[nicephotog (OP)]

I was being fed the usual attempts by the youtube feed recently to tempt me at something to watch and then it would hook the advertising to my chosen view of interest when....
One video caught my eye!
After (as probably many men did within youtube ethic policy) leaving a comment, i had had a fascinating thought because of a mild joke i wrote in the comment, the thought truly expanded or extrapolated to some real merit.

The video is of a young woman stretching doing yoga.
Just remember, the following quote actually contains something unusual but real if you know anything on the subject so is required !

I'll construct the argument point to you after the initial information.
The joke is by effect about the "accuracy of where and how to put the stuff"

I...I..I....Just don't know what to say!
However, vocalization is evolution 2 million years old in Hominid species, but in hominids , complex organisms and more primitive it has no estimation of what to do that is not spoken and is existent so far back in evolutionary time it is considered it is simply so efficient and effective that it works perfectly !!!!
Oddly such a prehistoric old evolved inbuilt developed brain operated accurate action occurs successfully is amazing because there is plenty of evidence much of its result continues to find its way into scalp hair to present era day !!!

Here is the other piece of the thought

So, now onto the point of all this.

Somehow, meaning is lost it seems to many people looking at ancient culture and primitive unrecorded archeological evidence.
Note that i mentioned vocalization in a context of defined language speech vs. grunting and difficulty controlling sound regularly for communication.
To mate, noise is one point, my brother often collected grasshoppers for mitochondrial DNA testing and would find them by the noise of the males gathered in a group rubbing their hind legs together on spines they have on their legs.
But, as you well know "mammals" often use scent (smell) to find a mate that is ready.

Now here is where the feature of efficiency at committing reproduction activity gets interesting.
Because hominid females basically for millions of years will have had a menstrual cycle as all mammals too, it is understandable to a male (probably with experience) some are ready to mate and others are not ready!

However, some aspects of safety and law do not cohere well to use from the past 6000 or so years law has been existent.
That being how females protect themselves from attack, and from anything, e.g. other females or males.
From the prehistoric perspective, how males protect themselves from males or dangerous females.
One point for sure is a male approaching looking for females in prehistoria does not want to put his head inside a confined living space if he does not know the result or be too near to a dwelling or he will potentially invoke attack.
Too he may not feel it a good idea to commit sexual entry of children he's caught , not because of ethics beyond damage or their taking enough fright to invoke outright attack from the mother and others bonded to the hominid pack.
If he commits sexual action on a female by leaving semen inside her if he "catches one" , the main bulk of smell will be covered by female smell when she reenters her dwelling.

In short, anywhere except the scalp hair the male semen smell can be removed or smell blocked.
To safely remove (bait) interested females if there are no males there in the dwelling, the scalp hair of one of the dwellers would be a genuinely successful action at luring any females inside a dwelling and holds to the idea of "self-promoted proliferation"

That is the structure of the prehistoric mating problem and a sensible answer to a more successful idea that does not require a particularly high IQ to think of using the hair of some person(non descript) whom will go back to the dwelling
BUT, it is well known to this day that in modern humans as shown by arrest of deviants that use of smell as a powerful tool continues use in modern humans, but also anyhow many creatures use scent spreading for such purpose!

I have never heard of archaeologists whom study primitive sites without civilisation structure searching for semen in corpse hair of what would be all ages of person when they died.

Added note:
One of the main problems i get from either history books on ancient culture or more the appraisal of reason of what had occurred that was recorded, is most historians or archaeologists seem to assume that because a modern human of now has an evolutionary history of around half a million years as the same creature entirely in evolution that there is no difference to modern thinking and ethical standard compared to half a million years or as little as 6000 years.

Quite frankly, all that would occur if a male went wandering half a million years previous as many would, if it had survived to adulthood to mate (that's a vague point what adulthood would be if you use biological truth) it would rate continually finding ways to get to females and bicker against other males, but at some point it does become a problem when traversing more remote areas , to survive there is no way by sensibility he'd put his head into a dark or secluded living or hiding space by what little wisdom from surviving thus far.

[Kryptid]

I'm genuinely having difficulty understanding your argument. Are you saying that people have hair on their heads for some scent-based reason?

[nicephotog (OP)]

QUOTE: saying that people have hair on their heads for some scent-based reason?
YES (as plain as the "officer savage" police sketch from Not the Nine O'Clock News) but that i wonder may be more how humans lost the hair on their bodies (obviously there was some hair at least in the past 2 million years but in what quantity to lose), possibly continual shaving every other feature on their bodies to be able to not require to roll in the grass to wipe off such attacks. The only trouble is that as an evolutionary point is more likely inbreeding alike the silver fox experiment result (selective) as how they lost the hair from the body and other limbs , and possibly better at not picking up disease to have as little hair as possible (perhaps through history of prehistoric populations everything that had body hair died from bad hygiene).
Head hair would be as heavy a problem could possibly be to keep (upkeep).

I find the method of AKA "baiting by running something caught belonging to the secure area into the danger zone with seminal smell in the hair a credible method because the smell and substance cannot be easily cleaned off, It is a reasonable simple intelligent thought that does not require ethics under its terms of use" for females in a more secure situation by such a method being extremely credible for the past 2 million years of brain development and as simple and as far as anything needing ethic no more than the cowboys in "blazing saddles" had any credible ethic.
Part of what inspired this is i found a video online of (as usual) very beautiful show girl cheerleader doing something girls all do "but is extremely rare to see and rarer to see on camera".
She had beautiful long hair and had her chin tucked down onto her chest with her hair curled around from behind to into her hand and her nose pushed into her hand and hair sniffing her hair.'
I've have seen countless girls do this but i have no great data or reason they do , just that it is scent in their hair.
Because in 57 years i have seen it from just about any girls of any age of any type kind or social level it is obviously a genuine characteristic of them!

For most for half a million years people have basically only had hair on their heads, everything else is for purpose bare skin covering the body.
Meaning, the head hair is the only "sufficient quantity" of absorbent like or carrier of glue like fluid that cannot be rubbed (cleaned) off almost immediately.
e.g. A hypothesis such as any of the non adult children would be perfect for its advertising stunt half a million years previous because it would not be able to remove semen from the hair by scratching , is much more likely to run inside to its other family members to help that would gather to find what the problem and noise was.
It would not be an action of hitting the mark, more an action of being sure the (suppose AKA) junk mail is not able to be scraped off and sufficient to set up a huge smell as soon as the carrier gets into the dwelling space.

Plenty of creatures use scent distributed on objects, but that only works if the recipient gets within range.
In this system the recipient is bombarded with the information as heavily as commercial television!

Because homo sapiens brain can quantify well statistically , which do you think is the better chance as its brain would half a million years back, on a tree they may not get near for days? or a sure bet by catching "someone handlable" and unloading it into the hair whether direct self gratuity or from a recent store of the stuff?

Too, who's about to prosecute him? the NSW Police? , the AFP? , the FBI? Scotland yards lot? , it is half a million to 6000 years previous.
Personally i think it was probably civilisation and precise vocal language that allowed a male to live with the females because the problem would likely cause his death 10,000 years ago and previous that for numerous reasons such as food share and other males requirements for females particularly , with the point of engineering weapons comes a subtlety of not requiring to face a stronger male as much as being when he's awake, he doesn't have eyes in the back of his head!

Aug 2024 - added this
Don't you find it ODD! humans only have hair on two regions , the head and the genitalia , particularly women do not have "much" body hair and generally considered no facial hair!
Although many ancient books do mention men having long hair , essentially their physical movements are not "elastic" and quite rigid , however female muscular movement and limb joint movement is quite flexible.
So when tossing their hair (females) ,it is not dissimilar to a queen bee on a mating flight to spread scent.
These cheerleaders i noticed do have some videos that show they "to effect ! also dance their hair in the rythm" , i could not find that one but its effect is their from time to time.

[nicephotog (OP)]

Unfortunately though this is alike talking to myself this video of "hair" is much more an example.
When an apis queen bee flies on a mating run she does not use a straight line, she moves up and down  to spread scent as much to be noticed well by other primitive eyes of insect. That is analogous to longer hair on humans being rhythmically shaken.
If anything continuosly uses such a process it is female humans as in this video (something alike I tried to refind before) NB this one seems to be their favourite Chinese dish (is actually Korean).

The final point , it is scent based because losing all hair would have nowhere to carry scent, it would dry too quickly and be too concentrated over distance(wind) rather than dissipating wider over shorter distance to increase area range

Most four legged mammals solve that with a tail !
Curled into a ball in a confined space the scent will slowly add to the hair oil of the fur and slow  release when they move around.

Interestingly, I find the reason hair develops on the groin area of humans is for most "insects" are more the problem than tactile stimulation or scent.
Why it wouldn't exist on children is because of cleaning by parental nurture, not actually the development , it would be more difficult to clean and more disease danger to a child, while scent spreading of a child increases overall danger adding attraction danger that could bring in physical attack by being discovered(adverb).

Hair on a babies head is basically not present for most. Not a good idea for babies newborn because of hygiene, mum would be too tired and sore for a sufficient time in hot weather for rotting to start.

