?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Rephrased for clarity

Part of me wonders if those potential sex partners who are gacked by female body hair are gacked at the hair, or what it says about the woman (assuming her hygiene is good). It says that she doesn't feel compelled to comply with what is standard practice in America (and a few other countries) when it comes to defining what is attractive. Even if she's wearing makeup and Baby Phat, she has an independence, or at the very least rebelliousness, that is intensely personal. It's not like the kid with the 27 earrings who does it to shock and awe--it's a rebellion absolutely personal, and intimate, and invisible except to those in close physical proximity (unless you're Paula Cole at the Grammys in a sleeveless dress). Which means that if you are a sex partner, you are most likely to either benefit from or be hurt by that independence.

So, is it "gack" or is it a very sensible fight or flight response? I am inclined to think the latter--even if the potential male or lesbian partner is unaware of that fact on a conscious level. Given the number of cultures where body hair (having it or not, unless you get to the bear pelt level) is irrelevant, even cultures where personal cleanliness is highly prized, I find it difficult to believe the American response is simply "gack" to any large degree--that ignores the monkey brain too much.

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
keastree
Mar. 9th, 2006 06:52 pm (UTC)
100 years ago, the question of female body hair was moot. Women didn't expose their legs in public and they honestly had better things to do.

Our obsession with shaving stems from advertising campaigns of the early 20th Century. It's an expectation foisted upon us by culture. Partners who 'gack' are offering a conditioned response, based on an expectation that is put forward by every beauty magazine and image of fashion around.

hundmathr
Mar. 9th, 2006 07:38 pm (UTC)
ahhh
My apologies for missing the point of the first post, and thank you for the clarification for those of us who read it a little too fast and jumped to conclusions.

I’m not sure it’s an either or question.

This is a society whose ideals of feminine beauty runs towards the dangerously skinny woman who appears 13 and according to fashion stiles, movies and pornography, apparently has no body hair what so ever. I’ve seen jeans with rises so low that they seemed to require no undies and a drastic amount of personal depilatation to make them seem like they weren’t showing anything indecent.

Where as the ideal for men isn’t so skinny or boyish, body hair is definitely a no-no.

So much of this culture’s attitudes about attractiveness, or at least what is portrayed in the popular media seems to be driven by shame and inadequacy, and one of the messages seems to be that boy hair equates to unclean and poor hygiene.

However peoples reactions when faced with something outside these accepted norms, tends to be on a visceral level and not a cognitive one. Although the origin of their discomfort may be from this clash of cultures and expectations, it seems to internalized and expressed as shock, revulsion, disgust or shame.
dicea
Mar. 9th, 2006 07:51 pm (UTC)
Part of me wonders if those potential sex partners who are gacked by female body hair are gacked at the hair, or what it says about the woman

you then add:

(assuming her hygiene is good)

The issues of hygiene makes two possibilities for 'hair issue' and 'personal statement issue'.

Assuming poor hygiene, hair issue: hair is the most visible most displayed element of mankyness in an unkempt person, be that hair head, body, or facial. One look at a caracature of Henry VIII messily chomping a chicken leg could put a person with a vivid imagination off kissing men with beards For Ever.

Assuming poor hygiene, personal statement issue: hair is difficult to tend and keep at any given length and state. It becomes the most visible sign that a person just doesn't give a rat's tail about their appearance or their health, this also implies that they do not care about conforming to society for their own good or the communal health. Modern people associate dirty with sick, either physical or mental illness.

Assuming good hygiene, hair issue: It gets caught in my throat, I gag while giving you head, and I look like a fool. I don't like the feeling of any hair. Hair can disturb what might otherwise be a very asthetically pleasing body line, a small imperfection can be a much greater turn off than a big flaw.

Assuming good hygiene, personal statement issue: How dare you be so bold as to be beautiful, competant, inteligent, and kind without conforming to my standard of beauty. How dare you go against rules that everyone else follows and not show your shame. You cannot be comfortable or proud of yourself until you look like the rest of the women. You will not be wanted unless you show that you are willing to conform to my standard. You're not really a woman and you are unlovable, unwantable, dirty, nasty, and you probably can't even cook. You are not controlable and therefore you are not worthy to be put into submission so that you can fill your purpose. I'm not going to become vulnerable around you, you might end up laughing at me or making me look like a fool. You are an unknown element and you must be destroyed.

Well, at least those are the variations from my personal experience and observation. If your milage varies, you might want to check the oil level and the air pressure in your tires. *wink*
baronessekat
Mar. 10th, 2006 09:50 am (UTC)
ON a completely other tangent of thought for all this ties more into the Monkey Brain you mentioned.

Humans have spent hundreds of thousands of years evolving away from our distant tree climbing, hair covered ancestor.

As we developed the ability to clothe and protect ourselves from the elements we lost the need for that natural layer of protection and have moved to be the "hairless ape".

Nature has caused our little monkey brain to on a very primal level say "less body hair means you can provide for yourself and me and protect us from the elements. You will be good for the children. You are more evolved".

In this day and age we have ways to trick nature... razors, electrolysis, depilatory creams, plastic surgery, etc.

Because of this, when someone chooses to not trick nature, there is going to be that monkey brain initial reaction. "You are less", "Bad choice in partner", "find something/one else"

While I do agree with what others have said, especially dicea. I do think there is a very strong Monkey Brain reaction to just about every situation and person we encounter. And for this situation less hair means more involved.

So yes, bald men are more evolutionarily advanced than full headed men.
meirwen
Mar. 10th, 2006 12:16 pm (UTC)
Hmmm--I hadn't thought about it that way. You may be on to something (see, that degree is coming in handy after all!)
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )