In Which We Ponder The Standards Of Beauty

So, occasionally--or, in this case, frequently--I find myself wondering something. Lucky for you, I have this blog to muse out loud, as it were. (This is secret code, alerting you to you skim quickly and then RUN AWAY!)

Anyway, the whole concept of shaving one's legs has me troubled. On a metaphysical level, on an anthropological level, not just on the level of sheer inconvenience. Although I bet that has a lot to do with it.

Why do women shave their legs? In the larger sense, I mean--why are hairless legs a beauty standard? Its just odd, isn't it--it's not permanently deforming, like foot-binding; it's not crippling and hygenically suspect, like female circumcision (and isn't THAT a euphamism). It doesn't add definition or visual emphasis, like tattoos or cosmetics; it doesn't demonstrate economic status, like giant necklaces and earrings. Its very essence isn't to create prominence to some feature--it's a subtraction rather than an addition.

Which may be the point. Humans who reach sexual maturity develop a number of secondary sex characteristics. Some we label desireable--female curves, male muscle development, the like. Others are undesireable--acne comes to mind. But body hair is uniquely undesireable for women. And, by subtracting the dark hairs, leg depilation subtracts years. Meaning that women--who spend a lot of time and effort to look young, and I'm one of them (okay, maybe not so much effort, but you know)--are spending the effort to look pre-pubescent.

And this kind of squicks me out. And it's made even worse by the whole bikini and Brazilian wax thing too. In this case, women's beauty is about looking TOO young to be an acceptable sexual partner. What does this say about our cultural acceptance of desirable sexual partners? And is it in some way enabling of soemthing we would never support outright?

Mark Foley is going down in flames because he made questionable propositions to underage pages on Capitol Hill. Sexual predators are barred from schools and parks and forced to notify the public of any change of residence. And yet. At the same time. We obsess endlessly about eating disorders and underfed runway models and "heroin chic" without taking the next logical step and realizing that there is a deep undertow of psychosis about sexual maturity in women.

Models are thin because why? Because then they look like barely pubescent girls? Or like barely pubescent boys? (I have heard a theory that runway models are thin because the standard was set by designers who are gay and don't want to look at women's bodies.)

Kate Moss's life is in ruins because why? Because she was launched to supermodel status by her rail thin "heroin chic" look, but then she grew up and got curves and nobody wanted her to be curvy, so she is a heroin addict now because she's trying to stay as thin as she was in her (very) early teens.

Women shave their legs and underarms because why?

Anorexia and bulimia are distorted attempts to achieve an "ideal" of thinness--why?

Breast implants are popular--and now LOTS of celebrities look like ironing boards with bowling balls stapled to their fronts--and that thinness is important why?

It doesn't mean I'm opting for the crunchy granola, liberal lesbian, all natural look any time soon. It does mean that I'm thinking about why I'm shaving while I'm doing it--or, in my case--often--not doing it.

Come on, if God had meant women to shave their legs, She wouldn't have invented dark hose. And opaque socks.