Anonymous wrote:Are the anti-hair people also against eyebrow grooming and facial hair removal?

Facial hair on women is not very feminine (I have it), and as you get older, women get more facial hair. Removing it doesn't make your face prepubescent. My wrinkles are a testament to that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want to date a bald man with a paunch so guess there are biases on both sides.

Sure, but having some kind of bush = woman. Being bald down there = prepubescent.

Eh, give it a rest.

"Having some kind of facial hair = man. Being cleanshaven = prepubescent."

This gets boring so fast.

Yes, exactly. Lots of youthful looking men grow facial hair precisely for the reason that - they look prepubescent without facial hair.

But, if the man without the facial hair looks like an adult, it doesn't matter.

Unlike a man's face, you can't really tell the age of a woman by looking at her shaved pubic area. So, if she has no hair there, yes, it can look prepubescent.

Please stop shaving your armpits and legs immediately. You look prepubescent if you shave those. See how dumb you sound. Stop policing what women do with their bodies.

But if a woman didn't shave or wax her armpits or legs, she would be policed for it instantly. She would be called gross and unhygienic.

The policing is happening already, all the time.

All the more reason for other women to stop saying dumb shit about women who choose to wax.

I get what you're saying, and I'm not the person who was criticizing waxing, but I actually agree with them that we should ask ourselves what the norms are and why. I don't judge a woman who waxes, but I do question a man who prefers it. And I do wonder about the way we talk about hair on women (other than their heads) as unclean or unhygienic. It's worth discussing.

Certainly it is women who don't conform to a hairless standard who get criticism cause zed more than the other way around, yes?

Because hair is seen as masculine, but I don’t think it has anything to do with pedophilia.

It’s because hair is seen as “messy” and “untidy”, and women are expected to be tidy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. My botox just kicked in and I can finally look at myself without cringing. It's for me. Same with bikini wax. All for me. Stop acting like we don't have agency over what we actually like on our own bodies.

I don't like crop tops like the younger girls wear so I don't wear them. I don't like long hair barrel curls so I don't do those.

You have agency, but you were also trained and raised in a patriarchal society.

Trained and raised and continuing to be bombarded by the messages. We think we have agency but it’s impossible because we are absolutely polluted by it. No one is immune to the influence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Are more women finally making the connection between the beauty industries emphasis on anti-aging products and the pedophilic nature of patriarchy? has it finally hit you that your obsession with not looking "old" caters to the predatory male gaze?"

Agree or disagree?

Agree. Knowing that many of the crass trends like fake nails, removing pubic hair etc came from porn. Porn stars even started a trend of anal bleaching. It’s disgusting.

I was wondering when fake nails would make their debut in this thread. Never change DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:I definitely rethink how obsessed we were with being rail-thin, without any curves, and hairless at certain points. The 90s and early 2000s ideal was definitely in line with pre-pubescent.

From porn.

Anonymous wrote:"Are more women finally making the connection between the beauty industries emphasis on anti-aging products and the pedophilic nature of patriarchy? has it finally hit you that your obsession with not looking "old" caters to the predatory male gaze?"

Agree or disagree?

Agree. Knowing that many of the crass trends like fake nails, removing pubic hair etc came from porn. Porn stars even started a trend of anal bleaching. It’s disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want to date a bald man with a paunch so guess there are biases on both sides.

Sure, but having some kind of bush = woman. Being bald down there = prepubescent.

Eh, give it a rest.

"Having some kind of facial hair = man. Being cleanshaven = prepubescent."

This gets boring so fast.

Yes, exactly. Lots of youthful looking men grow facial hair precisely for the reason that - they look prepubescent without facial hair.

But, if the man without the facial hair looks like an adult, it doesn't matter.

Unlike a man's face, you can't really tell the age of a woman by looking at her shaved pubic area. So, if she has no hair there, yes, it can look prepubescent.

Please stop shaving your armpits and legs immediately. You look prepubescent if you shave those. See how dumb you sound. Stop policing what women do with their bodies.

But if a woman didn't shave or wax her armpits or legs, she would be policed for it instantly. She would be called gross and unhygienic.

The policing is happening already, all the time.

All the more reason for other women to stop saying dumb shit about women who choose to wax.

I get what you're saying, and I'm not the person who was criticizing waxing, but I actually agree with them that we should ask ourselves what the norms are and why. I don't judge a woman who waxes, but I do question a man who prefers it. And I do wonder about the way we talk about hair on women (other than their heads) as unclean or unhygienic. It's worth discussing.

Certainly it is women who don't conform to a hairless standard who get criticism cause zed more than the other way around, yes?

Because hair is seen as masculine, but I don’t think it has anything to do with pedophilia.

You must love pixie cuts for women, right?

I don’t believe that hair is seen as masculine, society does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want to date a bald man with a paunch so guess there are biases on both sides.

Sure, but having some kind of bush = woman. Being bald down there = prepubescent.

Eh, give it a rest.

"Having some kind of facial hair = man. Being cleanshaven = prepubescent."

This gets boring so fast.

Yes, exactly. Lots of youthful looking men grow facial hair precisely for the reason that - they look prepubescent without facial hair.

But, if the man without the facial hair looks like an adult, it doesn't matter.

Unlike a man's face, you can't really tell the age of a woman by looking at her shaved pubic area. So, if she has no hair there, yes, it can look prepubescent.

Please stop shaving your armpits and legs immediately. You look prepubescent if you shave those. See how dumb you sound. Stop policing what women do with their bodies.

But if a woman didn't shave or wax her armpits or legs, she would be policed for it instantly. She would be called gross and unhygienic.

The policing is happening already, all the time.

All the more reason for other women to stop saying dumb shit about women who choose to wax.

I get what you're saying, and I'm not the person who was criticizing waxing, but I actually agree with them that we should ask ourselves what the norms are and why. I don't judge a woman who waxes, but I do question a man who prefers it. And I do wonder about the way we talk about hair on women (other than their heads) as unclean or unhygienic. It's worth discussing.

Certainly it is women who don't conform to a hairless standard who get criticism cause zed more than the other way around, yes?

Because hair is seen as masculine, but I don’t think it has anything to do with pedophilia.

You must love pixie cuts for women, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want to date a bald man with a paunch so guess there are biases on both sides.

Sure, but having some kind of bush = woman. Being bald down there = prepubescent.

Eh, give it a rest.

"Having some kind of facial hair = man. Being cleanshaven = prepubescent."

This gets boring so fast.

Yes, exactly. Lots of youthful looking men grow facial hair precisely for the reason that - they look prepubescent without facial hair.

But, if the man without the facial hair looks like an adult, it doesn't matter.

Unlike a man's face, you can't really tell the age of a woman by looking at her shaved pubic area. So, if she has no hair there, yes, it can look prepubescent.

Please stop shaving your armpits and legs immediately. You look prepubescent if you shave those. See how dumb you sound. Stop policing what women do with their bodies.

But if a woman didn't shave or wax her armpits or legs, she would be policed for it instantly. She would be called gross and unhygienic.

The policing is happening already, all the time.

All the more reason for other women to stop saying dumb shit about women who choose to wax.

I get what you're saying, and I'm not the person who was criticizing waxing, but I actually agree with them that we should ask ourselves what the norms are and why. I don't judge a woman who waxes, but I do question a man who prefers it. And I do wonder about the way we talk about hair on women (other than their heads) as unclean or unhygienic. It's worth discussing.

Certainly it is women who don't conform to a hairless standard who get criticism cause zed more than the other way around, yes?

Because hair is seen as masculine, but I don’t think it has anything to do with pedophilia.

Then you are incorrect. Hair is a function of an adult body. Period.

So you don't shave anything, right?

Are the anti-hair people also against eyebrow grooming and facial hair removal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want to date a bald man with a paunch so guess there are biases on both sides.

