Another long hair cut....

My sister-in-law just stopped by to pick something up. Her hair was straight, medium thickness and to her below her waist. When I went to say hi I was shocked: her hair was in a high ponytail but it was obvious that the majority of the length had been cut off!! Her ponytail was not more than 6-8 inches long where once it was to her butt. It also looked like it had been layered, judging from the "frayed" edges.I didn't say anything but asked my wife later. It turns out that she had her hair cut as it was falling out. Why women do this is beyond me. It could be a diet problem, medical condition, but certainly not due to the length. The ironic thing is that now it will *appear* that less hair is falling out simply because there is less length, so she'll assume she was right.The sad thing (other than the fact that she lost 5 years of growth over a misconception) is that her husband does not yet know. I guess I feel pretty sorry for him....

John,I can understand and appreciate your feelings of shock.I feel badly for your sister-in-law, for whatever medicalcondition is causing her hair to fall out at an increasedrate. Certainly her awareness of it has her sufferingemotionally, as well. Obviously, if the reason she cut itwas because it was thinning, she certainly didn't WANT togo short. Having had hair as long as she did, cutting itmust have been a traumatic experience for her.I wonder if she sought professional medical advice and help?> The ironic thing is that now it will *appear* that less> hair is falling out simply because there is less length,> so she'll assume she was right.I suspect you are correct about this. When one's hair isquite long, changes in the rate of hair fall-out are readilyapparent.> ... her husband does not yet know.I'm sure that he was surprised when he saw her. Perhaps herdecision not to tell him was a reflection of just how upsetshe was about feeling the need to take the action she chose.It's not my place to pass judgment, but ... perhaps if shehad chosen to talk with her husband earlier, he would haveat least had the opportunity to console and comfort her.Did you ever tell her about the Hair Boutique? There are alot of caring and helpful people here who I'm sure wouldhave been able to help her in some way.I wish her well.Dave

After re-reading my original post I can see why some of you made the comments that you have - it sounds like she had a serious medical condition. In fact, to my knowledge she does not have a "condition" per se. She did mention to my wife that there was some hair loss, but I suspect not anymore than what anyone has. Of course long hair produces a bigger wad in the bottom of the tub than short hair, even if there is the same number of hairs. Certainly, if there was a medical problem she would have sought professional assistance (I would hope).Actually her other sister (not my wife) did the cutting. This sister is often telling others with long hair to get theirs cut, so perhaps she egged the other one - I can't say.Also pointing her to the site would have been a great idea except that she does not have 'net access, lives out of town (I haven't seen her for three months), and she's Chinese and there has difficuty with English. I don't think she really consulted with anyone, except perhaps her sister who did the cutting :( I suspect a jealousy issue here....I didn't mean to sound cold-hearted in my original post. I was just saddened to see someone who likes her hair long along with her husband cut it off due to something which could have been an allergic reaction, etc. There is also the danger of never discovering the underlying problem, or finding out much later since she may think the problem has been "cured" by cutting her hair off.I guess I'm glad that her arm wasn't bothering her or maybe she would have cut it off, too!

John,Thank you for filling in some of the other pieces of thepuzzle.> This sister is often telling others with long hair to gettheirs cut...Not admissible in a court of law (well, maybe for KenStarr), but the sister's admission speaks volumes.It sounds as if the one sister is actively pursuing thepromotion of short hair, and "targeting" those with long,pressuring them to change.Would this sister be so cruel, heartless and selfish in herquest, such that she willfully disregarded the potentialemotional impact such a drastic haircut would have to hersister and her sister's husband?It sounds as if this sister is the one who puts theimportance of her hair ideals ahead of the emotionalwell-being of her own flesh and blood.Perhaps the outpouring of outrage on Hair Talk has beenmisdirected!Dave

Heya. Since I'm about to say something moderately incendiary, let me type this first: My heart goes out to this lady and to /anyone/ who is losing her hair. I know a lot of women who believe they lose more hair when it's longer--even though scientifically it makes no sense. Perhaps she anticipates a loss in volume and is trying to compensate with layers.Now I have to say this in response to some of the posts in this thread: Someone who urges you to cut your long hair is NOT necessarily mean-spirited or jealous! I am a big fan of "long hair." But there's long and then there's LONG. Personally, I am unable to see the advantages of knee-length hair over hair that reaches the waist or even the shoulder blades. In fact, after a certain length, I think hair becomes less of a "style" and more of a spectacle or a novelty.Like any look, superlong hair is more flattering to certain types of people. It makes some women look like fairy princesses; it makes others look like Appalachian hermits. On the right woman it's glamorous and exotic. On the wrong woman it's frumpy. (And no, this has nothing to do with age. It's about face shape, hair type, physical build, etc.) Only a handful of people can wear their hair to their knees and attract stares of /admiration/.Now, it's not for me to say who is who. And I would never make unsolicited criticisms to anyone. But I know many women to whom I'd suggest a heavy-handed haircut if they were to ask me for my opinion. Not because I'm jealous, but because the look does nothing for them. I really DO think they'd look better with shorter hair.Don't get me wrong: Every woman has the right to wear her hair the way she likes it best. But we must not assume that all long-hair dissenters are envious and out to rob us of our beauty. A little melodramatic, don't you think? I believe most people are better than that.Waiting for the flames,*cringe*Ally

Ally,I'm hoping you don't view my (sometimes strong) words as"flames," but rather as constructive counter points.> Now I have to say this in response to some of the posts in> this thread: Someone who urges you to cut your long hair> is NOT necessarily mean-spirited or jealous!That may be true. However, and I quote John, he said that"This sister is often telling others with long hair to gettheirs cut." Do you suppose that this woman is in aposition of such high repute that lots of other women areactually seeking out her advice on their hair? Somehow,I doubt it.> But there's long and then there's LONG. Personally, I am> unable to see the advantages of knee-length hair over hair> that reaches the waist or even the shoulder blades.Personally, IMHO, I am quite capable of seeing the appeal oflonger-than-waist-length hair. "Long" is a relative term.Everybody will have a different definition of whatconstitutes any given "generally stated" hair length(short/medium/long).> In fact, after a certain length, I think hair becomes> less of a "style" and more of a spectacle or a novelty.Whomever said that one of the requirements for "how" onewears their hair is that is have a "style," and just whois the authority to say what that "style" *ought* to be?Hair is, well, it's hair. Expecting it to conform tosome potentially changeable whim of a "style" is, to me,not a worthwhile endeavor. Some appreciate hair for howit is (or can be) "styled." Others appreciate it just forwhat it is. There is more to appreciate in hair than justit's "styling" capabilities.> Like any look, superlong hair is more flattering to> certain types of people. It makes some women look like> fairy princesses; it makes others look like Appalachian> hermits. On the right woman it's glamorous and exotic. On> the wrong woman it's frumpy. (And no, this has nothing to> do with age. It's about face shape, hair type, physical> build, etc.)I need to make this apology/disclaimer in advance... I meanno disrespect to anybody in particular or general when I saythat it's not the hair that makes a few women "frumpy."Beautiful hair (however that may be defined) certainlycannot hurt, and almost always helps a woman appear moreattractive.> Only a handful of people can wear their hair to their> knees and attract stares of /admiration/.I must respectfully disagree. IMHO, I think 99% of womenlook better with long hair (though it need not necessarilybe as long as knee-length).> But I know many women to whom I'd suggest a heavy-handed> haircut if they were to ask me for my opinion. Not because> I'm jealous, but because the look does nothing for them.> I really DO think they'd look better with shorter hair.Alright, but the key consideration is *who* is initiatingthe transfer of advice to a specific individual.> But we must not assume that all long-hair dissenters are> envious and out to rob us of our beauty. A little> melodramatic, don't you think? I believe most people are> better than that.Certainly it's true that not all such dissenters have thatagenda. But some do. One might need to know such a personfairly well to discern whether or not that is their angle.I think many would agree that there are quite a number ofpeople who actually do dispense unsolicited advice againstlong hair. I myself have heard this from literally dozensof people, I kid you not. If I were not as strong of mindas I am, I might have given in to the bullying years ago.Some people would be very sensitive to (not appreciate) aspecific recommendation such as "Helga, you *should* letyour hair grow x-amount longer." So why should anybodyassume that advice such as "Helga, you *should* cut yourhair x-amount shorter" should be taken any better? Yetthis kind of hair cut advice is given all the time!Lost in this entire discussion is the fact that John'ssister-in-law, who liked her hair as long as it used to be,and cut it only because she thought it would help (in someway) with her perceived "hair loss," was so distraught thatshe didn't tell her husband in advance. What we have is awoman who (a) no longer has long hair, and (b) is probablyvery upset about it. If her sister had been truly concernedfor her physical and emotional health, I do not understandhow or why she thought that recommending a short haircutwould have helped.Dave

Hi everyone,I have read all of the posts about John and his sister-in-law and the fact that she cut her hair possibly because it was falling out and possibly because of undue influence from her sister.I can tell you my own story about this. In 1988 I decided to spend approximately 1 year living on Diet Coke, salads and a Saturday all day eating binge. That was it. I lost lots of weight. I also lost lots of hair.At any rate...my hair was a major mess. The bottom 4 inches were "see through" which meant it was literally worn out to the point that it was "transparent". You could see through my hair to my clothes underneath. Like frayed old lace or worn out cotten.I went to see my long hair stylist in Dallas (I no longer go to him). He told me that I had to cut all the "see through" hair off. No ifs, ands and buts about it. He told me it had to all go. As soon as possible.I asked him if I could possibly cut just a little each time and he said that it would only get worse until it was thin wisps of fragile, damaged hair at the ends. He told me that cutting just a little each time would just prolong the agony and the inevitable and I should just do it.So he cut about 4-5 inches off my hair and I went home and cried. I actually cried for days and felt "naked" without my hair. To this day, 10 years later, I still miss those 4-5 inches.Was it the right thing to do? In hindsight I think maybe I should have only let him cut 1-2 inches off and then maybe later a little more. Did it help my hair grow back faster? No. Absolutely not. Did my hair look better? Yes. Did I hate it? Yes. Would I do it again? No. At least not that much. I felt that I had to do it because he told me it had to be done. I got swept up in his insistence and because he was an "expert" so I lost my will at that point. I am not blaming him. Just reflecting on what I think happened.When hair is really damaged, you do have to cut it off, just to remove the potential for that damaged hair to migrate up the shaft and damage healthier parts of the hair. I do believe that to be true.If I were in the same circumstances again I would take 24-48 hours to think about what I wanted to really do. I think I would also have insisted on doing 1-2 inches rather than 4-5. That was almost a year of growth that I lost. I was very sad and unhappy about that experience. Still makes me sad 10 years later.At the time I thought he was doing what he felt was right. I am sure he did. In fact, I heard him over and over tell women who came into his shop with really damaged hair that it had to be cut off.This was a man who specialized in long hair. He loved long hair. Yet he would insist that they get rid of the damaged hair and start fresh.I think this who hair thing is another one of those life things where you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. As a woman I face those issues with getting a mammogram every year. I had 2 friends die from breast cancer in their 30s. Both had mammograms every year. I had another friend in her 40s who never had a mammogram and died in perfect health of a blood clot.Who can say what the right decisions are about anything. I guess the only thing I can say is that everyone should have the freedom and serenity to make their own decisions about what is best for them.So on the one hand I can understand why John's sister-in-law might want to remove the damaged hair. On the other hand I think it was wrong of her sister to push, pursuade, cajole or harrass (if she did any of these) the 1st sister-in-law into getting her hair cut so many inches.The persuasion for cutting the hair should never be part of the decision making process for anyone facing damaged hair, falling hair or other hair problems.Thanks to everyone for your thoughts. I have enjoyed reading all the posts and the insights and shared feelings about this topic.Hugs to everyone.Karen> Ally,> I'm hoping you don't view my (sometimes strong) words> as> "flames," but rather as constructive counter> points.> That may be true. However, and I quote John, he said> that> "This sister is often telling others with long> hair to get> theirs cut." Do you suppose that this woman is in> a> position of such high repute that lots of other women> are> actually seeking out her advice on their hair?> Somehow,> I doubt it.> Personally, IMHO, I am quite capable of seeing the> appeal of> longer-than-waist-length hair. "Long" is a> relative term.> Everybody will have a different definition of what> constitutes any given "generally stated"> hair length> (short/medium/long).> Whomever said that one of the requirements for> "how" one> wears their hair is that is have a "style,"> and just who> is the authority to say what that "style"> *ought* to be?> Hair is, well, it's hair. Expecting it to conform to> some potentially changeable whim of a> "style" is, to me,> not a worthwhile endeavor. Some appreciate hair for> how> it is (or can be) "styled." Others> appreciate it just for> what it is. There is more to appreciate in hair than> just> it's "styling" capabilities.> I need to make this apology/disclaimer in advance... I> mean> no disrespect to anybody in particular or general when> I say> that it's not the hair that makes a few women> "frumpy."> Beautiful hair (however that may be defined) certainly> cannot hurt, and almost always helps a woman appear> more> attractive.> I must respectfully disagree. IMHO, I think 99% of> women> look better with long hair (though it need not> necessarily> be as long as knee-length).> Alright, but the key consideration is *who* is> initiating> the transfer of advice to a specific individual.> Certainly it's true that not all such dissenters have> that> agenda. But some do. One might need to know such a> person> fairly well to discern whether or not that is their> angle.> I think many would agree that there are quite a number> of> people who actually do dispense unsolicited advice> against> long hair. I myself have heard this from literally> dozens> of people, I kid you not. If I were not as strong of> mind> as I am, I might have given in to the bullying years> ago.> Some people would be very sensitive to (not> appreciate) a> specific recommendation such as "Helga, you> *should* let> your hair grow x-amount longer." So why should> anybody> assume that advice such as "Helga, you *should*> cut your> hair x-amount shorter" should be taken any> better? Yet> this kind of hair cut advice is given all the time!> Lost in this entire discussion is the fact that John's> sister-in-law, who liked her hair as long as it used> to be,> and cut it only because she thought it would help (in> some> way) with her perceived "hair loss," was so> distraught that> she didn't tell her husband in advance. What we have> is a> woman who (a) no longer has long hair, and (b) is> probably> very upset about it. If her sister had been truly> concerned> for her physical and emotional health, I do not> understand> how or why she thought that recommending a short> haircut> would have helped.> Dave

