Conference turris::womannotes-v3

I rarely shave my legs above the knee any more.  I don't like the look of
unshaved legs, so whenever I wear a dress or shorts I tend to shave.  It may
not be so bad for blonds, but I am decidedly a brunette.  Fortunately, 
I wear pants more often than dresses, so I don't have to shave as often
as I once did.

        Carol

    I hate shaving my legs. But I pretty much keep them shaved in the
    summer.  I don't like the fuzzy look since I don't tan anymore. Somehow
    to me, hair + tan looks good. Fishbelly white plus hair looks
    sorta scraggly. I can't even consider EpiLady or waxing (ouch!!).  So I
    just always use a sharp razor and plenty of Dr. Bronner's Mint Soap. 
    It comes in squeeze bottles and is the slippery-est stuff I can find. 
    Then lots of lotion afterward. I find its actually easiest when you do
    it daily.
    
    For years I did not shave.   Ran around all fuzzy, never worried about
    stubble, never bought razors.  In the late 60s, early 70s
    shaving was a much discussed topic.  Lots of women went fuzzy. 
    Actually once it's all grown out it's quite nice stuff, all soft.  A
    good friend is very dark and _very_ fuzzy.  She still doesn't shave. 
    She looks wonderful.
    
    It's all personal style.  If you don't want to shave, then don't.
    So what if it's hair.  Decide what you want and go for it.
              

    Since my body hair is white blonde I never bother shaving above the
    knee. In fact I don't do it at all in the winter. In the summer I get
    my legs waxed every 6 to 8 weeks. It's not bad and doesn't really hurt
    much, it just stings a little. liesl

           
    I'm not too keen on shaving my legs, but I can't say I hate it.  It's
    just an inconvenience to me.  I go through periods when I shave (up 
    to and including the knee but no longer the thighs) and right now I'm 
    going through a not-shaving period.  I wear jeans most of the time but 
    now that the warm weather is approaching, I'm wondering about what to 
    do with the hair.  Since I'm letting it grow, I've been wishing that
    the hair I have was more, ah, robust.  It's really kind of sparse.
    (I'll never win a hairy leg contest!)  I don't like the way leg hair 
    looks when it's mashed under stockings and I don't like wearing dressy
    shoes without stockings.  Casual skirts/dresses with casual shoes or
    sandals, no stockings, is usually how I get around this. 
    
    CQ
    

    I "HATE" shaving!  Since I'm a pretty hairy person I would need to
    shave every or every other day.  Plus, I get little red bumps when
    shaving (bikini line) and the shaved areas itch when the hair is 
    growing back in.
    
    I couldn't tell you the last time that I've used a razor.  I use the 
    Epilady on my legs every couple of weeks.  Whenever I get my haircut, 
    in the summer, I get my underarms, bikini line and eyebrows waxed.
    The last time I got waxed it didn't even start growing back in for 6
    weeks!  So to me it's worth the time and expense to get waxed instead
    of shaving.  Plus it's said that if an area keeps getting waxed that it
    will grow in thinner and lighter.
    
    If you decide against shaving then I would get a good tan.  I'm a very 
    fair skinned person and have dark hair.  So, it's pretty gross looking 
    (to me anyway) when I start letting my hair grow back in.  At least with a
    tan it doesn't show up as much.
    
    Debbi

How does an Epilady work?

Carla

    How an Epilady works sounds worse than it feels....
    
    First you need to take a bath or a shower and loofah your legs.  The
    loofah is recommended in the Epilady instructions since it removes dead
    skin much better than a regular face cloth.  That in turn keeps your
    pours from being blocked.
    
    The Epilady is electric.  The end of it has circular coils.  This is
    the part that you use against your legs.  You rub this in a circular
    motion on your legs while holding the skin tight.  It pulls out the
    hairs by the roots.
    
    The first time I did this I swore I'd never do it again.  I had to do
    sections of my leg at a time, leave it and then go back to it a little
    later.  The first time is the worst.  Once the hair has been removed 
    from your legs you just need to Epilady when it starts growing back in.
    When I first started I did it once and then would run the Epilady over
    my legs every couple of days.  This pulls out miscellaneous hairs as
    they grow in.  Then I just started doing it once a week, now it's about
    ever other week.  The hair seems to grow back in slower the longer I
    use it.  The hair is also less course and a little lighter.  
    
    So, if you use it pretty faithfully it's not bad it's just plucks a 
    couple of hairs here and there every time you use it.  If it's not
    used often then it's just going to be like mowing the lawn and it'll
    hurt.
    
    Debbi

    I don't shave very often especially in the winter time, even tho
    I'm a brunette the hair on my legs is quite fair and not really
    noticeable through stockings..
    
    I do shave more often in the summer because without stockings and
    because I don't tan it is more noticable.
    
    Bonnie

I hate spending time on shaving.  However, even though my hair is blonde, it
gets very long on my legs and against my superwhite skin it looks terrible.

I like the way my legs look when shaved much better than when they're not,
but I have to admit that in the winter, if I don't expect to bare my legs, I get
lazy and just don't do it.

I'm glad I don't have to shave my face every day, that must be such a drag for
men.

Lisa 

    Doesn't *anyone* use chemical depilatories?
    
    I do.  Standing in the bathtub, reading, for ten minutes isn't that
    great a trial.
    
    							Ann B.

    Yeah, but they smell *awful*.
    
    If I'm ever going to be wearing a skirt or dress or something, I'll
    shave from the knees down.  But I've got really thin/fine hair, so it's
    no biggie.
    
    -Jody
    

    Depilitories don't work for me, I must have tough hair. The couple
    times I tried them I waited over half and hour and nothing happened to
    the hair. Being a blonde vs. a brunette gives different hair
    characteristics besides color.
    
    I shave only when necessary, about every 2 weeks in the winter and
    whenever I'm going to wear shorts or a skirt in the summer. I have been
    considering an Epilady for the eventual convienence, but the initial
    hassle has detered me so far.
    
    Tamzen

I don't shave my legs anymore. It gives me something besides my lack of tan and
body shape to be paranoid about at the beach. I can't _quite_ stand to not
shave my underarms. I'm a brunette. Anyone close enough to notice my leg hair
is either a friend and likes me no matter what my legs look like, or they don't
matter.

I find I don't spend time on other things too, like blow-drying my hair.
	Mez

    I shave my legs almost everyday in the shower.  I don't consider
    it a hassle.  It only takes a couple of minutes and I love the way
    my legs look and feel afterwards.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I don't shave my legs. I have been known to trim my underarm hair, but
    I shave it rarely. In general I find that trimming always beats shaving
    in the I'm not having to do it as often, and I don't have to deal with
    the bristly quality of new hair. Also, I don't give a shi* about what
    other people think my legs look like with hair on them. And no one has
    any business staring at my armpits. The main reason I try to keep the
    hair under my arms to a minimum is because it can trap odor.
    
    Hair is a normal phenomenon. I figure its there for a reason. I usually
    miss it when its gone; I get cold more easily! So, where ever it grows,
    I tend to leave it there.
                                                                

    'ren
    
    washing with a liquid dish detergent like palmolive will eliminate
    odor if you don't trim or shave armpit hair.
    
    Bonnie

Furry legs are soft and warm.  I'd no more shave my legs than shave my head.

    RE: .5
    
    You only *think* you're a pretty hairy person, Debbi.  A hairy person
    is someone who has her legs, bikini area, and arm pits waxed and has to
    shave in less than two weeks!  Now *that's* a hairy person, and waxing
    is definitely not worth the cost.  (In case you couldn't guess, I'm the
    hairy person!)  And to top it off, the arm pit waxing was several
    timess more painful than the bikini waxing (surprise, surprise), and
    grew back the fastest.  My hair didn't grow back any softer, as they
    often claim, but it did seem lighter.
    
    Depilatories don't work for me, either.  I have to shave the next day,
    or in two days, tops.
    
    I tried one of those home electrolysis gizmoes, and let me tell you, I
    had to have it on the highest setting and repeat treatment several
    times before the follicle was electrocuted (cause that's what you're
    doing).  Another costly endeavor that isn't worth it for me (I don't
    have 1/2 hour to spend per hair!).
    
    So I guess I'll keep shaving.  I wouldn't spend the money on Epilady
    (can't right now).  My roommate has one, but there are tons of
    cautions about how you should never share an Epilady.  Any comments on
    that one?
    
    
    Susan

Is this a FWO topic?  I haven't noticed any people of the male persuasion 
in this string.  None of you guys have legs?  :-) :-) 

    G'Day,
    
    	I don't shave my legs and I doubt that I ever will but a few
    friends (male) of mine do.  They are heavily into bike riding (the leg
    powered variety) and ti supposedly reduces wind resistance much like a
    bathing cap helps swimmers swim faster.
    
    	I remember from a previous work place we had a 'lovely legs'
    contest one Friday night.  There was one for the men and one for the
    women and a screen was erected so you could only see the legs and
    nothing else.  From memory all of the women had shaved legs.  When it
    came to the men, only one had shaved legs (a competitiion cycler).  He
    won!
    
    David.
    

    
    	re: .19 (Barbara Bazemore)
    
    	Barbara, I don't know if this is what you're looking for ;-),
    	but FWIW, I have shaved a guy's legs before.  And another's
    	chest (all in the same night ;-).
    
    	It was the night before a big swim meet, and we were all on
    	the same USS team. We had to "shaved down" the night before 
    	in the hotel.  Of course, the guys  needed our expertise,
    	and I didn't mind seeing as how they had Matt Biondi bodies ;-].
    
    							nancy b.
    

    re: .20 on cyclists shaving
    
    One reason that cyclists shave their legs is that in races they have a
    tendency to fall a lot.  The grazes tend to be less severe and heal quicker
    if there's no hair.
    
    Bob
    
    PS my son will be shaving his later this year when he gets into
    competition. 

    Well, now  that  you  bring  it  up; In general I think shaving is
    fairly barbaric: Why would anyone want to scrape themselves with a
    sharp  implement?  But  I have been known to shave my ankles. Only
    when  they're injured, as removing tape from a hairy ankle is even
    less fun than shaving.

--David
    (Who  hasn't  shaved his face in 15 years, and hasn't had to shave
    his ankles in 5 years.)

    	Another reason for shaving the legs is that it's
    	easier to clean the wound/scrape/whatever and
    	any adhesive sticks better to smooth skin.
    
    	I guess that's two reasons.
    
    	Scott (Cyclist = Yes; Shaved Legs = No)

    
    I did at one time shave my legs......when I played Baseball and
    Football. Taping the ankles gets awfully painful when one has to
    remove it daily. 
    
    I had some hair removed from my shoulders in 1970 (electrically)
    because I constantly had "ingrown" hairs getting infected. Later
    found it to be staph.....
    
    I hated shaving (sometimes twice a day) until I recently purchased
    a Gillette Sensor Razor. I get a close comfortable shave and with
    a tough beard and sensitive skin that counts alot. 
    
    At Lee Drug yesterday I purchased 28 "Wilkerson Senstive Skin" razors
    for my wife and daughter to use for their legs. 14 in a bag
    (disposables, I know, not environmental, especially for a EH&S Eng.)
    and they were 2 for $1.00. I tried one on my face this morning and
    it worked extremely well. Blades are very sharp which is a Wilkerson
    trademark. 
    
    Not much insight, but for those who are looking for a better product
    for shaving maybe the above will help.
    
    Ken
    
    BTW...If you wear heavy enough/tight enough socks (not pantyhose)
    over the course of 25-30 years alot of the hair just gets "rubbed
    out". 

    
    
    Lorna, I'm with you!
    
    I shave my legs (up to the knee) and underarms every day in 
    the shower.  It only takes an extra minute or two and I love
    having smooth legs!  I do the "big shave" on my entire leg once 
    a week or so.     
    
    I tried Epilady and hated it, guess I'm a wimp!
    
    Cherie

    I shave my legs when needed, which is very seldom.  I'm a brunette, but
    have very light hair on my legs and arms.  I probably have to shave my
    legs about once or twice a month.  Now that I'm pregnant and have to
    see my ob/gyn once a week, I tend to make sure my legs are shaved
    before my appointments.  I also shave more often in the summertime. 
    Also, I only shave under my arms when needed because I tend to get bad
    rashes, but I'd never wear a sleeveless garment if I were unshaved.  I
    don't like the look of hairy legs and armpits.  IMO I think it's gross.
    
    Lori B.

You folks who have such an easy time shaving in the shower must either have
perfect eyesight or wear contacts.  I wear glasses, so am pretty blind in the
shower, and if I try to shave there - *arg! my legs come out with *patches* of
hair. 

       Carol

    I don't have any body hair, so I can't relate to all those shaving
    problems. I have a little underarm hair, so I do shave that once a
    year, usually around this time and it lasts until next year.

    I envy anyone who has very little body hair or hair too light to be 
    seen. My hair is black and no amount of tan I get is going to make it
    less visible. 
    Waxing is not worth the trouble because it grows back really fast.
    The creams, whatever they're called, don't work for me. So I guess,
    I'm essentially stuck with shaving. Now if only I can learn to do it
    without cutting myself so often and if I can find a lotion to stop
    my legs itching after that, I won't be grumbling so much
    
    manisha

    re .30 re Carol
    
    I wear glasses too, but as long as you can approximately see where
    your legs are, and can use your free hand to run along your leg
    after the razor, you ought to be able to tell if thar be hair or
    not.  :)   
    
    ---kim

    Try witch hazel, Manisha, or calomine lotion for 10 minutes.

    RE: .28
    Carol, I almost never wear my contact lenses in the shower, but still
    shave my legs in the shower.  If your hair is soft, maybe "feeling
    along after the razor" won't work for you (it does for me!).  It also
    helps to be a contortionist!!  I usually am bent over so my face in
    only a couple of inches from the area I'm shaving.
    
    BTW, I like the witch hazel suggestion.  I'll have to try that one!
    
    --S

I'll try it!  :-)

     Carol

    For legs, scrubbing vigorously with a rough washcloth or a loofa first
    makes shaving easier and less likely to make bumps or bluggies.
    Shaving cream (like men use) tends to dry the skin and make it hurt
    more.  Use castile soap or noxeema for lubrication.  Afterwards try
    witch hazel (as suggested earlier), aloe, rose water and glycerin
    lotion, or simply a very cold cloth followed by (really) regular skin
    lotion that you've just retrieved from the 'fridge. (If you can stand
    it!)
    
    Never shave when you're even slightly cold, the goosebumps get
    cut easily and bleed.  Also, if you've got tender skin -- and we all do
    somewhere ;^) --  shave in the same direction the hair grows.
    

The question of *why* we've been socialized to think hairless
legs on women attractive interests me -- I read, a long time ago, a theory that
having hairless legs was encouraged by a male-oriented culture that
wanted to keep women looking pre-pubescent.

(In general, when a societally-desired look conflicts with a human's
"natural" look, to the point where it's a major inconvenience to 
attain that look, it makes me wonder...)

Since then, I haven't shaved my legs -- don't wear skirts either,
but do wear shorts, and with no noticeable bad effects. :-)

	MKV

    re: -1 (MKV)
    
    I think the book that states that shaving ones hair is done to make
    women look pre-pubescent was "The Female Eunich". By.....by..... oh
    can someone help me out here. Was it XXXX Greer?
    
    Kate

>    women look pre-pubescent was "The Female Eunich". By.....by..... oh
>    can someone help me out here. Was it XXXX Greer?
    

Germain Greer (sp totaly wrong I guess)

Re: .37

> The question of *why* we've been socialized to think hairless
> legs on women attractive interests me -- I read, a long time ago, a theory 
> that having hairless legs was encouraged by a male-oriented culture that
> wanted to keep women looking pre-pubescent.

Mary, if the intent of the male-oriented-culture was to keep women looking
pre-pubescent, then why do not most women totally shave the hair in their
vaginal area?

Yes, I know there are a few women who *do* totally shave their pubic hair
(and a few who shape their hair into a particualr design, e.g., heart
shaped). 

Still, if the intent is to look pre-pubescent to please men, I think
that many more women would shave off the hair in their pudendal area.

> (In general, when a societally-desired look conflicts with a human's
> "natural" look, to the point where it's a major inconvenience to 
> attain that look, it makes me wonder...)

Then what is the explanation for most men in America shaving their facial
hair virtually every day (even those with beards)? Do you think that men 
shave because they enjoy it?

  Alan              

	Well, Alan, why do some men shave?????

	BTW - there are a number of groups of people who do not have
	much body hair - Chinese, Native Americans, some peoples from
	India.  In fact I think that it may be that it is mostly
	Europeans who have execessive body hair and who "culturely"
	require shaving any that is visible in public settings (this
	is excluding eyebrows, eyelashes and hair on the scalp).

	I am not sure if my observation is correct, because it is
	based only on the interaction I have had personally with people
	of different cultures.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The Goddess has grey hair and hairy legs
			or she has no hair and grey skin
			or she has green leaves and furry creatures
			or she has ....

    re .40
    To me, shaving faces is done so facial expressions can be seen; men
    with beards tend to look much more alike to me than men without beards.
    But hey, if you don't like to shave your face, you don't have to!  Men
    with beards are not generally dismissed as unmasculine and radical for
    not shaving!
    
    In my opinion, legs don't have as much to offer, expression-wise, as
    faces do.  :-)
    
    
    In general:
    I'm pretty uninspired about shaving legs.  Underarms are useful to
    shave because anti-perspirants/deoderants work better applied to skin
    rather than hair (!); faces are useful to shave because you can see
    someone's expression 10 times better if they don't have a lot of hair
    covering everything but their eyes and forehead; legs, though, I can
    see no use for.  
    
    I shave my legs only when I wear a dress or shorts, and at that only
    every few days...probably explains why I find it too much trouble to
    wear skirts to work these days!  I hate the look of long leg hairs
    compressed under nylons, and I don't like wearing shoes without socks
    or nylons, so I give up and shave.
    
    Pam

    Re .37, *if* I found it a great inconvenience to shave my legs I
    probably wouldn't.  I hardly ever do anything that I consider to
    be a great inconvenience.  For instance, I don't use nail polish
    or have long fingernails, even tho I like how it looks on other
    women I just find it too much of a nuisance.  I also never wear
    very high heels and never pointed toes because I can't do anything
    when my feet hurt.  But, shaving my legs *isn't* an inconvenience
    to *me* and I do like the way it looks.  I may have been conditioned
    by society to like the way shaved legs look, but the result is I
    do like the way they look. (and I don't agree with the conditioning
    of society on everything)  I, also, think that shaved legs feel
    very sensual.  If I had hairy legs I would miss rubbing my legs
    together right after shaving them and feeling how nice and smooth
    they feel.
    
    (Alan, .40, I think you may be obsessed with pubic hair.  This is
    the second time this week you've mentioned it in this conference!
     Shocking!) :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Okay, for those women who say they do not like the look of
    unshaven legs under pantyhose, or who shave only when they're
    planning on wearing shorts or a skirt, why do you not "like
    the look" of hair?
    
    Many times, indeed within this string, there is the statement
    made that women shave their leg hair because of societal (presumably
    male) influences.
    
    Are there some other aesthetic reasons in play here, besides trying
    to please men?
    
    Do we all not have our own ideas of what is intrinsically pleasing 
    to the eye and what is not? 
    
    Have we all been only conditioned by society to believe that the ocean 
    is more beautiful than a spewing smokestack, for example?
    
    To Peggy and Pam: Men have gone through cycles, when it comes to facial 
    hair. And cyclically, men *have been* perceived as being radical for
    not being clean-shaven (or for being clean-shaven).
    
    And although I have a beard, I do shave my non-bearded facial areas
    every day (maybe I expect that I might bump into Pam, and I want her
    to notice my expressions.) :-)
    
      Alan

    I think women ARE "forced" into shaving their legs - or dealing with
    uncomfortable looks if they don't (by both men AND women - many of us
    are conditioned by society).
    
    I seldom am able to shave my legs without nicking my calves and I
    *hate it* - but to try to shave a fractional-thickness layer of skin
    over a bone is folly, I guess.  I'm thinking of trying those new Sensor
    razors - currently I use an Atra Plus (with Edge gel, yet).
    
    -Jody
    

    I *do* feel "forced" to shave my legs if I'm going to expose them. I
    have got plenty of looks in the women's locker room at the Y. Though
    I continue to go there, I don't think I  can deal with those looks
    in my workplace.
    
    I also think we've been conditioned into thinking that hairy legs
    look ugly on women. I have yet to see someone give a hairy-legged
    man dirty looks. But I forget, men are not supposed to look good
    like the women are.

I shave my underarms every day, my legs every now and then (very fine, light
hair helps there) and other parts at random intervals.  I shave for three
reasons, in order, which are that 1) I find smooth, nonhairy skin more tactily
pleasing when I, or anyone else, touches it, 2) I don't find body hair 
attractive on me or other women and 3) I find most men prefer lack of body
hair.

Why don't I think hair is appealing on other women? I have no idea.  Probably
societal conditioning.  But whatever the reason, it is true.  i have a good
friend who has never shaveda  single hair, and she has very dark, thick
body hair.  I recognize that that is her personal preference, and I have no
right to judge it, and she didn't make the choice for *my* benefit, but 
nevertheless, I have not been able to overcome a certain amount of repulsion
when I see her legs.  I don't *like* that reaction in myself, but it is there -
I find hairy legs (at least, dark fur-like hair) a turn-off.

As for whether women are forced to shave?  I was, more or less.  My father
wouldn't let me start shaving, because he knew that once you start shaving,
the hair comes in thicker, and then you have to *keep* shaving.  When I was
11 or so, all the other girls started shaving and I couldn't.  You couldn't
tell by *looking* at me that i didn't shave, but when i went to camp that
summer, we had to take showers in a big public shower room.  The other girls
saw that I didn't shave, and teased me about it a lot.  I felt horrible and
hated my father for not letting me shave.  (For some strange reason, my father
had this theory that "female" activities shouldn't begin until they were
justified by the body - I couldn't use deoderant until i started needing
it, or wear a bra until I developped breasts of a size that needed one.)
The following year in school, my math teacher (a woman) made a joking comment
about women who don't shave their legs, something about "the wind rustling
through the fur" and everyone laughed.  Even though no one knew I didn't 
shave (you can't *tell* on an 11 year old) I felt very ashamed and embarrased,
and that afternoon I went out and bought a razor without telling my father.

So shaving was always sort of a private activity.  Until recently I couldn't
even talk about it with other people.  When I used to shower with someone
(when I was a young girl I showered with my friends...when I got older
I showered with my lovers) I would *never* shave in front of them.  I guess
I had hang ups about it for a long time.  Weird, eh?

D!

    Re: 94.2 (CUPCSG::RUSSELL)
    
    	Where do you find Dr. Bronner's Soap?  I've seen it referred
    to, but haven't seen it in my local supermarket.  I'm in Maynard,
    but often go to NH on business.
    
    	Thanks for any info
    
    	dave
    

    re .44 Alan
    I don't like leg hair under nylons because (and this is going to sound
    silly, I know!) the poor things look so trapped.  They get smushed up
    between the leg and the nylons in what looks like a very uncomfortable
    position and I feel guilty for constraining them!  So I either let them
    go free, free, free under pants or cut 'em off.
    
    For shorts and bathing suits I admit to societal pressure.  (guilty as
    charged)  And it is a change and feels nice to have bare skin
    occasionally.
    
    
    re .45  Doctah
    I don't think anyone has suggested a "leg hair" police force or
    legislation to prevent unshaven legs on women.  Societal mores exist,
    however, and it is disingenuous to pretend that they don't or to
    ridicule (by exaggeration) the suggestion that they do exist.
    
    You say that "most men ... find clean shaven legs [on women] more
    visually and tactilely appealing."
    
    The fact is, though, that clean shaven legs on MEN are NOT seen to be
    more visually and tactilely appealing.  Why?  Nobody seems to care if
    anyone has to touch scads of leg hair when touching men's legs!  Men
    are actually NOT SUPPOSED to shave their legs, regardless of whether
    they want to.  Yet touching a man's leg with hair on it is the same
    tactile experience as touching a woman's leg with hair on it.  Why is
    one thing deemed sublime and one thing deemed unappealing?
    
    Why, to be appealing and attractive, do women HAVE to pretend they
    don't have body hair?  Men can be seen as appealing and attractive when
    they have it.  Why aren't women?  It's the unfairness -- and being
    "forced" into getting rid of something natural by societal pressure --
    that is irritating.
    
