women, testosterone and femininity

Post Reply New Topic

- The voice of a male and female chimpanzee has the same pitch
- They're equally hairy
- Pound for pound, a female chimpanzee is almost as strong as a male
- The only notable facial difference between a male and female chimpanzee is that the male has larger canines

- Men's voices are one octave deeper than women's voices
- An average man has 30,000 hairs growin in his face + hair on his thighs, abs and in some ethnic groups back and chest
- An average man has 13 kgs more worth of lean muscle than an average woman
- Men have significantly larger jaws and noses than women, as well as smaller eyes, lower eyebrows, a much more pronouncing brow ridge and a more sloping forehead

Because it can be cleaned and men look more masculine with than without.



dimorphism increased for thousands of years because of what cave men prefered.



Low levels (eg. 15 ng/dl) can mean no terminal hairs except te pubic region.



Again: Low levels = less (sometimes even vellus hairs everywhere but the pubic region), high levels = more (sometimes even going as far as the chest).



Apart from the level of curves, breast size, sweat glands, size of facial features, hairline, body hair, skintone, jaw, forehead, shape of cheekbones, size of hands and feet, vocal pitch, facial hair and fat distribution, I guess you're right.



about as normal as a man with high estrogen levels. A woman with a high testosterone levels, will have more narrow hips, a wider waist, more hair growth and a darker voice, to mention a few features.



Levels that fall way below the requirements for thick armpit hair, that is.



I wear a deodorant and wash my armpits. If i let my toe nails grow or my nose hairs grow, I'd do the same to them.

Just wondering if this is the right section for this thread.

If you think so we can leave it here but I was thinking it may fit better on health...

A normal adult female human has body hair; removing all, or most, of that body hair makes her look like an immature human female which is not capable of reproducing at all.

last i checked, i produced facts and he did not. considering that he and i are *both* equally engaged in the debate, it's interesting that you'd decide to pick on me (again..... and again). it's evident that you have issues with me on a personal level, but it isn't really necessary for you to be nasty to me on the forum.

you are actually incorrect about my stance - i've conceded many arguments on the forum. but when the scientific evidence backs me up, i will definitely pursue the debate. i am not always right, and i will say so when it is the case. the fact that you have chosen not to acknowledge it speaks volumes.

good point. i think it would fit over there.

are you planning to produce any factual scientific studies to back this up, or are you making things up again?


no, it doesn't necessarily cause less body hair by default. and high levels of estrogen doesn't necessarily mean lower testosterone.

I've already posted links that show an almost linear correlation between estrogen leels and physical attractiveness. If you want to see it again, Google it.[/quote]
a high estrogen level does not equal low testosterone. so that's not relevant.

many Romans disagreed. upper class men and women both removed it, and the men didn't look any less masculine to their eyes.


by that argument, apparently cave men must have preferred armpit hair and pubic hair on women (and to a lesser degree, leg hair), as it is quite plentiful and pretty much universal. if you argue that our modern bodies are the result of sexual selection, then you can't cherrypick which aspects of our bodies were selected for.

and in terms of physical size, sexual dimorphism is actually decreasing, not increasing.


not necessarily. many people at lower levels will still have a normal amount of body hair.


i already explained that it is not so simple like that. some women with high levels have little to no body hair, and some women with low levels have thicker body hair. it depends on more than a woman's androgens at the time of testing.



uhhhhh what? most of those things are not determined by levels of androgens within the normal range. you can try to fish for some studies that attempt to prove otherwise though.


again, not always. there is a wide range of how women look/sound/etc. it's not a straight causation from androgens.


no, levels that fall below normal.




I wear a deodorant and wash my armpits. If i let my toe nails grow or my nose hairs grow, I'd do the same to them.[/quote]
uhhhh.... women wash their armpits too, so it's no more unsanitary for women to have the hair. i am not sure how else to say this, but your idea that men's armpit hair makes them more masculine, and women's armpit hair makes them less feminine.... well.... it's just your opinion.

So it's wrong for me but right for you? I'd say that speaks volumes, too. You're not the only one intended for that statement, as personally as you took it. There's more than a few folks on here with extreme stances on issues and will badger anyone with an opposing view until they leave the forum.

EDIT: you were responding to Kurgan (you pointed up to his post). so who were you intending to talk about, if not me?

I do not understand how swimmers look less masculine.

Maybe Kurgan likes bears?

http://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/new ... pment.html
http://www.lowtestosteroneinwomen.info/
http://www.naturalnews.com/022900_testo ... women.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/symptoms ... women.html
etc.

Men only removed their pubic hairs. Many Roman soldiers saw Egyptian men as "less of a man" because they had no leg and armpit hair.



If they could choose between a feminine, hairless woman back then or a hairy woman, they'd probably choose the former. Our instincts today are no different than 20,000 years ago.



Physical size isn't everything. Women are getting TALLER, but that's because of the fact that diets are changing.



No.



It depends on the average androgen levels. A woman's androgen levels fluctuate somewhat during the month.



It's a fact. Body hair and facial hair is the human version of the lion's mane or the peacock's tail.

Aaand the hypothetical existence of anomalies equates to your broad assertions about the statistical whole because...?

upper class men removed all of their body hair in ancient rome.... and if egyptian men did as well... that also proves my point. it used to be popular for men in some cultures to shave bare. historically, it appears to have been as common as women shaving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glabrousness
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/hygi ... t-Rome.htm


and again... first of all you have no actual idea. but if we go by the evidence, it supports the fact that women have thick body hair in places, which clearly was not selected AGAINST. and many men today don't have a big issue with body hair. so if we use either measure, you seem to be one of a few men who are particularly bothered about it.

it's ok to have preferences, just don't try to manufacture pretend-science to back you up.


you're demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge about the science behind hormone levels. they don't just vary monthly, but also daily and over a lifetime. now you know.


the first study *only* spoke of puberty, and also *only* spoke of the hormones in balance. a woman with high levels of testosterone can also have high levels of estrogen. as long as they are in balance, her features would be feminine.

interestingly, they also point out this:

in other words, men really CAN'T tell anything about a woman's hormone levels at a glance.

the second study also cites the same information, with identical limitations.

.... the third article cited a study that looked at estrogen but not testosterone.


no, sometimes it could mean that she had more testosterone during puberty (or she has inherited those traits from her parents). but it means absolutely nothing about current levels because.... get this.... a woman's jaw, eyes, and hips don't change to a large degree when her hormones fluctuate. some women deposit slightly more fat on their hips when hormones fluctuate, but it would not be enough to fundamentally alter the shape of her body.


i'd need a source for that.

i left my post embedded again because your response doesn't actually address what i said. you said men can wash their armpit hair, and i have stated that women can as well. your answer has nothing to do with whether armpit hair can only be cleaned on men's bodies.

and if it is like the peacock's tail, then i guess the peahen has one too. because we have the body hair as well. it must therefore be a sexual attractant. if the mere existence of the hair in men means it is an attractant, than the existence in women must mean the same thing.

Last edited by hyperlexian on 21 Aug 2012, 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

because his boner likes something so clearly science!

I wish people felt secure enough to own their own freaking personal preferences without trying to couch them in bs biotruthiness.