>>12607424yes but it wasn't in our culture. hair removal in our culture is a result of marketing campaigns and media, like so many other things.
also 'it's theorised' is bullshit. they removed it likely because it was their custom to do so, which can arise for any number of reasons and be long forgotten, nothing more. treating it as strictly instrumental is nonsense and unscientific. generally-speaking, the only solid cross-cultural reason for hair removal would be cleanliness or rather ease of cleanliness, not having to clean as much. for normal women who don't walk around exposed and only have sex with their husbands, there are unlikely to be any social forces at work.
Here's a indigenous huntergatherer example:
>In his letter to Manuel I of Portugal, Pêro Vaz de Caminha gives what is considered by many today as being one of the most accurate accounts of what Brazil used to look like in 1500.>They are brown skinned, of a quite reddish complexion, with handsome faces and noses, nicely shaped. They go about naked, without any type of covering. They do not bother to cover their bodies, and show their private parts as readily as they show their faces. In this matter they are of great innocence. > they are well groomed and very clean. And in that aspect, I am convinced they are like birds, or mountain animals, to whom the air gives better feathers and hair than those of their domesticated counterparts, because their bodies are as clean and as plump and as beautiful as could be! >They only eat this yam (referring to manioc, then unknown to the Europeans), which is very plentiful here, and those seeds and fruits that the earth and the trees give of themselves. Nevertheless, they are sturdier, and sleeker than we are despite all the wheat and legumes we eat. 
