# Why do women have less hair on their bodies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 9, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593 "2003-06-09T04:25:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/21 "2003-06-10T04:17:38Z")
> [@](#): > > in the USA it seems to be “traditional” for women to shave their legs and armpits. Shaving the armpits has only existed for a few decades, so it’s only barely a tradition. That aside, women do have finer hair on their legs and arms even wihthout shaving. Based purely on personal observation it appars to grow straighter than the curly pubic hair type shape that many men have. ---
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/22 "2003-06-10T06:16:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by \*\*Fiver \*\* > And while we’re at it, how did it shake out that in most cultures throughout the world, women have worn their hair long and men (usually) wear it short? it’s mostly too much of a chore for men to properly look after long hair 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/23 "2003-06-10T09:57:00Z")
Short-haired women give the same reason. They’re busy go-getters, can’t bother with hair. Off with it. Modern life is so fast-paced, soon we’ll all be hairless Sigourney Weavers and Jesse Venturas. However, there will always be those of us who still find value in the cultural aesthetics of the American Indians, and the 1960s, where men’s and women’s human natural beauty doesn’t have to be sacrificed in the name of businesslike efficiency. Yeah, I’m a hippie and I like it better that way. Long hair for everybody! ---
**Author:** ![Kempis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kempis/32/19248_2.png) [@Kempis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kempis)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/24 "2003-06-10T14:04:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by shijinn \* > \*\*it’s mostly too much of a chore for men to properly look after long hair 😃 \*\* I think you’re right about that. I used to think that the fairly universal short=male long=female was because women have an erogenous zone on the back of their necks. At least, most of the women I’ve ever gotten to first base with did. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Fiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e274bd/32.png) [@Fiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiver)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/25 "2003-06-10T15:23:17Z")
**clairobscur** : > [@](#): > > Is that accurate? There has been many cultures where men wore long hair. A frank not only would wear long hair, but a vanquished or destitued enemy would have his hair cut in order to show he wasn’t anymore a viril, proud and free man. I bet you’d find that even in those cultures, the women’s hair was still longer. If a Frankish man’s hair was to his shoulders, in other words, a Frankish woman’s would fall to her waist. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/26 "2003-06-10T16:54:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Susanann \* > \*\*Although I agree that women do have less hair than males, the difference is not that great as first glance. If you look very closely, you will see hair all over a womans body, it is just lighter, shorter, and thinner. \*\* True. But the same thing is true for Chimpanzees and humans. Humans and chimps have the same number of hairs on our bodies, it’s just that human hairs are smaller and finer. The same thing is true for hairy men vs smooth women…same number of hairs, just different type of hairs. ---
**Author:** ![easy\_e](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/eb8c5e/32.png) [@easy\_e](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/easy_e)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/27 "2003-06-10T21:59:05Z")
**KarlGauss** And now you see why I didn’t do so hot on the endocrinology unit in my physiology class. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/28 "2003-06-11T00:30:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > \*\*True. But the same thing is true for Chimpanzees and humans. Humans and chimps have the same number of hairs on our bodies, it’s just that human hairs are smaller and finer. The same thing is true for hairy men vs smooth women…same number of hairs, just different type of hairs. \*\* I knew someone would get to this. So I’m left with this rebuttal. Most women have more hair on the heads than I do right now, and I’m not talking smaller, finer, I’m talking more. Wasn’t always that way for me.☹ One has to wonder what the evolutionary advantage of male pattern baldness is. Or maybe it’s no advantage and is just a side result of something else. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/29 "2003-06-11T01:49:13Z")
The lack of body hair on women makes their sexual organs much easier to find, which for most men is a huge bonus 😉 No, seriously, a bare chest makes the breasts more visible, while the pubic region is highlighted by being much hairier than the body parts around it (and this region needs hair to help disperse pheromones). This makes arousal signals such as skin flush and erect nipples much easier to see (the male’s arousal signal is already easy to see). > [@](#): > > One has to wonder what the evolutionary advantage of male pattern baldness is. Or maybe it’s no advantage and is just a side result of something else. I can’t remember where I read this, but it may have been in The Naked Ape (appropriate book to cite in this thread!) : the reason men lose their hair is to make them resemble babies, and incite nurturing instincts in those around them (particularly the women). This would fit with **Blake** ’s theory that women have less hair in order to look younger. Furthermore, personal observance tells me that babies of Indian (Asian, not American) descent are often born with a full head of hair, and men of those races are also far less likely to have male pattern baldness. Personally, I wonder why Oriental people have much less hair than most other races. My Chinese ex-GF had so few leg-hairs she could _pluck_ them out. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/30 "2003-06-11T05:36:25Z")
Just FYI, _The Naked Ape_, if it ever had much good info in it all, is hopelessly out of date. ---
**Author:** ![Major\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Major\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Major_Kong)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/31 "2003-06-11T06:01:46Z")
> [@](#): > > One has to wonder what the evolutionary advantage of male pattern baldness is. Or maybe it’s no advantage and is just a side result of something else. Would selection have played much of a role in this (to make it an advantage)? Most men don’t go bald until after they have reproduced. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/32 "2003-06-11T06:28:58Z")
> [@](#): > > the reason men lose their hair is to make them resemble babies, and incite nurturing instincts in those around them (particularly the women) I think that sounds kinda loopy… I’d think hair loss happens because we live far longer today (i.e. hair wasn’t needed to last for 60 years or whatever because most people didn’t live that long until recently). Same reason beards and hair go gray - the cells that produce the pigment die. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/33 "2003-06-11T06:38:54Z")
The trouble is that noticable hair loss usually starts in the late 30s at the very latest in those pone to it. Most prone men begin displaying signs in their mid 20s. Even at the worst of times adult life expectancy is about 55. That’s over 25% of the reproductive span spent with some degree of baldness. I suspect that it’s just a case of hair loss having so little effect on reproductive success that it never got weeded out. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/34 "2003-06-11T07:04:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Even at the worst of times adult life expectancy is about 55. That’s over 25% of the reproductive span spent with some degree of baldness. TODAY that’s 25% of the reproductive span. I wouldn’t say it’s always been so. For a variety of reasons, earlier in our evolutionary history I doubt there were many 55-year-olds. At 55, you’re quite a ways past your reproductive peak biologically. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/35 "2003-06-11T07:13:25Z")
I never said that there were many 55 year olds. I said the average adult life expactancy was about 55. The low total life expectancies were due to massive infant deaths, usually around 50% within 5 years. If you made it to adulthood you stood a good chance of hitting 55. 55 is indeed well past the reproductive peak of 18, but it is well inside normal reproductive age for males. The difference in reproductive terms between a 5 year old and a 35 year old isn’t great enough to conclude that the 55 year old is an insignificant contirbutor. So long as a 55yo is a contributor to the gene pool he must be considered in any theory. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/36 "2003-06-11T07:56:43Z")
Right. I think I’m trying to talk about further back in history. Tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago, I think 55 sounds more unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/37 "2003-06-11T08:22:31Z")
Hard to say, we simpy lack the data. We know from modern hunter gatheres that 55 is pretty common. 40 seems to be well and truly inside the range of alt lduife expectancy even with modern diseases. The thing is that even with inadequate nutrition etc. there is nothing much to kill a man before 55 in these societies. deaths in hunting aren’t that common, early onset heart disease is rare, as are strokes. What are you going to die of once you hit 20? You get all the little causes like wars and infected wounds and so on, rather than any mass exodus. ---
**Author:** ![syncrolecyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f08c70/32.png) [@syncrolecyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/syncrolecyne)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/38 "2003-06-11T14:55:23Z")
Baldness usually still usually occurs in a pattern that still allows for coverage of the ears and neck. I think perhaps there may be an evolutionary advantage to ‘displaying’ one’s age in humans, while in other species old animals may be seen as weak or easy prey - in humans, markers of age may indicate greater experience and importance. A primitive man may think twice about attacking a bald, grey haired man, knowing he will likely have grown sons. Just a thought… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593/39 "2003-06-11T16:53:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > \*\*I think that sounds kinda loopy… I’d think hair loss happens because we live far longer today (i.e. hair wasn’t needed to last for 60 years or whatever because most people didn’t live that long until recently). Same reason beards and hair go gray - the cells that produce the pigment die. \*\* Hair greying and hair loss occurs in chimps, too. I think this is a lot deeper in our evolutionary lineage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-women-have-less-hair-on-their-bodies/180593.md?page=1)