NealHawaii wrote:
Hi -

I don't know how to ask this question without sounding like a jerk and or pervert and I hope you believe me when I say I'm not either of those two things. What would be the best way to ask a model (that I as a photographer is looking to hire for a shoot) what their pubic hair situation is like. Sometimes I have a specific shoot in mind that  I think would work better if the model is more natural with a healthy amount of pubic hair and other times I think it's best if they're completely bare. (Also, is it OK to ask the model if they are willing to go one way or another with their pubic hair, and if so, what's the best way to ask that.)

I have never asked before because honestly I'm nervous to. But I have had a few shoots recently that while they weren't ruined, I thought the finished product would have better if I had known ahead of time and made the hire accordingly.

Many thanks in advance.

- Neal

If it's seriously an issue, then you ask politely and respectfully for some current snapshots and explain your specific needs.  Most models would be happy to answer that question and show you the current photos, since that preference can be an important one, and matters just as much as having tattoos, piercings, or extreme hair styles or colors. What works for one situation isn't going to be a good fit for another situation, and asking about pubic hair should be no different than asking about tattoos or hair style. .

Many models who have strong feelings about it such as myself already have a statement in their profile saying they choose to remain natural and not interested in shaving or trimming their pubic hair for photo shoots. I shaved a few times in the past for paid work when it was requested, but would not do so again unless the amount of pay offered was quite significant or there was guaranteed publication.  For many of us it has become somewhat of a personal trademark, and we have learned that others follow our work because of having or not having specific features.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Just like an adult would.

Simply and straightforward.

This...

Todd Meredith wrote:
Just curious, would a model having pubic hair change the image that much compared to one without?

Having recently tested with a model whose natural bush not only covered her entire pubic area, but also ran out onto her upper thighs, and who was thus impossible to shoot in lingerie, and virtually impossible (for me) to retouch, it seems a perfectly valid concern in some situations.

Modelphilia wrote:
Having recently tested with a model whose natural bush not only covered her entire pubic area, but also ran out onto her upper thighs, and who was thus impossible to shoot in lingerie, and virtually impossible (for me) to retouch, it seems a perfectly valid concern in some situations.

OK, you've got me there.  I was definitely not thinking along the lines of what you experienced. I just see the emphasis on certain things on the site.

Todd Meredith wrote:
Just curious, would a model having pubic hair change the image that much compared to one without?

Modelphilia wrote:
Having recently tested with a model whose natural bush not only covered her entire pubic area, but also ran out onto her upper thighs, and who was thus impossible to shoot in lingerie, and virtually impossible (for me) to retouch, it seems a perfectly valid concern in some situations.

It's a legitimate issue, which I learned 30 years ago when I first posed naked for artists and photographers.  Some require all models including males to be shaved bare because they prefer that look, while others want women who are 100% natural everywhere. It's quite obvious that if shooting lingerie most would want the bare look while only a few would want a full bush.  For traditional art nudes, exactly the opposite usually applies and the classic full bush is preferable. Retouching more than a few stray strands would be very difficult.

I have had many photographers and artists over the years who stated they hired me because I am natural and untrimmed, and have quite an amazing number of followers both men and women who prefer that look. I don't see it as creepy or strange, it's no different from someone preferring a model with larger breasts, fuller hips, or red hair.  I was genetically programmed to have that "70's bush" that Koryn mentioned, but many other women have very sparse hair down there which is natural for them.

NealHawaii wrote:
Hi -

I don't know how to ask this question without sounding like a jerk and or pervert ...

Some people will be offended and creeped out, others will not be phased by absolutely anything you ask. I understand the apprehension, but these are individuals and will react as such. There is no "one way" that works for every person. It's your vision; you're allowed to cast accordingly. Be honest and transparent, and you'll eventually find people who match your needs.

NealHawaii wrote:
--snip--  Sometimes I have a specific shoot in mind that  I think would work better if the model is more natural with a healthy amount of pubic hair and other times I think it's best if they're completely bare. --snip--
Many thanks in advance.

