Top Five Worst Haircut Disasters
Printed From: HairBoutique.com
Category: Beautiful People, Beautiful Hair
Forum Name: Celebrity Hair Talk
Forum Description: The hair trials and tribulations of Celebrities
URL: https://talk.hairboutique.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=23905
Printed Date: July 13 2025 at 10:52am
Topic: Top Five Worst Haircut Disasters
Posted By: terone
Subject: Top Five Worst Haircut Disasters
Date Posted: May 12 2004 at 9:58pm
|
5) Shiri Appleby from Roswell. She followed in Katherine Heigl's footsteps, and it was all downhill from there. 4) Charisma Carpenter from Buffy. Short hair is not her thing at all. Her career ended when the locks came off. 3) Christina Applegate. The ratings for Married with Children dropped off the charts the year her hair was cut. 2) Natalie Portman. She wears too much makeup as it is, and now it's really noticeable. 1) Keri Russell. That haircut personally caused the downfall in the TV ratings that shortened the life of Felicity. I can't think of others at this point. |
Replies:
Posted By: Rod
Date Posted: May 12 2004 at 10:23pm
|
This is the top 5 haircuts that terone doesn't like, not hair disasters. And they all happen to be short haircuts. Why not just write "any actress who cut her long hair short." 5) Shiri Appleby from Roswell. I have no idea why "it was downhill" with her. She cut her hair after Roswell ended and has done a couple of indies since. 4) Charisma Carpenter from Buffy. She was on "Angel" two years after cutting her hair. She quit because she was pregnant and has spent the last year being a mom and doing two TV movies and a few guest spots on "Miss Match." Ms. Carpenter has done a pilot which should be picked up for the fall schedule. 3) Christina Applegate. The ratings for Married with Children didn't drop at all when she cut her hair. She cut her hair short again last year and she's been working a lot. 2) Natalie Portman. I'm absolutely clueless why this is a disaster except she's less attractive to you. 1) Keri Russell. The haircut MAY have caused a slight drop in the TV ratings, but they went back up shortly thereafter. The show ran a year before the haircut and three years after. It didn't shorten the life of "Felicity." This cut is the only one that may qualify as a disaster, since it was poorly received by her fans. None of the others have been. ------------- |
Posted By: Mike46019
Date Posted: May 13 2004 at 7:31am
|
Alanis Morissette should have been there. Looks older then she is with her short cut. If we are only going to call this the worst Long to Short. How about short to long. I know a few of you were going off about Hally Berry.(To me is a nice changed.). Kate Beckinsale with that curls that were out of control. I can't think of any right now but there was one someone went blond I had to wear my sunglasses because it was way too blond.LOL ------------- Few men are killed by the bayonet;many are scared by it.Bayonets should be fixed when the fire fight starts.General George Patton Jr.,War As I Knew It,1947. |
Posted By: terone
Date Posted: May 13 2004 at 9:22am
|
To be fair, short to long disasters, or even just long hair disasters have been: Christina Aguilera - her Moulin Rouge phase was not pretty at all. Kate Beckinsale can get a little carried away with her locks. Lauren Lee Smith grew out her hair and dyed it red. Rachael Leigh Cook can look fantastic with short, though not when it's platinum, hair, but she looks good with long hair, too, which she, too, can get carried away with. ------------- |
Posted By: Rod
Date Posted: May 13 2004 at 11:32am
|
And just how is a disaster defined? Is it when the celeb dislikes it? Liv Tyler hated her hair short, but most people thought it looked good. Is it when the public dislikes it? Keri Russell loved her hair short, but her fans hated it. Is it when it looks bad? Sharon Osborne and Ashley Scott may have liked Ashley's mullet, but it just looked bad. ------------- |
Posted By: Bob S
Date Posted: May 13 2004 at 1:13pm
|
For long to short, I vote for all of the above. I'd add Julia Ormond, Laura San Giacomo, Roma Downey and Bai Ling. I consider Roma's and Julia's to be "disasters" only b/c they looked so spectacular before, not b/c they looked bad afterward. ------------- |
Posted By: Magua
Date Posted: May 13 2004 at 7:02pm
Christina aguilera's poodle should be high up the list , any of kelly osborne's efforts , and how about celine dion's blond crop ------------- |
Posted By: Kuroneko
Date Posted: May 14 2004 at 5:48am
|
I think a "hair disaster" should really be defined by a terrible, unintended accident or mistake, i.e. you have an allergic reaction dyeing your hair and it falls out in chunks. Poor hair decisions, i.e. mullets. . . on anyone, ever. . . is just a learning experience. Hopefully all those mullet-haired celebs out there will learn soon, just because it's supposedly trendy, doesn't make it necessarily cute :-P . ------------- More awesome than a manatee! |