Sure, but having some kind of bush = woman. Being bald down there = prepubescent.

Eh, give it a rest.

"Having some kind of facial hair = man. Being cleanshaven = prepubescent."

This gets boring so fast.

Yes, exactly. Lots of youthful looking men grow facial hair precisely for the reason that - they look prepubescent without facial hair.

But, if the man without the facial hair looks like an adult, it doesn't matter.

Unlike a man's face, you can't really tell the age of a woman by looking at her shaved pubic area. So, if she has no hair there, yes, it can look prepubescent.

Please stop shaving your armpits and legs immediately. You look prepubescent if you shave those. See how dumb you sound. Stop policing what women do with their bodies.

But if a woman didn't shave or wax her armpits or legs, she would be policed for it instantly. She would be called gross and unhygienic.

The policing is happening already, all the time.

All the more reason for other women to stop saying dumb shit about women who choose to wax.

I get what you're saying, and I'm not the person who was criticizing waxing, but I actually agree with them that we should ask ourselves what the norms are and why. I don't judge a woman who waxes, but I do question a man who prefers it. And I do wonder about the way we talk about hair on women (other than their heads) as unclean or unhygienic. It's worth discussing.

Certainly it is women who don't conform to a hairless standard who get criticism cause zed more than the other way around, yes?

I wax and I've never had a man express a preference for it or against it. Maybe it's the type of man I've chosen to be intimate with. I think women are way more concerned with this than men are. I am also an avid advocate of women and girls who do not wax or shave. I have a friend who confided in me that she is pressuring her 22 year old to shave her legs and I told her to leave it alone and that there is nothing wrong with hair on a woman. But yes, generally, hairy women still get criticized mainly by other women.

What bothers me about threads like these is that OP is asking women to change their behavior in order to prevent sexual assault by men. Can we all agree that that ludicous and leave women alone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want to date a bald man with a paunch so guess there are biases on both sides.

Sure, but having some kind of bush = woman. Being bald down there = prepubescent.

Eh, give it a rest.

"Having some kind of facial hair = man. Being cleanshaven = prepubescent."

This gets boring so fast.

Yes, exactly. Lots of youthful looking men grow facial hair precisely for the reason that - they look prepubescent without facial hair.

But, if the man without the facial hair looks like an adult, it doesn't matter.

Unlike a man's face, you can't really tell the age of a woman by looking at her shaved pubic area. So, if she has no hair there, yes, it can look prepubescent.

Please stop shaving your armpits and legs immediately. You look prepubescent if you shave those. See how dumb you sound. Stop policing what women do with their bodies.

But if a woman didn't shave or wax her armpits or legs, she would be policed for it instantly. She would be called gross and unhygienic.

The policing is happening already, all the time.

All the more reason for other women to stop saying dumb shit about women who choose to wax.

I get what you're saying, and I'm not the person who was criticizing waxing, but I actually agree with them that we should ask ourselves what the norms are and why. I don't judge a woman who waxes, but I do question a man who prefers it. And I do wonder about the way we talk about hair on women (other than their heads) as unclean or unhygienic. It's worth discussing.

Certainly it is women who don't conform to a hairless standard who get criticism cause zed more than the other way around, yes?

Because hair is seen as masculine, but I don’t think it has anything to do with pedophilia.

Then you are incorrect. Hair is a function of an adult body. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want to date a bald man with a paunch so guess there are biases on both sides.

Sure, but having some kind of bush = woman. Being bald down there = prepubescent.

Eh, give it a rest.

"Having some kind of facial hair = man. Being cleanshaven = prepubescent."

This gets boring so fast.

Yes, exactly. Lots of youthful looking men grow facial hair precisely for the reason that - they look prepubescent without facial hair.

But, if the man without the facial hair looks like an adult, it doesn't matter.

Unlike a man's face, you can't really tell the age of a woman by looking at her shaved pubic area. So, if she has no hair there, yes, it can look prepubescent.

