Braun, V. , Tricklebank, G. and Clarke, V. (2013) It shouldnt stick out ...

GENDER AND HAIR REMOVAL 11
hair removal, reporting on qualitative research that examined perceptions and meanings
associated with pubic hair and with its removal.
Pubic hair removal is not inconsequential: it carries some potential health risks (Dendle,
Mulvey, Pyrlis, Grayson, & Johnson, 2007; Gibson, 2011; Porche, 2007; Ramsey, Sweeney,
Fraser, & Oades, 2009; Riddell et al., 2010; Trager, 2006), with evidence of increased numbers
of (mostly minor) genital injuries correlating with an increase in the practice (Glass et al., 2012).
It can be also costly; and for women, it may increase dissatisfaction with vulval appearance and
even lead to female genital cosmetic surgery (Braun, 2010; Wiseman, 2011). Furthermore, if
sociocultural understandings of “normal” pubic hair shift, women, and men, potentially become
subject to another site of strict body-norms, and an additional site of potential bodily policing
and body-related distress (which already occurs for other body hair for women; see Fahs, 2011,
2012, in press; Fahs & Delgado, 2011). Anecdotal accounts in media and from health
professionals suggest this shift is occurring.
Participants
Method
Participants were recruited through posters displayed around The University of Auckland,
word of mouth, snowballing, advertising via Facebook including a page specific to the project
that people could “like” and/or share, and email notices. In total, 67 New Zealanders participated
in our study. Most provided full demographic information, using primarily open-ended questions.
Participants were aged 18 to 48 (M = 29.4, SD = 9.34) and were predominantly female: 50
identified as female, 16 as male, one as “other” (unspecified). Self-indicated ethnicity was very
diverse, but 43 (64%) identified in a way typically understood in New Zealand as White, and
most others with Māori (9), Pacific (1) and/or Asian (6) ethnicities. Two participants identified as