Is your hair TRULY virgin?

[jenwexler]

I take a Bi Sci class at Penn State. My professor is quite a hippy and I love that about him. I am not afraid to ask questions and I am eager to learn new things in his class. He is the only adult here I told about my hair journey and he supports it. Anyway, Yesterday we learned about cosmetics. Now as we all know, virgin hair is defined as hair that has not gone through chemical processes such as perms and coloring. I find this a tad vague. Now apparently, according to a video we watched, shampoos have many toxic chemicals like the infamous sulfate and other chemicals that can actually cause cancer! I've seen girls with long dry damaged hair here that have "virgin" hair. Why is that? Simple. Toxic chemicals in their haircare products....and heat styling. Heat styling isn't natural either as we all know. Maybe virgin hair defines the safe haircare before the 50s, before chemicals were used in cosmetology. Maybe sulfate free shampoos and non-heat styling is the only way to truly achieve true virgin hair. What do you think? How would you define virgin hair, knowing everyday things we may use, especially hair care products, are so damaging to our overall health in general?

[Nymphie]

I think the term "virgin" is very personal. Just like some people might say that they're virgins but done everything except vaginal intercourse, some might consider their hair virgin even though they henna, heatstyle, or they've done a perm, or as you described, when you use absolutely no chemicals or heatstyling.

And if it's to be considered only when the hair hasn't had any contact with chemicals and it's "pure", it's hard to get virgin hair in the kind of enviroment most of us live in. There's toxins in both air and water, in hairtoys that's not made of unlakeret wood, the fabric in your clothes, scrunchies and bandanas, the food you eat if it's not organic... not just schampoo and other hairproducts.

Don't mean to sound like you're wrong. You have some good points, it's just more than hairproducts that affect us. :P

[Mexibeach]

Yup! Never been dyed, permed, bleached etc!!!

[Igor]

I hate that word. I hate that expression. I find it truly offensive to use in connection with hair.
Personally I refuse to use it. I loathe the idea that “virgin” is linked to something that supposedly makes your hair “better” than other people’s hair.
Women have been maimed, killed and denied the most basic human rights like going to school, driving, voting and even showing any part of the body they were born into, all to preserve their virginity. All for a little flap of skin, that matters so much to insecure men!
I refuse to use that word for something other than it is: A person who hasn’t had sexual intercourse yet. Not that it makes any difference to me, or should make any difference to anyone.
I detest it when people use that word when it comes to hair care.
No, even though my hair has never seen any heating appliances, any dye or any bleach, it is definitely not “virgin”. My hair is very experienced and knows exactly how to express to me how we both work together into making daily life as easy and pleasurable for us both!

:soapbox:

[enfys]

I've never heard of anyone developing cance through washing their hair. Some of the ingredients may be carcinogenic but only if you eat/burn/whatever them. Shampoo that was actively carcinogenic would almost definitely have one of those "known to the state of California" labels on.

Hair can become damaged through rough handling. Not toxic chemicals or heat, just rough finger combing can do irreversible damage.

There was very unsafe haircare practise before the 50s. Victorians would use heated curlers. I dread to think what was used on hair in a time lead was used on the face.

I will stick with my SLS and cones because that's what my hair likes. I will occasionally blowdry because I want to go out with dry hair, not damp. It is not chemically processed so by most people's standards would be virgin, including my own.

[jenwexler]

i like that everyone has there own ideas when it comes to this subject. i also wanted to raise the idea where people got the idea to first dye and change something like hair in the first place? peer pressure? attracting the opposite or same sex? i really like the way you say your hair is not a virgin BECAUSE you work with it. I have never heard of that before and that is a very good way to look at it. i also want to raise one more subject. apparently the reason men like longer hair is because it holds our hormones like estrogen better than shorter hair....but is that true if it lacks natural sebum? i want to use this time to experiment and research hair to better understand it as i start over.....and have a new experience with my hair.....perhaps in a sense, my hair was a virgin before i had any experience in how to take care of it. all of your responses have helped me to really think about this subject. thank you =]

[angelfell]

Nope, my hair is not virgin. It's been dyed, permed about a year ago, heat styled etc. I used cones and probably sulfates. But, beyond the part that still has perm left in it, my hair feels pretty healthy and is pretty shiny.. so fair enough :D.

[jenwexler]

When I had my peekaboos, I started using sulfate free shampoos and I love them. The best is called Nature's Gate. You can get it for color protecting and it comes in an orange bottle. The ingredients are homegrown in the U.S. and I bought it in Harmons for cheap and it can also be purchased in Whole foods. It is an orangish red bottle, NOT WHITE. whether it has sulfates or not, my hair smells amazing, it's shiny, and looks great. I used mane and tail for a little while but that dried it right back up....so i went back to nature's gate. I suggest you guys check it out. Favorite shampoo of all time. I just hope I don't run out here because I don't know where whole foods is around this area.

[Centaur]

No perms, no dyes - not even henna or indigo, no heat styling, no styling products - such as hair spray and gel = that is my hair, and I do believe it is virgin.

[jenwexler]

your hair is beautiful. do you also protect it from the weather? it's quite windy out hair and cold so i've been wearing a knit cap.

[kittensoupnrice]

Traditionally, I'd say that "virgin" means unprocessed hair, as in, it hasn't been chemically treated to permanently change its texture or color. However, unprocessed hair can still be heat damaged or damaged through teasing, rough brush/combing, etc, so "virgin" hair can still be damaged. I just consider it to mean it hasn't been artifically and/or permanently modified. I suppose a better term for it would be "naked" or "natural" hair. :D

I personally aim for as undamaged hair as possible. That means no chemical processing, no heat styling, and the use of gentle hair products.

