Follow Me!

Monday, February 11, 2013

Sunday Chat: The No Hair Assumption

I know that this particular chat is a day late. I know.

But...this chat is about the 'no hair' assumption. As of late, there has been a surge of celebs (or pseudo-celebs) feeling the need to reveal their 'real' hair on social media sites like Twitter and Instagram. It seems to me that a lot of these celebs are eager to prove that underneath all the weaves that they wear, there is actually hair under there (hey, that rhymes!).

My question is: why should they even have to do that?

Maybe because I have been so entrenched in my healthy hair journey for years now, I see weaves (and wigs) for what they are: protective styles. The real shock for me comes when folks wear weaves back to back and their hair is jacked all the way up. But to wear weaves and have hair? It makes perfect sense to me.

So where did this 'no hair' assumption come from? And why is that the default assumption when it comes to weaves and wigs? Have you ever experience this first hand?


  1. I guess they're tweeting because weaves and wigs have become so pervasive. Nowadays, since it is socially accepted, there are so many women sporting super long "hair" that you'd almost think that there are no sisters out there with actual, God-given long hair.

    Given that, many of us who've have achieved some length, through discipline and care, want to toot our horns a little bit. I have definitely been guilty of occasionally letting people know this isn't some Lance Armstrong hair, this is the real deal. Immature maybe. But I can see where those celebs are coming from.

    Life in a Shoe

  2. Gurl! We area on the same page! I mean--most of these celebs (and pueso-celebs) wear back to back to back wigs, weaves, and extensions. Their hair is constantly protected. Why wouldn't they have at least WL hair under there?

    Quite honestly, I'm shocked---or impressed.