Shin mange, part II: the missing link explained
People josh about shin mange. Josh all you will (and you will), but it could very well be a major evolutionary imperative of the humanoid species. Call it "follicular Darwinism."
Mankind, as it evolves, is becoming less hirsute. This is clearly because hairier men are less inclined to procreate, lest they suffer the pain of forcible depilation by probing, year-old fists. Hairless men, on the contrary, can procreate with impunity. Thus, the smooth-skinned male lives to pass on his glabrous genes, while the man-yaks are slowly, inexorably outnumbered.
I demand this be taught in high schools across the country immediately. Especially in Kansas, which seems extra willing to embrace new ideas.
You had me at "man-yak."
Posted by:Laziza | April 18, 2006 at 09:59
Your vocabulary scares me. Just saying. :)
Posted by:Divine Calm | April 18, 2006 at 10:56
I was hoping to come off all academic and shit.
Posted by:LOD | April 18, 2006 at 11:44
As a now-laughing Man-Yak, I am doomed to forever be looking over my only slightly fuzzy shoulder for warning signs of my inevitable extinction. Thanks again big furry fella. At least we know who bigfoot is at last...
Posted by:Ned | April 18, 2006 at 12:28
I love the idea that hairless men can procreate with impunity. There's something somehow oddly...what?...liberating? about that.
Posted by:Kristen | April 18, 2006 at 16:07
glabrous!
woo hoo! :D
Posted by:heather | April 19, 2006 at 00:31
Ah, but would the Yeti-dads-to-be have such procreative inhibitions if not for you telling everyone about it?
Perhaps YOU are the missing link (dah-dah-dah-daaaaah)...
Posted by:Ashby | April 19, 2006 at 12:13
It just makes me so incredibly happy when people use the word "josh." Isn't it the greatest verb? I josh, you josh, he/she/it joshes...
Posted by:Nothing But Bonfires | April 19, 2006 at 22:42
I'm not sure of the name of this blog. A more noticable banner might help.
Posted by:the patriarch | April 20, 2006 at 10:17
I like the new Fruit Stripe banner.
Posted by:Nee Stewart | April 20, 2006 at 13:27
It may also be that harrier men have more difficulty attracting women, whereby to procreate - hence the popularity of shaving. Haven't you seen the commercials? Even bigfoot is doing it.
Posted by:SMIT | April 21, 2006 at 13:19
I love "follicular Dawinisim." Just love it.
I would, however, qualify your theory of evolutionary biology with hair distribution patterns. Take Michael Bolton's balding mullet for example... far less likely to procreate.
Posted by:KC | April 21, 2006 at 13:27
Michael Bolton has daughters.
Posted by:Lisa | April 21, 2006 at 16:03
That I don't question. He clearly has procreated, but put that hair on 10,000 normal men, release them into the US population and then compare procreation rates to those without balding mullets. I'm betting there's a stastically significant difference.
Posted by:KC | April 21, 2006 at 16:50
Very true. But thankfully he has since cut it and looks procreation worthy. At least to Nicollette Sheridan. :-)
Posted by:Lisa | April 21, 2006 at 18:42
update.
Posted by:asfd | April 22, 2006 at 04:22
Yeah well, evolution is slow to happen in my family.
Along with my spring and summer pedicures, I have the tops of my feet and my toes waxed and I shave inbetween waxing.
At least I didn't inherit my father's ability to grow a shag carpet on one's back.
Posted by:Scully | April 23, 2006 at 14:35
*Year*-old fists? My husband has been enjoying an early morning chest depilation since WonderBaby was four months old. By the time she's working the year-old fists he'll be a full-on hairless metrosexual and there'll be nothing to grab.
Posted by:Her Bad Mother | April 24, 2006 at 09:10