Hair Thread

[Trouble]

i can't see the bottom half of your face but i think you're pretty decent looking? what i'm saying is if i was down for dudes i would prob bang. i think.

 

srsly

no takebacks

pm me ur address

[skincoat]

^if you find yourself in australia, he'll let you buy him coffee.

[haploid]

is it just me or is they hairlines lookin some type of way?

[jamokes]

pulling the hair back like that reveals inconsistencies in the hairline that you wouldn't notice otherwise

 

 

[roundhouse]

just about all of us care

 

is there any drug that affects every single human in the same way? even though there isn't, we can still reasonably anticipate some fairly specific reactions

there are patterns in how we respond to visual stimuli just as there are patterns in how we respond to physical stimuli, and the former is as much a result of evolution as the latter is

drawing the line between constructs of society and innate preferences is difficult if not impossible

 

i understand that an inclusive and positive attitude regarding fixed parts of our appearances is more pleasant than the alternative, but i don't think it's fair to dismiss his perception of beauty as the result of deliberate conformity

 

anyway, i doubt a man who's chosen to resemble edith head cares a great deal about what society expects him to look like

 

 

good opening for discussion: i'll start by picking apart your argument. it is tl;dr but i'm in the mood for walls of text.

 

your initial drug metaphor caves in when you compare the great deal of variance of human attraction against the numerical predictability of people's reactions to drugs. human attraction has an all to obvious variance across time and culture (even within subculture) that really makes 'innate universal beauty' dubious at best (of course there are likings for a few universal things like clean skin, nice teeth). there's a revealing biologist's provincialism when you make such claims in the social realm.

 

also, equating visual stimuli and physical stimuli does a grave disservice to the former, since it's a human faculty in an entirely different ballpark, in that it's a place housing an entire complex system of semiotics. surely, people's ability to inscribe values and read differences between r.o dunks and nike dunks, and between a jewish 'hook nose' and a button nose, is far more complex a thing than being able to sense between hot and cold, and taste between sweet and bitter.

 

i'll turn towards 'the standardization of beauty,' which is where much of the contemporary literature (feminism, sociology, what have you) is focused on:

 

asians getting plastic surgery to look more westernised (rhinoplasty, epicanthal eyelids, jawbone reconstruction), black women with straight hair (for some it’s natural due to mixed hertiage, for most it’s either a weave or a wig or a chemical straightener), and dark skin people getting chemical skin lightening — are all the too easy examples you could cite for change in beauty standards due to cultural contact with the west. the most obvious and used example of change of beauty perception is the contemporary liking for exaggeratedly thin females (to which some may say is an anomaly, in comparison the the past); surely, going by the evolutionist stand point, shouldn’t buxom women be more valued?    

 

I remember reading an unfortunate psychology study of african american girls’ reaction to dolls. they associated white dolls as ‘good, pretty,’ desirable, and black dolls as ‘ugly, bad,’ etc. so young they were and yet the the internalised self hatred was to be found. 

 

granted, you don’t need to be culturally trained to notice the difference between an asian face and an african face and a white face, or a chubby body and a skinny body, but it’s very hard to make the claim that the values and prestige ascribed, being different from one point in time to another, to certain physical characteristics is strongly due to innateness or evolution. 

 

if beauty standards are innate, then korean men, and korean media, would be completely deterred by the numerous korean women getting plastic surgery to look more westernised, because, if i take the logics of evolution, prior to western contact natural selection put the asian face at the forefront for them, not some unfortunate chick with a nose and chin that has an expiry date (the stuff they inject needs to get re-injected from time to time). 

 

If Kate Moss stumbled upon some papua new guinean tribe, untouched by modernity, they wouldn’t erect statues and billboards all over the place in the honour of her beauty. They’d think ‘what a sickly skinny albino!'

[sunny D]

yeah i'm not sure if anyone cba to read that since its the internet and there is a high chance u are potential idiot and that could be a ginormous waste of time

[roundhouse]

yeah i'm not sure if you cba to read that since you are sundance and there is a definite certainty that u are a confirmed idiot and you're a ginormous waste of internet kilobits

[whitney]

I had something really nice written but then my browser crash (stupid mobile) and my first attempts are always 10x better then second but here goes:

It's okay to say you're not pretty, beautiful, or handsome

As long as you recognize attraction between two people is more important then what society physically defines as pretty, beautiful or handsome, which is generally through social context on polite terms, to me it's peer pressure in form of conditioning..

