Did you see that BUSH??

"I don't believe that bek-12 was referring to shrubs, hedges and trees, but to Julia's 'bush'. It was indeed quite a sight, and could have done with a bit of pruning."

It's difficult to say for certain. There's a chance the OP could have studied arboriculture...

landing strips are better.

I suspect the actress made a deal about exactly what she was willing to expose. The "bush" was designed to give some cover for frontal nudity, and I noticed that she was never shot from behind when she was naked. She obviously didn't mind showing her chest.

youngsteve wrote:


A real woman, instead of the usual women who have bodies of pre teens.

Please. Women, by definition, do not, and cannot have the bodies of pre-teens, unless they are deformed by disease or anorexia.

What you mean to be saying, I gather, is that post-teen females practice shaving and waxing, thereby achieving a (pleasant, imo) "hairless effect". And why not? The female body naturally tends toward less hirsuteness, and females themselves have helped along Nature's format mostly pleasurably and successfully.

Moreover, modern "Western" cultural mores take Nature's lack of female hirsuteness as far as possible. Again - why not? A hair-free body, consequent to shaving, waxing, creams, whatever - with only two areas obstrusively in rebellion against the general trend, namely, the armpits and groin. "Might as well finish the job" is an attitude by no means anti-Nature (which already designed the less-hirsute female skin) or anti-woman (unless a woman is prevented from exercising her right to sport varying shades of hirsuteness). Bare, i.e., hairless, skin has virtues - aesthetic, visual, and tactile - of its own. Any strange notion, however, that depilation has the effect of returning the female body into a "pre-teen" format is certainly at the bottom of the body-display wish-list.

And how is it that a completely hairless female torso/legs represents a regression or reversion to pre-teen form? What if said female has large breasts, completely at odds with the no-breasts or the breast-buds of the pre-teen female...? Or what if said female has wide hips, completely at odds with the usual narrow hips of the pre-adolescent female? Not to mention the much more heavily muscled frame of the adult woman.

The point is: even with all the hair-removal techniques the world has to offer, no woman is going to look like a pre-teen female.
Rather, she is going to look like a woman with a (hopefully) pleasingly slick, smooth, gleaming, hairless torso, and an equally denuded groin region. She will not look like a pre-teen girl by any stretch of the imagination.

As to our "Julia", she was a fine-looking female with what appeared to be a generous "bush" (whether or not it was all hers or a Manufactured Muff). My own preference is for less wool, but the posters on here who remark on "THAT bush!" are simply showing their ignorance of bush-growth tendencies in adult women. It's really no big deal at all.