Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 14:11     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
Use a laser you savages
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 14:09     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
hair can trap odors from sweat, urine, and vaginal discharge (none of which are necessarily strongly scented, but which will tend to become a breeding ground for odiferous bacteria, pretty quickly) and need the occasional swipe with a wet paper towel (depending on the positioning of the urethra, the natural density of the hair, and the specific location of sweat glands). Plus, for menstruating folk who use pads, longer nether-fur may get blood caught in it in ways which the blood's owner may find... Um. Drat, I'm trying for a neutral term here, since my personal one is "yucky" and I know not everyone may share my opinions about that. ... Ah! May find less than optimal. There. >_>
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 14:01     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
I'm 50 and single as well. No one has complained, but most men do expect a very close trim or completely bare. I am sure that this has to do with porn. Almost all men see hairless women in pornos. I mean, think about it -- if you are putting someone's private parts on display on a screen, you can see a lot more detail if they are completely shaven or waxed.

In my experience, most guys don't really care what it is like down there. Some enjoy mixing it up a little over time, too. Some still prefer a hairy bush. Meh -- you get what you get and you don't get upset. It's a lot like dealing with three year olds...
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 13:54     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
I'm 43 and fairly old school in this department. Trimmed, but that's it.

When did totally bare become an expected norm? This only came onto my radar in the late 90s when I was already in my late 20s. Was I just blissfully clueless? Socially (sexually) stunted?
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 13:40     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think a more appropriate analogy would be to require mento shave their chests. My 50 year-old brother date women 10-15 years younger and they don't like chest hair so he shaves off the little he has.


No, shaving some chest hair is like shaving your legs. If it's just a little chest hair, like your brother's, it's as hassle-free as shaving our armpits. Shaving off some chest hair is way easier and less intrusive than keeping the tender, hard-to-reach, sensitive folds between our legs bald and smooth and ridding all hair from pubic bone to ass crack ...


I think a more appropriate analogy would be to require men to shave wax their pubic hair.
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 13:36     Subject: Re:Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
Ewww. First, i find it weird that you had one experience with one loser 50-something man and decide that he is representative of the thinking and expectations of all 50-something men. Second, women in their 50s and 60s don't usually look the same down there as they did in the 20s and 30s...sometimes having a little follicle cover down there is useful. And if you like this guy, OP, you just need to set him straight. The bald bits thing is a fad of a too rich country desperate to spend money on frivolous things.


At no time did I, the OP, state that I had "just one experience" like this and that I now wish to extrapolate to all men. Maybe, you know, it was more than one man over the years. maybe I have noticed a anecdotal trend over the past 3, 5, 7 years.

Yep and what's more, these "wtf?!" moments caused me to compare notes with two close friends in other cities. Embarrassing, yes (hey! tell me about your vulva and how guys react to it when they see it for the first time). But instructive, because my one friend in NYC absolutely has had the same kind of "Oh. Interesting ..." encounters. My friend in Colorado has not. We're all 46-53.
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 10:54     Subject: Re:Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
why do 50- and 60-something men from Match.com world expect our age cohort to retroactively adopt this bald look


Op, how do you know this? I mean they don't put it on their profile page. They don't ask, do they?
~ if they are quality men it isn't going to be on their minds at all.


OP here. You find out in short order when things progress to intimacy and your partner expresses polite surprise. They're not going to walk out -- they're about to get some -- but the surprise is communicated


Ewww. First, i find it weird that you had one experience with one loser 50-something man and decide that he is representative of the thinking and expectations of all 50-something men. Second, women in their 50s and 60s don't usually look the same down there as they did in the 20s and 30s...sometimes having a little follicle cover down there is useful. And if you like this guy, OP, you just need to set him straight. The bald bits thing is a fad of a too rich country desperate to spend money on frivolous things.
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 10:25     Subject: Re:Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
Anonymous wrote:
why do 50- and 60-something men from Match.com world expect our age cohort to retroactively adopt this bald look


Op, how do you know this? I mean they don't put it on their profile page. They don't ask, do they?
~ if they are quality men it isn't going to be on their minds at all.


OP here. You find out in short order when things progress to intimacy and your partner expresses polite surprise. They're not going to walk out -- they're about to get some -- but the surprise is communicated
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 08:40     Subject: Re:Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
why do 50- and 60-something men from Match.com world expect our age cohort to retroactively adopt this bald look


Op, how do you know this? I mean they don't put it on their profile page. They don't ask, do they?
~ if they are quality men it isn't going to be on their minds at all.
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 07:04     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
Anonymous wrote:I think a more appropriate analogy would be to require mento shave their chests. My 50 year-old brother date women 10-15 years younger and they don't like chest hair so he shaves off the little he has.


No, shaving some chest hair is like shaving your legs. If it's just a little chest hair, like your brother's, it's as hassle-free as shaving our armpits. Shaving off some chest hair is way easier and less intrusive than keeping the tender, hard-to-reach, sensitive folds between our legs bald and smooth and ridding all hair from pubic bone to ass crack ...
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 02:46     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
I think a more appropriate analogy would be to require mento shave their chests. My 50 year-old brother date women 10-15 years younger and they don't like chest hair so he shaves off the little he has.
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 02:24     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
Anonymous wrote:I know this thread will get overtaken by girls young enough to be my daughter, but I'm only interested in replies from my peer group: women born before 1965.


Why? Because I am absolutely, positively certain that we were not brought up to think that pubic hair must completely disappear and bald is the way to go. We may have trimmed, we may have groomed for a bikini, but nobody in the US was mandating the pre-pubescent look in 1980, 1990 and so on. (look at some porn if you don't believe me)

So my question is, why do 50- and 60-something men from Match.com world expect our age cohort to retroactively adopt this bald look (after 40 years of not doing it) and mimic young women? This really is happening in the online dating world. Newly single, divorced 57-year old men expect something they never grew up with, either.

It's not a great analogy, but I feel like it would be similar for me to expect a 55 yr old dude who has spent a lifetime of being clean-shaven to do this with his own body hair -- since that's the current fashion, he should get with the times.



Dang...that is a fine beard...It put's mine to shame.
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 02:20     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
Most men our age are fine with bush. They came of age in a time when it was normal and sexy to have it. The ones who'd fuss about needing it bald are the ones who aren't happy being with women their own age anyway, so no loss.

My issue is that I can't grow much body hair at all anymore.
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2015 00:12     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Not one of the late-40s/50-ish men I've been with recently has cared one whit that I have a trimmed & contained, but mostly untouched bush. Not one has been surprised by my pubic hair or been stupid enough to comment about it.


How many guys are seeing your bush?


Not a large number, but I've had a few lovers since I became single again.


Ugh, I'm sorry, I feel like I'm watching an episode of The Love Boat.


No fair! The Love Boat promised us that it "won't hurt anymore," which is not at all how I would describe a brazilian.
Anonymous
Post 10/29/2015 23:39     Subject: Really, truly for the 50+ set: When /why did we need to start ripping out our pubes, too ?!
Well, I'm merely 40 but also wondering WTF happened.