Forever pissed off because if I were a man I’d be described as “stoic,” rather than “weird girl who makes me uncomfortable because she never smiles (women are supposed to smile 24/7!) or talks.”
Self-Made Man: My Year Disguised as a Man is a 2006 book written by journalist Norah Vincent, recounting an 18-month experiment in which she disguised herself as a man—"Ned"—and then integrated into traditionally male-only venues, such as a bowling league, a monastery, and a men’s support group. She also described her experiences as a man in the workplace, in strip clubs, and on dates with women.
In order to effectively pose as a male, Vincent acquired a buzz cut and flattened her chest using a sports bra. She also hired a makeup artist to fake a five o'clock shadow and trained for months to imitate a deeper male voice.
Near the end of the experiment, Norah Vincent had a mental breakdown, and had to check herself into an institution for depression.
Men are so “privileged,” that they have less of a chance to win custody of children after a divorce, along with having higher suicide rates, homeless rates, and die at work rates. Yeah…. soooo “privileged”
goody, now let’s do sexual assault, sex trafficking, spousal abuse, and some other handy pink and blue circles
you fucking moron
1- combat deaths exclude women because women in most countries are not allowed to be in combat. therefore most women who die during war are counted as civilian deaths. Women are also more likely to die after a conflict is officially over than during the conflict itself. Please also note that combat deaths comprise 2-29% of total deaths related to wartime (see table 2). Therefore, 71-98% of all wartime deaths happen after the conflict is officially over, typically caused by things like infectious diseases and traffic accidents due to the damage to infrastructure that inevitably follows a war. These deaths are primarily seen in women and children. From the same reference as above:
Effect of Armed Conflict on Life Expectancy - Plümper and Neumayer 2006 In this study, armed conflict was demonstrated to have a statistically significant and adverse effect on women as measured by the decline in the ratio of female to male life expectancy (Plümper and Neumayer 2006). Normally women live longer than men in almost all societies, so a decrease in the gender gap is interpreted as suggesting that the direct and indirect consequences of conflict combined either kill more women or that the killed women are younger on average than the men killed. The authors therefore concluded that wars negatively affected women more than men when taking into account the entire conflict cycle.
So the takeaway is that yes, more men than women die in combat, but this is because in the vast majority of combat zones, even in recent history, women were specifically barred from being considered active combat, making them more likely to be counted among civilian casualties than military casualties. (Civilian casualties comprise approximately 90% of all war time deaths.)
Therefore the graph should look more like this (assuming the highest ratio of military:civilian ratio and extrapolating it onto every single conflict ever AND accepting the numbers given above as accurate):
(please note that the gray above would be mostly female in most conflicts)
3- Child abusers are numerically more likely to be female, but when you consider that 90% of the time, child caregivers are female and only 10% of the time child caregivers are male, the likelihood of an individual female or male to abuse children is tipped in the favor of men: see here for a breakdown of the probabilities. It is p=0.77 for men and p=0.23 for women, making men nearly four times as likely to abuse children they have access to than women. Here is the graph:
Women and families are also the fastest growing segment of the homeless population.
6- Suicides. Women attempt suicide more often than men and have higher rates of mental illness. Suicide by definition is self-inflicted harm. To blame women for the actions of men (as many of these graphs actually do) is dishonest.
7- College graduates: Until the mid-20th century most higher education was barred to women. The fact that men earned more college degrees was framed as a justification for how much more intelligent men were than women. Now, of course, that women have more of a chance to earn the same degrees, it is being painted as female privilege. Interesting how it wasn’t male privilege that keeps faculty overwhelmingly white and male. In fact let’s take a look at that:
Bonus: breakdown of faculty by race from the same source
The Alaskan Native and Native American representation in higher learning is so low that it rounds to zero percent. In all my years of lab work, research, symposia, and interviews, I have only met onephd holder in my life who was a Native American.
To get back to the matter at hand, however, it’s interesting how those privileged women are still primarily learning from male faculty. Also interesting is to see how many professors have successfully climbed the tenure track to reach full professor (It is in the link above; I am simply showing the breakdown of all collegiate instructors.)
8- Work place deaths. The professions with the highest workplace death incidence are also the professions where women are either officially or unofficially barred from entry. Logging, working on the oil fields, even being a female truck driver can leave women vulnerable to attack at truck stops from other truck drivers or stopping motorists. However, I will concede that more men die in the workplace than women, so long as those workplaces are legal and aboveboard.
Women still make up the vast majority of trafficking victims,sweatshop workers, and prostitutes in the world. All of those professions, were they cataloged, would certainly rival some of the deadliest US professions.
Bonus, for TS: Forcible rape is perpetrated by men 99.1% of the time and by women 0.9% of the time.
So,nerds with shit in their pants are crying about this… and while the main source of their paint seems to be Natalie Portman’s gunshow… it’s also great to see that her Thor costume is essentially the same as Chris’s… just with a little less detailing on the pectorials.
What makes people claiming “this can’t be possible, it must be CGI!” extra wholesome and hilarious is that Natlie already talked about getting swole for the role, and how she actually enjoyed it because she’d never gotten to do that kind of heavy lifting workout before, back in mid last month and had been observed being beefy in public.
We’ve featured Ayumi of X-Blade before… but I wanted to compare the protagonist to a recent hero of the video gameworld.
“Let Me Solo Her” is a highly skilled player who volunteers to carry players with one of the hardest boss fights in Elden Ring (The latest game from FromSoft, creators of Dark SoulsandBloodborne) through the summon system.
“Sometimes the lag between the host and myself is too much so I get killed instantly sometimes, or miss the crucial dodge timing on Malenia’s waterfowl dance,” he says. “I would like to express my apology to those I have failed.”
But, why what is most compelling to me is his explanation for the signature attire he wears while doing this amazing service:
“It is a running tradition of Soulsborne games that the naked players are the most powerful beings in the game,” he replies. “Why wear armor if you don’t plan on getting hit at all?”
This is pretty much the explanation we’ve heard many, many times before: that various female protagonists who wear outfits like that of Ayumi - because it actually aims for the stated goals (as well as the general benefits in video games such as increased stamina regeneration).
It’s also only vaguely viable because this is a game built around death being a low stakes event, and thus making the consequence of such a flex where the maximum risk is mild embarrassment and disappointment in yourself.
The notion of it being a wise idea within a fiction where the consequences are death or life changing injury… because you’re sure you’re badass
Also like… dude has definitely got way better head protection that we see on the usual bikini badass fighting fucktoy - which is part of why he’s featured here despite being truly an empowered man.
Mara from Call of Duty (Death Dealer and other skins)
Preliminary point: Fuck Blizzard-Activision Being bought out by Microsoft does not absolve the executives who created the nightmarish work environments and abusive culture and does not magically undo the harm that’s been wrought. There’s a lot of work ahead before that.
Main point: Mara has kind of a unique background in that despite having guns to hold her guns, the body model for her is cosplayer Alex Zedra, who looks more like a conventional model/alt-girl than a killing machine.
While there is definitely a trend for the female characters in Call of Duty to get sexed up skins, Mara seems to primarily exist to facilitate that and her more practical skins being there to incentivize people to pay for a battle pass in order to unlock the look they really want.
The only real upside to this was the brief moment on Alex’s stream where someone using one of the skins went to rescue her and captured this perfect streaming moment:
Looking at the trailer and promotional material for this video game you would be forgiven for thinking it was some sort of ultra-violent dating reality show where competitors are eliminated through rounds of live ammunition laser/bullet tag.
Collectively the Escher gang tick off a lot of bingo boxes, and so much screen time you would think the game was supposed to be entirely about them and not the *checks notes* the six core gangs, five or six other factions, and four extra gangs invented for the sequel tabletop game “Necromunda: Underhive”.
This is probably in part because the base game only has three playable gangs, and clearly they chose Escher for the sex appeal angle, and Goliaths for the weird hypermasculinity… but they really… really lean into one of those:
How’s that working out for them…
I can’t help but think that perhaps the fashion bras, skin-tight pants are not really conveying the Escher gang as a people of amazons from a sub-society where their men are generally physically feeble and unable to defend their territory. Maybe it’s several decades overdue for a reinvention. Possibly at a conceptual level that forgoes the assumption of patriarchy being the default.
Shadowhunter - Assassin Shadowhunters prefer to beat the demons at their own game—they can shapeshift into powerful demonic forms to unleash chaotic power. When their inner demon is unleashed, shadowhunters get access to incredibly destructive powers and increased health and movement speed.
So Lost Ark is currently (and rightfully) undergoing some hilarious criticism, by developers in other studios and streamers alike, for its absurd female walk cycle.
Unsurprisingly, a quick review of the promo videos showed that the dark and terrifying Shadowhunter promo was somehow about a woman who wears a really weird pseudo-lingerie catsuit in which her boobs must be superglued to stay place with that cleavage. Her only “armor” being her giant, decorative pauldrons.
On top of that, despite the dark tone of the rest of the art style, the trailer is so horny that it makes her pose to show off her tiddy when dodging an attack.
Look if “step on me goth mommy” is your thing, I’m not here to judge you - I am here to ask why its in this video that’s supposedly about hunting monsters in a fantasy MMORPG that is, like most, primarily about combat.
Also if you insist on doing this, I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of market demand for a goth dom daddy also in high heels. Just saying.
Who is QUEEN GOBLIN?! For almost sixty years, Spider-Man has been defined by Goblins, and Ben Reilly has a brand-new one all his own.
This outfit seems to be entirely too much of someone’s personal fetishes (including tease and denial with this bingo). Conceptually she looks like someone had the brilliant idea of “what if a HobgoblinandDemogoblin retired together, raised a daughter and she was super horny on main?” ¹
Except of course, since Spider-man is generally a super “wholesome” comic she probably won’t even get to be horny… (damn that tease and denial thing seems to be a theme here). It is apparently set for a whole lotta panty flashing and definitely-not-tribbing-with-Black-Cat though.
What’s really bizarre about that the mostly unrelated Goblin Queen’s outfit was briefly fixed in 2014. Again, this is why you cannot trust corporations not to backslide the moment they think they have enough feminist cookies.
- wincenworks
¹ Before anyone rushes in to tell me about how that particularly weird that would be given Demogoblin’s origin story involving (a) Hobgoblin - let me assure you that I know, and it’s 2022, we’ve all read weirder stuff on AO3.
² If you’re not sure what this refers to and the word “scissors” doesn’t clarify, I need you to be aware that it is a sex act and the Wikipedia entry has a very NSFW illustration right at the top of it: Link here
BURNING LOVE! Red Sonja’s temporarily developed fire powers… which is handy, since she’s in a land where warlords possess deadly ice powers. Sonja finds herself amidst a lovers quarrel, in which someone exchanged their heart and soul (quite literally) for overwhelming power. Can Sonja defeat a greedy cherub ogre and restore peace to the freezing lands?
Can you imagine a comic company, even one as shitty as Dynamite Entertainment, ever putting out a Conan Valentine’s special where they him on a cover like this, and inexplicably give him magic powers for a story like this!?
The next time someone claims this, please, invite them to find the comic where Conan has this kind of this happen.
Because this ain’t the first time it’s happen to Sonja, and believe it or not… last year’s was actually worse:
Red Sonja Valentines Special (2021)
Red Sonja’s Hyrkanian habitat is turned upside down as her greatest enemy becomes… her greatest admirer?!?! You thought Kulan Gath being evil was frightful, wait until you see him head-over-heels in loooove!!! Sonja will face her greatest challenge resisting the urge to kill a love that Can. Not. Die!!!!
I’m going to be honest: this reading made me feel literally sick to my stomach. I wanted to throw up. Which, whatever. As someone who has been in a relationship, and has talked to a lot of people who have been in sustained relationships, I am honestly repulsed by some of the comments of these young women. I don’t mean to say it as a judgement thing - what irritates me most is the culture that causes such sentiments, but I’ll get back to that. I also don’t mean it targetted against women; I would be just as angry at men who voice such opinions. Society giving men leave to be sexually promiscuous is completely ludicrous, and the biology they base it off of is severely flawed (I also hate most scientific arguments for things - if there’s a social bias available, I stay skeptical of the argument; science is much less telling than the 20th century has convinced us it is, and any real scientist should acknowledge that).
The arguments used by the women to justify cheating are so revealing of the privileged middle+ class view of love. Delaying adulthood? What a joke! The refusal to take responsibility in one’s life and DO SOMETHING is what is driving this world down the drain. Not that it was better before or after, but that doesn’t make it less of a major problem, and it’s easier now to do it. But that is not the central conversation. Basically, I agree with Alison: cheating is bad, period. I found it interesting that the writers mentioned her “strict conservative views on sexuality, positioned her outside of the collegiate culture of delayed adulthood” because honestly what does that mean? What conservative views? How do conservative views immediately connect to delayed adulthood? If anything, I would argue that her early marriage - which may have been influenced by conservative views on sex - and making that work, or trying to, is probably what puts her outside of the culture of delayed adulthood. Which, frankly, I don’t think is a bad thing.
Again, drawing back to my point earlier this term about “enacted age” and “comprehensive age” - I think these women sound very immature, and it makes sense because this is a sampling of class-privileged women and they have been able to afford to be selfish. Don’t get me wrong, people who are underprivileged can also be selfish, but less easily, and generally with different motivations (I don’t want to go in-depth about privilege/race/class, but I think a rough idea is hinted at in my discussion of Not Under My Roof). Most of them have not yet been through a string of divorces and not yet realized that “the perfect one” that “you won’t want to cheat on” doesn’t exist in a way that women who grow up in communities of fatherless households might. I’m completely generalizing, but that is the sort of statement I expect to hear from people who have not actually talked to couples about the struggle that marriage often is.
I don’t mean to be offensive or super critical - I’m just listening to P!nk and venting - this is just something that I care a lot about because, again, my own expectations about love really set me up for a lot of pain, and I honestly think society’s twisted standards does the same for our relationships. Let me explain.
Wilkins describes how the women interviewed unanimously agreed that they valued monogamy and shamed cheating. But they also saw a validity for cheating in certain circumstances, and half of them had cheated. I really agree with Wilkins conclusion, which was that:
“Women’s cheating occurs in a context of persistent gender inequality in heterosexual relationships, in which women are not expected to control relationship progression or to be direct about their relationship desires. College women’s cheating behavior, then, may be less an indication of collapsing distinctions between men and women’s sexuality than of continued inequity in dating relationships. Women cheat, in part, because they have less power to enter, leave, and negotiate satisfactory dating relationships, and because relationships and femininity continue to be coupled in public understandings. In the context of both relationship inequity and continued pressure on women to sustain relationships, infidelity becomes a strategic option for exiting unwanted relationships.”
Really, a wonderful summary analysis. And I think she’s really right: we have set up this desire for this perfect relationship, via romantic comedies and stories and then given girls no way to get there. Which is extraordinarily frustrating. Women are told we will be in a sexually fulfilling, emotionally rich relationship and that we’ll “know” when we’re in love and it’ll be happily ever after, but men are told that they are wired to just be after sex, and we’re all told that college is no place for a relationship and we’re too young. Many times relationships were described in the paper as “greedy” - which I wonder if it’s a term interviewees actually used, or was something just created by the writer…
Because honestly, the struggle doesn’t get better. It doesn’t get easier. Just because you have an established job down the line doesn’t mean that you’ll be willing to give it up or whatever. And yes, college is an extraordinarily busy time, and yes, people do change a lot, and there are many different opinions about it, but I honestly just wish we policed our scripts less. Yes, relationships CAN be “greedy”. And yes, honestly, being an adult and having responsibilities and taking them onis really scary and not a lot of fun, and yes, a lot of us don’t really get to have a lot of “fun” very often because of the fast pace of society, but it really is about the goals and intentionality with which we approach life, depending on our values. I think that sexual exploration should be able to happen within relationships, and that women should be able to exit relationships; I also think that both men and women should be held responsible to be faithful. As the women discuss, it can be extremely emotionally painful to your partner, and it is often emotionally motivated, but that doesn’t make it a good thing.
(Pardon my language. This sh*t just actually p*sses me off. Enough to use the vulgar.)
…and… a P!nk song to set the mood…
A lot of people know that I hate the hook-up culture. But they often misunderstand me as hating the people involved in the hook-up culture, whereas, honestly, I just hate the consequences of it. I completely agree with Armstrong, Hamilton, and England that the consequences of a bad hook-up are less life-wrecking than a bad relationship and the idea of an isolated event vs. a longterm investment gone bad. However, I think if a “bad hook-up” is actually sexual assault, then thatis much more damaging, particularly because it can make it incredibly difficult to form any positive longterm-relationship after the fact. I don’t mean that it is impossible for men or women who have been sexually assaulted to form positive relationships, because I know many who have, but it is certainly something that can cause relationship strain because of triggers on the one side and a… difficulty of acceptance on the other side, in worse case scenarios. (There are many encouraging examples of very supportive partners who have empowered their significant other to resolve that part of their lives. In drawing very broad brush strokes, I think we have a culture that, unfortunately, makes it… not the norm, especially when it comes to men accepting women.)
I have many concerns about the hook-up culture, many of which have been discussed ad nauseam: the double-standard for women in terms of participation, the dress code for women as a double-edged sword, the pernicious involvement of alcohol, the ambiguity, the lack of reciprocal pleasure, etc. The list goes on. The problem of inequality between the sexes has been a long one. Yet perhaps a better understanding of love is actually an “easier” though more indirect solution.
One of my biggest frustrations with the hook-up culture is that it separates love and sex and creates bad habits for men and women about being honest and open with one another about their needs and desires. I’m not arguing that we should “challenge gender inequality in both relationships and hookups” - though I think that is important, my recommendation is slightly more nuanced.
When it comes to issues of equality, most people “know” the “right” answer. Of course, we should respect each other. Of course, things should be equal. But when it comes down to brass tacks and actuality, people often disagree in thought and action. What does equality look like? We have generally treated equality as ‘sameness’, that men and women should be paid the same, allowed in the same roles, etc. without really examining what that ends up meaning. In doing so, we have maintained a posture that continues to elevate masculine positions. This is slightly switching with our more service-based economy, but men who are sociable and affable (men who possess more “feminine” qualities) get lauded and are still given greater honor than women who perform the same tasks and skills. Meanwhile, positions like nurses or teachers or mothers are still undervalued despite the important roles they play in shaping society.
I’m curious to see what will happen now that gay marriage has been legalized. I have not felt that the male fear of being labeled “gay” has diminished, nor has the stigma of a straight man being labeled or thought of as “gay” decreased, which is still aggravating, because in the popular definition, all “gay” really means is “effeminate”. This is also true in relationships. There are so many jokes made about relationships and marriages: that a guy becomes “whipped" (which is "effeminate” that he cedes any power over to his girl/woman) or how wives are bossy chatterboxes, and certainly all the wedding toppers featuring men (and occasionally women) being dragged to the wedding are indicative of some thoughts we have about the quality and nature of marriages.
Likewise, I think the hook-up culture exists because of a flawed understanding of relationships and how to make them work. This would make a lot of sense considering no institution I know has courses on “this is how to build a flawless relationship.” There are probably a million self-help books about it, but it’s just not something we’re expected to learn, it’s something we’re expected to know, and we don’t.
