• lath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Truth is sculpting body hair was taking too much time and production couldn’t keep up with demand, so management decided to cut costs and keep it smooth.

    • PrimeMinisterKeyes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Men were depicted with pubes, though. See the article, too.
      A female friend of mine actually did her bachelor’s thesis on body hair removal across certain cultures and time periods. Fun discussions were had.
      Short version, body hair removal on both women and men has been around for a very long time and is subject to changes. Depictions of nude bodies follow somewhat different rules, though. If they are at all permissible, that is.

  • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    3 months ago

    You know how Roman statues were actually painted bright colors? In ancient times pubes were actually glued onto the groins of sculpted figures, unfortunately with weathering over time most of these sculptures lost their pubes

    • Bye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not Roman, Greek. The Greek sculptures were painted. Roman sculptors found the Greek marble beautiful without paint, and didn’t paint theirs.

      • hihi24522@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        3 months ago

        Wikipedia disagrees: Roman Sculpture

        Most statues were actually far more lifelike and often brightly colored when originally created; the raw stone surfaces found today is due to the pigment being lost over the centuries.

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        One of Ceasar’s statue was found to have pigment residues. You can find an image of how it would’ve looked like when it was painted.

  • smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    3 months ago

    One medieval writer even went as far as to claim that if you take the hairs of a menstruating woman and bury them in the garden, a snake will grow from the earth. (If any of our dear readers try this at home, please write in to the ABC with your results).

  • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    You might want to read into it some weird sexist agenda, but really, they also had a lot of naked men with realistic penises and no pubes. I’m sure it’s cuz those dudes had to shave to make it look bigger, yeah?

  • Fleur__@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    Believe it or not there is actually no shortage of art containing women’s pubic hair if you just google it

  • Nurgus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    One thing the article doesn’t consider is age. What if the ancient artists were intending their subjects to be younger girls than the actual models?

    “Youth” in women being idealised then as now, presumably. I don’t imagine they had the same issues with girls being under age as we do.

  • gencha@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    I feel like I’ve seen plenty of bush in the galleries. Will have to take a closer look in the future

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      (dudes historically obsessing over the existence of body hair on women) women, am I right guys??

      • atro_city@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        3 months ago

        If it had been the other way around (pubes on women and non on men), I bet you this article would’ve complained about that too. It’s just ragebait for feminists looking for a reason to be offended.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You didn’t even read it, did you?

          There’s more complaining in your comment than in the piece you’re complaining about. Cry more, you’ll show those feminists!

        • Nurgus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Who on earth do you think is offended? It’s a fairly erudite and interesting exploration of the subject, no one is upset about anything. Except maybe you?

    • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They talk about male statues as well in the article, I don’t know why the title fixated on women.

      • rowrowrowyourboat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Because, according to the article, only the women had their hair removed. The men did have pubes.

        In ancient Greece, whether you were a hairy alpha male or a gorgeous and effeminate power bottom, the gents were generally allowed to let it all hang out. But when it came to depicting the female body, she was always entirely pubeless.