Posted By: Gord
Date Posted: May 14 2004 at 12:28pm
|
Worst long to short... 1. Celine Dion. How could you guys have forgotten Celine? 2. Alanis. Nope, I'm still not over it. 3. Kim Bassinger. Cut her gorgeous waistlength hair at the request of Burt Reynolds for a movie role. 4. Bai Ling. When she buzzed her beautiful locks, I was shocked. 5. The poor longhaired victims on any makeover show, particularly that @$#%#$ Maury Povitch. ------------- |
Posted By: ssjockey
Date Posted: May 14 2004 at 9:38pm
|
Well Gord, I need to respond, Celine, yes, a disaster. She has worn short hair well before, why so bad this time? Alanis, not a disaster. People may not like how it looks, but this was a positive choice by her. Kim Basinger, that haircut was in the late 80s, and yes, she regretted it very much at the time. An unqualified disaster. Bai Ling, well, maybe she thought she needed to wear ugly clothes to make up for the bad hair, not a good grow out. As for the Maury "Victims", well Gord, since you were not at their houses every morning, taking care of their hair, I will have to respectfully disagree on that one! One everyone forgot...Nastassia Kinski cut off her hair for Fransis Ford Coppola for the multiple Razzie winner "One From the Heart" The look did nothing for her, and she grew it back shortly.
|
Gord wrote:Posted By: arch94
Date Posted: May 15 2004 at 12:48am
|
Maury is a saint! My two cents! ------------- We all know what opinions are like...and I've got both! |
Posted By: Bob S
Date Posted: May 17 2004 at 7:26pm
|
Maury is a saint in the nether world, if you ask me! (lol) Conning women into cutting for that scam group, Locks of Love! Is it too late to add more names? Here goes: These are women who looked at least 100% sexier with long hair, in my eyes. Faith Hill, Melanie Griffith, Hanna Storm, Meredith Vieira, Juliette Binoche, Valerie Bertinelli, Meg Ryan, Jamie Leigh Curtis, Sharon Stone, Anne Heche and Kim Alexis. Those are just a few. I agree with you, Gord, that the worst *ever* was Alanis' "makeover"! (lol) ------------- |
Posted By: arch94
Date Posted: May 17 2004 at 10:25pm
|
So basically you're saying ANY celeb who cut their long hair short is/was a disaster? That's what i'm reading... My two cents. |
Posted By: Grace912
Date Posted: May 17 2004 at 11:23pm
|
It's a disaster when, without question, it looks bad. First example that comes to mind would be Celine Dion. I can't think of why anyone wouldn't say that the platinum blond crop a while back looked terrible. That said, I think that it was more a function of that horrible shade of blonde. I heard it said once that almost any bad haircut can be made to look good with great color. Similarly, a simlutaneous change to a bad color can make an otherwise nice haircut into a "disaster". So while some long-to-short changes really are bad, so much is in the color and styling that you can't chalk it up to the cut alone. Of course, let's not forget the gray area where maybe it looks great aesthetically, but the celeb herself hates it, perhaps describing it as "a brain fart" or "the worst thing I've done" (real quotes, by the way, two different celebs). Even then, can it be termed a true disaster, if through this change the celeb decides on another style that is still flattering and something that she is more comfortable with? In other words, maybe this isn't about long vs. short at all [/wishful thinking]. Can't we all just get along? (I know, I know, it's never gonna happen) ------------- Monica: Isn't there any way that you could look at this as flattering? I mean, she's doing this to be more like you. Rachel: Well, then, couldn't she have just copied my haircut? |
Posted By: Unregistered Guest
Date Posted: May 18 2004 at 1:21am
Are you serious? I don't think I have ever heard anyone describe Hannah Storm as sexy. I always thought of her as proof that one does not need to be attractive to get a job on TV... |
Posted By: JerkyFlea
Date Posted: May 18 2004 at 8:54am
|
