Well,I´m a woman. But I hope this don´t become a gender issue. I just wonder why women have to torture themselves by waxing or shaving absolutely every little hair in thei body for beauty reasons. It´s not about aesthetics...it´s about an absurd cultural construction and a sexist one.
So I´d like to know íf I´m the only one thinking like this,or if even guys would be open-minded enough to accept not absolutely hairless women. I think it´s just a matter of habit. Many would find it terrible at first,but they´d get used,as with everything else.
Sounds like quite a shallow topic,but I believe it´s not. It´s one of the things that women are limited by,enslaved.
I´d appreciate honest opinions. Thanks
I'm a man, and personally I'm in favor of becoming more acceptant of hair. It is true that women have to bear most of the pressure, but unfortunately the pressure is rapidly increasing for men, so I think soon this won't be much of a gender issue.
So while I don't particularly care if a woman shaves her legs, pubis, etc. I think I'm part of a rapidly dwindling minority. I don't shave my body apart from the beard (don't want the bother of maintaining a beard), and my wife rarely shaves (and when she does, it's not at my request).
It's not a shallow topic. The more people need to change themselves to conform to their ideals, the more messed up the situation is. I find it sad that people think of themselves as ugly when they let their body behave naturally.
> I just wonder why women have to torture themselves by waxing or shaving absolutely every little hair in thei body for beauty reasons. It´s not about aesthetics...it´s about an absurd cultural construction and a sexist one.
Women have less apparent body hair then men, so less hair appears more feminine.
Similar with other characteristics related to human sexual dimorphism: breasts, muscles, height, facial hair, hips, etc.
I think calling this is sexist is stupid (but at least logically true... if I'm sexist because I discriminate against men in my sexual pursuits).
> It´s one of the things that women are limited by,enslaved.
It may be a chore, but at least it's possible, affordable and risk-free for most all women. At lot more sensible than breast implants or bulimia.
> if even guys would be open-minded enough to accept not absolutely hairless women
I don't mind a little fuzz on the arms or stomach. Underarm hair is not so repulsive on a woman. Leg hair is a no. Pubic hair can stay, I like to know she's hit puberty.
OP here.Thanks a lot guys for your answers. It´s really nice to know there are men who are more tolerant to hair.
>3 Though is true women have less hair than men and therefore that feature is more appreciated,removing hair is still a social construction affecting only one gender and so I consider it sexist. Think about how limitant it is for a woman... we can´t wear shorts if we haven´t waxed, can´t wear smiwsuits,etc. Men have no boundaries in that aspect.
And of course it´s better than surgeries for example, but that doesn´t make it less oppressive.
I think the term oppression is a little harsh for this situation, but I won't argue there is a lot of pressure on women to look like supermodels.
But this whole idea idealized body image thing hasn't been thought up by men , the 'opression' of a natural body comes more from manufacturers of razor blades, deodorants, shampoos, perfumes, concealers, lipsticks, tanning beds, fad diets, etc and the marketers who make you feel bad about yourself if you don't buy their brands.
(And men are being targeted by this increasingly)
If you wanted to change things, you'd have to get people to stop buying this stuff. The unexpected catch is you'd probably be ridiculed as much by women as by men.
>>5
You have a point in considering the situation part of a bigger construction,and absolutely related to power and economy. It´s true that consumerism is highly promoted and that "enslaves" people,both,men and women. But yet women are more demanded of being particularly beautiful more than smart,wise,etc. And of course many women contribue to that, making the sexist logic spread.
Besides, making people pay that much attention to physical appeareance, I think they discourage also an inner knowledge of oneself,and therefore a deeper vision of things in general. The more shallow and stupid,the easier people are to be lead.
As another girl, having hair on your body is disgusting. A girl with tons on her legs and other regions looks like she doesn't care about her appearance. I know if I was a guy I wouldnt date a girl who didn't shave.
I'm a heterosexual man, and the following is my opinion on the matter.
Hair, in general, is not sexy. Hair on one's head is fine. Hair on legs is weird, and it's unattractive to me. Hair on arms is fine as long as it's not dark/obvious (i.e., as long as it's just fuzz that doesn't really stand out from, say, 10 feet away or so). Armpit hair should at least be trimmed, but I personally think it's sexy on a woman to have it completely shaved off. This is one location where I can imagine having a (well-trimmed) amount of hair might be alright. Maybe. As for the pubic region, I personally prefer to see it well-trimmed, to the point where it's pretty short but still soft and not stubble-like. It's just that a gigantic bush of untamed hair is nasty, especially if you want to go down on your woman. So less is better, until it becomes stubble-like. No hair at all can look sexy, too, as far as I'm concerned, but the stubble that results is way less peferable than well-trimmed hair down there. Shaved pubic hair requires more upkeep, can be itchy/annoying for the girl, and if any amount of stubble pops up, it's kind of unpleasant for the guy, too (stubble on your dick or your face is not exactly a pleasant sensation, in my opinion). Also, when I say pubic hair, I'm talking about the hairy area around the mons pubis. Ass hair, if present, should be removed entirely. Last but definitely not least, facial hair: this is entirely unacceptable. I wouldn't be able to date a girl who had facial hair, especially on her upper lip. I don't know why, but it's really disgusting to me. Even if you shave it off, as long as there's any sort of noticeable stubble (e.g., noticeable while kissing), it's revolting. I don't care so much about eyebrows, unless she's got incredibly busy ones, in which case a little hedge trimming may be in order. Nose hair and ear hair are without a doubt disgusting and should be eliminated if present. Maybe I've been brainwashed by society, but that's just how I think.
So in sum, my ideal woman would have:
-No visible leg hair
-No visible armpit hair
-No visible (or feelable) facial hair
-Reasonably maintained eyebrows (if necessary)
-No visible ear hair
-No visible nose hair
-Minimal arm hair
-Well-trimmed pubic hair, or no visible pubic hair at all (if shaved/waxed, must be well-maintained)
Of course, one could replace shaving with waxing or any other form of hair removal.
I guess I'm pretty stringent when it comes to my hair. As for myself, I shave, remove any visible nose hair, don't have any visible ear hair, pluck away stray hairs on my eyebrows, leave my arms in their somewhat hairy (but not anywhere near beastly hairy) state, leave my legs untouched, trim my armpit, chest, and pubic hair, and try my best to trim my ass hair.
>> I'm talking about the hairy area around the mons pubis
And the area around the labia, in case that wasn't clear.