The economy is being unfairly blamed for a resurgence of female pubic hair.
YourTango's Sarah Harrison reported on Friday (December 12th) that the economy had really begun to hit women where it hurts: the crotch (Economy Influences Pubic Hair Styles). Evidently, a decent waxing (the Brazilian wax, mane) job costs roughly $50 - $80 and lasts 3 – 6 weeks. So, to stay hairless down there, it'll run ya about $720 per annum or enough to buy a pretty OK surround sound system. And over your lifetime could threaten to run in the millions (my math may be wrong).
This is the hell which the sub-prime mortgage fiasco hath wrought. Innocent women who have no political or ideological agenda are being forced to "let their gardens grow." If I'd told you 3 years ago that interest-only loans were going to usher back in the era of 70’s porno bush you would have laughed in my face. But pubic grooming, it appears, is only the latest and least-seldom seen victim of greedy hedge fund managers and overleveraged asset-backed security analysts.
But is this really the case? I argue no. The point of pubic hair, argue biologists (I guess that's who would argue about pubes), is to trap musk to attract a mate. And in general, we've been doing our damnedest the last century to cover our own natural smell. Westerners, per Ms. Harrison's post, started getting rid of this musk-trap in the early 80's as lady's swimsuits became skimpier. Because decades before it was decreed, by quorum in some Elk's Lodge, that visible body hair on women was not to be tolerated.
And only a few fringe-types (hippies and bearded ladies, mostly) have argued with the wisdom of the decision. So, for the sake of a point, I'll say that pubic hair only has to be containable, for society's sake, and any decision beyond that is solely up to the discretion of the wearer (owner?). But it's really unreasonable to blame the economy for any unkept lady business.
More Juicy Content From YourTango: