women, testosterone and femininity

Post Reply New Topic

Egyptians believed that it caused armpit smell. As far as the Romans: Ovid encouraged men to shave all their body hairs, but it was far from the norm. You're also missing the fact that Egypt has an intense heat.



The fact that men have far more body hair than women and that body hair in men is far more dense, suggests that it was selected against.



I've already given you several links that back me up. You're free to do what you want with your body, just don't nag abput the women who do shave their armpits and call them victims of double standards, like 'some' in this thread do. Many women actually wants to look as feminine as possible.



I never said it didn't. A woman with plenty of testosterone at 18 will still have plenty of testosterone at 35 as well.



allthough the correlation between testosterone and estrogen is not linear, the two hormones compete against each other in the body. Thus, women with both levels are not "common". Women with high doses of both hormones, wilø have both masculine and feminine features.




First, the article takes a look at faces and second, make-up can make women LOOK more feminine, just like hair removal can. Lastly, without any make-up to cover up unflattering features, the women with high esteogen levels were exclusively rated as the most attractive.

If a woman is wearing make-up, the level of curves, size of sweat glands, size of hands etc. are a dead giveaway.



A woman who has lots of testosterone in her teens also has lots of testosterone pretty much until menopause. If a woman ingerits a masculine appearance from her mother, her mother probably had lots of testosterone as well.



It's fairly easy to Google. Many Asian women (who have less testosterone tham other women because of their diet) only have vellus hairs in their armpits.



Yes, a woman can have clean and hairy armpits at the same time, but it's still gonna look dirty.



Breasts are an attractant to men. Does that mean that gyno in men is an attractant to women? No. The mere fact that men are far, far more hairy than women (even when the woman does not shave), prooves that it's a masculine feature.

By the way, a lioness does not have a mane and a peahen Does not have a flashy, colorful tail.

the reasons don't matter if women still found it equally attractive (the fact that there are cultural differences undermines your natural selection argument.

and that same heat exists today, so it's not caused by climate.


no, because the hair is still just as dense and thick in certain areas. using your same argument, men selected for women who had less hair on the back, upper thighs, chest, rear end, upper arms, and stomach. so those areas must be considered more attractive when less hairy if you truly think that women evolved to have less hair because of natural selection. or men selected for women who still have thick hair in the other areas.

you are also neglecting the fact that men are evolving to have less hair too. they have significantly less hair than they are believed to have had in the prehistoric period.


no, you gave links that showed that women who have higher testosterone during puberty in relation to estrogen may have higher incidences of certain types of features.

you gave links that showed women with higher levels of estrogen may be considered more attractive at times.

you gave links to show that women with certain diseases may suffer from hirsutism.

you gave links that showed that men cannot tell women's hormone levels when they wear makeup.

you have yet to provide a single link that proves your actual assertions: that women with high-normal levels of testosterone always have excess hair, and that women with lower levels of testosterone always have less hair.

the fact is, if you want to pretend all of this is important to natural selection, then women who look more masculine to your eyes would not be having as much sex and would be slowly removed from the gene pool. but they are not. so if we pretend that natural selection has that much effect, then some men are either selecting for women who have masculine features (by your definition) or they don't care. the proof is in the pudding, and yours collapsed.


it doesn't linger about the body like an unwanted guest. the body either continues to produce it at the same levels or it does not. but the continuation of the levels of testosterone doesn't prevent a woman's actual bone structure from becoming more feminine to your eyes. it is the testosterone at puberty that affects it.


no, they don't "compete" with each other, they work together in various levels at various times. again, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding about how the hormone levels actually work in a human being.

and the last statement makes no sense whatsoever. each hormone doesn't pick and choose which feature to focus on, leaving the other hormone to focus on another one.



again, high estrogen can occur with high testosterone., they didn't check the women's levels of androgens. the study does not apply to your claims.

