits tend to give you a tomboy label pretty quickly (such as, a little girl who doesn’t like to play with dolls), but it has nothing to do with tomboys as persons: it’s the way society assign gender roles.

Tomboys are “tough”
Once again, it’s individual. There are many tomboys who are very emotional, romantic and display other “feminine” traits. Seriously, the fact someone hates fashion and prefers to watch a boxing match instead of “Sex and the City” doesn’t say anything about her as a person.

See also:

Women: How not to be seen as fully human

Note: Images are clickable

Men are usually seen as the worst offenders when it comes to objectifying, and it’s not like they don’t engage in objectifying women, sometimes to the scary degrees.

However, women are quite able to do the same, and it often goes both ways. They often objectify themselves (and other women), as well as men. Those who think women rarely do it or that it’s a relatively new phenomena don’t really think about what objectification really means.

In short, to objectify a person means to see her, or him, as an object that can be in some way useful to you. What it means to be useful varies, and is not strictly related to sexual aspect, though it often is, when it comes to inter-gender objectifying.

It makes you fail to see another human being as a person in a full sense of the word. Even if you do understand they are fully human, you still don’t… really care. All you care is your benefit: this individual’s personality, hopes, dreams and needs become irrelevant.

Objectifying for security

Historically, the most common way women used to objectify men is to see them as providers and supporters. The more money and success the guy had, the better. Who he was as an individual was irrelevant. This sort of objectifying exists to this day. So even women who have careers and are capable of providing for themselves will often value rich men, or men with better careers and success higher than the nice guys with great personalities who don’t posses material wealth or success. Yes, this is objectifying.

Is raw objectification possible for women?

And there’s, of course, another form of objectification: the straightforward sexual objectification, in which an individual is seen as a mere object of your sexual desire. Women do this, too. In the same raw, straightforward manner men do to women.

Some people say it can NEVER be the same thing, because of the whole gender imbalance: not matter how unfair women are, they still don’t have the same power as men, and they can never do as much harm; and plus, they’ve suffered so much historically. Also, due to double sexual standards, it can never be the same thing. A man who is objectified is never so dehumanized as an objectified woman. Etc, etc.

It is true that women are still oppressed on so many levels, and that men still have more power. Still, on an individual level, doing a bad thing is, well, doing a bad thing. And women are sure not immune to objectification.

Is it harmful?

One thing that need to be discussed (but it’s not the subject if this post) is whether objectification is as harmful as people claim it to be. Of course, taken to extremes, it is one of the ways to dehumanize people. But it’s also somewhat unavoidable. After all, what is sexual attraction if not a basic objectification? Isn’t certain (unconscious) objectification instinctive?

So yes, on a certain level, it might not be harmful at all. But it often turns into a mechanism of oppression and dehumanization, and that is a bad thing. Women know very well how it works. They all know what is like not to be seen as a subject, a whole human, but an object seen through a male gaze. They all know what is like to have your own values measured by how men find you attractive.

Raw sexual objectification and women

The thing is, women are equally capable of doing the same thing. Due to historical gender imbalance- and double sexual standards- it sometimes seem that women are “above that”. Wrong. Women are capable of thinking pure sexual thoughts, and they can objectify men just as easily.

It often goes to the simple “seeing a man as a sexual object”. His thoughts, beliefs, character, integrity- anything that makes him a human being- are irrelevant. Even his sexual needs are irrelevant. All that matters is how a person doing the objectification sees him.

Plus, due to double standards, women have no guilt over doing this. In fact, some women find it quite empowering. Women go into great detail describing (or thinking) about a man’s physical features that they find arousing, and they’ll fantasize about all sorts of sexual stories involving the guy. They also transfer some of it to reality, so they pay more attention to attractive males, while ignoring or ridiculing the ones that they don’t find as attractive. And let’s not even mention the short guys. They don’t exist, for all we care, right?

However, this objectification is still shaped by double standards that make women embarrassed about openly expressing their sexuality. That’s why their way of objectification takes an unique form.

