If Abraham Lincoln regrettibly said:
and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white raceI need not end my life for feeling/thinking and sharing with you that I tend to prefer being the superior to other men around me. I like to win foot races (rare, but it's happened) I like to be the tallest man in the room (extremely rare, has only happened in small rooms in south east asia and Japan), I like to be the most physically attractive man present (thanks to some ugly tall people, has happened occassionally).
So I had full and thick underarm hair by Grade 5. I enjoyed a brief period of ridicule on my basketball team for having it. But things quickly changed by the time we hit the under 16's teams where not having under arm hair drove many players of the game to wear a shirt under their singlet to conceal their shame.
Growing up, I enjoyed a position of superiority in the patriarchy of male social order, on account of being fucking hairy. I had chest hair, leg hair, under arm hair, facial hair, sideburns. Thus I was always welcome amongst the manly men, and together we could ridicule the 'skinboxes'.
Less so than the lowly 'skinboxes' were the guys we used to refer to as 'prettyboys' I'm sure it's a sexist term offensive to both men and women, assigning an innate assumption of wretchedness to qualities of feminine beauty, but there was an acknowledgement either tacit or outright, that these guys could get the girls, precisely because they were more effeminate than other guys.
The thing was, that while you may not have gotten the outright fawning there was for prettyboys, there was no strong compulsion to imitate their looks artificially in order to attract girls. Being masculine, in some kind of soviet sense was a viable strategy of attraction.
I would hold it to be generally true, that a man's standing with other men can affect his perception of attractiveness to women. I'm limiting this topic to heteronormative sexual politics, simply because I lack the experience, and indeed motivation to actualy explore the broader spectrum.
I basically contend, that leadership is attractive (in men).
That a fat man, a bald man, a man with a hairy back can get laid more easily than women of equivalent descriptions is one of the persistent gender inequalities that... ah... persists.
And I enjoyed such advantage.
Now, I think the marketing strategy of making women feel unattractive, and that their happiness requires a remedy of this, and then selling them some product to get them back to the previously experienced feeling of attractiveness, is not new, or even unbrazen in marketing and advertising.
It's probably true, that women need to die their hair from grey, just to be considered employable in most professions.
Turning these viscious tactics on men is relatively new. And men are conceding the ground I think. But I don't know. In fact I don't know much, I don't rigorously test any of my theories, I just use them to entertain me.
But I suspect, that it is more likely now, that a man the age I was when I was laughing it up at the skinboxes' expense, would feel considerably more pressure to be less like the jocular and straight Freddy Mercury I revelled in in the change rooms and more like Ryan Gosling, or the skinbox I previously ridiculed.
Does present adolescent me get his chest waxed? or shave it? or some shit? Does present adolescent me equivalent wear a shirt to play basketball? Or worse, play soccer because the uniform has sleeves?
I don't know. I don't particularly seek the company of recently pubescent males.
What I will say is this. Attraction is worth getting your head around. Physical is important. In my life I have had suitors that would have made good partners to me if not for the fact that I had no physical attraction to them. I am sure the reverse is true of me.
But my observations of my own physical attraction to women is that there is a lot of room to move. Asking me, for example what my prefernce for a woman's pubic hair grooming is, is a misleading question. When looking at pornography on the internet, these superficialities matter, because in masturbatory aids I need efficiency, to utilise as little of my imagination as possible in holding that image. I can supplant any personalities I want and have any interaction with a female form I like knowing that every aspect is under control of my imagination, and that the female form I utilise for arousal in that instance is instantly disposable.
If we are talking about sex with a woman, rather than sex with myself while trying to forget my actual circumstances though. Here's the thing, and I wished when asked I had the confidence to answer so honestly.
My preference, overwhelmingly in my case is for vagina, and specifically the vagina that belongs to somebody I actually want to have sex with. Thus in most circumstances I imagine myself coming across the pubic bone, it's fleshy covering and then discovering how much or how little hair it is garnished with (or wether it has been vagazzled) is of so little consequence, it doesn't even pose a risk of rejection to anyone that might value my opinion on the subject.
In a long term relationship promising multiple iterations of the sexual act and variations upon what is done by whom to what, I feel there is then the appropriate time to share preferences, and even then, whatever preferences I give or recieve, for me it is but an expressed preference, not a command, or ultimatum or even request. Even if I did have some enthusiasticly overconfident lapse where it was posed as such, I would hold little sway because my preference for who's vajajay would generally give the other party monopoly power.
I don't expect reciprocity either, nor believe any relationship enjoys equal power, equal control between parties. I guess I would assume reciprocal respect, as in if somebody told me they really wanted a peircing in my penis, they would respect my desire not to fulfil that preference.
Just as I don't know whether hairy young men like I was now fork out for back waxes at Salons, I don't really know how prevalent my attitude is amongst the general populace. I'm aware that many people are averse to strong attachments, get bored quickly of any particular sexual partner and that that's a perfectly valid approach to sex, I imagine for such people anticipating a very finite union their preference for hairless may in fact exceed their preference for penis, and even their preference for whom the genitals are attached to.
I'd be more curious to know, whether people who like me, attempt to enter lasting relationships, may indeed find the preference for hairless, hairy or any particular grooming or accessories a sufficiently important one to be a dealbreaker.