and you're speaking in opinions again, by calling women's features "unflattering" or saying what makes them "more feminine". i've seen your example of a "feminine" athlete, and by your very own criteria... she isn't. so firstly your opinions are not universal, and secondly you can't even consistently apply your own criteria.


the level of curves have absolutely nothing to do with the current levels of testosterone.


no, not necessarily. you're making things up. in fact, the levels of testosterone vary widely over a woman's life. and a woman can inherit any feature without any necessity of her mother having high levels of testosterone.


that is not proof of your claim, because you do not know if they have adequate levels of testosterone. this was what you said:

you are also confounding hereditary characteristics with androgen levels.


then men's armpits look dirty too (except it is a ridiculous claim to start with). glad we have that settled.


no, it proves that men have a different hormonal mix than women. the levels of men's body hair is also decreasing over time, so if you think that more body hair makes men more masculine, then women must be selecting for less masculine men.


and we are not peahens or lions, nor do we have similar mating strategies. now you know.

EDIT: by the way, you actually have no idea what i do with my body hair or why. this is a good example of the fact that i can understand scientific and sociocultural concepts and can keep them distinct from my own personal preferences. i can see that my opinions are only my opinions, and not related to facts. this is the concept we are trying to help you to understand as well. this isn't personal for me, as i couldn't give a crap whether people shave or not, or what they find attractive on their partner in terms of body hair. but it ain't scientific.

Last edited by hyperlexian on 21 Aug 2012, 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who said women found it equally attractive?



Air condition didn't exist in Ancient Egypt.



Nope.



It's more noticable in said places, yes.



It's remained pretty much steady for the last thousands of years. Before humans left the jungles Africa, hair was important as camouflage as well. When humans left the jungle, the hairs merely served as ornamentation. This is also because of natural selection.



A woman who has a lot of testosterone at 16, still does at 35.



More attractive all the time.



Women with high androgen levels, that is.



...By looking at their faces, that is. You can tell from their waist-to-hip ratio, though. Furthermore, this test showed that you can indeed tell who's more feminine when nobody is wearing make-up. Just like women make themselves LOOK more feminine by wearing makeup, they can do the same by hair removal. Even though it's artificial.



I have already proven it.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/24310 ... -in-women/

http://www.shapefit.com/andropause-facts.html





Beggars can't be choosy. But if there was a significant gender imbalance (with fertile women outnumbering fertile men by far), masculine looking women would be removed from the gene pool. I think there's a reason for why Ask Men's Top 99 consists of very feminine women.



Are you actually going to counter my arguments with scientific data, or are you going to throw ad hominem arguments at me?

The media didn't just wake up one day and say: "Hmmm... Let's make life a b!tch for women and make men care about physical features that are related to estrogen levels; that'll show 'em!".



I never claimed otherwise. There's a very large correlation between testosterone in your teens and testosterone until menopause unless you get hormonal treatment, though.



Do you know how hormones work?

Estrogens and testosterone are very similar in chemistry, and hence, cells have a hard time telling the difference. This is why estrogen rich foods (eg. soy) can stall testosterone production in men and why anabolic steroids supress estrogen production in women.



I never said it did. Read my post again.



Yes, they CAN, but this is not common.



If you're talking about Allison Stokke, she has an hourglass figure, large eyes, soft facial features, small sweat glands, a feminine hairline and all that.



Testosterone will supress her estrogen production.



She can inherit a masculinized or feminized version of the trait.



There's very little difference in androgen sensitivity in the armpits or the pubic region. On the other hand, the reason why men don't mind well groomed pubic hair, is because it can be grown with less than healthy androgen levels.



I'd rather look slightly more dirty than slightly less masculine.



Men's testosterone levels are also decreasing.



We're still apes and mammals, with many of our instincts intact. If reproduction was to be left entirely to conscious choices and not to instincts, we'd f*ck it up like we did with the environment.



You said you didn't remove your armpit hair.



