Photographer
Living Canvas
Posts: 2039
Denver, Colorado, US
Vivka wrote:
Mine is lasered, so I cant grow it even if I wanted to. You, are awesome 
Photographer
Connor Photography
Posts: 8539
Newark, Delaware, US
I am a photographer, I can easily adapt and improvise. Give me the brush, landing strip, or bald eagle, I will make it work. Yes, it is not perfect, but will it ever be perfect. I have not seen or worked with a perfect model. If it is so easy, everyone is a photographer. I take personality, look and the ability to pose anytime over hair issue.
Photographer
Don Bothem Photography
Posts: 50
Brunswick, Georgia, US
I will not shoot nudes and I think shaved goes back to the old porn movies where the girls were clean and why were they clean, because men wanted the young look, the prepubescent look. If your shaved then alright, but, if you sit and spread not a model, just another girl wanting somebody to look at their junk.
Model
ElisAbEtH
Posts: 2142
Charleston, West Virginia, US
i personally shave it cuz i hate hair...
i've seen really beautiful models that don't shave it and some that do shave it...
Model
Erin Taylor
Posts: 1367
Jacksonville, Florida, US
i don't think thing there's a big demand for it at all, a very small demand for it actually.
I personally think it's disgusting.
I know I don't want my stuff looking like a freaking monkey.
I'm all shaven, but I've done the landing strip thing here and there,
and that's kind of fun.
I would only do it for a shoot if I was getting a good sum of money day of shoot, and money for each day it took to grow out [since I wouldn't be doing other shoots on those days]
Model
Erin Taylor
Posts: 1367
Jacksonville, Florida, US
Photographer
BodyartBabes
Posts: 2005
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
If God wanted you to have pubic hair, you would have been born with it . . .
KM Same could be said for "breasts" too. You are not born with those either.
Things happen at puberty, and G-d probably intended for that too.
This whole argument almost sounds pedaphillic!
Why do threads like this totally destroy my faith/belief that there is any hope for the future, and that model/photography is not just some thinly veiled guise for hooking up, personal fetish or kink, or just sex?
People don't talk about images, ideas, or messages, or getting the job done. They talk about personal attributes, age, looks, shaving, etc, etc.
I gess I'm just too old, and have a whole different view of what "photography" is about.
Scott
Model
ElisAbEtH
Posts: 2142
Charleston, West Virginia, US
BodyartBabes wrote:
Same could be said for "breasts" too. You are not born with those either.
Things happen at puberty, and G-d probably intended for that too.
This whole argument almost sounds pedaphillic!
Why do threads like this totally destroy my faith/belief that there is any hope for the future, and that model/photography is not just some thinly veiled guise for hooking up, personal fetish or kink, or just sex?
People don't talk about images, ideas, or messages, or getting the job done. They talk about personal attributes, age, looks, shaving, etc, etc.
I gess I'm just too old, and have a whole different view of what "photography" is about.
Scott I did say that some models are hot with and some models are hot without...
It is a scientific fact that those who shave are more prone to yeast infections, and catching stds... but that is not an issue with me 
Photographer
Living Canvas
Posts: 2039
Denver, Colorado, US
BodyartBabes wrote:
Same could be said for "breasts" too. You are not born with those either.
Things happen at puberty, and G-d probably intended for that too.
This whole argument almost sounds pedaphillic!
Why do threads like this totally destroy my faith/belief that there is any hope for the future, and that model/photography is not just some thinly veiled guise for hooking up, personal fetish or kink, or just sex?
People don't talk about images, ideas, or messages, or getting the job done. They talk about personal attributes, age, looks, shaving, etc, etc.
I guess I'm just too old, and have a whole different view of what "photography" is about.
Scott There are plenty of genres in photography that have nothing to do with sex what soever.
Architectural
Landscape
Family Portraiture
Macro
A lot of modeling based photography does have to do with sex, no matter how subtle.
Why? Sex sells. And a lot of commercial advertising uses models to display their products. Sorry, shaving your genitals serves purposes other than "to imply the model is of a young age" or whatever pedophilic ideas you have.