Usually, it presents itself in a form of focusing to more than the guy’s physical appearance. So the women will emphasize the man’s other qualities, for example, how nice he is as a person, or how great he is at what he does. You can see it with celebrities: many women lusting after a hot actor will point out how nice and great person he is. As if they know him. But don’t be fooled: it’s all down to simple objectifying, really.

Teenage sexual fantasies

Another very popular example offer teenage fangirls (a subject that deserves its own post). Teenage female fans are good for studying objectification, because they are quite honest (they are pretty straight about what they like), but are also already indoctrinated with double standards so they can’t express what they feel in straight terms.

While 14 or 15 year old boys know quite well why they like an actress with huge breasts, fantasies of their female counterparts appear to be more romantic and complex. They want to go on a romantic date with Robert Pattinson. They want to marry him. They want to go on a tropic adventure where they have to solve the mystery of ancient gold, escape world class criminals and fall in love.

But essentially, it’s all down to one simple thing: they want to bang him, hard. But they are not allowed to say it that way, because 14 year old girls are not supposed to be sexual beings. That’s why they develop their (sometimes rather unhealthy) obsession with actors and musicians (instead of simply taking them as sex fantasies, like boys of their age do with their celebrity crushes). That’s why the only way they can write about sex and men they’re obsessed with is through slash fan fiction. It’s not the coincidence, I think, that most writers of slash fanfiction are heterosexual teenage girls. Because you seem less sexual if you write about members of your favourite band having sex with each other than with you.

Empowering… Or shallow?

Simply put, women are quite capable of objectifying men. And many, who get quite mad about men objectifying women, do that without any guilt. I suspect many don’t even realize what they’re doing when they want to watch a movie in which their favourite actor spends suspicious amount of screen time shirtless.

Because female sexuality can never be so raw and strong and simple like male sexuality, right?

Ah. Penises. (Waiting for the giggles to stop). Ready now? Penises. Handy things. They help men piss and make babies.

In many (most?) of the cultures, they are seen as more than that, though. A man’s penis is seen as one of the main symbols of his masculinity, or even him as a human being (??!- no shit). It’s also a commonly used symbol of fertility and power.

And there’s this idea of a big penis being the best one. Nobody knows how this myth originated, but it’s not universal. In some cultures, smaller penises were seen as better ones and the one a guy is proud to have.

One of these cultures was Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece is important because, for some reason, Western civilization sees it as it’s own cradle. It’s not Ancient Greek’s fault, but that’s how it is. So, what did they think about penises?

For all we know, they strongly associated big penises with barbarians, chaos, savagery, violence and everything bad and foreign. This is a trait that still exists in Western culture to an extend: just think about the oversexed black man = big penis stereotype. Right. It’s the same logic applied.

Now, unlike Greeks, today’s western culture – and due to globalization, all the world is at least a bit affected by it – like big penises. While “big penis equals savage” is still at play, there is also a big penis imperative in Western culture.

Nobody knows why. Men do seem pretty concerned about this issue, though it’s unclear whether they really care about it so much, or they simply pretend they do, because it’s what a guy is supposed to do.

Women certainly laugh about men and their penis obsession. But just between us, women don’t care about penis size as much as men are afraid they do; but they do care more than they are willing to admit.

Which brings us to the all existing myths about the correlation between penis size and other body parts, such as feet, hands, nose or height. Women seem to be the ones quite interested in these, and it’s not like it’s not fun to sit in a restaurant at giggle at some poor guy’s small feet.

Obviously, any comparison of this sorts is rubbish. There’s no correlation whatsoever between other body parts and penis size. There’s not even a correlation between someone’s flaccid and erect size – a fact some people still don’t get it. So I’ll repeat: you can’t say anything about guy’s erect size based on his flaccid size. Or his nose. Or feet. Or hands.