Everything regarding sexual selection is scientific one way or the other.

no, i didn't remove my armpit hair for a few years when i was a teenager and young adult, and also stopped off and on over the years. last week they may have been unshaven, but today they are bare. you cannot assume anything about me based on my scientific arguments.

my personal experience indicates that my presence or lack of body hair has had no impact on my dating prospects. in fact, i produced a child with my former husband when my body was unshaven, so in the ultimate sense i wasn't selected against for having body hair. it appears that to many men.... hair is just hair (or perhaps to some, it even feels more natural or more normal for a woman to have body hair). i considered my body hair to act as a sort of filter, removing the men who would not be suitable to date or have sex with me.

you're arguing evolution without the underlying knowledge for how it may work. you're also arguing endocrinology without any knowledge of how the interplay of hormones are believed to work in each individual and across a lifetime. since you have also demonstrated an unwillingness to learn what the scientists actually know and the limitations of the research behind the theories, i don't see a point in continuing the debate. so if you respond again i won't reply to you in this thread.

(EDIT: in the article you quoted above, the authors listed potential symptoms of excess testosterone, not proof that all women with higher normal levels will have those attributes. in fact, they advise the women to seek medical treatment because those are signs of ABnormal levels. and i have no idea why you're posting about andropause).

Last edited by hyperlexian on 21 Aug 2012, 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

moved from Love & Dating to Health, Fitness, and Sports on spongy's recommendation

I think guys look hot with their pubes cut really short. Even shaved.

My husband is very hairy, and he had to shave to get his vasectomy. I thought it looked great.

But, I like him hairy like he is too.

Well, I was avoiding getting into this discussion as it seemed....stupid, on both sides, but yeah. Anyway, what I can add is, anabolic steroids are actually MUCH more effective in women, as women have lower levels of testosterone generally. I forgot the exact mg/dl numbers, but here's some pics of the East German female athletes with high androgen levels (not naturally high, artificial, but the point remains) and you can decide whether testosterone makes a woman more "manly" or not.

She was a shotputter, she had so much steroids (again, artificial androgens) that she ended up turning into a man, basically, here's an "inbetween" picture of her.



That's Tammy Thomas, US track cyclist, found guilty of perjury regarding steroid use in court.
Picture of her before and after steroid use.


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/C ... 290065.php Supposedly a drug tester came to her unannounced and she was shaving her face.


Now, as far as androgen levels go, again, don't have exact numbers on hand, but most female athletes using steroids basically never go as high as a man would. Because smaller doses are very effective, as their androgen levels are naturally, dun dun dun, lower than men. So as far as my understanding goes, let's see, maybe I can get some actual numbers... OK good, have some numbers now...





So, after seeing what females with artificially high testosterone look like, we've concluded that they are indeed "manlier" looking than their non artificially high testosterone leveled counterparts. And we've also concluded that men should have more than 10 times the amount of testosterone as women.

So whether you want "Lady looks like a dude" or not is your call, but just wanna get some facts here. It seems like you're all just arguing for the sake of arguing. Basically if you're saying androgen levels have no effect on masculinity of femininity, you're being plain dumb. That said, I don't care to participate in the conversation about shaving armpit and leg hair and what have you, and think more than likely, a woman will look fine as long as her testosterone levels are in the normal range.

Last edited by 1000Knives on 21 Aug 2012, 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1000Knives, those artificially high androgen levels from female use of steroids or far far above the healthy levels you listed, so it has absolutely no connection to women's normal ranges of hormones and how they will appear within that range. nobody has argued that abnormally high levels don't have an impact. obviously an imbalance in the hormones or a huge dosage is going to have an effect. but that does not relate to a normal woman's physical appearance.

here is a good article:

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/june/olympics.html

i should also add this little tidbit:


http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... fair_.html

there just isn't a sharp delineation between men's and women's testosterone ranges. i think you'd be hard-pressed to say that a male Olympic athlete looks "feminine".

