on 27-01-2014 12:53 PM
In the name of community spirit, I dared not title this thread "the year of the bush"
On John Ruskin's wedding night, legend has it, the critic fainted on finding that – unlike the Elysian statues of his fantasies – women had body hair. Monday is the 114th anniversary of Ruskin's death. Who would've predicted that instead of laughing at Victorian prudery, many men still expect their sexual encounters to entail pudenda, pins and pits as marble smooth as those of young Ruskin's imagination?
But there's a change in the wind, a turn in the worm: oh yes, something's in the hair. Though I'm no astrologer, I think 2014 might just be the year of the bush.
on 27-01-2014 12:59 PM
This is not intended to cause mischief. The story surprised me with it's implication that the majority take it off these days. I don't think they were talking only women either. 😄
on 27-01-2014 01:12 PM
mmm i will stay silent on should it stay or should it go, it's a very hairy question.
on 27-01-2014 01:18 PM
@boris1gary wrote:mmm i will stay silent on should it stay or should it go, it's a very hairy question.
I was surprised at the writer for being surprised that 50% of british women don't and equally surprised at they can't expect him to if they don't. 😄
It's an interesting point about corporate invention of need and selling it to us.
on 27-01-2014 01:21 PM
Think I will just watch this thread and say nothing.
on 27-01-2014 01:33 PM
@purple_haize wrote:Think I will just watch this thread and say nothing.
This is when we need multiple choice.
Surpirsed or not surprised 😄
on 27-01-2014 01:47 PM
John Ruskin was considered a Great Man and as such his poor wife copped the flak when he claimed not to make her his True Wife because of distaste of her less than hairless body. Can't help wondering if the Great Man lacked a certain necessary hormone or three?
As for to bush or not to bush - to each his/her own I think
on 27-01-2014 02:06 PM
me too, except to add definitely a DIYer.
on 27-01-2014 02:13 PM
on 27-01-2014 02:26 PM