I think most would recognize that personality traits are more important and therefore would transform someone who otherwise may be plain, into something that's sexy, gorgeous, or cute if you go for cute (I do)

You ever meet someone that you weren't initially attracted to at first? I mean they're not ugly but you don't really feel like getting into their pants either. The more you talk to them, the more you realize that wow, this person is pretty, or sexy, or cute..

Anyways, I think it's okay to help people build confidence (although to a certain point only, it was getting to a point where y'all should just have a sausage fest of delusion) but maybe it would be better to teach people to focus on other things then the physical beauty. It is so sad when you meet someone who used to model, and because his head was stuffed with so many pretty compliments that his personality has little to no depth and when I talked to him he was like a little kid who expected everything to go his way just because people used to pay him $$$ to model his looks.

[ninetynine]

I think what you said is, for the most part, spot on. This bothered me tho...

 

 

 

I'm not a good looking guy at all so no hairstyle looks good on me

 

I just don't like when people say things like that about themselves, I'm sorry to keep using you as an example Trouble

 

Nobody asked but, to me, someone who carries themselves with a reasonable degree of confidence and sincerity is attractive. Getting to know someone and realizing that they are who you hoped they would be is an even more attractive thing, the most captivating thing being when someone can take their point of view and make you understand them.

 

In my eyes, that's beauty, so when someone says I'm not "handsome, pretty etc." that's fine...

 

But not good looking? I don't like that

[jamokes]

when i talk about attractiveness in this context, i'm interested in how pleasing it is to look at someone or something from a passably impersonal point of view, so i won't touch on the side of attractiveness covered by whitney and don't think i even should since everything she said is solid

 

good opening for discussion: i'll start by picking apart your argument. it is tl;dr but i'm in the mood for walls of text.

 

your initial drug metaphor caves in when you compare the great deal of variance of human attraction against the numerical predictability of people's reactions to drugs. human attraction has an all to obvious variance across time and culture (even within subculture) that really makes 'innate universal beauty' dubious at best (of course there are likings for a few universal things like clean skin, nice teeth). there's a revealing biologist's provincialism when you make such claims in the social realm.

 

also, equating visual stimuli and physical stimuli does a grave disservice to the former, since it's a human faculty in an entirely different ballpark, in that it's a place housing an entire complex system of semiotics. surely, people's ability to inscribe values and read differences between r.o dunks and nike dunks, and between a jewish 'hook nose' and a button nose, is far more complex a thing than being able to sense between hot and cold, and taste between sweet and bitter.

 

 

is that coming from an extensive knowledge of pharmacology, or is that the impression you've been given by drugs which have been made widely available because their effects are adequately predictable and uniform?

i believe beauty can be scientifically investigated more thoroughly than the popular opinion would lead us to believe, but my mission isn't to portray it as a concept that's anything but complex

the perceived beauty of any feature associated with hygiene is pretty consistent, however, there are other consistently preferred or rejected features

most of them relate to age, health, and sexual dimorphism

 

if i were to speak of differences in regularly measured things like temperature or sweetness, then i'd compare them to differences in colors or sizes instead of differences in shoes or noses

hopefully, you can see why i think the sensations you mentioned are inappropriately simple

 

i'll turn towards 'the standardization of beauty,' which is where much of the contemporary literature (feminism, sociology, what have you) is focused on:

 

asians getting plastic surgery to look more westernised (rhinoplasty, epicanthal eyelids, jawbone reconstruction), black women with straight hair (for some it’s natural due to mixed hertiage, for most it’s either a weave or a wig or a chemical straightener), and dark skin people getting chemical skin lightening — are all the too easy examples you could cite for change in beauty standards due to cultural contact with the west. the most obvious and used example of change of beauty perception is the contemporary liking for exaggeratedly thin females (to which some may say is an anomaly, in comparison the the past); surely, going by the evolutionist stand point, shouldn’t buxom women be more valued?    

