I'm skeptical of this for several reasons, not the least of which is experience being around people who weren't bathing for a long time.
Every single time I read about this, it's the person adopting it who claims they don't smell. Not others around them.
Then there's the unspoken but critical exceptions, which seems par for the course in health social media now. The acquaintance doesn't use soap, with the asterisk (there's always an asterisk today) that he "does wash his hands with soap and, in the cases where there’s actual dirt or grime on him, will lather up." He doesn't use shampoo, but maybe in another asterisk he uses some other cleaner instead? Toward the end of the article the author mentions someone who doesn't use soap, with the asterisk that he means "everything but his armpits and crotch"... which seems significant especially given that lather is likely running elsewhere.
I do wonder if cleaning routines could change, to use gentler cleansers, or different strategies to moisturize and condition skin and hair. That would be a different and maybe more productive discussion.
You wrote: "Every single time I read about this, it's the person adopting it who claims they don't smell. Not others around them."
This article breaks your observational streak: "And before you ask: He appears well-kept, dresses stylishly, and always seems to be dating an impossibly beautiful woman. Also, he doesn’t smell."
Yeah I saw that... maybe I should amend it to say "every other time", or "whenever these claims are made without a caveat or exception". I'd edit it but will leave it there because you highlighted this mistake in my comment.
I think my underlying impression is the same: there's always a caveat or asterisk or footnote, or it's the person in question making the claim about lack of odor. In this case we're left not knowing what he considers "grime" or whether there's some other product he's using he's not talking about. We don't really know what his personal routine is, how he exercises or doesn't, and so forth. The author didn't say they were spending a lot of time with this person (maybe he was caught on a "good day"), in close physical contact (the author doesn't have to be physically intimate with him), and explicitly mentioned that he didn't ask him the really confounding questions (such as about his "nether regions"). We're left to assume because he has an attractive partner he has no smell, as if any problems with smell would keep anyone from getting a date at all and wouldn't cause problems in a relationship, or be something the partner would wish were different, and that there are no other reasons why an attractive woman might date someone.
It's just always so vague and significant questions are left unanswered, or if they are, there's a caveat or exception or asterisk. My general impression is that these people are maybe washing less, or being more selective in how they wash, or using gentler products, but that they're not forgoing "soap" completely (I assume they mean surfactants in general? This is another "gotcha" I wondered about.)
> “Because, evolutionarily, why would we be so disgusting that we need constant cleaning? And constant moisturizing and/or de-oiling?”
I am highly sceptical of every argument starting with "evolutionarily". Many times it just doesn't make any sense. "Evolutionarily, why would we travel in cars? I have this friend who stopped travelling in cars and hasn't been sick ever since".
Not that the soap question is not interesting, but anecdotal evidences ("I know a guy who...") never convince me.
Besides, evolutionarily speaking, everything is about reproduction and raising children to sexual maturity. If women tend to prefer to mate with men who wash themselves regularly (there's strong evidence that's the case), and/or if washing regularly increases the chances of boys reaching sexual maturity (there's also evidence that's the case) then that's the behavior evolutionary pressure is encouraging.
And, evolutionary, why would cats and dogs be so disgusting that they would have to clean themselves? And why would raccoons be so surrounded by bacteria that they would evolve to rinse their paws in water? And why would birds evolve to take water or dust baths, and preen their feathers?
This article makes me concerned not only for the physical hygiene of our species, but for its mental hygiene as well.
Readit News
Every single time I read about this, it's the person adopting it who claims they don't smell. Not others around them.
Then there's the unspoken but critical exceptions, which seems par for the course in health social media now. The acquaintance doesn't use soap, with the asterisk (there's always an asterisk today) that he "does wash his hands with soap and, in the cases where there’s actual dirt or grime on him, will lather up." He doesn't use shampoo, but maybe in another asterisk he uses some other cleaner instead? Toward the end of the article the author mentions someone who doesn't use soap, with the asterisk that he means "everything but his armpits and crotch"... which seems significant especially given that lather is likely running elsewhere.
I do wonder if cleaning routines could change, to use gentler cleansers, or different strategies to moisturize and condition skin and hair. That would be a different and maybe more productive discussion.
This article breaks your observational streak: "And before you ask: He appears well-kept, dresses stylishly, and always seems to be dating an impossibly beautiful woman. Also, he doesn’t smell."
I think my underlying impression is the same: there's always a caveat or asterisk or footnote, or it's the person in question making the claim about lack of odor. In this case we're left not knowing what he considers "grime" or whether there's some other product he's using he's not talking about. We don't really know what his personal routine is, how he exercises or doesn't, and so forth. The author didn't say they were spending a lot of time with this person (maybe he was caught on a "good day"), in close physical contact (the author doesn't have to be physically intimate with him), and explicitly mentioned that he didn't ask him the really confounding questions (such as about his "nether regions"). We're left to assume because he has an attractive partner he has no smell, as if any problems with smell would keep anyone from getting a date at all and wouldn't cause problems in a relationship, or be something the partner would wish were different, and that there are no other reasons why an attractive woman might date someone.
It's just always so vague and significant questions are left unanswered, or if they are, there's a caveat or exception or asterisk. My general impression is that these people are maybe washing less, or being more selective in how they wash, or using gentler products, but that they're not forgoing "soap" completely (I assume they mean surfactants in general? This is another "gotcha" I wondered about.)
I am highly sceptical of every argument starting with "evolutionarily". Many times it just doesn't make any sense. "Evolutionarily, why would we travel in cars? I have this friend who stopped travelling in cars and hasn't been sick ever since".
Not that the soap question is not interesting, but anecdotal evidences ("I know a guy who...") never convince me.
Besides, evolutionarily speaking, everything is about reproduction and raising children to sexual maturity. If women tend to prefer to mate with men who wash themselves regularly (there's strong evidence that's the case), and/or if washing regularly increases the chances of boys reaching sexual maturity (there's also evidence that's the case) then that's the behavior evolutionary pressure is encouraging.
This article makes me concerned not only for the physical hygiene of our species, but for its mental hygiene as well.
But having more smell might be attractive due to pheromones.