Locks Of Love - Good or Bad?

> First, I agree completely that all donated hair should> go to the making of wigs. However, let's put ourselves> in the position of LOL for a second. You have a large> number of people donating hair and very few donating> money. So, you have a surplus of hair and a shortage> of cash. Since your mission is to make these wigs, an> obvious way to raise more money is to sell the hair.> Not the best solution, but I would wonder what your> alternative would be?> JFAre the people in America really so poor that they have to sell her hair for helping children? In Europe there are a lot of charity organisations to help ill children and it seems to work. You say there is a surplus of hair and a shortage of money. So you suggest to sell more hair to have the money to make wigs of the surplus of hair. Sounds strange. With a little bit of phantasy you can get much more money in another way. Let the people something win if they donate money, this has always worked. But I've got the feeling that this is not what "Locks of Love" is thinking about. The whole thing sounds totally crazy, needless, and dangerous for the freedom of wearing the hair to me. The pressure doesn't come directly from this organisation, it comes from the folks as you can see in the reactions of people if they see Lady Godivas long hair "still not donated". I don't believe in the charity character of this thing. Giving something that hurts you to give doesn't automatically mean that you do something senseful. Good will is not everything, the people should think before. Are there really no more urgent problems? I guess someone makes a lot of money with this hairdeals or has other reasons to promote this, I have no other explanation for the existance of LOL. Charity is not the reason, it's too unlogic.But, at least, every woman shall do what she wants, if the charity feeling makes her happy...but this women shouldn't expect the same from other women, they have wether the right nor the arguments.

To Jennifer..I agree whole heartedly with what your point of view. L-O-L poses a lot of questions as to their raison d'etre. I am appalled that anybody, in particular strangers, should suggest that you cut your hair. Would anyone walk up to someone who was obviously affluent and suggest they part with all their money for charity? I think not.Iggy..

Before I bail out on this angle of the argument, since you, Iggy and others are spinning off into your own paranoid anti-long hair conspiracy theories, I want to point out two things:FIRST: The woman who founded LOL, Peggy Knight, suffers from alopecia areata herself and started the organization to aid children who may suffer from riducule due to their hair loss from the same condition or cancer treatment. Hopefully, you don't see anything sinister or "titillating" in that.SECOND: If you read the site, they do publicize that they accept monetary donations, even providing a place on the site through which to make a contribution. Also, they indicate that "Donated hair that is not suitable for use in children's hairpieces may be sold at fair market value to offset the cost of manufacturing.", so it's not as though they hide that fact either. You can read their press release here.I will agree on the point that the donating of the ponytails is the more dramatic donation and thus gets all the press, especially since it's such a unique way to contribute compared to other charities. However, if the press chooses to concentrate on that aspect, you can't blame LOL, nor could you expect them to dissuade whatever positive publicity they can get. If the cutting of hair as a charitable donation offends you, then don't contribute to them. However, calling into question their motives simply based on your own biases is truly unconcionable.JerkyFleaRelated Link:JerkyFlea's Celebrity Hair Spray

> Before I bail out on this angle of the argument, since> you, Iggy and others are spinning off into your own> paranoid anti-long hair conspiracy theories, I want to> point out two things:> FIRST: The woman who founded LOL, Peggy Knight,> suffers from alopecia areata herself and started the> organization to aid children who may suffer from> riducule due to their hair loss from the same> condition or cancer treatment. Hopefully, you don't> see anything sinister or "titillating" in> that.> SECOND: If you read the site, they do publicize that> they accept monetary donations, even providing a place> on the site through which to make a contribution.> Also, they indicate that "Donated hair that is> not suitable for use in children's hairpieces may be> sold at fair market value to offset the cost of> manufacturing.", so it's not as though they hide> that fact either. You can read their press release> here.> I will agree on the point that the donating of the> ponytails is the more dramatic donation and thus gets> all the press, especially since it's such a unique way> to contribute compared to other charities. However, if> the press chooses to concentrate on that aspect, you> can't blame LOL, nor could you expect them to dissuade> whatever positive publicity they can get. If the> cutting of hair as a charitable donation offends you,> then don't contribute to them. However, calling into> question their motives simply based on your own biases> is truly unconcionable.> JerkyFleaJerkyFlea,Well, isn't this special. Some folks raise legitimate questions and concerns, and what do you do? Attempt to discredit them as "biased" and "spinning off into paranoid conspiracy theories." Your pooh-poohing of these questions and concerns seems to be an attempt to belittle those with whom you disagree, and shows that you just don't care who gets "touched" in a less-than-positive ways by LOL's media campaign.It was only you, JerkyFlea, who just shamefully associated (by deflection) the word "titillation" with the circumstances of LOL's founder. I can't even begin to imagine why you even made your comment. I'm certain that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY associated the medical condition of LOL's founder with "titillation."That word has been used to describe the circumstances surrounding the method of "collection" so often displayed by the various "for-profit" media agencies (especially TV), which use the spectacle to their own financial advantage.The reality of the situation (as observed from Jennifer's encounters and mine, among who-knows-how-many others not expressed here) is that (a) the general public is fairlywell aware of LOL, and (b) that some among the general public (who themselves do not have long hair) ARE approaching those that do have long hair, and are, at the very least, broaching the subject of LOL, and in other cases, are outright pressuring some to give away their hair. Do you believe, JerkyFlea, that the means justify the ends?I'm not aware of the occurrence of similar pressure being applied by long-haired folks towards short-haired folks, such as approaching short-haired strangers and friends alikeand asking them, "How long have you had short hair? For years? Then why don't you grow your own hair long so that you can cut it off and give it away to charity?" (Notethat I'm not advocating its initiation.) In a general sense, to say that "helping one's self or others" is a noble pursuit, but pressuring someone else into cutting off their long hair for LOL does not qualify as "doing one's own part" for a specific charity.Although monetary contributions are mentioned on LOL's site, I have seen a number of these "collections" for LOL on TV shows, and never once was money mentioned as a potential means of donation, even though several times LOL reps have been in attendance in the audience, and been briefly interviewed on-camera. Why is it that the need for money, which seems to be LOL's biggest need, is never mentioned during the media broadcasts?Dave

