h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Most people have hairs on the lower half of their legs, but fewer have them on the top thigh bit (or if they're there they are much lighter and softer).

Did I miss intelligent design class the day that was discussed? Is the answer "snow"?

Nah. It's "kilts".

Don't think I've ever noticed much differnce in the nature of the hair on top/thighs compared to lower legs

just as an observational note, men seems to be more uniformally hairy on their legs than women, how hairy they are varies

Are you sure it doesn't just seem that way, because men are usually more laissez faire about it?

Isn't the same true for arms?

I remember discovering, oh about 10 years ago now, that all my friends shave the top and the bottom parts of their legs, whereas I just go up to (and including) my (knobbly) knees. But then - I never really wear anything that shockingly short!

My dad (and, he reports, his simililarly aged friends with a military background) all have hairy legs down to the tops of where boots would come (boots and puttees in their cases) but they have all spent 40 years or so wearing boots and the hairs have just given up growing

Mmmmm... hairy legs...

sorry - drifted off for a moment there.

Mmmmm, hairy men in military boots... err... yes, whatever I was goign to say... err... yes... probably... I think

Just the boots? or boots and a military hat...

To be honest, I never noticed if he was wearing a military cap or not

Chaffing is certainly a factor here I think.

Where the furrage is in contact with constant abrasion, something has to give

>>just as an observational note, men seems to be more uniformally hairy on their legs than women, how hairy they are varies

That's true, but it's also true that most women shave the bottom half and not the top half and that shaving makes hair thicker.

I'm trying to think if I know any women who have never shaved their legs...

I thought that shaving making hair thicker was a myth, it can grow back darker but not thicker.



,

It's probably hard to tell because most women start shaving in their teens, when hair growth is going to be changing anyway. I know for me, I started at 14 and my lower leg hair definitely got thicker. I hadn't thought about darkness though, maybe it just looks thicker? Why would it grow back darker?

I think you may be right about men having more hair on their upper legs than women - I've had a strange hormonal issue for a few years and definitely notice more hair on my upper legs now, which is, apparently, a symptom.

I've been reading Jared Diamond on human evolution.

'Do people really imagine that men have hair on their chests to keep them warm in the cool, Northern climate? Do women not feel the cold?'


(btw...it's probably not pheromone traps yadda yadda. It's probably just a localised happenstance of sexual selection.)

I´m not sure what you´re trying to say there Ed. I think it´s only pubic and armpit hair that´s meant to be wafting pheromones, not body hair in general.

It does seem that if you look at body hair, there´s more of it the further south you go in Europe. I guess that might be about how more clothes means the hair gets worn off. My Iranian flatmate looks like a chimp.

Whether humans are even capable of detecting pheremones is debatable anyway... plus I suspect people use the pheremones in armpit/pubic hair thing as an excuse for not washing.

I know, my point was mainly that the arm and leg hair was never suggested to be used for that purpose as far as I can tell.
It might just be that the increase in hair in the lower arms and legs is relics from earlier. Looking at gorillas, they also seem to have more fur on their lower arms and legs than on the upper parts.

I´ve heard that some of those wild childs that have been found have been quite hairy. Perhaps being without clothes, we will naturally grow quite hairy. Perhaps as an attempted defence mechanism against cold.