Oh dear.
I'm female, or, at least, that's what my paperwork says. Mostly.
I haven't shaved my legs (or anywhere else) since I was a teenager in the 70s when girls were told you 'had to'. I worked out PDQ that it was itchy and uncomfortable, and could see no logical reason for it so I stopped. (I note that current research on ladies and bike saddles is very clear that shaving in that area is a bad idea for us.)
I still have the razor, it was a blue one. No pink nonsense back then. I also hate pink, so even if I shaved I would just look for a 'men's' one.
Purely visually, as an artist, I prefer models not to have shaved, especially of the 'least visible' parts.
I suspect that the money trap is that 'womens' pink razors are in the 'women's' section, and women may not realise that if they shopped in the men's toiletries they could get cheaper ones. If that's how it is done, it's basically a placement and marketing trap. It's surely mad that they are charged at several times more for being a different colour otherwise.
I assume the actual blades are charged at the same rate for males/females - or are we talking abut disposables here? If so, save the planet and buy a one where you can replace the blades instead.
