Yes they are real world terms but since I personally don't like it I choose not to agree with that term being used as the title of a category for black, or primarily black, hair. I know in the end it's just a word game and not really about the category itself but I am one of those who just doesn't feel comfortable calling herself nappy.
Hair typing by naani.com a fifth category!
- Thread starter Melissa-jane
- Start date
Yes they are real world terms but since I personally don't like it I choose not to agree with that term being used as the title of a category for black, or primarily black, hair. I know in the end it's just a word game and not really about the category itself but I am one of those who just doesn't feel comfortable calling herself nappy.
Neith
New Member
I can understand that. I am not overjoyed by the words either, but they are the main words that wre widely recognized as being descriptive of our hair specifically.
Maybe there should be a sort of movement to call our naps and kinks something else like coils and crinkles instead... but that's not going to happen magically. Until then, I guess I will have to use the "correct" descriptive terms sometimes.
WantNatural
Well-Known Member
I found it!
http://fromgrandmaskitchen.com/Natural-Hair-Beauty/articles/3881/1/What-Hair-Type-and-Texture-do-You-Have-Straight-Wavy-Curly-Kinky-or-Nappy/Page1.html
The full 9 page article.
My other posts should make more sense now
I've tried reading this article several times before, but for some reason it always freezes on my computer so I still have not read it from beginning to end in one sitting. I do believe that it has a lot of information, and there is much that I learned.
However, hair typing is extremely confusing to me, and I feel as if it is actually impossible to do, at least as far as curl pattern is concerned. If you look at the individual hairs on my son's head, he has a combination of straight, wavy, looser curls, and tight coils. He also has one straight white hair and one straight red hair. When you look at his hair as a whole you can see that he has a clear curl pattern without the use of products - actually his curl pattern is more clear when clean and wet than after it dries and is moisturized, although you can always discern a curl pattern overall. So I guess that would make him type 3 although he does not have the silky curls that you would normally associate with type 3 hair. And you can easily pick his hair out into a fro although his hair always curls back up, but from a distance it still looks like a fro.
I'm transitioning so I'm still trying to learn about my hair. What is interesting to me is that I finally decided that I might have type 4A hair but now I just don't know, and I do not believe I will even try to type my hair any more. After reading the article I realized that my hair on my edges, which is the most difficult hair for me to "tame" and refuses to smooth down no matter what, has a discernible curl pattern when wet without product. My edges are short and curl very easily. But they are not a silky texture and when dry look to be 4Bish, although I knew that they did not seem to fit the bill for 4B, I couldn't figure out what they were. When dry they are frizzy and it's hard to see a curl pattern at all. With gel they wave but when the gel dries they are just dry looking curls that from a distance just look like dry fuzz. The rest of my new growth is coils that vary in size, dry when stretched into a clear S shape, and it's very frizzy. When wet they seem so dense that you cannot see the curl pattern until you stretch the hair with your fingers.
The most useful part of the article to me was the description of hair texture and thickness. I learned that I have coarse hair and medium thickness. I never knew I had coarse hair - I knew it wasn't fine but I didn't realize it was coarse. The individual strands feel like silk and overall my hair has always been very soft. So that to me was fascinating.
There's more to hair typing than the type of curl my hair has. So instead of hair typing I think I'll call the whole type 1-4, C-Napp thing "curl typing".
And I give up on that! 
Melissa-jane
Active Member
I think I'm just confused in general
According to her typing system, I have kinky hair bc it looks just like the model's in the picture dry with no product... 'cause i couldn't figure out how to manuever through the site to read the articleerplexed
hair typing (and that website) confuses me...
:alcoholicyeah that site is kind tipsy lol
Neith
New Member
I've tried reading this article several times before, but for some reason it always freezes on my computer so I still have not read it from beginning to end in one sitting. I do believe that it has a lot of information, and there is much that I learned.
However, hair typing is extremely confusing to me, and I feel as if it is actually impossible to do, at least as far as curl pattern is concerned. If you look at the individual hairs on my son's head, he has a combination of straight, wavy, looser curls, and tight coils. He also has one straight white hair and one straight red hair. When you look at his hair as a whole you can see that he has a clear curl pattern without the use of products - actually his curl pattern is more clear when clean and wet than after it dries and is moisturized, although you can always discern a curl pattern overall. So I guess that would make him type 3 although he does not have the silky curls that you would normally associate with type 3 hair. And you can easily pick his hair out into a fro although his hair always curls back up, but from a distance it still looks like a fro.
I'm transitioning so I'm still trying to learn about my hair. What is interesting to me is that I finally decided that I might have type 4A hair but now I just don't know, and I do not believe I will even try to type my hair any more. After reading the article I realized that my hair on my edges, which is the most difficult hair for me to "tame" and refuses to smooth down no matter what, has a discernible curl pattern when wet without product. My edges are short and curl very easily. But they are not a silky texture and when dry look to be 4Bish, although I knew that they did not seem to fit the bill for 4B, I couldn't figure out what they were. When dry they are frizzy and it's hard to see a curl pattern at all. With gel they wave but when the gel dries they are just dry looking curls that from a distance just look like dry fuzz. The rest of my new growth is coils that vary in size, dry when stretched into a clear S shape, and it's very frizzy. When wet they seem so dense that you cannot see the curl pattern until you stretch the hair with your fingers.
The most useful part of the article to me was the description of hair texture and thickness. I learned that I have coarse hair and medium thickness. I never knew I had coarse hair - I knew it wasn't fine but I didn't realize it was coarse. The individual strands feel like silk and overall my hair has always been very soft. So that to me was fascinating.
There's more to hair typing than the type of curl my hair has. So instead of hair typing I think I'll call the whole type 1-4, C-Napp thing "curl typing".
That was one of my favorite parts of the article too
The discussion about fine, normal and coarse strands. I don't think every 4a has to look like every other 4a. I don't see hair typing as a exact science.
There are billions of people on this planet... how can we just type every diffence of every head of hair with just 2 or 3 subtypes for 4 or 5 main hair types?
I think hair typing was only meant to loosely define hair types. Not to predict how every coil on your head is going to look like or behave.
It's like skin color. You can be light, medium and dark. but there are SO MANY VARIATIONS in there! Every medium toned person doesnt have the same skin tone as another. In fact, it's HIGHLY improbable that you will run into another person the exact same shade as you. - Just for example
It is
but I'm hair obsessed and read the whole thing anyways.
Last edited:
Any hair type cannot be nappy. If your hair is straight or loosely curled then it cannot be nappy; if your hair is wavy it cannot be nappy. Only nappy hair is nappy.
I don't think anyone get confused when someone says "nappy hair", straight hair, curly hair, or wavy hair. I think we all know what that means. If we don't, then I think we all can sense or picture what it is. We need to stop acting stupid and stop pretending that black people's hair isn't nappy or kinky because it is.
tatiana
Well-Known Member
I agree. There should be 6 categories (taken from Goddess Hair by Jane Johnson).
1 - straight
2-wavy
3 - curly -- grows down and more uniform than coily
4 - coily -- grows outward bound and wiry.
5 - cottony -- grows cottony in appearance
6 - spongy -- very densely compacted coils resulting in a wedge-like sponge appearance
1 - straight
2-wavy
3 - curly -- grows down and more uniform than coily
4 - coily -- grows outward bound and wiry.
5 - cottony -- grows cottony in appearance
6 - spongy -- very densely compacted coils resulting in a wedge-like sponge appearance
bludaydreamr
Well-Known Member
Neith just because our hair has been described as kinky and happy doesn't mean that it can't be redefined. My type is he same all over my head, but my texture varies. My hair is tightly coiled. Most people do use the terms as I did before I came to the boards you know better you do better. We were once described as colored, but that term is no longer PC.
Melissa-jane
Active Member
Whilst I understand your point, I do not think that its stupid, nappy means diaper in the uk, we just need a word which is understood by everyone. Everyone knows what colour blond hair is for example. The point is do we need a fifth category?
Melissa-jane
Active Member
Yes! I have noticed alot of type six people around on my travels and I know we are not the same hair type, as beautiful as they are.
Melissa-jane
Active Member
Has everyone who is commenting actually read the article?
If not, please do. It's very good and makes a lot of sense if you are open to it. It actually helped me to figure out my hair. It's a good read
Don't let the words kinky and nappy deter you. It's the information and explanations in the article that are the main part.
It even says in the article... what else would you call our hair?
Kinky and nappy aren't the nicest of words for some... but say that you were describing my hair to someone. Good luck effectively describing it without using the words kinky, nappy, wooly, etc... what other words in the English language describe our hair specifically?
Anyways... give the article a chance. It gives a bit more explanations than other hair typing systems and really does take many factors into account.
Someone should just make up a new, more acceptable adjective then.
Very intelligent of you, yes please do read the article
Melissa-jane
Active Member
Apparently somethings wrong with the site.
Melissa-jane
Active Member
I'm not even 100% sure of the type of hair I have on my head now with the 4 types already established. I think we need to move away for categories, as all it does is divide people up more. We don't need more division, we need more unity. There's only one hair type and it's call HAIR.
Its just hair...I know...but I LOVE IT!
Neith
New Member
Yep
but... there is no widely used alternative in use right now. Maybe someone SHOULD really put it out there and redefine it and try to make it mainstream. but until that happens... kinky and nappy aren't going anywhere in the real world.
My SO said that maybe we could call it micro-curls.
Melissa-jane
Active Member
I've tried reading this article several times before, but for some reason it always freezes on my computer so I still have not read it from beginning to end in one sitting. I do believe that it has a lot of information, and there is much that I learned.
However, hair typing is extremely confusing to me, and I feel as if it is actually impossible to do, at least as far as curl pattern is concerned. If you look at the individual hairs on my son's head, he has a combination of straight, wavy, looser curls, and tight coils. He also has one straight white hair and one straight red hair. When you look at his hair as a whole you can see that he has a clear curl pattern without the use of products - actually his curl pattern is more clear when clean and wet than after it dries and is moisturized, although you can always discern a curl pattern overall. So I guess that would make him type 3 although he does not have the silky curls that you would normally associate with type 3 hair. And you can easily pick his hair out into a fro although his hair always curls back up, but from a distance it still looks like a fro.
