I think if it's okay to show off the "bikini" area, it should be okay to show off the hair that naturally grows there.
thaluikhain said:
Ok, the title of the thread didn't specify if it was the bikini top or bikini bottom, but the content did, so I had to throw away the stupid joke I was working on.
Oh, come on. Don't let that stop you!
EeveeElectro said:
All I can assume is that the appearance of body hair pushed that picture into the nudity territory but I've seen plenty of men post pictures with low slung pants and a visible "wankers tache" to realise that can't be the case.
Well, only if you're assuming a single standard. I honestly would not. The way we tend to treat male and female bodies at the beach is....Well, it's definitely not a single standard. I swear, if I had a nickel for every guy with a beer gut and moobs criticising a woman carrying MAYBE an extra five pounds, I could buy my own planet and live there free from this sort of nonsense.
Colour Scientist said:
I don't understand how pubic hair would make it any more obscene, is it because it makes it more obvious that there is, in fact, a set of genitalia inside of her bikini bottoms?
Hey, there's a concept. Pubic hair is a secondary sex characteristic, which in a sense signals that someone is ready for sex. Perhaps a shaved pubic region, invoking a childlike image, is subconsciously a sign of chastity?
That's probably way too much thought put into it, but still.
Elementary - Dear Watson said:
If I didn't trim my man-tuft, put on a pair of tight budgie-smugglers and aranged myself so my half-fur/half-coiled wire pubes were on show, and then got someone to take deliberately provoking pictures of my cocksicle area so I could publically post it all over the place to show my 'natural nature' and passive aggressiveness so that I can subsequently kick off with my prewritten article/money-grabber then I too would have my accout shut down...
I very sincerely doubt it.