Talk:Body hair

Facial Hair and Stress
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)

Picture of a guys dick
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)

Athletes
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)

Racist
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)

Do any "non-Caucasians" grow hair outside of the specified regions? Maybe it needs to be specified, but I'm assuming the graph is intended to depict the 'common maximum' for lack of being able to think up a more statistically-informed term. I also wouldn't label all instances of Eurocentrism as racism. 70.171.231.31 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Age?
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)

Removal of Dubious section
Hi I've removed the following paragraph from the article. Firstly 'fire' more related to scalp hair than androgenic hair, secondly I do not believe the time scale for fire use is recent enough to encourage hair growth through natural selection. Add it back in if you have a source! Isaac (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hair is known by survival experts as a useful tool to start fires, people who took advantage of this may have encouraged the prominence of body hair growth in addition to increased scalp hair density in their descendants.

Text overlapping
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)

Must be your browser. I'm seeing it fine. I see "the feet and toes" underneath the edit button. Maybe if you change your resolution or something you might see it better. Munci (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The usefulness and evolutionary purpose of body hair
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)

I have added a new section 'Function' with references.Ken Fabos (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Body hair has a cooling function. It cools the body while the body is in perspiring mode. Historians have noted that it was of use in the early periods for humans when humans were far more physically active in hunting animals. However, I should concur with the earlier commenter that arm hair is more of a characteristic of Caucuasians. Nonetheless, it cannot be said that it is never found on people of African origin. Dogru144 (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

axillary hair
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)

I noticed that too, axillary hair is also totally missing in the graphic (Image:Androgenic_hair.svg) that is part of the article's introduction. --93.223.21.191 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article urgently needs a correction. Axillary hair is definitely missing.

178.190.158.205 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Eyebrow Hair
A question from ignorance: Is male eyebrow hair and ear hair that starts growing thick and long in middle age (like Einstein's) androgenic? Or is it another kind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.76.27 (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hair length is generally controlled by when the hair falls out. That's why the hair on your arms, for example, stays short while that on your head grows long. Arm hair falls out and is replaced more quickly than head hair. I suspect the same is happening when men's eyebrow and ear hairs become noticeably longer. They've always been there, but are growing longer due to some age-related genetic change.

Section titled: 'evolution of less body hair'
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) BGriffin

Another bit ripe for removal:

''Evolution of less body hair

Hair is a very good thermal conductor''

Hair is comprised mainly of keratin and as such is more accurately described as a decent thermal insulator. Hair is certainly not a very good thermal conductor. Which is one reason you never see summer clothes made from camel hair or wool.

70.171.3.221 (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC) BGriffin

It is not necessary to start puberty to have androgenic hair
Many overweight children in Brazil since the early 1990s, at least, especially those that were skinny and started to be overweight in 1 or 2 years due to lifestyle changes (such as me), have clear initial signs of it (armpits, genital and perianal area, fingers, toes, around the belly button, together with the start of teenage body odor but not teenage voice change, growth spurt and cutaneous problems such as acne as well generally not teenage personality change and start of romantic attraction and libido) since 5-7, but only start to be in puberty by 12-15. This is not original research or doing forum talk, certainly there is research on how overweight and obesity affect the hormones of children to the extent that their pre-puberty start way earlier than expected. 177.65.53.191 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The details you've provided above do not match with the research I've read. That may be because you did not separate the effects of obesity by gender. Obesity in males is associated with a dramatic DECREASE in androgen production, while obesity in females can have an opposite effect (hyperandrogenism). The latter may correlate with the details you provided from Brazilian children (I'd love to see a reference to that study). Here's some research supporting what I stated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16647374

Requested move 28 December 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Consensus is that this is more common. Cúchullain t/ c 18:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Androgenic hair → Body hair – "Body hair" is the common name for this article. We shouldn't needlessly abstract the title just because it sounds scientific. The article body hair redirects here. Therefore I propose this move, to benefit readers by simplifying the title to lay English. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, as an avid sporter of the same. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to human body hair (to distinguish from hair of nonhuman animals) - common names for something like this (our article on nosebleed is under that title, not epistaxis). Neutralitytalk 02:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
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)

Armpit hair distribution
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)

FIRST IMAGE - "Stereotypical distribution of body hair in females and males."
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)

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