Ok, my definition of this will be hairstyle (not just cut) disasters that were intentional and not a result of movie/tv/stage roles or other factors (e.g., Kim Basinger and Robin Wright Penn getting buzzcuts after "LA Confidential" and "Moll Flanders", respectively, because the condition of their hair was destroyed after the movies). My rule is that the end result is much less less flattering than what it was before and/or could have been if it was just done right. And it isn't a definitive list or even that recent, just stuff that popped into my head (that hasn't already been mentioned)... - Faith Hill's peroxide blonde, choppy bob just before the People's Choice Awards a few years ago. 'Nuff said. http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/2247843.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE793111D57D7EA14DB53862C5C2694362 - http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/2247843.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE793111D57D7EA14DB53862C5C2694362 - Alanis' last cut. Not the first or second, but the last one when she went her shortest. Not that short in an of itself was all bad (different discussion), but because it just looked bland and frumpy and the two previous iterations at least had some style to them. For example, this: http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/2465711.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE6490801A1BAFB05F4F8A749D3F92F334 - http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/2465711.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE6490801A1BAFB05F4F8A749D3F92F334 versus this: http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/3100297.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DEE83A91F10302154CB54E0049DA4462F4 - http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/3100297.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DEE83A91F10302154CB54E0049DA4462F4 - Jenna Elfman's short haircut the last season of "Dharma & Greg". http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/2253090.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DEE3A1B07C302095684C616F966FF61B87 - http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/2253090.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DEE3A1B07C302095684C616F966FF61B87 Don't get me wrong, I love Jenna in short hair (think back to the first couple of seasons of the show), just not THIS short hair. - Courteney Cox's long, flat, stick straight "Morticia Addams" hair for a whole season of "Friends". - Courtney Thorne-Smith's super-short pixie. Ugh. - Julia Robert's first ill-fated attempt at short and blonde back in 1991: http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/798019.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE7FC38CF455698F23E54FAB60F42A51F3 - http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/798019.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE7FC38CF455698F23E54FAB60F42A51F3 Maybe more later, JF ------------- 3 pm is simultaneously too late and too early to start anything. |
Posted By: Gord
Date Posted: May 18 2004 at 1:04pm
[/QUOTE]Regarding Celine: A typical picture speaks a thousand words. When I saw this, I was speechless, and not because it took my breath away: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39015000/jpg/_39015447_dion_203views.jpg - http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39015000/jpg/_39015447_dion_203views.jpg Regarding Maury Povitch: Remember, most of the hatchet jobs he gives longhaired women come at the suggestion of so-called friends. Many of the women who are forced into having televised makeovers are in tears as years of beautiful hair fall to the floor. There's no way you're changing my mind on this one, so don't even try. |
Posted By: arch94
Date Posted: May 18 2004 at 1:28pm
|
If you recall Gord, almost all...95% I venture to say, admit afterwards that they love it. In fact, several of them say they would have done it sooner had they only known how good it was going to look. Trust me on this one, as I have all of maury's makeover shows on tape. ------------- We all know what opinions are like...and I've got both! |
Posted By: Hal
Date Posted: May 18 2004 at 2:20pm
|
Just my thoughts... you take a woman... any woman... change her hair... if it takes her from hot to not.. then she wasn't that pretty in the first place. Celine Dion an Alanis come to mind. If you think a long haired woman is looks good with long hair but not with it shorter... then you only think her hair is pretty..which is ok... just say so! Oh and the vise versa is true as well... which is the boat I fall in.. . but hey... at least I can admitt it! ------------- |
Posted By: Bob S
Date Posted: May 18 2004 at 3:23pm
|
This is too funny! Yes, I thought Hanna was super hot before she chopped her hair off. I do NOT think all the aforementioned look "bad" with short hair. I actually prefer it on a few women, such as Lea Thomson and Jayne Torville of ice dancing fame. But they are a rarity. What I'm saying is that these women were at least 2X as lovely with flowing locks, in my judgment. My one disagreement with other long hair fans here is that I like Alanis' short cut better than the others on her. It's just that compared to her divine image, any cut on her leaves me flat. Finally, you cannot judge a woman's satisfaction immediately after a new, radical cut, esp. on makeover shows. Those smiles stem partially from relief after a decision has been irrevocably made. The lie that their hair will end up on the heads of little girls may please the donor and mitigate the sorrow - until they learn the truth. Bob P.S. How did I leave out Robin Wright and Courtney Thorne-Smith? lol  ------------- |
