From the influence of the devil to overzealous restorers, there are numerous strange reasons and theories behind the conspicuous lack of pubic hair on women depicted in Western art.
If it had been the other way around (pubes on women and non on men), I bet you this article would’ve complained about that too. It’s just ragebait for feminists looking for a reason to be offended.
Who on earth do you think is offended? It’s a fairly erudite and interesting exploration of the subject, no one is upset about anything. Except maybe you?
Because, according to the article, only the women had their hair removed. The men did have pubes.
In ancient Greece, whether you were a hairy alpha male or a gorgeous and effeminate power bottom, the gents were generally allowed to let it all hang out. But when it came to depicting the female body, she was always entirely pubeless.
Feminists really have the weirdest obsessions
(dudes historically obsessing over the existence of body hair on women) women, am I right guys??
If it had been the other way around (pubes on women and non on men), I bet you this article would’ve complained about that too. It’s just ragebait for feminists looking for a reason to be offended.
You didn’t even read it, did you?
There’s more complaining in your comment than in the piece you’re complaining about. Cry more, you’ll show those feminists!
Sounds more like you didn’t read it, but OK
Who on earth do you think is offended? It’s a fairly erudite and interesting exploration of the subject, no one is upset about anything. Except maybe you?
They talk about male statues as well in the article, I don’t know why the title fixated on women.Because, according to the article, only the women had their hair removed. The men did have pubes.
Fuck you’re right, I’m sorry. I’m illiterate.
deleted by creator