I'm transitioning so I'm still trying to learn about my hair. What is interesting to me is that I finally decided that I might have type 4A hair but now I just don't know, and I do not believe I will even try to type my hair any more. After reading the article I realized that my hair on my edges, which is the most difficult hair for me to "tame" and refuses to smooth down no matter what, has a discernible curl pattern when wet without product. My edges are short and curl very easily. But they are not a silky texture and when dry look to be 4Bish, although I knew that they did not seem to fit the bill for 4B, I couldn't figure out what they were. When dry they are frizzy and it's hard to see a curl pattern at all. With gel they wave but when the gel dries they are just dry looking curls that from a distance just look like dry fuzz. The rest of my new growth is coils that vary in size, dry when stretched into a clear S shape, and it's very frizzy. When wet they seem so dense that you cannot see the curl pattern until you stretch the hair with your fingers.
The most useful part of the article to me was the description of hair texture and thickness. I learned that I have coarse hair and medium thickness. I never knew I had coarse hair - I knew it wasn't fine but I didn't realize it was coarse. The individual strands feel like silk and overall my hair has always been very soft. So that to me was fascinating.
There's more to hair typing than the type of curl my hair has. So instead of hair typing I think I'll call the whole type 1-4, C-Napp thing "curl typing".
That's my hair, not silky hair but defined curls that looks like afro....random. Maybe I am a three type after all??????
SVT
Well-Known Member
WantNatural
Well-Known Member
That's the frustrating point - who knows?!!! Maybe you are a cottony type 3. Our curl patterns do not just vary in sections of our hair, each individual hair strand curl pattern may vary from the strand right next to it! My son has a very curly, cottony texture, coarse hair that is very thick. It does not fit the definition of nappy, but because his curls are not silky and can form an afro, that's what others want to call it! I'm just sick of the labels. I think it's more accurate to describe your hair instead of using a label that only addresses the curl pattern or lack thereof in your hair. There's a thread where everyone does just that. I have to find it...
The word Kinky and Nappy are REAL words and it can be used to describe hair just like CURLY is a real word and can be used to describe hair. You can make up words or PC words to describe your hair but that doesn't negate the fact that it is Nappy or Kinky. The word Colored never went out of existence. It is still a real word that is still being used to this day though not as common in the U.S. as it use to be. When it is used, we all know what the word COLORED means. Just because you stop using a word doesn't mean it will go out of the dictionary or stop being a real word. The word Kinky and Nappy aren't slangs.
The word 'nappy' also means a diaper in the U.S. Nappy can be a noun or adjective. Nappy is also those flat glass candy dish; nappy is also those knitted candy dish cloths. Nappy can take on its origin of Napkin or Nap. It can be either noun or adjective. The meaning is governed by its context and so what everyone is not familar with the word Nappy. It doesn't change the fact that Afro-textured hair is Nappy. Everyone is not familar with the word 'N!ggardly.' It doesn't change the fact that behaviors that possess selfish demeanors are N!ggardly. Words aren't going to disapper and stop having meaning because people aren't aware of them.
jupitermoon
New Member
Perhaps we may need even more than 6 categories?
I voted "no". Hair typing is confusing enough. There is just so much variation among human hair types that it's hard to categorize. I mean has anyone seen this hair chart: http://forum.blackhairmedia.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=81738 ? It has 3b1, 3b2, 3b3, 3b4, etc. Just wow! I've even seen charts with 4c and beyond.
ETA: I found the article very informative though.
Last edited:
Melissa-jane
Active Member
Sigh, I have never heard of the word n!ggardly, and I am curious as to why you chose to bring it up
erplexed. Yet again do we need a fifth category WHATEVER you chose to call it, in order to describe hair that is very compact with tiny undefined coils. Feel free to call your hair nappy if that is what you feel is a fitting description. Personaly i think it would be nice to describe it as something not associated with a textile used for cleaning bodily functions .
Last edited:
Melissa-jane
Active Member
Please describe why you love the word nappy so much so we can all appreciate your much repeated
point.
Melissa-jane
Active Member
Hmm that would make me a 3b9 one the top and 4a at the sides. Why only breakdown 3b's and not the other hair types. God is wonderful he did a different thing with everyone of us, you can not contain or name the full scale of his creativity.
Last edited:
kinkycotton
New Member
Melissa-jane
Active Member
and...where did you get your dictionary? nobody calls me coloured as its not a fitting description and its ignorant and offensive (kicks soap box) now get off.
kinkycotton
New Member
Ohhhh, I remember asking about this same article at a different hair board. All I wanted to know was what best hair product would work for me so my focus was more on Porosity and Texture so I stop buying products that just doens't work for my hair.
Let's just say they didn't see it that way.
Let's just say they didn't see it that way.
Melissa-jane
Active Member
yeah feels like I should of left this article where I found it 
Similar threads