    Pam

I've found the pictures in the wickedary useful for working on my negative gut
reactions about underarm hair (I also find friends who don't shave useful, but
I only get to see them during the summer or in locker-room-type situations).
And, the women are strongly beautiful; it's very difficult to get used to.
	Mez

    On those occasions when I grew a beard, I still shaved my neck, from a
    line slightly beneath my chin down to the the level of my adam's apple.
    Not to have shaved that area would have resulted in a beard that ran
    down the length of the front of my neck, which was extremely
    unattractive.  This did seem to defeat the purpose of growing a beard
    in the first place, which was, after all, to avoid shaving.  The result
    was that, strictly for the sake of appearance, I had to shave a place
    that I would have much preferred not to bother with, simply because
    society (and I) find my natural body hair on that part of my body to be
    unattractive--and it was not an expresive part of the face as such, so
    it had nothing to do with facial expressions.

    -- Mike

RE:  Dr Bonner's Soap.

I always see this in the crunchy heath food and co-op stores in the
Boston area.  You could try Spice and Grain in Concord, MA.  I think
I've seen it there...

RE:  Mark

> Besides, men are far less likely to to painful and/or annoying things to
>"look good." That's why a male epilady would never sell. That's why hair colors
>are sold at least 10 times more often to women than men. Etc.

Why?  And what if you had to do all this work to be considered
physically appealing?  How would that make you feel?


> Because that's the way most american men like it. You can still be appealing
>and attractive without shaving, it's just that in America, the group which
>will find you attractive is somewhat smaller. Obviously, if shaving is a
>problem for you, you should ignore the "societal mores" and do what you want.

Why?  Why is shaved underarms and legs considered more attractive here?
Certainly it isn't everywhere so I question the theory that Alan
raised that it is inherently more attractive to men like a sunset to a
smokestack.  It's quite amazing, I think, how many products are aimed
at women to look a certain way to be pleasing to men...  Why should
women have to change to way they look to fit men's ideas of how they
should look.

I remember when I first was exposed to hairy women it took some
getting used to.  But I think it can be sexy now!

When you see a women who does not shave now, what ideas come into your
head about her???

john

Well, I don't like hairy legs or pits on _anyone_ - especially pits.  I truly
_hate_ hairy armpits.  I'm completely serious.  However, not one person in my
life -- including even myself -- has ever shaved his/her armpits if s/he didn't
feel like it simply because I find them off-putting and unattractive.  

Rather than become obsessive, I seem to have developed that knack of not
seeing people's armpits.  I rarely touch other people's armpits because of the
possible injury due to involuntary spasmodic ticklish reactions.

Legs could be more of a problem because I look at legs and have touched a few in 
my time.  From a tactile perspective, I find hair preferable to stubble.  'Beard
burn' from scratchy legs is just _too_ vexing.

As for pubes -- well, what can I say?  This is a truly tender area in which to
acquire a contact rash.  Visually, it makes little difference to me; but my
practical post-childbirth experience of re-growth leaves me empathising with
anyone facing the ingrown hairs and the snaggy-underwear-pulling-the-wrong-way.

  Ann

    About 4 years ago when I was working at a different company, a
    recruiter made a comment one day that a woman who had *excellent* work
    creditials, references, was wearing a well-tailored business suit,
    etc., would not be hired into the job for which she interviewed....
    
    because she had UNSHAVEN legs and it was felt that this was
    gross/ugly/unattrative and not appropriate for a business environment.
    
    I would suspect that these kinds of attitudes are still in the majority
    today.  As much as I *DESPISE* shaving my legs, I do it because I am
    not in a job where I am at liberty to wear pants every day to work.
    In American culture (as opposed to European culture, for instance) leg
    hair on women is considered gross and I believe people feel this way
    via socialization.
    
    Laura
    

Re: .44

>>why do you not "like the look" of hair?

Much of it *is* personal preference, but I cannot help but think that we
like things to be smooth, continuous, or uninterrupted.  Some facial hair is
scrawny or patchy; some is well-proportioned.  Some leg hair creates an 
aesthetic pattern of lines and color that's pleasing; some just sticks 
out like cacti.

I prefer to see the form, unobstructed by hair. (To add irony:
I wear a mustache.)  Hosiery provides a view of smoothness, as does
make-up in some cases, to hide "imperfections" (that is, that which is
not smooth, continuous, or uninterrupted).

Anyway, that's why I *think* people "not 'like the look of hair'."

Mark

P.S. Incidently, I love the look of LONG hair, but this is a note on leg hair.
(My wife, Joy and daughters have yards of hair flowing from their heads!!!)

Why do we need a reason for shaved pits and legs to look nicer than unshaved?
I think it's all a matter of opinion.

I personally think a shaved body looks nicer, and I feel much "cleaner" so to
say, after I've shaved.

I also don't like a lot of body hair on men either.  I don't like beards or
mustaches AT ALL, and I'm really turned off by people with hair on their backs.

I guess my personal preference is bare skin....MHO.

Lisa

P.S.  The Black Window spider is a smooth, [relatively] attractive spider.
      The Tarantula is hairy and considered ugly.

Point:  No societal conditioning on the aesthetic appeal of these anacronids.

[Personally, I don't like the looks of any spider! Yuck!]

 

    re: .53  Doctah
    
    Please don't take this wrong, I'm not trying to flame you or target
    you...just make you think about what you are saying.  
    
    I guess what bothers me about your note is that you are looking at the
    issue completely from your own perspective.  "What *I* want a woman to
    do for me, what *men like me* want to see in women, what women who want
    to attract *me* should ideally do, etc."  
    
    I think John H. made an excellent suggestion.  Think about how you
    would feel if no woman found you attractive unless you shaved your legs
    every day because, after all, shaved legs are more appealing and
    tactilely pleasant for her to look at and touch.  Think about having to
    decide whether to use a razor all over every inch of your legs, or have
    wax put on your entire leg and ripped off to pull out all of the hairs,
    or put a depilatory all over the skin of your legs and stand in the tub
    while the hairs were dissolved chemically.  Think about this being part
    of your beauty routine.
    
    Think about that and then think about how you like the look of a woman
    with shaved legs, and how this whimsical preference affects other
    peoples' lives.
    
    If someone wants to rid their legs of hair and does, that's normal. 
    Equally, someone who does not want to get rid of hair should be normal. 
    Yes, people can pooh-pooh societal pressure; that's not the point.  The
    fact that this particular societal pressure exists is the point.
    
    Pam

Reading the latest string of replies has led me to some further musings
on a Friday afternoon.

If one believes in Evolution, the purpose of the very dense body hair on 
early humans was to help protect people from the cold, especially in "temper-
ate" climates.

As humankind further evolved, the need for dense body hair decreased. 

Somewhere along the line, for whatever reasons (does anybody know why?),
females lost (most of) the hair on their face, chest, stomach, backs, 
buttocks, and shoulders.

But they still maintained hair on their head, arms, legs, underarms, and
pubic area.

Males, for some reason, still continued to maintain hair, in varying degrees 
of density, over almost their entire body.

What was Nature's purpose in causing this divergence? (I don't know.)

Could a reason for women shaving their legs be that, since the rest of
their bodies are relatively hairless, it seems superfluous to have hair
on their legs? 

Of course, that doesn't explain why women generally do not shave their arms. 
Another mystery here.

Then of course we have National differences. I believe that, generally,
less women in Europe shave their legs and underarms than do those in 
North America (U.S. and Canada). Are men in North America more demanding
than those in Europe? 

As Yul Brynner once said in _The King and I_ ,"Is a Puzzle."

  Alan 

    First the useful stuff...   If you must shave, Noxema Brushless Shaving
    Cream (in tube or jar) seems to help slow down cuts, razor burns and
    dry skin.  As someone already mentioned, witch hazel is soothing for
    afterwards. 

�              <<< Note 94.54 by RAB::HEFFERNAN "Juggling Fool" >>>
� When you see a women who does not shave now, what ideas come into your
� head about her???
    
    Umm... (*embarrassed voice here*) "... va va voom ..."  (: >,)
    
    To quote from Godard's movie "La Femme Mari�e":
    
      He:  "Why do you shave under your arms?  It's sexier without, like
            in Italian films."
      She: "I prefer American films."
    
    I like Italian films myself...  Anyway, I couldn't believe the number
    of people who were freaked out by Patti Smith's photo on the cover of
    her "Easter" album (proudly displaying her fuzzy pits) back in '78, and
    it sounds like things haven't changed much.
    
    My own legs are too hairy for my tastes, but shaving my face is enough
    hell for one lifetime.  I'm glad men don't get pressured to do anything
    about 'em.
    
    Ray

	Ok, the single, hairy (or smooth, either is OK) women who don't mind
bearded, balding, 30ish men with *lots* of arm, leg & chest hair are welcome 
to give me a call, or drop me a line. ;-)/2

	The first couple of times I saw women who didn't shave, it took some
getting used to, mostly because it was different, not because I was grossed
out.  Now I'm amazed when anyone gets bent out of shape over it.  I was in
a play once where one of the teenage members of the cast refused to shave her
legs for her part.  They ended up costuming her in sweats rather than shorts
because the director was upset.

	I grew my beard for several reasons.  One was to cut down on the
amount of shaving I had to do (I still have to trim, but not every day.)
One was that I like the way I look in a beard.

	I seriously doubt I'd shave, even if it were fashionable for me.


							--D



	

    Actually Doug
    
    as I'm sure you know, the the body hair goes along with the
    loss of hair on the head. the same excess of testosterone that
    kill the scalp hair causes the body hair to grow.
    
    my husband is bald and furry and I'd not have him anyother way.
    
    bj

D! mentioned earlier that you couldn't tell if an 11 year old shaved or not.
You sure could tell on me.  I started shaving my legs when I was in 4th grade.
That means I was 9 or 10.  I *hated* my hairy legs with the ugly dark hair.
I liked Sheila Breyer's legs; she was blond and her hair didn't look ugly
like mine.  My mother thought I would give up shaving quickly, but I hated
the hair so much I kept it up.  I can remember being teased about my leg
hair, too.

As for underarm hair, I think it looks gross on men and women both.

        Carol

Well, speaking for myself, I don't have an overabundance of hair on my
legs. In fact you can't really tell I have any at all. So I think I've
shaved about 5 or 6 times in the last 32 years. But I have very dry
itchy skin on my legs and I just recently discovered that if I shave
them it removes all the dead, yucky skin. Then when I put moisturizer
on them it feels really great. So I shave about once a month for that
reason alone, otherwise I wouldn't bother and I couldn't really care
less about what anyone thought. I do shave my armpits however, mostly
because I don't like them hairy..and I don't know why. 

I do prefer men with beards tho' even the scruffy ones. 

Jenna

    Presumably the women who lived in early America didn't shave their
    legs, after all no one saw them and they would have been too busy
    trying to survive.
    
    When did this fashion start?

    
    I just remembered that my grandmother didn't shave under her arms till
    sometime after she was married -- my grandfather, a barber by trade,
    did it for her.  (When was the safety razor invented?)
    
    Anyway, just wanted to let the Boston-area readers know that there's an
    exhibit -- "The H.A.I.R. Project: Hirsute Artists Investigate Reality"
    -- at a place called Mobius (354 Congress St. 617-542-7416).  The
    exhibit "examines attitudes towards women's body hair".  The artists
    are Hannah Bonner and Mary-Charlotte Domandi.  Hours are Wed-Sat noon
    to 5 p.m., and Thurs. to 7 p.m., through May 19.
    
    CQ

    .69
    
    presumably somewhere around the time of the invention of silk
    stockings , short skirts and the safety razor..
    
    perhaps in the 1920s as a quick guess
    
    i.e. two generations ago?
    
    bj

    I don't know why I don't like hairy women (well, they way they look,
    the women are probably fine themselves ;)
    
    I didn't make any conscious decision about it--"Aha!  Women are
    supposed to be sleek and smooth and hairless!  Therefore, my societal
    condition tells me I should shave!"
    
