if you are going to respond so emphatically, at least know a BIT of whereof you speak, because you, kind sir/madame, are utterly and completely wrong! In fact, women did NOT shave pits and legs up until the wise marketing people at I think it was Gillette wanted to sell more, natch, so they made it seem only right for women to shave wherever they could convince them they needed to shave! Also there was a time when women never exposed legs or armpits, so I suppose the idea never really was thought about quite as much as after the miniskirt came into vogue. The fact is you are so wrong in saying this (unless you are kidding which did occur to me) if you read up on the history behind shaving. Moreover I have read that in some cultures both men and women PREFER the hair where it is supposed to be by HUMAN NATURE (here you sound particularly idiotic) because it retains the human and sexual scents for attraction (or repulsion if you don't want a certain someone.) It makes sense that completely ignoring human attraction and what propels it would in fact be going AGAINST human nature. You say a lot of things that are wrong and make zero sense. Maybe you like smelling fake perfume or ignoring human instinct, but I think it's important to pay attention to scent when it comes to attraction. In fact, not shaving makes perfect sense (or scents, haha) and HAS BEEN STUDIED in kind of hilarious experiments done, in which they measured levels of sexual excitement in men and in women when taking a whiff of hairy pits! Go check it out on pubmed these experiments were actually done, not sure who volunteered...but it had interesting results that go against everything you say unless you think civilization means mating with the exact wrong people (people who your nose would alert you to NOT mate with, for example.) Now how funny is it that a simple question about this actor's pits actually taught us all something? (Not sure how much or what, but there ya go...)
reply
share