The Hairy, Sweaty, Stinky Truth About Why We Hate Our Bodies

In “Gross Anatomy,” Mara Altman investigates the advertising campaigns and superstitions at the root of our disdain.

Mara Altman

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

“I am a bearded lady,” writer Mara Altman confesses in her new illustrated essay collection Gross Anatomy: Dispatches From the Front (and Back). That may elicit snickers, but Altman’s aim is to upend stigmas around our bodily realities: “It is my hope that by holding up a magnifying glass to our beliefs, practices, and nipples, this book might serve as a small step toward replacing self-flagellation with awe.”

Author of the 2009 memoir Thanks for Coming, which followed a 26-year-old Altman’s quest for an orgasm, Altman attributes her fascination with bodies to her very not body-conscious hippie parents: “Growing up, I had a different concept of femininity,” she writes. “I came to think that artificially enhancing my appearance in any way showed a lack of self-acceptance, that it meant I wasn’t strong enough to be who I really was.” 

In Gross Anatomy, out August 21, she traverses the body part by part, weaving together memoir, science, and psychology with self-deprecating humor in an attempt to challenge our negative connotations with our body parts and functions. As it turns out, Altman discovers, many of these associations make even less sense when you learn about their historical roots:

Body hair

Women’s hair removal became a thing in America in the early 1900s, when women’s fashion started to show more skin—and hair. Advertisers targeted underarms first, and then legs, portraying body hair as unfeminine. A 1922 ad for a depilatory asked, “Can any woman afford to look masculine? Positively not!” Some women even exposed themselves to harmful X-rays to remove unwanted hair, a level of dedication Altman admits she “kind of admired.” Penn State anthropology professor Nina Jablonski told Altman that hairlessness has been viewed as desirable since ancient times because of its association with youth, and thus with fertility. 

In fact: There’s no benefit to removing body hair unless, perhaps, you’re an Olympic swimmer. In fact, keeping it actually has its advantages: Des Tobin, a cell biology professor at the University of Bradford, told the Daily Mail that body hair can help skin heal from a wound—as hair follicles are full of stem cells—and also provides a modicum of warmth and sun protection.  

Sweat

From 1500 to 1800, Altman writes, people believed clogged sweat glands could kill you. They also thought sweat was a conduit for releasing gunk from the body—a dangerous, disease-ridden fluid. By the early 1900s, advertisers were exploiting this fear to sell antiperspirant. “You’re a pretty girl, Mary, and you’re smart about most things. But you’re just a bit stupid about yourself,” reads an ad showing a despondent young woman. “You’ve met several grand men who seemed interested at first. They took you out once—and that was that. WAKE UP, MARY!” 

Newspapers.com; The Delineator

In fact: Daniel Lieberman, a sweat expert at Harvard University, tells Altman that mammals first started to sweat from their paws millions of years ago to help them survive: Sweat created traction so the creatures could climb and escape from predators. Eventually, its purpose evolved to regulate body temperature. And contrary to popular belief, sweat doesn’t purge the body of toxins. So much for hot yoga sessions.

Vaginal odor

This was not a big concern for women in the Middle Ages: “They had bigger things to worry about, like the plague,” Altman writes. And although women douched with a variety of substances (often wine), they did so hoping to ward off disease. It wasn’t until the 19th century that douching was promoted by a physician named Charles Knowlton as birth control. After Congress passed a strict law regulating dissemination of information about contraceptives in 1873, douching was rebranded as “feminine hygiene,” and marketers set about making women self-conscious about their scents, with ad copy like, “Unfortunately, the trickiest deodorant problem a girl has isn’t under her pretty little arms” and, “The world’s costliest perfumes are worthless—unless you’re sure of your own natural fragrance.” 

In fact: Brown University professor Rachel Herz points out to Altman that humans are born with a blank sense of smell, thus negative connotation with vaginal scent is nurture, not nature. Gordon Gallup, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Albany, even draws an evolutionary connection, citing studies that say men are likely more attracted to a woman’s scent when she’s ovulating, and therefore more game to get it on.

Illustrations by Mara Altman


If you buy a book using a Bookshop link on this page, a small share of the proceeds supports our journalism.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate