You must log in or # to comment.
He is not a local man, he is a dinogator. As such, he is unfamiliar with the concept of hair. Cut him some slack!
That happened
deleted by creator
Sure, but I doubt this one did.
It was created for this post.
deleted by creator
MFW Velma was Shaggy all along!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’m a trans man and I wasn’t able to feel comfortable wearing shorts without shaving until my early 30s either. The indoctrination is real!
Not true. My wife loves being hairless and does it for herself.
deleted by creator
I remember following Iguanamouth on tumblr back in the day, she always posted good stuff.
The argument ‘why is it there then?’ is still flawed, even if you are sHoCkEd by an argument by comparison.
deleted by creator
It is?
Ask 100 women what they think of facial hair on men.
deleted by creator
As the 100th man, the more hair on people the better.
Your feelings are valid, I just don’t get to bust this one out too often. Couldn’t pass it up.
Found the furry.
Yes!
deleted by creator
Why isn’t it?
It’s up to you to choose what you want. If a man doesn’t shave and a woman doesn’t find that attractive… You do the math.
Hell, again, a man won’t know a woman doesn’t shave her legs unless he’s intimate with her anyway.
And then it’s between them. It’s none of our concern.
a man won’t know a woman doesn’t shave her legs unless he’s intimate with her
What’s the opposite of observant? Because whatever that is, you are.
I’m guessing they’re assuming pants and not bare legs?
deleted by creator
a man won’t know a woman doesn’t shave her legs unless he’s intimate with her anyway.
… are you maybe teensy weensy stoned right now? Baked like a potato? Lit like a Christmas tree? Toasted? Zooted? Zonked? Roasted? Lil bit stoney baloney?
deleted by creator
Were you aware that the face and legs are two separate parts of the body?
Really? I had no fucking idea.
The point that you completely glossed over is that women have preferences, some like facial hair some don’t.
So men have or don’t shave their faces accordingly (or according to what they prefer).
That’s all. Go ahead and get up on your cross now because women shave because men somehow make them.
If some unknown man can make you do something, you have a problem.
The point that you completely glossed over is that women have preferences, some like facial hair some don’t.
We’re talking about society treating leg hair on women as abnormal. If you want to see if there’s a societal double standard there then you need to ask how society looks at men’s legs, not their faces.
So men have or don’t shave their faces accordingly
If some unknown man can make you do something, you have a problem
lol?
deleted by creator
Surely you need to be living in a cave to not see the asymmetry there though. On men facial hair is unattractive for half of women and very attractive for other (making up the stats). On women leg hair is perceived as unattractive for all but most people.
deleted by creator
Interesting, and I’m frankly surprised by it.
Still, there are women who don’t prefer it, which makes the point.
Men and women have preferences, we can choose to accommodate that as we (as individuals) wish.
No one holds a gun to anyone’s head and says “shave or else”.
Fuck, what man is going to know it a woman shaves her legs unless he’s intimate with her anyway?
Fuck, what man is going to know it a woman shaves her legs unless he’s intimate with her anyway?
Do you live in Saudi Arabia or are you legally blind? Shorts exist.
Unless the hairs are really thick and dark, outside of the average, those aren’t that noticable or at least it requires active focusing to look for those.
Basically randomly walking on the street or just doing basic daily tasks and the difference is unnoticeable.
Unless the hairs are really thick and dark, outside of the average
Average for where? I never knew any girls in middle/high school that felt they could ‘get away’ without shaving their legs for more than a couple of days unless they were blonde. Even before I went on testosterone you could probably tell if I’d shaved from 20 yards.
deleted by creator
ZZ Top wasted a lot of money on dressing sharp when it was the beards all along.
But not a lot on sunglasses.
Hahahaha
Actually the study says they prefer light stubble, which is impossible to have without shaving unless you’re 15. For that matter, how many women do you think would like a man with a beard or pubic hair that had NEVER been shaved? So women expect men to trim and groom their body hair at the very least, which is just as unnatural as shaving your legs.
without shaving
Trimmed, not shaved. Unless you are into women that are into prepubescent boys, you can get away with trimming once a week.
So women expect men to trim and groom their body hair at the very least
That’s not my experience. Ironically, the only negative response I got about body hair, was when I shaved it.
What’s natural about trimming? Why would the hair be there if it needs to be trimmed?
Yeah, the third post is “Local Tumblr User Doesn’t Understand Reductio ad Absurdum; More at 11.”
The user isn’t saying leg hair is like cancer (like fucking obviously; how disingenuous would you be to assume that?). They’re saying the argument of “it wouldn’t grow there if it wasn’t supposed to” is completely stupid – that it has little discriminative power to distinguish what’s good and bad if you don’t already know. It isn’t even neaely limited to the absurdity of that contradictory example:
“Sorry, honey, but the dick cheese wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t supposed to.”
It’s a fine-ish example to get a seven-year-old to chill out, but it’s total bullshit when you don’t already know leg hair on women is fine. Pointing out that “Gravity is real because most people think it is” is a bad argument by saying “Germs didn’t exist because most people thought they didn’t” doesn’t mean I’m trying to deny gravity is real; I’m pointing out the argument doesn’t hold water regardless of what the fallacy (in the OP’s case, a pretty clear appeal to nature) was supporting.
TL;DR: Denying the means, not the conclusion.
Ah, but you’re forgetting that rationality and the strength of one’s argument are irrelevant. This is the 21st century. People will attack you based on whatever assumptions they make about you.
So even if you don’t refute the conclusion, but merely point out the flaw in argumentation, they will assume you disagree with the conclusion and will torch you accordingly. I see soup has already demonstrated this for us.
It doesn’t matter how you actually feel about leg hair on women. If you point out the logical invalidity of the justification given for it, people will assume you’re a misogynist.
Ok, but as long as the hair isn’t actually doing anything then what’s the problem? Cancer kills you and dick cheese is fucking nasty as hell(especially in the context of expexting someone to allow it into their body). Excessive, unwashed body hair that is producing an odor is nasty because it affects other people and cannot be easily ignored, but someone saying “that’s gross because now I don’t find you attractive” does not deserve any more of an answer than “go fuck yourself.” That kid’s question got a better answer than it warranted.
You write a lot for someone who doesn’t understand communication.
There’s a lot to unpack there. I’ll choose
unwashed body hair that is producing an odor
Hair doesn’t smell.
I can’t tell: are you delusional or a pedant (i.e. water isn’t wet it makes things wet pedant logic)?
then what’s the problem?
You write a lot for someone who doesn’t understand communication. [200 words btw did I time travel back to fucking 4th grade?]
The fact you read that and couldn’t even grasp that there fucking is no problem with leg hair and I’m not saying there is one and I even directly said “leg hair on women is fine” is just *chef’s kiss* You missed the excruciatingly obvious point of the entire comment – for which apparently even “a lot” of unambiguous clarification wasn’t enough. Fucking Mordecai’d that shit.
Who exactly doesn’t understand communication here? The one who thinks 200 words is “a lot” of writing?
deleted by creator
You’re perceived intention should be irrelevant during an argument. Either expose the belief directly so it can be engaged with honestly, or focus on the logic of the argument being made. It is entirely possible to be both correct in your argument and incorrect in the foundational belief. But engaging with a factually correct argument with the assumption that it was borne from a place of ignorance just makes YOU less capable of being reasonable.
The first poster made a claim, and assigned faulty logic as justification.
The second poster pointed out the flaw in this logic.
The third poster ignored the logic argument entirely and resorted to an appeal to outrage rather than the structure of the argument itself.
Personal experience, beliefs, gender, identity. All of these points are entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The title of this post was about logic. The second commenter pointed out a legitimate logical error, and the third commenter exposed themselves at appealing to indignation and dressing it up as an argument. You (royal you) shouldn’t support bad reasoning just because it agrees with you.
It’s not impossible that they are, but given there’s a perfectly logical and highly plausible explanation that they’re making an entirely cogent point (because the argument is severely flawed, and they point out the flaw accurately), I choose to not just assume that they’re a shitty person who thinks women are icky and need to shave their legs or they’re gross – like the third comment from “geekandmisandry” (really self-reporting the bias there) does instead of just… asking them to clarify.
deleted by creator
The majority of men do expect and prefer that women are shaved, thus the assumption.
You know, I wasn’t going to call it out in my original comment because it was beside the overall point, but “geeksandmisandry” and now you are interestingly assuming the gender of an anonymous user with a default pfp and the gender-neutral username “dinogatrr”.
I don’t think even if they were a man that this would be a good reason to assume they’re a shitty person (especially because the sample of “men on Tumblr” is going to be vastly different than “men overall” or even “men on social media overall”). But it is an interesting assumption on top of an assumption: they’re a man, and they’re a shitty person who thinks women’s legs are naturally icky.
It’s perfectly understandable if you have any nuance. “Why does it grow there [as a design aspect of your body]”
My Wife: "I’m just warning you, I haven’t shaved in a few days.’
Me: Oh no! Anyway…"
I think “a few days” is the problem zone. It will be itchy and rough stubble by then (at least for me). After like a month it smooths back out. It could well be your wife telling you “this will be uncomfortable for both of us, at least wait a bit, or give me time to shave”.
Smooth as silk in one direction
Severe tire damage in the other
“If I didn’t want a sexy sasquatch, I wouldn’t have married my best friend.”
You really have to press your advantage to prevent them from thinking about that
deleted by creator
Keeps you warm too. But, again, you have to be pretty hairy. More likely it’s a relic of our nomadic past and doesn’t serve much purpose these days.
It’s a pretty good arsehole detector and repellent in the modern age
I’m 60, and I realized recently, maybe in the past five years, that I’ve lost all the hair on my legs. I was a bit confused, I remember having hair on my legs, so I looked at some old pictures. Yep, I used to have hairy legs. I like having smooth legs, it’s nice. I still have all the hair on my head, so that’s good, too. Small consolation for having one foot in the grave, I suppose.
I wonder how old people have to be to get the “more at 6” capper. I know I use it a lot so my kids get it, but I’d bet most don’t.
I legit heard a news anchor say “and what it could mean for your weekend” on the TV at a bar recently, so they’re keeping it alive.
Tumors don’t grow on a majority of people, hair does.
Not that it matters at all, but tumors grow on (or in) roughly 100% of people. A mole is a tumor, for example.
I stand corrected!
90% of people have herpes simplex virus. Everyone(?) on Earth catches the common cold repeatedly throughout their lives.
Trying to appeal to nature about leg hair is a dumb argument that only “works” because you already – correctly – understand leg hair is fine in a medical (safe) and sociological (acceptable/should be accepted) context.
Yeah but that’s not as fun to say
He’s not comparing hair to cancer, he is demonstrating that just because something grows doesn’t mean it’s supposed to be there.
Let’s watch sonic hedgehog
deleted by creator
How do we know women hair isn’t just cancer? 🤔
deleted by creator
Says who? Your god?
deleted by creator
Incorrect
deleted by creator
Then explain whales and dolphins
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nobody is supposed to have body hair.
“supposed” is a bit of a tricky word for biology anyway, given that it implies intent. I guess if one is religious it works, but otherwise, itd be ascribing thought to evolutionary processes that dont seem to have a mechanism for that.
deleted by creator
No. There’s plenty of mammals without hair.
deleted by creator
Depends on the mammal I guess, but sure. But, theres a difference between something being what typically happens, and what is supposed to happen. Were you somehow in charge of designing mammals, and decided that hair should be a crucial aspect of them, then you could say that they are supposed to have hair. But, absent anyone doing this, them having hair is simply how they happen to be and equally as unintended as them not having it, regardless of how overwhelming the percentage that has it is. If anything, one could argue that if a person shaves their hair, or decides not while being given the option, then that person has actively taken charge of designing their own appearance, at least in that regard, and therefore the way they are “supposed” to look is the way they intend to make themselves look.
