Why does it seem like television is encouraging people to cut their long hair?

A couple weeks ago, on the Jay Leno show, there was an incident where a long haired male employee was "coerced" into having his long hair cut. (I did not see this show.) A few nights later they showed him with his new look. For this show they also brought on his mother to share her feelings about his new look. He apparently was "pleased" with his new hairdo, and his mother waxed eloquent on how much better she felt he looked.Now tonight I see a promo for Oprah Winfrey announcing that tomorrow (Thursday, May 20) at 4:00 p.m. PDT they will show a woman with very long hair having it cut. (This woman hasn't had a haircut for 22 years!) The brief promo showed a back view of her hair (very beautiful :-) and a front view of her face and new shoulder length hair. I won't comment on my opinion of the results :-(Do you get the feeling there is a subtle "campaign" going on to encourage these kind of "makeovers" or is it just another television show striving for more sensationalism?

Though this has been discussed to death now, I'll cover my thoughts on it in two semi-quick points:1) Makeovers on TV are done for dramatic effect. Unless Oprah was specifically doing a show on maintaining long hair, they wouldn't have the woman calf length hair on to get her split ends trimmed. That's just the way it is. It gives the stylist(s) an opportunity to show their stuff, gives the audience interest due to the big change, and usually gives the made over person a pretty decent new look. In other words, if they didn't want their hair cut, don't go on the show.Interestingly, if you watch one of the mass makeover shows where they have nine or ten people getting new looks, at least two or three will only get very minor changes. Usually just enough to jazz up their previous look. I think that's because it takes the pressure off of the styling team to put all of their talent on display on one or two people.2) There isn't a conspiracy against long haired people. As I said in a previous post, I cut hair on the side and have for over 12 years. In that time, whenever a client decided to cut her long hair, it was usually AGAINST the wishes of family and friends. In fact, in some cases, she had to talk her significant other into it because he liked her long hair. The only time this wasn't the case was when it was done on the spur of the moment. Look around these days. Long hair is now considered "in" if you look at the fashion shows, so all of you Rapunzels out there are hip. :)That's my take on it, though it will surely be disputed and we'll go through the whole discussion again.:)As usual,JerkyFleaP.S. By the way, if you haven't noticed before, Jay Leno has a thing for hair. He's toned it down a bit, but watch when an actress appears on the show that has made any sort of change to her hairstyle. He'll comment on it and may even pursue some questions on it. Before he became the permanent host, in fact, that would have always been his FIRST question to the actress. It's subtle, but if you watch you'll pick up on it. The long haired stagehand is just another example.Related Link:JerkyFlea's Celebrity Hair Spray

> Though this has been discussed to death now, I'll> cover my thoughts on it in two semi-quick points:Alright, but if you feel bored or sick "to death" of the subject, thenwhy bother posting a reply?If you believe it (all of the issues related to this situation) havebeen completely and thoroughly discussed before, then what are all ofthe conclusions? I ask this because it seems you want to neatlycompartmentalize the issues, or at least have everybody believe thatthere is nothing left to say about them. I say there is a lot moregoing on than has been discussed here (and a lot more that I willrefrain from posting -- for now).> 1) Makeovers on TV are done for dramatic effect.Yes, on this we agree.> Unless Oprah was specifically doing a show on> maintaining long hair, they wouldn't have the woman> calf length hair on to get her split ends trimmed.Wouldn't that be refreshingly new... a refreshing CHANGE...> That's just the way it is. It gives the stylist(s) an> opportunity to show their stuff,What's preventing the stylists from "showing their stuff" on a womanwho initially has hair that is nowhere near as long? Besides, whatspecial talent does it take to hack off a lot of length? Absolutelynone. Zero. Nada.gives the audience> interest due to the big change,Gives half the audience a heart attack. Did you see the show? Didyou hear the reactions?and usually gives the> made over person a pretty decent new look.Okay, this is purely subjective. But basically, the change in hairis "gussied up" with lots of other props -- such as new makeup, newclothes, etc.In other> words, if they didn't want their hair cut, don't go on> the show.Okay, in concept and in theory, I agree with this. But again, did yousee the show? The woman seemed very much to not want her hair to beshort. She seemed to be doing it largely (if not entirely) to pleaseher sister, who had been "begging" her to cut her hair for 20 years.> whenever a client decided to cut her long hair, it was> usually AGAINST the wishes of family and friends.I don't deny you your experiences. But in this case, it was not thisway at all. The sister of the woman whose hair was cut said that shewould have been willing to shave her own head to get her sister toagree to cut her hair. And the woman who was shorn was non-stop tears(and not happy ones) afterwards.> Look around these days. Long hair> is now considered "in" if you look at the> fashion shows, so all of you Rapunzels out there are> hip. :)Okay, so why then aren't these stylists promoting what is hip and "in?"Oh, that's right... sensationalism/shock value (thus, viewer interestand the resultant ad revenue, rule supreme over true beauty or styleconcerns).Dave

The adage used to be "dog bites man, not news: man bites dog, big news". TV shows in most of the world are ratings driven because that attracts adveretisers."Woman has long hair and doesn't change it, low ratings: woman has long hair and cuts it, big ratings"I'm with the fleaandy