Shit, why does no one have a problem with female models shaving their legs and armpits? That's not natural either. One might argue it makes them look much younger, because before puberty they didn't have to shave those areas. Give me a break...
Model
Erin Taylor
Posts: 1367
Jacksonville, Florida, US
Vincent Wolff wrote:
18+ https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … up_id=&ua=
Image of Carlotta Champagne #3155, taken by Rob Domaschuk #159619. Pubic hair drawn exactly like in photo. Not disgusting, all depends on who wears it I guess I wouldn't consider that "full bush", slightly thicker than they typical landing strip.
Big diff in that and and full bush
Photographer
Living Canvas
Posts: 2039
Denver, Colorado, US
Erin Taylor wrote:
I wouldn't consider that "full bush", slightly thicker than they typical landing strip.
Big diff in that and and full bush +1
Artist/Painter
Art of Vincent Wolff
Posts: 2925
Wheaton, Illinois, US
no, but she has one on her site wear it is considerably longer.
Bottom line is, it's a very personal decision....for you its disgusting, but it can work well for others, that's all.
Photographer
Markus Goerg
Posts: 1689
Los Angeles, California, US
Vivka wrote:
Mine is lasered, so I cant grow it even if I wanted to. God bless you.
Photographer
Eastfist
Posts: 3582
Green Bay, Wisconsin, US
Photographer
Jaddie
Posts: 43
Buford, Georgia, US
Vivka wrote:
Mine is lasered, so I cant grow it even if I wanted to. Dear Vivka & Friends
Bless you, sweet angel!
--Jaddie
Model
Bon voyage MM
Posts: 9508
Honolulu, Hawaii, US
Erin Taylor wrote:
i don't think thing there's a big demand for it at all, a very small demand for it actually. I think one major difference may be the girl.
Very slim girls with small busts and small butts are seem to be preferred to have no hair.
Curvier girls, bigger busts and hips, seem to be preffered to have some.
Maybe it is an age thing?
Model
Dekilah
Posts: 5236
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Wow, some people are really opinionated about other peoples' pubic hair. I mean it's one to dicuss it, it's another thing to come in here and see all these blanket statements like (obviously, not word for word):
- Ewww, all pubic hair is disgusting and gross
- All women should have pubic hair and they look like little girls if they don't
I find it odd that some of the models who don't have it seem to be very opinionated that no one should because it's gross, but you don't see the reverse (women who do have it saying its gross not to have it).
It's perfectly acceptable for a model to personally decide they do not like having pubic hair or want it shaped like a puppy dog or a heart or to have a full "bush" but do we really need to voice our (negative) opinions about others' pubic hair style or presence choice? I suppose we can, but it does look a bit foolish if you just go around insulting pubic hair like that.
Hmm... maybe I'm the one who is wrong here. Maybe I should be insulting those who have pubic hair on the lower parts of their bikini area and those that are shaven on the upper parts (because that would be the reverse of mine). Or should I only insult those that are the exact reverse? I'm not sure there are any of those. Dang it!
Note: sarcasm, but I am half serious
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
BodyartBabes wrote:
Same could be said for "breasts" too. You are not born with those either.
Things happen at puberty, and G-d probably intended for that too.
This whole argument almost sounds pedaphillic!
Why do threads like this totally destroy my faith/belief that there is any hope for the future, and that model/photography is not just some thinly veiled guise for hooking up, personal fetish or kink, or just sex?
People don't talk about images, ideas, or messages, or getting the job done. They talk about personal attributes, age, looks, shaving, etc, etc.
I gess I'm just too old, and have a whole different view of what "photography" is about.
Scott Apparently you don't enjoy my sense of humor . . . .
Photographer
Archived
Posts: 13509
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Sabrina Maree wrote:
I think one major difference may be the girl.
Very slim girls with small busts and small butts are seem to be preferred to have no hair.
Curvier girls, bigger busts and hips, seem to be preffered to have some.