I don’t believe there are any truly hairless mammals?
I have never seen a dolphin, dugong or whale with hair
I wouldn’t know if like naked mole rats or Sphinx cats or whatever are truly hairless or not, but tbh it doesn’t really matter for what I was trying to say.
There is a certain degree of genetics and environmental adaptation here as well. Not all ethnic groups share similar body hair genes. It doesnt even seen to correlate to something like melanin production and higher/lower latitudes since body hair across Africa varies wildliy.
deleted by creator
Of course - what I’m saying is that there’s huge variation within humans. Some ethnic groups simply don’t grow as much body hair, or it’s not nearly as course or pronounced. My partner can go weeks without shaving her legs and it’s almost impossible to tell. Many East Asian ethnic groups have far less hair than Europeans or Levant peoples. People in West Africa have relatively little body hair, while I’ve seen women with full on beards and chest hair in southern African countries.
If this conversation is between a Maori or Norwegian kid and a Bulgarian or Spanish or Armenian babysitter, that’s a stark contrast that actually would be plausible without the reality of unreasonable beauty standards ruining everyone’s day.
That variation also means that the “logic” of comparing leg hair to cancer makes as much sense as comparing leg hair to my nipples. They don’t do anything either, but XY bodies still get them. And I would bet $10 that any kid young enough to be baby-sat and say that grows up to get lip filler and joker-esque work done by the age of 28.
This comment thread is really revealing how many people here have the critical thinking skills of a rock.
deleted by creator
See, you keep trying to make this about gender. It’s not. That’s what you seem to be too thick to understand. The topic is no longer about if women should have hairy legs or not, that’s a completely moot point. It’s about the logical fallacy of trying to argue something by saying “well if x shouldn’t exist, then why is it there?”, which is just bad logic.
That has literally nothing to do with gender anymore. No one here gives a shit if women shave or not, dumbass; it’s just the initial topic that triggered the fallacy which we are now discussing. It’s pretty fucking obvious, but that seems to have gone entirely over your head; again, because you have the critical thinking skills of a rock.
deleted by creator
He didn’t say otherwise, just pointed out the argument used was poor.
Who’s to say cancer isn’t supposed to grow?
deleted by creator
Again, who are you to say that? I could make the exact opposite argument and you would have to obey because I said so.
deleted by creator
It’s not a comparison except in logic, where it is a perfect comparison.
And then everybody applauded
No argument about things being “supposed to” exist is gonna seriously be good or make sense with pure logic… dont you need to lean on religion to argue stuff like this?
Its annoying that people complain about analogies like that. “youre comparing the good thing A to the bad thing B?? How dare you?” Its just an analogy to make a point, noone was arguing that A was bad or that B was good…
Oversimplification does not an analogy make.
Right… but analogies use simplifications. The only thing perfectly analogous to A is A itself. So to make an analogy between A and B, I need to simplify both to the point where the differences disappear. What was your point?
My point is that ignoring a bunch of implied context isn’t a compelling argument. The obvious difference between cancer and body hair is that hair growth is the normal state and cancer is aberrant growth. This shouldn’t need to be pointed out.
I get that sometimes there is implied context. But at this point we are guessing what her argument is… some guess the argument is just “it grew there naturally so it must be supposed to be there” and you should be able to replace “it” with anything, while other people like you guess that its implied that “it” shouldnt be replaced with things that grow aberrantly. The analogy dinogatorr makes is fine for critiquing the first ‘unrefined’ argument that we see a lot of people make all the time. We could use “implied” context to dismiss any pointing out of flawed logic leading to good conclusions (you need to swap the objects for that, i suppose).
Body hair blocks UV and directly reduces the risk of cancer including reducing the risk of dinogatorrnoma.