> I can tell you my own story about this. In 1988 I> decided to spend approximately 1 year living on Diet> Coke, salads and a Saturday all day eating binge. That> was it. I lost lots of weight. I also lost lots of> hair.Karen, thanks for your input! Come to think of it, she was dieting - though not to the extremes that you mention.> The persuasion for cutting the hair should never be> part of the decision making process for anyone facing> damaged hair, falling hair or other hair problems.To my knowledge it was not damaged, though it was "falling out". Since she works in a restaurant she was concerned about it falling in people's food. This would have been unlikely since she wore it up in a tight bun most of the time. Now it's not really long enough to do so, so probably more likely to fall into food.

Dave,Though I realize this board and site are very dedicated to long hair (much as others are very dedicated to short hair), I figure I'm spitting in the ocean trying to defend Ally. However, since her arguments were very clear and reasonable, plus touched on a subject I mentioned in passing responding to another post, I felt I ought to at least join the underdog's side in this discussion.> Personally, IMHO, I am quite capable of seeing the> appeal of> longer-than-waist-length hair. "Long" is a> relative term.> Everybody will have a different definition of what> constitutes any given "generally stated"> hair length> (short/medium/long).Longer than waist-length hair can be attractive. However, as Ally said, it really depends on the build, face shape, etc. of the person. Much like not every woman looks good in spandex or every guy in a Speedo, a hairstyle is not one-size-fits-all.> Whomever said that one of the requirements for> "how" one> wears their hair is that is have a "style,"> and just who> is the authority to say what that "style"> *ought* to be?> Hair is, well, it's hair. Expecting it to conform to> some potentially changeable whim of a> "style" is, to me,> not a worthwhile endeavor. Some appreciate hair for> how> it is (or can be) "styled." Others> appreciate it just for> what it is. There is more to appreciate in hair than> just> it's "styling" capabilities.In other words, you are equating hair with a garment to an extent. So a woman could have the world's ugliest blouse, but as long as it was made out of the finest silk, you would appreciate it's beauty. That's just silly.Sure, "style" is a function of from whatever the trend of the moment is to what people consider societal norms (which is why you don't see many so-called stylish women wearing Farrah wings these days). However, because someone wants to acheive the current "style" or just change their hair to something that they personally find more attractive and makes them feel better about themselves, doesn't make them any less of a person. Therefore, branding someone as a conformist or saying their making a huge, life shattering mistake by cutting their hair is unfair to the person.I've known women who could sit down and have a foot and a half of hair cut off without blinking an eye. I've also known women like Karen that are emotionally attacted to every strand on their head and losing even a half inch is like amputating a body part. Are either wrong? Of course not. So, if you can accept one, then you have no right to look upon the other with derision.> I need to make this apology/disclaimer in advance... I> mean> no disrespect to anybody in particular or general when> I say> that it's not the hair that makes a few women> "frumpy."> Beautiful hair (however that may be defined) certainly> cannot hurt, and almost always helps a woman appear> more> attractive.I can't disagree with that statement. I would only disagree if you implied that beautiful hair can only be defined as LONG hair.> I must respectfully disagree. IMHO, I think 99% of> women> look better with long hair (though it need not> necessarily> be as long as knee-length).Hmmm...good thing I put that disclaimer up above, huh? That's your opinion, and thus I can't disagree since it's in the eye of the beholder. I personally think, the style should suit the person and I've know several women who actually looked MORE feminine with shorter hair. Really. Honest.> I think many would agree that there are quite a number> of> people who actually do dispense unsolicited advice> against> long hair. I myself have heard this from literally> dozens> of people, I kid you not. If I were not as strong of> mind> as I am, I might have given in to the bullying years> ago.I'd agree that happens. The whole "you can't have long hair over a certain age" scenario. Heck, if someone does or doesn't want to cut their hair it's their business. However, if they ask you opinion, then that's what you give them, whether that means you think it looks great long or would be more flattering shorter. Ultimately, it's their choice.Once last story. I was recently at a conference where I saw a woman with beautiful waist-length hair. It caught my eye whenever I saw her of the course of the 3 days of the conference. However, whenever I saw her from the front, I realized that however attractive her long hair in and of itself may be, it really did nothing to bring out her features and enhance her overall appearance. My opinion? Sure, plus it's purely based on physical appearance and not how her hairstyle may be a part of her personality (which, unless you know the person well, is rarely taken into account). But it IS based on my impression of her attractiveness by observing the person as a whole, rather than fixating on an individual feature, her hair.Which, I think Dave, may be where we diverge.As usual,JerkyFlea

JerkyFlea,I'd like to reply to your comments as well...> > Personally, IMHO, I am quite capable of seeing the> > appeal of longer-than-waist-length hair. "Long" is a> > relative term. Everybody will have a different> > definition of what constitutes any given "generally> > stated" hair length (short/medium/long).>> Longer than waist-length hair can be attractive. However, as Ally said, it really> depends on the build, face shape, etc. of the person. Much like not every> woman looks good in spandex or every guy in a Speedo, a hairstyle is not> one-size-fits-all.Build, face shape and hair are three specific physicalattributes that every person has, no matter how attractivethat be appraised by others. Within the aspect of naturalhair, it can be described in terms of its color, texture,thickness, wavyness/straightness, etc. Even in anunadultered state, each person's hair is unique.> > Whomever said that one of the requirements for "how" one> > wears their hair is that is have a "style," and just who> > is the authority to say what that "style" *ought* to be?> > Hair is, well, it's hair. Expecting it to conform to> > some potentially changeable whim of a "style" is, to me,> > not a worthwhile endeavor. Some appreciate hair for how> > it is (or can be) "styled." Others appreciate it just> > for what it is. There is more to appreciate in hair than> > just it's "styling" capabilities.> In other words, you are equating hair with a garment to an extent. So a woman> could have the world's ugliest blouse, but as long as it was made out of the> finest silk, you would appreciate it's beauty. That's just silly.But you see, you are being the judge of what is "ugly" andwhat is not. And for you, that's fine. But what is ugly tosome is not ugly to others. We don't all see the worldthrough the same set of eyes. As for the hypothetical garmentyou mention, I might well appreciate it for its fabric.Don't you think it's plausible that someone might think,"you know, that is a very odd-looking blouse, but it sure ismade of a beautiful fabric?"> Sure, "style" is a function of from whatever the trend of the moment is to what> people consider societal norms (which is why you don't see many so-called> stylish women wearing Farrah wings these days).It's true that that hairstyle is very rare these days.However, in the trendy world of fashion, sometimes someone(like a "trend-setter") who dares to break the golden ruleof "follow the rules" does what may initially be seen as an"outrageous" thing like wearing "Farrah-style" hair, and inthe process "helps" to change the de-facto standard. Thefashion world functions on extensive borrowing from thepast for its "insight" into the next season's "latest"styles.> However, because> someone wants to acheive the current "style" or just change their hair to> something that they personally find more attractive and makes them feel better> about themselves, doesn't make them any less of a person.Huh? Did I say anything resembling a contradiction to thisstatement? I don't think so. Of course I would agree withyour statement!Please re-read John's two posts. They shed insight into hissister-in-law's reason (as well as her sister's possible"motivation") behind the haircut.> Therefore, branding someone as a conformistI don't believe I said anything about anybody being aconformist.> ... or saying their making a huge, life> shattering mistake by cutting their hair is unfair to the person.Well, can you appreciate what it's like to love having longhair, and having that hair cut off against your will ordesire (for any of a number of reasons)? I have. Have you?And I have known many others (all women) who have felt verybadly about having undergone such an unwanted haircut.Unless you know what it's like, I dare suggest that you, myfriend, not minimize how unpleasant such an experience is.> I've known women who could sit down and have a foot and a half of hair cut off> without blinking an eye. I've also known women like Karen that are emotionally> attacted to every strand on their head and losing even a half inch is like> amputating a body part. Are either wrong? Of course not. So, if you can accept> one, then you have no right to look upon the other with derision.I do not look down upon John's sister-in-law, or any womanwho chooses of her own free will to cut her hair. What I amdown on is anyone who coerces someone else into cutting offtheir long hair.> > I need to make this apology/disclaimer in advance... I> > mean no disrespect to anybody in particular or general> > when I say that it's not the hair that makes a few women> > "frumpy." Beautiful hair (however that may be defined)> > certainly cannot hurt, and almost always helps a woman> > appear more attractive.>> I can't disagree with that statement. I would only disagree if you implied that> beautiful hair can only be defined as LONG hair.I am not making such an implication. I tried to leave mystatement open for subjective interpretation by saying"Beautiful hair (however that may be defined)..."> > I must respectfully disagree. IMHO, I think 99% of> > women look better with long hair (though it need not> > necessarily be as long as knee-length).>> Hmmm...good thing I put that disclaimer up above, huh? That's your opinion,> and thus I can't disagree since it's in the eye of the beholder. I personally think,> the style should suit the person and I've know several women who actually> looked MORE feminine with shorter hair. Really. Honest.You have every right to your opinion and your frame ofreference -- of course. I believe that you believe whatyou are saying.> > I think many would agree that there are quite a number> > of people who actually do dispense unsolicited advice> > against long hair. I myself have heard this from> > literally dozens of people, I kid you not. If I were not> > as strong of mind as I am, I might have given in to the> > bullying years ago.>> I'd agree that happens. The whole "you can't have long hair over a certain age"> scenario. Heck, if someone does or doesn't want to cut their hair it's their> business. However, if they ask you opinion, then that's what you give them,> whether that means you think it looks great long or would be more flattering> shorter. Ultimately, it's their choice.I agree. Whenever someone asks for an opinion, they shouldbe prepared to handle whatever they hear.> However, whenever I saw her from the front, I> realized that however attractive her long hair in and of itself may be, it really did> nothing to bring out her features and enhance her overall appearance. My> opinion? Sure, plus it's purely based on physical appearance and not how her> hairstyle may be a part of her personality (which, unless you know the person> well, is rarely taken into account). But it IS based on my impression of her> attractiveness by observing the person as a whole, rather than fixating on an> individual feature, her hair.> Which, I think Dave, may be where we diverge.This is not true. I do not fixate on hair. (now, excuse meladies for my choice of words...) I am perfectly capable ofappreciating every aspect of a woman. I (as do you, fromwhat you have said), do notice all of the features of awoman's appearance. We might discuss between ourselves allof these other (non-hair) aspects and agree on every one ofthem -- and then we may well disagree about the hair. That'sfine. It's a matter of "different strokes for differentfolks."Take care,Dave

I am 50 years old lesbian and have waist length brown hair. Would I ever cut it, I don't think so - I have it long since I was 16. I get a lot of compliments on it and women always want to touch it. In the bars I meet a lot of women because women my age rarely have long hair and they find it very attractive. I am taken for my late 30's or early 40's. The only thing that I did was in 1982 I got rid of the bangs when I bought a motocycle - the helmet flattened them out.