Posted By: Rod
Date Posted: May 18 2004 at 4:35pm
|
This is too funny. What we have here are men telling us that all the women on "Maury" or any of the other makeover shows were really happier with longer hair. You guys have the caveman male mentality that almost all women are better looking with long hair. I have no problem with that. You like what you like. Most men agree. But don't present that as a judgement and please don't tell us what the women are thinking. It's guys like you that make some women regret cutting their hair. If you didn't make women feel less pretty with short hair, they would have higher self-esteem. Women grow their hair. Women cut their hair. Women who appear on makeover shows want to cut their hair. Those that don't, either won't consider it, or back out. Some regret cutting their hair. Some don't. The women on these shows are ready to cut their hair. Those that aren't, don't go on the shows. I'd guess most are happy they did. Women get attached to their hair, so I'd guess they probably miss it too. And there's nothing wrong with Locks of Love. They present exactly what they do in their literature. They make wigs for children using 10-15 ponytails to make them. They sell hair they don't use to raise money. Charities only need to give away 5% of their donations to be considered a charity and Locks of Love certainly does a lot more than that. The alleged negative report from the BBB is actually a notation that Locks of Love didn't provide them with all the necessary paperwork, not that they've done anything wrong. Locks of Love is a nice charity. Most of the women donating were going to cut their hair anyway. If people tell others to cut their hair for Locks of Love that isn't the charity's fault. Put the blame with the person who makes you feel bad. ------------- |
Posted By: Bob S
Date Posted: May 18 2004 at 7:30pm
|
I don't care a whit whether women donate their hair if they are cutting anyway. It's those who sacrifice their locks ONLY b/c they think that they will help a child whom I feel badly for, Rod. And I know three women who did just that. In 2002, LoL received OVER 100,000 tails, yet made 113 wigs by their own account. Even at 15 pieces per wig, that's only 1695 used tails. The rest is sold or discarded. Women (and others) should be fully informed before it's too late. Long hair represents many years, and to rob those who find joy in their tresses unnecessarily is downright cruel, in my book. Bob  ------------- |
Posted By: Rod
Date Posted: May 18 2004 at 10:37pm
|
I don't know how many donations they get and how many wigs they get, so I'll set aside that part of the discussion. People who donate their hair think they are doing something that will benefit sick children. That makes them feel good. And that's a good thing. If there are women out there who desparately don't want to cut their hair but do so only because they are convinced it will end up on a child's head, well that's their issue. If they give to a charity they don't completely research they shouldn't be surprised to learn all their details. Yes, they sell or discard ponytails. They need to sell their donations to raise money for overhead. All charities have overhead. When you donate cars to a charity, they sell them to raise money. They discard ponytails that are too short or are dyed. While their literature says they don't accept ponytails like this, people send them anyway. If someone donates a kidney and it is discarded, that's cruel. This is hair we're talking about. It's dead cells. If they want it long again, it'll grow back. This is a charity that does good work. It might not be a charity you support, but it's not the evil cabal you seem to think it is. ------------- |
Posted By: Bob S
Date Posted: May 19 2004 at 7:00pm
|
With local and national news and talk shows all touting the wonders of LoL, I don't blame women for placing their trust in their veracity. I think that a 1.5% usage for the cause is a bad deal. The donors on cut-a-thons fully believe that a child will directly benefit from their sacrifice. Those folks who lay guilt trips on Rapunzel women should either fork over the hundreds of dollars the best tails can get themselves, or start growing their own hair. How many donors would they get if the women knew that the likes of Cher or Faith Hill may be wearing *their* hair some day? Or worse, that it may wind up laying in the drawer of some fetishist. Shouldn't women have the right to be fully informed *before* they decide? Cordially, Bob P.S. A noble cause does not a trustworthy organiztion make. ------------- |
