Shirtless men with no chest hair, what's up with that?

[Dags90]

Barmy means crazy.

I considered your points, but I didn't fancy trying to dismantle the entire post, point-by-point.

It's a non-issue really, up to the point where people start implying that you're unclean because you have your natural body-hair...

To be fair, cleanliness is a word with multiple definitions. So it could reasonably said to be cleaner if you're using the "gracefully spare" or "free from roughness or irregularity" definitions. Also, there's the rather poor idea that bacteria are necessarily bad. The extra bacteria are totally harmless, you're covered in them either way. It's about as daft as suggesting you cut off your ear because "it'll reduce the amount of bacteria on you".

 

[Hashime]

I have Scottish genes, that should answer the question about chest hair.
I also read somewhere that the pill is changing what women find attractive. It used to be Sean Connery, but now it is more "boyish" hence no hair.

EDIT: The Pill, I just noticed I wrote "The Piss"

 

[Twilight_guy]

I don't really have any chest hair. I mean there's no real functionality to it and its gone out of style. Having the hair doesn't really make you "more of a man" anymore.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Body hair isn't the same as faecal matter...it's just not. Body hair is a part of us, it's clean as long as you are. It doesn't spread disease, it doesn't stink and it doesn't cause infections if left on your skin.

As mentioned, it kind of does. Try washing the hair on your head with nothing but body soap for a while, since very few people shampoo their body hair. See how that turns out.

If you want to debate what causes my abjection response, then fine, but what makes people go 'yuck' is down to individual preference, not to some kind of natural logic.

If you want to shave yourself all over, that's fine. There's no need to be disingenuous in order to justify it.

Says the person who describes such people as 'vain', (and that's comparatively mild compared to what some people have said). There have been a string of disingenuous things said in this thread, and either that's fine and I'm just meant to take it as personal preference or I should be as annoyed about it as you are now. Take your pick as to which of those motivates my reaction.

I could have picked a less disgusting example of an abjection response though, my apologies.

I'm not sure what the "discomfort" is that you're referring to either. I have never shaved my body hair, and I am not even consciously aware that it is there when I am clothed. From personal and anecdotal experiences, it's after you have shaved an area that it becomes an itchy nightmare.

Since you have never shaved, on what grounds are you claiming to know?

There are (to me) unpleasant experiences you probably aren't aware you're having, or which would at least be substantially altered through shaving.

My personal and anecdotal experience is that if a shaved area itches then you shaved it wrong.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Body hair isn't the same as faecal matter...it's just not. Body hair is a part of us, it's clean as long as you are. It doesn't spread disease, it doesn't stink and it doesn't cause infections if left on your skin.

As mentioned, it kind of does. Try washing the hair on your head with nothing but body soap for a while, since very few people shampoo their body hair. See how that turns out.

If you want to debate what causes my abjection response, then fine, but what makes people go 'yuck' is down to individual preference, not to some kind of natural logic.

If you want to shave yourself all over, that's fine. There's no need to be disingenuous in order to justify it.

Says the person who describes such people as 'vain', (and that's comparatively mild compared to what some people have said). There have been a string of disingenuous things said in this thread, and either that's fine and I'm just meant to take it as personal preference or I should be as annoyed about it as you are now. Take your pick as to which of those motivates my reaction.

I could have picked a less disgusting example of an abjection response though, my apologies.

I'm not sure what the "discomfort" is that you're referring to either. I have never shaved my body hair, and I am not even consciously aware that it is there when I am clothed. From personal and anecdotal experiences, it's after you have shaved an area that it becomes an itchy nightmare.

Since you have never shaved, on what grounds are you claiming to know?

There are (to me) unpleasant experiences you probably aren't aware you're having, or which would at least be substantially altered through shaving.

My personal and anecdotal experience is that if a shaved area itches then you shaved it wrong.

I'm not annoyed...

Oh, I see where you have found issue. I didn't mean to suggest(nor do I think the language in my original post definitly stated) that all men who shave their body hair do so for the sake of vanity. It was an isolated comment on vain men, my work is right next to a gym, so I do get to meet quite a few(and that's not me suggesting that everyone who goes to the gym is vain, lest that also be misconstrued).

Consider me fairly neutral. I don't hate, I just don't relate.

 

[Venereus]

I'm kind of a hairy man, but I have no chest hair. And it's good because my girlfriend hates hairy chests, so it's actually a bonus.

 

[meowchef]

It's much much more manly to have at least a little bit of a hairy chest.

The women that are attracted to it are the ones that have the strongest "Find a protector/provider" instinct.

 

[Dags90]

The women that are attracted to it are the ones that have the strongest "Find a protector/provider" instinct.