- Neal

If you can explain why this is a factor, no one should take offense.

You might have to pay dearly to get a model to change her pubic appearance, as your request could cost her other opportunities.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
You might have to pay dearly to get a model to change her pubic appearance, as your request could cost her other opportunities.

This, exactly.  That was my situation when I was asked to shave in the past, it would have affected other modelling jobs that I would be paid for and affected the ability to book work that needed a natural model until there was sufficient time for regrowth, which takes a few months for me to start to look decent. Therefore I needed to be paid enough to cover the work that would be lost as well as what I was posing for while shaved. One time that I agreed to shave for several months was based upon a contracted number of sessions with the individual during that time, which took the place of other modelling work I would usually have been doing so I was fine with that. For a one or two session offer, it wouldn't work for me unless the pay was a lot higher.

Not many artists and photographers realize that models don't usually like or want to make such a significant change in their appearance particularly if they have established ongoing working relationships based upon that appearance.  It would be no different from requesting a model to shave her head, just think of it as being that serious of a change.

MatureModelMM wrote:
It's a legitimate issue, which I learned 30 years ago when I first posed naked for artists and photographers.  Some require all models including males to be shaved bare because they prefer that look, while others want women who are 100% natural everywhere. It's quite obvious that if shooting lingerie most would want the bare look while only a few would want a full bush.  For traditional art nudes, exactly the opposite usually applies and the classic full bush is preferable. Retouching more than a few stray strands would be very difficult.

I have had many photographers and artists over the years who stated they hired me because I am natural and untrimmed, and have quite an amazing number of followers both men and women who prefer that look. I don't see it as creepy or strange, it's no different from someone preferring a model with larger breasts, fuller hips, or red hair.  I was genetically programmed to have that "70's bush" that Koryn mentioned, but many other women have very sparse hair down there which is natural for them.

I respectfully disagree that pubic hair can mean that much of a difference to the overall image one is shooting, unless that image is focused on a woman's vaginal area.  In the last 25 years of shooting professionally, I have done some wonderful boudoir/lingerie shoots for clients in which I've experienced models who were both shaven and natural and, as the overall image was the concern, the models having or not having pubic hair didn't matter one bit.  I agree with your statement about being hired for your grooming preference, as I feel it's a very personal thing for a model but if a model having pubic hair is a deal breaker, I'd question the true intentions of the photographer.  Is he/she really trying to create a certain look in an image or is that person fulfilling a personal fetish?  I would find it very odd for anyone to turn down a model simply based on her personal grooming habits.

I personally believe there's more to a woman than her breasts and vagina.  My point in my original posting was that I see the concentration on a woman's intimate parts as prevalent on the site.  Capturing the whole essence of a model, her character as well as her beauty - clothed or unclothed - is more important, in my opinion, than what many project across the site.  I'm not condemning what anyone shoots, simply making an observation about what is posted here.

Appreciate the dialogue all the same.  All the best to you.

Modelphilia wrote:

Having recently tested with a model whose natural bush not only covered her entire pubic area, but also ran out onto her upper thighs, and who was thus impossible to shoot in lingerie, and virtually impossible (for me) to retouch, it seems a perfectly valid concern in some situations.

Ok, curiosity has gotten the better of me.  What was your reaction and how did you explain your apprehension to the model?  What was her reaction to your reaction?  Please share how the shoot progressed (or not).

Was the shoot planned as a lingerie shoot?  If that's the case, I would think the model would have thought to tidy things up but maybe she was happy that way.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
You might have to pay dearly to get a model to change her pubic appearance, as your request could cost her other opportunities.

MatureModelMM wrote:
This, exactly.  That was my situation when I was asked to shave in the past, it would have affected other modelling jobs that I would be paid for and affected the ability to book work that needed a natural model until there was sufficient time for regrowth, which takes a few months for me to start to look decent. Therefore I needed to be paid enough to cover the work that would be lost as well as what I was posing for while shaved.

