Introduction: For a number of years I participated in the Half-Nekked Thursday self-photography meme.  About a year or so ago I began winding down and I can't even remember the last time I participated.  Maybe because it's finally spring here (even if an unusually cold and wet one even for the Pacific Northwest) or maybe it's because I've really started perking up since beginning a course of Welbutrin about a month ago, or maybe it's because I don't think I'll ever shake the "NSFW" designation for my poor politics and sociology of sex, gender, and relationships, or maybe it's just for the heck of it.  But I was thinking about it the other day took a few experimental over-the-shoulder photos.  And made a surprise discovery about my physical apperance that I thought was worth bringing up.

So we're all aware that there's, um, controversy about whether or not people in general, and women in particular, should remove their pubic hair. All fine and fair enough -- there's considerable differences of opinion, much involving appearance-related pressure, others involving "pre-pubescence," others involving other esthetics such as sensation, texture, conformity, and even cleanliness.

So! Not much agreement there.

There's another, stealthier area where agreement about body-hair removal appears to be much closer to universal. It's in an unusual place. And it appears almost exclusively on only one biological sex.

Check out the following keyword searches (from Google, May 11, 2011.)

Image captured by Figleaf (hey that's me) Posted under a Creative Commons license.

Wild, huh? Considering the controversy it's not surprising that there would be more than million hits on the key phrase "hair removal pubic." One million hits!

Wilder, and perhaps weirder, there are seventeen million hits on the key phrase "hair removal back."

You can mix and match key phrases, adding for instance waxing, shaving, laser, and other removal-related terms to the base terms "pubic" and "back" and get fairly consistent results. Back hair -- typically an age-related development that tends to signal middle age in men (along with ear and nose hair) has very, very few advocates, adherents, or aficionados.

Sigh. Which means it's very likely that instead of spending time contemplating my cute but manly butt in the photo below (c'mon, it looks cute!) your attention may instead be drawn in more of a shoulder-ly direction. And if it does your attention may further be drawn to a not-quite-lush but growing dusting of back and shoulder hair.

Based on Google's results I'm guessing odds are about 17 to 1 that if you do notice the back hair you won't find it very appealing. But I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.

"Image captured by Figleaf (hey that's me) Posted under a Creative Commons license.

Happy HNT (or Half-nekkid Thursday!)

Speaking of how it's a bad idea for parents to impose their body-modification ideas on their children, the anonymous but seemingly-credentialed author of The Neurocritic says

In 5 years of writing this blog, I have come across a multitude of news stories and press releases that make outrageous claims. Here's another one to add to the list. On the basis of two highly variable DTI studies in 36 pre-operative, pre-hormone treatment transgender individuals, now we're supposed to screen children for gender variant behavior and scan them at a young age, so their hormones can be altered before puberty?

Source: The Neurocritic

Yeah, if it's a good idea to wait for children to be old enough to make their own decisions before piercing their ears, circumcising them, or forcing them to wax or use cosmetics, let's definitely add deciding which sex hormones to pump them full of.

Original image from Miroski at DeviantArt.com.

So... it's entirely fine if you don't like porn. And if you don't like it, or if for some reason you wouldn't be comfortable with visual representations of a very, very wide variety of bodied people in sexual situations in genera, then you shouldn't follow the following link.

But!

The anonymous author of the Tumblr blog Sex is Not the Enemy does a pretty good job of finding erotic and pornographic images that manage to squeeze past Sturgeon's Law that "90% of everything is crap."  (Note: Sturgeon coined his law when asked why 90% of science fiction is crap.")

That's not to say that even if you approve of porn you're going to be 100% happy with all the images.  For two reasons.  First, because it's not "something for everyone:" people who like really heavy-duty, that-doesn't-look-like-the-fun-kind-of-hurts imagery are going to come up short.  Second, because there's enough variety in the images that something or other probably isn't going to float your boat.  For instance if you're only into really skinny, young heteros coupling there are plenty of images that are going to disappoint you.  But same if you're not into said skinny, young heteros, because there's a lot of that too.  Not into gorgeously hairless men coupling with each other?  That too.  Extravagantly hairy men and women in various combinations?  Same.