The second link is talking about athletes that more or less have genetic abnormality from birth. And again, it is 5% of each sex, there's still 95% where hormone levels are a meaningful measure of sex. Now, I do not agree with the policy of those testers (I think it should just be chromosomes determining your sex) but the point remains is that for 95% of people, the hormone levels have a relation to sexuality. Now relating to what Kurgan is saying, Kurgan is sorta going off into "Well in Rome people shaved their armpits" doesn't matter a bit really, but what he is saying is, just as how it's believed Aspergers is a form of autism, albeit milder, it'd be the same way with hormones, anyone with higher levels of hormones will generally fit into certain preconceived ideas, just as people with Aspergers generally fit into preconceived ideas discovered over time. As the saying goes, "If the shoe fits..." I don't see how this is a really revolutionary shocking idea being presented. Yes, there's outliers, as you've shown, but 95% is 95%.

what you don't see is that we are actually agreeing - within the normal ranges, people will seem normal. it's the abnormal areas that can lead to abnormal physique. within that normal range, there is quite a lot of variation, but none of it will lead to a woman looking exactly like a man (or vice versa).

the only women who naturally, normally lack body hair are either pre-pubertal or post-menopausal - ie, not fertile. Claiming that an attraction to lack of body hair has anything to do with innate perceptions of fertility is ignorant at best.

I've never had that much body hair at all. Rarely have to shave my legs and when I do its only in about two spots. They have always been like that.

armpits?
And did it change from what you were like before puberty?

Coming into this thread, I get the impression that women who are less feminine and/or more hairy are not supposed to be attractive or beautiful in any way shape or form. Which I have a problem with. Since I am that way.

Obviously, and very thankfully, I don't have enough hair to be diagnosed hirsutism. With that said, it is "unfortunate" that I am pretty hairy for a female. The only thing mildly disguising such is that I am naturally blonde. I will get out my hair removal products later and get rid of my mustache yet again though (since that's not as accepted as less hairy female faces). I also epilate various parts of my body including my big toes because they're hairier than I like them to be. Are you happy now?

I know I don't look terribly feminine, doesn't really matter to me when it comes to my small breasts, or when it comes to my facial features, and that's ok. My eyes are so small that I have to finaggle an eyelash curler in a funny way to curl my lashes because nearly every one of those made are too big and wide for my eyes. When I laugh, my high cheeks squish into little eyes and cover them up. I have a pretty low heavier eyebrow ridge (which makes makeup interesting to put on considering the way my eyelids hang)and pretty angular square jawline, and a crazy nose to match.

I'm pretty much assumed to be female though because I have some curves in my hips/butt/thighs though, and I'm pretty petite in size too. Thankfully though I also don't look as extreme as those weird steroid creatures too.

Did I have more testosterone in my teenage years? Maybe. My voice even cracked and lowered too in my early teens. I hated the color pink (still somewhat do) and I cut my hair short for a number of years. My hormones have fluctuated some since then too, and I'm sure some of that had to do with getting well from my eating disorder (anorexia tends to keep down estrogen levels), and the hormonal contraceptives that I've been on in my 20's. Ask me in 10 years I'm sure it'll be different then, and will definitely be different when I hit menopause.

I also find it funny that this is spewing into a giant argument considering another recent thread in a sub-forum here where we were discussing how a lot of us view ourselves to be more androgynous when it comes to gender. I know I certainly do.

In relation to hormone levels, I don't think it's as cut and dry and exclusive as some of you are making it out to be. If anything, we start out in the womb the same and it's said that when both genders get older we "turn into each other", testosterone in men drops, and women tend to gain a lot of things, like hair and a stronger sex drive, meaning, theirs goes up. Everyone's going to be different. you'll have some that are "normal" and others that are not. There's a lot of variance and variety. And especially on the spectrum, we're pretty extreme in variances and variety with a lot of things in a lot of different categories.

