Hair Politics - What should hair sites be for?

Print Page | Close Window

What should hair sites be for?

Printed From: HairBoutique.com
Category: Hair Talk
Forum Name: Hair Politics
Forum Description: The politics of Hair is a slippery slope...
URL: /forum_posts.php?TID=8390
Printed Date: Dec 26, 2024 at 10:47am

Topic: What should hair sites be for?

Posted By: andy
Subject: What should hair sites be for?
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:56pm

Hi everybody,I thought we might broach a contentious topic here (like we don't anyway) and discuss the issue of hair fetish sites.I swift trawl though the hair sites on the internet will reveal that a lot are more about ringing folk's sexual bells rather than about hairstyles 'per se'. These are either of the 'super long' or 'cutting and shaving' kind (some of the latter I reckon trancend the acceptable and enter the realm of the sordid.So what do you folks reckon to all this? The Andrea Dworkin/Catherine McKinnon definition of pornography says (and I'm paraphrasing here) that it is representations of people in inhuman or degrading circumstances for the purposes of sexual stimulation. Some of these sites would conform to this. Others don't seem to wrap their heads around the simple fact that some (most?) women have long hair because they like it and not for the benefit of others.So my question is - what to you folks think? How do you feel about hair being portrayed in this context? I reckon we could have some really lively and polemical posts on this one!andy

-------------

Replies: 22

Posted By: andy
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:56pm

Posted By: Holly
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:56pm

Hi Andy,I hope you got my message over at the personals board- I think my posting wasn't wrote out the way I wanted it to sound.Anyway, I think you have a point here. If they would just say what they are instead of pretending to be something else, then you know what your in for if you go to that particular site. Not that if say a long hair site is for fetishists that it always means that it will be offensive to just look at, picture wise. I certainly would like to know if any sexual content (not just pictures, but postings or comments of that nature)by fetishists are going to be available to see so I can avoid it.What bothers me about some sites about long hair is that if you have short hair or can't grow your hair too long the implication is (or outright statement sometimes)is that you are less attractive. I have derriere length hair myself, but this statement(or implication)annoys me. Obviously there are a great many good-looking women with short hair-Lorrie Morgan's hair of a few years back comes to mind. Also, Pat Benatar as well.If a woman can't grow her hair real long for some reason I'm sure these statements/implications can hurt their feelings and may make their self-esteem plummet, especially teenagers.I'm glad there are sites that cater to all hair lengths, showing a variety of styles.Holly

Posted By: Tina
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:56pm

I am curious. Does anyone believe that the Hair Boutique has hidden fetish content?I have been telling all my students to visit Hair Boutique to see the various styles and hair info but am now a little alarmed that I might have missed something? I am a high school teacher and try to steer my students to the safe sites.I did notice that in the Links section there are some sites that are marked as "Adults Only" but now I am wondering.I have visited The Long Hair Site and while it claims to not be a hair fetish site, I feel that there is a lot there that may be borderline?How do you tell the difference?Tina> Hi Andy,> I hope you got my message over at the personals board-> I think my posting wasn't wrote out the way I wanted> it to sound.> Anyway, I think you have a point here. If they would> just say what they are instead of pretending to be> something else, then you know what your in for if you> go to that particular site. Not that if say a long> hair site is for fetishists that it always means that> it will be offensive to just look at, picture wise. I> certainly would like to know if any sexual content> (not just pictures, but postings or comments of that> nature)by fetishists are going to be available to see> so I can avoid it.> What bothers me about some sites about long hair is> that if you have short hair or can't grow your hair> too long the implication is (or outright statement> sometimes)is that you are less attractive. I have> derriere length hair myself, but this statement(or> implication)annoys me. Obviously there are a great> many good-looking women with short hair-Lorrie> Morgan's hair of a few years back comes to mind. Also,> Pat Benatar as well.> If a woman can't grow her hair real long for some> reason I'm sure these statements/implications can hurt> their feelings and may make their self-esteem plummet,> especially teenagers.> I'm glad there are sites that cater to all hair> lengths, showing a variety of styles.> Holly4 !$ Aa ` `a`` $@