As for the origins of permanent hair modification, I found this book doing a google search. Pretty interesting:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9Z6vCGbf66YC&lpg=PA154&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false

[spidermom]

Virgin has a lot of meanings; it isn't restricted to s*x. Take virgin olive oil, for example. Anyway ........... As far as having virgin hair; I don't know. It isn't colored or permed, it isn't flat-ironed or heat-curled, but it is certainly washed and conditioned, and I blow-dry it whenever I feel like spending the hour it takes to do it.

I could call it natural, I suppose.

[growing2shine]

Well about "virgin" hair as an expression I'm not that found of it but at the same time I don't exactly dislike it...

In my personal opinion "virgin" hair has not been dyed, permed, bleached, hennaed and heat styled. It's hair that's as natural as It gets. (I don't think that normal shampoo does anything other than clean hair, and maybe dry it a little? I mean I know that they contain chemicals, but I don't think that they have any effect other than that.) :)

Btw I 100% agree with kittensoupnrice. I couldn't have said it better.

[Eolan]

I always thought of virgin hair as non-colored hair, but that might be a language thing. English is not my maternal language, so... :shrug:

[Dreams_in_Pink]

If that's the case, no hair can be virgin. Even if left natural, sun bleached hair as years pass :) so only the roots can be called virgin.

Usually, when we say virgin, we mean hair that was never chemically processed (perm, dye, bleach)

[jenwexler]

I still find it funny though how all of the products out there try to "fake" health. Part of the reason I kept dying my hair back to black so it would fade was because at first, it would look shiny again.

[Eboshi]

I hate that word. I hate that expression. I find it truly offensive to use in connection with hair.
Personally I refuse to use it. I loathe the idea that “virgin” is linked to something that supposedly makes your hair “better” than other people’s hair.
Women have been maimed, killed and denied the most basic human rights like going to school, driving, voting and even showing any part of the body they were born into, all to preserve their virginity. All for a little flap of skin, that matters so much to insecure men!
I refuse to use that word for something other than it is: A person who hasn’t had sexual intercourse yet. Not that it makes any difference to me, or should make any difference to anyone.
I detest it when people use that word when it comes to hair care.
No, even though my hair has never seen any heating appliances, any dye or any bleach, it is definitely not “virgin”. My hair is very experienced and knows exactly how to express to me how we both work together into making daily life as easy and pleasurable for us both!

:soapbox:

I'm with you Igor. Perhaps "unprocessed" is a better term. As for "cancer-causing chemicals" in modern shampoos: malarky. Women in Victorian England used mercury and lead as scalp treatments. History is rife with patent medicines and cosmetics doing at best nothing, at worst causing serious illness or disfigurement. The "good old days" really weren't.

[LouLaLa]

I hate that word. I hate that expression. I find it truly offensive to use in connection with hair.
Personally I refuse to use it. I loathe the idea that “virgin” is linked to something that supposedly makes your hair “better” than other people’s hair.
Women have been maimed, killed and denied the most basic human rights like going to school, driving, voting and even showing any part of the body they were born into, all to preserve their virginity. All for a little flap of skin, that matters so much to insecure men!
I refuse to use that word for something other than it is: A person who hasn’t had sexual intercourse yet. Not that it makes any difference to me, or should make any difference to anyone.
I detest it when people use that word when it comes to hair care.
No, even though my hair has never seen any heating appliances, any dye or any bleach, it is definitely not “virgin”. My hair is very experienced and knows exactly how to express to me how we both work together into making daily life as easy and pleasurable for us both!

:soapbox:

100% agreement.

I dont do anything to my hair now and I quit dye, but it had nothing to do with wanting a percived perfection or being "better". I just dont want the hassle of upkeep. I also hate the term as although I am naturally blonde I have had people obsess over my hair as well as its straightness and if it is "real" even being so rude as to touch my roots! I find it extremely offensive when people do it. I think its hair snobbery to only want the real deal (I have actually heard guys say that, not to me I add, Id have given them what for :p) and there are also alot of odd people out there too.

I dont think theres much wrong in usuing products on ones hair, as long as im not damaging it and it looks ok, I dont need to be able to say I use no harsh chemicals etc.

Each to their own.

[triumphator!]

If you really want to get technical, if you've put honey on your hair for lightening, you don't have "virgin" hair.

The term "virgin" is so reductive of something's quality, though. I'm sad we use that word around here. It implies a hierarchy of quality, and I hate that. :rolleyes:

[Aleria]

I agree with Igor about the nature of "virgin" hair. I think it's kind of silly. However, mine is chemical dyed and bleached in a few spots, so I suppose I'm not allowed to have an opinion on it :rolleyes:.


i like that everyone has there own ideas when it comes to this subject. i also wanted to raise the idea where people got the idea to first dye and change something like hair in the first place? peer pressure? attracting the opposite or same sex?

I dyed my hair because I wanted to. I prefer my hair black rather than my natural red-brown, and so, I dye it. Plain and simple. No peer pressure, no attraction issues. I even added turquoise streaks because I felt like it. There doesn't have to be an outside reason for it, some people simply like changing the way their hair looks. I don't see it as any different than wearing different clothing or wearing makeup.