    I just don't like long, furry hair on my legs, especially as my
    background allows for dark hair on pale legs (thanks Dad (hair)
    Mom (pale legs))  ;)  I guess if I got dark enough of a tan, it
    wouldn't show, but I like sleek, smooth things (like alabaster,
    polished rocks, a cat, rabbit fur), not sparsly furry things.  If
    people were furry all over (I mean like a cat), then hair wouldn't
    be an issue--we'd be all tactically interesting.  But a leg with
    just enough hair to be there reminds me of a half-plucked bird--who
    wants to touch it!!!??  I don't pet half plucked chickens, but the
    fully feathered ones feel nice.  :)
    
    As for hair in the pits, I think it looks barbaric.  I also figure
    it sweats enough there (a potentially smelly situation), that hair
    doesn't help.  This goes for men, too--however, since men don't
    shave (I do truly wonder why--lack of hair on the legs doesn't make
    one look less masculine--ever mistake a male swimmer for a girl?),
    I just don't ponder their armpits.  I prefer hairless chests over
    hairy ones and hairy backs are kinda, well, less preferable.  I
    like to touch skin, and hair gets in the way (and in the mouth).
    Hair on the head, plentiful and soft, isn't the same as body hair,
    and a little bit of stubble can go a looooooooong way.  =8)
    
    So there are my thoughts on hair.  I suppose if you don't like shaving,
    the answer is not to.  I'm not always so certain it is fair to compare
    cultures (Europe vs. U.S.) because part of what makes the world
    diverse is the different cultures, and because one culture does
    or does not endorse something doesn't make that something inherently
    BAD or GOOD.  Besides, there are plenty of other "bad" things about
    this culture I'd like to see changed that shaving isn't a concern
    of mine.  Perhaps that's because I don't have a problem with it.
    
    ---kim

    Actually the more I think about it, I think men *should* shave their
    armpits.  Hairy armpits look awful on anybody, IMO.  Somebody should
    start a movement to make men shave their armpits. :-)
    
    I like beards, moustaches and chest hair on men.  I'm not sure about
    the legs.  I think maybe men would look better if they shaved their
    legs, too.  Back hair repulses me.
    
    Re .72, But, I agree, if something is going to have hair it should
    be covered with long fluffy fur like a cat, or forget about it.
     (Cat humans would be cute!)
    
    Lorna
    

I agree, Lorna, lets create societal pressure to make men shave their pits.
I think hairy pits are ungly on *everyone*.  Ever notice how most of the
poster-men don't have a lot of hair!  Do all those body-builders shave, or
does the muscle force the hair out?

I find lack of hair on *everyone* tactilely and visually more appealing. Not
that anyone has any obligation to do something to please *me* and my bizarre
sense of esthetics, but if I met a man who was shaved from neck to foot, I
wouldn't complain.  :-)

re: Lorna, your earlier comment about Steve Martin and grey hair - wow, I have
always thought Steve Martin was *gorgeous*, and the hair is part of that
impression.

D!

Muscle men often shave and *oil* their bodies to accentuate their muscles.
Muscle women, too.

The combination sounds, er, interesting.

Anyone out there think that the really big muscle men are actually 
abnormally deforming their natural bodies or is it rad attractive?

An ex-boyfriend, who was European no less, shaved his armpits and his legs
partly because he was a cyclist and partly because he thought having hairy
armpits (especially on men) trapped body odor.

Hair on men (other than the head) is no less unappealing to me than hair 
on women is.  Just because a person has a penis doesn't render hairy legs 
(or back/chest/face/knuckles/ears) attractive to me.  I, too, prefer to be
with sleek partners, and to be sleek myself.  Except for the upper thighs.
Those I don't shave because I'm generally too lazy to do so.

Carla

    Wait a minute!   ;-)
    
    I LIKE hairy guys.  I'm gonna start a save the hairy pits
    campaign!  Hairy legs and chests and pits are nice! 
    
    In my late teens I stopped shaving for a year.  My father used the
    argument that it was dirty for women to leave their legs and pits
    unshaved.  I asked how it could be that it's not dirty for MEN to 
    have hairy legs and pits...were they automatically cleaner because
    they were men?  He had no answer for that one...but he still thought
    I was doing something disgusting.  
    
    I tried different ways of handling the reactions I got from strangers.
    Sometimes I'd shore myself up and pretend I didn't notice peoples'
    noses wrinkle as I walked by.  Or other times I'd just sort of give
    a bland stare back, to let them know I found their opinions boring
    and of no consequence.  It was a lot of effort to put up with the
    constant disapproval.  When it came time to begin my first office
    job, where I was expected to wear skirts and stockings, I caved in
    and began shaving again.  
    
    I think it looks strange to see long dark hair mashed up in stockings,
    but I say more power to you if that's what you choose for yourself.  
    
    Just my 3.76 cents.
    
    Karen  

    Re: .72
    
    Kim, I'm not sure if you were addressing my points about different
    Cultures, in my 94.63.
    
    Some of my musings there were just that: musings. (But, I still wish
    I knew *some* of the answers.)
    
    However, I was trying to make a point vis-a-vis Cultures. 
    
    It has often been stated that women shave their legs because men expect 
    (demand) it.
    
    Are women in Europe then, for example, less intimidated by men, since
    fewer do shave their legs/underarms? 
    
      Alan
    

    Here's another weird slant on shaving armpits:
    
    In the 1950's my aunt and her *first* husband came to visit one
    summer.  It was very hot and my aunt complained of the heat, and
    my mother asked her why she didn't put on a sleeveless blouse. 
    At this point, my aunt burst into tears and said that her husband
    wouldn't allow her to shave because his fundamentalist Christian
    religion believed that shaving hair was an evil sin against God,
    because God obviously wanted us to have hair and that anything women
    did to make themselves look prettier was vain and sinful, and meant
    they were whores, etc., etc.  My mother said this was nonsense and
    made her go in the bathroom and shave her underarms and legs.  My
    aunt shaved but was terribly afraid of what her husband would do
    when he found out.  She told him in front of my parents and he was
    mad but embarrassed to yell at her or hit her in front of us.  Isn't
    that weird??  
    
    (My aunt later took her 3 kids & left him in the middle of the night,
    after he had beaten her up and killed her cat in a fit of anger.
     He wound up in a mental institution, and she has been happily living
    for yrs. in Vancouver with a man who owns his own fishing business,
    makes a lot of money, and takes her on trips all over the world.
     So, justice prevailed that time.)
    
    But, my aunt being afraid to shave her armpits was how my mother
    found out her husband had been beating her, and it was my first
    introduction to the idea of domestic violence which I still, for
    years, assumed to be very rare.
    
    Lorna
     

    "Were they automatically cleaner because they were men?"
    
    Some cultures, (such as ours), do tend to believe this as evidenced
    by their "traditions".  Buried deep in our Judeo-Christian heritage 
    is the belief that women ARE less clean than men.  There are many
    religious "cleansing" rituals for women that don't exist for men.  
    And look at the new "feminine wash" on the market.  I guess soap isn't 
    "strong" enough to get THEM clean!  Eewww!  ;-)
    
    Yup, that's part of it.  Plus, our culture's obsession with neotenic
    beauty, (childlike beauty), in women, tends to make many of us feel 
    revulsion, (out of fear?) at the sight of a woman in full, natural, 
    post-pubescent maturity.  We don't want her weight, we don't want her
    body hair, we don't want her scent.  We want her pre 12 years old, but 
    with breasts.  Alan, most models, (our "ideal" physical specimens),
    DO shave, (wax, actually, it hurts, but it works BETTER!), all body 
    hair completely.  Most strive to be as neotenic as an adult can get.
    Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby, or Lolita or any other sexualized little
    girls are displaying the exact same thing from the other direction.

Re: .97

>    At this point, my aunt burst into tears and said that her husband
>    wouldn't allow her to shave because his fundamentalist Christian
>    religion believed that shaving hair was an evil sin against God,
>    because God obviously wanted us to have hair and that anything women
>    did to make themselves look prettier was vain and sinful, and meant
>    they were whores, etc., etc.  

It is my sincere interest that a conclusion not be drawn that fundamentalist
Christian equals this person, no more than Assemblies of God Christian 
equals Jim Bakker, or <choose_any_political_or_religious_organization>
equals any individual.

As a Christian, I wince every time someone who claims the label turns out to
be something other than what Christ espoused.  We all take a black eye on it.
I think it is how stereotypes get started; I hope the readers here are more
perceptive.

Point of interest:  Sometimes a man (priest?) was required to shave *all* the 
hair from his body in the Old Testament.

I think [attraction to/against] hair is cultural, not moral.
Hair, clothes, make-up can be used as conforming tools or 
statement makers. 

Hey, that gives me an idea!  How about coloring body hair in wild colors
like some people do to their head hair?  Imagine a person with furry
orange legs!

    Re: .80
    
    Sandy, but what makes (North) American Judeo-Christian heritage
    different from European Judeo-Christian heritage, vis-a-vis shaving
    or other "feminine-hygiene" rituals?
    
    Again, if it's "societal" (many will insert "male" here) pressure,
    why the apparent contradictions between the otherwise similar groups,
    i.e. white European stock, in what constitutes the Ideal Woman?
     
      Alan

    Good questions, Alan.  I was prepared to reply to your first question
    about, "are European women just less intimidated by men", (and I'm
    probably paraphrasing), with 
    
    No, European men just generally don't demand it.  If they did, most 
    European women would shave.  Only economic equality can free women from 
    feeling that they should, (even if they don't), acquiesce to male 
    preference.  Not knowing the European culture too well, possibly there's 
    a feeling that women are more equal to men there, too.  European culture 
    is certainly more accepting of female sexuality than American culture is,
    isn't it?  They think nothing of seeing breasts, (and armpit hair), since
    they maturely expect that women DO have them.  Out culture, on the other 
    hand, thinks of sex and women as dirty jokes and of men as nervous,
    giggly adolecents.  Breast display is allowed only as smut fodder for 
    men.  A guy reading a Hustler magazine would be embarassed at the very 
    least if he happened to look up and glimpse a woman breastfeeding her 
    infant.  I doubt he'd avert his eyes in embarassment from a stripper on
    stage, *even if it were the same woman*!  Body hair display is simply 
    verboten.  Pubic hair highlights the crotch, a specific area of interest 
    for men, so it's mostly acceptable and shaven pubes are considered a 
    special kink.  With legs and armpits, somewhat less interesting to men,
    the reverse is true.  
    
    A woman's body in our culture is considered unacceptable "as is".  Once 
    she reaches puberty and becomes sexually interesting to men, (and
    before she gets too old to be good sex material, at which time she's
    again allowed to be herself), she's expected to enhance men's
    voyeuristic enjoyment by removing the body hair, displaying the breasts
    only in sexually suggestive ways, making up the face, wearing
    "fashion", learning to walk in heels, blah, blah, blah.  
    
    This country started from the Puritans.  Think about that name.  Know
    any Puritans in France??  Our culture was working six days a week
    and spending the seventh in church, (and not even celebrating 
    Christmas!), while the French were kicking up their heels, drinking, 
    eating, dancing and romancing.  I don't know how much of an influence 
    France, (specifically Paris),  had on Europe but I suspect a lot.  
    Probably almost as much as the Puritans did on the Colonies.
    
    I get a kick out of the males who are questioning the "male demand"
    aspect of shaving, saying they themselves have never demanded it.  That
    completely ignores the power of cultural tenets.  I personally have
    never demanded that men not cry in my presence, either.  But damn few
    ever have, or ever will.  Why?  Cultural pressure, not mine. Not every 
    woman feels pressured into shaving, just like not every man feels 
    pressured into ignoring his emotions.  That's not what cultural pressure 
    is.  Cultural pressure is KNOWING what the rules are and in making your 
    choice, KNOWING what the consequences are.  Cultural pressure comes from 
    within, not from without.  Every woman who doesn't shave knows full well 
    she's a maverick in a culture that expects women to be shaven.  If there 
    were no cultural pressure, no one, no woman or man, would even think 
    about the body hair of women.  But we do.  We notice, we make mental
    notes, we draw conclusions.  EVEN if those conclusions turn out to be,
    "I like hairy women" or "I don't like hairy women".  The cultural
    obsession with female body hair, (with female bodies in general,
    actually), is very real regardless of how any individual in the culture 
    responds to that pressure.  

Re: .83

>    A woman's body in our culture is considered unacceptable "as is".

 And the europeans are acceptible?  Make-up disguises the as-is appearance.
 The Japanese?  They have a lot of ads that depict western women as their
 model of sexuality/beauty.

I don't *think* the european (or Mexican - I dated one) women don't shave
their legs because *men* don't demand it.  Somebody started it; it caught on
as something to be desired.

Perhaps it is a disfunction of our celebrity fetish in this country.
I hear the Brits are baffled by our giving celebrity status to our
News Anchors (they have news readers there).  Perhaps some silver screen
star started it all - I don't know.

I get tired of this being laid at the feet of all men (or our culture) when 
there are women who find it attractive.  Attractiveness is *so* subjective.  
It isn't bad to want shaved legs or to like them because it isn't "what 
God intended."  Nor is it bad to leave legs unshaven or like them that way 
because natural is better or easier or more attractive.

