Guys do wax. At least some guys.

Enough, though? I mean some guys have multiple orgasms, they just don't count.

I have no idea why I'm blushing typing that.

My brain is so on vacation right now. Can't get jack accomplished.

---

Total removal of a normal body part, for the sake of "hygeine," strikes me as deeply insane. Decide you look prettier with only one eye, whatev, it's your eye. Decide that having more than one eye is freakish and gross, honey, seek therapy.

That goes double if the body part removal is strongly divided along gender lines.

In re thongs, not only is there a longstanding problem with the whole black thong/pale trousers issue, but there is the basic problem I see demonstrated in front of me on the public transit stairs all the time: it is totally possible to be wearing a thong and accidentally catch your trouser/dress material in your buttcrack. Which is GROSS. In sum: thong not the magical cure-all for underpants-visibility issues; it creates as many problems as it solves.

---

I don't wax, but I'll do some maintenance down there.

I prefer trimmed trim, but appreciate all kinds.

I just opened my birthday card from the FiL. Picture of a kitten on it. Yep. Oh well, there was a $100 gift card which I sorely need.

---

I don't think body hair falls in the "body parts" category.

It's more an accessory than a part.

---

Well, it's a body part, but it grows. I mean, I cut (and dye) the hair on my head and on my legs, so it ain't that big a jump. Is that like removing an eye? I trim my nails for hygeine and convenience--is that like removing an eye?

I tried the waxing thing but the ingrown hairs and the expense and itching made it so not worth it.

---

I know a lot of men who would never consider waxing/trimming/shaving and yet think women should.

I'm all for people doing what feels good and makes them feel attractive and whatnot, but the thing that got up my nose about this particular flamewar was the number of people insisting that a goolie with any visible hair, even if it was kept scrupulously clean and neatly trimmed, was just inherently too disgusting to touch. Not that I wanted to side with the "preferring nude goolies=pedophilia" people, but there was just something mildly creepy about being so thoroughly grossed out by a bit of hair that really serves mainly to indicate that the goolie on which it's growing is at or very near sexual maturity. Even a clean, tidy bit of hair. There were under-30 guys swearing they'd lose their erections or want to vomit if they were fooling around with a woman and suddenly she revealed herself to have Hair Down There.

Shaving and grooming, either gender, for the fun of it? Cool! Finding a totally normal indicator of sexual maturity viscerally repellent? Slightly less cool.

---

Addemdum to above post. I don't, um, dye the hair on my legs.

---

There were under-30 guys swearing they'd lose their erections or want to vomit if they were fooling around with a woman and suddenly she revealed herself to have Hair Down There.

Curiously, that's the very thing that kept John Ruskin a virgin.

---

Also, your husband is not supposed to be there in the labor room, in case he never wants to have sex with you again. (There was an article about this in the New York Times, I shit you not.)

It's true. This is why no human couple has ever had more than one child.

(Speaking of which, can I have some stay-asleep-ma for Baby D? He's making up for letting me go to brunch yesterday by being a little cling-monster and refusing to sleep for more than ten minutes at a time if I'm not holding him. I've finally gotten him to lay down in the Amby and sleep - fingers are crossed that he's finally decided to take a real nap!)

---

I don't, um, dye the hair on my legs.

::puts away mental image of Scrappy with tiger striped legs::

---