 

the comments i typically encounter which address how ethnicity impacts attractiveness strike me as reductive at best and resentful at worst

 

how you explain the success of lucy liu and asian actresses with similar features in the west? saying some traits are favored by certain populations due to occidentalism doesn't always make sense

large eyes, small noses, delicate jaws, and fair skin are associated with youth as are many other traits that have been favored in women for a long time

is the west responsible for the world's obsession with neotenous women? i doubt it

 

like many significant minorities, people who prefer exaggeratedly thin women get attention because they have outrageous opinions rather than because they're abundant, and i have every reason to believe eastern societies couldn't have gotten such a strong emphasis on slenderness from the west

even in this community which is largely populated by individuals with notable interests in fashion, buxom women are quite appreciated!

 

I remember reading an unfortunate psychology study of african american girls’ reaction to dolls. they associated white dolls as ‘good, pretty,’ desirable, and black dolls as ‘ugly, bad,’ etc. so young they were and yet the the internalised self hatred was to be found. 

 

granted, you don’t need to be culturally trained to notice the difference between an asian face and an african face and a white face, or a chubby body and a skinny body, but it’s very hard to make the claim that the values and prestige ascribed, being different from one point in time to another, to certain physical characteristics is strongly due to innateness or evolution. 

 

if beauty standards are innate, then korean men, and korean media, would be completely deterred by the numerous korean women getting plastic surgery to look more westernised, because, if i take the logics of evolution, prior to western contact natural selection put the asian face at the forefront for them, not some unfortunate chick with a nose and chin that has an expiry date (the stuff they inject needs to get re-injected from time to time). 

 

caucasians definitely have greater reception to people african ancestry with relatively light skin and smooth hair, but they're often confused and frightened by the korean movements you're talking about, so the assertion that korean people use cosmetic surgery and makeup to look more like caucasian people leaves me feeling skeptical

i'll show you what happens when a european embraces korea's most popular grooming techniques, and i'll also refer you to what i said about juvenile characteristics

 

If Kate Moss stumbled upon some papua new guinean tribe, untouched by modernity, they wouldn’t erect statues and billboards all over the place in the honour of her beauty. They’d think ‘what a sickly skinny albino!'

 

beauty may be verifiable and quantifiable, but why would that mean it only comes in a few varieties? what if the model in question was aline prado or karrueche tran? you're acting like this discussion revolves around skinny caucasians, and though it may be doing just that since you've spent so much time branding particular trends as attempts to westernize, i don't see why you're limiting the possibilities of what could be demonstrably attractive to protruding bones and pale skin

 

fads come and go, and i suppose it could be said that an individual's adoption of fads is an involuntary result of evolution as well, but i don't even want to take that route because i'm concerned with timeless beauty

being tan or pale isn't enough to be considered beautiful, and being thin or thick isn't enough to be considered desirable

how the color of the hair compliments the color of the skin is usually more important than the color of either part, and how the size of the waist compares to that of the hips is usually more important than a lone measurement of either part

i suppose that's why most people would say both zoe saldana and christina hendricks are attractive

details will always be prioritized over elementary taxonomy, but details of this sort aren't easily articulated, so they're too often neglected during these examinations 

 

i'm especially fascinated by software being developed to enhance portraits without any guidance from people beyond the mathematical formulas they provide

 

[cloonz]

i thought this thread was about hair

[conqueror]

jamokes is just passionate about making love to trouble, let her vent.

[swooc]

kinda getting sick of using meager barbershop/rockabilly hair products. is there anything close to xtah clay but with a shine finish?

[roundhouse]

jamokes, thanks for the reply, glad there's an exchange going on. this is a subject i'm interested in, though only obliquely. i'll refrain from using hyperbole since it obscures my points a bit. i think you've misinterpreted some of the main parts of my argument, i'll try re-iterate and make it clearer. my position is: yes there is an abundance of different beauty standards (which i personally think should be preserved/continue), but counter to this is an increasing standardisation of a few specific forms which is driven by social circumstances more so than evolutionary ones.

you cite some models/actors that have a marginal presence among a, to some extent, homogenous majority. it is also somewhat telling that non of these models/actors look anything like their indigenous counter parts of their original hereditary (im making the case assuming they aren't of mixed heritage, they probably are).