Fads come and go.  We had wide lapels and wide ties.  Standards of 
attractiveness come and go.  They used to find "pleasantly plump" women
to be *the* thing to be; then came Twiggy.

Shaved legs?  What is their relative life (since the safety razor was invented)?
Perhaps this discussion means that the tide is beginning to turn on the
shaven-legged woman (or perhaps men will begin to shave their bodies).

I hope not.  I find it attractive and that's my completely subjective 
and not-bad opinion.  The only pressure to any woman is if she wants to 
be attractive to me, just as I must wear polka-dotted bow ties if I want 
to be attractive to those who find them attractive.

Change the standards of attraction, or attempt to (seriously).
Convince people that what you do/wear/act is attractive.  Some will
buy it, some won't.

They don't have to find one thing or another attractive (as long as
one can say "to each his/her own").

    re. 78 (Alan?)
    
    No, I wasn't answering you directly--the cultural vs. cultural thing
    was of my own volition.  :)
    
    I think I tossed it in because oft-times, there is the murmer that
    "Well, THEY do it over there...."  or "They DON'T do it over there"
    (over there depending on what "side" you're talking about) and that
    difference is either seen as Real Bad or Real Good, depending what
    perspective you hold (minority or majority).
           
    Some quantifiying on my part.  :)
    
    ---kim
    

re.84 'convince people that what you do/wear/act _is_ attractive...'
       [emphasis mine]

absolutely ... except I don't try to convince anyone.  I just go for what works
for me.  Thus far it would seem that my own enthusiasm carries folks with it.

Either that or there's a large kindly world out there that just doesn't have
the heart to tell me I'm cracked.

Or maybe they think that I laugh them of their feet...or spit glass at them.

  Ann

    Re: .83 Sandy

    >                                                   European culture 
    > is certainly more accepting of female sexuality than American culture is,
    > isn't it?  They think nothing of seeing breasts, (and armpit hair), since
    > they maturely expect that women DO have them.  Out culture, on the other 
    > hand, thinks of sex and women as dirty jokes and of men as nervous,
    > giggly adolecents.  Breast display is allowed only as smut fodder for 
    > men.  
    
    I somtimes get confused, Sandy, as to what you expect a man's reaction
    to seeing a naked woman to be. (I guess I'm not wording that too well, so 
    I'll give an example).
    
    My ex-wife and I used to go to nude beaches down the Cape, the Vineyard,
    and Rhode Island. After my first time, I stopped getting an erection
    every time I saw yet another naked woman.  

    Still, I'd not be candid if I didn't acknowledge that part of the enjoyment 
    of going to a nude beach was to enjoy *all* the sensory experiences that
    went with it. And this included feeling the sun wash over my entire body,
    feeling a sense of total freedom, not having a wet bathing suit clinging
    to my crotch when I came out of the water. And seeing naked women in all
    their shapes, sizes, ages, and colors.

    My wife enjoyed the visual aspects of seeing naked men, also. We would
    talk about which people we found attractive, which ones we didn't, and why.

    Were we wrong to have felt a sense of sexuality in that setting? Should
    we (all right, I'll talk just about me now) - should I pretend that seeing
    a naked woman in that setting was not at all sensual, a turn-on?   
    
    >        A guy reading a Hustler magazine would be embarassed at the very 
    > least if he happened to look up and glimpse a woman breastfeeding her 
    > infant.  I doubt he'd avert his eyes in embarassment from a stripper on
    > stage.  Body hair display is simply verboten.
    
    I found myself in a "breastfeeding" setting a few years ago, when I
    was unsure of the proper etiquette. It was New Years Eve and my then-
    wife and I were hosting a party at our house. A couple of our friends,
    David and Loey, who had just had a baby were the first to arrive - with
    their newborn baby. We were all sitting around the kitchen table.

    Loey was very much of the Earth-Mother type. She and David birthed all
    their kids at home, by themselves, ate Granola and sprouts and all that 
    other healthy stuff. :-)

    Suddenly, the baby started to cry. Loey said, "I guess it's time for
    her feeding." Without very much warning, Loey unbuttoned her blouse,
    undid her bra, exposed her breast and started to feed the baby.

    Now, I wasn't sure what she expected me to do. Did she want me not to
    look? For the first minute or so, I gazed everywhere except at where
    the baby was suckling. Then I thought to myself how silly that was.

    If Loey had wanted privacy, she would have excused herself and gone
    into another room to nurse the baby. Obviously, she didn't seem to mind
    if I saw her exposed breast.

    So I watched the baby nurse. I saw the look of contentment and satis-
    faction in Loey's eyes. I saw some of Loey's milk dribble down the 
    baby's chin. What I saw was beautiful and natural. 

    I also found it strangely erotic. I think Loey knew that. She looked at 
    me and smiled. And I smiled back. Life really can be an awakening.

      Alan

Re .86

Exactly.  Your enthusiam will do the "carrying" to change perception
if it is all possible.  Someone sees your new look/act, and although it
is different, sees you enjoy it, so why not try it.  Is this how blues
jeans got started?  Levi Strauss in 1889 (or whenever) wasn't fashionable
but look at jeans for the past 25 years!

=-=-=-

And adding to the senses census, don't forget that body odor is attractive
to some people in other cultures.  

When it comes to valuing contributions, eliminate the subjectivity.
When it comes to determining what is attractive, value the subjectivity
or attempt to change it.  Don't try and tell people that they're somehow
evil (stronger word, just for emphasis) because they like hirsute or
hairless legs or bodies.  It isn't bad to be part of a collective
subjectivity that thinks shaved legs are attractive.

And it isn't bad to be in a collective (but probably smaller) subjectivity
that thinks hairly legs is attractive.  

Don't try to make either one of them bad for any group.

Well, I suppose the men here who think that shorn legs and underarms
are intrinsically more appealing will be buying razors for themselves?

Re:  Lorna and D!  Men should shave their pits.

Well, great, now men have to alter their bodies to be attractive to
women!  My, we've sure come a long way!

    re .89, John, you must be in a dither about what to do first...shave
    your legs or dye your hair!!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna
    
    what about his underarms! :-)
    
    bj

Men *would* shave their bodies if someone with fashion clout convinced other 
men and women it was attractive.  One cannot dismiss the fact that hairless
women and not-hairless men are the dominant attractions in American
society.

Change people's perception in a positive way.  "Ooo, John, I *like* your
hairless legs and underarms, and that natural musk of your from not
bathing for two days is delightful."

Or, "I find hair on a woman's leg rather attractive."

Saying, "you don't know what attractive is" simply flies in the face
of the axiom "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

If you want to change the beholder, you have to change the *definition*
of beauty.  Ever force someone to like heavy metal music, or opera music,
or pop art, or Gambrel houses, or Colonial houses, or mini-skirts or
bell-bottomed jeans, or <choose something that requires taste>?

Would shaving a man's legs be the answer to the pressure some women feel
about having to shave theirs?  The answer is to let the hair grow and be
happy.  Shave your [male] legs and be happy.  -with yourselves, because it
may take a little time and *positive* reinforcement for the dominant
attractions to see the beauty you see.

RE:      <<< Note 94.92 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

>Men *would* shave their bodies if someone with fashion clout convinced other 
>men and women it was attractive.  One cannot dismiss the fact that hairless
>women and not-hairless men are the dominant attractions in American
>society.

I think we all agree on what the cultural standard is.  I thought we
were looking deeper into it.  Why is the standard and what messages
are being transmitted by it?

Another question is: is this is desirable?  For example, if those with
fashion clout as you put it, convinced us that women were not
attractive unless they mutilated their genitals (this does happen in
many countries), it that a good and desirable condition?  Or in the
US, if people (largely men) are making money from such alterations (ie,
fashion and cosmetics industries) and change the definition of what is
attractive every year to keep the money coming in?  

>Or, "I find hair on a woman's leg rather attractive."

I have already stated this opinion.  Shaven legs can also be
attractive to me.  

>Saying, "you don't know what attractive is" simply flies in the face
>of the axiom "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Did I say this?  If so, please point it out.

>If you want to change the beholder, you have to change the *definition*
>of beauty.  Ever force someone to like heavy metal music, or opera music,
>or pop art, or Gambrel houses, or Colonial houses, or mini-skirts or
>bell-bottomed jeans, or <choose something that requires taste>?

If you then admit that the definition of beauty is culturally based,
why do women, much more so than men, have to alter their bodies to
meet it?  Why can't we accept people pretty much the way are?  Are
they defective?

I can't change the definition of beauty but we can try raise awareness
of where our ideas about "beauty" come from.  

I don't think the answer to make men so through the same BS.

Equality seems lately to somtimes mean women are free to be as
obnoxious as men traditionally have been in matters of physical
attraction...  So much for progress.  A recent lover told me I had a
nice butt.  Fortunately, she also seemed to like me as a person so I
wasn't insulted.

So I guess men can be sex objects as well.  It would be nice (in my
opinion) if we depended less of the outer beauty and more on inner
beauty.  Where do you think this reliance and dependance on outer
beauty comes from?  I not saying I am free of it either by any means
but I think it's worth looking into.

john (grey hair and hairy armpits forever!)

Re: .93

>If you then admit that the definition of beauty is culturally based,
>why do women, much more so than men, have to alter their bodies to
>meet it?  Why can't we accept people pretty much the way are?  Are
>they defective?

Which came first?  Someone finding someone attractive, or someone attracting
someone?  Why the women "have" to alter their bodies is because the American
culture has defined what beauty is.  I agree with some of it and disagree 
with others.  I prefer dark-haired women to light-haired women, so what?
I do not think rib-showing, starvation slimness is attractive.  Those are
some of my preferences (even though my preferences do not exclude slender,
blonde women by any means).

Now, women don't "have" to alter their bodies (my wife wears no make-up
*most* of the time), proveided they are content *and* they attract the
people they want to attract - which gets to the next question.

>Where do you think this reliance and dependance on outer
>beauty comes from?  I not saying I am free of it either by any means
>but I think it's worth looking into.

Reliance on outer beauty?  Nature.  
Why do birds strut their stuff to get a mate?
People do the same (sometimes even though they may not want to - 
natural beauty can be a curse) - *AND* some people also have learned 
that outer beauty is not the best guage for interpersonal relationships.

Hermits don't need to be concerned with attracting people, or I should
rather say be attrctive to people.  Everybody wants to be liked by others
and physical attributes is one way to appease this need.

Is it right?  Is the id right?  Like I said, people have it over the animals
in that we sometimes try to go beyond the "books cover".  And, we
also redefine what is attractive.

Mark

P.S.  I was not advocating that men shave their pits to be even, but rather to
highlight that men *would* if the definition of attraction and beauty in this 
culture changed to say that it *was* desirable.  It is an idea so odd in
this society that its just plain silly to us.  Imagine what great-
great- great- greatgrandma might have thought about the silliness of
shaving one's legs.  "Attractive!  I'd look like a plucked chicken!"

    
    
    I agree with the point that John Heffernan made that it seems that our
    culture requires a lot more alteration for women.  And I think that's
    been true across cultures and across time: foot binding, corsets, and
    health-threatening diets come to mind as examples.  I also think the 
    standard of beauty for women (at least currently) is much narrower than 
    it is for men.  Men can show their age and still be considered attractive, 
    but women are only considered attractive as they age if they don't show it 
    (whether through hair coloring, surgery, or just "good luck").  Of
    course, there are scores of sensitive men who love women with gray hair
    or with some extra weight, but most of us could list the traits a
    "beautiful" women (as defined by current, U.S. culture) should have. 
    And if we drew up a similar list for beautiful or "handsome" men, I
    suspect that the list would be longer (i.e., would allow more
    variation), and/or we could all find men who don't quite fit the
    standard of beauty but who are considered attractive none the less.
    This different standard for women and men leads me to think that sexism 
    is very much involved in the cultural definitions of attractiveness for 
    women and men.
    
    Justine

    Part of the problem might be that throughout history, women were more
    valued/appreciated for how they looked, and men for what they did?
    
    Like beautiful women were seen as more appreciable than ugly women, and
    talented/high-wage-earning/intelligent men were seen as more
    appreciable than untalented/broke/stupid men.  The scales were
    different.  Now women may want to be seen on the same scales as men,
    (i.e. for what they can do), and the clash occurs when society slows
    the change by their rejection of the scale variation...
    
