Wiki actually has the complete opposite theory, baldness seems to convey a maturing and calming instead of power and dominance.
"One theory, advanced by Muscarella and Cunningham, suggests baldness came about in males through sexual selection as an enhanced signal of aging and social maturity, whereby aggression and risk-taking decrease and nurturing behaviours increase."
"A study done among South Koreans has shown most people rate balding men as less attractive, if these results generalize to other cultures, any mating benefit must target purely maternal instincts."
So maybe it's because you're ugly but domestic and perceived to be no real threat. Or maybe human nature is more then just animal instinct. Maybe I just wanted to go nananana and call you ugly while I ran my fingers through my head of hair. Maybe it's all of these things.
That's about balding men, not shaved heads. The article claims that shaving makes all the difference for balding men. I guess shaving alleviates the effects this wikipedia entry describes.
It unfortunately only says a little regarding virility.
It does however link to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichophilia which has the statement "Hair does not in itself have any intrinsic sexual value other than the attributes given to it by individuals in a cultural context." I would suspect baldness (shaved or natural) would be similarly linked entirely to cultural contexts. For instance I doubt most people see Buddhist monks as especially virile.
I know I'm fighting an uphill battle here, and being prescriptivist, and derailing the conversation, and all that bad stuff, but could we please stop using "wiki" as an abbreviation for Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is a wiki, not the only wiki. That's why it's called Wikipedia; it's a wiki based encyclopedia. Calling it "wiki" is like calling Encyclopedia Brittanica "encyclopedia" for short. It makes no sense. Would you say "ya well, encyclopedia doesn't have a head shaving article"? No, you would say "Encyclopedia Brittanica" or "the encyclopedia" (if one was clear from context) or "my encyclopedia".
Comments
Wiki actually has the complete opposite theory, baldness seems to convey a maturing and calming instead of power and dominance.
"One theory, advanced by Muscarella and Cunningham, suggests baldness came about in males through sexual selection as an enhanced signal of aging and social maturity, whereby aggression and risk-taking decrease and nurturing behaviours increase."
"A study done among South Koreans has shown most people rate balding men as less attractive, if these results generalize to other cultures, any mating benefit must target purely maternal instincts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgenic_alopecia
So maybe it's because you're ugly but domestic and perceived to be no real threat. Or maybe human nature is more then just animal instinct. Maybe I just wanted to go nananana and call you ugly while I ran my fingers through my head of hair. Maybe it's all of these things.
That's about balding men, not shaved heads. The article claims that shaving makes all the difference for balding men. I guess shaving alleviates the effects this wikipedia entry describes.
I was going to say 'ya well, wiki doesn't have a head shaving article, but it would appear I would have been wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaved_Head
It unfortunately only says a little regarding virility.
It does however link to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichophilia which has the statement "Hair does not in itself have any intrinsic sexual value other than the attributes given to it by individuals in a cultural context." I would suspect baldness (shaved or natural) would be similarly linked entirely to cultural contexts. For instance I doubt most people see Buddhist monks as especially virile.
I know I'm fighting an uphill battle here, and being prescriptivist, and derailing the conversation, and all that bad stuff, but could we please stop using "wiki" as an abbreviation for Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is a wiki, not the only wiki. That's why it's called Wikipedia; it's a wiki based encyclopedia. Calling it "wiki" is like calling Encyclopedia Brittanica "encyclopedia" for short. It makes no sense. Would you say "ya well, encyclopedia doesn't have a head shaving article"? No, you would say "Encyclopedia Brittanica" or "the encyclopedia" (if one was clear from context) or "my encyclopedia".