Mark, Caz, Magnus and I had a glorious, tough fifteen miler today, running in the cool and the mists of the Angeles National Forest. (If there are any of my readers who know the San Gabriel Mountains, we ran from Chantry Flats to Newcomb’s Saddle via First Water and the Sturtevant Trail. After years of running, those very names reek of sweat and excitement to me.) Four tired and happy men we were at the end. I ran shirtless, the other lads wore tights and long sleeves. There were a few chilly gusts, but nothing I couldn’t handle. Of course, I just got over a nasty cold, so this probably wasn’t the brightest idea I’ve ever had.
We ended up at Noah’s bagels. For a decade now, I’ve ordered the same thing over and over: cinnamon raisin bagel toasted with sun-dried tomato shmear. I have no idea what anything else tastes like there. (And yes, New Yorkers, I know, your bagels are better. I concede.)
We’ve got quite a good (and mostly civil) discussion going in the comments section below Friday’s post about feminism and loneliness. I’m grateful that Amanda Marcotte discussed it at length yesterday, and offered some interesting insights (and sent lots of welcome hits this way.) If you don’t already read Pandagon, read my post and hers as well as both comments sections.
And as anyone who has been doing any reading this week in the feminist blogosphere knows, we’ve all been obsessed with hair. Mostly, we’ve been interested in how women groom — or don’t — the hair below eye level. I posted here, Happy posted here, Jill posted here (and was ripped here), Zuzu posted here, Lauren here, and if you poke around elsewhere, I am sure a dozen other feminist bloggers have weighed in on issues of waxing and plucking and related strategies. It may seem silly, but it isn’t, not really, not when we’re all convinced that we have an obligation to live lives of integrity and we disagree passionately about whether or not our most intimate grooming habits are or aren’t consistent with our core values.
It’s been pointed out in many corners that women are not the only ones who remove body hair. While in an earlier era, only athletes in certain sports (body building and swimming, for example) regularly removed chest and leg hair, within the past ten years the number of men "going bare" has increased enormously. Pick up any men’s magazine (Men’s Health, etc.), and the chances are good the bare-chested model on the cover will be completely or nearly hairless. Many folks assume that the focus on hairlessness has to do with the tremendous increase in body anxiety among men that we’ve witnessed in recent years. It’s widely argued that men are more and more likely to be judged on their appearance these days, and as a consequence we’re seeing an upsurge in male body hair removal. Men are, perhaps, beginning to suffer from the same concerns from which women have suffered for considerably longer.
One key difference, however, goes unremarked most of the time. Classically, the reason why men remove chest hair is that hair obscures muscle. A rug, or even some wisps, may make it more difficult to display one’s pecs. Taking off the hair immediately makes the chest look bigger and makes the upper body appear more defined. Trust me, I know this first hand. When I was lifting a lot of weights about a decade ago, I "Naired" my chest a couple of times. (I had one brief experience with waxing at the hands of a helpful but not very skilled female friend. Yikes.) The "Nair" burned, particularly around my nipples (which were pierced at the time), but it got rid of all the hair from my throat to below my belt line.
The visual results were instant — my chest looked manlier, which struck me as oddly paradoxical. The hair (which I’ve had on my chest since I was 16) "should" have been the primary signifier of masculinity. After all, we’re all familiar with the the exhortation "Come on, do it, it’ll put hair on your chest" — which is usually said about something dangerous or "manly". But in our world, pectoral muscles are an even more powerful signifier of manliness, particularly because their appearance is more likely to be the result of effort rather than genetics. In order to enhance my masculine appeal, I "had" to remove what was quintessentially masculine. As I washed the stinging Nair off in the shower, the contradiction did not escape me!
Male porn stars generally have very closely cropped pubic hair, if they have any at all. (Their female co-stars increasingly have little or none.) Many women who wax claim it enhances their comfort, or their sense of pleasure, or — and this seems to be the most frequent — their sense of cleanliness. (Even when they know intellectually that body hair is not inherently dirty.) But the reason for a man to remove his pubic hair is radically different — as with the chest, hair "down there" obscures. An erect penis automatically looks bigger when there’s little or no hair about. In porn, where "size matters" tremendously, there’s little doubt that a male actor can enhance his attributes by removing his pubic hair. Of course, while both men and women have pubic hair naturally (and most women, and some men, don’t have chest hair) men and women are removing the "hair down there" for radically different reasons. For many women, anxiety about cleanliness is at least one factor — while for men (even outside of the porn industry), the old anxiety about being "too small" is the primary motivation.
I haven’t removed any body hair from the vast expanses below my neck since early in the second Clinton Administration. I enjoyed the visual effect of hairlessness, but hated the stubble as it came back in. And though I found that some women liked a bare chest, I found — and here I step into dangerous territory — that the women I was most likely to actually want to be with were those who liked men with hair. Somehow, there was something suspicious to me about women who liked their men too smooth. Perhaps it was — and here I psychoanalyze without a license — a sense I got that women who were turned off by chest hair were in some sense intimidated by or frightened of certain aspects of male sexuality. (Bring on the flaming, but so help me, that was my experience. I agree that my anecdotes, no matter how numerous, do not in any way constitute data!) I will note that when my teenage girls in youth group talk about what they like and don’t like in guys, most are enthusiastic about hairless, smooth chests. Given that those are what the chests of most of their peers look like, it makes sense. But the connection between eroticising hairlessness and a kind of adolescent view of sexuality does seem to be logical, if nothing else.
I don’t trust Esquire Magazine with much. (They named the no-doubt talented and lovely, but very young Scarlett Johannson the "sexiest woman alive" earlier this year, a decision which mystified me. In my mind, she falls into the category of "much younger women I would set up with my college-age nephew, not my best friend.") But they do report this month that "chest hair is back", which, if true, I find quite encouraging. Of course, the linked article implies that it’s all a backlash against metro-sexuality:
The area rugs popularized by Hugh (Jackman) et al. are more than just decorative statements; they’re welcome beacons of masculinity in a too-calm sea of feyness. They’re a rebuttal to the androgynous Jude Law pretty-boy aesthetic and the skinny-pantsed Strokesification of our time. In short: Your chest hair is hot. Own it.
Uh, my chest hair is not a rebuttal to anything. It is what it is — a tribute to my DNA, which decreed (thank you, ancestors) that I would naturally have hair on my head for life, hair on my chest in moderate abundance, and very little hair on my back. (That constellation of gifts almost makes up for the hopeless nearsightedness.) Praise be to God that my wife loves every last little sprout and tuft! (Especially, bless her heart, the increasing number of white ones.)
Note: After further reflection, the photo that was here of said chest hair has been removed.
Uh, my chest hair is not a rebuttal to anything. It is what it is — a tribute to my DNA, which decreed (thank you, ancestors) that I would naturally have hair on my head for life, hair on my chest in moderate abundance, and very little hair on my back. That constellation of gifts almost makes up for the hopeless nearsightedness.
This made me laugh in recognition. When I made my own decisions about what to shave and what not-to, in college (decisions which have remained constant since then), my line of thinking was pretty analagous to what you express here. (With some obvious shifts, naturally, inasmuch as I’m female. *g*)
For what it’s worth, my own beloved’s chest hair is turning white, too, and I find it quite beautiful.
Thanks, Hugo! It was fun, except for having to delete the comments from men promoting mail order bride businesses. And even then I’m bemused, because they always bleat on about how these women are basically scabs. Sort of tells you what a shallow understanding of feminism they have. They seem to think it’s like unionizing against bad husbands or something.
I suppose I can see where some women who like “hairless” men could fear masculine sexuality, but sometimes it’s as much a preference as the man who likes brunettes but who won’t turn down a blonde just because of her hair color. I am one of those women who “likes her men smooth,” or rather, prefers less hair to more, although it’s not a deciding factor in my choice of a mate. It’s just a matter of physical attraction. It’s what I like. I also like long hair on a man’s head but my current boyfriend is bald. No biggie. And I certainly don’t fear a man’s sexuality :)!!
Btw: cinnamon raison with sundried tomato? How does that work?
Hm, maybe there should be a union against bad spouses?
Arrow, I do concede — reluctantly — that some women might prefer smoothness for reasons other than the ones I cite.
Sun-dried tomato and cinnamon raisin? Sweet and savory together; can’t beat it. It’s like salt and vinegar potato chips and Cadbury cream eggs. (I don’t indulge in that winning combo often, but when I’m in England, it’s nearly daily.)
Great body, Hugo. Very manly.
Pity about the brain addled by all that feminism.
LOL!
One day, you are going to wake up and think, “Yikes, what a fool I have been for all these years.”
Let us just hope that it doesn’t take losing your home and children before you see the light.
AH
I prefer my sweet and savory in quick succession, rather than actually at the same time. So, sundried tomato spread on an onion bagel, and maybe some fruit afterwards.
As for men’s chests, I prefer them hairy, and that’s probably a good thing, since I can’t stand the feel of Nair or razors myself.
Hairlessness is out already? Damn. For awhile there guys like me who just can’t grow any were blending in and considered cool.
Not that it really bothers me, but being a short, hairless guy who doesn’t have to shave all that often has led many of my male friends to jokingly attack my masculinity at times. I tend to laugh along, but it gets old after awhile. I got tired of being mocked as a prebuscent boy some time ago. The hairless fad really worked in my favor. Shame it didn’t stick around too long.
Angry Harry writes: One day, you are going to wake up and think, “Yikes, what a fool I have been for all these years.”
Dude, that happens to any wise man fairly regularly. It’s called a willingness to grow and learn.
How funny that this should be brought up - now that I’m navel-gazing (almost literally), I have some hair on my abdomen, but almost none on my chest. Of course, having SE Asian ancestry almost denies one a lot of body hair anyway. Actually, a “hairy” person is often an object of fascination in many places in SE Asia - the body hair itself is a manifestation of some intangible, “foreign” power. In fact, many dance costumes incorporate a black tie or a strip of black felt in front of the chest that symbolizes chest hair on powerful, magical male characters!
At the same time, a man can be ridiculed for being incredibly hairy - in Balinese, for example, there are separate terms for “hair” - the stuff on your head is bok/rambut, while body hair is called bulu, literally ‘feathers’.
Personally, I prefer men with hair, though I don’t make a requirement either way, and part of having a wonderful committed partner was learning to live with the “warts and all” bodies we each have…C is going bald, and I love him for it. I watched the new movie on cd, “The Mostly Unfabulous Life of Ethan Green” based on a gay comic strip this weekend. At one point, Ethan says he dumped a boyfriend because he had a toe fungus. Par for the course, I pointed out, love really begins when we don’t expect fashion model bodies of our partners.
And there is really nothing sexier in my opinion than the “goody trail” as gay men call that strip of hair running from the navel to the genitals.
It does sound like the backlash has something to do with a sense of being over-feminized, “metro”, often conflated with being “gay”, so I wonder exactly what do we mean by masculinity. Some men are relatively hairless, others are very hairy, most are in-between.
Just because you focused on it a bit; no hair is often cleaner than hair, if for no other reason than it’s simply less surface area for bacteria and yeast to grow on. It is also more difficult to get clean, think of steel wool vs a more or less smooth surfaced sponge. All this is especially true for pubic hair, which tends to reside where we sweat more, and thus give microbes more food.
Hey Hugo,
I was totally teasing about the chest-off at PAB! I didn’t mean to make you take down the photo.
Sorry, man-
marc
Marc, I took it down for different reasons — your teasing was not a factor. No worries!
Hugo thank you for taking down the picture. I am sure you didn’t mean to be inappropriate but as one of your students, seeing your naked chest freaked me out. Please don’t get me wrong it’s a very nice chest it’s just a bit weird. It’s easier to look up to you when you are clothed.
I didn’t really understand its purpose to begin with, to be quite honest. Do you mind explaining why you decided to take it down, though?
It was put up impulsively to say “see, I have hair on my chest.” Then I realized it could be read as being too narcissistic, as if I were looking for validation or praise for my body. It just seemed to complicate the post rather than enhance it. I post in haste, repent in leisure…
And isn’t it a bit “male privilege” to post a topless photo without considering it porn?
I was initially reminded of that (female) professor who had topless photos on her personal site and received a lot of flak for it when students found the pictures. Don’t remember her name/ site.
Yes, it’s male privilege, and you’re thinking of Diana Blaine.
As all of my direct male relatives are Chinese, I didn’t see a man with hair on his chest until I was around 12. I prefer hairlessness, but I think it has more to do with what I grew up around than anything else.
I always thought that the hairless body thing was another result of our culture’s worship of eternal youth. Personally I like hair on my man, and I married a man who had chest hair along with the “goody trail” (that’s not limited to gay guys Christopher ;)). He also grew a gotee, and it looks damn sexy on him. The only things I shave are legs and armpits (and I only do that once a week; that’s when it starts driving me crazy), and he doesn’t seem to mind.
And D I know you’re right about the whole hygenic thing, but EEEEEWWWWW Gross! (And I’m still not shaving/waxing down there.)