I don't know about some people, but I like my sex hormones, as wonky as they might be. It's been said that a man who does not like a "masculine" woman is intimidated by one because he cannot handle her (exact words also replicated by my male aspie friend, whose wife is a "masculine" woman, every implication he gave me was that the sex was very hot-- he was also laughing at the fact that his psychotic insecure controlling ex-friend was also very petrified of her too).

With saying what is desirable vs. what isn't, I think you are conflicting yourself Kurgan. You say that women low in testosterone and/or androgen are more desirable, however, men generally do want a women who has a bigger sex drive. And who has a bigger sex drive? Women who run heavier on those hormones. & Why do you think the "bearded women" sex jokes exist (at least they certainly do here in america)? With that said, there are some more hairless varieties of human such as Asians and Native Americans, but generally people have hair. Also, I don't know wtf a "vellus" hair is, nor do I care, as it obviously doesn't apply to me.

I also think that you're making generalizations upon what is the norm in Europe, not remembering that there are a lot of us that doesn't apply to, beings how we do not live in Norway, in Europe, but live in another country, on another continent, in another culture.

I also don't really care how long it takes for someone to shave their chest. Shaving a flat area such as a chest really is not comparable to a woman shaving their body, which consists of a lot of delicate folds (bikini area), and bumps and curves (such as knees when it comes to leg shaving).

I do my underarms every time I shower. I would shave my bikini and legs more often than once a week (like I do in the summer) if it was less irritating and less cumbersome. I do like the way clean-shaven bikini area feels though. I don't like to be hairy there because it's more of a sexual preference of liking the way it feels. And it upsets my sensory issues less as a result. In the winter I don't give two craps about hair removal though other than armpit hair and facial hair though. After all, I don't want clean shaven legs and bikini, wear thinner pants then sit on a cold metal or concrete bench when it's 20°F outside, because yowza! that's cold. At best in winter I give myself a trim to keep it tidy but it doesn't take long to grow back to crazy. My boyfriend doesn't really mind either way though.

As for hair removal, I don't really care whether or not someone says that it's a modern idea or not. You were not there a billion years ago dwelling with cave men, polling them to see what they found attractive then, nor is it relevant to go back centuries or millennia, because the only thing that matters is now.

As far as the gene pool goes, I doubt "less feminine" women are being removed from the gene pool. Just ask their sex drive. Personally I would see the opposite happening: a person with a sh*tty sex drive (aka low hormone levels) is not going to be compelled to have sex, which leads to less reproduction in the end. And who knows, it might off-set, if men are "less attracted" to those with higher hormones like one of you claims (might explain why I get hit on by lesbians despite me being straight). But what do I know. I have a boyfriend, and I've already reproduced once in my life.

p.s. I don't give two rats what Ask Men 99! thinks is hot. More than likely the sampling of men is relatively vain, as I don't foresee married or partnered men caring that much about stuff like that, as they already have someone to satisfy them who is not comprised of plastic or extreme standards alike that are not applicable to the ordinary human.

They're free to do their best to look more feminine if they want to.



I don't know you in person; why should your physical features affect my mood in any way?



To look like those "steroid creatures", you'd have to actually take steroids.



Color preference has nothing to do with hormone levels.



Testosterone production also declines after menopause.



I'm not intimidated by masculine women. I just don't want to date one because I don't find masculine features physically attractive.



There's more to sex drive than testosterone.



Less if their testosterone levels are low; more if they're high.



Hairs that haven't turned terminal.



American and Norwegian men seemingly like the same features.



Areas with less dense hairs, that cut easier.



Far from every woman got to reproduce in the stone age (or any other age with a shortage of man)--regardless of how high their sex drive was.



Good for you.



If they weren't attracted to the woman, they (with a few exceptions) wouldn't have married her in the first place.



Extreme standards? They happen to be gifted with a high estrogen level, yes, but they're not plastic fantastic women like Pamela Anderson, nor do they use gyms religiously.

How are male swimmers less masculine? (Still hasn't been answered)