Maybe it is an age thing? It makes sense that the attraction to a sexually mature female would include all the traits of sexual maturity - larger breasts, wider hips, pubic hair. The pubic hair would be a sign of sexual maturity.
Whereas the attraction to a more youthful type figure would include the traits of sexual immaturity - pre-pubescent busts, hips, pubic hair. The lack of pubic hair would be a sign of youth.
I'm not saying that people who like one style or another are pedophiles, but that there are evolutionary preferences there, as well as cultural ones.
Photographer
r T p
Posts: 3511
Los Angeles, California, US
i'm all for public hair
... and private too
Photographer
This User Is Not Here
Posts: 1964
Durango, Colorado, US
While I don't like an overgrown "bush", I think shaved pubic areas are gross to look at, to be honest.
Body Painter
Extreme Body Art
Posts: 4938
South Jordan, Utah, US
BodyartBabes wrote:
Same could be said for "breasts" too. You are not born with those either.
Things happen at puberty, and G-d probably intended for that too.
This whole argument almost sounds pedaphillic!
Why do threads like this totally destroy my faith/belief that there is any hope for the future, and that model/photography is not just some thinly veiled guise for hooking up, personal fetish or kink, or just sex?
People don't talk about images, ideas, or messages, or getting the job done. They talk about personal attributes, age, looks, shaving, etc, etc.
I gess I'm just too old, and have a whole different view of what "photography" is about.
Scott What people don't understand is that pubic hair starts growing in at different times in life for everyone... If you recall Traci Lords had Pubic hair at age 15... so age has nothing to do with pubic hair.
Shaving is a preference thing, it has nothing to do what is or is not artistic, as I posted earlier, there were artists in the 1800s that worked with models that were shaved as well as bush, so Just because someone shaves does not make it pornographic (Pedophilic) and like wise just because someone has a full bush/trimmed bush does not make it artistic.
Hair is a preference, make up is a preference, hair style is a preference, it's all opinion, there is no fact-based arguments here.
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
Extreme Body Art wrote:
What people don't understand is that pubic hair starts growing in at different times in life for everyone... If you recall Traci Lords had Pubic hair at age 15... so age has nothing to do with pubic hair.
Shaving is a preference thing, it has nothing to do what is or is not artistic, as I posted earlier, there were artists in the 1800s that worked with models that were shaved as well as bush, so Just because someone shaves does not make it pornographic (Pedophilic) and like wise just because someone has a full bush/trimmed bush does not make it artistic.
Hair is a preference, make up is a preference, hair style is a preference, it's all opinion, there is no fact-based arguments here. It starts growing a lot younger than 15 in many cases. But, obviously, age does have *something to do with pubic hair. You can be pretty sure that 6 year olds won't have it, and barring some version of "shaving" 26 year olds will.
Very few people seem to even understand what a pedophile is attracted to. Certainly a "pre puberty" female would lack pubic hair, but that's only one aspect. They are typically also short, since female puberty often starts by 10 or so. But finding short women attractive isn't a sign that one is a pedophile. Nor is finding a shaved pubic area preferable.
A recent episode of one of the "Law and Order" shows featured a man who was attracted to "girls between 3 and 9." THAT is a pedophile. Not some guy who likes a 19 year old skinny girl who shaves.
From the other direction, I don't even know what to say to the "pubic hair is gross" bunch. As a rule, people with pubic hair wash it regularly, as they do any other hair, and their skin. As mentioned above, pubic hair has some value in preventing infection, but ultimately, it's a personal choice.
Edited for typo.
Body Painter
Extreme Body Art
Posts: 4938
South Jordan, Utah, US
MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
It starts growing a lot younger than 15 in many cases. But, obviously, age does have *something to do with pubic hair. You can be pretty sure that 6 year olds won't have it, and barring some version of "shaving" 26 year olds will.
Very few people seem to even understand what a pedophile is attracted to. Certainly a "pre puberty" female would lack pubic hair, but that's only one aspect. They are typically also short, since female puberty often starts by 10 or so. But finding short women attractive isn't a sign that one is a pedophile. Nor is finding a shaved pubic area preferable.