 

back to the korean and asian (eyes, nose, jaw) surgery point: i think you're right in mentioning the point about chasing youth. but it doesn't really hold validity when you really interpret what's going on with the changes in morphological features of their face: no where in any biological history does a person's eye structure change; you don't suddenly grow a freaking bridge in your nose or have your jaw completely restructured (unless you're male) in the course of age change. why is this certain 'idealised' face available to so few koreans, genetically and financially? why do they look so different compared to the undoctored populace? why would their face look so exceptional if they were to be transported 150 years ago, before the contact of the west? I'm not sure there is much more convincing to do when you completely dismiss the social influence of these changes. also, practicing occidentalism does not need to be intentional or even conscious.

 

i also did not intend to originate the current liking for thin women to the west; sorry if i didn't make this clear. but i don't think you could deny they have had a large role.

 

sexual dimorphism is a good topic, that can earn a separate discussion. but i'll try make some precursory notes. besides the main things like height and weight ratio between the sexes (also voice and jawline etc.), sexual dimorphism in its exaggerated form is not so prevalent across cultures and across subcultures. taken to its extreme it can be very ugly, think hypermasculinity (body builder, jay cutler) and hyperfeminity (XXXXL boob surgery). again the social specificity must be stressed. most high fashion models of both genders are very androgynous, bodliy composition especially. Paul Boche is a really succesful male runway model, someone likes him. put him on the show jersey shore, and i don't think his looks will be well received. sure, overall as an aggregate, the athletic body is the ideal. but given that there's a strong liking for large range -- thin to overweight, muscly to svelte -- i don't think any scientifically framed argument can account for it.

 

"the comments i typically encounter which address how ethnicity impacts attractiveness strike me as reductive at best and resentful at worst"

am i interpreting this correctly as:
"some people say certain ethnicities/races are more attractive than others, and this strikes me as reductive and resentful "   ?
if that is the case, then i agree, and it is NOT what my argument was about in the previous post.
i'm saying: there are different beauty standards, especially across cultures, subcultures and histories, but, there is a social element that standardises some specific forms of beauty on an aggregate level, and as a result some ethnicities get celebrated and some ethnicities get downplayed. 

 

you mention hygiene, health and youth. i've suggested before, that these are correct mentions, but they are incredibly trivial and obvious to point out. when i listed 'nice teeth, nice skin' i could of been more exhaustive. 

you believe science can quantify beauty. this can be done, so long as you keep to the most trivial aspects: symmetry, nice hair, nice skin, nice breath, all limbs in tact. it's clear it can't ever account for the large variance of appreciation for other physiological features. a messy science that can make no predictions or generalisations beyond the trivial is a science like astrology.

 

the social component takes precedence in this argument of attraction and beauty, i'm not sure if i can try convince you any further.

 

funny note on the computer mediated beauty correction (which, by the way is an algorithm, as in, a set of instructions written by a subjective human being). me and a few friends thought it would be good sport to go into one of them japanese photo booths (purika?). the experience of getting the photos taken was all fun and games, but when the printed results came out we said "wtf??". the computer enforced this 'eye enlargement' on everyones eyes. i'm aware these pics are supposed to be exaggerated and fun, but the result was more disturbing than cute. ... i could not compute.. science please help me..

 

also a book recc, that i'm sure you'd very much like: 'pricing beauty' by ashley mears. not entirely related to what we're discussing, but it does touch upon it. she makes a really good typology of some subsets of the modelling industry. the one i remember most was the 'high fashion editorial' models -- how they are not conventional looking, how they push the boundries a bit (think, julia nobis). this was compared to the glamour/mainstream models (kate upton).

Edited March 19, 2014 by roundhouse

[whitney]

 

But not good looking? I don't like that

 

Sometimes people don't see themselves as good looking, takes others to make them see it, but I think the sincerity of it from someone who is attracted to him IRL > then boys on the internet trying to make him feel better 

 

he just needs to meet someone who can instill that in him.

