One common response you see quite often in the shaving debate is the idea that some women simply enjoy the tactile feeling of being hairless. These are the words that razor commercials are made of- silky, smooth, sleek. It sounds luxurious, to be sure.
And I have to admit that sometimes that definitely is true. While most of my shaving experiences trended towards the "How can I feel stubble half an hour after shaving?!?" variety, there have certainly been days when I broke out a brand-new razor and some sort of moisturizing shaving cream, and exfoliated beforehand, and lotioned the hell out of them afterward, and then got into a bed made with freshly laundered sheets and just rubbed and rubbed and rubbed my legs together, falling helplessly in love with the sensation of frictionless gliding. Those rare nights were a testament to how pleasurable hairlessness could be.
So my question is . . . why are men prohibited from this activity?
I don't think there's anything wrong with women in discussion forums and comments on articles about leg/body hair pointing out that for many of them, the impetus is not society, but the physical preference for the feeling of hairlessness. That's certainly a valid reason. The problem is the way it negates the problems associated with society's mandatory rules on body hair, and presents itself as autonomous false empowerment. "It's not about unrealistic patriarchal standards of beauty," they seem to say. "I just like them smooth, and it makes me feel strong and powerful and sexy. Girl power, yeah!".
And I have no doubt that in a social vacuum where we weren't influenced by society's expectations and reward-and-punishment system and flood of media imagery, this could probably be true. Even with all of that, making a real choice about your body is always positive, always empowering, regardless of whether it conforms to the status quo or rebels against it; the empowerment comes from knowing the choice is ultimately yours.
But when women act as though it's all about the physical feel, they seem blissfully ignorant of the gender divide and how body hair rules serve to strengthen it. Unless you are a runner, cyclist, bodybuilder, or swimmer, as a man, the removal of leg hair is taboo. Men have made strides, for sure (or have been imprisoned by hair expectations just like us?), and nowadays it is okay, or at least understood, to be male and wax/shave your chest, to "manscape" facial hair like eyebrows, and to experiment with grooming one's pubic hair. But leg hair remains an impenetrable zone, and I simply do not believe it is because men are somehow more inherently okay with the sensation of having leg hair.
We are all human beings, and in the same way that both sexes can enjoy the feeling of warmth on our skin, or of getting a massage deep into our aching muscles, so too can we both revel in the wonder that is the unnatural state of hairless skin. It is only society's strictures that keep it from being so; a man who shaves his legs is already seen as feminine, possibly gay. To imagine him sprawled in bed, rubbing his legs together, touching them with his hands, relishing his smoothness, is the ultimate taboo, because our society codes it as "feminine". A man can worship at a woman's shaven/waxed legs for hours without his masculinity ever being questioned; it's okay for him to enjoy the sensation of hairless legs in that context. And that is when it becomes clear the sort of sexism that lurks behind this double standard: he is not supposed to objectify his own body- only hers. (The same holds true for cross-dressers who are socially allowed, or even encouraged, to fetishize lingerie, but only inasmuch as it is an extension of objectifying women, and never a means of exploring his own sensuality).
The idea that women would enjoy feeling hairless but men would not goes right back to the same tired old gender essentialism: men are stoic, women emotional, men are unconcerned with the physical, women obsessed with vanity, men are strong, women vulnerable, men are sexual aggressors, women are sexual objects. Or, in other words: he Tarzan, you Jane.
And this is not to say that all men are secretly yearning to have smooth legs. I'd wager most men have simply never had the thought cross their minds, and that many would feel uncomfortable doing it because of how society makes us view hairless male legs (and "feminine" acts of grooming in general), and some would simply dislike the physical sensation of it and long for the feel of hairy legs rubbing together again. But the point I'm trying to make is that men are never allowed to explore these options in a socially-sanctioned way, just like women are not allowed to explore the options of being hairy-legged.
And when one group of people is allowed to do something and another is not, we call that "privilege". And I'm tired of this privilege being ignored, dismissed, cheapened, and belittled by women who carelessly say "Well, I just like the way it feels."