    -Jody
    

    re .96, it seems to me that men can be considered attractive to
    a great number of women if they are either wealthy and/or well educated
    and highly intelligent (even if homely) or if they are very handsome
    even if they are poor and not especially intelligent or educated.
     But, it seems that the only way for a woman to be considered
    attractive to a great number of men is by being pretty (and conforming
    to what the media considers pretty-slim, regular features, etc.)
    Intelligent, highly educated, even powerful women may be able to
    get the money and respect they want, but if they are homely they
    can't seem to get scores of dates with handsome young men regardless
    of their money and brains.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .96 -
    
    Agreed. Have you ever heard the expression "pretty is as pretty does"?
    I haven't...
    
    Dorian

A TV tabloid talk show recently gave their audience a few resumes with photos
and a greater percentage of the (mostly) female audience *felt* the 
"more attractive" persons were more qualified.  The resumes were distributed
by a psychologist who noted that we all make (sometimes) unfair judgements
based on attractions.

"People who keep themselves looking good have better self confidence and
are therefore better qualified."

I'll buy that societal pressures dictate beauty standards.  I don't buy that
one gender explicitly pressures the other gender to conform without the
willing participation of the other gender.  There are exceptions to this,
of course, who don't accept the current standard of beauty.

People want to be attractive so they conform to the consensus of what is
attractive, willingly.  I willingly comb my hair to present myself to
the world and myself as more attractive than the unkempt look, not because 
of the pressures (wierd looks) I'd get if I didn't.

Mark M

    MS. magazine put a surprising little squib in an issue last
    summer/fall.  They reported that *men* are more likely to vote
    for an attractive male candidate for political office than
    women are.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .100 Ann B.
    
    Aha!  Light dawns!
    
    Dan Quayle springs to mind...apparently George Bush was of the opinion
    that women would salivate and vote in droves.  
    
    Pam

Pam, 

I cannot believe George Bush would choose Dan to garner the votes of
people who find him attractive.  Personally, I think Danny's got as much
business in his lofty position as Fred Wang did at the helm of a 
$3 Billion dollar company; he's too inexperienced, regardless of one's 
political persuasion.

I think George did it so everyone would pray that George would keep in good
health so that Danny doesn't ever assume the Oval office responsibilities.

                              :-) :-) :-)

    RE: .75
    
    Mark, no one seems to have answered your question, so I will (why
    not?).
    
    >Anyone out there think that the really big muscle men are actually
    >abnormally deforming their natural bodies or is it rad attractive?
    
    (BTW, what is "rad attractive?"  Is that what kids are saying these
    days, as in "totally radical?")
    
    I think it's abnormally deforming their natural bodies, and I don't
    find it at all attractive.  In fact, most body builders repulse me.  I
    would never date a body builder, because I just don't find abnormally
    bulging muscles attractive!
    
    RE: .96
    
    Jody, I agree with you.  Why else would Diane Sawyer, Jane Pauley, etc.
    be discussed in terms of physical appearance first in any article you
    pick up, and merit is almost an after-thought?
    
    QUESTION TO EUROPEAN READERS:
    
    A British friend of mine recently told me that shaving is now
    commonplace in Britain and Europe.  The American "standard" has spread
    over the sea, and most women now shave their legs and underarms.  What
    say ye?
    
    
    Susan

    RE: .98
    
    >Agreed. Have you ever heard the expression "pretty is as pretty does"?
    >I haven't...
    
    Dorian, I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.  Can you please
    explain.  "Handsome is as handsome does" is from Melville's
    _Billy_Budd_ and was intended to be a derogatory statement against
    Billy.  It meant that good looking men could do no wrong.  Are you sure
    you *want* to hear "pretty is as pretty does?"
    
    Susan

<    you *want* to hear "pretty is as pretty does?"
    
In my family, "pretty is as pretty does" meant that beauty is measured by
what is on the inside of a person, not what is on the outside.

          Carol

    Re .105, that's what I always thought it meant, too.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .108, I disagree with that tired old saying.  I think, if anything,
    more women in recent years have been staying attractive longer than
    most men have.  It's because most men don't bother to stick to diets,
    color their hair, use facial creams to ward off wrinkles, wear stylish
    clothes. IMO, most men have long since lost whatever looks they ever
    had long before their 50th birthday  Let's face it, there aren't
    very many Cary Grant's out there in the world.
    
    Lorna
    

    I don't find men with a lot of body hair attractive. When I am at the
    beach or in an environment where mens bodies are on display, I am
    really turned off by the sight of a lot of body hair. I have never had
    an intimate relationship with a hairy man, but this may be because most
    black and Am. Indian men don't have much body hair.  The thoughts of
    snuggling with a man with 2 inch long chest hair makes me gag.

The more hair you have, the more it gets all over the bathroom.

Blech.....

Lisa

-mike z
    
.89>Well, I suppose the men here who think that shorn legs and underarms
.89>are intrinsically more appealing will be buying razors for themselves?

>	I do, but I won't be shaving my legs.
>	I don't need to be the woman of my dreams.
    
    Since you agreed with it, what do you think is meant by
    "intrinsically" -  that it only applies to women?  Or are you admitting 
    that you're one of those guys who's not willing to go the distance he 
    expects women to go for him?  If the latter, you have a lot of company.  
    Most guys just don't care what women like and are only concerned that 
    women seek to learn *their* likes and are willing to do whatever it 
    takes to accomodate that.
    
    With a large number of guys feeling that altering their bodies for 
    women is a stupid waste of time, it makes for a pretty un-sexy and 
    ugly world for women, isn't it!  (And we're still alive!  So men really
    won't die if women stop masquerading as fantasies and get down to the
    business of earning a living, bearing and raising the next generation 
    and addressing the world's problems!)  
    
    The fat guys, the old guys, the hairy guys and the smelly guys all 
    believe that women at the very least should be willing to TRY to turn 
    themselves inside out trying to mimic Kelly Bundy for them.  But few 
    have the kind of money that buys them the right to that attitude.  Most 
    just bemoan the "plain" women they get, (although they DO take them!), 
    and fantasize that perfection is just around the corner waiting to 
    revel in their fat wrinkles and stroke their shiny heads.
    
    PS - Maybe it ain't a smile.  Maybe it's a grimace!  ;-)
    

    
    
    	Sandy,
    
    	Answer me this, do you think men shave their face because they
    	like it?  What's that, <mumble.... mumble..> Yeah, that's it,
    	men do love to rip their face to shreds every day.. ;^) Is it
    	a smile or a........ never mind.
    
    	So women shave their legs and under arms, men shave their face.
    	Really, where's the BIG plot to rule women in this Sandy. God, you
    	seem to say every little thing women do that in your opinion is
    	some how boring, uncomfortable, whatever is some BIG plot by ALL
    	men to degrade women and "Keep them in their Place".  I don't
    	know a single man that has bought a razor for anyone other than
    	himself. How many men have you been with that came out and told
    	you to shave your legs or under-arms?  I can think of several women
    	that have stated to me to shave my face if I wanted to be seen
    	with them.
    
    	G_B

RE:   <<< Note 94.114 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "so smooooth U must be a limousine" >>>


>
>	But don't expect all men to say "hey, it's Ok with me that you're
>    unkept and dirty and have hairy legs and smelly armpits", some men are
>    going to say "well, it's time for me to go".

Mike, are you saying that hairy legs and armpits on women are dirty
and smelly but on men its perfectly OK?

RE:  G. Bushee

I don't think comparing shaving faces with men and shaving legs and underarms
and wearing makeup is a valid comparision.  Having a beard isn't normally
considered dirty, unkempt, and generally derided like it is with women
who don't shave.  Can we really compare what men and women have to do
in this society do meet the physical norm?  I don't think so.

john

I have no problem walking around with furry legs at the beach or in the locker
room.  I used to feel people were staring at me and would be self-conscious.
I think people noticed me being self-conscious more than they noticed my
legs.  Now I don't think twice about it (most of the time).  The occasional
comment (almost always from a woman) gets a "So what?" look in return.

Work is another thing.  I'm willing to be a "social maverick" at home, but I'm
not about to risk it affecting my job. So I wear pants.  At DECUS last week
I wore a skirt and boots.  Boots are a lot more comfortable than dress shoes
anyway.  I've noticed guys tend to look me in the eye rather than looking at
my legs when I have my slightly baggy boots on. 

I don't think "having to" cover up my legs at work is particularly unfair, most
guys don't go around exposing their hairy gams either.  There seems to be
some relation between skirt hems rising and hairless leg requirements.  For
some reason men never got into wearing skirts, except for kilts, so this may
be why men's legs were exempted from shaving.  I count myself lucky for being
able to wear a skirt on the days I feel like wearing one.  Guys can't do that
(but that's another topic). 

			Bb

    in re .117
    
    Mike I'm not quite clear on your reply ...
    
    do you think that women with unshaven bodies are dirty and smelly?
    
    bj

    okay then,
    
    can you imagine that you'd be attracted to a woman who didn't shave?
    
    and thanks for clearing that up
    
    bj

    Bonnie, there was an old joke on how women got to be in Track and Field
    in the Olympics... Some all man who did the commentary said the reason
    was that women started to shave their armpits so when their hand was
    raised people didn't mind....

    REK

    Now back to your regular programming...

    
    Does anyone else out there think that one of the ways that sexism
    gets expressed in this culture is in the strict requirements for
    female beauty?  I keep hearing that it's just a matter of taste, or
    men have requirements, too.  But I think that there are very different
    standards of beauty for women and men.  Men can be attractive as long
    as they're reasonably tidy and not terribly overweight (with a lot of
    leeway even in the weight department...).  Women, on the other hand,
    (as I see it) are only beautiful* if they look young, are slim, wear
    makeup, shave, don't have gray hair (see look young), wear "feminine"
    clothes (including uncomfortable shoes, panty hose and other
    restrictive clothing).  Does anyone else see this disparity and think
    that it might be an expression of sexism?
    
     * I'm using beautiful here to mean "conventionally attractive." 
    
     Justine

    
    Men and beards, in many parts of society you are likely to be an
    outcast if you have a beard.  The distance outside the expected
    norm is defined by the style of the beard.  Some notably male groups
    like the military had very strict hair and beard regulations, though
    I understand they have relaxed the last 20 years.  Bowties fall
    in the same pot also.
    	
    Those hearty Scottish, Kilts yes. Legs no.  They get around shaving
    them with those knee high wool stockings.  Who knows if they do
    shave or not? :*)  
    	
    Another observation, the men I see in posters and elswhere generally
    aren't very hairy. or too young to have their own yet!  Is there
    a value judgement in the media on men and hair? 
    
     

    
    re:.122
    yes
    

re .Note 94.122                     
SCIVAX::SULLIVAN 

Let's turn it around :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    Does anyone else out there think that one of the ways that sexism
    gets expressed in this culture is in the strict requirements for
    male beauty?  I keep hearing that it's just a matter of taste, or
    women have requirements, too.  But I think that there are very different
    standards of beauty for women and men.  Women can be attractive as long
    as they're reasonably tidy and not terribly overweight (with a lot of
    leeway even in the weight department...).  Men, on the other hand,
    (as I see it) are only beautiful* if they look young, are slim, wear
    cologne shave, don't have gray hair (see look young), wear "masculine"
    clothes (including uncomfortable shoes, suits and ties and other
    restrictive clothing).  Does anyone else see this disparity and think
    that it might be an expression of sexism?
    
     * I'm using beautiful here to mean "conventionally attractive." 
    

    re .the last 
    
    *Both* sexes can be conventionally attractive. The requirements
    for real *beauty* are far stricter for either gender. And if
    it isn't natural, it's too damn much work. (If I lost weight,
    got my nose & teeth straightened, spent a few thousand $ on 
    clothes, wore contacts, exercised, etc... even I could be
    beautiful ;-) )

    
    re:.128
    no
    

    There's a topic about discussion of societal pressure to change for
    beauty in topic 108, I think....
    
    -Jody
    

	Women only shave their legs because the media/cosmetics industry 
	tell them to. I don't think they should do it.

	Unless, of course,

	

	it's gray.

	Dorian

    
    I haven't shaved *either* my legs or underarms since 1981 -
    and I'm proud of the fact that I haven't felt enough pressure
    to do so!
    
    And guess what?  I even wear skirts to work!! (With nylons).
    I'm dismayed to see that *soooo* many women here feel and act
    on the pressure to shave.  Body hair is *natural*!
    
    BTW, Mike Z, I *do* take a shower every day, so can I *please*
    pass your test of worthiness?!
    
