The Hair Bare Bunch a.k.a Why Barbie Has No Pubes: I have a theory about men’s pubic hair preferences. I think that a young man’s first exposure to naked womanhood in a sexual context sets his subconscious expectations for what a woman should be like – and defines what he will find most attractive for the rest of his life. I well remember as a very young man – perhaps around eleven or twelve years old – having a great attraction to and fascination with the pubic area of the various fertile young ladies around me, but, never having seen them naked, my understanding of the anatomy was a little erroneous.
Men have always tended to jump to conclusions on anatomical matters. For more than a thousand years, our main understanding of how the human body was put together came from an ancient anatomist called Galen. His collection of drawings of the skeleton, organs, circulatory system, and so on, were widely copied, much studied, and relied upon almost exclusively for 1500 years. Unfortunately, owing to the fact that Galen had based them entirely on his dissection of dogs, and more or less extrapolated from there when drawing humans, they weren’t exactly accurate.
Similarly my understanding of the female anatomy was based on an entirely logical thought process; but nevertheless it was quite wrong. For example, I was quite certain that the vagina was a vertical slit on the front of the woman’s body, just below the stomach – an arrangement which is so clearly superior to the actual design that I hardly need explain.
In any case, my education in the true nature of the female fun parts came in the form of a collection of old Penthouse magazines someone else had left in an abandoned tree house near my home. What a revelation! But more than simply supplying the anatomical details, these magazines – from the early 80s – set me up with an indelible image of what young, sexy, confident womanhood looked like. There was a model women in my head; a girl to aspire to. She was smiling. She was spreading herself open for me to see. She had small, natural breasts. And she was hairy. Now as is the normal way of things, it wasn’t too long before I was gaining some practical experience of these matters with girls my own age in the innocent sexual play of curious young teenagers. I quickly learned that sexiness comes in many shapes and sizes, as well as in many haircuts. But still, there’s a part of me that likes hair. The wilder, the longer, and the denser, the better. It signals womanhood to me; I like the feel of it and the smell of it. It is animal, and crude, and a little bit dirty. It is real in almost exactly the same way that the Barbie version of womanhood, all pink plastic, baby-smooth skin, and silicon implants, isn’t. There are a thousand reasons to love it. But honestly, I think the real reason is that the first time I gazed on the female sex, it looked more like this …
As a culture we are in deep denial about our animal nature. We are intensely sexual beings, but we are at war with our sexual nature. Rejection of body hair is a rejection of the animal nature of our sexuality, and an attempt to replace it with something clean, safe, and domestic. If we can think of a way to deal with the smell of our sexual fluids and the wet patch they leave on the bed, we surely will, for the same reason. We like orgasms; but we don’t really want to have sex. Really we want to play sex with Barbie in a bizarre caricature of female sexuality; huge breasts, and no pubes. Me, I’m comfortable with real women, with real boobs and real hair. But I have to admit I’m drawing the line at underarm hair…
Why mainstream movies are sexy, and porn movies aren’t.
I don’t find porn movies generally very sexy. I find hardcore porn movies the least sexy of all. ”But how can that be,” I hear some of you ask, “when hardcore shows nothing but explicit sex? What could be sexier than that?”. That is indeed the crux of the issue; sex per se isn’t all that sexy. To be truly erotic, the brain must be involved. If hardcore did show more than just explicit sex, it would be sexier. If it presented characters we cared about, portrayed by skillful actors, it would be sexier. If it followed a discernible story line, and gradually built up the erotic tension to an explicit conclusion; then it would be sexier. Instead, hardcore offers poor production values, bad acting, a non-existent plot, laughably fake orgasm noises, and interminably repetitive scenes of penises sliding into vaginas and assorted other orifices. Now, don’t get me wrong, I do rather enjoy seeing penises going into vaginas, but I get bored of it very quickly, and I don’t find it terribly sexy on its own. If I’m suitably aroused, watching a nicely shaped girl being fucked can definitely get me off. But on its own, it’s just a badly produced biology documentary.
On the other hand, mainstream movies usually offer the things I do find sexy. They have far more beautiful women. They are better shot and better edited. They have plots which make me care about the characters, and actors who make it believable. They are often highly erotic and highly sexuallized. The only thing they don’t generally have is any actual explicit sex shots. Despite this, they are often sexier than hardcore. Mainstream movies have more beautiful women. I don’t need to work very hard to illustrate this point. Here are just a few mainstream actresses. All of them have appeared in nude and sex scenes. (You can click on any of the pictures to see some stills from their nude movie scenes.)