[JulietCapulet]

My hair was like that almost my whole life until I went and had it fried at a salon a year and a half ago! I'm not really into coloring my hair but I thought black was too severe against my pale skin so I wanted to try something different. I was just confirmed in my knowledge that I don't like to dye my hair unless I have to.

[jenwexler]

I made many dye mistakes....trust me. My flaw was that I would dye it black so it would fade to dark brown and the new growth would blend....But the damage was still there. I decided enough was enough and cut it. check my history http://jenshairjourney.tumblr.com/ . I've definitely been there.

[Centaur]

Well folks,

I never heard the term "virgin" used for hair until I found this forum. I understood it to mean basically unprocessed (as in no perm, dye and coloring process - to include henna, indigo and the like). That is what my hair is then, and I denoted that in my signature as some others have too.

But, I can change the word "virgin" to "unprocessed" if that is less offensive and more clear to you all.

I certainly don't think my hair is of any higher quality than anyone else's hair because it is unprocessed or for any other reason. My hair is what it is, and I try to make the best of it and have just learned from this forum how to care for my wavy hair better than I have in the past after always receiving advice on caring for straight hair instead.

[Juneii]

I've never heard of anyone developing cance through washing their hair. Some of the ingredients may be carcinogenic but only if you eat/burn/whatever them. Shampoo that was actively carcinogenic would almost definitely have one of those "known to the state of California" labels on.



The toxic chemicals can be absorbed through our skin. Do keep in mind that repeated and extended use will eventually cause cancer. There is a very small amount of carcinogens to be found in our beauty products that if used sparingly it won't make much of a difference. Also, there is no specific rule that the manufacturers must list all the ingredients in their products, and since these toxic chemicals are found to be in such small quantities they simply label all of them as "fragrance".

I consider virgin hair to be hair that is untouched by dyes. I never actually heard of the term until I came here to LHC. From the way it was described I assumed it just meant undyed hair.
Also, on Igor's comment; I didn't realize that "virgin" hair is supposed better than any other hair, members who use henna as a dye have beautiful and healthy hair. As well as others who have chemically dyed their hair and still manage to keep it healthy. While, some with "virgin" hair don't look quite as nice as theirs.

[jenwexler]

I took care of my chemically treated hair as best as I could and most of the time it LOOKED healthy...but wasn't....im just going to grow out the chemically treated hair until I have nothing but unprocessed hair.

[Elenna]

The words "virgin hair" bothers me.

I used to have dyed hair that was in really bad condition (dry, frizzy, brittle, like cardboard). I've grown out the hair dye, stopped heat styling, and tried many natural hair treatments.

My hair is now in much better condition but it doesn't make it "virgin hair." But I think that it means hair that is in a natural state that is undamaged, healthy and shiny.

[2peasinapod]

I don't use any chemicals in my hair. My shampoo and conditioner are Burt's Bees (98.8% and 98.2% natural, respectively), although my hair seems to like just ACV rinses and coconut oil better.

Honestly, I had no idea the term "virgin hair" could be offensive. It's just a different way of "processing". I mean, we have "virgin" and even "extra-virgin" olive oil! :shrug:

[enfys]

The toxic chemicals can be absorbed through our skin. Do keep in mind that repeated and extended use will eventually cause cancer. There is a very small amount of carcinogens to be found in our beauty products that if used sparingly it won't make much of a difference. Also, there is no specific rule that the manufacturers must list all the ingredients in their products, and since these toxic chemicals are found to be in such small quantities they simply label all of them as "fragrance".


I'd say "can" over "will" cause cancer.

More or less everything has been found by someone to be a carcinogen, but as you seem to acknowledge our shampoo isn't likely to kill us even if there are things in it that could, in isolation and/or in large quantities. If there was enough of a link to actually repeatedly blame shampoo for cancers we'd have heard about it. The director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK says there is no evidence of it.

ETA: This seems to quote some credible American sources on the cancer/shampoo notion: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/shampoo.asp

[FrannyG]

Also, on Igor's comment; I didn't realize that "virgin" hair is supposed better than any other hair, members who use henna as a dye have beautiful and healthy hair. As well as others who have chemically dyed their hair and still manage to keep it healthy. While, some with "virgin" hair don't look quite as nice as theirs.

Well, Juneii, there's a reason why so many people here who decide to colour or get highlights seem very apologetic about it, and you see it over and over again. When I first joined here, I felt like a criminal for colouring my hair instead of letting my silvers grow in. There were many pointed remarks made to me on the subject. I got over it, but it was rough at first.

The same goes for people who choose to heat style, and even occasionally for those of us who choose to trim regularly while still growing.

The way I look at it, only babies or people who are regrowing lost hair for health reasons have virgin hair, just as a lamb has virgin wool only before its first shearing.

The term "virgin hair" as used here makes me bristle too, for a variety of reasons, including most of Igor's points.

[PrincessBob]

I do not know if my hair counts as virgin, but I haven't dyed it for over five years (I tried to indigo it, but the stain didn't take), it doesn't show any of the old black color (prolly since I trim it). :p I think that this is as difficult to answer as whether a person is virgin (and what you count as se*ual conduct):wink:.

[Centaur]

your hair is beautiful. do you also protect it from the weather? it's quite windy out hair and cold so i've been wearing a knit cap.

Going back a little...

You posted this after my post on the first page, so I am wondering if it was directed at me? Lil ole me and my 'just there' kinda thinnish hair? If so, it would be my first hair compliment on this forum! My hair? Naw. Ah, well, I'll claim it anyway.:eyebrows:

Here in the sunny south, my hair can get dried out and sun bleached quick fast and in a hurry. I try to keep it put up and wear a hat when I spend a lot of times indoors.

