Talk:Brazilian waxing

Quick Question

Is the picture really necessary? Even if one ignores the fact it is borderline pornographic, there is still the matter that there is almost no information about the picture listed (is it taken from somewhere? does it fall under free use?) and it is almost entirely unnecessary. Even if we accept that the article needs a picture, does it have to be anything other than a drawing? 71.202.83.171 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See Image discussion below. Do not reply further here. I added a sizing code to the image so that its prominence on the page can be reduced by any editor. It can be made smaller by lowering the number. I agree that a large image is inappropriate and I note that in all of the references I added (most are mine) are for articles that use no picture when discussing Brazilian waxing. 5Q5 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation

The link right after the line about hair on Middle Eastern women being considered unhygenic or unattractive or whatever (near the bottom of the firs paragraph, number 2 right now, links to an Australian waxing article), doesn't verify any of the preceding information. --Anchoress 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the citations. They (about 8 of them) were all links to the same tiny article. There is a bit of info in the article, but it does not support the specific information the links were supposedly citing. Also, weirdly, the same link was inserted about 6 times in a row. It seems more like spam than actual citation. The link is still in the external links section. Anchoress 14:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

American Pie Reference

Isn't the american pie reference a bit useless. At no point does it mention that the area is bare because of a Brazilian wax? IF that passes as a source, then we could add the episode of Coupling where Gina Bellman's character is the same (great line - Steve: "If you think that you can get me back by stripping you must be completely" (looks down)" and totally shaven". (whoops...forgot to sign) Sabalon 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the american pie reference is useless too. Slawdogg 09:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Slawdogg

The American Pie reference should be removed; it is not even related to Brazilian waxing. The Jennifer Aniston reference should be stricken as well, or at least moved to a "cultural references" section. --Kiyoshi67 22:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image discussion

Weird that the pic was outlined w/a suggestion to discuss it, but no discussion was started.

Anyways, I don't have any problem with a pic of a brazilian wax, but that particular pic isn't a good example, IMO. There are some good pics on the labia page. Maybe we could use one of those. Anchoress 06:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is an entirely appropriate picture.--87.65.175.96 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you say it's an appropriate picture? It doesn't show a Brazilian wax. The model's mons are almost entirely in shadow, and her perenium isn't showing at all. A Brazilian includes not just the mons, but the area around the vagina and anus. We need to show that in order to actually demonstrate a Brazilian, otherwise it's just a nudie pic. Anchoress 02:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the picture featured there? It's one thing to show breasts, but genitals too? 68.163.156.51 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a page about brazilian waxing. If we do not show genitals, we simply cannot have a picture to illustrate the article.--Gruk 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO these photos are totally unnecessary and are just an excuse to load the encyclopaedia up with gratuitous nudity - they're not encyclopaedic in any shape or form. Call me a prude if you like. One is more than enough and there's no need for tits as well, so I've replaced it with a cropped version. But frankly I'd prefer none. — Moondyne 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the pic is a good example of a brazilian wax. It is tasteful and there is no way to illustrate a wax with out nudity. Slawdogg 10:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Slawdogg

It isn't, tho. First, it isn't close up enough to show whether it's a wax job or just a shave, and second, just missing hair on the mons doesn't equal a Brazilian, even if it is a wax job. Anchoress 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this picture is very useful, but perhaps a before and after shot may be better? 220.101.34.84 12:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The image on the german article seems to be of higher quality and somewhat less graphic at the same time. May be it can be used here? 68.183.61.79 07:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that it's a Brazilian tho? How do you even know it's a wax job? I agree with the comment somewhere on this page that it should be a during shot of the whole perenium - perhaps with the little paper g-string the technicians use. I have no probs with nude pics on this site, but just a pic of a bare muff isn't an illustration of a Brazilian wax job. Anchoress 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a size code to the image template and reduced the image size to make the article more suitable (and legal in many places) for viewing in public libraries. The image can be clicked on to enlarge. 5Q5 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing Bottem image

I am removing the bottem image because:

1) It is not focusing on the type of wax job but instead looks just like nudity.

2) It is obvious that it is not a wax, but instead is a shave job. (the image title is even "All Shaved")

-Unloud 13:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Paper G-string?