I’m not saying that relationships solve the problem, or that people shouldn’t have the liberty to desire sex outside of relationships in casual hook-ups. People can do whatever they want. But I think the need for casual sex is still rooted in the MALE need for casual sex. Furthermore, most women who engage in the hook-up culture get out of it only the pleasure of feeling desirable, but on whose terms? At whose expense? FOR whose satisfaction? The hook-up culture does not exist because we think men & women need to “get it on” - it exists because we think men can’t resist sex and can’t survive without it, which are just not true. Men and women’s libidos are ALL on a spectrum, and I would bet anything that there are some men whose sex drive is less than that of some women. Is this an innate fact of the hook-up culture or just a product of our hook-up culture being situated in a heteronormative patriarchal society? Not sure. But it certainly is an innate fact of the hook-up culture as it exists for us right now in America and on Dartmouth’s campus.
The hook-up culture reasoning also often focuses on the idea of adolescence exploration, both concepts which I also find rather useless. I’ve discussed the age/maturation idea before, but the exploration part could just as easily happen in a relationship, and can potentially be more satisfying and helpful within a relationship as a couple builds up trust in mutual exploration and satisfaction. This does not happen in many “normal” relationships because there are implicit unstated assumptions about what men and women want in relationships and sex. The lack of communication is, though, I feel, worse in hook-ups, where communication isn’t even expected. Rather, the lack of ambiguity is in many cases, appealing. At least generally it is agreed upon that open discussion is a plus in relationships.
My biggest frustration with the hook-up culture though is the lack of responsibility. I understand the value of momentary pleasure amidst our hectic schedules, but life doesn’t necessarily slow down, and taking responsibility doesn’t just happen, it has to be learned.
Our generation is poorly trained to take responsibility for one another, because we live in a very separated, segregated, individualistic, selfish culture. From kindergarten, we start saying “Mine! Mine! Mine!” And this is a blanket statement, I know not everyone grew up with this mentality, but this is the one that consumerism and the media project upon us, certainly. And whereas relationships, between friends, family, etc. are places for compassion and empathy, where we share burdens and take responsibility for the impact of our actions, but the hook-up culture is not. And taking connection out of pleasure may be a “good” thing because then there are no strings attached, but ultimately it allows this discourse of “well, it’s not sexual assault, it’s a bad hook-up” - certainly in bad relationships, this can go a lot worse, but I truly believe that if we teach people ways to get consent, if we have “consent” work-shops and mutual gazing workshops, and workshops that teach singles and couples how to communicate their needs and desires, that the hook-up culture may fade out of existence. Certainly casual sex, with acquaintances or strangers, will never die, but I would hope to see the return of something akin almost to what courtship was to dating. Where there is hook-up etiquette, so that both partners are satisfied, and that both partners are committed to that and hold each other responsible for it and that that is a norm.
I think targeting inequality by not trying to negate it, but providing something that is just so much better, and that works, in a relationship context (mostly because I think the connotations that come with a relationship are currently more conducive to equality than the associations with hook-ups; also because I think the benefits of the hook-up culture can all be achieved within the context of relationships and I think that good relationships are truly helpful for individuals across the board) is ultimately the most effective way to change the existing culture.
Mom: You don’t shave your legs OR your armpits? Me: No Mom: Are you serious? Personal hygiene! Me: Yeah? Personal hygiene? Then make my brother shave too.
That fact that this is actually getting notes is so beautiful, man.
I actually told this to my mom when she told me to shave. She said that it was different for my older brother to grow hair because he was a boy I just kinda stared at her for a minute
shaving is not hygienic it’s cosmetic
I cant shave down to the skin bc it actually hurts my skin but even with trimmed body hair, i STILL get the ~~personal hygiene~~ bullshit. I am clean, my body hair is clean, there’s nothing gross about clean hair. To reiterate:
Shaving is not hygiene, it’s cosmetic
Hair isn’t dirty just because it isn’t typical for your gender.
I just gave up on shaving because it takes way too long and I dont care enough to do it anyway.
Hair is typical for my gender– maybe not in The quantities men have it, but hair is typical.