Thanks for the support folks.. Anyway Jerky, just because I'm not paranoid anymore, doesn't mean they're not out to get me! *s*I love a good conspiracy theory too.. You guys never really landed on the moon did you?Iggy..

I agree Carolyn. If one truly *wants* to give their longhair for the patients who have gone bald because of theirmedical treatment, it is a beautiful act, particularlybecause it hurt to lose the hair (the tears!)If it is because of social coercion, - and small municipalities are known for this - out of fear of whatpeople might do if one does *not* cut the hair for adonation, that is, the perceived notion that cutting one'slong hair is a small sacrifice in comparison to the greatergood it will do for a bald cancer patient, it could giverise to scowls, ostracism, words of hate etc. Most peoplewould have a hard time dealing with such punishment, andwould rather cut and donate the hair to prevent even greaterpsychological pain.Brian************************************> Hi Carol!..> . I just cringed at the footage of women rushing to have their long locks sheared off to donate. I think this thing> was called THE TOWN WHO CUT THEIR HAIR or something> like that. There were lots of young women in tears> when their hair was cut. I kept wondering if these> were all really willing hair cuts or was some of that> "herd mentality"? I can just imagine the> pressure any girl or woman in that town that didn't> cut her hair and donate it.> Carolyn B

Ever hear of companies that match employee donations? For every dollar the employee gives, the corporation gives the exact same amount. Many companies that support the United Way practice this. Not only is the employee stuck on a guilt trip for his own donation (and they *really* push!), despite the fact that he may give to his place of worship or other non-United Way charities, but the employee is left holding the responsiblity for the corporate gift as well. "The more you give, the more we'll give, but the less you give, the less we'll give."Talk about coersion! And there's the tax break you overlooked.Jennifer Eve> Bang on, Jennifer!> But please clear something up for me. In Canada, we> also> have United Way, but the employing companies do not> get> tax breaks for the donations of their employees; the> employees do, though. Have I got that right: U.S.> employers> get tax deductions for their employees' donations?> Brian> aq093@freenet.carleton.ca> **********************

> There is not any need for any lady to cut her hair forlocks of love. Synthetic hair wigs are replacing manyhuman hair wigs. Synthetic hairs wigs do NOT dry out,and they cost less money. Many ladies with hair loss,are wearing the synthetic hair wigs,which are of goodquality. The synthetic hair wigs give an excellentenhancement to a ladies appearance, and there are a largenumber of synthetic wigs,available.

> There is not any need for a lady,to cut her hair forLOL Synthetic wigs are replacing many human hairwigs. Many ladies with hair loss,do like the large numberof new synthetic hair wigs that are on the market.Synthetic hair wigs are of good quality,and they areless expensive. Human hair wigs dry out, so many ladieswith hair loss,now buy the better synthetic hair wigs,which provide excellent hair enhancement. The need forhuman hair wigs has decreased.

>>> Yesterday, an aquaintance at church and later a> stranger at the store mentioned my long hair and> brought up LOL. This thing is almost bigger than> Pokemon.Sorry Jennifer but your statement that says this thing is almost bigger than Pokemon made me laugh.On a more serious note. I am sorry you are pestered like that. ( Diane)>