Yep, it's pretty simple. If the photographer's vision is to depict someone with a "natural" look he or she isn't going to want the model they contracted with pubic hair showing up shaved. Conversely, if the concept is for some sort of sleek, futuristic, android, pubic hair would usually wreck the image.

There are of course many thousands of less dramatic examples, but the point is, it does matter, often to the extent that it can be the difference between getting the job or not.

Not that the OP has to pay exorbitant amounts, finding someone who's grooming preferences are the same as what you require = no extra charge at all. If it's essential to the shoot though, it is best to mention it.

j francis photography wrote:
Just be matter of fact and have a sensible reason for your questions that is driven by what the photograph calls for.

Agreed - as long as the model has fully stated her comfort level in a nude shoot she is willing to participate to then this because just another shoot prep question.

Todd Meredith wrote:
Ok, curiosity has gotten the better of me.  What was your reaction and how did you explain your apprehension to the model?  What was her reaction to your reaction?  Please share how the shoot progressed (or not).

Was the shoot planned as a lingerie shoot?  If that's the case, I would think the model would have thought to tidy things up but maybe she was happy that way.

I told her the problem it was creating, and that it just looked like a big black blob in the image. Then I asked her if she would consider trimming it a bit in the future. She was emphatic about wanting to keep it natural (a young model), and while we remain friends, I haven't shot with her since.

Todd Meredith wrote:
Just curious, would a model having pubic hair change the image that much compared to one without?  I'd think there'd be so many other aspects of the image to be concerned with than to be fixated on one specific issue.  Or is this just the level to which MM has sunk?

Yes, it changes the image.  If I'm shooting an outdoor nude, I'd prefer a very natural setting, and a natural woman with natural grooming.  For the outdoor "natural" nude, the shaving of the pubic hair would sexualize the image in my opinion.

Oddly, if I'm shooting art nudes in a studio setting, I find it just the opposite.  Then, I'm concentrating on lines, light and shadow, and hair in the pubic areas tend to break up that continuity and distracts the viewer from the art of it, and has them focusing on the pubic area, therefore sexualizing the image.

Glamour nudes are intended to be sexual in nature, so anything goes, but a neatly trimmed pubic area would be preferred to wild and free.  If I'm shooting bikini or lingerie, I'd prefer shaved clean if only to ensure I don't need to edit anything out later.

So, yes.  It matters.  To me, anyway.

Koryn wrote:
But - as a general rule - if you need a natural model, only contact people whose portfolios show them with that look. If you need someone who has no or little pubic hair, contact someone who appears to have none/little.

Exactly...if someone contacted me and said they need someone who is completely shaven, I would not even know how to respond. Probably wouldn't be very polite to be completely honest. I don't care if it's $200 per hour either - that's not going to cover my costs or the pain of regrowing. Not even close. It would have to be a price to cover my rent/living expenses for the two months it took to decently regrow. And even then, I can make that money myself without having to shave anyway, so I'd still decline.

Best way is just to find someone whose portfolio portrays the look you're looking for and ask them if that is their current state.

ASmallWoman wrote:
As someone with a lot of bush, who has been asked all manner of questions, a politely worded question is fine.

If you just asked, "Just to know for our shoot, what is the current state of your pubic hair? I'm looking for [insert style you're looking for] for this particular shoot."

I'd say honestly, don't ask a girl to shave if she has bush in every photo though. Don't ask her to grow pubic hair if she is shaved in every photo. I've had people ask me to shave, and my answer is always "Absolutely not." I have hair in EVERY PHOTO in my portfolio. Every single one. I have armpit hair too. When people ask me to shave, my automatic conclusion is there is something wrong with them as this is the obvious state of my body all the time, every day. I can't just go shave my bush - I'd lose a ton of work if I did.

If she seems to exhibit both at various times, then it's safer to ask - or, after sending the above question, she'll let you know what the deal is. Honestly though, after finding out what her body hair is like, it is best to just hire a model with the body hair you want while making it clear the body hair she has in her portfolio is what you are looking for.

