Contents
Editors cut
Stop waiting to be picked and start picking yourself. Self-dating builds quiet confidence, protects your peace, and upgrades your whole vibe.
trending now
Search
Try a topic or steal a quick pick.
Stop waiting to be picked and start picking yourself. Self-dating builds quiet confidence, protects your peace, and upgrades your whole vibe.
Trending Now
Quick Links
Trends, truths, and the glow between.
Think about the last time you felt self-conscious about body hair.
Maybe it was a moment before wearing something sleeveless. Maybe it was catching a glimpse of your legs in unexpected light. Maybe it’s just background noise — the low-level awareness that there’s maintenance required, that if you let it go too long something will need to be done about it before you’re presentable again.
Now ask yourself: where did that feeling come from?
Not in the abstract, philosophical sense. Specifically. Historically. Because the feeling that women’s body hair is something to be managed, concealed, or removed — the feeling so many women have experienced as instinct, as just how things are — has a start date. It has a paper trail. It has, if you want to get specific about it, an advertising campaign.
The women’s body hair beauty standard is less than 120 years old. Before it was constructed, it wasn’t a beauty conversation at all. And the way it went from nonexistent to completely invisible — from a manufactured norm to something that felt like nature — is one of the most instructive stories in the entire history of beauty standards.
For most of human history across most of the Western world, women’s body hair was not a beauty conversation. Not because women were too liberated to care about their appearance — beauty standards have existed in every era, in every culture. But because hair on women’s legs and underarms simply wasn’t the subject of cultural attention, shame, or commercial interest.
Clothing covered most of the body. What was covered wasn’t visible. What wasn’t visible wasn’t regulated. Women in the Victorian era were scrutinized intensely for their hair — the hair on their heads, styled and pinned and managed as a significant marker of femininity and social standing. The hair on their legs was not a subject that existed in the beauty conversation, because there was no context in which it would be seen.
This is important to hold onto: the standard didn’t emerge because bodies changed. Bodies didn’t change. What changed was visibility. And what changed visibility was fashion — specifically, the radical shift in women’s clothing that happened in the early twentieth century, which exposed parts of the body that had been covered for generations. When those parts became visible, they became available to be regulated. And when they became available to be regulated, there were industries ready and waiting to do exactly that.
The women’s body hair beauty standard didn’t have a single author. It had three industries that converged at exactly the right moment, each with their own financial interest in the same outcome.
The fashion industry: hemlines rose and sleeves disappeared in the 1910s and 1920s. Women’s clothing began exposing the underarm and, increasingly, the leg. New silhouettes created new visible surfaces — and new visible surfaces created new commercial opportunities. The women’s press: mass-market women’s magazines — Ladies’ Home Journal, Harper’s Bazaar, McCall’s — were growing rapidly and were dependent on advertising revenue. Beauty and hygiene advertisers were among their largest clients. The magazines needed the ad spend. The advertisers needed the audience. Both needed a problem to solve. The personal care industry: men’s shaving had become a successful commercial category. The logical expansion was a female market — but a female market for hair removal didn’t exist yet. It had to be created.
What happened next was, as historians of the period have documented, a coordinated, multi-channel campaign to establish body hair as a problem — specifically as an unfeminine, unhygienic, and socially unacceptable characteristic — and to sell the solution alongside the newly manufactured shame.
The first wave of advertising, beginning around 1915, targeted underarm hair. The language was carefully chosen: not “shave” — that was too masculine, too associated with men’s facial grooming. Instead: “smooth.” “Delicate.” “Modern.” The underarm was described as an “embarrassing personal problem” — a phrase that neatly created the embarrassment it claimed to be addressing. Within a few years, the underarm standard was established enough to move to the next frontier: legs. As hemlines continued to rise through the 1920s, the advertising followed the skin. The same mechanism. The same language. A new body part, newly visible, newly available to be named as a problem, newly in need of a solution.
The advertising campaign launched the standard. But advertising alone doesn’t make something feel like nature. For that, you need something else: time. And a generation that grows up inside the norm without ever knowing it was invented.
By the 1940s — roughly thirty years after the campaign began — the women body hair beauty standard had moved from advertised aspiration to social expectation. The women who had been targeted by the original campaign in their twenties were now mothers. Their daughters grew up in a world where the norm was simply there, with no visible origin story, no advertising campaign to point to, no moment of construction to remember. It was just how things were.
World War II completed the transition. Wartime fabric rationing made stockings scarce — the thick hosiery that had covered women’s legs for decades was suddenly unavailable. Women began shaving their legs not because the standard had intensified, but because the covering was gone. Smooth legs became the substitute for stockings. And what began as a practical workaround embedded itself as a cultural habit that outlasted the rationing by decades.
By the 1960s, researchers studying women’s grooming habits found that the vast majority of American women removed leg and underarm hair regularly — and the overwhelming majority reported never having made a conscious decision to do so. They had simply always done it. The origin was completely invisible.
That invisibility is the final stage of any successfully constructed norm. When people can no longer see the construction — when the invented feels inevitable — the standard has fully arrived. The mechanism here is identical to the one at work in every beauty standard examined in this series. The full architecture — how standards get made, why they move, and who profits from the cycle — is laid out in Behind the Beauty Standard.
The most durable justification for the women’s body hair beauty standard — the one that survived long after the advertising campaign that created it faded from view — is hygiene. Body hair is unhygienic. Removing it is cleaner. This is presented not as an aesthetic preference but as a fact about the human body.
It isn’t.
Body hair serves biological functions: thermoregulation, friction reduction, sensory input. Whether someone chooses to remove it is a personal grooming decision. Whether removed skin is “cleaner” than skin with hair is not a question with a clear answer in either direction — both can be clean or unclean depending entirely on general hygiene practices that have nothing to do with hair presence or absence.
The hygiene framing was not discovered through medical research. It was invented by advertisers who needed a justification that felt more authoritative than aesthetics. “This looks better” is an opinion. “This is cleaner” sounds like a fact. The language shifted accordingly, and the hygiene rationale has been doing that rhetorical work ever since — making a manufactured aesthetic preference feel like an objective standard of bodily care.
This is worth naming clearly because the hygiene argument is still the primary reason many women give when asked why they remove body hair. Not because they prefer the look. Not because they enjoy the process. But because it feels unclean not to. That feeling was engineered. Knowing that doesn’t make it disappear immediately — internalized norms are sticky — but it does change the relationship to it.
The original campaign targeted underarms and legs. That boundary didn’t hold.
Each decade brought new territories into the standard. Bikini waxing emerged as swimwear styles changed. Brazilian waxing became mainstream in the 1990s, driven by the same mechanism that had launched the underarm campaign eighty years earlier: new clothing silhouettes revealing new skin, new visible surfaces newly available to be regulated, new products and services rushing in to address the newly created need.
Facial hair — the upper lip, the chin, the peach fuzz that covers most faces — became a skincare conversation in the 2010s, rebranded as “dermaplaning” and positioned as a skin texture treatment rather than hair removal. The territory kept expanding. A century of shaving advertising shows the same pattern running from the first underarm campaign straight through to the present: a newly visible body part, a newly available product, a campaign that establishes the new territory as a problem requiring a solution. The playbook doesn’t change. Only the body part does.
The eyebrow sits at the intersection of the women’s body hair beauty standard and the beauty trend cycle — the hair on the face that has been most aggressively shaped, removed, and reconstructed across different eras. That story has its own arc in The Eyebrow Trend Cycle.
The women’s body hair beauty standard is not as monolithic as it was twenty years ago. That’s worth acknowledging.
There are more visible women with visible body hair in mainstream media than there were a decade ago. The conversation about whether the standard is a choice or an expectation is louder and more mainstream than it has ever been. Younger generations are reporting more varied and more conscious relationships with body hair removal — some removing it, some not, more of them able to articulate that it’s a decision rather than a given.
But the standard hasn’t disappeared. What has happened — in a move that should be familiar by now — is that the industry has found ways to monetize the pushback. Body hair care products. Oils for pubic hair. Aesthetically styled armpit hair in advertising campaigns for brands selling deodorant. The rebellion against the hairless standard has been identified as a market segment and is being sold products accordingly.
This is not cynicism. It’s just the mechanism being consistent. The industry doesn’t have a stake in any particular standard. It has a stake in you spending money on your body. If the standard is hairless, it sells removal. If the standard shifts toward acceptance, it sells care. The product changes. The revenue continues. The confidence economy piece gets into exactly how that pivot from insecurity to empowerment works — and why the commercial outcome is identical either way.
Here’s the question this piece ultimately leads to, and it’s the same one the whole series keeps circling: what do you do with a preference that was installed without your consent?
Because that’s what an internalized beauty standard is. It’s a preference that arrived so early and so completely that it feels like yours — even when its origins are documented, external, and financially motivated.
The honest answer is that knowing the origin of a preference doesn’t automatically dissolve it. Women who have read every piece of scholarship on the constructed nature of the women’s body hair beauty standard still sometimes feel uncomfortable with visible body hair — on themselves or on others. That discomfort is real. Knowledge doesn’t always overwrite feeling, especially feeling that was installed at the developmental level.
What knowledge does is create distance. A beat of awareness between the feeling and the action. The ability to ask: is this something I’m doing because I want to, or because I’ve been trained to feel like I need to? Those are genuinely different things, and being able to tell them apart is the beginning of actually having a choice.
Remove your body hair or don’t. There is no correct answer here. There is only the answer that’s actually yours — made with clear eyes, full information, and the knowledge that whatever you decide, it was never as inevitable as it felt. For the full picture of how every standard in this series operates on the same mechanism, Behind the Beauty Standard is where that argument lives in full.
