Comments on: Not a subject for mixed company

by: Denise

Sat, 04 Feb 2006 20:45:28 +0000

Just read an article that said that while 80 percent of white American women shave only 50 percent of black women do. I remember the first time a white co-worker looked at black woman on the PATH with us who was not shaven and asked if it was a political statement. I laughed. I said no. She just feels no need to shave. Why do you? You do it because society dictates that you do it. You mother did it, probably her mother did it. It’s just something that you do. My mother had a shaver. I assume someone gave it to her. But I never saw her shave. I don’t shave most of my body (other than under arm hair which is a hygiene issue). And my sisters don’t shave. On the other hand, I have to little body hair that few people notice.

by: Parableman

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:40:38 +0000

Christian Carnival XLV
The 45th Christian Carnival is at CowPi Journal. My Universal Salvation and Universal Damnation is the best I could come up with this week. I don’t want to limit the importance of the point I was making, but it isn’t…

…IntolerantElle makes an insightful but unpopular observation that our society’s attitude toward women’s armpit hair is opposed to the way God created us (and by ‘us’ I mean not just how God created women’s armpit hair but how he designed men to respond to it). She concludes with some suggestions about other ways we concede to the culture around us that has rejected God’s creation in various ways, all the while wondering how many other ways we may do this. I’m impressed by her care in showing what exactly she is saying and what she’s not saying, wisely anticipating how some will unreflectively read her.

by: Elle

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:12:57 +0000

Interesting observation, Jeremy. I think that sort of desexualization would fit in with the leftover Victorian fear of sexuality. Or maybe it’s not fear of sexuality so much as it is trying to push the moral envelope while somehow remaining acceptable?

When applied to women, would the case remain the same? Would people look at a woman who sports leg and pit hair and find her too sexual or would they find her disgusting? My view on this may be narrow and limited, but my money would be on disgusting.

by: Jeremy Pierce

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:42:41 +0000

There was a Star Trek episode in the original series in which Kirk had to do a bare-chested scene. Roddenberry insisted that they not show Shatner’s chest hair, which apparently is quite substantial. I don’t remember if they shaved him or used some other effect, but Roddenberry’s grounds for this were entirely based on thinking it was too sexual. Kirk had to be kept youthful. He wasn’t sexualizing youth. He was using youth to avoid sexualizing. I don’t know how that affects your argument, if it does at all, but it’s evidence that sometimes (or at least sometimes in the 60s) the effect has been the other way.

by: Jeremy Pierce

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:39:57 +0000

Diane, I’d be careful in not despising youthful pastors. That came up in one of Paul’s letters to Timothy. I agree that seeing the old as irrelevant is bad, but we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, no pun intended.

by: Diane Roberts

Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:35:09 +0000

Actually this is only a small part of the larger issue: the disrespect for the elders of our society. And the church is following the Pied Piper right into the dirty river. Youth is worshipped in the church. The Youth will lead the next revival. Uh..I don’t think so. Many pastors try to look like overgrown teens. The wisdom of the elderly in the church is disregarded because they are disregarded….unless of course like me they happen to be fortunate enough to look 15 years younger than they actually are…..:)

by: CowPi

Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:18:10 +0000

Christian Carnival XLV
Welcome to this week’s Christian Carnival (#45), an eclectic collection of submitted writings from Christian weblogs. The following 37 articles are loosely organized around the idea that there are three dimensions to spirituality: vertical, horizontal…

by: Elle

Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:33:00 +0000

I agree, I think. I don’t think the intent now is to make women or body builders look prepubescent, but one would have to recognize that can be the effect. If this whole aversion to body hair is a result of the Victorian fear of sexuality, then it makes a little more sense.

Imagine a time when body hair was recognized as the sign that someone is sexually mature…then to remove that body hair would, in that culture, keep someone appearing prepubescent.

Glad it spurred some conversation!

by: Karen Richmond

Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:32:36 +0000

Pondering this question with my husband, we came up with a counter-example: What about all those chest-hairless body-builders one sees nowadays? Surely the attempt is not to make them look prepubescent!

I think the cultural reason has more to do with simply what looks pretty for a picture–body hair is sort of innately unkempt, and as we accept in public display and photography of increasingly private parts, we have to make them look more groomed.

BTW, I believe I’ve read that BO does stimulate sexual hormones; it’s just that in context we’re conditioned to perceive it otherwise.

by: Elle

Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:08:45 +0000

Interesting, Gao. Bacteria is the source of what we think of as stinky BO, but maybe this bacteria is the kind that has been badly affected by the fall?

I also wonder what else we accept without question. It is a little frightening.

Comment as often as you like!