the evolution of clothes?

Arach, I found this isn't gender dependent. Men may have better muscle definition which gives more to depict but when I was taking life drawing I noticed that often women I found most attractive were the hardest to draw because they were so smooth in the transitions. There was one very thin woman who was very fun to draw as you could see details of her scapula, ribs, spine, pelvis. I also discovered that a woman who had rolls was also fun to draw and began to wonder if that was partially a factor in some classic paintings.lfen

Razd,I don't know if anything more ever came of the aquatic ape theory but that doesn't refute it. I don't recall the idea that aquatic mammels are selected for hairlessness because it confers an advantage to swimming. Seals and otters are good yet hairy swimmers. IIRC the argument is based on the length of time and over a long period of time subcutaneous fat and other advantages result in hair loss. To many decades since I read so many of these books.I found the theory of aquatic apes tantalyzing. The notion of crying salty tears, the heart rate responses to immersion in water, lots of fascinating little details as I recall.lfen

Should we even be calling it loss of hair? That happens to some men when they go bald, but most humans have plenty of body hair it's just that the hair tends to be very fine and short.I read somewhere but have no reference that blondes have more hairs per square inch than brunettes but that the hair is finer and lacking pigment and it therefore harder to see.lfen

Razd,I just got around to this thread as the threads that have been keeping me busy seem to have slowed down.If you are correct that fine hair is the result of sexual selection that poses the question why is perceived bareness more sexually attractive than perceived hairness? I'm assuming sexual selection has a basis in that qualities for sexual selection are often associated with qualities that enhance reproductive survival at least at one time.lfen

You have such a different experience of drawing than I did! I would have generalized mine but this gives me pause.My experience of drawing and the way I was taught one had to look analytically and render lines, values, shapes. If I am drawing a woman's breast, to choose a part of the anatomy that carries erotic interest in the US at least, I would be considering the shape of the shadow beneath it, I might also use the nipple to place it in relationship to her eyes, mouth, etc.It used to amaze me that when I would step back that there would be a drawing there and I would wonder who had done it for all I had done was try to render relationships onto the paper. Drawing seemed to me a very abstract thing and if the model was a woman I found very attractive it was hard for me to let go of her totality the gestalt of which was "beautiful desirable woman" and instead look to the particular abstract shape of the shadow, or the shape of the highlight on her breast, or cheek, or the apparent angle of her shoulder to her neck and thus lose my awareness of her body, momentarily, as a total and instead analyze what I was visually seeing.Perhaps you draw differently, maybe they are teaching drawing differently?lfen

Arach,Okay, I think I understand. Thanks for explaining. I'll drop this thread within a thread and let them get back to arguing body and facial hair. Hah!lfen