Poll: Straight women and not-so-straight men! What is your opinion on male chest-hair?

[Bara_no_Hime]

However, I've never actually heard anyone I know outright say that they find chest hair on a man unattractive. Now, is this because it's just a generally accepted part of our sexual culture that the vast majority prefer hairless chests, and as such it's not a matter that warrants discussion, or is it because actually, far more people are attracted to, or at least not in any way put off by, chest hair than our typical image of the 'Hot Guy' would suggest?

As mentioned in another recent thread, chest hair is one of the only types of body hair that doesn't ick me out.

That said, I have no real preference between chest hair or no chest hair. Both are attractive in different ways.

I assume most male models wax because they want to show off the details of their abs and because body hair generally photographs badly (note the fact that this is my assumption - if anyone knows for sure, feel free to reply).

Now, that said, it also depends on what kind of chest hair a guy has. I've seen some sexy chest hair - I've also seen chest hair that was utterly gross. It really depends on the individual.

 

[Thespian]

Hairy if you can pull it off. On some people it just looks gross.

 

[BaronUberstein]

My boyfriend shaves, but I wouldn't mind a romp with Sean Connery.

Zardoz is truly an amazing movie.

 

[IronMit]

I'm straight. I trim my body with a hair trimmer. I put it on number 5. (For the body that's quite short)
It's neat but not hairless. I feel comfortable.

Not the arms though..that would just be weird

 

[waj9876]

Do...do I count? As a bisexual male.

Meh, I don't like it. Might have to do with my dislike of overly masculine physical traits in either gender, but oh well.

 

[klaynexas3]

The chest hair itself doesn't matter. The men that I'm into, however, would most likely have it. It's not like it choose one way or the other, the hair just kind of shows up. Fair enough though, when mine finally fully grows in I won't shave it, as I only shave my face; I'm a bisexual, not a ******.

 

[Ryan Minns]

I'm quite hairy actually, I shave my face but I have a large amount of chest hair. My girlfriend isn't actually a fan of body hair or even my larger, brutish shape. She prefers the no haired slimmer men.

 

[Souplex]

My girlfriends have all either liked my chest hair, not commented on it, were around before the chest hair, so overall positive with a large margin of error.

 

[Little Gray]

I gotta say that it's not a realistic reflection of a lot of guys either, I'm fairly lean with some nice muscle definition nowadays since I started dieting and working out a lot but I can tell you that being hairless would take like an entire week of my life at a time to maintain, because I'm male and I run almost entirely on testosterone and willpower.

Being both a viking and a highlander I has hair, and I'm adapted for the cold and fighting bears, so I has more than a bit of hair.

Fuck shaving it or waxing it, I'd waste too much of my life in pursuit of vanity, though I do shave my underarms and keep my pubic area trim for self esteem reasons.

The Italian in me agrees with you, fuck shaving or waxing.

As for waxing or shaving that isnt really practical for most people. The only ones who can get away with it are those who have tons of money and spare time. You know like actors or underwear models.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Do...do I count? As a bisexual male.

Meh, I don't like it. Might have to do with my dislike of overly masculine physical traits in either gender, but oh well.

Anyone capable of seeing the male form from a sexual perspective is welcome to comment on their preferences.

 

[Ieyke]

Look leyke, I think you've completely missed my point. Your post is littered with personal attacks and judgements on people who have different traits than you, then you follow it up with the claim that you try not to judge people who are different. Clearly you don't try very hard...

I claim nothing about not judging people. Quite the opposite. I give everyone a chance to prove themselves as able to make good use of whatever traits they have, and judge quite harshly.

Literally physically weaker than their ancestors.

Scientifically proven. I don't exclude myself from that. A regular run-of-of-the-mill farmer from ancient Greece physically outclassed a modern Olympic athlete. Part of the reason humans rose to the top of the food chain is because human men used to have INSANE levels of testosterone that left them as essentially naturally roided up, which is why there was so much violence and rape throughout ancient history.

Citation or it didn't happen.

Are you kidding? That's fairly common knowledge and common sense to boot...
We live in a world where we defy Darwinism with modern medical science and machinery.
Our ancestors lived by the sword, in constant warfare, or having to protect their homes from raiders, outlaws, or predators.
Our ancestors couldn't go to the grocery store and buy food that was processed a million times before it reached them, they had to till soil, plough dirt, plant crops, harvest crops, forage for berries, hunt game, survive being hunted by game that hunted them back.
Our ancestors didn't have cars to drive around, they had to walk, run, ride, row, or sail everywhere they went.
Our ancestors couldn't just turn on a faucet to get water, they had to go down to wherever the well was and haul up a bunch of water and then haul it back to wherever they needed it.
Our ancestors couldn't just turn on a microwave or stove and blast their food with instant heat to cook it, they had to cut down trees and split logs to get firewood in chunks that they could make use of.
Our ancestors couldn't just go to a hospital that could handle damn near anything when they got sick. They either had to be resilient or die.

Greek armies would just conscript a load of farmers, toss them in a trireme as oarsmen, and have them row for days without worrying that they couldn't handle it. The type of thing that would break an Olympic rowing team today.