Please stop shaving your armpits and legs immediately. You look prepubescent if you shave those. See how dumb you sound. Stop policing what women do with their bodies.

But if a woman didn't shave or wax her armpits or legs, she would be policed for it instantly. She would be called gross and unhygienic.

The policing is happening already, all the time.

All the more reason for other women to stop saying dumb shit about women who choose to wax.

Well said. Low IQ "feminist" sez "you were so brainwashed by the patriarchy that you can't think; therefore you wax". As if I'm that dumb. Fck off with your condescension. A beefy, hairy lesbian does not have more feminist credibility than I do just by virtue of her grooming and sex partner decisions.

Why do you associate hair on women with being "beefy" or a lesbian? Also why do you use terms like beefy, hairy, and lesbian as insults?

Agree. Being hairy, or being larger shouldn't mean lesbian. Being a lesbian isn't an insult. You've been conditioned to think it's shame worthy.

We all have body hair. The issue isn't shaving or not shaving. If we made bathing suits and other clothing conducive to actual female, adult bodies there wouldn't be anything visible to shame.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want to date a bald man with a paunch so guess there are biases on both sides.

Sure, but having some kind of bush = woman. Being bald down there = prepubescent.

Eh, give it a rest.

"Having some kind of facial hair = man. Being cleanshaven = prepubescent."

This gets boring so fast.

Yes, exactly. Lots of youthful looking men grow facial hair precisely for the reason that - they look prepubescent without facial hair.

But, if the man without the facial hair looks like an adult, it doesn't matter.

Unlike a man's face, you can't really tell the age of a woman by looking at her shaved pubic area. So, if she has no hair there, yes, it can look prepubescent.

Please stop shaving your armpits and legs immediately. You look prepubescent if you shave those. See how dumb you sound. Stop policing what women do with their bodies.

But if a woman didn't shave or wax her armpits or legs, she would be policed for it instantly. She would be called gross and unhygienic.

The policing is happening already, all the time.

All the more reason for other women to stop saying dumb shit about women who choose to wax.

Well said. Low IQ "feminist" sez "you were so brainwashed by the patriarchy that you can't think; therefore you wax". As if I'm that dumb. Fck off with your condescension. A beefy, hairy lesbian does not have more feminist credibility than I do just by virtue of her grooming and sex partner decisions.

Why do you associate hair on women with being "beefy" or a lesbian? Also why do you use terms like beefy, hairy, and lesbian as insults?

I don't. It's called argumentum ad absurdum. You use an extreme case to show the fallacy of the less extreme case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want to date a bald man with a paunch so guess there are biases on both sides.

Sure, but having some kind of bush = woman. Being bald down there = prepubescent.

Eh, give it a rest.

"Having some kind of facial hair = man. Being cleanshaven = prepubescent."

This gets boring so fast.

Yes, exactly. Lots of youthful looking men grow facial hair precisely for the reason that - they look prepubescent without facial hair.

But, if the man without the facial hair looks like an adult, it doesn't matter.

Unlike a man's face, you can't really tell the age of a woman by looking at her shaved pubic area. So, if she has no hair there, yes, it can look prepubescent.

Please stop shaving your armpits and legs immediately. You look prepubescent if you shave those. See how dumb you sound. Stop policing what women do with their bodies.

But if a woman didn't shave or wax her armpits or legs, she would be policed for it instantly. She would be called gross and unhygienic.

The policing is happening already, all the time.

All the more reason for other women to stop saying dumb shit about women who choose to wax.

I get what you're saying, and I'm not the person who was criticizing waxing, but I actually agree with them that we should ask ourselves what the norms are and why. I don't judge a woman who waxes, but I do question a man who prefers it. And I do wonder about the way we talk about hair on women (other than their heads) as unclean or unhygienic. It's worth discussing.

Certainly it is women who don't conform to a hairless standard who get criticism cause zed more than the other way around, yes?

Because hair is seen as masculine, but I don’t think it has anything to do with pedophilia.