Talk:Body hair

message: There are no sources associated with the section on facial hair. Most of it seems pretty obvious but the association with stress at least should have a reference. Also, this is really nitpicky but it's not explicit whether high stress increases or impedes facial hair growth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:1826:E119:A30F:E64F:FC8E (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Facial Hair and Stress

message: Can we remove this? Pictoral diagrams are enough for the subject matter... Obvious hack if you were to ask me frankly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.151.116 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of a guys dick

message: The main article states that (paraphrasing) athletes (including cyclists) remove body hair to reduce friction or to make it easier to get into athletic clothing.  In the competitive cycling world it is commonly believed that there is not a significant friction advantage to shaving ones' legs/arms.  There may be a small psychological advantage, but the amount of wind resistance at cycling speeds caused by body hair is not significant enough to make a measurable difference in ones competitiveness.  HOWEVER, cyclists do have a very good reason for shaving; road rash.  Competitive cycling often leads to accidents that involve skin abrasions.  Many cyclists believe that the healing process will be less troublesome if the scab that forms doesn't capture matted body hair.  It would be prudent for the article to briefly mention this reason for shaving, and to identify that the "friction" advantage to shaving is more significant for swimmers than for cyclists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.114.38 (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Athletes

message: I've never seen a non-Caucasian person with body hair like that depicted in these diagrams.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.251.170 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just oversimplified.  It's also certainly not the "common maximum" for those of European descent.  There are many men with a diverse-type hair growth pattern that is more than on the given example.  It's "normal" for Europeans to have a range of different hair growth patterns.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.214.123 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Racist

message: I am looking for information about age and body hair, which is roughly stated in the development image. Is there any page on wikipedia which explains that most males get more body hair (chest, back,...) in their twenties?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.240.64 (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age?

message: I can't figure out how to correct this problem next to the 'feet' subsection Here an example of what I mean  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.99.167 (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Text overlapping

message: There is a widespread meme that general body hair has no evolutionary purpose and I hadn't realised how pervasive it is, even in reference type sources. I was surprised when I looked up body hair in Wikipedia that there is no mention of it's usefulness. I'm no scientist or academic but I know that body hair has at least one serious purpose that should be obvious and can be demonstrated easily... as an example:
Just a few days ago a paralysis tick was walking up my leg (I live in NE of the state of NSW in Australia and these toxic creatures are quite common and can make domestic animals - and people - very sick and even kill them if they attach and aren't removed); I felt that tick and removed it before it had attached. Where there is no body hair I can't feel a sensation of something as small as a tick or small insect, but as it brushed against the hairs on my leg it was easy to feel. I can't believe this would not be considered an evolutionary advantage!
Body hair is an extension of our sense of touch. I suggest it uses the physics of leverage to cause even a very small force to be detectable within the hair follicle. Small air movements can be felt, insects can be felt that otherwise can't.  Anyone who wants to check the touch sensitivity of body hair can do so - just get a single fine hair from a comb or brush, touch areas of skin that have no hair with it - you'll be very unlikely to be able to feel it. Brush that hair against body hair and you can feel it easily. I note that (using my own admittedly abundant leg, arm and body hair as an example) when that hair stands on end it can extend as much as 50mm and more beyond the skin. This happens during moments of fear. I suggest that this has a purpose and that is to maximise sensitivity to touch and to air movement and could conceivably give an evolutionary edge over the completely bald.
Body hair amplifies touch sensitivity enormously. How is it possible that a conclusion so completely wrong (and can so easily be shown to be wrong) as body hair having no use or purpose be so widely perpetuated?
Ken Fabos (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The usefulness and evolutionary purpose of body hair 

message: Shouldn't armpit hair be included in this section? I know it has it's own article but so do the other types.  Chaotic Doire (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  axillary hair 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Bejart 1984.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: P.E. Wheeler of the Department of Biology at Liverpool Polytechnic said quadrupedal Savannah mammals of similar volume to humans have body hair to keep warm while only larger quadrupedal Savannah mammals lack body hair, because their body volume itself is enough to keep them warm.[10] Therefore, Wheeler said humans who should have body hair based on predictions of body volume alone for Savannah mammals evolved no body hair after evolving bipedalism which he said reduced the amount of body area exposed to the sun by 40%, reducing the solar warming effect on the human body.
This should be removed.  That humans lack the body hair to keep warm possessed by quadrupedal Savannah animals of similar volume cannot be explained nor even supported by bipedalism....reducing the solar warming effect on the human body.  Reducing a warming effect cannot lessen a need to keep warm.  Reducing a warming effect would increase the need to keep warm.
70.171.3.221 (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titled: 'evolution of less body hair' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Body hair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222082300/http://www.hair-science.com/_int/_en/topic/topic_sousrub.aspx?tc=ROOT-HAIR-SCIENCE%5EAMAZINGLY-NATURAL%5ESHAPE-WORKSHOP&cur=SHAPE-WORKSHOP to http://www.hair-science.com/_int/_en/topic/topic_sousrub.aspx?tc=ROOT-HAIR-SCIENCE%5EAMAZINGLY-NATURAL%5ESHAPE-WORKSHOP&cur=SHAPE-WORKSHOP
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This section seems to focus almost entirely on western body hair removal conventions rather than any actual data on the body hair distribution, seems not appropriate. Perhaps can be moved to a culture section? Nemorhino (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armpit hair distribution 

message: Why are we repeating stereotypes that are much more a reflection of cultural norms and misconceptions than reality?
Most female humans have armpit hair, and certainly more hair than "stereotypically" depicted. Why echo stereotypes? TwoMetalDragons (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIRST IMAGE - "Stereotypical distribution of body hair in females and males." 

message: map of male androgenic hair has dubious origin and no suitable citation Dan Gluck (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  map is of dubious origin