But wait a minute. Hands. Hands are interesting, because various dimensions of our body do show a slight correlation with hands. For example, a person’s fingers are of a perfect size for nose or ear picking. What I’m saying is, you can always put your finger in your ear and it will fit perfectly, but you might not do that for another person’s body. So hands are very interesting when it comes to penis stereotypes, and indeed, there seem to be several “mythical” ways of determining guy’s penis size based on them.

One of these methods take into account hand size, while other concentrate on fingers, particularly the index finger (which is proved that might show a correlation with the penis size). But my favourite method (yes, I have one) is estimating penis size based on maximum distance between guy’s thumb and index finger.

Like any other theory of this sorts, it’s utter rubbish. But. Anecdotal evidence seems to somewhat support it. I shit you not. (Guys, take a time and do it – is it true?)

There’s no reason whatsoever for this to be true, but it does make me notice guy’s hands (and feel bad about it).

Actually, this myth might as well be true – but without having anything to do with penis size. Average hand/finger size, and therefore the distance between thumb and index finger, might simply be around 6.5 inches – which is the average penis size. So it would work for many guys and appear to be true. (This is a nice example on why correlations do not mean anything on its own, btw).

So, what have we learn here? That I wrote this whole educated, smart post just I could ask the guys to measure themselves? Or so it seems. In any case, anything related to penis, particularly penis size, proves to be a very interesting topic.

PS- Let’s see if this post will generate some interesting spam messages.

I’m at that precious place in my NaNo novel in which I about to write my first sex scene in… Let’s see: 13 years. I am not nervous about it (lol), but it does make me think about the whole problem of writing interesting, yet tasteful sex scenes in novels.

By “tasteful” I don’t mean on keeping it polite. Frankly, if you are too freaked out by words such as penis, vagina, or it’s numerous slang variations, you are not ready to write sex scenes, unless it’s fade to black – and you can’t really count those as sex scenes, now can you?

A good sex scene in a novel is like any other good scene in a novel: it serves its purpose. If you are writing erotica, your goal is to make people aroused. If you’re not, you might (or might not) want to achieve a different effect. It all depends.

Last time I wrote a sex scene I was a virgin. It was really, really fun (writing sex scenes, not being a virgin), and I enjoyed it. (No, not in “that” way! ) They weren’t as bad as one might expect, but I was never graphic. It was back in the days when I was unable to write words “fuck” or “shit”, despite the fact I had no problem using these words (and worse ones) when speaking. But to see them on page? No way! But I digress.

My current novel is a coming of age story with these young people who are, more or less, miserable. And I am not talking about the usual teenage wangst, but on family problems and shit and what not – accompanied with the usual teenage wangst. There are several sex scenes planned, most striking ones involving each of the main characters (there are three of them) losing virginity… for good or for the bad. I am planning to write it in a distant, almost cold and clinical manner. It simply suits the story (and its style) the best.

The main problem I’m having with the scene I’m about to write is the fact it should be told from male POV. It freaks me out. (Not male POV in sex, but writing from a male POV). I might be a tomboy, but I don’t know much about the way men think. I don’t think I am good at writing anything from male POV, let alone a sex scene. On the other hand, my husband says I am doing a good job with the (regular) scenes from my male character’s POV. But still, this is different.

Basically, how to write a believable scene in which this guy loses his virginity? <- a rhetorical question (but if somebody is eager to offer his advice, I'd be more than happy to hear it )

How NOT to write a sex scene

Learn from the best (worst?) Here’s a striking passage from the (in)famous camp classic, “My Immortal”, by Tara Gilesbie:

"Draco climbed on top of me and we started to make out keenly against a tree. He took of my top and I took of his clothes. I even took of my bra. Then he put his thingie into my you-know-what and we did it for the first time.

“Oh! Oh! Oh! ” I screamed. I was beginning to get an orgasm. We started to kiss everywhere and my pale body became all warm. And then….

“WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING YOU MOTHERFUKERS!”

It was…………………………………………………….Dumbledore!"

Ok, this might be a bad example, because it’s essentially an epic win. But you get the idea.

Useful links:
IKEA Erotica
Shortlisted books for 2008 Bad Sex award