Hiya Dave,I knew you wouldn't be able to resist. Plus, you're forcing me to write more. Aren't you sorry you posted now? :)> Alright, but if you feel bored or sick "to> death" of the subject, then> why bother posting a reply? I responded to summarize my previous thoughts to spare Kent from digging through all the past postings. Never said I was bored or sick to death of the subject, just feel that we have had many discussions on it now, most seem to follow the same path, and the final result is that everyone remains entrenched in their original opinion (if they had a strong one to begin with).> If you believe it (all of the issues related to this> situation) have> been completely and thoroughly discussed before, then> what are all of> the conclusions? I ask this because it seems you want> to neatly> compartmentalize the issues, or at least have> everybody believe that> there is nothing left to say about them. I say there> is a lot more> going on than has been discussed here (and a lot more> that I will> refrain from posting -- for now). Hmmm, I'll hit this in sections:First, what are the conclusions? For there to be a tidy conclusion, most parties need to come to an agreement on the resolution of the issues. Don't see that happening here anytime soon, which is what makes the board fun. Who would keep reading if we all agreed all of the time? So the conclusion would be that we won't ever be of the same opinion on this.Compartmentalizing the issues/no more to say about them? Nope, never said that, just was summarizing how I saw it. Very obviously, that isn't how you see it. Sure, I may be right and you may be wrong, but... heheh. :)Lots more going on than has been discussed. I often wonder where you are that long haired folks are such an abused and oppressed minority. Apologies if that sounds trite, but where most of the people posting in favor of long hair indicate their preference for it and how they get suggestions or pressure to change it, yours are a bit more extreme. Most of your posts make it sound as though the Short Hair Nazis are constantly pursuing you through back alleys, harrassing all of the long haired folks you know, and attempting a coup of the popular media to further their agenda. That's just so amazingly contrary to what I see on a daily basis (especially for women) that I simply have difficulty grasping it.>> Unless Oprah was specifically doing a show on>> maintaining long hair, they wouldn't have the woman>> calf length hair on to get her split ends trimmed.> Wouldn't that be refreshingly new... a refreshing> CHANGE... That would just simply be a show of a different focus, and a good one at that. However, if the show was intended as a "makeover" show and that was what was planned, the target viewership would consist of you and...well...you.> What's preventing the stylists from "showing> their stuff" on a woman> who initially has hair that is nowhere near as long?> Besides, what> special talent does it take to hack off a lot of> length? Absolutely> none. Zero. Nada. I liked the way you skipped the second portion of my post on this point which said:>> Interestingly, if you watch one of the mass makeover>> shows where they have nine or ten people getting new>> looks, at least two or three will only get very minor>> changes. Usually just enough to jazz up their previous>> look. I think that's because it takes the pressure off>> of the styling team to put all of their talent on>> display on one or two people. Of course it doesn't take talent to whack off 2 or 3 feet of hair, but to do a trendy style that shows off the talent of the stylist, that's the first step. Do I agree that's always in the best interest of the person getting the makeover? Heck no, but like I said, they only have those one or two people to show their stuff on.Example: You have a national audience to demonstrate your talent at something, say decorating a room. You're going to put every bit of creative pizazz you have into that one room to make the biggest splash you can. Now, let's say you have ten rooms. You would still do your creative best, but you'd probably have varying degrees of decoration, some subtle and some more dramatic. You could demonstrate a range of ability rather than having to make one big splash. Same thing with the single or double makeover vs the multipile makeover shows.> Gives half the audience a heart attack. Did you see> the show? Did> you hear the reactions? I said it gives them interest. Old Chinese curse says, "May you live in interesting times." You slow down to see a car wreck. That's not necessarily what you wanted to see, but darn it, you're interested.>> usually gives the made over person a pretty decent new look> Okay, this is purely subjective. But basically, the> change in hair> is "gussied up" with lots of other props --> such as new makeup, new> clothes, etc. Yup, it's purely subjective. But then again, saying that leaving her hair really long is better is also rather subject, isn't it?> Okay, in concept and in theory, I agree with this. But> again, did you> see the show? The woman seemed very much to not want> her hair to be> short. She seemed to be doing it largely (if not> entirely) to please> her sister, who had been "begging" her to> cut her hair for 20 years. Didn't see the show, so I can't comment on it directly. But still, if she didn't want it cut she shouldn't have gone on and had it done. Was she kidnapped and dragged on the show? Of course not.> I don't deny you your experiences. But in this case,> it was not this> way at all. The sister of the woman whose hair was cut> said that she> would have been willing to shave her own head to get> her sister to> agree to cut her hair. And the woman who was shorn was> non-stop tears> (and not happy ones) afterwards. She should have made her sister shave her head. Would only seem fair, wouldn't it?> Okay, so why then aren't these stylists promoting what> is hip and "in?" Ok, we've spun off on a completely different tangent here, but I'll try to keep my thoughts brief since I've rambled on quite a bit here. For the most part hairstylists cut hair. That's what they do. That's where they get to show a lot (not all, but a lot) of their talent, by creating a new style for a person. Simply redressing or trimming an existing style is for many (again, not ALL), a less interesting part of their day, especially if, in the stylist's opinion, a different style would look better.Going back to my example of a decorator. How dull would a decorator's day be if every client they had just asked them to rearrange the current furniture they had in the room with out changing anything. Sure, it's a creative challenge to try to come up with a new design given very fixed parameters. However, this is a person being paid for their creativity and talent and so if they see how a change here or there could improve the room, then they are expected to suggest and/or try it. Same thing applies for a hairstylist.Much like the makeover show, if you don't want a haircut, don't go to a stylist likely to suggest one.> Oh, that's right... sensationalism/shock value (thus,> viewer interest> and the resultant ad revenue, rule supreme over true> beauty or style> concerns). Why Dave, you've just summarized the mantra of the TV programmer perfectly. Why do you think Jerry Springer is still on the air? :)Going to rest,JerkyFleaRelated Link:JerkyFlea's Celebrity Hair Spray

