September 12, 2003
Hair Color Sales: the Biological Constraints
In previous posts, I first showed that light hair dyes outsell dark hair dyes not because women "want to be blondes" but because there are more dark-haired women. Then, I demonstrated that the hair dyeing business has an interest in promoting light hair sales, since there is a larger customer base of natural brunets than blonds.
But, there is yet another reason why women lighten their hair that is related to the biology of human hair.
It is well-known that in nature, except in those people who are pure lights or pure darks, hair color varies along its length. The roots are naturally darker, and the edges are naturally lighter. This effect becomes more pronounced when hair is exposed to the sun. If in doubt, think that you've probably heard of women "lightening their edges", but you've never heard of women "lightening their roots". This is because hair that is darker at the edges and lighter at the roots is never found in nature.
Hair dye sales don't prove (as I have shown) that there is a preference for light hair. But, let's even concede -for the sake of argument- that the DARK->LIGHT transition is more frequent than the LIGHT->DARK transition. This would seem to indicate (if we further ignore the marketing aspect of the hair dyeing business), that light hair is preferred to dark. But is this the case?
The answer is negative, and this is due to the differential pigmentation of hair along its length. Now, the decision to change one's hair color involves two factors:
1. Desire to have a different hair color
2. Effort required to maintain the different hair color
If we can prove that it is more difficult for a blonde to maintain dark hair than for a brunette to maintain light hair, then we will have essentially shown that women prefer lightening their hair, rather than darkening it, not because there is some biological urge to do so, but because it takes less effort.
When a women lightens her hair, then it will eventually look "bad", due to the fact that it's roots will become darker and the result will eventually look unnatural. This is also why women don't dye their hair a single color, but rather use various shades, to ensure that the result won't be spoiled very quickly as it grows.
The same is true when a women darkens her hair: it will eventually look bad. But, it will look bad in an even worse way, since its roots will become light and its edges will become dark. This is a combination that looks unnatural immediately, since it is not found in nature -unlike the dark roots/light edges combination.
So, a brunette who dyes her hair blond can maintain her appearance for a longer time than a blonde who dyes it black. It takes more effort to maintain the latter transition than the former one.
Further reading:
I dyed my hair and now I've got awful roots. What should I do?
- [A women dyed her hair black and now is complaining that her dark brown roots are showing; imagine how worse it would be if she were even lighter-haired]
Hair problems
- It's definitely noticeable -- you'd need to dye it frequently to avoid the "floating hair" syndrome (blonde roots with dark ends make it look like your hair is levitating off your head). And it's hard to avoid getting dye on your scalp, which is *also* noticeable!!
Hair Disaster
3 more hours with Richard and the situation is only getting worse. He told me that it is going to be a couple more weeks ... and a couple more treatments, before we can fix the color. Even then he doesn't think we can go all the way back to red. There was a suggestion made to put in lots of highlights. Richard is going way above and beyond the call of duty to try and fix this without stripping my hair, but I'm about to give up. I have two inches of blonde roots (with some gray thrown in for good measure). This is the only time in my life that I wish my hair didn't grow so fast. It looks horrible.
This concludes the Hair Dyeing Trilogy of posts, which I hope have thrown some light in the supposed evidence for a "blonde ideal".
Posted by Dienekes at September 12, 2003 06:08 PM | PermaLink"Hair Color Sales: the Biological Constraints
In previous posts, I first showed that light hair dyes outsell dark hair dyes not because women "want to be blondes" but because there are more dark-haired women. Then, I demonstrated that the hair dyeing business has an interest in promoting light hair sales, since there is a larger customer base of natural brunets than blonds."
This is really laughable, that you spend so much of your time thinking up theories to try and disprove what is obvious. Is it so ridiculous to believe women like to have blonde hair? Get over yourself.
You make a sensible point that there is in fact a larger customer base of brunettes and black-haired people. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they should go blonde. They could dye their hair any number of colors and shades. They could make their hair purple, or raspberry red, as I see some people do. Why should blonde be so popular? Just because the media shows it? Commercials brainwash people? Could they achieve this same brainwashing with any color? Could they convince most women to turn their hair blue? I doubt it.
"But, there is yet another reason why women lighten their hair that is related to the biology of human hair.
It is well-known that in nature, except in those people who are pure lights or pure darks, hair color varies along its length. The roots are naturally darker, and the edges are naturally lighter."
Oh sure, women dye their hair blonde, get highlights or dye the ends, because they acknowledge the the natural tendency for ends to be lighter than the roots. :)
Instead of so much theory, why not get out in the world and ask women why they do it?
Many will tell you why: they love being blonde! They get more attention, it's a pretty color, it makes them feel more vivacious. Many adult entertainers do it and make more money as blondes than as brunettes. Face it, many women like to be blonde and many men prefer blonde hair on women.
Posted by: NH at September 12, 2003 08:33 PM>> Is it so ridiculous to believe women like to have blonde hair? Get over yourself.
The ones that dye it blond obviously want to. The topic of discussion is whether there is a bias in favor of blond hair in the general population.
>> They could make their hair purple, or raspberry red, as I see some people do. Why should blonde be so popular?
Purple and raspberry red don't exist in nature.
>> Instead of so much theory, why not get out in the world and ask women why they do it?
I know why they do it and I have explained that as well.
>> Face it, many women like to be blonde and many men prefer blonde hair on women.
Sure and many men prefer dark hair on women. Now, you may have a belief that there is a bias in favor of blond hair, but it will take more than saying "face it" and ornamenting your posts with smileys to convince rational readers of the truth of your opinion.
Posted by: Dienekes at September 12, 2003 11:51 PMDienekes,
Get a life man. You're obsessed with blonds and northern Europeans.
Seems to me you've got some kind of a complex towards them because Greeks are so much more brunet.
Well I'm really blond, and it hasn't changed my life all that much. It's really no big deal.
Get over it.
Posted by: Polak at September 13, 2003 02:32 AMPolak, I prefer to deal with facts and arguments. If you don't like my subject matter, then you're reading the wrong blog. If you do, but don't like my take on it, you should criticize my facts and arguments. There's no other way to have a discussion.
Posted by: Dienekes at September 13, 2003 12:58 PM"Well I'm really blond, and it hasn't changed my life all that much. It's really no big deal."
Well, I'm also very blond and light blue-eyed, like my parents (and so is my Lithuanian girlfriend), and I don't tan (I burn) and my eyes are super sensitive to light. I can't go outside -- on a sunny day -- without sunglasses. It's a pain. I suppose that this particular phenotype must have been an evolutionary advantage for my Northern European ancestors. Although, East Asians also developed in a harsh, cold climate, but they have a vey different phenotype...
Posted by: friedrich braun at September 14, 2003 10:49 PMOne of the few things which sounds good of your theory is that it looks more unnatural if the roots are fair and the edges dark than the other way around.
Sure its true too that there are more brunets than blonds and therefore more who want to be blonds than the other way around. (I personally had light hair as a child but now its dark)
Somethings even if you said them I would say are really important:
1. Light hair make the face more smooth and feminine and give beautiful girls an angel-like look if they have the right skin too.
2. I'm sure that beauty ideals are partially cultural but mainly they are not. In fact every man who is not totally indoctrinated by advertising or chauvinism will say that there are both blond and brunet women which are beautiful.
The question is more what type of woman you prefer if they both look beautiful and the only difference is that one is fair the other one dark and you can decide for you.
This angel-like look is something more for Nordic type of woman of course and thats their major advantage which they got for being so sensible.
3. Not all woman look better if they darken or lighten their hair. Its highly dependent on the type of woman we are speaking about. There are f.e. some actresses which look in my personal opinion awful in blond, but they look quite ok as brunets. And sometimes its the other way around.
4. On the whole for a light skinned, even light brown skinned women may be two advantages if they are blonds or fair browns: a. they have a smoother more angel-like look which does not make such a sharp contrast, b. because of that but not only they look younger because (like in my case) younger Europeans often got lighter hair, c. blond is more a signal color than black or brown, but not more than red. So its a color for woman who want in fact be attractive in the narrower sence of the word, they want to attract attention from their environment.
Same is true for red, and I see a difference in just being blond or red haired and to dye the hair in that direction.
The last are often woman who want to attract attention (especially if they got a bad red or even more aggressive unnatural hair tone) and thats more important for them than just looking feminine or beautiful I would often suggest.
So partly this extreme hair dying is sometimes to me some sort of cultural reaction to the new position many women got and how they live sexuality nowadays.
Sure some look better with colored hairs, but not all, and many seem to want attraction regardless of fitting into a "blond/red haired type of woman".
Or just think about some Satanist/Gothic girlies with naturally blond hair and freckling skin which dye their hair black and the roots turn to be blond soon again...thats not just about being more beautiful. And sometimes thats true for some other styles of today too at least in my opinion.
Its all about attract attention and thats sometimes more important than being natural and just looking attractive. Especially for urban teenagers.
"Although, East Asians also developed in a harsh, cold climate, but they have a vey different phenotype..."
I think that the Europids never lived under conditiones like the Mongolid race did, especially not without more tools and better clothes I would suggest.
The second and much more important thing is that Europids evolved in a more temperate climate.
So they had to cope with heat AND cold and probably more intraspecific selection under this special and for reproduction better conditions.
Just think that the Europids are to some extend more balanced in an intermediate position between (at least extreme) Mongolids and Negrids.
(f.e. lengths of the extremities, masculinity etc.)
Like I guessed some posts before I would call the Mongolids more a "core race" than the Europids/Caucasoids because I think that such partly extreme features must have been developed under extreme conditions and in a limited space. When this type was finally developed he spread for some reason all over East Asia and partly eliminated or mixed with former in my opinion mainly Australoid populations of South East Asia.
The Europids never had such a "core phase" under extreme conditions of the main body of them.
And I would suggest that the depigmented Europid races never lived without appropriate tools and clothes on open sunny ground like the Mongols of today f.e.
They must have lived in forests or regions with much fog when the depigmention process was undergoing.
So the more lean and fine featured Nordic type is no typical "human cold type" like the Tungids or Lappids but made for a balanced temperate climate with not to much sun.
Thanks for the useful info.
Posted by: friedrich braun at September 16, 2003 01:29 PM