I have decided to forego shaving my legs, and that is in keeping with Sikhism, so I ask you to help me feel better about my decision. Who decided that women are supposed to shave our legs anyway? What purpose was it supposed to serve? Men were not goaded into shaving their legs. Men are not ridiculed for sporting a beard, so long as it is kept neat and clean. In America when I was growing up, it was in middle school that girls started teasing me about the hair on my legs. My mother was opposed to me ever shaving my legs. My mother said that she did not want me to shave my legs because once I started, I could never stop. That did not seem logical to me, so I saved up my lunch money to buy shavers to shave my legs so I wouldn't be teased anymore. That's all I really wanted, to not be teased. I was teased for many things, but I will stick with this topic for this thread. I am an adult now, and adults tend not to tease each other - but I'm sure the thoughts still go through people's heads and I suspect there is talking behind a person's back because I heard it as a child, about how ugly, nasty, gross, insert degrading comment here -- regarding either hair on the legs or the person whose legs were unshaven. Pragmatically, shaving one's legs is a silly thing to do - but American society shames its little girls into consumerism (buying shavers, which end up as waste products after being used a few times). As adults, we continue to carry this shame that there is hair on our legs. If guys were not also brainwashed, they might find it more erotic to have sex with a woman with hair on her legs, as opposed to the inevitable stubble that occurs with shaving. Guys like hair, to the point that some of them do some pretty funky things to cover up if they go bald - but somehow hair on the legs is undesirable? It is true that female swim fashion does not look good unless you shave, but why isn't that the fault of the fashion industry? I have a skirted suit to cover up the most obvious of hair, but guy's suits have always covered the pubic hairy region which yes, does extend onto the legs. That area is also sexually sensual, so there is good reason for it to be covered with hair. Nevertheless, due to mass brainwashing, hair there has been determined to be a major turn-off. Yet guys complain that there are not landmarks to show exactly where what touch produces what effect. Why not? Because mainstream guys think that they want us to shave off the landmarks. Please, help me not feel so ashamed of having hair on my legs. God put it there, and I didn't take it away. What is so wrong with that? Nothing, logically, but society causes me to feel bad about it.