If the woman is wearing a paper G-string how can you reach to wax?

2006-12-02 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I disagree

I am Brazilian, and I got very surprised the first time I've heard this "Brazilian Waxing" for the first time, a couple of years ago. The reason was because I don't recall that waxing all the pubic hair and leaving a small line of hair above the vulva was ever popular in Brazil. The Brazilian girls do wax and shave, but not leaving a line above the vulva.

Also, the thong shown in the picuture, which back is just a line, was never, never, never considered "fashion" in Brazil, neither as underware or to use on the beach. I have seen this type of thong in many different countries I've visited, but not in Brazil. A thong like that in Brazil would even look tacky. I've seen many differnt types of thongs and bikinis and panties in Brazil, including the small ones, but never like that one. Brazilian bikinis are typically smaller than the regular bikinis in US or Europe, but bigger than what is usually called "thong" out of Brazil.

"Brazilian Waxing" sounds to me like something that was invented somewhere else and someone decided to call "Brazilian" for some reason.

I can be wrong, but this is what I know from my personal experience. I would even like to hear other Brazilians opinion in this discussion. Any other Brazilian around?

Entire article misconceived?

Purely from the lexicographer's point of view, of observed usage of the terminology, I agree with this Brazilian contributor's opening comment (I have no comment on their other comments). The article currently still states (20080128) that "The majority of types of Brazilian waxing leave a small line of pubic hair" which — as I understand usage — is untrue. Any bikini waxing removes some hair, and styles that don't remove absolutely all the hair may have various colloquial names; but usage that has come to my attention appears to be that "Brazilian" does refer specifically and uniquely to the style leaving absolutely no pubic hair at all.

The way the bulk of this article stands at this date, is almost as though this article was written by someone with two misapprehensions: first, they supposed that "Brazilian waxing" was simply a synonym for "bikini waxing", and second, they were unaware of the existence of (and didn't bother to look for) the article on bikini waxing. My vote would be to merge most of the content of this article with that on Bikini waxing, but retain separately here a short definition (assuming that can be agreed) and an explanation of the uniqueness of the "Brazilian". That is to say, if (as is the case if I understand correctly) "Brazilian" is a term (one of several? "Hollywood" is apparently another) signifying total removal i.e. leaving no pubic hair at all, retain here only a summary or even wider discussion (if well attested data are available) of the factual evidence about beach (or other contemporary) Brazilian culture that gave rise to this term having this particular meaning in the realm of body care. Iph (talk)

if you have reputable citations on this perhaps you can justify this article being differentiated from the other. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Revise External Links On This Page

The external links provided on this page do not serve the purpose, they are not even relevent. In my own suggestion I would want to have this link http://www.geoamaan.com/index.php?View=entry&CategoryID=4&EntryID=46 Methods Of Bikini Line Waxing be placed under external links heading as its very informative as far as bikiniline waxing is concerned.hope you will take notice of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.162.253 (talk • contribs)

I haven't looked at the article links yet, but the external links guidelines advise against adding links unless they contain information that could not be added to the article, which does not seems to be the case with the link you have suggested. If the other article links are not relevant, then by all means remove them. Kevin 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have looked at the page, I see that there are no external links anyway, except those that are part of the references section, where they are there to support individual statements. Kevin 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Growing in popularity?

I am just wondering is this procedure gaining in popularity? It seems to me that it has gained a mainstream acceptance in many countries over the past few years. Porn has played a large role in the development of bikini waxes, I believe. Albert Cheng 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the people who keep re-editing and putting in citations from 3 publications need to get a grip. Seriously, we don't need you telling us that hair removal is unnatural or perverted. Your ethics and worldview are not encyclopedic, nor appropriate. I have removed your alarmist and opinionated quotes and weasel words 4 times already. It is not a debate for whether or not you personally think brazilians are appropriate, you miss the whole point of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.213.37 (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?

