The literature on pubic hair removal (PHR) practices primarily focuses on women in Western societies and attributes recent increases in PHR to product marketing, pornography, and pop culture. Here, we explore PHR and retention practices outside the cultural West through content coding of societies in the Human Relations Area Files’ database, eHRAF World Cultures. Thirty-one societies noted distinct PHR or retention practices. Descriptive data on 72 societies provided additional context to the perception of pubic hair and reasons for its removal or retention. Results indicate that women practice PHR more commonly than men cross-culturally and practices are often tied to concerns about hygiene and sexual activity. Findings show that some features of PHR cross-culturally resemble those of the cultural West in which these practices have been best characterized, though these practices cannot be attributed to the same suite of factors such as exposure to pornography or product marketing. We interpret these findings within cross-cultural and evolutionary perspectives.

Introduction Why do human males and females have pubic hair? While ancestral hominins lost thick body hair, it is notable that pubic hair was retained (Weiss, 2009). In both males and females, pubic hair develops at puberty under the influence of androgenic hormones (Randall, 2008). The primary functions posited for human pubic hair are as a visual signal of reproductive age and as an olfactory trap (Gray & Garcia, 2013; Levay & Baldwin, 2011). The location of pubic hair (like for axillary, or underarm, hair) is dense in apocrine sweat glands, which secrete an oily concoction of proteins, lipids, fatty acids, and steroids (Pagel & Bodmer, 2003). The breakdown of these apocrine secretions releases scents captured by pubic hair, thus aiding olfactory communication of reproductive state (Jobling, 2015; Thornhill & Gangestad, 2015). Other postulated functions of pubic hair are to reduce mechanical friction during sexual intercourse and to provide protection from parasites or other pathogens from invading the vagina. Contrary to the latter anti-pathogen view, pubic hair can support rather than prevent pathogen transmission, and its presence in males (not just females) requires explanation. All said, there are compelling sexual behavior–related reasons why ancestral hominins developed pubic hair. It is thus a puzzle why, today, many people choose to remove fully or partially their pubic hair. We might deem this the paradox of human pubic hair removal (PHR).

PHR Beyond the Cultural West Non-Western cultures may have alternative perspectives on PHR. For Muslims, the Islamic faith requires that all men and women routinely shave their pubic hair (Anwar, Munawar, & Anwar, 2010). This religious practice is thought to be hygienic and is even enforced by Sharia, Muslim law (Demirci, Dogan, Erkol, & Deniz, 2008). Another non-Western example dates to the Greek classical period; analysis of plays and artwork suggests women practiced partial PHR for sexual appeal (Kilmer, 1982). Other historical renditions of women show a notable absence of pubic hair: Upper Paleolithic figurines of women show hairless vulvas with visible labia majora, like that of Venus of Willendorf. Despite these representations, research on PHR practices outside the cultural West is decidedly scarce. The literature on PHR practices features a narrow scope of mostly women in Western societies, and attributes recent increases in PHR to the influences of product marketing, pornography, and pop culture. The current article seeks to answer two questions: (a) Do societies outside the cultural West practice PHR? (b) If so, why and how is PHR practiced? To our knowledge, this study is the first to attempt a systematic, cross-cultural analysis of PHR patterns for women as well as men.

Method We found all our data within eHRAF World Cultures (Human Relations Area Files, n.d.), a robust collection of ethnographic research often used for comparative, cross-cultural studies (for more details, see Ember and Ember’s, n.d., “Basic Guide to Cross-Cultural Research”). Within eHRAF, we first explored keywords and phrases related to pubic, body, and axillary hair grooming practices. However, these noisy results contained limited data on PHR or retention specifically. The Outline of Cultural Materials (OCM) codes provided complications as well. PHR was often found under Personal Grooming (302), Personal Hygiene (515), Puberty and Initiation (881), or Sexuality (831) among others, but these codes often did not coincide with one another. Hence, we broadened our inquiry to the key phrase “pubic hair” and the combined key words “pubic” and “hair.” For comparative purposes, we sought only data that explicitly indicated PHR or retention practices. Initially, we used the eHRAF Probability Sample Files to ensure geographic diversity, but only nine of the 60 societies in that sample noted PHR or retention practices. The Standard Cross-Cultural Sample had similarly limited results with 12 out of 186 societies noting PHR or retention practices. We then used a basic search of the eHRAF data files on 311 societies and found a combined total of 31 societies noting distinct PHR or retention practices, after controlling for repeated data (see the appendix for a complete list of societies). In addition, we identified another 41 societies that mentioned “pubic hair” or “pubic” and “hair” but did not explicitly note PHR or retention practices. In other words, these additional 41 societies provided contextual information about pubic hair in various societies, but not whether or not it was retained or removed. We present the patterns of PHR and/or retention in the “Results” section below, but also draw upon the additional 41 societies in the “Discussion” section to provide contextual information about how pubic hair is viewed cross-culturally. We read through all the text and extracted only the explicit details from those narrative pieces. Due to insufficient evidence, we could not accurately record ages of individuals practicing PHR or retention. For each society containing descriptions of PHR or retention practices, we recorded information on both men and women and grouped our findings into several categories that seemed to make practical sense. For example, a society’s motivation for PHR is categorized as hygienic if the information mentions lice, disease, disgust, or filth; attractiveness if it mentions of beauty or attraction; or social signaling if it mentions that visible pubic hair indicates certain individual characteristics. And because the current literature attributes the rise in PHR among Western societies to mostly marketing and pornography, we recorded whether access to product marketing and pornography was noted to help evaluate whether these purported cultural transmission processes could be at play in this cross-cultural dataset. To summarize coding procedures, for PHR practices, we recorded the following information: the method of PHR (i.e., shave, pluck, or unspecified); the amount of pubic hair removed (i.e., total, partial, or unspecified); the motivations for PHR (i.e., hygienic, attractiveness, social signaling, or unspecified); and access to product marketing and pornography. For pubic hair retention practices, we recorded the same data on motivations for retention and access to product marketing and pornography. For evidence of product marketing and pornography, we conducted preliminary analysis of keywords and phrases associated with marketing and pornography, but again, the data were noisy with descriptions of artwork and food production. So, for all the societies, we searched for these data within the parameters of “pubic hair” and “pubic” and “hair.” The coding scheme was crafted based on a combination of deductive (e.g., information from existing PHR literature) and inductive (e.g., based on the availability and specificity of information on PHR practices in a few initial cases) approaches.

Results Do societies outside the cultural West practice PHR? Table 1 presents the details in which 26 societies explicitly practice PHR. These societies are primarily horticulturalists, hunter-gatherers, and other preindustrial subsistence types. Among them, there were more societies in which women (n = 22) were specified as practicing PHR than societies in which men engaged in PHR (n = 11). Four societies did not specify the sex of individuals practicing PHR. Notably, of the 11 societies with male PHR practices, women in those societies also practice PHR. Of the remaining 11 societies in which women practice PHR, four noted male pubic hair retention, and seven did not mention male practices at all. Table 1. Details About Pubic Hair Removal Practices Within the Cross-Cultural Sample. View larger version The most common method of PHR for both men and women is plucking (n = 8; n = 11, respectively), followed by shaving (n = 3; n = 7, respectively); five societies did not specify method. Of the 26 societies, 16 did not specify the amount of pubic hair removed, but the remaining 10 noted total removal. Fourteen societies did not mention motivations for PHR, but 12 mentioned hygienic (n = 7), attractiveness (n = 2), or social signaling (n = 3); hygienic being the most common motivation for PHR among both men and women (n = 4; n = 6, respectively). Table 2 presents the details in which the other nine societies explicitly retain pubic hair. Of these nine societies, five noted men retain pubic hair, four noted women retain pubic hair, and one did not specify sex. It is important to note that one of these societies indicated both men and women retain pubic hair. Only two of these societies noted motivations for pubic hair retention: one indicated attractiveness as a motivator among women, and the other indicated social signaling as a motivator among both sexes. Table 2. Details About Pubic Hair Retention Within the Cross-Cultural Sample. View larger version Finally, did any of these 31 societies outside the cultural West note product marketing or pornography? No. None of the narrative pieces we analyzed noted access to or reference of product marketing or pornography.

Appendix Total Examined Societies Within the eHRAF Database by Major Geographical Region, Including Geographical Subregion and Publication Author(s) and Year. View larger version

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.