Why'd they have to describe her hair as "icky"?

[Priss Pot]

And this pic is why I hate when people use dreadlocs as a determiner of how long one's hair can growh. The ends of dreds are shedded hair, not hair that is still attached to the scalp therefore, just because someone's mother or cousin has dreds five feet and hair grows an average doesn't mean they have this long growth cycle. They could or could not but you won't know unless you see the hair growing from the scalp which dreds don't do.

I have to disagree. All of the shedded hair is what I believe may add to the thickness of the single loc.

There's this girl at my undergrad where I've sorta witnessed her transition to locs. Her hair seems to be growing at a steady rate with no extra surplus of length on the ends. It's normal growth rate. The only difference is that her hair hangs down, showing more length rather than a loose-haired natural's hair growing outwards.

I believe that the reason locs are able to grow to such great lengths is because it's like a "forever protective style." There's hardly any rough manipulation of the ends, etc. and they can be low maintenance (except for when it's time to re-twist).

Yeah, I'd like to see more floor-length loose-haired naturals, but how likely would that be given all of the knots and tangles that cause us setbacks at just shoulder-length? We have to look at the reality here.

 

[DreadlockedLady0171]

I have to disagree. All of the shedded hair is what I believe may add to the thickness of the single loc.

There's this girl at my undergrad where I've sorta witnessed her transition to locs. Her hair seems to be growing at a steady rate with no extra surplus of length on the ends. It's normal growth rate. The only difference is that her hair hangs down, showing more length rather than a loose-haired natural's hair growing outwards.

I believe that the reason locs are able to grow to such great lengths is because it's like a "forever protective style." There's hardly any rough manipulation of the ends, etc. and they can be low maintenance (except for when it's time to re-twist).

Yeah, I'd like to see more floor-length loose-haired naturals, but how likely would that be given all of the knots and tangles that cause us setbacks at just shoulder-length? We have to look at the reality here.

I agree...I didn't want to get into it regarding her comments on that but there will be some shedded hair there but the ends of dreads are still attached to the scalp. This is how people can pick apart their dreads after years and still have a whole lot of length afterwards.

 

[malachi74]

No one is saying that the person who wears the dreads are icky, just that their dreads are icky. I mean, after all, they aren't their hair. And yeah, their hair may be clean but just the thought of shedded, hair rolled up into each other is enough for me to
I don't know how more frankly I can put it but I don't like the idea of old scab/shredded hair being rolled up into each other. It's nasty to me.

Okay, we can also say that there are black women who wash their hair everyday, who don't use grease for moisture or who have never worn weave/braids/pressed/etc. But this is not true for most and from all the research I've done including tutorials and talking to people with dreads, it does involve some use of balm to loc the hair.

.

I loc my younger brother's hair every month or so and we do not use any products to loc his hair. I have a tool and I interloc the hair using this tool. In fact it can also be done on relaxed hair as well; no product is needed. I agree that there's probably a lot of shed hairs in the locs but some people have said that they have undone their locs and were still able to maintain the length they achieved while in locs.

 

[DDTexlaxed]

Sorry, but it just doesn't appeal to everybody. It is only the person's opinion. Hair that long just does not appeal to me strait or no. I wonder about her regimen though.

 

[Neith]

We all know about the preconcieved notion - even in the BLACK community - that dreds are dirty

However, for every nicely kept head of locks I've seen, I've seen some STRAIGHT NASTY heads of locks.

Other people see them too.

I'm not sticking up for ignorance, I'm just not surprised about it.

 

[Mrs.TheBronx]

whats worse is this mess some jerk wrote..
BobKenz1
06:35 AMOct 29 2008
Mandy...Are you kidding? Locks of love? How would they ever untangle that filthy mess? And who wants ****** hair anyway?
urn:x-aolid:mddn:3f6d6f78-a5a5-11dd-b913-83eb85049e56 AVG RATING:




(0)
REPORT!
sign-in to rate

 

[Neith]

I also would like to say...

Yes, after a point locks are mostly shed hairs.

However, the hair that is connected to the scalp CAN be as long as the locks. The hair in well taken cared of locks is free to grow very long. Since it's always protected, it makes it a bit easier than loose hair.

I've seen people take out their locks and have LONGER hair than it seemed when it was locked. Locked hair experiences shrinkage too.

Shrinkage, texture, growth rate and termnial length has a lot to do with how long both loose and locked hair gets.

 

[chicacanella]

I am totally missing your point. The description of something as "icky" is editorializing not fact and typically not helpful to the reader.

I think you are definitely missing my point. I was not saying that the above article was editorializing. I was commenting on your quote that people need to keep their editorial comments out of the news. The whole point of editorial comments is to express your view point, however I was not saying this in regards to the story because this is not editorial in nature but more of a feature story.

 

[Leeda.the.Paladin]

Why does it matter is there is a bunch of shed hair in dreads if all the hair on our heads is dead anyway?

 

[sunshinelady]

I think you are definitely missing my point. I was not saying that the above article was editorializing. I was commenting on your quote that people need to keep their editorial comments out of the news. The whole point of editorial comments is to express your view point, however I was not saying this in regards to the story because this is not editorial in nature but more of a feature story.

So, you knew exactly what I meant and that the way I used the word was correct, but felt the need to type all that anyway? Picayunish, look that up.

 

[chicacanella]

So, you knew exactly what I meant and that the way I used the word was correct, but felt the need to type all that anyway? Picayunish, look that up.

The way you used editorial was not correct. That is why I showed examples of what an editorial was. Editorials are articles that allows an author to present their argument for a particular subject or theme and don't simply rely on adjectives like "yucky, bad, or good" to do that. You stated that it was an editorial when in fact, as I tried to point out to you before it was not...simply a feature or "soft" news story gone wrong.

I knew what you were trying to say, and it went something like this, "I wish people would keep their opinions out of feature stories." And this in itself would be right for the most part.