a bonobo humanity?

her beard is beautiful, her stupid shoes, not so much…

As occasionally mentioned, I often get a bit defensive about the title, and apparent purpose, of my blog. Yes I know we’re (almost) nothing like bonobos, or at least that our 98.7% genetic similarity says nothing about the complex human cultures that we’ve developed more or less globally in the last few thousand years. Our civilisations, our technology, our great fashion sense…

And we’re so much better looking. Well, at least the best of us. I mean, has a bonobo ever turned you on? Primatologists often describe bonobos as more gracile than chimps – meaning more slender, graceful and other notably sensual terms. But, really, what about all that hair? Yes, bonobos have that cute middle parting at the top of their heads, but what about the rest of it? It’s hard to say, with humans, how much hair is too much – I mean, it’s whatever turns you on, or off. Certainly human females learn fairly early in life that too much bodily hair is a no-no. But how much is too much? Google’s AI overview thingy tells us that ‘The global hair removal products market was valued at around $14.7 billion in 2023’. That 14.7 billion bucks tells us that we’re most definitely not ‘the hairless ape’. 

Even so, we’re nothing like bonobos, or chimps, or gorillas. As for orangutans, the one I saw recently at the local zoo was exceptional. I could barely discern a face, body or limbs underneath a mountain of hair. It was a lovely silky mountain though. 

But with humans there’s a gender thing about hair, is there not? Especially bodily hair. Hairy chests on men can be a turn-on for some women, but women with hairy chests? Is this something to do with sexual selection? In spite of all that dosh spent on hair removal, it strikes me as unlikely that women in their ‘natural state’ have as much chest hair as men. Male chimps and bonobos have more chest hair than females. Could this be about breast-feeding? But then, all primates breast-feed, even the hairiest, without too much trouble. 

A 2018 scientific paper, linked below, seeks, I think, to link the reduction in human body hair with ‘sweat gland traits’. From the abstract:

Humans differ in many respects from other primates, but perhaps no derived human feature is more striking than our naked skin. Long purported to be adaptive, humans’ unique external appearance is characterized by changes in both the patterning of hair follicles and eccrine sweat glands, producing decreased hair cover and increased sweat gland density.

Our findings suggest that a decrease in hair density in the ancestors of humans and apes was followed by an increase in eccrine gland density and a reduction in fur cover in humans. This work answers long-standing questions about the traits that make human skin unique and substantiates a model in which the evolution of expanded eccrine gland density was exclusive to the human lineage.

I’m not quite sure why I don’t find this entirely convincing – not the ‘expanded eccrine gland density’, but its connection with the reduced density of human hair. However what interests me more is the aesthetics that humans have developed around having more or less bodily hair. And head hair too. I was a teenager in the late 60s into the mid 70s when long hair was all the go for guys, and I had a big black frizz – then came the punk era and we all cut our hair and wore out-sized op-shop jackets plastered with badges and decorata – at least I did for a year or so. But the hippy era and the punk follow-up both had a kind of unisex feel to them that I actually found inspirational. I’ve always had a thing for gender fluidity, with hairstyles and modes of dress being but the outer show of deeper changes in human behaviour and thought that I hoped were coming to pass. 

Of course, these changes are occurring, and it’s noticeable here in Australia, especially to us oldies, with patriarchal religion receding and universities full of female students, with our first and only female Prime Minister and the very occasional female state Premier, with female sports gaining more prominence, but…

There are still stupid shoes, depilatory creams, fish lips, boob jobs and a thousand tints of lipstick, foundation (whatever that is) and other cosmetics. To which one might reasonably respond – ‘Isn’t the pursuit of beauty a good thing? Don’t we find humans in general more ‘beautiful’, or shall we say attractive, than macaques, siamangs or bonobos? And some humans more attractive than others?’  

It’s a puzzlement. Human physical beauty turns us on, depending on the gender we’re attracted to. And even if we’re not turned on, we recognise physical beauty – and ugliness – as a real thing. But who hasn’t had the experience of meeting a physically attractive person, and, after a few minutes’ conversation, being ‘turned off’? Or of meeting a physically so-so person and then being drawn, attracted, by their exceptional smarts, humour and je ne sais quoi? Beauty is ultimately in the consciousness of the beholder. And that’s not just the case for humans. Being on top of things – being an alpha of any sort, not just in strength and looks, is an attractant in many species. Becoming an alpha of whichever gender, in the whole primate world including H sapiens, requires more than strength and aggression, as I’m learning from the late Frans de Waal’s last book, which tells us, inter alia, that hierarchies are everywhere, and we’re never likely to get away from them.

So where does that leave my anti-authoritarian self? Someone who finds a certain kind of alpha male totally abhorrent? Probably leaning towards a bonobo humanity, where the authority isn’t quite so exacting, and may come with some very stimulating trimmings. 

References

https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/hair-removal-products-market#

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30502901/

Frans de Waal, Different: what apes can teach us about gender, 2022