Posted By: Gord
Date Posted: May 19 2004 at 10:03pm
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040520/482/ny10805200141&e=9&ncid=707 - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040520/482/ny10805200141&e=9&ncid=707 Yeah, I know it's mostly extensions, but she can pull off the look as well as any other celebrity, don't you think? Regarding Jamie Lee Curtis: I have thought in the past why she never grew her hair longer again. It never quite looked as good (to me, at least) once she cut it short. Her hair was never "Alanis" length, or even close, if my memory serves me right. I remember this length: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/david.dell/Jamie/jlc64.jpg - http://web.ukonline.co.uk/david.dell/Jamie/jlc64.jpg but that is the longest length I could find. And this may surprise some people, but I think this was Jamie's sexiest look, from head to toe: http://www.segginger.net/Good_Pictures/jamie-lee-curtis/pictures/Jamie_Lee_Curtis04.jpg - http://www.segginger.net/Good_Pictures/jamie-lee-curtis/pictures/Jamie_Lee_Curtis04.jpg |
Posted By: JerkyFlea
Date Posted: May 20 2004 at 9:17am
Ok, this discussion should end here because this isn't the board for it. Continue over on Hair Politics if you want. I will quickly address three points Bob makes here, however... "Shouldn't women have the right to be fully informed *before* they decide? " Just like ANY charitable organization, you should research it to make sure you understand how the donations (money, hair, whatever) are being used before you contribute. Just because a charity has "cancer" in the name doesn't mean all the funds are distributed the same way. If women choose to donate their hair to LoL thinking it will all go to kids with cancer, it's pretty darn obvious they didn't take two seconds to do the most basic research to understand what they are contributing to or how the organization works. "I think that a 1.5% usage for the cause is a bad deal. The donors on cut-a-thons fully believe that a child will directly benefit from their sacrifice." Search the site. Search the web. Find me evidence that they won't use the donated hair. From the FAQ on the site ( http://www.locksoflove.org/faq.php - http://www.locksoflove.org/faq.php ): Q: Why does Locks of Love ask for 10 inches minimum length in a donated ponytail? A: Most of the children whom Locks of Love helps are girls. They want long hair. The manufacturing process uses 2 inches of the hair, leaving only an 8-inch length. Most of our girls want hair 12-14 inches long, requiring donated ponytails of 14-16 inches. When Locks of Love needs to manufacture a hairpiece for a boy, we use some of the shorter lengths that have been separated by hand from each donated ponytail. Q: Can I donate a ponytail that is shorter than 10 inches? A: Yes, but only with the understanding that it will most likely be sold to help offset the at-cost manufacturing of hairpieces for children. If this is your desire, please include a note to this effect with your hair donation. Q: Do you need financial donations? A: Yes, financial gifts will enable Locks of Love to pay for the production of the hairpieces, which are then donated.Proceeds from the sale of short or grey hair help to pay for expenses like long-distance telephone service, website maintenance, postage, shipping, printing, etc. From all I can find, they sell the unusable hair. The usable hair is stored to be used for future wigs. And if they were completely strapped for cash due to lack of monetary donations, why wouldn't it be OK to sell some of the hair? It was donated to help the kids get hairpieces. If it is sold, wouldn't that serve the same purpose? "How many donors would they get if the women knew that the likes of Cher or Faith Hill may be wearing *their* hair some day? Or worse, that it may wind up laying in the drawer of some fetishist. " Two very inflammatory statements, especially that last one. The former could possibly be true, but the last one is completely baseless. Why even throw something like the fetish statement out there? You figure they are selling ponytails on eBay? Have evidence to back that up? Anyway, as I've said before on this subject, if you don't like Locks of Love, don't contribute. If you have long hair and folks are pressuring you to cut it and donate it, tell them that you'd rather write a check or choose to decline the same way you do when the MS Society calls you. Basically, you're no more of a heartless SOB for not supporting LoL than you are for not supporting Make-a-Wish or any other charity. It's your choice. Just don't get that mixed up in your personal "all long hair must be preserved" agenda. Ok, I'm done. Moving on to haircut disasters again, I'll touch on one mentioned in my column a few years back, Lisa Ling's chop on "The View". I could have done that better. In the dark. With a sharpened spoon. Later, JF ------------- 3 pm is simultaneously too late and too early to start anything. |
