new thread
Here's a strongly-opinionated (but encouraging) article, urging men who want long hair to GO FOR IT. I've included a clickable link at the bottom of this post, so you can see the images that go with the text.
--Val
Long Hair is Back in Fashion!!!
The Fashion eZine - Hair Styles
This Website is Best Viewed Using Firefox
By Suzanne MacNevin.
Thanks to Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Antonio Banderas and Viggo Mortensen, long hair is back in fashion! Across North America and beyond, men are starting to grow their hair long again, something which hasn't happened in abundance since the 60's and 70's. There was a brief bout of long hair popularity during the 1980s and 90s, but it was washed out with "anti-hippie" sentiment from conservative squares.
In response to the squares' refusal to accept long hair during the 1980s however, ear-rings for men became the popular thing. The saying of the day was: "It's to piss off the squares."
How do I know its popular again? Polling baby, polling done by fashion magazines in New York, Toronto, Paris and Hong Kong. All have recently (July 2005) published articles about how long hair is back in style.
These days its more than just an act of rebellion to grow your hair longer, its also very fashionable. During the 1990s army-cuts and the "Ricky Martin-look" was popular, but its pathetic today that people still wear their hair that way. It lacks imagination.
Even worse is men with "mullets", a hair style that dates back to "MacGyver" in 1985. There is quite a few people still wearing that disastrous hairstyle. The mullet grew only the hair at the back longer, which combined with side-burns makes the person look like a complete hick (or someone who still thinks its the 80s)...
The thing about long hair is that its more sexual. It looks unique on every person. The way they are meant to look.
Short hair, whatever variation of short hair a person goes with, the end result is sexual repression. That doesn't mean that all men with short hair are sexually repressed, it simply means they are BEING repressed (or repressing themselves).
In the military, they give people an army-cut in order to take away their identity. You are no longer that guy with the Elvis hair or the guy with the incredibly sexy curls... you are just like everybody else in your unit. Bald. Nothing more than a face with a suppressed personality that tries not to show emotion.
People with Ricky Martin hair or MacGyver mullets are trying to aspire to something they aren't: Singers and movie stars. Movie stars get their hair cut almost daily and are constantly changing their look in order to look different and exciting. Normal people cannot compete with the constant changes they do with their hair, so don't bother.
Not everyone looks good with long hair however. Bruce Willis for example looks much better bald/mostly bald. But he's a rare exception of a bald man who actually looks good that way. Some people look okay with short or medium length hair... But almost all people (provided they aren't naturally bald on the top) look fabulously sexy with long hair. There's something about that mane of hair, almost lion-like or Christ-like, that has a sort of animal magnetism and natural beauty to it.
Hair is naturally beautiful. Its no surprise that more hair = more attractive. In contrast to baldness, it is definitely more attractive. Indeed, according to polling, most women prefer men with medium length to long hair. Short hair comes in 2nd, and baldness, last.
When the movie stars grow their hair long (sometimes its a wig) for a role, the attractiveness level goes up. Brad Pitt's most popular roles has been when he had long hair: As Achilles in "Troy" and also in "Legends of the Fall".
The same can be said for Johnny Depp ("Chocolat" and "Don Juan Demarco", Tom Cruise ("The Last Samurai"), Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn in "Lord of the Rings") and a variety of other actors who over the years have inspired people to go towards "the natural/sexy look".
Hey, it worked for Jesus Christ!
Christ on the cross has been a hidden sex symbol for centuries, with his long sexy hair, rugged good looks, clad only a loin cloth and the well-toned muscles of a carpenter. He was naturally charismatic and the long hair must have helped to increase his popularity.
The modern idea of males with short hair is actually an idea that dates back to the Roman military. Short hair and the military have ever since gone hand in hand. During times of war, the government would sometimes impose a draft and a whole army of men would come back from the war with short hair (and often keep it that way).
In the United States, war has been the way of life for centuries. The War of 1812 (when Canada and Britain conquered the USA), the US Civil War, the First World War, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. And soon, perhaps the Iran War, which will prompt a draft due to the military being over-stretched.
I won't be surprised if a draft happens in the upcoming War in Iran, and I definitely won't be surprised when men come back with short hair AND KEEP IT THAT WAY.
George W. Bush's hairstyle itself is a modernized copy of his father's haircut. He didn't always look like that. He has deliberately cut his hair to make himself look more like his father. It is in essence to win support amongst traditionalists and Republican War-birds.
It's interesting to note how some conservative people get really upset when they see a man with long hair. They think the person is a hippie or gay, and are deliberately rude to that person as a result.
Charles Moffat, the founder of the Lilith Gallery is an artist and has long hair. He is frequently told he looks like a hippie and people frequently assume that because he has long hair and is an artist, "oh, well then he must be gay!" The truth is Moffat isn't gay. He is very much a horny straight male, judging by the fact that he paints nude/partially nude women on a regular basis.
But it is important to note that his hair has played a role in several of his paintings, most notably the "Hermaphroditus/Salmacis Series" in which he did three self-portraits from the rear, with different hair styles that look deliberately feminine. Indeed, the entire series contrasts ideas of men with long hair, childhood, flowers and crying. It is hard to imagine grown men who pick flowers and cry, let alone men who are nostalgic about their childhood.
Long hair is for men what short hair is to women, a choice of lifestyle. Some women prefer to have short hair, or even shave their head. within Moffat's paintings, bald women/women with short hair is a repetitive theme, a deliberate act on his part to create androgynous imagery of both men and women.
People's hair, if given time to grow and kept neatly will eventually [reach] a naturally long state. And that natural state is incredibly sexy and attractive, the way we were meant to be seen.
In our modern day life however, there is a push towards the hairless. Hairless chests, shaved armpits, shaved legs, very short hair and even (GASP!) shaved genitalia!
All of which pushes towards an unnatural, alien aesthetic. It is actually believable that in the future, we may all be bald and totally hairless EVERYWHERE on our bodies.
And that to me, would be totally boring.
So cut your hair differently, grow it long, medium, perm it (men almost never perm their hair!!!), do something wild/natural with it! Don't shave off your chest hair just because thats what fashion models do... grow that rug! Give your woman something to hold onto when you're giving it to her! Women who crave hairless men are control freaks who don't realize they're missing out on a beautiful thing!
The natural male body, provided its not overweight and sluggish from too many donuts (and looks like Jabba the Hutt) is a BEAUTIFUL thing. A physical Adonis of male beauty, capped on top with lush full hair.
LONG HAIR IS SEXY!
Don't Ever Forget It!
Yup definitely biased although I agree encouraging and a good post. Some of us grow our hair as following some fashion trend set by an admired celebrity such as Pitt or perhaps a musician.
While the rest of us just wanted to see how it would turn out and found we liked it.
Either way is good.
Kevin
Thanks so much Validus!
Great article, and so true, in my book.
Beards, Long hair, and natural bodies are the wave of the future, not the blast-from-the-past.
Thanks for showing us the article, and I think she is on to something!!!
-daniel
Hi Val,
That is a great article and I couldn't agree more with what was said.When I first saw the length of the post I almost wasn't going to read all that but I'm glad I did.How true that longhair is absolutely sexy on most guys but then there are exceptions as this author noted.Shaved heads always made me wonder why guys think this looks cool.It looks like crap in my view.
Just today I was at a Wegmans market in the wine shop portion as they were giving out samples of some featured wines they were selling.At one point this longhaired guy showed up,who works there,to serve some cheese with the wine and he had hair in a tail with a big scrunchy.At first I was surprised to see a guy wearing a scrunchy like that but I really thought it looked quite appealing:)I admit I've only seen women wear this type of scrunchy.Anyway it was great to see this as I enjoyed my wine and cheese that much more.
Anyway great post and I couldn't agree more my friends!Cheers
Mark
Don't forget that the natural male body consists of a foreskin as well as hair. I have to mention RIC (routine neonatal circumcision) at this point. At least we can regrow our hair. We can't regrow the most sensitive part of our penis'.
jeffrey
I'm right there with you on this issue. RIC is the biggest travesty ever perpetuated against the male population with hardly a peep of dissent except the screams of the helpless victims. It's absolutely pitiful and sickening and I can't help but be deeply saddened every time I think about it. Luckily the practice is lessening in most of the world, but it's our "civilized" US that keeps it up. Ok, I need to stop, I don't know what this has to do with long hair.
Ugh, I couldn't imagine being uncircumsized, but, to each their own I guess...
There are no valid hygienic or medical reasons supporting the practice of circumcision. It is an outdated artifact of religious superstition, and a horribly painful procedure forced upon babies. "To each their own," is not a valid argument, when the person in question is not making the choice for himself.
--Val
I am a big supporter of Intactivism, which is a movement to end ALL genital mutilation, including circumcision of male newborns. Most of the world no longer supports the barbaric practice of routine infant circumcision. The US is slowly moving away, most of Canada has, in Europe, most of Asia, South America and elsewhere in the world; this is not a routine practice. Lot's of info can be found at the link below; all the myths and fallacies surround RIC are soundly debunked.
Like the suppression of free expression in wearing longhair in males; RIC and the current 'manscaping' trend of removing all bodyhair, demasculizes males. I'll take a natural, intact, hairy male anyday. :)
The Intactivism Pages
I guess. OTOH, most men shave their faces, and plenty of men have natrually smooth chests. (They run in our family, but I seem to be an exception, and I don't even want it.) I guess I'm just a deviated prevert...
(Two cheers if you get the reference.)
My Myspace page
Well, yeah, I'd agree with Kevin it is biased. After all, there always were and will be women who find short hair or shaved head sexy. Too bad we are not grooming ourselves for their kind, though ;-)
I hate to be the wet blanket but I have a few problems with this article which seems to have been written a few years ago so if there was a popular long hair fashion trend it may have dissipated by now but anyway.....
