MEAD

Forgetting for a moment the "adult woman's shaved pubic hair as a symbol of pre-pubescence, and the desire for such equates to some complicated desire for the pre-pubescent female" idea, consider instead something more simple. We are speaking on sexual desire here, specifically that desire aroused by nudity. Obviously, the state of nudity only really exists because the state of being clothed does too. Simply, to become nude one must remove their clothes. So this sexual desire aroused by nudity exists in the juxtaposition of what is clothed to what is unclothed, what is covered and what is uncovered. I argue that this creates a specific schema (thought pattern).

Now the question is whether or not pubic hair can work within that schema, is pubic hair like clothing? Well, it is true that it is removable like clothing, and does obscure the view of bare flesh as clothing does. It also provides some form of protection from the elements that clothing does. With all these similarities to clothing, I think that the removal of pubic hair can be seen to cause arousal in the same way the removal of clothing does.

I know I wrote that in such a manner as to open myself up to criticisms in my logic, or tightness of my argument, but that's a good thing here.


Personally, bare certainly feels a lot nicer. But I do go for trimmed, bare, or full bush at times. I'm not picky, it depends on the vagina and my mood.

__________________
Here are some phrases I'd like to be able to say, in all honesty, before I die.
"That's it, send out the ninjas!"
"So then I had to kill my way to the second floor."