new thread
In the subjective views of the board, at what length would you say hair is truly Long? I ask because everyone's views on the matter differ, for example, in 1963 The Beatles' mop top haircuts were considered rebelliously long hair, yet by today's standards hair of that length would be considered relatively short.
I consider anything above the shoulders short, between the shoulders and the bottom of the shoulderblades to be medium, and anything past that to be long hair
"Long" is a relative term, so it gets applied after making a comparison. The Beatles' hair was considered long in 1963 because few men had hair that long back then.
The topic of "what is long hair on a man" came up here on MLHH several years ago, and also at gaylonghair.com, which requires a man have long hair to get a profile on their site. For that site, they had to have a definition.
Unlike with women, there is a point where a man crosses a line where many consider him to have entered a different social group. When a man crosses that line, strangers begin to call him a hippie or a longhair. At that point he may begin to get a lot more crap about his hair from friends and at work. The consensus then was that when hair not only touches the shoulders but begins to fall upon them is the time the line is crossed. Also, a man can be totally bald on top but still have hair falling all over his shoulders, and he still gets called a hippie or a longhair by the public. Thus, the gaylonghair.com definition then adopted and now used is all about what happens at the shoulders, and not at all about what happens on top.
There is also a subtle difference between the word "longhair" and the two words "long hair". The former, a noun, reflects a reading that you're in that social group. The latter is a description of length compared to some standard the speaker has in mind. The public has a more definite definition of the noun "longhair" than the two word expression "long hair". The latter admits to more judgment-calling by the speaker.
Put another way, if I were to stand next to Scott (who has hair down to his knees), spectators may say that he has long hair and I do not, while they would say we both are longhairs.
Note that the title of this web community uses the two-word version, "long hair", while the title of the gay group uses the one-word version, "longhair". That is probably appropriate because this group is more concentrated on arriving there, while the gay group is more concentrated on men who have arrived.
The perception of the public is important. How we are regarded filters down into our psyches, and very much influences the common traits of independence and self-ownership that is pervasive in longhair culture. To become a longhair, a man has to say "no" to harassment for several years without wavering once, and it takes a special man to be able to do that. We truly have to grow our membership card, it takes years, and our self-identity is molded in the process. It has been said that in becoming a longhair, a man gets more growth under his scalp than above it.
A discussion was had by the gaylonghair.com group as to whether a man could belong if he wore a wig. The overwhelming response was negative. As one man put it, "When a cop pulls me over, I can't stash the rug under the seat. I have to face life as a longhair all the time." A man who hasn't experienced "life as a longhair all the time" will not have grown the change in his psyche that makes him "like us".
As for women: Women just have, or don't have, long hair. What is seen as long on a man may not be seen as particularly long on a woman. Also, the one word term "longhair" is usually just applied to men. No separate social group is perceived for women based on their hair length. (This is why women don't get hassled over their hair length. It is not a length issue, it is a social-group issue.)
When growing out our hair, we reach milestones. One is when you can get your hair into a tail. It's common on MLHH for men to celebrate that achievement as finally having long hair. This is also about the same length that members of the public will see you as a longhair.
The public, and other longhairs, will often crank beard length into the equation if a man has a long one. I know a few men who have thinned out a lot on top, but if they have large beards and don't trim the up-top hair that they have, they are generally regarded as longhairs.
Confusing, I know, but no one can truthfully give you a length in inches or centimeters.
Bill
IMHO your hair is truly long when people tell you that you need to get a haircut.
Yes the Beatles mop top in 1964 was considered rebelliously long hair. But then that was very short compared to the knee length
hair I had in the 1980s.
Ultimately it is all relative. If you're dad insisted on a
buzz cut each hair cut time then anything longer would be
considered rebelliously long hair. Others might consider hair
over the collar to be long. Some might consider shoulder length
to be long.
If you asked 100 people at what length hair is considered long
you'd probably get 100+ different opinions.
ROFL! That says in a few words what it took me far more words to say. Both tacks if you trace them back speak to when they consider you to be moving to a different social group.
The only flaw in the "need to get a haircut" test is that, when your hair gets long enough, many people see you as a lost cause, and they stop telling you need a haircut. But it's a great test when you are first crossing the line.
Bill
That depends on age though. No matter what my hair length was,
people told me I needed a haircut. That lasted until I reached the age of 45. Once I reached the age of 45 the complaints stopped, and people started to realize my long hair was going to
stay long.