[kittensoupnrice]

Taken from an online dictionary, emphasis mine:

vir·gin (vûrjn)
n.
1. A person who has not experienced sexual intercourse.
2. A chaste or unmarried woman; a maiden.
3. An unmarried woman who has taken religious vows of chastity.
4. Virgin The Virgin Mary.
5. Zoology A female insect or other arthropod that produces fertile eggs without copulating.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or being a virgin; chaste.
2. Being in a pure or natural state; unsullied: virgin snow.
3. Unused, uncultivated, or unexplored: virgin territory.
4. Existing in native or raw form; not processed or refined.
5. Happening for the first time; initial.
6. Obtained directly from the first pressing: virgin olive oil.
7. Zoology Producing fertile eggs without copulating.

Now.
The noun section has 5 meanings, only one which implies lack of sexual experience. All of them, of course, talk about no-copulation.
However.
I am going to make the assumption that nobody is going to quibble with ignoring the "noun" section, as nobody typically says that they have virgins on their head... The question is more about the adjective virgin.

So we can completely ignore the noun section of the definition.

Of the 7 other adjectival meanings of "virgin", only one has to do with being likened to a "noun" virgin. All the rest have to do with being pure, natural, unprocessed, etc.
In the case of the bolded definitions, it makes sense to talk about "virgin" hair in the terms of pure or unprocessed.

It's like the word gay, queer, etc. Just because some people like to use "gay" in an offensive manner doesn't invalidate all its other meanings.

[jenwexler]

I have seen some people are offended by the term virgin on this thread so what i will start saying is UNPROCESSED*. It's easier to understand and less offensive. i didn't even know the term virgin was offensive to be honest lol. by no means did i mean to rub anyone the wrong way by the term....it is just what i have known unprocessed hair to be called. I do like seeing how people feel though about processed hair and unprocessed. i don't think i've met anyone with hair that has no current contact with harsh chemical shampoos yet. i'd like to know what people think about chemicals in haircare...and it's interesting that chemicals actually go back hundreds of years in cosmetology. i have been a product junky...so trust me i am not out to judge anyone using products or anything....but i am very eager for anyone who doesn't have a lot of damage to talk on here as well without being offended by the term i used. my personal goal is to finally have my natural hair back the way it used to be before i died and bleached. i know hair dying is an expression of opinion and what not; i've done it too and the majority of my friends will change their hair color and texture consistently [very unhealthy but they like to have a new look]. but when it comes to the thread, the purpose was for people to reflect on the chemicals we use on our hair and bodies and are surrounded by daily and how they impact our health, hair growth, and lives.

[enfys]

Please don't take what I say now the wrong way, but you still seem to be certain that all hair that has touched chemicals is damaged. I don't know why you think this is the case?

There are many of us posting here who have by no means got damaged hair despite what we use to wash or style it. I would not dream of saying I have damaged hair; I rarely find splits and when I do they are at the ends and not in my length. However, I wash with a SLS shampoo. Is my hair therefore damaged? In what way? Natural things are sometimes damaging or irritants too, like cinnamon oil. I can't remmeber if it was here or on another forum that one woman mildly burnt herself by not diluting it enough. It is beneficial to hair in small amounts, but very bad if you get it wrong.

You may find plenty of things of interest in the herbal recipies section; there are guides to herbal washing and so on in the articles section too.

I'm basing this on you saying the following: "i am very eager for anyone who doesn't have a lot of damage to talk on here as well".

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm being mean or pedantic or anything. I know you are a new member and I'm probably creating a bad first impression of myself to you. I just don't want people to feel hurt by an idea that hair that has been helped to health and beauty by anything from a lab isn't valid or something because most of us fall into that category.

Again, I am not saying this to be mean, I'm trying to be constructive :flower:

ETA: This is also an interesting topic I can't remember seeing done before so thank you for starting it.

[Lianna]

I would like to see more processed healthy heads around here, maybe I don't search enough, I have seen some. I feel sorry I dye my hair, but isn't damaged, in fact, it was drier when it wasn't dyed, because I didn't care for it properly.

I tried to quit because a lot of people made me feel bad about it, that I wouldn't have the healthiest hair I could get. However I feel much happier with my dyed hair, which is still very soft, doesn't tangle almost at all, that's good enough for me. It is still very short, but I don't think that's gonna change because I've had it longer before.

I think we need more threads to help people stop being sorry about processing their hair.

[jenwexler]

I did try to maintain it when it was processed. taht's why i died in black more than once...to bring back the shine...which i know sounds odd....but that was one of the only ways to make it soft and healthy looking again. i feel like even though i took care of it and didn't always straighten it, it was bad for me....or for my hair type....maybe it's jsut my hairtype that doesn't take to it well?

oh and i died to black to bring it "back to normal" ...it didn't work out for me like it used to. but that's just me...it's probably different for other people

[Carolyn]

I would like to see more processed healthy heads around here, maybe I don't search enough, I have seen some. I feel sorry I dye my hair, but isn't damaged, in fact, it was drier when it wasn't dyed, because I didn't care for it properly.

I tried to quit because a lot of people made me feel bad about it, that I wouldn't have the healthiest hair I could get. However I feel much happier with my dyed hair, which is still very soft, doesn't tangle almost at all, that's good enough for me. It is still very short, but I don't think that's gonna change because I've had it longer before.

I think we need more threads to help people stop being sorry about processing their hair.I certainly agree with you that those of us who chose to dye our hair should stop being apologetic about it. There is nothing to apologize for. And I also feel there is no need to apologize for using the word "virgin" in regards to hair. I've heard it used in connection with olive oil and wool for years. It's simply another meaning to the word :shrug:

[ktani]

I use an SLES based shampoo and catnip as my colour/conditioner. My hair is not damaged. It has been in pretty bad shape when I used certain herbal rinses and when I used certain conventional shampoos and conditioners.

Now my hair is almost waist length (I need a trim), and I have no split ends and minimal mechanical breakage.

I agree that conventional shampoos and conditioners can contain dangerous levels of chemicals. So can all natural ones. It is about how a product is formulated and good manufactuting practices, as well as careful research and compliance with regulations.

It is not a black and white issue by any means.

I have also seen and read reports here of those who use conventional dye and lightening products, with no special treatments done and their hair is undamaged. I started 2 threads, one on Honey lightening and the other on minimizing conventional dye and lightening damage, and I assure you, that there are beautiful heads of hair in both threads, that are very healthy.

[jenwexler]

what does cat nip do?

[ktani]

what does cat nip do?

Here you go, http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/vbjournal.php?do=article&articleid=118.

And welcome to LHC!

[Nat242]

<snip>

Yes, but it's not as though those definitions are unrelated to one another. It's the same basic meaning that can be applied in various ways. Adj 5 aside on that list, those definitions all basically mean untouched/pure, whether we're talking about oil or snow or a woman.

[Deborah]

I guess my hair qualifies as virgin, as I have never dyed, permed, hennaed, used styling products, etc. On my current, tailbone length hair I have never even used a hair dryer or shampoo.

As one lady pointed out, the term 'virgin' has, as one if it's actual dictionary definitions: Existing in native or raw form; not processed or refined. I therefore do not take offense to anyone using the term with respect to hair. (I would have thought this was obvious, as we are talking about one's hair, not one's sex life. Therefore there is no moral judgment that even can be made.)

[Toadstool]

I i'd like to know what people think about chemicals in haircare..but when it comes to the thread, the purpose was for people to reflect on the chemicals we use on our hair and bodies and are surrounded by daily and how they impact our health, hair growth, and lives.

To quote Wikipedia:

In chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry), a chemical substance is a material (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material) with a specific chemical composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poopical_compound&action=edit&redlink=1).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance#cite_note-0)
A common example of a chemical substance is pure water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_%28molecule%29); it has the same properties and the same ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio) of hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) to oxygen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen) whether it is isolated from a river or made in a laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory)

"Chemical" does not mean anything bad or dangerous!!
Some people think if a substance is labelled "natural" it must be good for you whereas if it has been synthesized or manufactured in a lab it must be bad for you.
At various times my hair has been damaged through bleaching and hair dye and perming. I have not experienced any damage that I have been aware of from any shampoo or conditioner that I have used.:)

[julliams]

To me the term means no dyeing or chemically changing your hair (such as perms, straightening etc). So in my view my hair is virgin.

I use commercial shampoos and conditioners which I have to assume have chemicals in them. I also use heat to style my hair once in a while for a change - but not more than once a month (if that).

I think it's more about knowing what your natural colour and texture are. I know many people who have no idea of either.

[kwaniesiam]

In the beauty industry we define virgin hair as hair that has never been chemically colored or texturized and has not had excessive use of heat styling applied. Demi and semi colors apply under chemical coloring but a rinse does not (washes out in one shampoo). Use of shampoos and conditioners do not factor in to whether your hair is considered virgin or not by our definition.

Virgin hair can be just as unhealthy as chemically processed hair. It all depends on how you take care of it.

[HintOfMint]

This thread is a bit amusing because I see some of the same sorts of comments that can be easily associated with discourse in ACTUAL virginity.
1. The notion that virgin hair means better
2. Definitions of virgin hair (anything but... can be virgin but heatstyled into oblivion... don't want to think about the actual virginity counterpart:eyebrows:)
3. Justifications for not having virgin hair (dying and the like)
4. Admissions of shame for, say, covering up gray hair instead of letting it grow natural.

I just find it funny, and a bit telling. This is a very cool thread, and it is interesting to see all the perspectives.

[FrannyG]

I would like to see more processed healthy heads around here, maybe I don't search enough, I have seen some. I feel sorry I dye my hair, but isn't damaged, in fact, it was drier when it wasn't dyed, because I didn't care for it properly.

I tried to quit because a lot of people made me feel bad about it, that I wouldn't have the healthiest hair I could get. However I feel much happier with my dyed hair, which is still very soft, doesn't tangle almost at all, that's good enough for me. It is still very short, but I don't think that's gonna change because I've had it longer before.

I think we need more threads to help people stop being sorry about processing their hair.

Well, we do have a chemically colour treated hair thread here (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=889). There are many of us who dye our hair and there are many women here with extreme lengths who use permanent colour and have beautiful hair.

I see a lot of healthy heads of chemically coloured hair here at LHC, and I for one don't feel bad one bit for colouring my hair. I like the colour of my hair. I choose to colour away my grey because I enjoy the way it looks. I apologize to no one, least of all to myself.

I care for my hair better than many in other ways, my hair looks and feels healthy, and I don't have a split end. Not one.

I used to get split ends before my hair reached APL, back in the day, before I ever started colouring my hair. I've just learned to care for it properly now.

My hair is not as thick and lush as some members here, but it wouldn't be even if I didn't colour. That's just the way it is.

I am really tired of anyone being made to feel bad for colouring their hair, and I honestly feel that sometimes having "virgin hair" is thought to be a badge of honour, in spite of what condition a person's hair is in. That's my main objection to the whole "virgin hair" thing.

We're all here to grow the best hair we can, our own way, whether that means colouring, blow-drying, using cones--whatever.

I think we ought to be supporting one another, however each individual's quest may differ from our own.

[Lianna]

Thanks for the link Franny, I'll take a look! :)

[Centaur]

Well, we do have a chemically colour treated hair thread here (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=889). There are many of us who dye our hair and there are many women here with extreme lengths who use permanent colour and have beautiful hair.

I see a lot of healthy heads of chemically coloured hair here at LHC, and I for one don't feel bad one bit for colouring my hair. I like the colour of my hair. I choose to colour away my grey because I enjoy the way it looks. I apologize to no one, least of all to myself.

I care for my hair better than many in other ways, my hair looks and feels healthy, and I don't have a split end. Not one.

I used to get split ends before my hair reached APL, back in the day, before I ever started colouring my hair. I've just learned to care for it properly now.

My hair is not as thick and lush as some members here, but it wouldn't be even if I didn't colour. That's just the way it is.

I am really tired of anyone being made to feel bad for colouring their hair, and I honestly feel that sometimes having "virgin hair" is thought to be a badge of honour, in spite of what condition a person's hair is in. That's my main objection to the whole "virgin hair" thing.

We're all here to grow the best hair we can, our own way, whether that means colouring, blow-drying, using cones--whatever.

I think we ought to be supporting one another, however each individual's quest may differ from our own.

I don't know where this anger is coming from, but I am still fairly new to this forum so maybe I have missed some threads and missed some derogatory posts. I certainly don't think I deserve the anger directed at me.

People ask each other all the time on this forum about their hair color and their waves and curls. People answer that it is their natural hair color or they use henna/manic panic/etc and give details on their coloring procedures if asked for more details. People ask about each other's waves and curls, and people answer that their hair formed the curls/waves naturally air dried straight out of the shower or they have straight hair naturally but bunned to get their waves or rag curled or whatever and provide details on their procedures if requested.

My statement about my hair is that it is how it is. It doesn't make it any better or worse than anyone else's hair. It is not a badge of honor. It is just my hair. I don't color, perm, etc because I don't want to at this time. I can't be bothered to do anything with the color, and I am currently ok with it as is. Maybe I will want something different in the future.

Why do I have to justify not doing anything with my hair anymore than you have to justify coloring your hair? Really, none of us has to justify anything we do to our hair to anyone but ourselves.

[pepperminttea]

My hair's undyed, and unpermed or straightened. It's used to get heat-styled (by enthusiastic, often inebriated friends) about once or twice a year, but that's so long ago it might well have all grown out since. I use sulphate shampoo at the moment (though I'm cone-free), since returning to a hard water area I found it impossible to avoid build-up without them.

In terms of the LHC definition, I'd say my hair is as close to 'virgin' as it'll get, but I'm not a big fan of the term either. Can we think of a new word? Or just refer to it as 'in its natural state' or something?

[jenwexler]

I don't know where this anger is coming from, but I am still fairly new to this forum so maybe I have missed some threads and missed some derogatory posts. I certainly don't think I deserve the anger directed at me.

People ask each other all the time on this forum about their hair color and their waves and curls. People answer that it is their natural hair color or they use henna/manic panic/etc and give details on their coloring procedures if asked for more details. People ask about each other's waves and curls, and people answer that their hair formed the curls/waves naturally air dried straight out of the shower or they have straight hair naturally but bunned to get their waves or rag curled or whatever and provide details on their procedures if requested.

My statement about my hair is that it is how it is. It doesn't make it any better or worse than anyone else's hair. It is not a badge of honor. It is just my hair. I don't color, perm, etc because I don't want to at this time. I can't be bothered to do anything with the color, and I am currently ok with it as is. Maybe I will want something different in the future.

Why do I have to justify not doing anything with my hair anymore than you have to justify coloring your hair? Really, none of us has to justify anything we do to our hair to anyone but ourselves.

I noticed the anger too and I didn't mean to offend anyone...especially by the term virgin because that's what hairstylists will tell me untouched hair is called. i'm curious to see who the purest of the pure because i find it interesting that my teacher said common things will damage hair...i doesn't mean i have issues with people who have damage....i STILL have damage...and most of the damage i have was a choice. i have had processed hair to make a statement....then i processed it to look natural to grow it out. i don't need to justify my hair choices or exclude myself from anyone...my hair has been through many of the hair categories on here and i'm only 18. i want to enjoy having healthy hair and one day i will return to the dye for my gray hairs in the future....my new choice is to have natural...not because it is "superior." It's because when I see i look good trying to "appear" natural by dying it back to my original color, i wonder if maybe i can appear healthy...by actually being healthy. and please don't take that as offensive either...assuming i'm saying dyed hair is unhealthy......yours my not be...but mine certainly was no matter how much i nurtured it. i was mostly curious to see what pure hair actually looks like since my teacher raised that idea of the toxic chemicals. since it is my goal to achieve that, i would like to sort of see how it would turn out and what ppl actually think of unprocessed hair and what not. i deeply apologize for any one i might have offended...or if i offended anyone again.

[bte]

That's a good question. I have seen "virgin hair" used to mean several different things, most definitions being either hair which has not been chemically treated (and you are right to say that nowadays, unless you use something very special or WO washing, that's almost impossible to achieve) or hair which has never been cut or trimmed.
But to answer your question, I have never used anything other than shampoo and conditioner, so yes, except for what's in those products. As to the "never cut or trimmed" definition, as I have not trimmed since 1994, every hair on my head must have gone through at least one cycle of growth, so my answer is yes to that definition too.

[Lianna]

From what I understand you would like to see some people who never used any chemicals...there's some threads about water only and sebum only around. There's also some that clean with herbs. This would be the "purest" hair to you (what you're seeking to find here)? I'm sorry I can't be much help because I'm terrible with the search, almost never find what I look for! Maybe you should check out the herbal hair care section.

[jenwexler]

thank you guys for your help =] i also want to know how to feel about unprocessed hair...not that it is the best option for everyone....like what does it mean for you? i won't do WO washes because I create a lot of sebum i realized....but i found my own sulfate free shampoo that works for me....today was the first day i actually noticed how amazing my hair has looked with this shampoo and no heat styling or products. it actually is tame and i am proud i found something that works. i realize it is not for everyone.

[Lianna]

Everyone is so different, I'm glad you found something that worked for you. I can dye my hair a lot and not damage it, never had a split end but if I blow dry it once or use hot tools, my hair gets dry. Then I have to condition to fix it.

[jenwexler]

the fact that when i was 11 i used a box dye bleach for highlights set me off on a bad path lol. if i didn't start on that or so early, my dye history probably wouldn't have been so bad. only now is when i decided to go cold turkey on my old habits. conditioning seems to be the best way for me personally to tame it....

[Nat242]

From what I understand you would like to see some people who never used any chemicals...there's some threads about water only and sebum only around. There's also some that clean with herbs. This would be the "purest" hair to you (what you're seeking to find here)? I'm sorry I can't be much help because I'm terrible with the search, almost never find what I look for! Maybe you should check out the herbal hair care section.

Water IS a chemical. ;)

[Lianna]

Water IS a chemical. ;)

Lol, I even remembered another thread here saying this exact same thing as I was writing that post. I was just trying to understand her and maybe help her look in the right places. And hoping someone would post a link to those threads. :D

[Toadstool]

Water IS a chemical. ;)
I said that a few posts up and no-one even noticed...:(

[jenwexler]

to be technical everything is a chemical haha. so many different chemical reactions out there. water has done a lot to bring my hair back to life i think. problem is the water here in PA is really drying...but i have managed to deal with it.

[enfys]

What about the other chemicals in your sulphate free shampoo? None of them have any risks attached?

By the definitions suggested by this thread me and my totally damaged beyond repair since I wash twice a week with diluted Aussie hair should just slope off right about now. I have no idea what damage my hair is assumed to have. Never in my life has that suggestion been made.

I hope you succeed in your quest for finding virgin hair but please remember many of us tried that route then came back to conventional methods because it was bad for our hair. You probably have many years of experimenting until you find your routine and even then it may change seasonally etc. Don't rule things out yet, even unpure hair.

[jenwexler]

true. and i've been using nature's gate sulphate free shampoo. [orange bottle] for color treated hair. there is a list of ingredients it lacks on the back besides sulphate and its made of natural products. i have had no trouble with it so far and i love it. too lazy to check the ingredients right now but i will later =]

[Nat242]

I said that a few posts up and no-one even noticed...:(

I noticed. Just too lazy to quote you! :D

[FrannyG]

I don't know where this anger is coming from, but I am still fairly new to this forum so maybe I have missed some threads and missed some derogatory posts. I certainly don't think I deserve the anger directed at me.

People ask each other all the time on this forum about their hair color and their waves and curls. People answer that it is their natural hair color or they use henna/manic panic/etc and give details on their coloring procedures if asked for more details. People ask about each other's waves and curls, and people answer that their hair formed the curls/waves naturally air dried straight out of the shower or they have straight hair naturally but bunned to get their waves or rag curled or whatever and provide details on their procedures if requested.

My statement about my hair is that it is how it is. It doesn't make it any better or worse than anyone else's hair. It is not a badge of honor. It is just my hair. I don't color, perm, etc because I don't want to at this time. I can't be bothered to do anything with the color, and I am currently ok with it as is. Maybe I will want something different in the future.

Why do I have to justify not doing anything with my hair anymore than you have to justify coloring your hair? Really, none of us has to justify anything we do to our hair to anyone but ourselves.

My point, if you read my whole post, was that it would be nice if everyone here supported one another in a positive manner, no matter how we choose to grow our hair. That includes you; that includes me.

I must have missed something, because I haven't noticed anger directed at you.

When I was discussing the "badge of honour" thing, I'm talking about 4 1/2 years' worth of posts on this forum that I've read, and about people who attempt to make those of us who are not completely natural in one way or another feel "less than". I most certainly wasn't talking about you. I was talking about how there is a pervasive belief in certain quarters that having virgin hair (sometimes virgin hair that is never trimmed) is somehow seen as being "better" than the rest of us.

I did not and do not put you in that category. I admire your lovely unprocessed hair. It's really beautiful. You stated a fact, and I didn't get the impression that you were putting anyone down when you stated it.

Seriously, I don't think that there's a shred of anger here about anything you have said. And no, you should never feel the need to justify your unprocessed hair. I would just like to feel that those of us who do process our hair don't have to justify ourselves constantly, or feel the need to apologize either. Almost without exception, people who start a thread about colouring their hair seem sheepish when doing so.

