Back in 1972 when Burt Reynolds posed for this Cosmo centrefold he was judged one of the world's sexiest male film stars. My guess is today his hirsute body would be a turn-off for many young women. I don't get why the hair thing should have changed over four decades.
Unless the world has turned upside down men still want to attract women - and so groom themselves accordingly. Women, therefore, share the blame too for what strikes me as an irrational approach to male hair - from top to toe.
Why, for example, would a young man who is starting to lose his hair feel inclined to shave it all off?
I can't say I've been on 24-hour lookout but if there is a current boy band singer with a chest rug like that of, say, Tom Jones then I've missed it.
Not so long ago for a man to shave his chest he had to be a swimmer or a bodybuilder. 007 had a hairy chest when he was Sean Connery; Daniel Craig, the current James Bond - if MGM can ever afford another movie in the franchise - doesn't.
These days if a young man sprouts anywhere it is a trim underarm display. Once to have been called "hairy-arsed" was only half an insult; it meant crude and uncouth but also rugged and manly.
It wouldn't be a surprise to find back, sac, and crack waxing is now the rage among builders, bikers, and rugby players.
From what I read fashion still allows a little pubic hair as opposed to the completely shorn porn star look. I can't understand why a young man would wish to slip beneath the duvet with his beloved looking much the same as when his voice broke.
At my age hair grows where I don't want it - nose and ears - but I'm losing it on my head.
PS. Hair today and gone tomorrow - normal blog service will be resumed when I return from a trip to the Edinburgh Festival.