Allow me to engage in some educated speculation about female grooming habits.
The practice of shaving one's whatzit bald or nearly so did not become widespread until, oh, about 8 to 10 years ago. I would speculate that today it is more common than not in the under-40 set.
Some won't go 100% and opt to leave a tiny little tuft -- the equivalent of a "soul patch" on a man's chin (I could substitute a word that rhymes with "patch" but will demur). This is apparently a token concession to being post-pubertal.
I don't blame women for shaving hither and yon. I am not a hairy fellow, thankfully, but what little hair I do have I don't like and I have been known to eliminate almost all of it. Once I almost sliced my right nipple off in the shower, but have since wised up and learned to use a thumb to provide protective coverage.
I only bring this up because of a post made by Tara, notorious for the range of topics she covers that really do fall under the aegis of medical science, over at Aetiology. Make sure to visit the link she provides and read the case study of the diabetic Australian woman who had a rather discomfiting -- nay, life-threatening -- experience with a "Brazilian" bikini wax performed by an inexperienced attendant.
Also check out PZ's post on the subject and the comments beneath, which will introduce you to some terms you may have never heard before (e.g., "landing strip"). PZ doesn't understand women's fixation with shaving their hu-has, but he's been married a long time, so his befuddlement is understandable. Actually, I am confident that those male commenters at both PZ and Tara's blogs expressing a preference for the "natural" look (i.e., no shaving) are virtually all older (say, over 40) guys. Feel free to confirm or refute this observation in the comments.
Finally, this calls to mind another strike against the notion of Intelligent Design: the presence of hair about he bunghole. People ridiculing ID are fond of noting the routing of the urethra through the prostate gland and the tendency of people to develop lower-back problems, but I've never heard someone note that the anus is clearly the least convenient place on the entire external surface of a human being for hair to grow, as dingleberries do not confer any known advantages. That said, you won't find me pouring hot wax into my crack anytime soon or exploring the region with sharp objects.
Comments
I think that among mammals, humans are the only ones with anal hair. All the other species have a wide bald ring around the anus.
Posted by: Gork | June 27, 2007 8:39 AM
A repost from a comment I put at Tara's blog which in hindsight seems more appropriate here, in that you are speculating as to adaptive reasons for such hair.
start quote///
The reason humans have hair in the places they do, is to provide a proper niche for commensal skin bacteria. These are the autotrophic ammonia oxidizing bacteria (the subject of my research and my blog).
This is the reason the scalp is thin and well vascularized, to allow for rapid diffusion of NO and nitrite produced by these bacteria from the ammonia and urea in sweat. Similarly underarm hair is to provide a source of NO and nitrite close to the lymph glands. Pubic hair is to provide a source of NO and nitrite to protect the various orifices from infection.
Of course bathing does remove these bacteria, and because they are slow growing (doubling time ~10 hours), they take a long time to grow back (a month or so without sufficient inoculation).
These are obligate autotrophs. They don't grow on any media used to isolate pathogens. They can't cause disease because they don't have the enzymes systems to metabolize organic compounds. They derive ATP only by oxidizing ammonia into nitrite. They suppress heterotrophic bacteria probably by oxidizing quorum sensing compounds.
If you have a sufficient biofilm of these bacteria, you don't need to bathe to remove the heterotrophic bacteria that cause odor.
///end quote
The presence of the "right" bacteria suppresses all the bad ones. In the "wild", there is absolutely no way to avoid contact with all sorts of bacteria, having the "right" ones is important, having a place that is easy to clean with soap, hot water, and things that won't be avialable for millions of years in the future has no value what so ever.
Posted by: daedalus2u | June 27, 2007 9:24 AM
Well, I haven't investigated the matter that closely, but I'm pretty sure that humans also have a bald ring around the anus - it's just that out buttock arrangement renders this ineffective.
As for the idea that only men over 40 prefer women with a natural complement of body hair, I'm happy to refute that - I'm 34, and I think the whole shaving thing (legs, armpits, whatever) is silly. I'm also of the opinion that stubble and razorburn are far less attractive than fur. But then I'm a hippy, so I would say that...
Posted by: Dunc | June 27, 2007 9:24 AM
39, and I like 'em a little more furry than Girl-Scout creepy-clean, yeah.
ALL the major depilation operations undertaken by women seem extreme to me. Bacon/landing strips alone strike me as being difficult to maintain, and then (where shaving is used, anyway) you have to deal with stubble.
Stubble + sensitive bits = a very unpleasant evening.
Posted by: Warren | June 27, 2007 11:03 AM
I'm 50, and I'll go a step further and say that I not only enjoy hoohah hair, but also leg hair, assuming it's fine enough. Once it grows out there's no stubble, it's just soft and furry.
Of course, many women do need a bikini wax to avoid that halo of hair around the bikini triangle, and a little trimming usually doesn't hurt. But as for the rest, I'm with the anti-stubble crowd and that's where I'm staying.
Posted by: Dale | June 27, 2007 11:37 AM
I've just always felt that anyone who lets themselves be disgusted by the human body as it exists naturally deserves to be disgusted. Go ahead. Feel disgusted.
Posted by: pough | June 27, 2007 2:17 PM
Gork:
I think you have a point. I'm not really into astronomy, but I'm pretty sure I've heard there are rings around Uranus.
Posted by: zydborg | June 27, 2007 8:15 PM
I'm lucky that I was born in the days that not being obese and trimming that which exceeded the limits of one's bathing suit were enough.
I can't imagine how young girls today function. They much think that they, and everything about themselves, are hideous.
Posted by: Suesquatch | June 28, 2007 12:45 PM
hi! I think it's OK not to shave if one cares to be more "natural." But it's not for me. I have been undergoing laser hair-removal. My pussy, a**hole, underarms and legs are nearly permanently bare and I love it. Just feels so clean and nice when, if I'm sitting in traffic, I choose to hike up my little skirt to masturbate. I just unbuckle, pull off my panties, lean back and start cumming! Yummy! I love my pussy pussy pussy! And I SURE don't mind traffic jams anymore! `;)~
Posted by: Jill | June 30, 2007 11:13 AM
Let me start by saying I am 56, and that I love when a girl is smooth.
The concept of "natural" is relative: truly natural men would have hair down their front and back infested with lice, smell like butt and armpit, and have few teeth. Women would look the same, but bigger ta-tas.
It's all a matter of what your interest in maintenance is. If you like giving oral sex, smooth is nicer.
Posted by: JackStrap | July 3, 2007 11:30 PM
"If you like giving oral sex, smooth is nicer."
Although women possess the crotches most frequently put under the tonsorial gun, rest assured it works both ways. I have heard women of a not especially squeamish nature express their yearning for their men to at least trim their pubic thatches to a manageable level on a regular basis. And it's probably not going to make a good impression if you expect to be "serviced" if you've been working outside on a hot day all afternoon, or have just completed a 19-mile run, and show up in the bedroom with swamp balls, skiddy underwear, and generally fetid and unpresentable junk, "natural" though such niceties may be.
I suppose we're now in the realm of basic common sense.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | July 3, 2007 11:37 PM