A certified aesthetician should always act in an entirely professional manner. Examples of non-professionalism include: 1. Non glove wearing 2. Stray hair leaving 3. The use of the tongue to test for smoothness 4. The use of a camera 5. Slipping the finger in

Never use an aesthetician/beautician who adopts such practices. They are probably a registered sex offender. justicemanlolz —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Enter thoughts regarding a merge with Bikini waxing. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article mostly has information relevant to Bikini waxing, not particularly Brazilian waxing. The information that's left excluding the redundant stuff isn't material enough for a content forking. It also fit much better into the Bikini waxing article, i.e. in context of the bigger picture (yes, everything this article has, apart from the formatting and the copywriting style exists very much in the other article). Therefore the idea is to merge now, and split later when there's enough stuff. In contrast, so far the only reasons for a separate article I have seen are - (a) vanity (as in, "this should have a separate article"); (b) misreading of process (as in "out of process redirect"). I can be wrong, though. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was preserving a merge concept that someone else suggested. But I also sort of agree with it. Even more...I think both articles might legitimately merge to Waxing. That may be someting to look at later. For now.. I see no reason for them to be separated from each other. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has changed quite a lot since the last time I read it carefully, and not for the better. I think it's been edited to conform to Bikini Waxing to facilitate the merge. The fact is, brazilian waxing is NOT bikini waxing - when I get home from work I'll be editing the lede to say so - in large part because men are frequent recipients of brazilians, and they don't wear bikinis. Anchoress (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This was the version the last time you edited that I can find. That version explicitly calls it an extreme form of bikini waxing and says it takes place in the bikini area. Incidentally, you would need to find references saying that men get brazilians and that they do not wear bikini briefs for that to not be WP:OR. Im not saying this couldn't be used in a talk page as an argument for your position but that the article cannot say it without references. However, I do not agree with you that men do not wear bikinis. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I think some of the editing took place because so much of the article was uncited. Uncited stuff in a crufty article should just be removed. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning for not merging both to waxing was simple. I wanted to keep this in alignment with both bikini and waxing articles (may be the pubic hair articles aligned as well). But, well I apologize for not realizing the third reason for separating the articles - "Brazilian wax is not Bikini wax". If that can be established, there indeed is need for separate articles. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In Australia at least Brazilian and bikini waxing would be considered technically quite different things. This aside I think that the concept of "Brazilian waxing" as being a cultural symbol, of being particularly "risqué" above that of traditional fashion process merits that it should be kept as an independent article. Whether this extrapolates that Bikini waxing should be kept separate from an over-all Waxing page is a different argument I think. Elena the Quiet (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently all the sources I could access from both the articles put Brazilian wax as one form of bikini wax. Is there any source that says otherwise? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there is only one argument of merit against the merge - "Brazilian wax is not bikini wax" - and that remains unverified (and possibly a mistaken notion), a merge may still be the right decision. I agree that we have not reached a consensus, but then requiring consensus and failing to participate in the consensus building discussion may not be very compatible. I think, if there is no argument presented against a merge, we might as well go for it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement, but you might seek an RfC to get a wider audience for consensus. Also bring notification to whoever started both articles on their talk page. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this to RfC. But, there still seems to be little improvement. Can we remove the generic bikini wax information from this article first? Apparently the existence of a lot of text (no matter how loosely relevant) is probably giving this article a look of high importance. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You have no objection from me to merge them completely. But if you get an objection you might want to see what the RfC does. If you merge, I would get rid of the RfC.--Blue Tie (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep separate but provide a main article link. I just found this merge discussion. Since I'm the one who began and referenced the controversy section over at Brazilian waxing, let me add my position. I feel that since Brazilian waxing does have a significant controversy aspect to it, which common Bikini line waxing does not, it deserves its own article; otherwise the Bikini waxing article begins to look as though it has too much focus on the BrazilW controversy. All that needs to be done in my opinion is to have a brief paragraph on Brazilian waxing in the Bikini waxing article with a link to the separate BrazilW article. Here's the wiki code for that. Insert it in the Bikini waxing article somewhere appropriate: {{main|Brazilian waxing}}. Most of my original controversy section from the Brazilian waxing article has already merged into the Bikini waxing article, which I feel should be restored back. 5Q5 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep separate Anchoress (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reason? --Blue Tie (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have several, which I've enumerated in different discussions. Anchoress (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you do a recap? Or, at least, provide a link to that discussion? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen a reason. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can't take eternity. If there's no further objection and an argument to support the objection this article should be merged now. The time is here. Hopefully the merge will also be able to address the issues with images and the controversy section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Objection to the picture

The picture that is repeatedly placed upon this article is not identified as a picture of a brazilian wax or of any kind of waxing. Do we know that the picture was of a waxing? Could it be shaving? Could it be a hormonal or pharmacological issue that led to a lack of hair? Unknown. Does the lack of hair extend throughout the area described by the article? The picture does not show. Does the picture show how it is done? No it does not. It is original research to declare that this picture is of brazilian waxing.