    After reading all the replies I got to thinking, has there ever
    been a time that I've been "grossed out" (as some of you obviously
    are) over anyone's body hair, and I have had some "getting used to
    it" to do in certain situations, but I feel that body hair is
    *natural* and if I'm offended by it, then it's *my problem*, not
    the person with the hair's, because *body hair is naturual*!
    
    P.S. On a very recent trip to Europe, I did notice many women
    with shaven legs and was surprised since I had heard that European
    women do not shave their legs.
    
    P.P.S I am totally grossed out by body builders' bodies, and I
    don't feel I need to try to like them because that body shape is
    very *unnatural*.
    

    >	Answer me this, do you think men shave their face because they
    >	like it?  
    
    No, I think they generally make their choice of to shave or not based on 
    their careers and their bosses. 
    
    > I don't know a single man that has bought a razor for anyone other than
    > himself. 
    
    Heavy sigh as I explain this, yet again.  I don't know of any woman who
    demands that men not cry in her presence.  Yet few men will do it. 
    It's the same thing.  The culture, (and who is "the culture"?  Women?
    I don't think so), creates the atmosphere so that individual men are 
    freed from having to "train" individual women.  You don't HAVE to buy a
    razor for women.  You only have to train your daughters.
    
    Mike Zarlenga said it perfectly when he said:
    
    > It's so much simpler to just find a person who already is the way you
    > want him or her to be.  No fuss, no fight.
    
    So the culture works to make it "simpler" for men by coming to as much
    of a consensus as possible, and shoving it down the throats of females
    from birth.
    
    If none of us shaved, no man would have the luxury of his own "taste", 
    (since some of you seem to think it's merely a matter of personal taste 
    and nothing more).  Women don't have the luxury of indulging a desire 
    for smooth legs or armpits in their mates, (and such desire DOES exist
    and has even been admitted to here!)  
    
    But cultural conditioning, (created by those who rule the culture), has 
    given men the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of their individual 
    quirks and to subtlely and silently control at least the majority of 
    women into conformity by controlling their daughters, properly preparing 
    them for OTHER men.
    
    Since quite a lot of women are opting not to shave any longer, is it
    merely coincidence that those of you who prefer shaven women only seem
    to date same?  I'm quite sure you don't date whom you like and then
    tell the unshaven ones to shave, do you?  Many of you are firmly saying
    that you don't tell women to shave and never would.  So then can it be 
    concluded that the presence or absence of leg or armpit hair is indeed a 
    criteria for initiating and/or continuing a relationship?  I think so.  
    And if you guys don't think women know it, you really do think we're 
    stupid.
    
    For most conventional hetero women in this culture, presenting an
    unshaven leg or pit to a man feels exactly the same to her as the
    feeling a man would get presenting a red face, swollen eyes and tear-
    stained cheeks to a woman.  No individual has to dictate.  The culture
    makes sure that it's all taken care of so that individuals will pressure
    themselves into conformity.  Men, by their media, merely have to remind
    us in very subtle ways and by that method, they get what they want
    without any individual man having to take responsibility for dictating
    to any individual woman.
    
    Women tend to be happy when they find men who can shed that cultural 
    crap, (since we know firsthand what crap it is!), and be human beings.  
    I am not repulsed by a crying man the way men have been repulsed by
    hairy women.  So it seems like it has to be something real nasty in
    men's opinions of women if they cannot accept women who want to do the
    same and shed the cultural crap and be human.  I think the current
    collectiong of jokes about "new age, sensitive guys" is a direct fear 
    response to those men who are "escaping" and are making it difficult
    for the average man to sustain the cultural facade.  If men can cry,
    can women really grow leg hair?!  
    
    Most men will say sure, women should be free and I wouldn't mind it a 
    bit if I encountered a woman who didn't shave.  Like Mike Zarlenga 
    answering Bonnie's direct question - can you imagine being attracted to
    a woman who doesn't shave?  (and I'm paraphrasing).  He said he could
    imagine it.  *But it hasn't happened*.  And I'll bet the rent it most 
    likely never will.  Because of the dictates of the culture, men are 
    assured that there are enough women around who will meet their standards 
    such they can easily ignore those who don't and gallantly claim it's 
    mere coincidence that the only women they date are shaven. 
       
    >How many men have you been with that came out and told you to shave 
    >your legs or under-arms?  
    
    I can think of 2 right off the bat - no, 3.  Gimme a minute - I'm sure
    there are more.  They also make their thoughts known on my hair, (how
    about a little blonder, longer, curlier, straigher), my clothes, (those 
    make you look, well, you know, kinda dumpy), my skin, (boy you're skin 
    gets dry in the winter, huh?  You shouldn't lie in the sun - that's why 
    you have those little lines on your face) and every other physical de-
    tail (how come you don't polish your nails? I LOVE nailpolish.)  You're 
    dreaming if you think they don't.  The closer you are, the more they
    feel they have the right to steer you into the shaven, painted ideal of
    their media.  Next question?
    
    >	The things I like on women, I don't necessarily like on myself.
    
    Then you shouldn't have agreed that shaven bodies are "intrinsically"
    more appealing when what you were really talking about was your own 
    personal taste.  Unless of course you think your personal taste does or
    should have cultural proportions and national implications.
    
    > It's no big deal, really.  Is it?

    For men?  Heck, no!  It's great!  I think it would be wonderful if I
    could live in a culture that insured that the majority of the opposite
    sex would be spending most of their time and money on preening for me
    and my cronies!  I just couldn't do it with a straight face since I
    have respect for people as individuals.  But then respect for women as
    individiuals has traditionally not been a driving force for men. 
    Respect, such as there is, is generally only reserved for women who
    martyr themselves, ("Stand by your [lying, cheating] man", wails Tammy
    Wynette)  And beauty actually exempts a woman from needing a man's 
    respect in the first place.  She gets his money instead.  Lots of it.
    More money than she could get doing anything else.  And they make sure
    all women know it, too.
    
    All the rest of us had better know the rules and be prepared for the
    consequences if we ignore them.  No one will tell you what to do,
    you'll just find that your "cultural escape" will probably have 
    detrimental effects on your life, both in work and in love.  But hey -
    y'all go right ahead, honey!  ;-)

re:                    <<< Note 94.135 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>

Hear, hear!  Great note, thanks...

john

    re .137 -
    
    Nasty, tyrannical, mean, manipulative? Now you're talking turkey!
    The same could have been said (and probably was, though not till
    recently) about Chinese footbinding.

<.138>    The same could have been said (and probably was, though not till
<.138>    recently) about Chinese footbinding.
<
<	Now there was a practice created by men, which was painful and
<    deforming to women.

    Now this brings up and interesting thought. One of the reasons for foot
    binding, and I think many other female requirements, was that it proved
    she had to do nothing. It meant her father was wealthy and her husband
    would be too. Perhaps a lot of this is providing a symbol of a man's
    status. Look at the clothing of the 16 and 17 hundreds. It required
    help in dressing. Upper class people showed their wealth by proving
    they couldn't manage alone and could afford help.

    Much of what women do in the way of primping for a man is left from
    times when a woman of status had the free time and servants to do it.
    Right after WW II there was a major campaign in this country to get
    women back out of the work force. The *government* supported the push
    back to the home and the sort of lifestyle that kept women as
    non-working beings. Of course, none of this applies to the poor, we
    expected them to have to work.

    Lily feet and nylons may not be so far removed in meaning even if the
    brutality is much diminished in the later. liesl

    
    	RE: .135
    
    	Sandy,
    
    	Now, let me get this correct. You say because Mike Z. (example
    	you used, btw) preferred woman with shaven legs and/or armpits
    	that that is proof that men are forcing women to hold to what
    	the man domanated picture of women should be. Hum, okee dokee,
    	what about the image the media potrayes of men? You know how
    	they all have 99 inch arms, 22 inch waists, nice blonde hair
    	deep blue bedroom eyes and very clean shaven face. Now, does a
    	woman who dates a man that fits this just blindly following
    	what society says is the proper male, or is she doing it because
    	she chooses to? From where I sit, too many in here are saying every
    	time a man picks something in a woman that is also in align with
    	what society says, he is doing so because of society saying it's
    	what a woman should be. Yet I never hear the same when a woman
    	won't date a man because he has a beard, or glasses or whatever
    	that isn't the norm. In cases like that everyone jumps in and
    	defends her right to freely choose. Why is it a man doesn't freely
    	choose, but rather re-enforces societies expetations and the woman
    	always chooses?  Unless your blind, society does also portray what
    	a man should be like (the ideal man). I'll grant that woman have
    	a greater demand put on them, but your notes seem to suggest that
    	there is none placed on men at all.
    
    	G_B
    
    	BTW, just for the record, I don't care one way or the other about
    	shaven legs or armpits. I do however, tend to be attracted to women
    	that a very slim (only because I'm so SKINNY myself) and more
    	toward the flat chested than large sized. 

    re: .141
    Does Tom Selleck (consistently rated "sexiest man" for years) have
    "nice blond hair, deep blue bedroom eyes and a very clean shaven face"? 
    No, he has curly brown hair, ?? eyes, and a mustache.  And very hairy
    legs.
    
    Facial hair IS a possibility for a man who wants to look sexy.
    
    Now, suppose Kelly Le Brock had hairy (black hair) legs, full growth.
     o would she get work as a model?
     o would she be a poster pinup?
     o would she still be doing incredibly obnoxious commercials in 
       which she pleads with the viewer not to hate her because she's
       beautiful?
     o would she be considered to have beautiful legs still?
    
    No. 
    
    Sandy did NOT say that the average man never thinks about his
    appearance.  She didn't really talk about men, actually.  Mostly she
    talked about the *narrower* bands of how women are supposed to "take
    care of themselves."  From your note you agree with that, so why try to
    make what she said look like it came from nowhere?
    
    Where do YOU think pressure for women to conform comes from?  I think
    it's from society -- meaning by BOTH men and women. But why is LESS
    pressure put on men by society?  Could it be that our society cares
    more about whether MEN are pleased by what they see than whether WOMEN
    are pleased by what they see?  What do YOU attribute it to, then?
    
    We all can recite the ideal stats for a woman's body:  36-24-36.
    Can anyone recite the "well-known" ideal stats for men?
    No, because nobody has bothered to codify it and make men feel
    inadequate for being "wrong".  I know that when I was growing up I kept
    hoping I'd grow into the "right" proportion, and it really made me feel
    *terrible* knowing that I was 33-25-36.  I mean, I was three whole
    inches wrong from breast to hip.  It would've been all right if it had
    been the other way around (36-25-33), maybe.  Oops.
    
    Did I *choose* to feel wrong?  No.  Do women who have silicon injected
    into their breasts *choose* to do so?  Yes.  But WHY do they choose to
    do so?  What pressures have made them feel that their natural body is
    "incorrect" and must be fixed?  Do they *want* to have painful surgery
    done?  Do they *like* spending money that way?
    
    Shaving legs isn't that big a deal.  But the pressure that makes you
    feel you "have" to do it (remember Kelly Le Brock) *IS* a big deal.
    
    Pam

Some folks have stated that shaven legs and armpits on women are
intrinsically appealing but still have not looking into why this is
so despite:

1)  The fact that it has been shown that such things are culturally
determined (at least to some extent).  For example, somehow children
were produced and love affairs occured before the invention of a
razor!

2)  The intrinsic nature is only for one sex and not the other.

3)  The amount of fuss men and women have to go through to be
"intrinsically appealing" to the other sex is way disproportinate.

So I ask again (if you are really interested in looking into it):
why are scraped armpits and legs intrinsically appealing on women to
you?  

Here's some things I find intrinsically appealing:

o  Women who are not afraid to be themselves and look like themselves
as nature intended.

o  Women who are strong and don't depend on cultural conditioning to
define their own self-worth.

o  Women who aren't afraid to state their needs and negoiate them.

o  Women who are are kind, and gentle, but also strong.

o  Who who want to be with me because they like to be with me and not
because they need me to feel complete.

john

>So I ask again (if you are really interested in looking into it):
>why are scraped armpits and legs intrinsically appealing on women to
>you?  

Who is "you"?  Me? I already answered the question (didn't I?)  How can we
answer the question again if we don't know what was wrong with the first
answers we gave?

Anyway, here 'tis.  I find lack of body hair intrinsically appealing because
I find it textureally and tactily appealing.  And because I think smooth
skin sets of the *shape* of the body more esthetically.

Those reasons have nothing to do with sex/gender, and are not sexist.

However, I do not claim that there is no sexism is ideals for men and women,
even in my own.

