|
|
Post by snsurone on Jul 6, 2019 11:56:09 GMT
It seems that it was some unwritten rule in Hollywood that actors shave their chests, arms, backs and legs before appearing on camera.
Facial hair depended on the role: for example, Western outlaws often sported three-day whiskers, while elderly men had neatly trimmed 'staches and/or beards.
I realize that it's odd to see Tarzan with no facial or body hair, but personally, I like it.
To me, hairy men look like apes!
Maybe that's the reason; it's too much a reminder of our simian ancestry, and the Catholic Legion of Decency wouldn't stand for that, LOL!
And face it, would Jane have fallen for a man who resembled Cheetah??
This is not a modern phenomenon, though.
In classical art, young men are depicted with no body hair,
cf. Michelangelo's "David" and "Pieta", among others.
I don't know when (or why) this trend ceased, but I wish it would be revived.
Also. I wish men would shave their armpits!
They look awful and probably smell even worse!
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Jul 6, 2019 12:38:48 GMT
Naturally hairy-chested William Holden had to shave his before appearing in PICNIC and RIVER KWAI (though not for SUNSET, I recall).
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 6, 2019 17:00:45 GMT
So many of our tastes are shaped by the vagaries - often arbitrary, I'd add - of fashion. How did the necktie, for example, ever become a required accessory for men in business or at dressy occasions? What's dressy about a strip of cloth that serves no function dangling down a shirt front? During my working years, it always felt to me like a symbolic noose (maybe that was the purpose). Anyway, so it goes with body grooming...below the neck that is. Some judicious "manscaping" can be beneficial to the appearance of some, but I'm personally not partial to an excessively shaved/waxed/plucked look that makes flesh and blood men resemble plastic Ken dolls. As for the Tarzans, my vote for sexiest goes to Mike Henry, who played the role from '66 - '68:  Some follicles that are earning their keep can be very nice, and even nicer on an especially well-formed physique. Speaking of Michelangelo, Henry's chapter in an old book I have, Tarzan Of the Movies, is entitled, "Body By Michelangelo." As to the reason his statuary is so smooth, I always assumed that hair was simply too challenging for sculptors to depict realistically. On the statues of men or women, crowning glories on heads - or even beards - are usually the least-lifelike aspect thereof, and is where marble, clay or whatever solid media betray themselves (eyeballs were apparently problematic too; some things, paint just captures better). I know little about the Catholic Legion Of Decency's hangups; perhaps hair anywhere but on faces or the tops of heads was considered somehow too sexually suggestive. Hell, I dunno. So, that's my "different strokes for different folks" take on the matter. I'm all for whatever allows any given person to look their best, but my standards for that include their looking real. We are, after all, mammals. |
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jul 6, 2019 17:03:47 GMT
Not Charlton Heston, at when he was a slave (either Egyptian or Roman)... haha
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jul 6, 2019 18:57:42 GMT
Well, nowadays, men do keep their bodies and limbs clean-shaven.
Why?
Because they're covered with tattoos!
How anybody, male or female, finds this "anatomical graffiti" a turn-on is beyond my understanding.
I suppose I'm hopelessly old-fashioned, and part of a dying breed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 6, 2019 19:11:15 GMT
To me, hairy men look like apes! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 6, 2019 19:16:34 GMT
Mike Henry was almost the tv Batman according to some reports I have seen.
I want to check out the Tarzan films he did some time (I am sure I saw one of them way back when on tv at some point).
He was in MORE DEAD THAN ALIVE as a bad guy who gets into a barn fight with Clint Walker.
He would have perfectly fit the comic book Bruce Wayne--as Batman I suspect he would have been much like Clayton Moore's Lone Ranger--but judging from his bad guy role, he could have been a threatening Batman too if they had went in a direction closer to his earliest appearances.
Henry could have also been a good Conan the Barbarian (based on the pulp illustrations for the character).
Interesting that Henry is probably best known as Jackie Gleason's fool son in the Smokey and the Bandit films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 6, 2019 19:19:06 GMT
"Modern" is relative.
Depends on the local culture.
And have you ever considered how hard it would be to depict torso hair in a sculpture?
Some of the body hair shaving of the antiquity may have been to help get rid of lice (and attendant diseases like typhus)--they didn't have great meds (or deodorants) back then. Some of it may have been for some groups to try to distinguish themselves from their stereotypically hairier enemies. Some may have been part of some sort of ritual purification.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jul 6, 2019 20:15:20 GMT
You do have a point, Jimmy the Greek.
In ancient Egypt, both men and women shaved all over to deter body lice.
Makes me wonder if the Hebrew slaves did the same, and after the Exodus, they let their body hair grow lushly as to differentiate themselves from the Egyptians.
And David, although Michelangelo sculpted him with a very manly physique, was only a pubescent boy when he slew Goliath.
So, he probably hadn't developed facial or body hair.
But that doesn't change my belief that hairy men look like apes!
|
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Jul 7, 2019 15:55:52 GMT
You do have a point, Jimmy the Greek. In ancient Egypt, both men and women shaved all over to deter body lice. Makes me wonder if the Hebrew slaves did the same, and after the Exodus, they let their body hair grow lushly as to differentiate themselves from the Egyptians. And David, although Michelangelo sculpted him with a very manly physique, was only a pubescent boy when he slew Goliath. So, he probably hadn't developed facial or body hair. But that doesn't change my belief that hairy men look like apes! My dad is an exception. He looks more like a bear.
|
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Jul 7, 2019 19:11:38 GMT
I had to do somethign to them
Like i dont know
Like scratch them or somrhting
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jul 8, 2019 20:29:02 GMT
So many of our tastes are shaped by the vagaries - often arbitrary, I'd add - of fashion. How did the necktie, for example, ever become a required accessory for men in business or at dressy occasions? What's dressy about a strip of cloth that serves no function dangling down a shirt front? During my working years, it always felt to me like a symbolic noose (maybe that was the purpose). Anyway, so it goes with body grooming...below the neck that is. Some judicious "manscaping" can be beneficial to the appearance of some, but I'm personally not partial to an excessively shaved/waxed/plucked look that makes flesh and blood men resemble plastic Ken dolls. As for the Tarzans, my vote for sexiest goes to Mike Henry, who played the role from '66 - '68: Some follicles that are earning their keep can be very nice, and even nicer on an especially well-formed physique. Speaking of Michelangelo, Henry's chapter in an old book I have, Tarzan Of the Movies, is entitled, "Body By Michelangelo." As to the reason his statuary is so smooth, I always assumed that hair was simply too challenging for sculptors to depict realistically. On the statues of men or women, crowning glories on heads - or even beards - are usually the least-lifelike aspect thereof, and is where marble, clay or whatever solid media betray themselves (eyeballs were apparently problematic too; some things, paint just captures better). I know little about the Catholic Legion Of Decency's hangups; perhaps hair anywhere but on faces or the tops of heads was considered somehow too sexually suggestive. Hell, I dunno. So, that's my "different strokes for different folks" take on the matter. I'm all for whatever allows any given person to look their best, but my standards for that include their looking real. We are, after all, mammals. Dog, have you ever seen Michelangelo's "Moses"? It depicts the great leader actually toying with his long, luxuriant beard! I find that very amusing, in fact, I have a miniature model of that sculpture at home. IMHO, any artist, if he really put his mind to it, could depict body hair on their works. But I think that they felt as I do--that body hair is grotesque.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 8, 2019 21:29:28 GMT
Dog, have you ever seen Michelangelo's "Moses"? It depicts the great leader actually toying with his long, luxuriant beard! I find that very amusing, in fact, I have a miniature model of that sculpture at home. IMHO, any artist, if he really put his mind to it, could depict body hair on their works. But I think that they felt as I do--that body hair is grotesque. Fair enough; I've spoken my piece, you so know where I stand. Ain't it nice there are sufficient numbers of men to accommodate every taste?
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jul 8, 2019 22:26:57 GMT
Dog, have you ever seen Michelangelo's "Moses"? It depicts the great leader actually toying with his long, luxuriant beard! I find that very amusing, in fact, I have a miniature model of that sculpture at home. IMHO, any artist, if he really put his mind to it, could depict body hair on their works. But I think that they felt as I do--that body hair is grotesque. Fair enough; I've spoken my piece, you so know where I stand. Ain't it nice there are sufficient numbers of men to accommodate every taste? And a sufficient number of women, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 8, 2019 22:56:22 GMT
Fair enough; I've spoken my piece, you so know where I stand. Ain't it nice there are sufficient numbers of men to accommodate every taste? And a sufficient number of women, too. That's a germane point to raise. For much longer than I've been alive, most women - with no need to shave their faces - have conformed to social customs that they employ razors or depilatories in locations below the neck, and I have to admit that my tastes in that regard have been conditioned by arbitrary dictates of fashion as much as anyone's. But I'm sure glad there hasn't been in my lifetime any similar social convention for men. Having to shave my face every damned day for decades was bad enough. I'm reasonably sympathetic to anyone with distaste for the "stubble" look, but I'm equally grateful it's gained the acceptance that it has within the last 30-odd years. And both hubby and I happily take advantage of it. I haven't bought razor blades since much past the turn of the century. Keeping the electric trimmer charged (and used with some regularity) is easier and cheaper; last time I checked the price of blades, I was gobsmacked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jul 9, 2019 20:51:10 GMT
If male body hair is well distributed, it doesn’t bother me. But when guy has just few hair around the nipples or too much back fuzz, shave it off. However, I dare say the ones with bodies worth gazing upon want their muscles to show. Also, women usually remove their pubic hair if the area is shown.
|
|
