3 ms·

> Even within the US in the 70's, there were subcultures where chest hair was not considered attractive. These subcultures tended to align fairly closely with c

> Even within the US in the 70's, there were subcultures where chest hair was not considered attractive. These subcultures tended to align fairly closely with certain ethnicities Can you be more specific on the ethnicities? This seems unlikely given how pervasive the shift was, as there was not a huge ethnic genetic shift since the 70s (AFAIK).

bilbo0s 2y ago
Well, the ideal male aesthetic for black americans for instance included athletes like basketball players and the great boxers. Most of whom were hairless. Joe Frazier only had a smattering of chest hair that hardly even registered. Others from Liston to Ali to Frazier and so on might have had some peach fuzz on their chests, but it's doubtful we'd be able to see it in a photo from that era. In the 70's among that demographic you saw body hair most often in contexts where they were working hard for crossover appeal. ie - entertainment, music etc. I'd put money on most males from that demographic being largely hairless, or having difficulty growing chest hair, even today. Despite their family lines having lived in North America in some cases as long as four or five hundred years. I'm also positive that the fact that chest hairlessness is so widespread in that demographic is a direct result of centuries of female sexual preference. Likely dating all the way back to long before they even arrived in North America. The cultural echoes probably continued the reproductive pressures selecting for that aesthetic when they arrived in North America. Even when other extrinsic reproductive pressures were brought to bear. (Slavery). Same with other demographics that came later by the way. (Without the slavery induced reproductive pressures obviously). Reproductive pressures selected for a lack of body hair in some of those demographics. And males from those demographics probably have far less body hair at the median than males from demographics where reproductive pressures selected for more body hair. Essentially, my bet is that chest hair or no chest hair was decided for human males long ago by ancient female sexual preference. Why females from different demographics had different preferences? Can't say. Maybe climate? Of course I can't prove any of the last part, but climate induced reproductive pressures on genetic ancestors would be my bet as the largest indicator of whether or not males will have chest hair. Reproductive pressures like that don't just go away over night. Not even over millennia.
- kenjackson 2y ago
  I get that, but what about white males? Tom Selleck and his chest hair were iconic. Guys used to wear shirts to show off their chest hair. This is gone almost completely now, not just along black men. If we limit your discussion to black men and attraction of black females I’d agree, but it seems the preferences of white females also changed.

bilbo0s 2y ago

Well, the ideal male aesthetic for black americans for instance included athletes like basketball players and the great boxers. Most of whom were hairless. Joe Frazier only had a smattering of chest hair that hardly even registered. Others from Liston to Ali to Frazier and so on might have had some peach fuzz on their chests, but it's doubtful we'd be able to see it in a photo from that era. In the 70's among that demographic you saw body hair most often in contexts where they were working hard for crossover appeal. ie - entertainment, music etc. I'd put money on most males from that demographic being largely hairless, or having difficulty growing chest hair, even today. Despite their family lines having lived in North America in some cases as long as four or five hundred years. I'm also positive that the fact that chest hairlessness is so widespread in that demographic is a direct result of centuries of female sexual preference. Likely dating all the way back to long before they even arrived in North America. The cultural echoes probably continued the reproductive pressures selecting for that aesthetic when they arrived in North America. Even when other extrinsic reproductive pressures were brought to bear. (Slavery). Same with other demographics that came later by the way. (Without the slavery induced reproductive pressures obviously). Reproductive pressures selected for a lack of body hair in some of those demographics. And males from those demographics probably have far less body hair at the median than males from demographics where reproductive pressures selected for more body hair. Essentially, my bet is that chest hair or no chest hair was decided for human males long ago by ancient female sexual preference. Why females from different demographics had different preferences? Can't say. Maybe climate? Of course I can't prove any of the last part, but climate induced reproductive pressures on genetic ancestors would be my bet as the largest indicator of whether or not males will have chest hair. Reproductive pressures like that don't just go away over night. Not even over millennia.

kenjackson 2y ago
I get that, but what about white males? Tom Selleck and his chest hair were iconic. Guys used to wear shirts to show off their chest hair. This is gone almost completely now, not just along black men. If we limit your discussion to black men and attraction of black females I’d agree, but it seems the preferences of white females also changed.