Exposed unshaven underarms

[Bad Boris]

Heading back to Roman times I am assuming most women of the period would not shave their underarms.
That said, does the fact crucified women would have their hairy armpits exposed to all fascinate/excite? Would it add even more to the humiliation?

 

[Martha Come]

Yeah! I love hairy women.....

 

[Martha Come]

Some lovely pics

 

[Martha Come]

some more

 

[Bad Boris]

Some lovely pics

Fantastic - Bianca Stone looking hot and unshaved. Hairy armpits look so sensual when stretched wide

 

[Bad Boris]

And another conundrum. Would the crucifixion party insist on shaving the victims' heads as an additional humiliation? So the victim's arms spread with tufts of underarm hair showing - yet their long, flowing locks are shorn before they are put up on the cross.

 

[cruxlover]

Since those crucified were either slaves, criminals or wartime captives, would any have had the wherewithal in time or equipment to shave their underarms or crotches. Even if they had been clean shaved before they were taken up, by the time they came to the cross after weeks or months in prison, their pubes would have grown back.

 

[Bad Boris]

Since those crucified were either slaves, criminals or wartime captives, would any have had the wherewithal in time or equipment to shave their underarms or crotches. Even if they had been clean shaved before they were taken up, by the time they came to the cross after weeks or months in prison, their pubes would have grown back.

I can't imagine most that were put to the cross (criminals, slaves) would be too concerned with personal grooming - but as you say @cruxlover their bushes and pits would be well-grown even if they had kept them trimmed before imprisonment.
And if it was a well-to-do woman who had kept herself trimmed the humiliation of her hairy pits being on show to all would be wonderful

 

[Eulalia]

I think slaves are more likely to have been shaved, actually,
as it was a relatively quick and easy way to reduce the population of lice etc.
they'd be carrying around - patricians would have had leisure to take baths.

 

[woodflesh]

Heading back to Roman times I am assuming most women of the period would not shave their underarms.
That said, does the fact crucified women would have their hairy armpits exposed to all fascinate/excite? Would it add even more to the humiliation?

Their armpits shall not be shaved, but the hairs under their arms shall be yanked out by pliers. By the way, also the flesh of their armpits shall be pinched and ripped.

 

[jimsac]

Heading back to Roman times I am assuming most women of the period would not shave their underarms.
That said, does the fact crucified women would have their hairy armpits exposed to all fascinate/excite? Would it add even more to the humiliation?

I don’t know why but it does excite me.

 

[jimsac]

some more

Classic erotisk tvang

 

[Lust]

Voted for Shaven, even thought it prob was not historically accurate. I could be wrong though I guess because someone above mentioned lice control.

 

[Martha Come]

If you like hairy Bianca....

 

[Martha Come]

fucking Stone

 

[Martha Come]

black Bianca

 

[Martha Come]

Nice hairy bitch

 

[Martha Come]

another hairy slut

 

[Naraku]

At one time, I thought that shaving the armpits, pubes and legs was a modern affectation and was not practiced in ancient times. The one exception was Pharonic Egypt, where both men and women shaved the entire body for hygienic reasons. But, then I found this line in one of Seneca's letters:
13. Moreover, style has no fixed laws; it is changed by the usage of the people, never the same for any length of time. Many orators hark back to earlier epochs for their vocabulary, speaking in the language of the Twelve Tables. Gracchus, Crassus, and Curio, in their eyes, are too refined and too modern; so back to Appius and Coruncanius! Conversely, certain men, in their endeavour to maintain nothing but well-worn and common usages, fall into a humdrum style. 14. These two classes, each in its own way, are degenerate; and it is no less degenerate to use no words except those which are conspicuous, high-sounding, and poetical, avoiding what is familiar and in ordinary usage. One is, I believe, as faulty as the other: the one class are unreasonably elaborate, the other are unreasonably negligent; the former depilate the leg, the latter not even the armpit.
So, now I think that shaving or waxing was practiced by both sexes, at least among upper class Romans. However, I doubt that it was done among the lower classes or slaves, and was likely unheard of among the "barbarians". Since upper class Romans were rarely crucified, unshaven armpits are more historically accurate.
On a personal level, I do like the unshaven hippy look. It reminds me of my earliest porn experiences

 

[cruxlover]

I think slaves are more likely to have been shaved, actually,
as it was a relatively quick and easy way to reduce the population of lice etc.
they'd be carrying around - patricians would have had leisure to take baths.

Might depend if they were house slaves or field slaves, I doubt if those condemned would be shaved, why worry about lice the prisoners would soon be dead.