Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.”     James Madison

March 16, 2009

New Jersey To Ban Being Bare “Down There”

by Brad Warbiany

New Jersey, already a state even less free than my home of CA (PDF), has decided to tread where others don’t dare, to see if the ladies are bare down there:

Things could get hairy in New Jersey this summer for women who sport revealing bikinis or a little bit less.

The painful Brazilian wax and its intimate derivatives are in danger of being stripped from salon and spa menus if a recent proposal to ban genital waxing is passed by the state’s Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling.

Cherry Hill salon owner Linda Orsuto said that women would “go ballistic” if the proposal passed. She said that some women would resort to waxing themselves, visiting unlicensed salons or traveling to other states, including Pennsylvania, in a quest to remain bare down there.

“The clients are going to freak,” said Orsuto, who owns 800 West Salon & Spa, on Route 70. “It’s a hot issue, and we’re going to have to do something.”

New Jersey statutes allow waxing of the face, neck, arms, legs and abdomen, but officials say that genital waxing has always been illegal, although not spelled out.

Regardless, almost every salon in South Jersey, from Atlantic City casinos to suburban strip malls, has been breaking the law for years by ridding women, and some men, of their pubic hair for $50 to $60 a session.

Don’t the emanations of penumbras that apply to nearby portion of a woman’s body also apply here? I’ve never figured out where those emanations and penumbras lie, especially when the 9th Amendment would have sufficed to cover that other decision, but I have to think this is similar enough to get a hearing before a very titillated Clarence Thomas.

Does this mean that all those douchebags wearing their “FBI – Female Body Inspector” t-shirts will now start applying for exactly that job with the state?

I do feel sorry for the husbands and boyfriends of women who are doing it only to be courteous — you’re out of luck. Get ready to hear “sorry, hon, it’s illegal.”

So why the uproar over this? Well, it comes from a likely source:

Orsuto said that the proposal may be the state’s way of diverting a long-established salon procedure “perfected by aestheticians” to the medical community, where hair can be removed via laser treatment by dermatologists.

Follow the lobbying money.

Hat Tip: MichaelW @ QandO

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/03/16/new-jersey-to-ban-being-bare-down-there/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

11 Comments

  1. I would also think that however the unwritten rule of privacy was established would serve to cover how women remove (or not remove) bodily hair, wherever that might be. Beyond that, isn’t the government also intruding in how a private enterprise does business? How should the government be able to dictate what type of services a business offers? What’s the point in regulating pubic hair removal?

    Comment by Kathryn Rebecca — March 16, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
  2. If they take this national, will there be a House Un-Merkin Activities Committee?

    Comment by Akston — March 16, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
  3. Kathryn,

    From the day the first English settlers landed in Virginia, they have had governments dictating what services businesses are permitted to offer.

    My business sells computer programs. I can’t start also cooking and selling frozen fish sticks as well without getting a whole bunch of permits.

    In New York State, a doctor who allowed patients to pay him a flat fee for every month for his services rather than paying him for every service he performed was ordered to stop because he was behaving too much like an insurance company for regulator’s tastes.

    These laws have on occasion been challenged all the way to the U.S. supreme Court. They have lost everytime. There is no government that does not claim this power.

    Comment by tarran — March 16, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
  4. What is the point is regulating pubic hair removal? This is absurd! Women should have every right to continue to have this procedure done by their licensed esthetician without state officals putting their nose where it doesn’t belong.

    Comment by Olivia D. — March 16, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
  5. Or perhaps there are just Republicans on that Board of Cosmetology who are having a hard time adjusting to a future without Bush in it?

    Comment by Akston — March 16, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
  6. Akston,

    Thank you. You are treating this with all the solemnity it truly deserves :-)

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 16, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
  7. Good one Akston, but I doubt it has anything to do with Bush or the lack thereof, as Brad said, follow the money.

    tarran, you are absolutely right. Funny thing is that the people writing the laws frequently have no knowledge of the industry involved. I am licensed to work with up to 90 volts (low voltage), but nowhere does it say what amperage I can work with.

    Comment by John — March 16, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
  8. I propose the exact opposite of this. Instead of banning this procedure, it should be every man’s right to have this procedure performed on his significant other free of charge.

    Comment by Nick M. — March 16, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
  9. Apparently the source of this little gem of legislative genius stems from two recent incidents where the customers were injured and needed medical treatment as a result. The mind boggles.

    Comment by SC — March 17, 2009 @ 5:29 am
  10. I think this is crazy, how can they ban this! Well i hear people are taking an alternative to waxing and using betty beauty pubic hair dye anyway lol

    Comment by CC12 — March 17, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
  11. And isn’t at least some of the stimulus bill supposed to be going to infrastructure like landing strips?

    Comment by Akston — March 17, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML