RE: Re: domestication of humans (was milk & dairy)

[Guest guest]

>He included images demonstrating

>the evolution of Mickey Mouse as well, which became a more successful

>and popular cartoon character as he continuously was modified to

>acquire youthful physical characteristics.

>

>Chris

It is said that the popularity of " blondes " stems from a similar

ideal ... the giggly, girl-like woman is more appealing, and among

Europeans, blond hair is mainly a childish feature. Whereas a

strong, independent woman (think Clinton!) is reviled

by many segments of society.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> It is said that the popularity of " blondes " stems from a similar

> ideal ... the giggly, girl-like woman is more appealing, and among

> Europeans, blond hair is mainly a childish feature.

I stopped shaving when I realized that the only naturally hairless

females were children. It grossed me out for the longest time, the

thought that women who shave were emulating pre-pubescent children. Now

I occasionally do, like once a year maybe, and I can see it as more of

a personal choice. But for the people that have just never thought

about it--it's just what you do--it still grosses me out.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 10:15:05AM -0700, Lynn Siprelle wrote:

> > It is said that the popularity of " blondes " stems from a similar

> > ideal ... the giggly, girl-like woman is more appealing, and among

> > Europeans, blond hair is mainly a childish feature.

>

> I stopped shaving when I realized that the only naturally hairless

> females were children. It grossed me out for the longest time, the

> thought that women who shave were emulating pre-pubescent children. Now

> I occasionally do, like once a year maybe, and I can see it as more of

> a personal choice. But for the people that have just never thought

> about it--it's just what you do--it still grosses me out.

Just curious--do you think of it the same way for men?

Todd

[Guest guest]

> Just curious--do you think of it the same way for men?

What, if men shave/wax? My husband shaves in a couple of, uh, personal

spots but it's for comfort and it's not visible. If you're talking

about the hairless look currently in vogue for guys, I'm personally

rather squicked by it, yeah. Hairless males are generally teens or

younger (at least in caucasians). To have pre-pubescence presented as a

sexual ideal in either gender is just creepifyin'. But that's me. Your

mileage may vary. And I'm not really talking about personal choice

here; I'm talking about societal IDEALS. When I realized what the ideal

for women meant, I was shocked and grossed out. Now if I choose to

shave I know what I'm saying, and if a person CHOOSES to say that I

have no problem with it. It's that people have no idea what they're

saying and perpetuating that really make me a bit ill.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 11:34:35AM -0700, Lynn Siprelle wrote:

> > Just curious--do you think of it the same way for men?

>

> What, if men shave/wax? My husband shaves in a couple of, uh, personal

> spots but it's for comfort and it's not visible. If you're talking

> about the hairless look currently in vogue for guys, I'm personally

> rather squicked by it, yeah. Hairless males are generally teens or

> younger (at least in caucasians). To have pre-pubescence presented as a

> sexual ideal in either gender is just creepifyin'. But that's me. Your

> mileage may vary. And I'm not really talking about personal choice

> here; I'm talking about societal IDEALS. When I realized what the ideal

> for women meant, I was shocked and grossed out. Now if I choose to

> shave I know what I'm saying, and if a person CHOOSES to say that I

> have no problem with it. It's that people have no idea what they're

> saying and perpetuating that really make me a bit ill.

Whoa, TMI!

I meant facial hair; according to you, then, all men should be bearded

since the only hairless men found naturally are pre-pubescent.

I happen to disagree with your analysis, but it's a matter of opinion

not worth debating .

Cheers,

Todd

[Guest guest]

>What, if men shave/wax? My husband shaves in a couple of, uh, personal

>spots but it's for comfort and it's not visible.

>

I do too. It's cooler when I run <g>.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> Ok, haven't read this subject before this post (so sorry if ya'll

> are talking about something else, just happened to glance at this

> one)...are you talking about shaving your pits? You don't?

Nor my legs. Granted, I'm not very furry, but I definitely have

secondary sexual characteristics as they called body hair in school.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

Sorry for the TMI, but I was keying off female shaving.

> I meant facial hair; according to you, then, all men should be bearded

> since the only hairless men found naturally are pre-pubescent.

Beardlessness is not a socially enforced norm, therefore it presents

itself as more of a choice than a requirement. I'm talking about

REQUIRED shaving. Where I live, a woman choosing not to shave isn't

completely unheard of--no one gives me a second glance and many of my

friends don't shave either--but in most places in the Western world not

shaving is akin to--I dunno, choosing not to brush your teeth or bathe

or wear clothes or something. I'm perfectly clean, I just don't shave.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

I just thought I would jump in on this one point. I wouldn't consider the

victoria's secret catalog to be the fashion world. I think they were

referring to runway type models (Paris, Milan, fashion week new york, etc)

Yes most model do have the stereotypical stick/male figure. The victoria's

secret and sports illustrated girls would be the exception to the rule.

Althought both of these ideals are very FAR from the reality of today's

woman.

" If your point was that the ideal is not prepubescent, even minus the

hair, than I understand and agree. However, I'm not so sure there is

an ideal of flat-chestedness in the fashion world. Granted I might

have deficient knowledge in that area, but I just looked through a

's Secret, which I think classifies as fashion industry, and

it seems that the women are consistently full-breasted, but that their

hips range from very slender to curvy. They are all definitely

skinny, but I wouldn't say stick figure. I think I prefer more to the

hips than many of them have, but there are quite a few with curvy

hips. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/2/05, Stump <rstump@...> wrote:

> I just thought I would jump in on this one point. I wouldn't consider the

> victoria's secret catalog to be the fashion world. I think they were

> referring to runway type models (Paris, Milan, fashion week new york, etc)

> Yes most model do have the stereotypical stick/male figure. The victoria's

> secret and sports illustrated girls would be the exception to the rule.

> Althought both of these ideals are very FAR from the reality of today's

> woman.

Oh, ok. I'm not really familiar with the modeling world. Are most

runway models really flat-chested? I find that hard to believe, but I

suppose I'll take your word for it if that's so... or do you just mean

stick in the hips?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Oh, ok. I'm not really familiar with the modeling world. Are most

>runway models really flat-chested? I find that hard to believe, but I

>suppose I'll take your word for it if that's so... or do you just mean

>stick in the hips?

>

>Chris

>

Look at gymnasts and other athletes who stick lean early on. Not very

many women naturally have big fatty mammary glands when you can see

their ribs and hips stickin' out. They're fake, plain and simple.

Night night,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Re: polarization: You're really forcing an extreme definition for the

word. Polarization can just mean two opposing tendencies, in this case

hairless to hairy. Just because one pole is not as strong as it used to be

doesn't mean there isn't polarization. But if you just can't stand the word

being used that way, take it up with the editors of the Oxford dictionary,

and substitute whatever word means the above to you.

[]

> If men could

> only

> grow beards if they were sexually viable, beards would be *in*. We have

no

> idea what cultural norms the chimps would use to indicate their sexual

> viability if they could use more tools.

[Chris]

Of course we don't, but it has nothing to do with his point. His

point was that we evolved inherent physical traits, not behavioral

traits, that project a youthful aura.

Doesn't work. You're saying we lost our hair to look like young humans?

Why did our young humans lose their hair? It's a circular argument.

{]

> My point about the stickfigure ideal was exactly what you were saying.

> Most actual men want boobs and hips, which are not prepubescent

characteristics

> no matter how hairless the woman is. The stickfigure ideal is just the

> fashion industry starving its models and telling us it's sexy. Blech.

[Chris]

Granted I might

have deficient knowledge in that area, but I just looked through a

's Secret, which I think classifies as fashion industry,

[]

Sorry. 's Secret doesn't qualify as the fashion industry. It

qualifies as porn <g>. And like porn, it showcases women with much bigger

breasts and hips than the fashion industry.

I do think this is shifting. There are more big busted women shown in mags

like Vogue, etc. But it's still very much trying to make women look like

young boys.

YR

[Guest guest]

>Oh, anyway, I think the primary features I recall Gould discussing

>were hairlessness (you know, compared to an ape) and sort of bubbly

>facial features. I just noticed that it seems that some of the facial

>features, like roundness, are more accentuated in Price's primitives.

>

>Chris

Gads, I have NO IDEA what makes a woman " attractive " to a guy!

I mean, I know what makes a guy attractive to ME, and it has

more to do with his ability to TALK and LISTEN than it does with

his anatomy.

My suspicion though, is that if we have complete control

over our genome and looks (a day that is coming soon, at

least in theory) most people will end up with light brown

skin and lighter hair. I mean, most white folks try to get

tan, and a lot of darker folks try to get lighter: there seems

to be some built in " ideal brown " in our brains.

There is probably an " ideal hair " too ... which seems, from

the guys I've talked to at least, to be LONG. The longer

the better!

Also I have to admit that for many years I was blond. I

lightened my hair on a whim, and was amazed at how differently

I was treated. Folks who never said " hello " suddenly were

friendly. I guess as a blond I was more " approachable " .

If a woman is brunette, she is seen as smarter (esp. if

she wears glasses). I have no idea how this plays out

in non-northern-european races though, where there

is typically not so much variation in hair color.

An intresting parallel is *beards*. Most non-european

races don't have much in the way of beards. But among

europeans, beards have a great social meaning: like

" wisdom " (Santa) or " rebellion " (hippies).

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>It tickles, it gets caught in things, it's scratchy. I prefer

>the look of smooth skin in both men and women on face, chest, back, legs and

>arms. For me this isn't about being juvenile because many adults are

>naturally quite hairless. Hairlessness in these areas could just be a

>physical preference like some people preferring very hairy people (both men

>and women).

>

>YR

And most non-European races ARE hairless! Or at least more hairless.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

[] okay, i shave a few times in the summer so as not to gross out the

others at the pool, as pit hair on women seems to be REALLY discouraged

here, but i wish no one would shave. including men.

[MikeP] You need to think twice about that " no one shaving " bit !

LOL! There is such a thing as too much hair for men!! I'm totally

confused by the subtle arguments in this thread, but I think we should

all factor in the profound genetic differences at play. Some people

genetically just don't grow much hair, while others... Well, to cite

myself, when I was still in *high school* and starting growing facial

hair I let it go without shaving and I had a beard that was about six

inches long, no exaggeration (I could store stuff in it), and my back

is like a rug--you can barely see any skin! My genes seem to be about

half Irish. At some point I realized how utterly disgusting this

extreme of facial hair is and so now I keep a very clean-shaven

appearance, no beards (unless I get too lazy once in a while). I

think pate hair looks nice too, but in recent years I also shave my

head most of the time because it seems elegant to me, like a Buddhist

monk kind of simplicity of lifestyle. (Actually the main reason was a

response to my male pattern hair loss!) My point is that it's not

just youthfulness, but also the fact of modern society being so

genetically mixed and that must affect the development of collective

aesthetic ideals.

By the way, I know a female who in early college years decided not to

shave her mustache, very ideologically driven and so on. She said

occasionally she knew she missed out on certain dating opportunities

with men (she is bisexual), but that overall it worked out okay. Also,

I know plenty of 20-something fashionable, attractive hipster type

females who don't shave pits or legs. It seems rather commonplace.

This would be around a sort of cosmopolitan, urban, educated,

art-oriented demographic in the mid-Atlantic US region.

By the way, I heard someone say once that if you shave your armpits

they won't get stinky. I seriously doubt this is true, but can

someone step in and lay down some facts on this one for me please?!

That would be the coolest thing... I'd be googling " wax " faster than

you could say " thai deodorant stones have their limitations " ...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

> > [Chris]

> > Of course we don't, but it has nothing to do with his point. His

> > point was that we evolved inherent physical traits, not behavioral

> > traits, that project a youthful aura.

> >

> > Doesn't work. You're saying we lost our hair to look like young

humans?

> No, not really. In portraying Gould's argument, I'm not looking at a

> particular species, but saying that the general tendency for all

> primates is to accumulate more hair with age, and that hairlessness is

> a youth-associated trait, and youth-associated traits bring out an

> affective, attractive, and caring response in those observing them.

> It isn't to look like anyone or any thing in particular, but to

> express the traits that stimulate the caring response.

There is something jumbled here. I think because I was originally

responding to a different poing, really a different subject, brought up by

someone else and you've tried to make my arguments fit as a response to the

above instead.

Let's see if we can sort it out by returning to the beginning and letting me

respond directly to your above paraphrase of Gould's point. First, the

argument: adults who retain youthful characteristics get more social care

and hence are selected for. Therefore there will be an evolutionary

selection towards adults who maintain youthful characteristics. In primates

who get hairier with age, this will select for relative hairlessness and

hence we are now quite hairless. Am I understanding correctly?

If so, I have a couple of issues I need to hammer out. One is sexual

selection in primates. We don't know how humans have been selecting for

mates for the past few thousands of years. We do have some historical

records and the behavior of modern primates to give us some idea of the

range of behaviors around selecting mates. The historical records are

mostly for the small section of the population that had access to writing,

generally royalty. These were almost always arranged marriages with other

royalty selected for political reasons and then a lot of concubines selected

for how much they turned on the king. This process most closely resemble

the selction process of Goodhall's Chimps, which I'll describe below.

This process would select both for youthful characteristics in women, and

virility into later adulthood for men (something not directly tied to

" hairfulness, " but somewhat correlated with it.) If the majority of the

people not in the historic record were selecting mates along the same

process, I don't see how juvenile traits would be selected over more adult

traits. If the majority of " the masses " selected mates in a more

egalitarian manner, then probably youthful traits would be selected for by

both men and women, although I suspect that even here, plenty of women would

go for the more established male, regardless of how much he was able to

retain his youthful traits.

You see, like a lot of male scientists (and a good many female scientists as

well), Gould completely ignores the role of rape and sexual coercion in

sexual selection. But how predominant this behavior was would have a

profound effect on what kinds of traits were being selected for. We can see

the range of behaviors in our close relatives, the chimps.

In Goodall's chimps, the tendency if for the dominant male chimp to have sex

with whoever he wants. There is quite a bit of rape and even when the sex

is not violent, the female has little say in whether the events happens.

The male chimp may choose females that are less hairy and therefore select

for this youthful trait. The female chimps that stay less hairy might be

selected for mating more often and for longer parts of their lives. But

they will most likely be selected by a male chimp who's retention of

youthful appearance traits plays no part in his ability to pass on his

genes. Males build up muscle mass a lot between late adolescence and full

adulthood. Fully male chimps would have more ability to dominate other

males. It is even likely that a male chimp *who loses youthful

characteristics sooner* would have an advantage. Therefore, both traits

will be passed on and associated with different social roles.

In the Bonobos, however, there is a very different situation. This is a

subspecies of chimps that live in a different area. They have a completely

different social structure. They are known for having lots of sex, being

the only other species besides humans where the female regularly indulges in

sex even when she's not in estrus. But for the Bonobos, sex is always by

choice of both partners. The males do not force females to have sex. But

the males don't mind because they can always just go off and find another

partner, even a male partner. (An aside: The Bonobo males get a *lot* more

sex than the regular chimps). Here I can see that if hairlessness engenders

social care, then both males and females will be selected for hairlessness.

Now that I've worked through this argument, here's my hypothesis. If the

loss of hair in humans is, at least in part, the effect of a selection of

partners who stay youthful longer, it indicates that at some point in the

past, female protohumans had a lot more choice of partners than in the

historical time.

And as for the correlation between hairlessness and trends in personal

hygiene bevahior (the original discussion I was having with Lynn and

others), I believe that the reason we are seeing the male ideal shifting to

a less hairy one is because women are being more empowered to make their own

selections in sex partner. Instead of the older, established male who has

already lost his youthful appearance choosing the young fertile wife, both

partners are selecting and selecting for partners whose appearance engenders

the social care response.

>> Sorry. 's Secret doesn't qualify as the fashion industry. It

>> qualifies as porn <g>. And like porn, it showcases women with much

bigger

>> breasts and hips than the fashion industry.

>You're joking, right?

No.

>It's a clothing catalogue, and sections of it

>show women fully dressed. The sections that show little clothing are

>doing so because they're advertising underwear. The intent isn't to

>arouse men to supply them with masturbatory material, but to induce

>women to feel as if they can be as sexy as the models in it if they

>buy the same apparel-- a totally different phenomenon.

What nice clearcut categories you impose on the world around you. Of

course it's a clothing catalogue. So is the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog and

they were recently told they had to tone down the bulges in the pants of the

male models if they didn't want to be stopped by the post office for

peddling pornography across state lines. The VS catalog is renowned for

first being appealing to men. Women didn't go to VS at first. It was men,

picking up the catalog because it appealed to their taste in women who

brought the brand to women. And plenty of men use it for masturbatory

material. The whole point was to get a catalog for yourself and when your

wife found it in the garage, you could tell her you were getting her a

surprise (generally the item that turned you on the most while you were

masturbating.)

Now that VS has become more acceptable to women, you will find more fully

dressed women, and women in poses intended to appeal to women as you

describe above. But the models themselves are still a type that appeals to

men more than your average fashion model.

Again, the difference between the VS catalog (which is also porn, i.e.

sexually appealing to many hetero men) and your average catalog is that the

VS catalog shows women with physical traits associated with sexual maturity.

Of course, they are more biologically impossible than the concentration camp

victims in Vogue because no woman that thin has breasts that big.

YR

[Guest guest]

>> Lynn, where do you live? i'd love to live somewhere where i could run

> into another woman who doesn't shave. much.

The People's Republic of Southeast Portland, Oregon.

Lynn S

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

>> The People's Republic of Southeast Portland, Oregon.

>

> Any political association with the People's Republic of Western Mass?

Very possibly! There seems to be a little circuit consisting of

Portland/Eugene, Santa Fe NM, Madison WI, Vermont, Berkeley, and

Western Mass.

Lynn S.

viva SE PDX!

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

>Just one aside: wouldn't it be more correct to say non-white or non-

>caucasian rather non-European? Arabs and Jews are non-European and can

>be hairy, can't they? On the other hand, Lapps are European and are

>probably more on the hairless side. I hear that the Ainu, who live in

>Hokkaido (Japan) and are a probably a mixture of Causasoid and

>Mongoloid races, are the hairiest in the world. By the way, I think

>they were almost entirely paleo " until the Japanese moved into Hokkaido

>and attempted to settle them in agriculture " . (from Britannica).

>

>Cheers,

>

>José

Good point!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>Now that I've worked through this argument, here's my hypothesis. If the

>loss of hair in humans is, at least in part, the effect of a selection of

>partners who stay youthful longer, it indicates that at some point in the

>past, female protohumans had a lot more choice of partners than in the

>historical time.

My own hypothesis is that it has a lot more to do with health

than genetic selection. In mammals, hairiness is universal except

for a few notable exceptions, like whales, hippos, elephants.

A mammal that lacks fur doesn't survive well. Which makes you

wonder then, why humans lack fur?

Here, the " aquatic ape " theory appeals to me. All the hairless

mammals are ones that spend a good deal of time in the

water! Now there are some water mammals that DO have

hair (seals) which help insulate them. Hippos and elephants

though, live in the tropics, where insulation isn't really necessary

but protection from bugs is. They wallow in mud. Humans

that live in the tropics often live near lakes and spend a

good deal of their time in the lakes, bathing or playing.

Hair isn't really a plus in the water, except on the top

of your head, to protect from the sun.

Humans also developed the ability to *sweat* to cool

off, which dogs, for instance, don't have. Having no

fur makes sweating work better. Also we get Vit D from

the sun, which we couldn't do if we had fur.

Now the humans that moved north invented something

else: CLOTHES. If you wear clothes over fur (or much hair)

the hair follicles tend to get ingrown and/or infected, as

I learned the hard way in my polically reactive non-shaving

days! But if you are a hunter out in the cold, having facial

hair protects your face. Hence, I think, you get these

hairy-faced guys (I don't know about the Jews/Arabs:

maybe hair protects against blowing sand?).

In any case, hair follicles are the part that usually

gets infected in the skin: so having fewer of them

is a biological advantage unless you really NEED hair.

Anyway, the reaction against hair for males isn't new:

some warrior types would shave, and some bicyclists and

swimmers do for competitve reasons, I think. In those cases

it is more about pragmatism than wanting to look

young.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> What's SE PDX?

Southeast Portland. PDX is our airport code.

> I think I ran into some of those Eugene OR folks in DC once. They're

> magnets for rubber bullets and pepper spray. I ran.

Pretty much. Not my bag; I tend to be politically active in other ways.

> I think they're all vegetarians too. I saw a 60 minutes episode where

> one informed the audience that broccoli was a revolutionary's favorite

> food.

Which is why I live in Portland.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net