I used to pull the underpants down, like the other chatter, but sometime in my mid-30s I started using the underpants fly (I wear briefs) and won't go back. It took about a week to be able to reach in through both flys (flies?) in one, um, fluid motion to pull it out, but with a little bit of practice it's much more efficient. And your belt stays buckled, so anything clipped to it won't fall off.
So why do we say that a baseball player "flied" out instead of flew out? Well, Okay, I get why. It's the same as why a man was hanged and not hung. Unless the man was hung, if you get my drift.
Also, I have never understood why it is the Maple Leafs, instead of Leaves, and also what you call a single Red Sox player. A Red Sock? Do people do that?
Isn't English interesting?
Gene, I'm 14 so kind of young for your poll, but most of my classmates shave 'down there'. I'm sending a picture to your email so you know this is real.
Hahaha. I am so glad I missed this question the first time through because I might have freaked. Now I am only mildly alarmed, and 99 percent certain this is a joke, but just to be sure, I have deleted all my personal email going back to 1996.
I'm all for grooming however one wishes, and I'm not going to psychoanalyze anyone's pubic grooming preferences. However, when this topic comes up there is usually at least one male (I am female) who expresses disgust at the presence of hair in the female pubic area. I have no objections to a man that likes an unobstructed view, but I have major objections (and slight revulsion) to a man who expresses disgust at the signs of a sexually mature female form. That is all.
One of the weirdest men in history was the British art critic John Ruskin, who divorced his first wife Effie (a lovely looking woman) after 6 years of unconsummated marriage. There has been much speculation as to why this occurred; Ruskin said in the divorce proceedings that although Effie seemed beautiful to other men, upon her disrobing, he discovered she was repulsive to him.
Ruskin's main biographer concluded that he was appalled at the simple fact of Effie's pubic hair: That his only experience with female nudity involved Greek statuary, in which pubic hair (on women) is customarily removed by the artist.
Others speculate that Ruskin was repulsed by menstrual blood. Either way, he was a creep and a immature a-hole and unspeakably cruel to an innocent young woman, and deserves this sort of eternal ridicule.
Is false humility always smug? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/02/25/my-name-is-ginger-coons-not-ginger-coons-allow-me-to-explain/
Okay, this made me laugh out loud. This is about as pretentious as anything can get. And yes, under the false flag of humility.
This is not a humblebrag, exactly. It is a humblepose. She is a humbleposeur.
I'm a groomed-but-natural lady, but my reason wasn't among your options. I went with preferring how it looks, as the closest option, but it's less aesthetics than...political, almost? That's overstating it, but I'm in the Delaney/Moran school of thought: it's a sign of being a grown woman, and I don't like the idea of erasing that sign, aping the look of a girl. There's nothing wrong with looking like an adult woman.
Many years ago, I wrote a philosophical explanation of why women should not clear cut. I've been trying to find it, without success. I will try to reproduce it here.
One of the reasons men love and respect women is that women are more put together than men are. It is a vast overgeneralization, but it is also essentially true, that women care more what they look like, are neater, smell better, are kinder, more genteel and whatnot. They are more put together. This is part of their allure to men. Cool and put together. The best explanation of why women avoid visible panty lines came several years ago in this chat, from a woman: They don't CARE if men like VPL, they are not dressing to impress men, they are dressing to impress other women, and so they want to look finished and complete and in control. I repeat: In control.
So, when the clothes come off, men don't want to see cool and in control and carefully put together and sculpted and mainted just so, probably shaved just hours ago to maintain absolute put-togetherness with absolutely no hairs in place or out of place.
We want to get to the wild and savage.
Happened to me at Disney World last November. I walked into a restroom and was welcomed by the site of a saggy, white bum, shorts all the way down to the floor at the urinal. I still have nightmares about it.
Another poster reported a similar occurrence.
I have noticed people at the urinal tickling themselves near the base of the spine, I think to start things going. I never asked what that was about, naturally.
You probably all know about the guy with terrible bruises and abrasians on his private part who went to a doctor. Doctor gave him ointments and such, but nothing worked. Then one day he was at a urinal, and noticed the man next to him had a flawless thingie, and he screwed up the courage and asked the guy if he did anything particular for maintenance. Guy said, well, not really, except after I pee I do tap it three times, and then tuck it away. So the guy tries that and within two weeks his condition was gone!
So he went back to the doctor to berate him for having just given him salves that did not work, when this very basic advice did the trick. "So you just tapped it three times after you pee?" "Yep." "What were you doing before?" "Oh, I would WRING it out... "
The Empress of The Style Invitational doesn't see the names of the entrants whose entries she is judging. She can't tell until later if the entries she picked are all from the same person. The Invitational still regularly will run four or more entries by one Loser. There might be less multiple ink than from the Czar's reign, though, because there's now a limit of 25 entries a person. If one person was fabulously clever and sent in 200 entries, there was more of a chance he'd get a lot of ink in a given week. -- The Empress Herself
Ah, okay. This is the Empress reacting to my sense that she valued diversity in the winners more than the Czar did, trying for more new voices or fewer multiple inks to the same person. Since she reads em without knowing the submitters, clearly this is wrong.
While do not agree with the two young women in this article, it is the best example I have seen of the whole love the sinner but hate the sin. I think that most Christians are somewhere between these two women and full acceptance that there is nothing wrong at all with homosexuality.(I am in the latter camp.) The rabid ultra right wingers grab all the headlines but I don't think they speak for most American Christians on most social issues.
These young women ALMOST got it right. Why is it such a leap from "God loves sinners, hates the sin," to acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, we haven't really figured out what "sin" is, yet. If God is so unknowable, maybe it's a little presumptuous of us to claim to know what He thinks? The only obstacle to that is to regard the Bible as the literal word of God, and if you are there, then I demand you practice it all. Live like Leviticus, why don'tcha?
Women who remove all their pubic hair look no more like children than do children who dress up in their mothers' clothes. Also, if we're going to keep insisting that clean-shaven women look like children, then let's say that clean-shaven men do too. Right?
Several people made this seemingly reasonable comparison, so I suppose I should cede some ground here: Of course hairless female genitalia do not really resemble the genitalia of a little girl; we all understand that. But it is a move back in that direction. We all understand that, too. And no, a close-shaven man is not a move back toward little boy; men have been close-shaven for millennia. The shaving trend in women is by and large a very modern phenomenon -- though classic art of the female nude frequently omitted pubes, this was generally seen not as journalism, but as an act of delicacy on the part of the artist. Some surviving art across many cultures makes it clear that pubes were ubiquitous. I refer you to Hokusai's 1814 humorous erotic masterpiece, Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, which should be safe for work, and I think is safe for work, but use discretion if you feel you must.
My point here is that for most of humankind, women did not mow the lawn much or at all, and the lawnmowing seems to have coincided with the explosion of cheap, easily available obstetric-level pornography, which for some reason adopted the bare esthetic almost universally. I think you have to be on the defensive to see no linkage.
We're going to go out on this one, but I'd like to remind you of something Gina said not long ago in a column with me. (I like our lead paragraph here.) Gina teaches feminist literature, and as such tends to teach classes largely of young women. They reported (as you will see delicately alluded to near the end) that their lovers and suitors -- young men weaned on pornography -- seemed to think that sex, perpetrated normally, ends with a certain degrading act, and expected them to same acquiesce to same. If you are someone familiar with modern porn, you know what I am talking about. If you are not, consider yourself lucky. If Gina's anecdotal evidence is right, it really bothers me. Which is why we will poll about it for the next chat.
See you in the updates, first.