|
26 jun 06 "Why do women generally find hairy backs so unnattractive? (with a few exceptions)" i don't know. because they're mean? "with a few exceptions" -- yes. some women don't mind hairy backs (much), and some hairy-backed men are otherwise so attractive that their deformity is minimally important. but i'd be quite surprised if, outside of fetishist circles, there were a woman who prefers and actively seeks out the hairy-backed man. i once saw a memorable response to a "small penis" thread on a bulletin board. after several posts discussing an "average" length (what it might be, what it might mean, reliability of studies, etc), a woman broke in and said "the most important quality of a penis is who it's attached to". this more or less stopped the thread. so, there's hope for the hairy-backed man, as long as he's tall, funny, rich (with public indicators), slender, articulate, and muscled. for the archetype of "unmarriable bachelor," see the character of "carl" in the adult-cartoon "aqua teen hunger force", who has hairy shoulders poking out of his "wife beater" undershirt. i'm sure at least one reader is famliar with whom i'm talking about. partly, the "no hair" ethic is the fault of the epoch at hand: in the days of magnum pi, tom seleck and the hairy, broad-chested, mustachioed pimp were very "in". now, i'm not entirely sure what's "in," but it's certainly not that. well, who am i kidding -- even in the glory days of tom seleck, tom's curly chest locks didn't progress, cancerously, onto his shoulders and back like a stump fungus. i have to be careful to distinguish a "no hair" ethic from a "no hairy back (or shouders, probably)" ethic. why the second would exist without the first, as it has in other decades, is puzzling. maybe just because back hair is unusual? the attitude is most prevalent in large north american cities. out in the sticks (styx?), they don't care so much about culture-coveting, and are content to be hairy, toothless and fat, for the most part. what women really like, independent of culture, is power -- ie, her mate will be able to defend her and her offspring from maurading mammoths. sorry to fall back into "what humans naturally do as exemplified by caveman", because that's starting to get old, but it's a very comfortable chair to fall back into. furthermore, some wisdom can still be gleaned from it, until it becomes a total cliche. i don't think it's quite there yet. anyway, women want power, depending on how it's manifested in a particular culture (physical strength, intelligence, or wealth, basically). i think the hairy back is obviously a cultural value -- it was just decided that that would be unattractive, via some convoluted and meaningless evolution. anything outside of reproductive fitness is a cultural value. women find hairy backs unattractive because they're told to, for the most part, just like men find fat-bodied women (who are still generally shaped like a "woman") unattractive for the same reason (see: venus of willendorf). the only things independant of culture i can think of are that hair indicates age, is equated with a beastial, primitive nature (perhaps implying stupidity), and that hair traps odor -- a hairy back indicates lots of hair all over, including in crucial places. the fat-bodied women and the hairy-backed man are forced into a position of finding each other, and finding each other "attractive" -- of "settling", as it were. but always, in the background, are images of the truly attractive that whisper in the couple's ears: "you're not really attractive, whether your husband/wife finds you so or not." the only solution is hair-removal or leaving the north american urban center (this includes the suburbs, although they haven't quite gotten into testicle-shaving yet). however, western culture and its associated values are fast-encroaching, although i haven't taken a survey of moldovan women and their back-hair preferences. but they do see brad pitt and his lack thereof, so respite even in dinky backwater europe is probably fast fading. sort of ironic that above i assert that women are being told what they're attracted to, and here i go and do the same thing. but at least my commands are based on some analysis. but this uncertainty illustrates that people are attracted to whomever they're attracted to -- discussions of "people naturally do this or that" don't have much or any bearing on comtemporary attitudes, because the human brain has evolved to trump any evolutionarily evolved cognitive behaviors with consciousness and decision-making. that said, a person has some control over the person to whom they're attracted. have very hairy men, even hairy-backed men, ever been "in", in any culture? i don't know. wikipedia's article on body hair tells us that "attitudes towards hair on the human body also vary between different cultures and times", but then the article goes on to cite about five examples of cultures that value(d) smooth bodies, without a single example to the contrary. this makes me consider the possiblity that preferring men without back-hair goes a little bit deeper than purely cultural, although it's possible that wikipedia is just poorly-researched and written by some college sophmore (perhaps more likely). so basically, women find hairy-backed men unattractive because they are mean. options: electrolysis, suicide, or leave the planet. but seriously, i've talked to a few (three or four) women who tell me that it's not so significant, and that other attractive traits are much more important. with a fat bank account, the sentiment of "eww, you're like a gorilla!" rapidly changes to "aww, you're furry!" |
ask a question