I agree with your sentiment, especially the part that begins with "Ultimately it is all relative." My grandfather (born in 19290 used to take my father (born in 1954) to task about his long hair in the 1970s. The irony was, my grandfather wore a Duck's Ass haircut. To maintain it, the hair in front had to be grown long and slicked back using lots of pomade, and the hair in back had to be long enough to comb into the Duck's Ass. When my grandfather would work in the head and sweat, his hair would come undone and, ironically, in the front his hair would reach to his chin, and in the back it'd be almost to his mouth--Yet here he was bashing my father over his "long" hair. So I guess it truly is all relatively.
When people began to confuse me with a girl on the streets, nightclubs, bars ,etc is when I realized that my hair was long ( I think this happens a lot to longhairs).
That usually happens to me two or three times a year.
Most of the time it is when someone sees me from behind with
my long hair and cut off shorts. They're usually all apoligetic
when they see me from the front.
Now there was one time recently where I was mistaken for a woman from the front. (You'd think the moustache, all grey hair
and hairy legs would be a dead giveway but not in this case.)
Now i'm 59 years old and don't really care at this point in my
life. Even if i'm mistaken for a woaman the hair will remain
long until the day I die.
For me it only happens at one of the local stores. I haven't been a nightclub, bar in a long time.
I have been mistaken for a girl even from the front, during day light, night time, nightclubs, bars, bus.
I remember once I was in a restroom in a bar. The doors did not have the typical "Men" or "Women" signs on. But you can tell when you get into a men's room that it is actually a men's room haha.
So I was getting ready to leave the men's room when a guy came in and when he looked at me he immediately left the room (he thought he had walked into the women's room when he saw me) but then he went back in haha.
I dont really care either!
You already have the pithy and discursive answers tout question, from Long Hair in Albany and Bill Choisser, respectively. So I have only a little to add.
For me, being a longhaired man is in some respects about the hair in front than the hair in the back. My own hair is about 6 inches all over, which is shoulder-length from the ears back but not close to that in the front. Thus I do not yet consider myself longhaired. I think, in front, chin length at a minimum and more ideally collar-bone length is when you are truly longhaired. To give an example, just last night I saw young man that I would consider longhaired, even though his hair in the back was a little shorter than mine. His hair was evenly cut just slightly above the shoulders, but the length in front said to me, "longhaired"
I would call this a minority opinion, however. If you polled my friends and family, they would all say that I have long hair today. In that sense, you'll be perceived to be long haired a few months after ceasing the three-week trip to the barber routine.
Actually, IMHO you've made a good point.
Yes, I agree. For example, I've never considered mullets or rattails to be true long hair. There's something about going through the messy hair stage that makes you a real longhair. It's a kind of initiation rite.
A rattail I can understand discounting--it's one small strip of longish hair on a whole head. My cousin had a rattail for some years, and it was never that long--just about collar length. But a mullet I'd say is a different story. I mean, when you grow a mullet, I think, you do go through the in between phase, and, once you say have a shoulder length mullet, most of society would deem you a "longhair". And there are a lot of varieties of the mullet hairstyle--all with different lengths in front and on the sides.
My father had a mullet, in various styles, from 1989 through 1996. At one point the hair in front was close cropped; at another point, he had bangs reaching to his eyes. He got the same complaints at his job about his hair that any typical longhair would get.
I think if your hair is long enough to pull into a ponytail, you're a longhair at that point. But I would also say I think true long hair is at least chin length. I don't consider, say, jawline length hair to be long.
Mullets are very practical for a longhair who does physical labor for work. He can have a long mane and not have it getting in his face while doing work that requires he be outside in the wind, leaning over forward, or doing other things that constantly cause his hair to fall in his face. This will often be at a time when he can't push his hair back because he has both hands occupied with his work. Or coated with gunk that he doesn't want to get in his hair.
People joke that a mullet is very blue collar, but mullets are more often seen among those guys for a reason. Mullets for them are practical.
Bill
My father didn't do manual labor, he had a job in the medical field actually, but he had the same sentiment you expressed--Long hair falling in his face all the time was a pain in the neck to keep having to push back or keep out of his eyes, whereas a mullet allowed him to have long hair, without having long bangs to push out of his face constantly.
He had proper long hair before and after his career in the medical field--I've seen pictures from the 70s which show him with non-mullet, shoulder length hair; and after he retired, he allowed his hair to grow to his chest (he cut it at this length in 2009 and has been short haired since, as per my mother's request--she feels he's "too old now" for long hair).
Having a mullet was for him just a very practical compromise for work--at his job in the medical field, his boss was always on him as it was for the mullet, saying his long hair showed he was "stuck in the 70s" and couldn't adapt to the '90s. I imagine proper long hair would've caused even more drama.