Literally EVERYTHING we do today is easy as fuck and in complete defiance of Darwinism. We are breeding our species to be weaker and weaker and weaker because all but the very weakest can obtain everything they need to survive and there is very little impending death looming over us waiting to pick off the weak ones.
Of course we're vastly weaker nowadays. Just...some more than others.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

(Straight male here) Some of these responses are interesting for sure, a lot seem to border on the line of "a bit is OK but not too much". Hmm fair enough. I personally have barely any chest hair at all, you wouldn't be able to see it if you were standing more than a few feet away from me lol...my ex never commented on it

Literally EVERYTHING we do today is easy as fuck and in complete defiance of Darwinism. We are breeding our species to be weaker and weaker and weaker because all but the very weakest can obtain everything they need to survive and there is very little impending death looming over us waiting to pick off the weak ones.
Of course we're vastly weaker nowadays. Just...some more than others.

Going a bit off topic here but I completely disagree we are defying Darwinism. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't imply survival of the physically brutally stronger species, it means survival of whatever species has the best overall package.
The whole reason we have become physically weaker and brittle compared to our ancestors is because our brains have leaped LIGHTYEARS forward. The planet hasn't changed much in the last 5000 years, the climate is roughly the same (bar a thinner ozone layer ) and roughly the similar creatures roam the wilds. Yet the strength and resilience of early man would be useless today. You bring forth one of your historic live-and-die-by-the-sword champions of the past, today he could be defeated by a 12-year-old wielding a gun. That's Darwinism at it's finest.
Also if you really look into the 20,000-40,000 BC era, strength was hardly man's advantage in the wilderness despite him being vastly stronger than today's man. He could easily be out-classed by a mammoth, bear, lion, horse, etc in terms of strength. In the end it was his brain that won him battles, evolution agreed and sharpened our brains to the point where we no longer needed big claws, huge teeth, muscles, etc to use as weapons. Of course evolution is very slow, man is still capable of building giant muscles through intense training. But eventually we will lose that ability, we will simply not need it. Our heads are getting bigger and our bodies proportionately smaller and that's 100% in line with Darwinism because overall we'll still be improving.

 

[AkaDad]

I shaved my chest into a mohawk.

Yes ladies, I'm available.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

For all thoe 'OOH, YOU DON'T HAVE BODY HAIR, YOU FAIL AS A MANNESS!!!'

umm... some of us come from cultures that were geographically not the best for breeding humans with extra hair. I only have body hair because my ancestors had European dna... implanted into them.

 

[olenic]

I have no feelings towards it. If you're naturally hairy, great. If you're naturally hairless, great. The only thing I consider a turn off is vanity. I'm not interested in people who give a shit about body hair, whether it belongs to themselves or others. There are so many more worthwhile things to give a shit about.

This, this, all over this. I seriously don't understand the point of caring. Just take care of yourself, is my only complaint.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Women seem to like my hairy chest. Besides I would not shave my chest. I find men who have no hair wimpy looking.

 

[BeeGeenie]

There should really be a poll option that says "I'm a straight male, I just want to be able to see the results without affecting them"

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

(Straight male here) Some of these responses are interesting for sure, a lot seem to border on the line of "a bit is OK but not too much". Hmm fair enough. I personally have barely any chest hair at all, you wouldn't be able to see it if you were standing more than a few feet away from me lol...my ex never commented on it

Literally EVERYTHING we do today is easy as fuck and in complete defiance of Darwinism. We are breeding our species to be weaker and weaker and weaker because all but the very weakest can obtain everything they need to survive and there is very little impending death looming over us waiting to pick off the weak ones.
Of course we're vastly weaker nowadays. Just...some more than others.

Going a bit off topic here but I completely disagree we are defying Darwinism. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't imply survival of the physically brutally stronger species, it means survival of whatever species has the best overall package.
The whole reason we have become physically weaker and brittle compared to our ancestors is because our brains have leaped LIGHTYEARS forward. The planet hasn't changed much in the last 5000 years, the climate is roughly the same (bar a thinner ozone layer ) and roughly the similar creatures roam the wilds. Yet the strength and resilience of early man would be useless today. You bring forth one of your historic live-and-die-by-the-sword champions of the past, today he could be defeated by a 12-year-old wielding a gun. That's Darwinism at it's finest.
Also if you really look into the 20,000-40,000 BC era, strength was hardly man's advantage in the wilderness despite him being vastly stronger than today's man. He could easily be out-classed by a mammoth, bear, lion, horse, etc in terms of strength. In the end it was his brain that won him battles, evolution agreed and sharpened our brains to the point where we no longer needed big claws, huge teeth, muscles, etc to use as weapons. Of course evolution is very slow, man is still capable of building giant muscles through intense training. But eventually we will lose that ability, we will simply not need it. Our heads are getting bigger and our bodies proportionately smaller and that's 100% in line with Darwinism because overall we'll still be improving.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I wanted to keep this thread light so I'd so far avoided in engaging in the debate. However, if strength were the only measure of superiority Polar Bears and Blue Whales would rule the world. As it is, neither of them are doing so well.