Hi JerkyFlea,>>> Though this has been discussed to death now...>>>> Alright, but if you feel bored or sick "to death" of the subject,>> then why bother posting a reply?>> I knew you wouldn't be able to resist.But I don't think you understand why. I'm taking exception to yourattitude. By proclaiming that "this has been discussed to death now,"it is a (not so to me) subtle way of discouraging further discussionon this issue. You are welcome to believe that there is nothing leftto say. But by virtue of the fact that you also chose to reply to myresponse, that would seem to contradict your statement that "this hasbeen discussed to death."> Plus, you're forcing me to write more.Well, it's your choice as to whether or not you want to reply. But asHair Politics is an open discussion forum, all thoughts posted aresubject to the scrutiny of others.> Aren't you sorry you posted now? :)Nope. Not at all. :-)> I responded to summarize my previous thoughts to spare> Kent from digging through all the past postings.That was thoughtful... though I don't know whether or not we can fairlyassume that Kent wants or needs such assistance? As Kent initiated thesubject, one could assume that he might have seen prior threads ofdiscussion on the same or similar topics and read them already. I seemto recall Kent having been posting on Hair Politics before.Never> said I was bored or sick to death of the subject, just> feel that we have had many discussions on it now,Okay, well, although it may seem to be a subtle difference in words,this statement is a lot different than saying "this has been discussedto death now."> most seem to follow the same pathHas this one? :-), and the final result is> that everyone remains entrenched in their original> opinion (if they had a strong one to begin with).That's okay. There's no requirement here at Hair Politics that anybodyneeds to change their opinion. As long as things remain civil, thevarious points and counter points may be of interest to others. Andjudging from the hit count (which doesn't seem to be working? but it'shigher than it says) it looks as though others *are* interested in theproceedings. Gives a new twist to the definition of the word "hit,"huh? :-)> First, what are the conclusions? For there to be a> tidy conclusion, most parties need to come to an> agreement on the resolution of the issues. Don't see> that happening here anytime soon, which is what makes> the board fun. Who would keep reading if we all agreed> all of the time? So the conclusion would be that we> won't ever be of the same opinion on this.I sense a contradiction here. On the one hand, you state "though thishas been discussed to death..." yet on the other hand you say you don'tforsee "tidy" conclusions. My point is that *the statement* that "thishas been discussed to death" is, in fact, a conclusion. When I read itit sounds like a somewhat-veiled expression of contempt for anybodyelse who would dare to consider rehashing the subject in the future.> Compartmentalizing the issues/no more to say about> them? Nope, never said that, just was summarizing how> I saw it.Okay, fine, but I read more into your statement (previously discussed)than just an expression of an opinion.> Sure, I may be right and you may be wrong, but...> heheh. :)Well, I may disagree with what you say, but that doesn't make me rightor you wrong. Being "right" or "wrong" is a judgment call. It'sterribly easy to pass judgment.> Lots more going on than has been discussed. I often> wonder where you are that long haired folks are such> an abused and oppressed minority.Wow. I hadn't even mentioned *what* other things were going on, andyou *neatly compartmentalized* my presumed thoughts into an assumptionof a standardized "long-haired folks" response.However, since you brought up these other issues... and I am speakingmy own mind here, though the fact that others have posted similarlymay indicate shared experiences... The way I see it, long-haired folksARE in the minority (take a survey of a representative cross-section ofsociety), many long-haired folks do occasionally receive verbal abusefor their choice (as has been expressed on this board), and yes, manylong-haired folks do face oppression for their choice. Merriam-Websterdefines "oppress" as "suppress; to burden spiritually or mentally," andwhen I examine the definition of these words, I can see how many ofthe descriptions apply.When I said that "there is a lot more going on than has been discussedhere," I was talking about what happened on the Oprah show. As youhaven't inquired what those issues were, I won't offer them now. Unlessyou ask. But then I don't expect you will because, as you have said,"this has been discussed to death now," right?Apologies if that> sounds trite, but where most of the people posting in> favor of long hair indicate their preference for it> and how they get suggestions or pressure to change it,> yours are a bit more extreme. Most of your posts make> it sound as though the Short Hair Nazis are constantly> pursuing you through back alleys, harrassing all of> the long haired folks you know,Gee, are you seeking to minimize the conscious impact of my experienceafter the fireworks show? Or Jade's unfortunate subway experience??I have expressed only a small subset of the grief that I and othersI know with long hair have received. I'll share with you now not thelatest bit of "grief" I received (just yesterday), but one I receivedtwo days ago. A guy (I haven't met but I've seen) in the office whereI work told me "you'd better not fall asleep in your office, else I'llbe likely to come up behind you and snip off that tail." I played niceand let it go, but it makes me wonder what thought process would possesshim to say such a thing.If you haven't been there, and thus you can't relate from experience,do not tell me how I should perceive a long string of related events.I graciously said that I didn't deny you your experiences. Why do youwish to deny me mine?and attempting a coup> of the popular media to further their agenda. That's> just so amazingly contrary to what I see on a daily> basis (especially for women) that I simply have> difficulty grasping it.It's absolutely consistent with those makeover shows on TV. Hairstylists use the popular media known as television to further their"haircuts are wonderful" agenda.> >> Unless Oprah was specifically doing a show> on> That would just simply be a show of a different focus,> and a good one at that. However, if the show was> intended as a "makeover" show and that was> what was planned, the target viewership would consist> of you and...well...you.Not sure how you meant the word "that"... I'm guessing you meant thatI would be within the target audience of a "long hair shape-up" show.If this is what you meant, then this is my reply:Well, not just me. There are a few people other people out there (somewho visit and participate here at HB) who might also be interested insuch a show.But the TV programmer's decision to only show that which has the mostappeal (shock) might tend to reinforce those preferences...?> I liked the way you skipped the second portion of my> post on this point which said:>>> Interestingly, if you watch one of the mass makeover>>> shows where they have nine or ten people getting new>>> looks, at least two or three will only get very minor>>> changes. Usually just enough to jazz up their previous>>> look. I think that's because it takes the pressure off>>> of the styling team to put all of their talent on>>> display on one or two people.The only thing you can reasonably infer from my not having responded toany particular point is that I have chosen not to respond to it.I choose not to respond (to anything) for any number of reasons,including but not limited to the following possibilities: I agree withwhat has been said, I have no opinion on what has been said, I don'thave much of interest to add, I disagree but I'm choosing not torespond to what has been said, I didn't have/make/take the time torespond, etc.> Of course it doesn't take talent to whack off 2 or 3> feet of hair, but to do a trendy style that shows off> the talent of the stylist, that's the first step. Do I> agree that's always in the best interest of the person> getting the makeover? Heck no, but like I said, they> only have those one or two people to show their stuff> on.So it's sort of like a "bait and switch." They lure an audience bypromising shock (your car wreck analogy -- and an interesting analogyat that because both situations involve destruction), and once they'vegot people's attention, they show them what it is they *actually* wantto promote -- their "haircuts are wonderful" agenda.And what's preventing the stylists from doing a "trendy" style on hairthat is originally much closer to its final length? Even a very poorlydone haircut -- after removing lots of length -- looks very differentafterwards.> Example: You have a national audience to demonstrate> your talent at something, say decorating a room.> You're going to put every bit of creative pizazz you> have into that one room to make the biggest splash you> can. Now, let's say you have ten rooms. You would> still do your creative best, but you'd probably have> varying degrees of decoration, some subtle and some> more dramatic. You could demonstrate a range of> ability rather than having to make one big splash.> Same thing with the single or double makeover vs the> multipile makeover shows.Okay, it demonstrates that the amount of change made can vary. But theyjust can't seem to resist the "opportunity" to demonstrate a very largechange on a woman who has very long hair.>>> usually gives the made over person a pretty decent new look>>>> Okay, this is purely subjective. But basically, the change in hair>> is "gussied up" with lots of other props -- such as new makeup, new>> clothes, etc.>> Yup, it's purely subjective. But then again, saying that leaving her> hair really long is better is also rather subject, isn't it?Had I said this, yes, it is a subjective statement. Opinions aresubjective. Including those that say that "haircuts are wonderful."My point, though, is that stylists tend to use props to make these"trendy" haircuts appear to be more appealing than would otherwise bethe case.Imagine this opposite scenario, if you would. Let's say that a womanwith very long hair were to be dressed up in beautiful clothes, hadher face made up nicely, had her hair neatly trimmed and dressed andstyled, and was smiling and happy when photographed or filmed undergood lighting conditions. Then, her hair would be cut very short inthe most technically precise manner known to stylist-kind, and she puton less-than-stylish clothes, and had her makeup done in a less-than-wonderful way, and she was not smiling or happy when photographed orfilmed under less-than-ideal lighting conditions. How many people doyou think would say that the "before" looked better?That these props are so extensively employed in makeovers/makeundersis, to me, an indictment of the supposed "improvement" offered by thehaircuts themselves.>> The woman seemed very much to not want her hair to be short. She>> seemed to be doing it largely (if not entirely) to please her sister,>> who had been "begging" her to cut her hair for 20 years.>> if she didn't want it cut she shouldn't have gone on and had it done.> Was she kidnapped and dragged on the show? Of course not.Of course not. But if you were her friend or a family member (and youhad known how she felt), would you have encouraged her to listen to herheart, or would you have begged her for 20 years to cut it?What I don't understand is why it was so important to this woman'ssister that she cut her hair?> Didn't see the show, so I can't comment on it> directly. But still, if she didn't want it cut she> shouldn't have gone on and had it done. Was she> kidnapped and dragged on the show? Of course not.>> I don't deny you your experiences. But in this case, it was not this>> way at all. The sister of the woman whose hair was cut said that she>> would have been willing to shave her own head to get her sister to>> agree to cut her hair. And the woman who was shorn was non-stop tears>> (and not happy ones) afterwards.>> She should have made her sister shave her head. Would only seem fair,> wouldn't it?No. That would seem to imply that the long-haired woman would operateby the same value system as her sister, that "if you can tell me howto wear my hair, then I can tell you how to wear your hair!" The(formerly) long-haired woman apparently didn't feel compelled to tellher sister how she *should* her hair.>>>> Look around these days. Long hair is now considered "in" if you>>> look at the fashion shows>>>> Okay, so why then aren't these stylists promoting what is hip and>> "in?"> Ok, we've spun off on a completely different tangent> here,Your detour.but I'll try to keep my thoughts brief since> I've rambled on quite a bit here. For the most part> hairstylists cut hair. That's what they do. That's> where they get to show a lot (not all, but a lot) of> their talent, by creating a new style for a person.> Simply redressing or trimming an existing style is for> many (again, not ALL), a less interesting part of> their day, especially if, in the stylist's opinion, a> different style would look better.Well, first of all, stylists' opinions are also subjective, and may ormay not be shared by a given client in question, or by anybody at all.Secondly, the most important question (for any professional) is not"what do I think would be best for the client?," but rather, "whatdoes the customer want?" To presume otherwise is arrogant.Third, if many hairstylists find their typical workday to be relativelyuninteresting, I would suggest that they may not be "cut out," so tospeak, for their chosen profession. Do some choose the professionunder falsely-given pretenses that they will be granted frequentopportunities to perform major makeovers?> Going back to my example of a decorator. How dull> would a decorator's day be if every client they had> just asked them to rearrange the current furniture> they had in the room with out changing anything. Sure,> it's a creative challenge to try to come up with a new> design given very fixed parameters. However, this is a> person being paid for their creativity and talent and> so if they see how a change here or there could> improve the room, then they are expected to suggest> and/or try it. Same thing applies for a hairstylist.I appreciate your hypothetical decorator's challenges. However, theyare paid to apply their creativity and talent to the extent authorizedby the client. As client, I care not a whit how excited my decoratoris by my request. My expectation is that I receive what I have askedfor, and my satisfaction will be based upon how well the decoratormeasured up to the specifications. Anybody who believes otherwise isliving in fantasyland, IMHO.People have every right to have their own appreciation for any givenartistic endeavor, but have no right to expect anybody else to sharethat appreciation.> Much like the makeover show, if you don't want a> haircut, don't go to a stylist likely to suggest one.> > Oh, that's right... sensationalism/shock value> (thus,Yeah. Kind of makes the process of finding a stylist who is sensitiveto the desires of long-haired clients to remain long-haired a bit likenegotiating a minefield, huh?> Why Dave, you've just summarized the mantra of the TV> programmer perfectly. Why do you think Jerry Springer> is still on the air? :)Because he couldn't make as much money being mayor of Cincinnati. :-)Dave