Posted By: Holly
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:56pm

Diane,First of all, what are you talking about? Who mentioned Frank's site? It wasn't mentioned at all so stop putting "words in my mouth".Also, who is starting a flame here? You make it sound like I am. I was just responding to a topic, but you are making me out to the world that I'm starting a flame.Also your making that implication to Andy as well.Obviously people are allowed to discuss topics within reason here.There are so many sites on long hair anyways, why would you think about Frank's site unless perhaps I hit a nerve?Is there something said over there that would make you think I meant his site, meaning the implications/statements that I talked about that are on some sites? Rememeber, you brought him up, not me.I think it's a lot of nerve to say I need to "Watch my wording" when you are plainly saying that I said things that I did not.We both know what this is really about, and really you should e-mail me personally (all e-mails are welcomed) if you have a problem with me. Anything that goes on at the mailing list should be kept there, and not dragged over here to "Hair Boutique". What you're angry about has nothing to do with this topic.I find it interesting that you think flaming is tasteless, yet you outrightly started one here with me, by saying all these untrue things about me that anybody can see I didn't say.This is supposed to be fun, but stimulating discussion. Really there are more important things to get upset about, so try not to get so angry, either here or at the "other place".Before this gets misconstrued as well, I DO NOT think that HB is a fetish site. I know Diane, you never said that I did. However, after reading Tina's question, I wanted to be sure I commented on that before you said anything else about me. I'm sure Karen knows this as well, as I've personally offered any assistance I could to this site and we have e-mailed each other personally in the past.Holly

Posted By: andy
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:56pm

Hi all,Well, I said we could have some polemical posts about this didn't I? However are we so unable to discuss the issue that we make accusations of flaming if anybody expresses strong but reasoned views? I reckon that we can disagree politely and reasonably in a non-flaming way.I think Holly is raising a good point here - the issue of covert message content. We all agree that there is a problem with fashion publications which only use very slim women, because they send the message that 'thin = attractive' and therefore 'not thin = unattractive'. If anybody doubts how much damage this covert lie does then ask anybody with a background in anorexia care!All Holly is saying is that maybe this is another message that is subliminally sent (have I got you wrong here Holly?), not that there is any intentional desire to offend or make people feel small. You will notice that I didn't make any accusations about any site in particular by the way, and neither did Holly.How do you tell the difference Tina? That's rather the question isn't it?I totally agree with the idea that the idea of staying away from material you consider offensive is a laudible one, and one I would agree with. However, what if one of your kids accidentally visited a site with sexual content because it was not obvious that that was what it was, or out of plain curiosity. The idea of personal responsibility to choose content is fine for adults - do you think is also a successful choice for allowing children to avoid unsavoury sites?andy

Posted By: Holly
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Diane,I said "Some sites about long hair". That is not the name of any hair site that I know of. Tina mentioned that site, I didn't. Isn't an apology in order here, and one at the mailing list, too? I think it is.Holly

Posted By: Holly
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Tina,I just wanted to say before it gets misconstrued by anyone that although I mentioned in my post to Diane that you mentioned TLHS, that doesn't mean I think you were wrong in asking a question about it, or even commenting your opinon about it.Just wanted to be sure I was clear on that point.Thanks,Holly

Posted By: Dave
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Hi Andy,> ...a lot of... hair fetish sites... on the internet... are more about> ringing folk's sexual bells rather than about hairstyles 'per se'.> ... These are either of the 'super long' or 'cutting and shaving' kind> (some of the latter I reckon trancend the acceptable and enter the> realm of the sordid.Merriam-Webster's (m-w.com) unedited definition of "pornography" is:1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing)intended to cause sexual excitement2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behaviorand is intended to cause sexual excitement3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse aquick intense emotional reactionThe recurring theme in each of these defintions is the word "behavior"or "acts." Any site that shows static pictures of any hair style orlength -- that is not simultaneously depicting "erotic behavior" --cannot by definition be described as being pornographic. A site thatdepicts action/behavior, as is typically the case on some cuttingsites that show a progression of a haircut, could be seem aspornographic according to definition number 3 above. Storiesdescribing said acts *could* also be seen as being pornographic inthis light.> ...representations of people in inhuman or degrading circumstances> for the purposes of sexual stimulation. Some of these sites would> conform to thisYes. Sadly, I see it this way too.Dave!$) I Batare

Posted By: Dave
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

> What bothers me about some sites about long hair is> that if you have short hair or can't grow your hair> too long the implication is (or outright statement> sometimes)is that you are less attractive. I have> derriere length hair myself, but this statement(or> implication)annoys me.Holly,I'm not aware of such implications or outright statements. Can youoffer examples?Obviously there are a great> many good-looking women with short hair-Lorrie> Morgan's hair of a few years back comes to mind. Also,> Pat Benatar as well.Are there not sites that show pictures of these women? (I believethere are).Dave!$) I Batare

