The Brandeis study on body hair was scientific. The survey on tattoos was not but there does seem to be a relationship. Most men find tattoos on women attractive, but they have to be small and hidden. I conclude men prefer women with plain skin. The study on body hair on women is probably correct otherwise women would not spend time and money removing body hair.
First, the body-hair study does not prove a biological preference. At most it shows that a sample of men from a particular culture preferred a particular presentation of women.
Second, your tattoo source doesn’t even support your conclusion. You started with “most men find tattoos attractive if they’re small and hidden” and somehow arrived at “men prefer plain skin.” Those are not equivalent statements.
If a man finds a small tattoo attractive, then by definition he is not preferring plain skin in that case.
Third, “women spend money removing body hair, therefore men biologically prefer it” is a terrible argument. By that logic, because women spend billions on makeup, hair dye, cosmetic surgery, high heels, push-up bras, anti-aging products, and fashion, all of those preferences must also be biological. That’s obviously not how social norms work.
Finally, you’re treating “feminine” as though it’s an objective biological category when much of what people call feminine changes dramatically across time and culture. Different societies have preferred different body shapes, skin tones, hairstyles, body hair practices, tattoos, piercings, and cosmetic standards.
What your sources support is a much narrower claim: some men in some populations expressed certain preferences under certain conditions.
What they absolutely do not support is your repeated claim that women are most feminine when they have completely unmarked skin or that this is some universal male preference.
The Brandeis study on body hair was scientific. The survey on tattoos was not but there does seem to be a relationship. Most men find tattoos on women attractive, but they have to be small and hidden. I conclude men prefer women with plain skin. The study on body hair on women is probably correct otherwise women would not spend time and money removing body hair.
You’re making several unsupported jumps.
First, the body-hair study does not prove a biological preference. At most it shows that a sample of men from a particular culture preferred a particular presentation of women.
Second, your tattoo source doesn’t even support your conclusion. You started with “most men find tattoos attractive if they’re small and hidden” and somehow arrived at “men prefer plain skin.” Those are not equivalent statements.
If a man finds a small tattoo attractive, then by definition he is not preferring plain skin in that case.
Third, “women spend money removing body hair, therefore men biologically prefer it” is a terrible argument. By that logic, because women spend billions on makeup, hair dye, cosmetic surgery, high heels, push-up bras, anti-aging products, and fashion, all of those preferences must also be biological. That’s obviously not how social norms work.
Finally, you’re treating “feminine” as though it’s an objective biological category when much of what people call feminine changes dramatically across time and culture. Different societies have preferred different body shapes, skin tones, hairstyles, body hair practices, tattoos, piercings, and cosmetic standards.
What your sources support is a much narrower claim: some men in some populations expressed certain preferences under certain conditions.
What they absolutely do not support is your repeated claim that women are most feminine when they have completely unmarked skin or that this is some universal male preference.