While I prefer “100% natural” for armpits and pubic area, I prefer women’s legs as shaved. There’s no smoother place than a woman’s inner thighs.
In my late teens in the 1970s I was a midwest hippie idealist and wanted nothing to do with women wearing make-up or bras, or who shaved their bodies.
None of my girl-friends had thick dark hair so I don’t know how I would have felt about heavy leg hair.
Now, 40 years later, I’m less judgmental about the matter and also rarely see unshaven legs. Still I’m voting for unshaven. More for nostalgia than for actual aesthetic/erotic preference.
I would love my legs to be smooth all the time but I’m just too lazy. I get my legs waxed every couple of months. I don’t really grow too much hair on my thighs anymore, but my calves and ankles get hairy between waxing. It’s kind of a sparse soft hair, my boyfriend has never complained. Maybe he’s thinking it though. Now I have to ask him!
IMO, you could ‘prefer’ something, but still take it or leave it. As in “I prefer shaved legs. But I don’t really mind them either way” while actively prefer would mean (to me) “I prefer shaved legs, in fact, I really don’t like unshaved legs at all”
I used to hear that the European women didn’t shave. I’ve noticed the Euro actresses and models in mags and movies have shaved legs. Has attitudes about hairy legs and pits changed in Europe?
I prefer smooth legs on a woman. I’ve never touched another woman’s legs but I am really so very attracted to them and I’m sure I’d prefer smooth. Sigh.
I have no real preference except I don’t like a lot of hair.
What about bisexual men?
I once carressed the legs of a very attractive girl and still remember the fact that I felt the stubble of shorn hair through the sheer nylon. It didn’t diminish my desire for her one iota.But then I was in the prime of my libido at the age of 16 or so.
The poll is directed at anyone whose attracted to women. It isn’t difficult.
I really don’t care either way.
The main reason the woman in that picture’s legs look bad is that she’s got a glamorous dress on and lots of make-up and incongruous hairy legs. If she were wearing shorts and a t-shirt and had minimal make-up, it’d look a lot better.
Very few women shave their inner thighs, or their upper thighs at all.
I caught that, which is why I answered as a bisexual male.
Unjudgmental as I try to be, unshaven legs are icky. If it’s longer than stubble, I’m not touching.
But on the legs? Not so much. Stubble is fine, even a couple of hairs here and there, but if that linked picture is supposed to be the baseline for “hairy legs” then I must say hell no. I guess those two views together make zero sense, but it’s what my primitive caveman brain tells me. I can be civilized though. I’m willing to shave my legs too if that’s what she wants.
I prefer unshaven. It’s not a huge (ahem) hairy deal but because the culture makes such an emphatic insistence on shaved legs I’ve gotten kind of noisy about my tastes in the other direction. It’s not a dealbreaker kind of preference by any means.
Oh, were we supposed to put our stats stuff? Straight male 51.
Other… It doesn’t matter, really. She wants to shave, fine, she doesn’t, fine.
My answer is ‘other’, though, rather than ‘whatever she wants’, because at the extreme of hairiness - any combination of 2 or more of thick, course and dark hair - I will find aesthetically unpleasant. It’s just that, if I’m in a position where my opinion on how attractive her legs are matters, her legs are pretty much the least important thing.
I prefer bald-headed, clean-shaved one-legged women, with hairy backs and bushy unibrowns, sporting exuberantly hirsute ears and nostrils—hairy legs just squink me out.
My girlfriend type person is not a shaver of anything below the waist, and I am perfectly happy with this. It’s not a matter of being attracted to/turned off by a hirsute person (of either gender, being as I go that way) and more “this person is attractive to me, is their hairiness (or lack thereof) a dealbreaker?” In her case, the answer is a very distinct and emphatic no.
Are we talking about farmgirls in Communist Eastern Germany, fashion models in Barcelona in the 1920s, Scottish factory lasses in the 2000s?
There are reports from very-European 19th-Century British writers of being shocked that those Spanish and Italian brunettes had moustaches, but then, when every woman in your village has one and most people have never been more than three villages away, there is nothing repulsive about sharing a physical trait with everybody else.
Eventually, moustaches and hairy legs and armpits in women became undesirable: this started in urban settings (fashion models were getting rid of it much sooner than farmgirls were). But in much of Europe, the preferred method to get rid of it is waxing: nowadays you can find “girlie” shaving materials in Southern European supermarkets, but as recently as 1998 you couldn’t - many European women consider shaving absolutely barbaric compared to waxing. This, combined with the hairier look of a needs-waxing leg over a needs-shaving leg, may have led Americans to create that urban legend.
Does not shave <> loves beary legs.
Since the premise is wrong, both in that hairy beary was never fashionable in Europe and in that a lot of those actresses and models do not, strictly speaking, have shaved legs, the question is not applicable.
Unless the young lady in question is in active need of a carpet shampoo, then I really don’t care. Also, I’m desperate.
Straight woman here, so I didn’t vote.
In the 70’s, most women in Germany did not remove leg or pit hair. Younger women (teens and 20’s) were more likely to do so but it wasn’t universal. I don’t really know if it was fashionable to have hairy legs but it certainly was common. I wouldn’t call the “European women don’t shave” idea a complete urban legend.