> Sorry, I have a real job during the day, and my VCR is> busted and I refuse to buy another...too much cheap> crap on TV to make me want to buy another one...well> that new babylon 5 TV series is coming on in June, so> maybe I will buy one after all :-)Gee, are you insinuating that I don't have a real job during the day?My manager would beg to differ... we do have VCR's where I live too :-)And who's to say that only first-shift jobs are "real" jobs?> Didn't we go all through this last month, back when I> went by the handle of "Lurker"?Hey, if you're bored with the discussion, by all means feel free to bowout. There's are other issues that hadn't been completely hashed out,or even discussed here, before.> Boo hoo hoo.I would love to see you cop this attitude in front of this woman. I'msure she would be touched by your display of concern for her distress.> Face it Dave...you are a long hair proponent. Why> can't you adopt a more balanced view that accepts that> not everyone thinks that "long hair forever"> is necessary for ultimate happiness???So my one voice in the midst of a society filled with short hairproponents upsets you? And you want to talk about balance? Lookaround you and tell me what percentage of people that you see have longhair? How many TV talks shows about hair do you ever see that promotelong hair? (No, they all promote haircuts). Boring to you or not, thatis the way it is. And no, I do not accept your unsolicited suggestionthat I change.As for the "'long hair forever' is necessary for ultimate happiness"comment, now you're putting words in my mouth.I will discuss words which I have written here, but will not comment onwords you which you have falsely ascribed to me.Good Day, Lurker/ZorakDave

Hi lurker,> sometimes people use their long hair as a security> blanket and never cut it.I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "just sits there?"Could not the same thing also be said about short hair (as in, "it justsits there" on top of the head)?The technical facts are that (a) hair grows out of the head, and (b) itsdirection (at a state of rest) is determined by gravity. It seems to methat any hair length -- at rest -- could be described as "just sitting there."I also wonder what you mean by "does nothing." Do you mean it has no actionor movement, or are you saying that you feel that it doesn't "compliment" thewearer? If you mean the former, then I would disagree on technical merit, ifyou mean the latter, well, to each his own opinion.> long hair that just sits there and> does nothing is long and well, long.Does this happen? Of all of the people I have known with long hair, I havenever known any of them to see their long hair in this way. Every one ofthem had or has long hair simply because they like it long.Dave

Hi Jena,> Some women with long hair don't keep it trimmed and the ends look> very thin and scraggly, and in my opinion, that isn't healthy-looking> or attractive.> Maybe the point is that no matter what the length of hair is -- from> long to short -- it needs proper care, from keeping it trimmed to> keeping it styled.IMHO (but I know this opinion is not necessarily shared by others),I agree with both of these points.> And maybe by saying the hair "just sits there" he means if there are> no shorter layers around the face, it can kind of drag the face down.Here is another expression which I do not understand, this concept of"dragging the face down." It makes absolutely no sense to me. Wheredoes the face get dragged to? I thought it always rested on the frontof the head? Would anybody like to explain this concept in detail?Dave

Somehow my points got switched...? Here's the way my post should have read:Hi lurker,> long hair that just sits there and does nothing is long and well, long.I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "just sits there?"Could not the same thing also be said about short hair (as in, "it justsits there" on top of the head)?The technical facts are that (a) hair grows out of the head, and (b) itsdirection (at a state of rest) is determined by gravity. It seems to methat any hair length -- at rest -- could be described as "just sitting there."I also wonder what you mean by "does nothing." Do you mean it has no actionor movement, or are you saying that you feel that it doesn't "compliment" thewearer? If you mean the former, then I would disagree on technical merit, ifyou mean the latter, well, to each his own opinion.> sometimes people use their long hair as a security blanket and never cut it.Does this happen? Of all of the people I have known with long hair, I havenever known any of them to see their long hair in this way. Every one ofthem had or has long hair simply because they like it long.Dave

Thank you Jena for your reply.> As a person ages, lines start to appear on the face. Hair that is on> the side of the face that is straight down is parallel to the line> between the nose and mouth (kind of like the laugh line, but as we> get older, the line is still there even when we don't laugh!) In> other words, the straightness of the hair on the side accentuates the> line that I mentioned.I must admit this explanation puzzles me.The line between the nose and the mouth is relatively short, and, asyou say is there from a young age.The "age lines" that develop go in different directions. Those on theforehead go horizontally (perpendicular to the direction in which hairof some length flows), and other lines go at a diagonal from the sidesof the nose downwards to the outsides of the mouth, and back in towardsthe chin on the opposite diagonal. It would seem then, to me, that if"balancing ages lines" were a goal, then having hair flowing down atthe sides of the face would help balance those lines.But then again, to my eyes, if the hair (of a person with age lines) isshort, then that puts the face -- and the wrinkles -- more INTO focus,as there is less hair to capture (or distract) attention from thosewrinkles. Exactly the opposite of the conventional "wisdom" (which isan oxymoron, IMO).> Sometimes people with very long hair *can* (I'm definitely not saying> this is true for everyone at all) look older.Sometimes, yes, but it comes down to all of the other factors thatindicate a person's age. Forgive me if I seem a bit insensitive here,but a woman who is carrying an extra 50 pounds, has wrinkles on herface, and long hair is going to look older than a woman the same agewho is slender and has fewer wrinkles and short hair. However, whenall of the non-hair factors are constant, then virtually all the time,the woman with longer (well-kept) hair looks younger than a woman withshort hair. To my eyes, a middle-aged woman who cuts her hair shortimmediately looks 5-10 years older than before the haircut.> Also the sheer weight of the hair sometimes doesn't allow for more> body on the back of the head on top, sometimes making the hair look> bottom heavy which brings the eye focus "down" instead of up.Unless you're describing an up-do, why is having "body on the back ofthe head on top" a desirable characteristic in a hairstyle? Seems odd(unnatural). Of course, this idea of "body on the back of the top ofthe head" sounds very close to being that which I've heard describedin an uncomplimentary manner as big "mall-rat hair." Regardless, it'spurely subjective and to me, a smooth flowing of hair from the crownis much more visually appealing on a woman of any age.So if hair has weight on the bottom and your eye's attention is broughtto it, and it looks pleasing then why is that a problem? You would beglancing or looking at the hair itself and NOT the face... so I don'tunderstand why hair as you have described would drag THE FACE down.The hair might (momentarily) draw your attention to it (away from theface), but the face is still there to be seen. Right?To say that longer hair "drags the hair down" seems to imply that thehair and face are seamless. Well, in fact they are very clearly twodifferent and unique entities.> Please understand that I am definitely not a short-hair proponent at> all!Jena, please don't feel that you need apologize. It doesn't matter tome if you are a proponent or not of any length. Zorak's assessment ofme is not a fact, but is his judgment. While I do appreciate long hair,I have not (thus far) explicitly PROMOTED long hair. However, it wouldseem that I have spoken out (on HB) against haircut harassment directedat me and other long-haired people here.> The care of the hair makes a lot of difference in how the long hair> will look on the person.Indeed. Well-cared for hair always looks better than that which is notwell cared-for.Thanks again for your reply.Dave

