Thread: Underarm Hair
View Single Post
Old 06-30-2016, 04:40 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,175
Originally Posted by jbaker View Post
As discussed in a recent New York Times article, it seems that many women think that it is more hygienic to shave or otherwise remove pubic hair, even though the opposite is the case. I am saddened by this, since I am a man who is pro-pubic hair.

But I'm not pro-underarm hair. Is there a similar rationale under which women ideally should retain their underarm hair? What is the evolutionary purpose of underarm hair, anyway?
Can't be bothered for a cite, but a couple of things:
  • Almost certainly we were originally covered completely with hair
  • And then we lost it
  • So the question is not why hair, but why did we lose it everywhere except there? Like why not hairy elbows or knees?

There is a body of research that says these regions emit pheremones that have a measurable effect on attraction and repulsion. If you look anatomically at the armpit and groin region, one thing they have in common is they're warmer than the rest of the body, and they have all these different stinky glands than the rest of our skin. Hair helps diffuse these odors, so it would seem that we keep the pit and pube hair around for sexual attraction purposes.

As for why someone would shave one and not the other, it's a cultural matter that defies easy explanation. Shaving wasn't common until fashions started revealing those areas, and I guess society decided that women needed to differentiate themselves from men in the hair department.

Personally, and here is where we get into my weirdo deal, I think pits should run wild and pubes should be shaven (I mean just access shaving, not pedophile shaving). Let's have all that pheremone awesomeness in the areas that are most exposed, and let's get rid of all that hair where somebody could get it up in their teeth. I'll go first.