Posted By: Dave
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Tina,> I am curious. Does anyone believe that the Hair> Boutique has hidden fetish content?I don't believe so.> I feel that there is a lot there that may be borderline?> How do you tell the difference?I don't think that any website that shows pictures of (fully clothed!)people with any given hair length (long as at tlhs, or medium or shortat other sites) qualifies as "fetish." The only "borderline" concern(I can think of at the moment) may be (as in my reply to Andy) about aseries of pictures of a given person undergoing sudden (drastic) changesin length, which may be intended to elicit a "quick intense emotionalreaction."Dave!$) I Batare

Posted By: Dave
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

> Lastly, Andy, one thing that really disturbs me. I> don't know if you saw my post about the man on the> train who tugged my hair et. al. Your question here> sort of touched a chord about something which I have> been thinking lately. It really scares me that some> men have a true fetish with really long hair.Actually Jade, I wouldn't assume that the man who harassed you necessarilyhad a hair fetish; rather, I would say that he (being pathological) choseto use your hair as a target or as a means to be able to "get to you."> Words are one thing, but actual unwanted touching is a> whole different thing. Imagine> your hair being a drawing card for predators.The motivation of such pathological individuals may have to do with theirhaving hostile feelings toward women in general, and since long hair issymbolic of a woman's beauty, it is irrationally seen (by these men) assymbolic of what they dislike.Just speculating...Dave!$) I Batare

Posted By: Dave
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Well, Andy, you raise another interesting issue. Basically with thosefashion publications, the message is that if you don't buy what they(their editors or advertisers) sell, then you are somehow inadequate.I agree that this can be hazardous to the psychological well-being ofthe reader. Yes it's difficult to escape that trap, but the choice toselectively (or completely) disregard the pitch does exist.Dave!$) I Batare

Posted By: andy
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Hi Dave,Ok, so we're into semantics here, but I cannot agree with this definition process. Is this definition actually claiming that if it doesn't move then it isn't pornographic? By this definition then a picture could show any vile and horrendous act on it's own and still not be pornographic. I think McKinnon/Dworkin is a better definition as it allows for static images

Posted By: andy
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Hi JadeI think you've made a good point here - this is the real damage in pornography is that it stops people being viewed as people. If you portray hair (or any other part of a person's anatomy) as a sexual object then the person who 'owns' it becomes mearly an object to which it is attached. It therefore follows that any instance of the object (eg your hair) can be pawed without any sense that the person whose hair it is should be asked first. I knew a woman who liked having her hair brushed and braided, but ONLY by her friends and only with her permission. To handle intentionally a part of another person's anatomy without thier permission (unless it is part of dragging them from a burning building or some such) is always an invasion of their personal space.If we did a straw poll among the contributors to hairtalk then we would probably find out that the reasons for their individual hair choices would be complex and varied. However a number of sites create the impression that the purpose of having a given hair style or length is to gratify others (after all, that is the only context in which the site portrays it).

Posted By: Holly
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

> Holly,> I'm not aware of such implications or outright> statements. Can you> offer examples?I'm going to look at some-if it's the one where Diane is so defensive about, then I'll understand now that I really did hit a nerve. We'll see.> Obviously there are a great> Are there not sites that show pictures of these women?> (I believe> there are).Dave, I didn't say there wasn't. Please explain your point that you're making here. I think I know what it is, but to be sure I'd like to hear you say it, before I post anything.Thanks,Holly

Posted By: Holly
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

> I never came across any long hair sites that knocks> down women with short hair and that they say that> short is not attractive. YOu made it sound like some> site bash short hair women and I never heard or read> any of those thoughts.> That part I didn't appreciate that some people would> have been mislead because every site has its purpose> and it would have created some bad feelings.> I have nothing against you. IN fact I have defended> you in the past. I have no more comments.Diane,Sorry, can't ignore this post. Yes, I am sure that I have seen sites with statements/implications like this, because you haven't doesn't mean I haven't.If you're so worried about people being mislead, then why did you put words in my mouth? I would accept your apology, but you are telling people at the mailing list that I don't put up my e-mail address here at Hair Boutique. Hello? Anyone can plainly see that I do that not only here at Politics but at "Hair Talk" and even at my post to Ann's needing help to make a decision at the "Hair Personals". You're talking about ME being misleading? HMM.You have also said that I should "watch my wording" in another posting. Yet, you admittedly don't mince words by saying "you call it like you see it". So, you call it like you see it, but others have to watch their wording. Curious, to say the least. I guess I don't have to watch MY wording, I have to watch YOUR wording of what you say I say, because apparently I don't know what I've just said since it always comes out different when you quote me!You said that you are known for being honest? Interesting.Let's keep it real here. No matter how much you deny it, you have a gripe with me for the goings-on at the mailing list. You are the one who brought up the fact that you saw me on a mailing list on your earlier posting, so you got that one dragged over here, not me, so it's strange (to put it mildly) to tell me to keep things where they belong when you are the one who did it. It would be obvious to anyone who saw your confrontational postings to me at the mailing list that this is where it's all coming from.NOTE TO EVERYONE ELSE: I bet the applications are flying off the roof for people to join so they can see what's going on here :)) Either that or people are staying away because they think it's confrontational. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS, by the way. I couldn't say anyhow how it normally is there as neither my Husband nor I went to it much prior to now.If you want to stop all this, that's fine, but you are attempting to make me look as though I'm the one who is needing to make peace here. I'm not asking for another apology because they turn out to be something other than that when you attempt to. I'll happily stop posting to you on this matter if you stop as well, and also not refer to my remarks in any misleading or false way.Holly

Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Diane,What the heck is this all about.. I don't understand you at all! I have gone back through the messages in chronological order okay!In Holly's first reply to Andy's original post she mentioned "Not that if say a long hair site..." - note the word "A" and not "THE". In the English language "A" is not a specific term it refers in the general sense to a non-particular site.In the same post she also used the phrase "What bothers me about some sites about long hair " again - not "THE" site - "SOME" sites.Now if you can come up with a better general term than "a long hair site" or "some sites about long hair" which refer in the general sense to sites about long hair without using the words "long hair" in that combination - you post it here!!Just for the record it was Tina who also posted in reply to Andy (after Holly's post) "I have visited The Long Hair Site and while it claims to not be a hair fetish site, I feel that there is a lot there that may be borderline? ". Now notice this.... Tina used the word "THE.." that is a specific reference. So do we have this clear - it was Tina and not Holly.You then posted a message to the mailing list accusing Holly of making this statement and cause aggravation there. First off, I don't know why you dragged the mailing list into this discussion and second you should have got your facts straight before accusing people of things they did not say. It was because you made these accusations in a public forum that Holly asked you for an apology.As it turns out, it was because of your ravings that bought so much attention to "THE" site.I hope it can be ended here too, but I just wanted to set the record straight once and for all. No flaming - just facts!!No more public comments will be coming from either Holly or me. If anything more is said, I just ask that anybody who has a question for Holly or me on this matter writes to us personally at our email addresses.Paul (Holly's Husband)

Posted By: eric
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Jade 21 said it so well. So did Jeff. Please lets move on as J&K have so carefully & politely requested.I love this forum. I never post here but I am addicted to this board. Hair Boutique is one of the top joys of my life. Please lets not ruin it.Eric C.> While Karen & I try to run this board without a> heavy hand, we think that the current discussion> between Diane & Holly needs to go offline.> Please, if you wish to continue, do so through your> private emails.> Thanks,> Jeff & Karen

Posted By: Dave
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Hi Holly,>> Are there not sites that show pictures of these women? (I believe>> there are).> Please explain your> point that you're making here. I think I know what it> is, but to be sure I'd like to hear you say it, before> I post anything.My point is that there are a variety of websites that cater to any andevery preference regarding hair length and style, and other aspects ofhair.An implication you perceive may or may not be, to some extent, more amatter of what you infer. It depends on the messages stated (if any),and the context in which they are made. I know I'm speaking in verygeneral terms, so if you want to discuss specifics, sure, let's.Dave!$) I Batare

Posted By: Dave
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

Hi Andy,I didn't intend to get tangled up in semantics. You are right, thedefinition I proposed is too narrow. Certainly, some static images canbe described as pornographic. My point was generally to agree with you,that some of the cutting sites "trancend the acceptable and enter therealm of the sordid" (as you put it), and the dictionary's definitionof the term ("the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as toarouse a quick intense emotional reaction") seems to apply to a few.Dave!$) I Batare

Posted By: Clare
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:57pm

I am really tired of this, from BOTH parties involved!!Thanks again,Clare> While Karen & I try to run this board without a> heavy hand, we think that the current discussion> between Diane & Holly needs to go offline.> Please, if you wish to continue, do so through your> private emails.> Thanks,> Jeff & Karen !

Posted By: Curious
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:58pm

If you were so tired of it, why were you so inclined to read it? Guess people always like to see themself put in their two cents, and be "teacher's pet" to the owners of the site.

Posted By: Clare
Date Posted: Jan 11, 2000 at 8:59pm

I will gladly address this if the person who posted this will state their name. I know that we don't have a person named "Curious" on this board.Clare> If you were so tired of it, why were you so inclined> to read it? Guess people always like to see themself> put in their two cents, and be "teacher's> pet" to the owners of the site. !

Print | Close Window