That said, if you're instead turned on by persistant images of a very wide (if not completely full-spectrum) variety of generally healthy, happy people who look like they're not only behaving sexually but actually enjoying it then... yeah, it's a pretty well-curated collection.

Interspersed among the images are some lovely figleaf-approval-worthy quotes by figleaf-approved people.  For instance this Holly Pervocracy quote

Male orgasms are not interesting, of course. Because women’s orgasms are like intricate flowers blown in fierce waves under a sky of fireworks, and men’s orgasms are like “splurt.” Sigh. It’s tough being a flower, but at least my sexuality isn’t comic relief.

Or this one from Greta Cristina

The Gay Best Friend is quickly becoming one of the most annoying movie tropes in town: yes, yes, positive gay visibility in media, it’s all very nice indeed, but when gay people are constantly relegated to the sidelines of the real story, there solely to provide support and wisdom and a shoulder to cry on for the people who really count, and kept carefully neutered to keep them likeable and safe, it starts to wear a bit thin.

Or this one from AfterEllen

You would never, not in a million years, see a major pop star launch into a revenge song called “Ur So Asian” or “Ur So Disabled.” That would not and should never happen. But it is still somehow acceptable for a Grammy-nominated, multi-platinum selling major recording artist to sing a song like “Ur So Gay” in revenge as “the crowd cheered and howled in laughter.”

Or this one from Susie Bright

You’ll notice that men who take an intellectual or professional interest in sexual education do not get called “sexperts,” for the good reason that it makes you sound like an idiot.

Or, finally, the quote that led me to SexIsNotTheEnemy from my server logs in the first place, this quote from, um, me.

I think the first question needs to be “What, exactly, is meant by ‘having sex like a man?’” Would we be talking sex like Jersey Shore comic-book character Situation Sorrentino? Sex like John Harvey Kellogg (the lifelong-celibate semen-conservation championing cornflakes guy? George W. Bush? George Will? Larry Craig? Barack Obama? Robert Mapplethorpe? Charlie Sheen? Your brother, dad, or son-in-law? Because sex for each of those men are or at least were pretty different from each other.

Even if the face of porn has changed in the last decade or so there really are some great reasons not to like porn. But! If you're wondered how on earth anyone would consider voluntarily being sexual in front of a camera, let alone why anyone might enjoy looking at the results, this site would be an excellent place to start finding out.

Wow, I’ve just uncovered a ton of draft posts that for some reason (probably episodes of writer’s block) just needed a sentence or two to finish and post. This one’s from last September! Sorry about the delay! —fl

Bond of Dear Diaspora has a cool, cool post about body image, presentation, and visual “truth.” (Emphasis mine)

A friend of mine explains our mutual friend’s recent swing toward femininity by saying that she’s interested in being sexy and attractive.

Another friend complains to me about someone responding to her masculine clothes by lamenting that she has such a nice figure, why doesn’t she show it off?

These are two incidents among many like them, all pointing toward the same conclusion: there is one right, attractive way to present a female body.

Let us first establish that presentation is not true. Not so much in the “don’t judge a book by its cover” sense as: there are a hundred ways to represent something, and done properly, each of them is extremely convincing, so convincing you will find yourself believing it.

...

My choice to de-emphasize my breasts and draw attention to my shoulders is no less accurate or honest an image than the opposite. Both the breasts and the shoulders are mine. I should be able to position them however I want.

Definitely read the whole thing here.

I realize it might already be obvious to everyone else but me. And goodness knows appearance, appearing, and the performance of appearance have been heavily critiqued. What I appreciate about this, though, is that what Bond’s talking about is about her intention to be seen.

Anyway, it makes sense. I mean, we all already appear different to other people. For instance without dressing or standing differently at all I look old to my children, young to my parents.

Sure, there’s the perfectly real chance that while Bond might prefer to draw attention to her shoulders, and her friend to her breasts, onlookers might instead direct their attention somewhere else entirely (e.g. face, legs, hands.) Lead a horse to water and all that. But it makes sense that it would be legitimate for us to condition how we’re seen by others based on our image of ourselves and based on the image we desire to present.