So it attracts needy women? And that's a plus?

I guess if that's your thing, I'm not one to judge. I know there's someone on this board whose "ideal woman" is essentially a dog he can fuck legally so it's hardly the most extreme.

 

[lilenglishninja]

Not that that's strictly true, but I reckon it's hooked into some evolutionary psychological thing. Sounds weird I know, but if you consider that it is body hair that traps the sweat that bacteria then feed on and create wicked BO, which is often associated with poor hygiene and is very off-putting.

Also, probably the more important consideration, my skin is pretty sensitive, so you can imagine that I'm none to fond of something that feels like a wire brush against my chest...

I doubt it's strongly (if at all) affected by Darwinian evolution. The hairless trend for men (and female genitalia) is pretty darn recent to the West, and is localized as a trend to Western culture. Many cultures have kept their body preferences. There's also the matter of time and influence. Body hair isn't a big deal for most people, it's like earlobes. People might have preferences for earlobe genetics (attached, please) but those who don't measure up are hardly going to be left without a mate for that reason alone.

It's much more likely to be a social fad, like tanning or non-religious male circumcision in the U.S. Hardly the strangest body fad and certainly not the last.

Possibly it's a manifestation of simplistic modernism being applied to human?

Or increasing media exposure of East Asian men in the West. [dies laughing from the hilarity of such a suggestion]

Anyone who thinks that men have become unilaterally "feminized" by media should check out how much more muscle is expected of men in commercial advertising.

Spoiler: A couple of hundred years ago in the West, the ideal man and woman were pretty odd looking.*Warning, contains Eyckian nudes

I would argue your point and say that natural hairlessness and it's attractiveness according to society is definitely NOT a recent thing and everyone should know that Darwinian evolution to this extent takes more than a few hundred years in species with as big a gap between generations as humans. I don't know off the top of my head whether the very first homo sapiens were as hairless as we are now (that's approx 200,000 years I believe but I haven't double-checked), but our ancestor species were definitely more hairy. Something happened at some point to make hairlessness more desirable/useful/both or it would not have evolved as significantly as it has (I was comparing with chimpanzees in my earlier posts).

I have also already stated that the Romans were into hair removal and that was 2000 years ago so I wish people was stop repeating the non-fact that it is a new fad. It isn't. Yes, it's popular at the moment and wasn't 50 years ago, and might not be in 20 years, but over MILLENNIA, less hair has been popular and become more prevelant, even by using tweezers, razers and wax if we choose to. For the most part, the hairy ones DID get left out millennia ago and DIDN'T mate/produce offspring because I've never seen anyone as hairy as a chimpanzee walking around - well - any shopping mall!

 

[Dags90]

I don't know off the top of my head whether the very first homo sapiens were as hairless as we are now (that's approx 200,000 years I believe but I haven't double-checked), but our ancestor species were definitely more hairy. Something happened at some point to make hairlessness more desirable/useful/both or it would not have evolved as significantly as it has (I was comparing with chimpanzees in my earlier posts).

I have also already stated that the Romans were into hair removal and that was 2000 years ago so I wish people was stop repeating the non-fact that it is a new fad. It isn't. Yes, it's popular at the moment and wasn't 50 years ago, and might not be in 20 years, but over MILLENNIA, less hair has been popular and become more prevelant, even by using tweezers, razers and wax if we choose to. For the most part, the hairy ones DID get left out millennia ago and DIDN'T mate/produce offspring because I've never seen anyone as hairy as a chimpanzee walking around - well - any shopping mall!

While humans have obviously evolved away from the layered hair found in most mammals, that's not quite the same as them evolving away from hair entirely. The difference in structure likely hints at a difference in function (Structure dictates function is pretty much a biological mantra), so comparisons between the two aren't particularly weighty. I want to stress that evolution tending to prefer less does not mean the end point is going to be the extreme. Animals evolve to decreased size, but it's ludicrous to suggest they're "evolving to no size" because of it.

Also, epilation would easily subvert to Darwinian sexual evolution because it has no effect on one's genes. You can wax yourself as smooth as a 10 year old, you're still passing on hairy genes.

I never said it was a new fad. I said it was a fad, like Yo-Yo's. They've come and gone over the years. Did I say years? I meant millennia. I swear, every time they make a comeback they become even more popular.

 

[GroovyV]

It's mostly a fad. Also, it does depend partially on ethnicity, orientation, and other things.
90's was the peak of hairy chested men, in movies and whatnot, but as of now, smoothness reigns.
Some people find that hairless guys are nice to look at and touch, no obstructions, great to rub against (in sexual/non-sexual ways).
Other people find hairless men to just be far too un-manly, and are turned off.
I'm mostly mexican, so hair is part of my existence. Not much chest hair though... ?