Men who don’t think women are supposed to have any body hair and that it’s *unnatural* if they do need to take a biology class. Or at least, ask themselves why pretty much every woman they know *has body hair they typically shave off* if women’s bodies aren’t designed to produce those hairs in the first place. Shaving wouldn’t be *necessary* for most of the population if our expectation for women to not have body hair was based on biology rather than social stigma.
That being said, armpit hairs can get stinky *because they are trapping bacteria* so regardless of your gender, consider keeping those hairs trimmed down, because the longer they are, the more they can hang on to.
Shaving hair (as opposed to trimming like lynati suggests for armpit hair and which, living in Florida where it’s hot as balls and also HUMID, I heartily agree with, I literally do this with mine via a “bikini line” trimmer) has actually been noted to be a thing that can increase risk of infections, due to the abrasions and lacerations and overall irritation that result EVEN IF you do it right.
Not just skin infections, either: anything that damages skin like that creates openings, often ones you can’t visually see or feel enough to notice, and which opportunistic microbes can sneak in through, sometimes even entering the bloodstream.
In fact, IIRC not long ago doctors were warning people that the now-common Western practice of shaving off pubic hair seems to have been part of the reason for an increase in recent years ofalmost every single type of STD/STI.
Literally the only infection it didn’t seem to increase the rate or risk of (and admittedly decreased) was crabs, aka pubic lice, because you know, those hang onto hair so obviously removing the hair removes those?
Everything ELSE though, such as gonorrhea and syphilis and HIV… has a higher transmission rate among people with shaved hair Down There. Because of the way the skin is damaged by even capable shaving.
What this means is shaving Down There, at least, is not a “hygienic” decision any more than shaving your whole head would be.
As in: uhhh I guess if you’re super anxious about hair-clinging parasites in specific and ONLY hair-clinging parasites in specific, or if you just reeeeally want the aesthetic, feel free, but the result of shaving any body hair at all is going to be you putting yourself at slightly higher risk for infections from cuts and irritation, cuts and irritation you might not even realize you have.
For the record: yes, I’m aware there’s things like Nair that remove body hair chemically in the form of a cream instead of “shaving”. (Not everybody is aware of it, but some people are and they may think of it)
I’m not sure I rec those either; I’ve tried them before and in addition to smelling awful, in addition to the risk of damaging finger or toe nails if you get it on them without immediately rinsing (OH GOD DO NOT EVEN ASK), there’s the fact that you have to wash it off within a certain timeframe or it can cause CHEMICAL BURNS and oh also it can do that ANYWAY even if it’s “bikini line” product or if you have sensitive skin and/or you try to use even the “bikini line” stuff Down There or in armpits (protip: turns out something not meant for faces should not be used on those three spots either! HAHA PLEASE LEARN FROM MY MISTAKE)
Also I suspect that rinsing it down the drain (the easiest/best way to clear off Nair or the like from your skin) is……not the best for the environment? Given it’s literally a chemical meant to break down keratin protein?? (Idk! ask a chemist??). I also have no idea if it’s genuinely less dangerous or “abrasive” than shaving; it…seemed to be when it worked for me? On legs, anyway? But you’d have to ask a dermatologist.
It is, however, a pain in the ass and takes a LOT longer than shaving or trimming anyway. So, yeah. I fully support anybody who doesn’t want to use ANY of that.
I’m not usually one to get angry over simple jokes, but lately a lot has been put into perspective for me. Mike Chen of Strictly Dumpling made a joke to describe meat by saying “and the meat comes apart like a typical Taylor Swift relationship.” I’ve watched this man for years and I am so terribly upset by this. He wouldn’t make a joke about his last relationship that fell apart like that meat, would he? He wouldn’t make a joke about a man whose gone through relationships, would he? No, because instead he made a joke about someone who has been scrutinized for being in less relationships than even myself. And it’s perpetuated as such a crime and joke because she’s a woman. Reconsidering a lot because that’s some bullllllshit.