Now several years ago one of the doctors I saw for
my annual check up had long hair in a pony tail. His hair is still long today.
Actually I wasn't trying to describe a mullet when making the distinction between hair in the front or hair in the back.. Or at least not an intentional mullet. Rather, I meant it for guys like me who are growing all over. Hair in the back can begin touching the shoulder a 3-4 inches, ie not-long. Hair in the front is a much better indicator, IMO.
Chris
I would mention that I had several friends who wore rat tails
of various lengths in the 1980s. Some ranged from shoulder length to one woman who had a rat tail that was waist length. She had all her hair waist length but one day decided to cut it all short except for the rat tail. I would never wear a rat tail but I loved the look on these guys and girls.
I also know one guy in the 1980s (in college) who had waist length hair, he got it cut into a mullet, a crew cut in front, still waist
length in back. I also loved the look but i'd never wear it myself.
Ultimately it all about freedom to wear your hair the way you want to. And where I had long hair I wasn't about to complain about their hair.
I have to disagree. While my hair was knee length in the 1980s
I knew a number of guys and girls who had mullets and rat tails.
Having knee length hair, I was the last person who should complain about anyone elses hair.
I would not wear one but I champion their right to wear their
hair as they want.
I knew one woman in the 1980s who had a rat tail that was
waist length.
Ultimately it is your hair, you are entitled to wear it any way you want, be it a mullet, rat tail, undercut, dreaded, or even
(horror of horrors) short.
On a man, I consider "long" hair to be at least shoulder length. Now of course, I consider "desirable" long hair to be at least waist length. "Desirable" is what I would rather have. But it is truly a subjective issue.
Ted
Yes, even my own internal definition has changed over time.
Back in the 70s, I was at a conservative private all-boys school. "Long" was whenever you were worried that you might be sent to the dean's office for a haircut and maybe detention. That would happen when your hair started to touch the upper edge of the collar (and you always wore a shirt with a collar; T-shirts were banned).
In college during the 80s, I saw many guys with long hair, some with hair as long as waist length. Totally changed my perspective. For the first time I began to view long hair as beautiful. During that time my hair got down to my shoulders. It still wasn't quite "long hair" in my mind, because it was far shorter than many of my fellow students' hair, but it was more than long enough to horrify my mom. Nevertheless, I probably could've tied it into a halftail (unfortunately, there was no MLHH back in those days to give such helpful suggestions :).
In the 90s I was in graduate school working part time as a TA in an un-airconditioned building. I took my mom's "suggestion" to cut it short. I was also heavily involved in the gay community where the then-current fashion was very short hair (the "twink" look). Even my prep school standard for short hair started to seem kind of longish to me.
My view started to change again around 2005. I took a trip to my college alma mater where I noticed that guys hairstyles were trending longer, after having being shorter in the late 90s / early 00s. I remembered how long my hair had been in college, how so many of my college friends had long hair, looked back into my yearbooks and saw how long some of the guys had their hair in the 80s. I remembered how I used to think of long hair as beautiful. I resolved, approaching age 40, that I would grow my hair as long as reasonably possible before the effects of genetics and aging shut the door on that opportunity forever.
As I grew my hair longer, I went through the usual headaches of people telling me to get a haircut (a female teller at a bank once offered to give me a free haircut ON THE SPOT!). But a funny thing happened: the longer my hair grew, the shorter everyone elses' seemed to look. Guys with hair that had seemed gloriously long only a couple years before, and served as a kind of goal post for me, now seemed to be only in the novice stage.
I eventually reached butt length around 2010 or so. By then I had experienced a major shedding episode (in 2008), and my hair was getting thin and tangly, getting caught in things like car doors and furniture, breaking, getting in knots and generally a PITA to care for. At that point, I decided that quality was more important than length (which I believed was pretty close to terminal length anyway), so over a period of years, I trimmed it in increments to where it now sits at around mid-chest length.
Today, I've settled on a definition of long hair as being long enough to tie into a stable ponytail of at least a few inches, which is pretty close to the standard I had in college.
I'd go with Jarvis' definitions for hair length per se, but add that any guy with at least medium length hair is a longhair, in the social group sense.
As for the Beatles, they originally just had long fringes (or bangs, which was partly from emulating the German 'exis' (existentialists) and partly from taking a DA haircut and brushing it down, but later on they genuinely had long hair. It was genuinely seen as shocking to have hair falling into their eyes, and in fact many today get annoyed at Emos with even longer fringes, but nobody still considers that 'long'.