 

anyways

 

i have been trying to get an appt to get my haircut, finally worked one out with my schedule, and am debating whether I should trim and do something with my bangs, or cut it all off.  a

 

kind of leaning towards just trimming/layering it because my head's funny and things like this:

 

happen even though I spent four hours on the chair

 

right now my hair is maybe 1-2 inches longer then this:

 

[ninetynine]

Keep the long hair IMO, it looks good

[whitney]

Thanks (:

[tac0tron]

Currently growing out my hair and its in that "ugly phase" at the moment. How to improve this shit?

[kH0yA Sw@Gp0o]

^soldier on.
or use whatever headwear you like/consider a headband of some sort

[itsbenhere]

Currently growing out my hair and its in that "ugly phase" at the moment. How to improve this shit?

 

I can tell that I'm probably going to go the same route in the nearish future... probably just going to buy a hat.

[gettoasty]

i thought you going for cute, whitney? definitely short hair

[bueno]

it's ahead of the curve I swear

 

no hate but it reminds me of Jean Reno in Les Visiteurs

[gettoasty]

For the dudes who have long hair, or cropped sides and 4+ inches up top, how did you manage it at the beginning e.g. slick it back, part, comb over, etc.

 

And how often did you have to get the sides cleaned up while growing or maintaining the top? Just got a haircut today and while the barber was cleaning up the side and my hair was wet with about 3+ inches, it looked kind of sexy/really runaway-esque. I got that thick Asian hair (albeit a high forehead) and was considering slicking it back. Not a pompadour per say, but maybe like Tony Leung but with a cleaner take (due to the cropped/shaved sides). 

 

Anyways, the top is about 2.5" now with a 2.5 shave on the side. Maybe next time. 

 

edit:

I get everyone's hair grows differently but just curious generally 

Edited March 23, 2014 by gettoasty

[soveryspecial]

i get the sides cleaned up basically when it starts to look sloppy, which is, for me, about 5 weeks. it's when the deep contrast between the top and the sides fades away.

 

starting out i kinda combed it forward with the front kinda poofing up, basically like the old ln-cc model:

 

 

currently trying to grow the top of my hair to river phoenix status.

Edited March 23, 2014 by soveryspecial

[conqueror]

after having a high fade (no guard) for the last 4ish years i've switched up a bit - #3 on the sides with no fade at all and fairly short on top. i guess its fairly similar to jason dill's hair. feels good man.

[Lemurian]

I've been growing my hair out for about 6 months now and finally went to see a barber, to get the split ends out.

Turns out I hardly had any. During the growing process I stopped using any product, except for all natural wax (Aesop, Aveda) and used a hairmask every week. Your hair will look like shit, whatever you do with it during this stage.

Still need to go for another 6 months probably, before it's the length I want.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Lemurian

[sunny D]

what lengths are you lot after

[gettoasty]

Naturally slick back, I can just sweep it backwards.

I've used a lot of product while I was younger so I try to minimize it nowadays. I like switching between bumble&bumble or pomade from Layrite

[TPR950H]

For the dudes who have long hair, or cropped sides and 4+ inches up top, how did you manage it at the beginning e.g. slick it back, part, comb over, etc.

 

And how often did you have to get the sides cleaned up while growing or maintaining the top? Just got a haircut today and while the barber was cleaning up the side and my hair was wet with about 3+ inches, it looked kind of sexy/really runaway-esque. I got that thick Asian hair (albeit a high forehead) and was considering slicking it back. Not a pompadour per say, but maybe like Tony Leung but with a cleaner take (due to the cropped/shaved sides). 

 

Anyways, the top is about 2.5" now with a 2.5 shave on the side. Maybe next time. 

 

edit:

I get everyone's hair grows differently but just curious generally 

 

i get a haircut every 2 weeks.  it would look best if i got it cut every 10 days.  sometimes i go 3 weeks without a haircut.  1 or .5 on the sides medium fade with the back tapered.

the top at the longest part goes just down to my nose if i were to pull it down.  i dont have the thick asian hair. i dont use product and push it to the side. 

this thread needs moar pics. i want a new haircut.

[gettoasty]

How do you manage the cost? Work out a deal with a local barber/shop, a friend, etc. ?