Posted By: Aoecean
Date Posted: May 20 2004 at 10:41am
|
I though Bai Ling's headshave was a good thing, we saw her in a different way after she did it. ------------- "I've always wanted to crucify the man who breaks into my house, wouldn't you?" |
Posted By: hairalways
Date Posted: May 20 2004 at 5:39pm
|
Bai Lings's shave did let you get past the hair...you know. All I could see was that gorgeous hair when I saw her...almost as though she was secondary. Oh I know - Lisa Ling's haircut on The View was pointless...If Lisa is afraid to go near shears again for the rest of her life, I don't blame her. What about Courtney Cox Arquette's "Dudley/Demi Moore" haircut? (about 1997 or 98?) By far the worst style she ever had...and I never found out if it was a haircut gone wrong and they had to figure out how to write it into the show...or it was an actual decision to do a haircut on the show. jacqui ------------- |
Posted By: Klaatu48
Date Posted: May 20 2004 at 7:53pm
I think it was done on the show... but honestly, when it was fixed right, I thought it was a great look for her -- short and cute, let long enough to bury your fingers in. ------------- |
Posted By: arch94
Date Posted: May 21 2004 at 12:02am
|
I liked Lisa Ling's hair better a month or so after the cut on TV. She took the bob shorter, and ended up with a nice variation of a bob. Very cute! My two cents. ------------- We all know what opinions are like...and I've got both! |
Posted By: Gord
Date Posted: May 23 2004 at 12:29pm
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040522/ids_photos_en/r4197834329.jpg&e=9&ncid=707 - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040522/ids_photos_en/r4197834329.jpg&e=9&ncid=707 Gosh, I just hate to pile on, but... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040522/482/can11105221520&e=17&ncid=707 - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040522/482/can11105221520&e=17&ncid=707 Well, it's final exam time. How about a multiple choice? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040522/482/can11005221226&e=7&ncid=707 - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040522/482/can11005221226&e=7&ncid=707 |
Posted By: Bob S
Date Posted: May 23 2004 at 3:30pm
|
I think Alanis has beautiful eyes, Gord, and a killer smile, which her short cut shows off. Plus, all of her medium length cuts had chunky layers, which I hate on everyone. I'd much prefer to see her hair short than sloppy looking. Truthfully, I think she was 10X sexier with long hair, though. I'd have gone to the ends of the earth to see a headbanging Alanis show before she started cutting her hair. Now, she looks like every woman, which ain't bad, (lol), but I can see that look everwhere. I don't have to plunk down 50 bucks to view it. Sorry, short lock lovers, I *like* some short haircuts, but they never make my heart pound out of my chest, as voluminous tresses do. Best, Bob
|
Posted By: DaveDecker
Date Posted: May 23 2004 at 4:51pm
Hmm... this appears to be an interesting discussion... plenty on which to comment.
I certainly don't see this addressed to me, but... even if your claim contains an element of truth, it seems to me that "these guys" aren't the only ones guilty of having such an effect. How about those who make women regret having long hair and make them feel less pretty (or less stylish, or professional, etc) with it? There seems to be a lot of people telling other people what they think of their hair, or of others' hair in general (as opposed to this board, where people talk about celebs "behind their backs").
They apparently do not give away 5% of the hair donations they receive. The figure appears to be closer to 2%. They do nothing to inform the public that the usage rate is so low. Nearly all of the donors quoted in the press reports that I've seen are of the firm belief that their hair will be used in a LoL-manufactured hairpiece. There's a disconnect between the reality and the perception, and LoL does nothing to dispel the inaccurate perception. I could imagine that is because doing so is not in their best interest, but at the same time, a haircut made on an insufficiently-informed basis may not be in the best interests of the donor.
Such a nice charity. And Enron was such a nice company. Not.
I agree. The media does not seem to grasp the concept of investigative reporting, such as trying to determine whether or not the charity needs such a large excess of hair donations before tripping over themselves with praise for the group.