A recent episode of one of the "Law and Order" shows featured a man who was attracted to "girls between 3 and 9." THAT is a pedophile. Not some guy who likes a 19 year old skinny girl who shaves.
From the other direction, I don't even know what to say to the "pubic hair is gross" bunch. As a rule, people with pubic hair wash it regularly, as they do any other hair, and their skill. As mentioned above, pubic hair has some value in preventing infection, but ultimately, it's a personal choice. Very nicely said.
Model
P I X I E
Posts: 35440
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Charles West wrote:
Glamour and porn = shaved
Art = trimmed bush, full bush, something to cover it up.
I'll still work with models on a trade for basis without. I just won't give them my money anymore.
Some people see "art." I see pussy. Very difficult seeing otherwise. My pussy IS art!
Photographer
beta
Posts: 2097
Nashville, Tennessee, US
I prefer a bush...
But that is my personal preference,, the model may prefer something different and I am okay with that... Not sure why the strong statements against either option..
Photographer
beta
Posts: 2097
Nashville, Tennessee, US
PixieMini wrote:
My pussy IS art! Yes it is!
Photographer
Leroy Dickson
Posts: 8239
Flint, Michigan, US
JD200 wrote:
The Pubic Option is being hotly debated in the Senate as we speak. Lets hold off until our "leaders" decide what is best for each and everyone of us. I thought they had already agreed they were tired of Bush
Model
P I X I E
Posts: 35440
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
penn wrote:
Yes it is!
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
PixieMini wrote:
My pussy IS art!
Someday, I'll do a shot like that. For now, it's just handy when the model is comfortable with her whole body being a part of the project.
Photographer
mphunt
Posts: 923
Hudson, Florida, US
From a photography stand point, don't care either way. All, nothing, and anywhere in between. From a personal preference.................well.....
Photographer
Luminos
Posts: 6065
Columbia, Maryland, US
PixieMini wrote:
My pussy IS art! Proof?
Photographer
Sync Studioz
Posts: 109
Frankfurt, Hassia, Germany
Charles West wrote:
Glamour and porn = shaved
Art = trimmed bush, full bush, something to cover it up.
I'll still work with models on a trade for basis without. I just won't give them my money anymore.
Some people see "art." I see pussy. Very difficult seeing otherwise. haaaaa well said
I think a "landing strip" is cute :-p
Photographer
EnlightendedPhotography
Posts: 828
Eugene, Oregon, US
I prefer pubic hair for my human statue project ! It looks more natural and realistic.
Guess I am old school and prefer a little mystery.
Model
Grace R
Posts: 2779
Nottingham, England, United Kingdom
Leah Jung wrote:
I think every lady should do whatever she wants. /end thread. There we go. And every photographer should just hire models who have pubic grooming that matches their tastes and requirements. There are so many shaved models, so many trimmed models and so many full-bushed models that I don't see why photographers bother trying to pressure shaved girls into growing hair or vice versa.
I get work because of my hair, and other models get work because of being shaved. I can do things that they can't (i.e. pose with my legs without showing a fuckton of pinkery) and they can do things that I can't (i.e. model in lingerie/swimwear without looking like a 70s jungle disaster). Each style has its advantages and disadvantages so the only sensible thing to do is to go with what you like personally.
Photographer
Herb Way
Posts: 1506
Black Mountain, North Carolina, US
I say all things in moderation. This is what I include in the information that I send to models in advance of nude shoots.
"If you don't have a Brazilian bikini wax, your pubic area should be neatly trimmed with hair not extending out toward your thighs or up toward your navel."
Model
P I X I E
Posts: 35440
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Art of the nude wrote:
Someday, I'll do a shot like that. For now, it's just handy when the model is comfortable with her whole body being a part of the project. When are we shooting? 
Photographer
AMCphoto2
Posts: 479
Los Angeles, California, US
|