 

[lilenglishninja]

I don't know off the top of my head whether the very first homo sapiens were as hairless as we are now (that's approx 200,000 years I believe but I haven't double-checked), but our ancestor species were definitely more hairy. Something happened at some point to make hairlessness more desirable/useful/both or it would not have evolved as significantly as it has (I was comparing with chimpanzees in my earlier posts).

I have also already stated that the Romans were into hair removal and that was 2000 years ago so I wish people was stop repeating the non-fact that it is a new fad. It isn't. Yes, it's popular at the moment and wasn't 50 years ago, and might not be in 20 years, but over MILLENNIA, less hair has been popular and become more prevelant, even by using tweezers, razers and wax if we choose to. For the most part, the hairy ones DID get left out millennia ago and DIDN'T mate/produce offspring because I've never seen anyone as hairy as a chimpanzee walking around - well - any shopping mall!

While humans have obviously evolved away from the layered hair found in most mammals, that's not quite the same as them evolving away from hair entirely. The difference in structure likely hints at a difference in function (Structure dictates function is pretty much a biological mantra), so comparisons between the two aren't particularly weighty. I want to stress that evolution tending to prefer less does not mean the end point is going to be the extreme. Animals evolve to decreased size, but it's ludicrous to suggest they're "evolving to no size" because of it.

Also, epilation would easily subvert to Darwinian sexual evolution because it has no effect on one's genes. You can wax yourself as smooth as a 10 year old, you're still passing on hairy genes.

I never said it was a new fad. I said it was a fad, like Yo-Yo's. They've come and gone over the years. Did I say years? I meant millennia. I swear, every time they make a comeback they become even more popular.

Not being an expert on hair structure I will just point out that the "layered hair found in most mammals" actually tends to be fur in a large percentage of cases, not hair, and yes - fur and hair are definitely structurally different from each other. I'd be interested to know how the structure of primate hair differs from our own (and between primates) though, and what that implies for function?

I will agree that evolution favoring less does not necessarily mean going to an extreme. Yes 'it's ludicrous to suggest they're "evolving to no size" because of it' is rather silly. Losing hair completely will not make a person non-existant. The evolution of a multicellular organism is a complex business of trade-offs of many many characteristics, but consider that if a structure no longer serves a purpose (keeping the organism alive long enough to reproduce) then it may either hang around or disappear from a population entirely - so it may go to the extreme if given enough time.

Further, numerous mammals have evolved to have no hair, unless I am very much mistaken, I understand that dolphins, whales etc. don't have much if any.

I didn't mean to say you in particular had said it was a new fad. I did say "people" though, meaning the numerous people on this forum who have said this.

I also agree that shaving over the last few thousand years means that the hairy genes will now be passed on, and I doubt that they will ever actually be completely eliminated from the gene pool now though. If we hadn't developed tool use, maybe it would have. Humans have developed a bit of a habit of interfering with evolution. Medicine anyone?! (Btw, I am very much in favour of medicine )

 

[Aerodyamic]

But anyway, what's up actors have no hair on their chests whenever they appear shirtless?

I'm 32, and have some peach fuzz, beyond a treasure-trail. I simply don't have any serious amount of hair above the waist, except a goat'n'stash. Some people just ain't furry.

 

[l3o2828]

Well i'm 18, and i dont really have chest hair, but rather hair around my belly button and going to--erm...yeah.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I'm 20 and devoid of it. Body hair is quite disgusting, I think. I guess women feel the same way.

 

[gphjr14]

I shave mine regularly. I had a dumbass co-worker try and mock me because of it... then she found out most of the guys we work with shave theirs, the ladies prefer a shaved chest as well as.. ahem other ares. A girl I was with said she preferred it. I shaved my body hair then but not so religiously since I became single...and haven't found any girls lately worth going through the whole process for.

 

[lacktheknack]

I don't have much, I'm pretty pale without it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k07pirzBU34/SdIpVTutHcI/AAAAAAAAA0g/Z6Q0HjJY3-U/s400/bright-light-16250.jpg

 

[dementis]

No hair is what is seen as attractive nowdays, I'm 18 and have chest hair (have since 16 really) I just can't bring myself to get rid of it as to me a hairless chest seems kinda feminine.

 

[ProjectTrinity]

I'm 21 and chest hair just doesn't come for me. D': (I mean, *very* little just doesn't count)

That said, it looks silly/tacky to have a bush there in my opinion, unless you were intending to make a quilt out of it.

 

[kurupt87]

Don't have chest hair, can take off shirt.