It's always nice to have approval of course however I would have preferred an essay that wasn't egregiously subjective. Here, we as I understand it, support every man's attempt to grow long hair regardless of whether or not he's the right type. According to the author, bald, or balding men don't qualify; they don't look "fabulously sexy." I might agree with her on that personally, but I would not support tossing my opinion out there as if it were a fact for everyone to live by and I do not accept her framing her opinion in this way. I for one, am not growing my hair to look "fabulously sexy" anyway (what a relief).
I also take issue with a couple of statements that are baseless and seem to be unsupported fabrications:
1. "In the military, they give people an army-cut in order to take away their identity."
This isn't entirely true, at least in the U.S. I know, I've been there. You get a buzz cut in the U.S. Army at least, as a practical matter. You may be deployed quickly to a part of the world where hygiene is difficult to maintain, i.e. daily showers are not available, such as a jungle. Your scalp with long hair can quickly become home to uninvited guests. It also makes it harder to achieve a good gas mask seal (this is why men must shave). While there is probably a regimentation component to the military haircut, in fairness, I have to submit that there really is a practical reason for it also.
2. "Christ on the cross has been a hidden sex symbol for centuries, with his long sexy hair, rugged good looks, clad only a loin cloth and the well-toned muscles of a carpenter. He was naturally charismatic and the long hair must have helped to increase his popularity."
No one really knows what Christ looked like. She seems to have in mind Renaissance paintings in which artists entertained romantic notions making him look like some guy in Supertramp. In reality, he may have looked like Woody Allen. No one really knows.
This was a piece of fluff tossed out by someone who clearly did not do any research. She is entitled to an opinion and a forum for it of course but I would have preferred one with some rational substance.
I understand where you're coming from, Rob. However, I didn't post this article with the expectation that it would be regarded as a scholarly work, but rather as an opinion piece skewed in favor of men growing long hair.
I concede that the author's suggestion for men with thinning hair isn't pro-longhair, and I personally disagree with her on this point. I am, in fact, a fan of what some people call the "skullet," and fully support anyone who wishes to grow their hair long, regardless of relative disbursement or thickness.
Your stated reasons for short hair in the military are often-cited when making the case for why it is mandated. How truly justified they are depends, I think, on the various, specific circumstances in which soldiers may find themselves. More often than not, I believe long hair poses no significant risk to the health, hygiene, or combat effectiveness of a soldier who might choose to have it. The chief purpose for mandating short hair on males in the military is to impose a sense of uniformity and to minimize a sense of individuality.
I completely agree with you on the issue of "what Jesus really looked like." Who knows what he looked like, and who cares?
You're right, this article really is a fluff piece. Still, I thought it merited sharing on the MLHH, if for no other reason than to help illustrate the fact that there are women out there who prefer men with long hair. If I happen across any articles based on more substantive reasoning, I'll be sure to share them here, as well.
Best regards,
Val
Hey, it might not be exactly a scholarly piece but I still enjoyed parts of it. Thanks for the encouraging post Validus!
Someone wrote recently that "It is what it is" should be retired, but I guess it applies here. :-)
The way I see it, moderately long hair has made some comeback in the last few years, to the point where it's occasionally seen in advertisements and commercials. (Think of the guy at the whiteboard in those UPS commercials.) The climate's MUCH better than it used to be. There are still a heck of a lot of buzzcuts and tonsures going around, though. Sometimes I think almost the most rebellious thing you could do hair-wise these days would be to do a combover. Why people are so up in arms about COMBOVERS I'll never know.
My Myspace page
If they make men in the military get buzz cuts due to possible hygiene reasons, how come they let women in the military have long hair then?
That is certainly true, but it is interesting and notable that the idealized Christ image accepted by millions in diverse cultures over the centuries turns out to be a buffed longhair. Many very conservative people ironically accept this image as a symbol for the core of their beliefs.
And a large number of them (conservative people) are opposed to longhaired men in society. Go figure!
And while we don't know for a fact, hoe Jesus looked, history indicates he might have been an Essene, who wore their hair long. Also, if the Shroud of Turin were to be authentic, it pictures a man with mid-back length hair.
Hey Rob,
I agree with you on it being a piece of fluff by someone who didn't know what they were talking about. The only reason I liked it is because it's pro longhair (more or less).
However, on the points you make;
1 I was also in the army and I noticed that females didn't have to get a haircut. It's all about taking away your identity. The army brainwashes you, the hair cut is part of it.
The protective mask will seal whether you have longhair or not but it will not seal properly over a beard.
As far as lice go, well.. they do have soap for that now, that was only a legitimate excuse for hacking off the soldiers hair in WW1.
2 She did say "Christ on the cross has been a hidden sex symbol for centuries". He has been "portrayed" as a longhair for centuries, no one knows what he really looked like. But I'd be the last one to correct her on this point, it's not in our benefit.
Personally, I love it when people make this assumption.
Paul