Yes, whether men’s preference for no body hair on women is innate or cultural would require further scientific studies.
Yes, there is no direct relationship between men’s feeling towards tattoos and body hair on women, but it could indicate that men prefer looking at plain skin on women.
You explained that most men finding tattoos on women attractive if there’re small and hidden is because some things are attractive if hidden. Then there should be nothing wrong with employers requiring women to hide tattoos since they’re attractive only if hidden. Employers are stricter towards up front personnel regarding dress code because they give people an impression of the company. Employers would probably say nothing about tattoos for employees working in nonvisible positions such as stock clerk. Actually, up front men would be required to cover tattoos. You would not tolerate all tattoos. Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for Senator from Maine was criticized for having a tattoo of Totenkopf, a Nazi symbol. He had it covered up.
I looked up the article you alluded to earlier. As an aside, articles are generally referred to by author and year, not just the institution. Given that it’s the only relevant paper I found from Brandeis University, I’m going to assume you mean Azevedo, L. (Fall 2021). Male Stigmatisation of Female Body Hair.
It refers to a previous study by Prokop that had a sample made up of 96 students from a single Slovakian university, which is most certainly not a balanced and representative sample. It also refers to an entertainment video made by a fashion magazine with three participants, which is about as unscientific a source as you could come up with.
Azevedo then proceeds to acknowledge that, besides these two sources, there is “not enough evidence […] on men’s opinions regarding female body hair.”
I will note here that Prokop at least specified the source of his 96 participants, while I fail to see any indication how Azevedo’s 21(!) participants were selected. That is a smaller sample size, less transparent and if I’m reading this right, the survey consisted of three pairs of pictures.
This “study” is, put mildly, worthless filler, and has the gall to call that “confirmation”. It might indicate a potential direction of research by suggesting a the tendency to perceive shaved women as younger, but that is all it is. Any results you might see in it wouldn’t require “further scientific study”, but rather “actually scientific study”, because this sure isn’t.
The article does cite plenty of other sources, which is the more valuable thing about it. These sources are, among other things, used to cement the impression that men seem to find younger women sexy. Specifically, “a hairless body is a direct representation of a pre-puberty body”.
As for the question of natural or cultural, the article actually answers that by stating that women try to fit in with patriarchal expectations and by citing these other sources to illustrate that hair removal only really became “an important part of femininity between 1915–1945”, started in part by Gillette trying to sell a razor and accelerated by pornography sexualising youth.
It concludes that, as a result of easy access to said pornography, men “form the wrong expectation of how the female body should look”.
Frankly, I had my doubts about your claim before. Now I’m very much convinced you didn’t even read the source you cite, just made up a conclusion and grasped for anything to support it.
it could indicate
This is a wonderful way to isolate yourself from any accusation of having implied a claim. Your mention of scientific studies could indicate that you’re actually interested in the point. It could also mean you’re just trying to double down on the assertion that women are objectively more attractive without tattoos by reaching for the closest thing you get to a confirmation that plain skin could be more attractive.
You know the worst part of all this? Even if you were right, even if there was some measure proving that they’re objectively more attractive and all the people who actually like tattoos are just freaks of nature, it still wouldn’t give you, or me, or anyone else any right to tell women what to do with their own fucking bodies.
Then there should be nothing wrong with employers requiring women to hide tattoos since they’re attractive only if hidden.
Look, I get that you’re not big on reading, but I’ve already disambiguated that “only” is misplaced here, because there are multiple ways tattoos can be attractive.
And even if it was the only way, an employer has no right to demand attractiveness from his employees, regardless of their gender or presentation. Women don’t owe sexiness to anyone, period.
Employers are stricter towards up front personnel regarding dress code because they give people an impression of the company.
And that impression is…? Whether their employees are willing to submit to arbitrary, antiquated and pointless social standards about attractiveness?
That was my point: Customers having a stick up their arse is the only justification to demand conformity to that arse-stickery. Whether your clerk or cashier is ugly or attractive or the hottest person to ever walk the earth has no bearing on their competence. Bodily hygiene, sure, that has health and olfactory implications. But personal appearance shouldn’t be anyone’s business.
You would not tolerate all tattoos. Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for Senator from Maine was criticized for having a tattoo of Totenkopf, a Nazi symbol. He had it covered up.
I wouldn’t tolerate Nazi symbols in graffiti either, or any other medium. That has nothing to do with tattoos or visibility, but with my general sense of ethics being fundamentally incompatible with their ideology. Covering it up doesn’t make the problem go away either if the ideology persists.
I posted the link; you didn’t have to spend time looking for the article.
The article said that women also find a hairless body more feminine and attractive. Also, the rise of feminism didn’t change this. This suggests that it’s innate. The author believes in evolution. Consequently, he attempts to reconcile a contradiction. Female body hair indicates a girl has reached puberty and can reproduce. Therefore, it would seemingly be a selective advantage for men to be attracted to body hair on women. He explains the contradiction by saying that society is the cause. As I pointed out above, the explanation is wanting. Also, if there is an evolutionary advantage for men liking body hair on women, why would a patriarchal society want women to remove body hair? Since I believe that humans were created, I can simply say that humans were designed to find women without body hair more attractive just as humans were designed to find earrings on women attractive.
You dislike the Totenkopf tattoo on Platner because of its meaning but if you were an employer, how would you know what tattoos are offensive? Platner said that he didn’t know Totenkopf was a Nazi symbol. It would be simpler for an employer to have employees cover up tattoos at least for upfront employees.
Yes, whether men’s preference for no body hair on women is innate or cultural would require further scientific studies.
Yes, there is no direct relationship between men’s feeling towards tattoos and body hair on women, but it could indicate that men prefer looking at plain skin on women.
You explained that most men finding tattoos on women attractive if there’re small and hidden is because some things are attractive if hidden. Then there should be nothing wrong with employers requiring women to hide tattoos since they’re attractive only if hidden. Employers are stricter towards up front personnel regarding dress code because they give people an impression of the company. Employers would probably say nothing about tattoos for employees working in nonvisible positions such as stock clerk. Actually, up front men would be required to cover tattoos. You would not tolerate all tattoos. Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for Senator from Maine was criticized for having a tattoo of Totenkopf, a Nazi symbol. He had it covered up.
I looked up the article you alluded to earlier. As an aside, articles are generally referred to by author and year, not just the institution. Given that it’s the only relevant paper I found from Brandeis University, I’m going to assume you mean Azevedo, L. (Fall 2021). Male Stigmatisation of Female Body Hair.
It refers to a previous study by Prokop that had a sample made up of 96 students from a single Slovakian university, which is most certainly not a balanced and representative sample. It also refers to an entertainment video made by a fashion magazine with three participants, which is about as unscientific a source as you could come up with.
Azevedo then proceeds to acknowledge that, besides these two sources, there is “not enough evidence […] on men’s opinions regarding female body hair.”
I will note here that Prokop at least specified the source of his 96 participants, while I fail to see any indication how Azevedo’s 21(!) participants were selected. That is a smaller sample size, less transparent and if I’m reading this right, the survey consisted of three pairs of pictures.
This “study” is, put mildly, worthless filler, and has the gall to call that “confirmation”. It might indicate a potential direction of research by suggesting a the tendency to perceive shaved women as younger, but that is all it is. Any results you might see in it wouldn’t require “further scientific study”, but rather “actually scientific study”, because this sure isn’t.
The article does cite plenty of other sources, which is the more valuable thing about it. These sources are, among other things, used to cement the impression that men seem to find younger women sexy. Specifically, “a hairless body is a direct representation of a pre-puberty body”.
As for the question of natural or cultural, the article actually answers that by stating that women try to fit in with patriarchal expectations and by citing these other sources to illustrate that hair removal only really became “an important part of femininity between 1915–1945”, started in part by Gillette trying to sell a razor and accelerated by pornography sexualising youth.
It concludes that, as a result of easy access to said pornography, men “form the wrong expectation of how the female body should look”.
Frankly, I had my doubts about your claim before. Now I’m very much convinced you didn’t even read the source you cite, just made up a conclusion and grasped for anything to support it.
This is a wonderful way to isolate yourself from any accusation of having implied a claim. Your mention of scientific studies could indicate that you’re actually interested in the point. It could also mean you’re just trying to double down on the assertion that women are objectively more attractive without tattoos by reaching for the closest thing you get to a confirmation that plain skin could be more attractive.
You know the worst part of all this? Even if you were right, even if there was some measure proving that they’re objectively more attractive and all the people who actually like tattoos are just freaks of nature, it still wouldn’t give you, or me, or anyone else any right to tell women what to do with their own fucking bodies.
Look, I get that you’re not big on reading, but I’ve already disambiguated that “only” is misplaced here, because there are multiple ways tattoos can be attractive.
And even if it was the only way, an employer has no right to demand attractiveness from his employees, regardless of their gender or presentation. Women don’t owe sexiness to anyone, period.
And that impression is…? Whether their employees are willing to submit to arbitrary, antiquated and pointless social standards about attractiveness?
That was my point: Customers having a stick up their arse is the only justification to demand conformity to that arse-stickery. Whether your clerk or cashier is ugly or attractive or the hottest person to ever walk the earth has no bearing on their competence. Bodily hygiene, sure, that has health and olfactory implications. But personal appearance shouldn’t be anyone’s business.
I wouldn’t tolerate Nazi symbols in graffiti either, or any other medium. That has nothing to do with tattoos or visibility, but with my general sense of ethics being fundamentally incompatible with their ideology. Covering it up doesn’t make the problem go away either if the ideology persists.
I posted the link; you didn’t have to spend time looking for the article.
The article said that women also find a hairless body more feminine and attractive. Also, the rise of feminism didn’t change this. This suggests that it’s innate. The author believes in evolution. Consequently, he attempts to reconcile a contradiction. Female body hair indicates a girl has reached puberty and can reproduce. Therefore, it would seemingly be a selective advantage for men to be attracted to body hair on women. He explains the contradiction by saying that society is the cause. As I pointed out above, the explanation is wanting. Also, if there is an evolutionary advantage for men liking body hair on women, why would a patriarchal society want women to remove body hair? Since I believe that humans were created, I can simply say that humans were designed to find women without body hair more attractive just as humans were designed to find earrings on women attractive.
You dislike the Totenkopf tattoo on Platner because of its meaning but if you were an employer, how would you know what tattoos are offensive? Platner said that he didn’t know Totenkopf was a Nazi symbol. It would be simpler for an employer to have employees cover up tattoos at least for upfront employees.