What I would like to see is evidence that they have stored all the unused yet "usable" hair, as well as an accounting of the numbers (hair, not money). At this point, assuming that they have kept all the unused "usable" hair is a leap of faith which to me is not (yet) warranted.
and
So, being in possession of "all that gorgeous hair" is a bad thing? (scratches head, puzzled look) When I saw the pics of Bai Ling before, my thought was "Wow, look at the beautiful long hair this slender and pretty woman has grown... she's pretty special just as she is." My point is that I could see the beauty of the woman even though her long hair was (obviously) readily apparent. IMO a person is not minimized by having an abundance of hair. Your comments make me wonder if you are incapable of seeing that as well. I'm not trying to be mean, I just wonder if there is some sort of a visual impairment here. Back on topic... I think "disaster" (as originally used) was simply the opinion of the poster, nothing more, nothing less. That interpretation seemed apparent. Interesting dissection on the meaning of the term as used, though, Rod. I'll conclude this long-winded post by saying that I never thought I'd see the day when Gord took Bob S. to task.  ------------- |
Posted By: Rod
Date Posted: May 23 2004 at 10:55pm
"Even if your claim has an element of truth?" You must not live in the same male dominated society I do. Men tell women they are only pretty and desirible with long hair. There are many ways men lower female self-esteem (weight, breat size, et al) and this is one of them. There are people telling women with super long hair they are less stylish. The number of people doing that are tiny compared to the boyfriends, husbands et al. who tell women they are only pretty with long hair.
Based on what Bob S wrote. Do you have any actual evidence?
Thank you the compliment. ------------- |
Posted By: DaveDecker
Date Posted: May 29 2004 at 3:19pm
I presume you live in the United States, no? This society, while not yet entirely "balanced" in its consideration of women, is more so than most any other -- and I believe we are still moving in the right direction (towards that state of "equality"). Being as you are a hard-numbers kinda guy (based on your dispute of the 2% number below), I am sure you can offer evidence of these men who tell women that they are only pretty with long hair? Honestly, of all the people I know and know of, the prevailing attitude is that the men who prefer short hair on women have no qualms about pressuring their wives (and other women) to cut their hair short... whereas the men who prefer long hair are loath to say anything for fear that their women will think that their hair is the only thing about them that they love.
Don't assume that I blindly quote Bob S's numbers. I've researched this particular organization for over 4 years now. I have gathered my data from a variety of media reports as well as their own press releases and info they provide on their website. I've done the math. It computes to about 2%.
Of course, none do. My point is that it is relevant to determining the need for the resource which is solicited.
My primary point is that it isn't customary (or really, even appropriate) to describe any organization, for-profit or not-for-profit, as "nice." It seemed like a cheap ploy to open hearts to the organization. My secondary point is that they are not entirely honorable in their operations. They are building a mountain of cash by selling hair, they don't inform the public to whom they sell the hair, and they don't provide any accounting of the disposition of the hair donated to them. They are not necessarily lying, but they are not telling the whole truth -- and the whole truth is information the public should know. ------------- |
Posted By: Rod
Date Posted: May 29 2004 at 4:09pm
|
You're giving anecdotal evidence, and yet you ask for hard numbers you know I don't have. I'll give you anecdotal. Most men prefer women to be thin, very thin. They like large breasts. And they like long hair. Now that's not all of men, but most. And being that you have very long hair, you're sensitive to female friends who have long hair and their boyfriend/husband would like to see it short. They probably come to you to talk about it. And I'm sure some of those men bug their wives/girlfriends to cut it. I assume you have a few female friends who've had short hair, although I don't know for sure. Anecdotaly, I've heard many men complain when a wife/girlfriend cuts her long hair short or pressure a short-haired woman to grow it out so it looks pretty. I doubt there's any difference in how much these men bug their wives. And there are far more of them. Now, I have no problem with long hair, and I really don't have a problem with a husband/boyfriend let his preference known. I just have a problem with the universal male contempt when someone like Keri Russell cuts her hair. Women notice this and are warned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DaveDecker originally wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't assume that I blindly quote Bob S's numbers. I've researched this particular organization for over 4 years now. I have gathered my data from a variety of media reports as well as their own press releases and info they provide on their website. I've done the math. It computes to about 2%. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Since you have that much data, can you provide a link to the evidence? quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DaveDecker originally wrote: My secondary point is that they are not entirely honorable in their operations. They are building a mountain of cash by selling hair, they don't inform the public to whom they sell the hair, and they don't provide any accounting of the disposition of the hair donated to them. They are not necessarily lying, but they are not telling the whole truth -- and the whole truth is information the public should know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I looked at their BBB report and they have less than a half million dollars in cash. That's not a mountain. They say on their website that they sell hair to raise operating funds. Not only shouldn't it matter who they sell it to, they don't need to tell anyone. Like all charities, they don't need every detail scrutinized. If someone doesn't want to donate because of that, don't donate. LoL gives as much information as required, similar to most charities. They don't provide unnecessary informationt hat might cost them money. They do the charitible work they say they do, make wigs for sick kids. Whether that's more worthwhile than the American Cancer Society or the Humane Society or other charities is up to the donor. It's a noble charity that isn't illegally funneling the money into people's pockets. Your problem isn't with them. You love long hair on women. Some women cut their hair short just for Locks of Love and might not cut it if they knew that all the hair doesn't go to kids. Sometimes they only cut it because people pressure them. Your issue is with the people pressuring and the women who might change their mind. Separate that from a charity that provides wigs for sick children. ------------- |
Posted By: DaveDecker
Date Posted: May 30 2004 at 12:33pm
|
I didn't expect you to provide hard numbers on your anecdotal evidence. Both of us have offered anecdotal evidence, from our own experiences. At the risk of going off topic... as for preferred body types, I don't think men like "thin, very thin," so much as fit/healthy. I used to know one guy who liked women rail skinny. But he's the only one I know that liked truly thin women. By similar measure I might assume that women's preference is for men who are fit/healthy also. Of course, there is the issue of the relative importance of appearance, as compared with other attributes/considerations, and how it differs generally based on gender (or specifically one person), but that is also off-topic. Yes, I have some long-haired female friends, I also have some short-haired female friends and acquaintances (and co-workers, who have shared their thoughts on hair issues from time to time). My anecdotal base is wide. Keri Russell was a lot of people -- outside of this forum -- reacting in their own way, irrespective of opinions expressed here on her actions. Some people liked the shorter look, most didn't. People not only have a right to their opinions, in this case they had the means to express them. My concerns are both with those who pressure the long-haired to cut (the unsolicited guilt-trips, criticisms, etc) and the fact that LoL does not publicize information on their need -- or should I say lack thereof -- for additional donations of hair. If a person wants to cut their hair completely of their own volition, and donate it to LoL with full awareness of their overstock of hair, then I have no problem with that. I may not visually appreciate the cut, but that would and should be of no bearing on their decision. I have received copies of their IRS tax filings since their (current non-profit) inception. The upshot is that approximately 50% of the cash that has been received has accumulated. $500,000 cash may not seem like much to you, but it does to me. Prudent use of cash? Perhaps. But at the same time, it is evidence of a lack of need. They are not needy. For cash. Or for hair. Their IRS reports indicate that they sell "excess hair" -- and hair sales represent roughly 50% of cash in. Virtually every media report in which the hair donor is quoted makes clear that the donor does indeed expect and anticipate that their hair will be used in a hairpiece for a young LoL recipient. The evidence available indicates that that result is extremely unlikely. I don't have handy (or conveniently organized) all the info I've gathered, but I have seen a huge number of media reports quoting LoL representatives on the quantity of hair donations received on a "to date" and on a weekly basis. The weekly basis numbers have gradually increased over the years. Two references come to mind: (1) People Magazine, Sept 6, 1999 issue, indicates 20,000 hair donations received by that point, (2) Chicago Tribune, March 12, 2000, indicates 800 hair donations received every week. Also, the organization used to say how many people they've provided wigs for. Last number I saw was 1,000. But that was about a year ago. Again, I urge you to do the math. And I challenge you to offer a credible, evidence-based assertion that a significantly large percentage of hair donated to LoL is actually used in the hairpieces they make for children. ------------- |