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

GENDER AND HAIR REMOVAL 35
work around ethnicity, hair, and body image more generally (e.g., Gordon, 2008; Jefferson &
Stake, 2009; Patton, 2006; Sabik, Cole, & Ward, 2010; Watson, Ancis, White, & Nazari, 2013),
exploring pubic hair meanings and practices beyond the White Western heterosexual body would
be important to identify the similar, as well as different, experiences and pressures on the bodies
of women and men situated outside the White heteronormative context (see Fahs, 2011, 2012;
Fahs & Delgado, 2011).
Although our purpose for our research was not comparative (across gender, race,
sexuality etc.), the limited number of men in the sample meant we could not systematically
explore the relevance of participant gender. Some research has reported somewhat negative
views from heterosexual, but not queer, women about male body depilation, except for back hair
(Boroughs, 2009). Basow and Braman (1998) found no gender difference in judgements about a
woman with body hair, and a gender difference of more positive attitudes towards female body
hair by women was explained by feminist attitudes. Fahs’ work (Fahs, 2011, 2012; Fahs &
Delgado, 2011) similarly demonstrated that female body hair negativity and policing are not
clearly gendered—suggesting that gender, and indeed sexuality, remains an interesting domain to
explore more fully in relation to body hair, and specifically pubic hair.
Like Toerien and Wilkinson (2004), we would conclude that the qualitative survey
method provided a very useful tool for assessing pubic hair meanings, providing a balance
between structure and openness. Another advantage is that the method provides the opportunity
to gather a sample larger than would often be feasible using other qualitative methods, allowing
for a greater breadth of response: for instance, it would not have been logistically feasible to
interview all 67 of our participants. The cost is that qualitative surveys do not typically produce
the depth and detail, nor the interrogation of meaning, that interactive qualitative methods allow.