The sexism is this: I find smooth skin appealing in both sexes.  However, I
find it makes a bigger difference in my assesment of women's attractiveness
than in mens.  Part of that is non-sexist: I think that women have a nicer
shape, and therefore it is more attractive to accent that shape by having
smooth skin than with a man.  Most of the reason is sexist: I am used to
women going to more effort to look attractive than men.

I think the key here is that, even if you accept being shaven as being
intrinsically attractive, why are women expected to change to look attractive
and men aren't (as much?)

D!

    Actually, I've been interested in why women have a nicer shape for a
    while. I'm not sure if I think they do, but any stroll through a museum
    indicates they do. I'd say it's about even in Greek and Roman art, but
    other ancient art forms, and anything after the Renaissance (and maybe
    starting there) emphasizes the actual form of females (their body) much
    more than the actual form of males.
          Mez

One reason I read that might cause people to think women have a nicer shape
is a predominance for the the following:

o men are primarily visually stimulated toward the physical
o women are primarily mentally stimulated toward the physical

Is this why "girlie" magazine sells more than "Playgirl" and the need/desire
for romance is a nearly constant complaint from my wife and my friends' 
complaints about their husbands?

Is this a valid assessment of a male/female difference? And if so, why do
you think so?  It seems to be so in my relationship.

Mark

    re: .147 (Mike Z.)
    
    �  Suppose Tom Selleck gained 100 pounds.

    I think that avoids the shaving issue, Mike, because:
    
      o	if LeBrock gained 50 pounds, she wouldn't be considered as
    	(generally) attractive.
      o if Selleck gained 100 pounds, he wouldn't be considered as
    	(generally) attractive.
    
    Ergo, there's a culturally imposed standard around weight that's
    applied equally across the sexes.  However:
    
      o if Selleck doesn't shave, he's still considered attractive.
      o if LeBrock doesn't shave, she's considered less attractive.
    
    Ergo, there's a culturally imposed standard around shaving that's
    applied unequally across the sexes.
    
    Steve
    

    re .143, John, you didn't state *any* physical things that you consider
    to be intrinsically appealing about women.  Do you mean that you
    are *never* physically attracted to a woman because of her appearance?
     I don't mean to doubt your word :-), but I find that hard to believe
    about anybody, male or female.  I think it's only human to sometimes
    see people that we find physically attractive.  It could be someone
    in a crowd or on the subway, for example, whom we know nothing more
    about than appearance.
    
    I don't think there's anything wrong with sometimes being attracted
    to someone because of their appearance, just as long as we are also
    able to be attracted to people for non-physical traits.  I have
    been attracted to some people for primarily physical reasons.  I
    have been attracted to other people because of their personalities
    even though I didn't find their appearance attractive.  But, the
    people I have been the most attracted to have been people whom I
    was attracted to for both looks and personality.  I don't think
    it's evil to ever notice good looks just as long as we remember
    to value other less shallow qualities as well.

    Lorna
    

    re: .151 (Lorna)
    
    � I think it's only human to sometimes see people that we find 
    � physically attractive.  
    
    Most assuredly, but I think the point John's working at is the
    notion of "intrinsic" appeal.  This idea suggests that the appeal
    of a particular characteristic is free of cultural conditioning.
    I suspect that for most people, this just isn't so.  I freely 
    admit that there are any number of physical characteristics that 
    I find attractive, but I seriously doubt that I was born believing 
    those traits to be beautiful.  My vision of physical attractiveness 
    is, I believe, based very heavily on the messages I've received 
    since infancy about what is and is not attractive.  
    
    While stationed in Germany, I was fortunate to date some very
    pretty women (by my standards :-) ), two of whom didn't shave.
    While their hirsuteness certainly didn't douse my interest
    entirely, I nonetheless found myself wishing at times for a
    clean-shaven leg.  I can only ascribe those wishes to the very
    strong conditioning I receieved in this culture.  I have every
    reason to think that if I'd been born over there, the thought
    would have been far less likely to even enter my mind.
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    re John H...  Gee, John, I think we have the same taste in women :-)
    
    I find many different types of women attractive, and I think John
    captured it exactly.  It is a physical attraction and attractiveness,
    but it comes from the inside.  I find that if a woman seems to
    look how she really looks (not sure I can really explain that),
    she will look beautiful to me.  It has to do with a certain comfort
    with herself.  Some women look comfortable all dressed up in makeup,
    "feminine" clothes, heels.  Other women look so uncomfortable
    dressed that way that it almost makes me nervous to look at them.
    Same goes for casual dress.
    
    Justine

I think I have a solution for this dilemma of whether women should, 
or should not, shave their legs, that would satisfy everybody: why don't
women 



shave just one leg?

Or how about the outside half of both legs

    Wait'll the punk rockers hear about this.  They'll be the 
    ones to bring us true leg hair equality.  I can just see it
    now - young punkers of both sexes walking around in ratty
    shorts, leather jackets, combat boots (laced only half-way 
    up, of course) and sporting leg hair in a variety of patterns
    such as stripes, zig-zags, and curlyques.  And maybe they'll
    mousse the hairy parts into spikes.
    
    Radical, dudettes and dudes!
    
    Steve

Well,  to answer some questions put to me.

Lorna, yes there are certain characteristics that I do tend to find
appealing on the physical level.  As far as I can tell, wearing makeup
and have shaven legs are not two of them (the tendency seems to be to
be more attracted to women who don't shave and don't wear makeup in
fact).

Something I am questioning for myself in general is how much I have
been programmed by all the images around me into accepting cultural
defined standards of beauty. How important is it?  What if I met
someone I really liked, how attracted would I have to be to her?  In
general, I have found that I need to be attracted at least to certain
level in someone at the physical level.  There are millions of women I
am physically attracted to that I would never want to get involved
with.  I have also observed for myself that if I fall in love with
someone, a lot these physical attraction stuff becomes less important. 
Likewise, I have noticed if I am angry with my lover or fall out of
love, they don't appeal to me like they did before.

In any case, I am poking around (as Steve pointed out) with how much
the cultural defined standards of beauty affect us.  How much is
intrinsic, how much cultural or learned.  I'm certain not capable if
giving an answer to this question but hope that people will look into
for themselves if they care to and not assume what they are attracted
to is some involate standard.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm getting tired of being led
around by my desires (ie, genitals) all the time and am investigating
lust and the role it has in my life.  Ironically, just when I find
myself the object of desire for other people more than any other time
in my life, I am moving towards being driven around by lust less and
seeking connections with people not driven by physical attraction (or
driven by it so much in any case).  What I would have given to be in
this situation when I was in college.

Even though I wish I could find more people attractive in terms of
"finding a mate", I have to attend to the situation I am in but I
looking into it.  It seems like so much energy is spent with chasing
after lust.  Probally if I just concentrated on really being with and
appreciating people as they are, lust would not be a problem.
Anyways, I find it to be an interesting question to look into...

peace,
john

    re .157 shaved patterns the next wave...
    
    TOOOOOO LATE, STEVE!!!!!
    1984 I sang a concert at the harvard club (conservative place in
    boston) with barberpoles shaved on my legs, and yes, I was in a skirt.

    re: .159
    
    and my sister already shaves just one leg.
    
    she hasn't done designs yet, though.
    

    Regarding cultural conditioning...
    
    Shaving legs just happens to be the one thing that I can point to as
    having a specific source.  Usually the conditioning is too subliminal
    to pinpoint.
    
    In elementary school, at whatever age girls often started to shave, I
    was standing in line for lunch one day.  I was wearing a skirt, and 
    hadn't started shaving yet.  The boy behind me in line was very rude
    and made merciless fun at my unshaven legs.  Since then I NEVER go
    out with shorts or skirts on with unshaven legs.  It's pathetic
    really.  In most other ways I do as I please -- I don't wear makeup,
    I wear blue jeans and t-shirts to work, etc.  But in this one area,
    there's that little girl inside who's afraid of being ridiculed.
    
    This is just at overt example of the type of conditioning through
    peer pressure that we all go through to conform.  I don't know what
    we can do to change it, but it's not going to be easy.
    
    Karen.

    You've heard about men who use electric razors as they're driving in to
    work?
    
    I just saw the first scenes in "Making Mr. Right" -- Ann Magnuson plays
    a successful publicist who's late getting into the office.  She's
    driving down the freeway using an electric razor on her legs and pits.
    :-)  Another Susan Seidelman film!
    
    Pam

    Every one has different "standards of attractiveness" and what feels
    good.  This is what I like:
    
    I like to shave my legs--I don't like to feel hair on them, I like the
    smoothness of shaved legs.  But, I get a better shave if I wait a day
    or so between shaving.  If there is something special I am going to do,
    or someone special I am going to see I wait a few days, and shave that
    morning, otherwise, I shave the bottom half every day, and the top
    (since it grows in softer, lighter, and not as fast as the top part.)
    every two days or so.  Even in the winter I can't stand having my
    underarms not shaved.  It tickles and is scratchy. 
    
    I hate kissing an unshaved face.  It hurts.  The only bearded face I
    ever kissed was my Dad (everyone kisses their Dad) and I never liked
    it.  I never found the Bruce Willis or Don Johnson "look" very
    attractive.  I always thought they'd look better if they shaved.  The
    same goes for Tom Selleck.
    
    My boyfriend and I have shaving competitions (in fun only).. who can 
    keep the cleanest shaven--I usually win, because his 5:00 shadow shows
    up around noon. :)
    
    When you are close to someone, shaved feels nicer.  Although, if you
    have never shaved your legs (like most men) the hair isn't too bad. 
    
    Bathing suits don't look good, IMHO, if a woman doesn't shave "down
    there."  
    
    I suppose society have formed my views, but I really do not think a
    shaggy hairy woman is attractive, especially when she wears a sleevless
    dress.
    
    S.
    who_wears_little_makeup_no_hair_spray_and_can't_stand_nails_above_the_tip_
    of_her_fingers_but_loves_to_shave_and_wishes_she_had_more_time_to_do_so
                                                

    
    re. 165
    
    Do people really shave "down there" to look good in bathing suits?
    Yikes! I was shaved a wee bit when I had my C-section. It was sooo
    itchy when the hair started to grow back. I can't image doing that
    for a bathing suit!
    
    
    Eva.  

    Re .166 - Of course women really shave "down there" - it's called a
    bikini shave.  Women even wax their pubic regions to remove unwanted 
    hair.  Yikes!!!!
    
    The origins of shaving women's bodily hair, my understanding, was to
    make them appear more youthful.  Males, the theory goes, are attracted
    to anything in females the makes the female appear more youthful like
    lack of bodily hair, slim hips, long (blonde) hair, blue eyes, smooth
    skin, all those things one would associate with a quite young
    (pubescent) female - apparently because it makes the male feel more
    dominant, powerful, and in control regardless of exactly how powerful,
    dominant and mature the male actually is.  Everything is relative you
    see, and if the female's appearance states she is immature via hairless
    legs and armpits, long sunstyled hair, slim no hips body, the male is
    not threatened by any challenge to his higher standing, or maturity. 
    That is what I read about shaving legs etc.
    
    On the other hand, men having beards is a sign of maturity, status,
    reaching sexual maturity and desireability - a good thing - in the eyes
    of a female.  There is a definate correlation between sexual maturity
    and readiness (physical) and desireability/attractiveness.  And they
    are quite different for males and females - or have been over the past
    several hundred years.  Perhaps the times are changing?  Perhaps men
    are beginning to accept women for what they really are?
    

>Males, the theory goes, are attracted
>    to anything in females the makes the female appear more youthful like
>    lack of bodily hair, slim hips, long (blonde) hair, blue eyes, smooth
>    skin, all those things one would associate with a quite young
>    (pubescent) female [...]

Which flies in the face of the fact that at various times and with
various men, large breasts, hourglass figures, wide hips, etc are/were
very popular.  Even with the *same* men who like hairless women.  While at
this particular time women with slim figures/no hips or breasts are
in style, that has only been true recently.  Fully developped bodies go
in and our of style, but *have* been in style since and at the same time
as shaving has been in style.  Therefore the theory falls apart.

D!

    
    re .167
    
    Really??
    
    How, exactly, do you substanciate this ridiculous generality? 

    "Perhaps men are starting to accept women for what they really are."
    
    OOOOOO I could say something.........
    
    

    re .172, have an interesting weekend, Mike?
    
    Lorna
    

    *do* tell...

    RE: .174
    
    Stick around (or go read soapbox)...  Mike can't keep a secret too very
    long :-)
    
    PS Hi Lee...!!!