It's more than that- and we know it.
And I have to admit that sometimes that definitely is true. While most of my shaving experiences trended towards the "How can I feel stubble half an hour after shaving?!?" variety, there have certainly been days when I broke out a brand-new razor and some sort of moisturizing shaving cream, and exfoliated beforehand, and lotioned the hell out of them afterward, and then got into a bed made with freshly laundered sheets and just rubbed and rubbed and rubbed my legs together, falling helplessly in love with the sensation of frictionless gliding. Those rare nights were a testament to how pleasurable hairlessness could be.
So my question is . . . why are men prohibited from this activity?
I don't think there's anything wrong with women in discussion forums and comments on articles about leg/body hair pointing out that for many of them, the impetus is not society, but the physical preference for the feeling of hairlessness. That's certainly a valid reason. The problem is the way it negates the problems associated with society's mandatory rules on body hair, and presents itself as autonomous false empowerment. "It's not about unrealistic patriarchal standards of beauty," they seem to say. "I just like them smooth, and it makes me feel strong and powerful and sexy. Girl power, yeah!".
And I have no doubt that in a social vacuum where we weren't influenced by society's expectations and reward-and-punishment system and flood of media imagery, this could probably be true. Even with all of that, making a real choice about your body is always positive, always empowering, regardless of whether it conforms to the status quo or rebels against it; the empowerment comes from knowing the choice is ultimately yours.
But when women act as though it's all about the physical feel, they seem blissfully ignorant of the gender divide and how body hair rules serve to strengthen it. Unless you are a runner, cyclist, bodybuilder, or swimmer, as a man, the removal of leg hair is taboo. Men have made strides, for sure (or have been imprisoned by hair expectations just like us?), and nowadays it is okay, or at least understood, to be male and wax/shave your chest, to "manscape" facial hair like eyebrows, and to experiment with grooming one's pubic hair. But leg hair remains an impenetrable zone, and I simply do not believe it is because men are somehow more inherently okay with the sensation of having leg hair.
We are all human beings, and in the same way that both sexes can enjoy the feeling of warmth on our skin, or of getting a massage deep into our aching muscles, so too can we both revel in the wonder that is the unnatural state of hairless skin. It is only society's strictures that keep it from being so; a man who shaves his legs is already seen as feminine, possibly gay. To imagine him sprawled in bed, rubbing his legs together, touching them with his hands, relishing his smoothness, is the ultimate taboo, because our society codes it as "feminine". A man can worship at a woman's shaven/waxed legs for hours without his masculinity ever being questioned; it's okay for him to enjoy the sensation of hairless legs in that context. And that is when it becomes clear the sort of sexism that lurks behind this double standard: he is not supposed to objectify his own body- only hers. (The same holds true for cross-dressers who are socially allowed, or even encouraged, to fetishize lingerie, but only inasmuch as it is an extension of objectifying women, and never a means of exploring his own sensuality).
The idea that women would enjoy feeling hairless but men would not goes right back to the same tired old gender essentialism: men are stoic, women emotional, men are unconcerned with the physical, women obsessed with vanity, men are strong, women vulnerable, men are sexual aggressors, women are sexual objects. Or, in other words: he Tarzan, you Jane.
And this is not to say that all men are secretly yearning to have smooth legs. I'd wager most men have simply never had the thought cross their minds, and that many would feel uncomfortable doing it because of how society makes us view hairless male legs (and "feminine" acts of grooming in general), and some would simply dislike the physical sensation of it and long for the feel of hairy legs rubbing together again. But the point I'm trying to make is that men are never allowed to explore these options in a socially-sanctioned way, just like women are not allowed to explore the options of being hairy-legged.
And when one group of people is allowed to do something and another is not, we call that "privilege". And I'm tired of this privilege being ignored, dismissed, cheapened, and belittled by women who carelessly say "Well, I just like the way it feels."
It's more than that- and we know it.
No comments:
Post a Comment