> > I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "just sits> > there?".....I also wonder what you mean by "does nothing.">> I guess that I can kind of understand what he means: Long hair that> is long but not too long is really nice to look at because it moves> and flows, but when it gets too long it is just not as nice, because> the extra weight keeps it from moving like it does when it is long> but not too long.When very long hair is unrestrained, it flows and moves very nicely andalluringly. When and how it moves depends on the woman's movement, andit doesn't diminish as it gets longer. It may swing more slowly, but Isee this as being a good thing :-)> > Of all of the people I have known with long hair, I have never> > known any of them to see their long hair in this way.>> Well, or course the people who have the extremely long hair don't> consciously see it this way, it is a sub-conscious thing. Although I> did not write the orignal post, I absolutely agree with the idea that> people who grow their hair super-long and never cut it probably do> have a kind of sub-consicous security thing.I am among those who have what you would describe as very long orperhaps extremely long hair. I just cannot fathom the concept of myhaving my hair this way as being some sort of "security blanket."Perhaps some people can relate to the concept but I certainly cannot.As you state that "it is a sub-conscious thing," can you offer anyclinical evidence to support this hypothesis?> long hair is kind of soft and comforting, etc, Just like a child's> security blanket.Hair's softness, and hair being comforting (as in being deeply satisfiedthat one has the hair they love) can be appreciated without the burdenof a stigma such as you describe. Why must pleasures be guilty?Dave

Hi Diane,Thanks for your reply.> When your hair is long it draws the eye down.What you're saying is that long hair captures one's attention. If thehair is healthy and attractive, why is that a bad thing?> Away from your eyes so it drags the face down.You're saying that it takes one's attention away from the other's eyesand towards their hair. Again, why is that a bad thing? If our hairis healthy and well-cared for, why do we not want people to see it andappreciate it?As I explained to Jena, I am not able to make the hair, eyes, and faceone seamless entity. To me, they are all separate entities. Long hairmay draw attention toward it and away from the face, but it does notactually "drag" the face down!Let's be fair. If the expression "long hair drags the face down" reallymeans "long hair is appealing to look at, and draws attention away fromthe eyes/face," then why is it said that the hair "drags the face down?"It seems to be a mis-statement, and it also seems to unfairly criticizethe hair for action it itself is not taking, but is causing in theunsuspecting eye of the beholder. Oh, what a crime it is that the hairis so beautiful that it has drawn our attention to it!> Sometimes if someone has a very small face the hair can hide your> face features.If the hair is in the face, yes. Your statment would seem to givereason for a small-faced person to avoid what are described as "face-framing" layers, right? But if the hair -- short or long -- is awaythe face then the hair is not hiding the facial features, regardless ofthe size of the face.> But at the same time it can accentuate the mouth, chin and neck,> which in some cases makes someone look older.And at times I've heard that these features "should" be accentuated byhaving the hair around them. Seems to be an inconclusive factor.> Where short hair on the same person makes them look younger because> you eye is drawn up to eye level.Here's another concept I do not grasp. What I read in this statementis that when the hair is short, there's little to capture the eye'sinterest or attention, so one has no "choice" but to look at theperson's eyes (not demeaning the act of looking at the other's eyes).But I cannot associate the lack of hair/focus on the eyes issue withthe determination of one's age -- I don't see how these two issues arerelated at all.> That's what they taught in beauty school anyway.Well, that's one "school of thought" on the issue. Though I havetrouble reconciling this conventional "wisdom" with logical reality.It would seem then that the application of this principle would be forstylists to dissuade clients from having long hair, as the belief isdispensed as fact that long hair will just "drag down your face," andso a shorter hairstyle will, on the contrary, bring "one's featuresinto focus." What I read in the recommendation is that the resultantshort hair style is so unappealing that the beholder's eye will shyaway from it, and thus, it serves as acknowledgement of the naturalappeal of hair that is not short. The advice to avoid "long hairbecause it drags the face down" also seems to pander to a presumedmental weakness to "gaze too long at beautiful long hair."> I personaly like to look a person in the eyes when I speak to them.So do I! But if a woman's hair is short, my attention is actuallydistracted AWAY from her face... I can't stop looking at the "carwreck" (as JerkyFlea put it) that my eyes see in their short, choppyhaircut. On the other hand, if a woman has long healthy hair, my eyesare pleased, and I quickly turn my attention to her eyes, as my eyesare assured that the hair is alright, I am able to focus on theperson's eyes -- and the conversation.> If your hair makes you feel good it doesn't matter...Yup.> It's just a technical term that hairstylists use to explain things.> I guess a better term is in order.Definitely! And a term that does not use the hair as a scapegoatfor the eyes' desires.Thanks again for your reply, Diane. Though I remain unconvinced ofthe "wisdom" behind the old saw, I would love to hear more repliesto my question if anybody wishes to do so.Dave

>>>> Of all of the people I have known with long hair, I have never>>>> known any of them to see their long hair in this way.>>>>>> Well, or course the people who have the extremely long>>> hair don't consciously see it this way, it is a>>> sub-conscious thing.>>>> I am among those who have what you would describe as very>> long or perhaps extremely long hair. I just cannot fathom>> the concept of my having my hair this way as being some>> sort of "security blanket.">> Well, not every person might be this way, but then you must consider that if it is> sub-conscious, you won't have any idea unless you really do some careful> introspection on this issue!>>> long hair is kind of soft and comforting, etc, Just like a child's>>> security blanket.>>>> Hair's softness, and hair being comforting (as in being deeply>> satisfied that one has the hair they love) can be appreciated>> without the burden of a stigma such as you describe.>> What stigma???The stigma I infer from your words is that adults who have very longhair use it as an emotional crutch due to insufficient psychologicaland emotional development.> I used the term "child's security blanket" because not many adults> carry around a security blanket.Do any?> Maybe YOU think of it as stigmatizing because there is some kind of> hidden guilt on your part :-)Oh, puhleeze.> I mean, gee Dave: You are deeply satisfied so much that you are in> love with your hair??Please re-read my sentence above. I was speaking of an indefinitethird party, using the pronoun "one" -- not "me."> Is this kind of like a man who is in love with his wife's underwear> and feels kind of guilty :-) :-) (honestly, just kidding here, no> offense or implication intended!)I don't know what that's like. Why don't you tell me?>> Why must pleasures be guilty?>>Who used the word "guilty" here first? Wasn't me!I sensed that you wished to impart a sense of guilt on those who havelong hair for having it.Dave

Wow, what a huge thread of messages have been generated by my comments about the woman whose long hair was cut on the Oprah Winfrey show last week.... and I haven't been a part of any of them. After returning to my computer from a three day conference, it has taken me two days just to work my way through the threads. Obviously there are a lot of issues that this have been generated.There seemed to be some issue over the fact that the question I brought up had already been overly discussed, but I think it is obvious by the resulting comments that there is still a lot that needs to be shared. I don't believe it is wrong to rehash issues, especially if someone feels it is important and there is more they want to say.I was unable to watch the Oprah show last week and didn't have the opportunity to tape it on my VCR. However, it appears to me from some of the postings, that the woman who received the haircut was not happy about her decision. Whether her reluctance and tears carried through after the show we may never know, but it apparently was obvious during and right after the haircut.I would like to make a comment regarding the question of this woman's ability to say "no" to the makeover. IMHO it illustrates a major difference in people and validates why many people are forced into making decisions that are actually against their own desires. Most of us would agree the world is made up of a wide variety of temperaments and personalities. People demonstrate these characteristics in a wide range of ways .... some are outgoing, others quiet, some introverted, others boisterous, some rigid in their convictions and other more open to change. And reactions to negative comments or constant criticism can vary according to these personalities. Some people are not sensitive to negative comments while others feel the pain of negativity very deeply. To say that someone can choose to "say no" illustrates a lack of understanding of human psychology. This woman was hassled for twenty years by her sister regarding her long hair. Do you realize how long that is to put up with constant nagging and criticism?To give an example: My wife and I are very much opposites (that's why we were attracted to each, right? :-) She is very strong in her convictions and not phased by criticism or other's opinions. As for me, I am very open to other ideas and easily see other points of view. I am also very sensitive to criticism. (This is not a critique of either personal makeup but just a statement of fact). I would be far more likely to buckle under a constant barrage of criticism than my wife, and yet both of us have valid personality types.I can understand the tears this woman must have had, especially if she made the decision to have her hair cut as a result of constant harassment. I also know how deep the pain would be to realize her mistake and the years she now faces to regain her long hair. This woman could easily require some serious psychological help after such an event. That doesn't mean she is weak, it doesn't mean she has a poor self image or that she is using her hair as a security blanket. It might just mean that the long hair was important to her. I don't think someone who prefers their hair short can ever understand the deep satisfaction one gets when their hair is long. Perhaps short haired people don't have this need, or else they have this satisfaction with their short hair but don't understand that someone could be different.Even my wife (and best friend) of thirty years cannot understand my deep seated desire to wear my hair long. It is buried so deeply within me that it is difficult to explain. Should I therefore yield to the desires of others just because they cannot understand? Perhaps someday I may decide to cut my hair short, but for now I have no desire and cannot see that day coming.I thought it was interesting to see the discussion regarding the issue of long hair as a "security blanket". It is very easy to say that about someone else but how can such a statement be made when none of us can get into another person's mind? That is like putting words into someone else's mouth. Each person is different. Yes, there may be some people who keep their hair long as a security blanket. They have had it that way for "x" number of years and they cannot imagine their hair any other way. But for others the reasons could be totally different. You just can't make such a generalization without any data for support.If I was using my hair as a security blanket I would wear it short. That is the way the world seems to accept (particularly) male hair. As a person who does not like to stand out in a crowd, I have chosen a hairstyle that most definitely sets me apart in most situations. I sit in a prominent position in front of over 1200 people every other week when I play the piano in church. I am one of only three or four long haired guys in our church and mine is definitely the longest (mid-back length). I would not choose long hair as a security blanket in that situation! My hair is long, as I have stated, for much deeper reasons.Thank you to each person who has contributed to this thread (and all the others on the board). We are a community of people who share ideas, beliefs, encouragement, (and perhaps sometimes a bit of discouragement), tips, etc. We may not see each other but over time we become virtual friends. Perhaps not all agreeing, but at least in part showing that we have a vested interest in discussing hair.Good luck to each of you as you strive to live your life to the fullest. God bless you.Kent

Hi Diane,> The drag thing is only an opinion and its not nesisarily mine! you> seem to want to shoot the messanger. I only gave you the knowledge> that I had. If you want my presonal opinion then please ask me> directly but dont insult me!First of all, I feel I owe you an apology. My only intent was and isto understand technically what this one term means, so I'm sorry if youfelt that my questions were directed at you or your opinions. Pleasebe assured that my questions are not directed at either you personallyor at your opinions, but rather on the technical aspects of thissubjective issue at hand.> Im all the years I have been doing hair I have never once tried to> sway someone to cut ther long hair!! I pride myself into listening> to the client and trying to give them exactly what they wish. As a> matter of fact most of my clients were long haired clients woman as> well as men.I fully believe you. I am not and was never questioning your feelingson that subject. I'm not saying that you personally promote theconcept. The point was that I have often seen and heard this horriblesounding phrase applied to long hair by stylists as (at least partial)justification for cutting long hair short.> > ...unfairly criticize the hair for action it itself is not taking.>> I personaly made no criticizme of anyone! I only gave an answer to a technical> term as I understood it. I didnt nessisarly agree with it.Please understand I was not saying that YOU were criticizing anythingor anybody. i speak of the term being used to criticize long hair.> No, what I ment was that draging can cause your eye to focas on flaws on your> face not the hair. So instead of having attention on your flaw excntuate> something positive like your eyes.I wonder if a study has been done to back this claim that "dragging cancause your eyes to focus on flaws on your face." It just doesn't seemplausible to me. Note, I'm not saying that such a study doesn't exist,but I would be surprised if there was one -- and if so, to see how theexperiments were designed and conducted.> Because the hair can excentuate the flaws on the face and give the> allusion of premature ageHow so? (Please understand I am questioning the wisdom behind such astatement, not you personally, Diane!)> So By lifting the hair up towards the eyesThus making the hair quite short...> you bring the attention to the eye instead of the wrinkles,lines,> double chine, whatever.Of course, immediately surrounding the eyes are the crow's feet, andthe puffy bags underneath, etc... the skin immediately surrounding theeyes are not immune from wrinkles. So the whole effort to make a hairstyle put focus on the eyes would seem to be for naught?> The connetion is that if your looking at someones eyes your not looking at> there wrinkles (or other flaws) and wrinkles can mean age.If someone has wrinkles on their face but has healthy beautiful hairthen wouldn't (some amount of) attention towards their hair, insteadof solely to the eyes (around which are wrinkles!) help one noticethe wrinkles less?> The drag on the face depends on the face and not everyone(Im sorry to say)> has a face for long hair. And still others do not look good with short hair. I> belive you must wear what you feel best with Im not making judgments.> Are you making remarkes adout "short,choppy hair"? :)Looks like we both have :-)> I would like to say one other thing (in general): Most hairstylist> love long hair!! At least the ones that I have known.Hey, that's good to know!> There are a lot of sterio types out there about us.Sadly, there are some who are not so sensitive to their customersexpress wishes...> Just because we learn something like the drag thing dosent mean we> use it or belive in it. I most certinly dont!!It's interesting to note that although you learned the technicalsbehind the description and passed the test questions in school thatasked "how and why does long hair drag the face down," it's notnecessarily believed or applied, by you and some number of others.Essentially, the way I see it, the school is teaching a subjectivematter as if it were fact, which it is not.> Just remember stylist are people were good and bad just like every> other person! Were not all hackers and long hair haters! We love hair> especialy healthy hair and want eveyone to be able to have it and> enjoy it! So take the time and find the right stylist one that cares> about you as well as your hair!Yes, good stylists do exist. I've been fortunate to have been servedby several. Unfortunately I have moved too often :-)> I would be glad to discuss more on the subject with you.As would I, because...> Dave, I hope I cleared this up for you.I regret to say that I must be the most dense man in this world becausethe basis of the whole concept of how "long hair drags the face down"is completely lost on me.Thank you for both of your replies to my question.Take care, Diane :-)Dave

Hi JM,I did see the show. The definition of makeover/makeunder is a purely asemantic issue, and they amount to the same thing.Seeing that the women was visibly extremely upset (she was a waterfallof tears, Oprah said "it's beautiful/perfect/gorgeous/etc" and turnedto the audience for support. The sister who begged her to cut? Shewas also crying. I don't understand why.Hope this answers your questions.Dave

> To Dave, I think that "dragging the face> down" can be compared to parallel matters> reinforcing and accentuating the other. For instance,> a person with a very round face will make it look even> rounder if he wears perfectly round glasses. However,> a different shape will make his face look less round.> (Opposites attract?) If a woman has a long face, a> part down the middle only makes her face look longer,> but a part on the side will shorten it. If a person> has a "spare tire" around his middle, which> will make him look thinner, vertical or horizontal> stripes? The horizontal stripes just accentuate the> roundness of the belly. That's why we need to choose> "opposite" or at least different lines to> de-emphasize that to which we don't wish to draw> attention.Hi Jena,I understand all of these ideas. It seems, though, that most of the age lines that form on the face run in a horizontal direction, and, to a lesser extent, on a diagonal -- with very few vertical lines. So, along the lines you have drawn (no pun intended) it would seem to make more sense to have hair that hangs down (at least past the chin) to provide some vertical contrast to the age lines on the face which are mostly horizontal.Also, it would seem to make sense then that a person who has a wide or round face would benefit by wearing longer hair, to help balance that width. Right?Of course, all of this assumes that hair is given the responsibility to perform the function of "trying to offset facial age lines and wrinkles." It seems to me such an aesthetic burden to place on the hair.> When two things are similar (long straight hair next> to long lines on the face) they reinforce their> commonality.> Please understand that I'm not advocating short hair> at all! But there is a reason why *some* people look> better with it.> One question, Dave: If long hair does the opposite of> dragging the face down with an older woman who has> wrinkles, then why don't more women 65+ wear their> hair long (not in a bun)? Wouldn't they want to look> the best they can?One would think so, yes. Perhaps they had previously fallen victim to the oft-dispensed myth that one must cut their long hair short by 30/40? I think I know this to be a big part of the reason why several older women I know -- who used to have very long hair -- keep their hair short now.Dave