>>22251777
>Armpits are seemingly much more common as a gay thing than a straight thing.
No it's not, you retard.
>It's more the gesture than the body part itself.
It's both.
>There's also an implication of smelling good
Not necessarily "smelling good" since armpits host higher bacteria, body odor and sweat, but yes, a female signalling to a male that she looks and smells different than a male, with different body odor more attractive to a male.
>Women showing their armpits is a common physical gesture
>It's a signifier of a major sexual difference.
This is the part you got right.
Females subconsciously perform this gesture, especially when laying down with their chosen male partner, genuinely trying to seem attractive to a male because females have developed a subconscious instinct to expose that body part for the purpose of releasing their body odors and to further provide evidence to the male that she is in fact sexually different to a male.
Humans are not much different from other mammals who sniff each other's odors for sexual reasons. Pheromones play a role.
>it's a proof of being groomed
Irrelevant if groomed or not. Armpit hair or lack of armpit hair being considered attractive or acceptable by a male has more to do with that male's sexual maturity.
A more sexually mature male will have more masculine traits like being much hairier himself when compared to a male who is still immature.
A sexually immature male is more feminine and will still be turned off by female body hair because comparatively there's still too little difference between him and that slightly hairy female.
I'm older and personally more turned on if the female has some armpit hair because it shows her sexual maturity is higher.
Obviously young males like
>>22251777 prefer even younger females than him who are more like children still.
