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,> JerkyFlea> P.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.Hi out there! I agree with JeryFlea. There after getting you to watch. Or buy the prouduct that they maybe selling. Tv land dosent realy care about the people or the hair they just want you to watch so they can make the big bucks!Have a great Hair Day!Happy healthy hair!Diane K

> 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

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

sometimes people use their long hair as a security blanket and never cut it. long hair that is trimmed looks beautiful but long hair that just sits there and does nothing is long and well, long. a lot of the people on these shows are not very attractive and the hair draws attention away from them being overweight or not real pretty in the face. I know it isn't like this for everyone with long hair, but you have to admit that it is for some.

> sometimes people use their long hair as a security> blanket and never cut it. long hair that is trimmed> looks beautiful but long hair that just sits there and> does nothing is long and well, long. a lot of the> people on these shows are not very attractive and the> hair draws attention away from them being overweight> or not real pretty in the face. I know it isn't like> this for everyone with long hair, but you have to> admit that it is for some.Hello:You mentioned that sometimes people use their long hair as a security blanket and never cut it.I was wondering where you got this idea from? Has anyone ever mentioned to you that they keep their long hair as a security blanket? Did any pyschologist or anyone of that profession told you this?Now my hair is not security blanket but has been used as warm blanket when the temperature can easily drop to -40F (C) in the winter lol.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I don't think it is fair to say that long hair is use to cover someone's looks. I will agree that certain hairstyles will look better on some people. Personally I don't look good in short hair. Been there and tried it. I always had to have medium to long hair.

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

Hi Dave,> Here is another expression which I do not understand,> this concept of> "dragging the face down." It makes> absolutely no sense to me. Where> does the face get dragged to? I thought it always> rested on the front> of the head? Would anybody like to explain this> concept in detail?Sure -- 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 am in my thirties and am not old at all! But I do know that I always preferred my hair being pulled back in a barrette, as it made me look younger. Sometimes people with very long hair *can* (I'm definitely not saying this is true for everyone at all) look older. 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.Please understand that I am definitely not a short-hair proponent at all! But these are some observations I've had with some of the people that I've seen with ultra-long hair. And other women with ultra-long hair that I've seen look absolutely gorgeous! The shape of the face and (sometimes) body and the care of the hair make a lot of difference in how the long hair will look on the person.

> First I would like to say that the original post is> NOT by the person who was> known as Lurker but is now known as Zorak...this> person is lurker with a> lower-case "L".> 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.> Does this make any sense?? It does to me...> ...original stuff about long hair as a security> blanket...> 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. They> are afraid to change, long hair is kind of soft and> comforting, etc, Just like a> child's security blanket.> Zorak