There are people especially women with hair free bodies except for pubic hair.
It acts as a dry lubricant.
Our ancestors were covered in hair. The hair that we have now are the last remnants.
Sweetie, those women have body hair on their legs and under their arms, just like you. They just remove it.
That idea has three absolutely fatal flaws. The first is that most pubic hair sits on the lower abdomen and has absolutely nothing to lubricate. The second is that children have no pubic hair and suffer no problems with lack of lubrication. The third and perhaps most important is that there is no evidence that people who shave suffer more from a lack of lubrication than people who do not.
Even if your speculation was correct it goes no way towards answering the question. Why would a species lose hair from everywhere except the lower abdomen and underarm? But we know this almost certainly wan the case because there is no evidence that our ancestors had pubic hair. Modern apes don’t have pubic hair. Pubic hair is a very special type of hair, it isn’t simple body hair. If no modern ape has pubic hair there is no reason to believe it is a primitive feature that has been retained. Instead it seems to be an advanced feature that our lineage evolved.
The most widely accepted theory is that pubic hair serves as a dispersal surface for odours produced by the oil glands in the groin, much the same purpose as underarm hair. IOW it’s not coincidental that the two areas with a large concentration of scent glands are also covered in hair. That also explains why juveniles have no pubic hair, since the scent glands are largely dormant in children.
Or simply put the hair exists to make us more smelly.
Hmmm… I’ve always wondered that, too. You know, I don’t see any reason for it. I’ve always kind of had a pube phobia, its kind of ugly and gross. I’m an advocate for women removing it as well. The only problem is, it looks kind of odd completely bare. So I don’t know, I guess we have a dilemma --NG
Sorry for saying “kind of” so many times. Bad habit
I think he/she meant “lubrication” during intercourse. I’ve heard it suggested as well, though I have no idea how much validity it has.
But then we need some hideously convoluted mechanism to explain why axillary hair is identical to pubic hair, including the scent glands. Either humans in the past had sex via the armpits or else we need to speculate that of, all the reasons the human body might need lubrication, the relatively infrequent act of sex is top of the list. Hardly seems plausible either way.
Not to mention that I’ve never heard complaints that suggest that shaving results in any unpleasant consequences due to lack of lubrication.
I have, from multiple sources. Apparently, if only one partner is shaved, there’s no problem, but if both are, serious chafage results.
Chafage occurs because of shaving stubble not so for waxage, for example. I’d guess without it at all (given the time it takes to complete intercourse - not marathon sex) there would bw no problem at all.
I humbly suggest you shave it off and discover the results firsthand.
Be prepared for a great deal of sweat that would normally be caught in the hairs instead uncomfortably running down your legs and between your buttocks.
Also, the itching is hardly any fun at all.
It additionally acts as a friction-reducer for your legs as you walk.
But if you weren’t clothed where do you think that sweat would go anyway?Once the hair is saturated it would follow exactly the same course. It’s not like the hair can funnel it upwards or something. So unless you are proposing that pubic hair evolved after we started wearing absorbent cloth clothing it’s not an explanation.
RIght, but that must be because of the shaving. After all children don’t devlop any. So once again it’s not an explanation to suggets that hair evolved to prevent the itch that results form the hair being shaved.
And as I pointed out above, children suffer no friction problems, and most of the pubic hair sits on the lower abomen, not between the legs.
I suspect that this is also a reason why we have it in our armpits. I imagine it reduces chafing in both areas and by providing a conduit to get more moisture exposed to the air it keeps rashes (or worse) from developing. The by-product of this is that you broadcast your scent more widely.
So I guess an interesting question to ask might be whether our scent glands developed in their current locations before or after we grew hair there. Maybe the answer could point us to whether the scent dispersal or the lubricating effect was the more important factor in the evolution of our lovely, lovely thatches of pubic/pit hair.
Why do women have pubic hair?
So you can floss after you eat…
The problem is that it totally fails to explain why pubic hair only develops at puberty. If it were required as lubricant then it would be just as vital for children as it is for adults. As it is it is quite clearly a secondary sexual characteristic.
No, all you need to do is ask whether we have a control group of animals that lack pubic hair so we can see if it has any effect at all as a lubricant. As it happens we have such a group in children, and it is quite clear that pubic hair is not required for lubrication.
You could also ask yourself whether the vast bulk of pubic hair, situated as it is on the lower abdomen, could ever function as lubricant in the first place.
No, it doesn’t look like the answer is in the back of the book, even if we could agree which book to use.
Free range speculating here… there are presumably hormones that like to collect near the pubes… and they might have something to do with hair growth… so why is underarm hair so much like pubic hair? Or is it? At the microscopic level?
That it might have something to do with chafing makes some sense, but only sort of. The pubic hair on a male’s equipment doesn’t look like it does much protecting of that sort.
That it might have something to do with chafing during sex makes some sense, but only sort of; there’s some wearing of the two pubic surfaces, but it’s more of a pounding action, knowwhudImean? Anyhow, doesn’t explain the underarm hair. Although that’s maybe needed for the ordinary chafing of our arms swinging…
That it might have something to do with scent retention makes some sense, but only sort of. Should be subject to experiment: do glandular scents during sex actually improve the sex? Seems a little dubious, since most of the scents are strongest after sex, not before or during.
…Just thinking out loud, if that’s the right word…
Well, yes. Once the hair is saturated the sweat does drip down. However, (for example) while running nude, the wind will evaporate the sweat before it runs down your legs and becomes a discomfort. In this light it makes sense that it would have only evolved because humans at that time lacked absorbent cloth. I know from experience with running that the public hair does catch a great deal of sweat, though I don’t normally run nude and it ends up staying there. Nothing a quick towel can’t fix.
True, that part of my post was tongue-in-cheek, so if he actually did take me up on my suggestion he would know what to expect. 
(Perhaps too much information but) my personal pubic hair begins on my lower abdomen and extends all the way down and ‘behind’, so to speak, covering the preineum and growing into the … er… butt crack. :o When the hair there is lacking, friction problems are definitely experienced. The upper abdomen pubic hair doesn’t do much for this.
I did miss another important point though. External genitalia (especially in males) has to be regulated at a very precise temperature, and it’s possible that the insulation properties of hair are necessary here.
I should quit already… Primates have better vision than smell… I wonder whether the pubic hair at the crotch level is simply for visual effect. I mean, even a lot of caucasian blondes have dark pubic hair… (from the pictures I’ve seen. Scientific research, donchaknow.) Doesn’t really explain black pubic hair on dark-skinned people…