I agree.

I take issue with those who think if the photographer is paying, he can demand that a model shave her pubic hair. A photographer is free to inquire about the state of a model's pubic hair. When it is important to the images, he should state that in the requirements for being hired, just as any other things such as tan lines, tattoos, nail color, hair color, etc.

One should never assume that paying a model a couple hundred dollars to shoot gives one any say so over a model's choice to have or not have pubic hair.

MoRina wrote:
I agree.

I take issue with those who think if the photographer is paying, he can demand that a model shave her pubic hair. A photographer is free to inquire about the state of a model's pubic hair. When it is important to the images, he should state that in the requirements for being hired, just as any other things such as tan lines, tattoos, nail color, hair color, etc.

One should never assume that paying a model a couple hundred dollars to shoot gives one any say so over a model's choice to have or not have pubic hair.

Exactly. It's not hard to find a model with the right pubic hair for a certain shoot, so that's what they should do. Even $500 is not nearly enough money to even sway me a little bit about the state of my pubic hair.

Also, I hope I get to meet you someday

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Anus: bleached

I'm a few weeks behind on this but wtf?? Bleached anus??

If you find it awkward asking about pubic hair, how the heck do you muster the courage to ask a model politely about the colour of her a'hole?



(Do I need to get out more?)

Todd Meredith wrote:
Ironically, I did a shoot with a model (not from this site) this week who wanted to do some nude work.  As my angle is the creation of a well composed, quality image, I didn't really care about the state of her pubic hair.  As I've stated earlier, one aspect of a model having pubic hair or not does not make that much of a difference to an image in my opinion.  Said model arrives a little late but not without calling and letting me know she was stuck behind some construction.  No problem and I thanked her for the call.  I was hoping the lateness wasn't a sign of things to come.  She arrived and was very friendly and has a ton of wonderful ideas she wanted to implement.  We'd discussed her providing input at our planing meeting, especially as the images were for her husband and images that were to his personal liking.  I thought to myself what a great shoot this is going to be UNTIL she disrobed and very nonchalantly mentioned she neglected to groom her pubic region that morning (or for at last the last few mornings, by the way it appeared.)  I nicely explained that the classy images she desired might be affected by the more than a bit of stubble present and even offered to re-schedule.  She was adamant about shooting but we had a very mature, civil discussion about it.  I also discussed changing the theme we were shooting, going from classy lady to trashy streetwalker.  We changed locations quickly, had a great time shooting and created some pretty interesting images.  Delivered the images and she said her husband loved them.

The model having or not having pubic hair was not the issue as much as her being properly groomed for the look she wanted to portray.  In the end, we had a great shoot but not without a little bit of reservation on my part in the beginning.  I can see the point of others about the influence that bit of hair makes to an image but believe it was more a point of preparedness for the look being sought than how the images would have looked whether the model had a full bush or was cleanly shaven.

Seriously? 

Please, do enlighten us how pubic hair relates to the amount of class one portrays. And please tell us what "proper" grooming is.

goneferal wrote:

I'm a few weeks behind on this but wtf?? Bleached anus??

If you find it awkward asking about pubic hair, how the heck do you muster the courage to ask a model politely about the colour of her a'hole?



(Do I need to get out more?)

As for bleaching an anus:  I can only say that I have learned so very much in the MM forums over the years.    I figure if I can ask about nostril hair, I can ask about anything!

MatureModelMM wrote:
Yes, they actually do that bleaching, although I will never understand why.  A friend who works in a salon doing waxing and other aesthetician related stuff tells me they have been bleaching that area for a number of years now and it is more popular than you would expect. She does at least one customer a day.  I certainly don't see any reason for it but it's a service they offer and customers are willing to pay for it, probably thinking that somehow it makes that area more attractive just like shaving or waxing the pubic hair does for some people.

I learned about this a few years ago.