# Why do we have pubic hair? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 22, 2006, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-pubic-hair/349490 "2006-03-22T21:53:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-pubic-hair/349490/81 "2011-05-12T00:41:41Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > How did the trait appear in the first place? > > Why does it persist? > > My only argument is that pubic hair _could_ well be a “neutral” trait, and I would add that the ubiquity of a trait is not necessarily evidence that it was selected for. “could be” and “probably is” are two very different claims. Which one are you making? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-pubic-hair/349490/82 "2011-05-12T01:35:31Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > How did the trait appear in the first place? The original basis for the trait was either a mutation, or more likely the combination of the effects of several mutations. However, its establishment throughout the human population was almost certainly due to selection. > [@](#): > > Why does it persist? Again, it almost certainly persisted throughout human populations as they spread globally due to selection. If it wasn’t selected for, you would expect at least some human populations to have lost the trait due to random chance, founder effects, and genetic drift. > [@](#): > > My only argument is that pubic hair _could_ well be a “neutral” trait, and I would add that the ubiquity of a trait is not necessarily evidence that it was selected for. Why not, exactly? Please spell out your reasoning. > [@](#): > > Absent a compelling explanation–and none in this thread qualify as compelling in my layman’s opinion–I remain skeptical. Fair enough, but that’s not skepticism, that’s merely uninformed opinion. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-pubic-hair/349490/83 "2011-05-12T01:51:50Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > My only argument is that pubic hair _could_ well be a “neutral” trait, and I would add that the ubiquity of a trait is not necessarily evidence that it was selected for. > > Absent a compelling explanation–and none in this thread qualify as compelling in my layman’s opinion–I remain skeptical. ‘Ubiquity’ isn’t a good description of pubic hair. Almost every adult has it, yet its still has a lot variance among individuals and populations, and total absence is very rare. That’s not proof of a ‘beneficial’ trait, but it it doesn’t provide support for a ‘neutral’ trait at all. Defining ‘neutral’ can be pretty difficult by itself. Hair in the groin may have no apparent benefits to modern humans who keep it covered up, but our ancestors had no clothes at some point in the past and it may have great benefits for them at the time. It may have been a trait developed after we began to wear clothes, and it somehow helps control body temperature or protects from disease in clothed humans. Then it might have been an neutral trait in the past that became beneficial. As for a compelling explanation, well I need convincing that any human trait is not related to sexual selection, especially the traits that are adornments of our genitalia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-pubic-hair/349490.md?page=4)