It may be of prurient interest, but the picture is also unnecessary to the article. It does not contribute any helpful or useful information. It is really of no encyclopedic value.

Since it is both Original Research and Unnecessary, it should not be included. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 5Q5 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree!!! Let's delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.221.66 (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have already deleted it about half a dozen times. But, it keeps resurfacing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about this picture....

Pros: It's a relatively tasteful nude photograph

Cons: It doesn't obviously, unquestionably show the results of a "Brazilian" wax. A similar state could have been achieved through shaving, or merely a frontal wax. We would need a far more graphic depiction to see the full results of the article's subject.

IMO, the most encyclopedic option would be to see a somewhat clinical depiction of a Brazilian waxing being administered, but I think the image in question is a reasonable compromise, in the absence of such a picture. Whether you or others find it of "prurient interest" is neither here nor there. Consider the subject of this article for a moment and ask yourself what sort of picture were you expecting to see?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the description of the image says it not an image of waxing, Brazilian or otherwise. Is it really necessary to put an image of a bald "pussy" in the article, especially if it fails to depict the topic, and also represents WP:OR to an extent? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The description[1] does claim the image shows a "Brazilian waxing." There are concerns here--but the image file description is not one of them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I support bringing back those great pictures. Those pictures were a very good demonstration of brazilian waxing. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(reduced indent) Don't worry. Any porn site would most obligingly provide pictures of loads of bald pussies. Those "great pictures" are not really necessary, and are not even wholly representative of a Brazilian (if the article is to be believed). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be necessary to prove that a particular image was from brazilian waxing in order to include it. As long as it looks like brazilian waxing, there should be no objection to including the image to this article. One thing that's now missing after the images have now been removed is that the previous image added value to the article in that showed that brazilian waxing removed hair from the bung as well. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says - It can be thought of as a more extreme form of bikini waxing. The majority of types of Brazilian waxing leave a small line of pubic hair above the vulva, commonly known as the "G-Wax." If that is to believed, the images only portray an "extreme form" which may not be the right approach in depicting something. Like, would you prefer to portray a Siamese twin when depicting a human being? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Point of View is the POINT!!

I think that the people who keep re-editing and putting in citations from 3 publications need to get a grip. Seriously, we don't need you telling us that hair removal is unnatural or perverted. Your ethics and worldview are not encyclopedic, nor appropriate. I have removed your alarmist and opinionated quotes and weasel words 4 times already. It is not a debate for whether or not you personally think brazilians are appropriate, you miss the whole point of wikipedia.

5Q5 take your controversies and post them here. Many cultures who practice full body depilatation would find you very insulting. Like myself, I think you ruin this. You have 3 spurious sources and quote Fox News quoting a Journal of Medicine report? Get the original journal as a citation! 204.191.213.37 (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Missing information" flag added

I added a {{Missing information}} flag to the Controversy section because most of the controversy with the Brazilian wax look is its resemblance to immature (underage) girls. That is why the Controversy section was begun in the first place (I was given a Wiki editing award for doing the research and including it; therefore, your accusation as an unregistered editor that I am ruining the article is your POV and not shared by all other registered editors). Here on this archived page, editors can view an earlier version of the section and refute your claim of my having "3 spurious sources." An example of a reference that was removed, with a quote by a physician: Boston Women's Health Book Collective (2005). Our Bodies Ourselves. New York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster, p. 4. ISBN 0-7432-5611-5. “What often goes unsaid in discussions of waxing (blame the ickiness factor) is that, as a result of removing all the hair from the pubic region, grown women resemble prepubescent girls, and this is considered erotic." / The flag should stay up until the controversy point mentioned above, and which can be found in many mainstream published sources, as indicated by the references in the original section, is allowed in the article. 5Q5 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)