It might seem a stupid argument, but the concept of naked pubic hair or its absence would almost say he has social importance.
Lately, since the late nineties onwards there was a tendency to shave their pubic hair more often. Who's going nudist camps have seen the development of increasingly massive hairless. Even in photos and film we see this trend.
This is true both for men and women but with a female-dominated, and when it comes to issues of social communication and naked costume is thick and still feminine.
The male pubic hair does not seem as important as message and aesthetic communication than women. The male or not there and his absence is almost entirely an optical illusion on the greater length of the penis resulting in a canon of modern hedonism.
Instead of great importance for women.
First things first
The only representations before the advent of photography and paintings and sculptures are those EXCLUSIVELY passed on, like all ancient and modern culture, from the male point of view.
In ancient times, male genitalia were visible (unlike now) in the effort of the representation of aesthetic beauty, or heroic idealization of force or rappresentanzione to and the divine. The presence or absence of pubic hair does not affect its effectiveness. the only difference is the representation of man adolescent (aesthetically appreciated by men in ancient Greece) and the pubic hair is almost always absent.
Instead the female nude has always been almost covered by a veil or a hand full nudity and depictions of the vulva is practically nonexistent and the same thing of pubic hair.
This pattern has remained amazingly unchanged until the end of the nineteenth century.
Female nude art history is full of it but pubic hair female vulva and there's no trace was also changing times, historical and cultural references. Yet for the women of the time was not in full use hair removal.
By the Impressionists, continuing for the last avant-gardes of the twentieth century female pubic fleece is represented exclusively for meaning and a purely erotic and vulgar language or to challenge the conservative middle class.
Shortly after as a representation of reality and beauty.
Up to this day it disappears again. Indeed, while in the seventies, despite the fear of censorship and the strong Catholic influence and the woman completely naked with pubic hair is rappesentava explicitly through gional as serious outlook, express or European, to this day it is returned hypocrisy of pretending to a transgression with a formula that would accept modern times but in fact denies it and has within a conservatism of the past. And the pubic hair is gone or reduced to a minimum again ternimi.
But what does the pubic hair?
Pubic hair (female, the male is simply being adults and not very aesthetic, if not the fake male) has a sense of maturity and sexual availability. But why then it rises, and why the company now so it ignores sexual phobia? And why do the porn movies and erotic magazines that have as its theme the representation of sexual actresses and actors are almost always without hair?
Yet in the 70's, when it finally fell on the bare ground of challenge, both in pornographic, erotic or were difficult to copyright without hair.
Even in today's pornographic films by a certain class discrimination as to the meaning of pubic hair: in the movie with beautiful women and a decent direction the hair does not exist (class), in movies swingers women with crumbling or certainly not the perfect hair There is almost always (crass). In other words: if you are nice and professional you will be shaved if you have a home and the proletarian low you have the hair. What is absolutely not true in reality but who knows what this subliminal message has subconsciously influenced or even created a new fashion.
. By contrast, the libertarian ideas of modern society has been forced to accept the body and sexuality as an important part and try to asexual component in its institutionalized returning to deny the vulva and pubic hair. See for example the sevices of the magazines that have nude as Playboy or even Max GQ in which there is no trace of the vulva or pubic hair but are services of female nude (at least until 2011, but you know fashion and moral change ). A contradiction itself: accepting the message while denying pornographic and reasserting the normal sexuality and body.
But women in this part of the cultural and political, as well as contradictory and hypocritical, the pubic hair has taken on meanings and communications more psychological and moral, even if inevitably conditioned by aesthetics conveyed through the media. And that is what we will investigate in the second half.
|BEFORE THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ART|
|in the twentieth century|
pubic hair part two