The most subtle, while female humans grow hair at puberty, they are capable of pregnancy often a year before that sufficiently grows to being considered an adult patch of hair on the groin.
You could suppose feeling that way and scent spreading are not a real requirement leaving tactile sensing feelers as the only reason to supply that type of hair (pubic) unlike head hair .
The issue of tactile defence (and mesh shield) to the groin area is ok for an adult that can clean itself responsibly not as a game copying. For small children hygiene is supplied by a parent continuosly in evolution over that lifespan sector until the hair exists on the groin is reasonably standard.
That now leaves children have head hair, but at least not for something alike a year immediate after being born.
However, most of the critical sensors need warning and protection and are located on in the head and rate as good as a  driverless car.

In the first video, the head and hair movement are choreography, but the next  video is more incidental.

[nicephotog (OP)]

So then , what is the value of hair to being part of a human , and more to the point, a modern human!?
The an ient Egyptians mostly shaved their heads and wore wigs because of hygiene.
Definitely something far longer in evolution took place removing hair from most parts of the human!


Evolution development removed most hair from human anatomy but leaved facial hair on males, but not females.
Too, the only other place substantial hair growth is found is on the genital region.
The genital region is where it would be thought the best development to lose hair by evolution because disease and hygiene remain a serious consideration for survival
My only guess to this is another severe oddity of nature, rather than subtlety and monitoring, hair at the genital region causes grooming for hygiene by the principal it is either completely clean or completely filthy (aka overloaded as warning), so not monitored or measured for maintenance, only ever one or the other.

If you think about it, evolutionary time lines decree something like one million years for change ,
If primitives manufacturing clothing were to trigger evolution by covering over all the now bare bald regions of the human anotomy , what does that say for a man to have genital hair and facial hair, a woman , principally only genital hair apart both having head scalp hair....!?!?!?
....what that must looked like day after day for millions of years (mind you, nothing to done during the ice age, I'd figure that would take quite some hair where exposed!)

[alancalverd]

Slightly odd fixation with cheerleaders and genital hair, but the fact is that most humans have hair over all of their bodies. It just happens to be particularly luxuriant in a few places, and quite different in every place.

Nothing unusual about male facial hair - think of a lion's mane compared with a lioness. The growth of  coarse hair on the face and chest  is associated with testosterone, which bizarrely also promotes loss  of the fine scalp hair. Genital and armpit hair has some protective function and male armpits, at least, are known to secrete stimulating pheromones.

[nicephotog (OP)]

I KNEW SOMEONE' WOULD SAY THIS

Slightly odd fixation with cheerleaders and genital hair, but the fact is that most humans have hair over all of their bodies.

Now that is finished, To be more defined, the remaining hair growth points seem rather odd "except the head" , to wit , an ice age, but then too , if clothing caused thinning near removal of most of the covering ,the ice age (ice ages plural , it takes blocks of millions of years for significant change in evolution) probably could not be the cause because head hair would be covered.
Included Negroids, body hair is reasonably gone as a complete cover that has use against weather!

EDITED
TO BE CLEARER "beavers" (damn what a choice but ... ) generally as do foxes, have modifications of environment not dissimilar to ancient humans before 6000BC , but they have not lost hair from their skin surface over evolutionary time span.
Interesting a point also , the "body hair" on humans is "different" type compared the other two types of growth and texture head and genital!


18 May 2025
Found a video (lost male genetic diversity in pre history) showing some promise of finding how hair covering distribution on humans has become scant (or lost).
First, there does not appear to be any true indication of hair covering on humans except by looking at primates and general understanding of need of wild animals to survive in the environment.
Just a presumption hair covering would be complete over all except the soles of the feet on humans.
The video attests a genetic diversity theory of 90 to 95 percent of male DNA lineage was lost around 5000 years back by war, however, its not isolated to only one part of the earths geography, it was on all continents.
This would describe an effect similar to the results of genetic characteristics of the silver fox experiment whereby the characteristics were isolated in the progeny to only specific appearance separate from its genetically diverse wild group of forebears.
The video lists as "patriarchal", genetic communities, a reason why at least 90 percent of male genetic diversity was lost apart war.
As much, ice age "glacial period" has only occurred once during human evolution period over the passed 6 to 8 million years (Australopithecus to Sapiens).
One theory of trained hair loss i have is the last glacial period is perfect for the head to be uncovered in an enclosed environment, as example a cave to conserve heat from a fire, but leaving the remainder of the body and limbs covered.
Supposition of why, The heat inside sufficient clothing will cause the brain to react alike it is in "summer season" and cause moulting, because there is no effective season for 40,000 years, only glacial ice age, the moulting switch remains in the "moult on" position (figuratively, perhaps rusted on).The face does not intrinsically require to be uncovered outside, neither the genitals, because of this point the only guess i have for genital hair continuing to exist is it becomes exposed far more often (urine , defecate) than the face when outside (during the glacial period).
Vid 1.

In some of this, the question remains why women have much less hair growth than males. The two points are synonymous as why there is not complete hair covering on humans.