I honestly doubt that even one post in this thread was directed at you in a negative manner, Centaur. :blossom:

[bte]

I've been thinking about the discussion over the use of the term "virgin hair". Although I agree with Igor that many deplorable things have been done to women over many generations, I feel that it is better for the word "virgin" to acquire as its main meaning a general idea of purity or naturalness. That will tend, I think, to lead away from its entirely outmoded use as a way of referring to a woman's "status".

I also think it is a pity if some feel that "virgin" hair is necessarily better than hair that is altered in some way. Just about all of us do things to make our hair look or feel better (in our eyes or others'), even if it just brushing or combing it. Although I originally answered yes to the OPs question, I wonder if I should amend my yes to a qualified yes on the grounds that I braid at night mainly in order to make my hair behave better during the day.

[ktani]

1. Now apparently, according to a video we watched, shampoos have many toxic chemicals like the infamous sulfate and other chemicals that can actually cause cancer! 2. I've seen girls with long dry damaged hair here that have "virgin" hair. Why is that? Simple. Toxic chemicals in their haircare products....and heat styling. Heat styling isn't natural either as we all know. Maybe virgin hair defines 3. the safe haircare before the 50s, before chemicals were used in cosmetology. 4. Maybe sulfate free shampoos and non-heat styling is the only way to truly achieve true virgin hair. 5. What do you think? How would you define virgin hair, knowing everyday things we may use, especially hair care products, are so damaging to our overall health in general?

I had to reread this to understand how the thread got to this point and I identified 5 key issues.

1. That must have been some video! The operative word is apparently. While there can and have been issues with conventional hair care product ingredients (as well as all natural ones) in the past, I have not read or heard of any reports of anyone getting cancer from sulfates and suing a cosmetics company for compensation. That would have hit the news big time and I have no doubt that it would have been tried and it is in fact a false statement (that sulfates cause cancer). What is currently on the shelves in most countries is safe. That cannot include every brand of every cosmetic, especially those that avoid regulation or are homemade.

2. That is a huge assumption. While you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, it is far from a simple answer and also not borne out by facts, if you choose to defend your opinion with them. There are countlesss natural products that are toxic, and natural products that can cause dryness, and hair routines that can cause damage, aside from synthetic chemicals and heat. Not all conventional chemicals are toxic or evil by any means.

3. The 1950's was not the era of safe hair care in particular either. There was a great deal unknown then about many chemicals, natural and synthetic, that had in fact been used in cosmetics before that time and are banned today. The fact that countries all over the world are banning cosmetics ingredients today, and that includes natural ones too in cosmetics is the result of decades of research, that is still ongoing and a testament to the fact that the issue is of great concern to those in authority, to regulate cosmetics.

4. Again, this is an assumption. There are a number of sulfate free hair care cosmetics that have been reported to leave the hair in less than desired condition. Revirginizing hair is not possible under certain circumstances and that is a different issue. I do not think virgin hair is preferable to non virgin hair in any case. It depends on many variables.

5. My health is fine, thank you. I think to look to blame all health issues on one's hair care cosmetics is reaching, unless one can establish a direct link. I most definitely think that can apply to using all natural products too though. There have been a number of reports here of negative reactions to natural products.

[FrannyG]

I had to reread this to understand how the thread got to this point and I identified the 5 key issues.

1. That must have been some video! The operative word is apparently. While there can and have been issues with conventional hair care product ingredients (as well as in so called all natural ones) in the past, I have not read or heard of any reports of anyone getting cancer from sulfates and suing a cosmetics company for compensation. That would have hit the news big time and I have no doubt would have been tried and is in fact a false statement (that sulfates cause cancer). What is currently on the shelves in most countries is safe. That cannot include every brand of every cosmetic, especially those that avoid regulation or are homemade.

2. That is a huge assumption. While you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, it is far from a simple answer and also not borne out by facts, if you choose to defend your opinion with them. There are countlesss natural products that are toxic, and natural products that can cause dryness, and hair routines that can cause damage, aside from synthetic chemicals and heat. Not all conventional chemicals are toxic or evil by any means.

3. The 1950's was not the era of safe hair care in particular either. There was a great deal unknown then about many chemicals, natural and synthetic, that had in fact been used in cosmetics before that time and are banned today. The fact that countries all over the world are banning cosmetics ingredients today, and that includes natural ones too in cosmetics is the result of decades of research, that is still ongoing and a testament to the fact that the issue is of great concern to those in authority to regulate cosmetics.

4. Again this is an assumption. There are a number of sulfate free hair care cosmetics that have been reported to leave the hair in less than desired condition. Revirginizing hair is not possible under certain circumstances and that is a different issue. I do not think virgin hair is preferable to non virgin hair in any case. It depends on many variables.

5. My health is fine, thank you. I think to look to blame all health issues on one's hair care cosmetics is reaching, unless one can establish a direct link. I most definitely think that can apply to using all natural products too though. There have been a number of reports here of negative reactions to natual products.

I agree with every point, ktani. And yes, there have been some very, very toxic products in use in both cosmetics and as hair dressings/styling lotions in many previous decades--well centuries, really. Actually the '50s was indeed a particularly scary decade in the cosmetic world, as you point out.

As for people who have virgin hair that looks damaged, it could simply be a case of friction damage, exposure to the elements, whatever; we have no way of knowing.

I don't know about you ktani, but in my 49 years, I've heard reports that just about everything from tomatoes to coffee to barbecued foods are carcinogenic, as well of course, as the air we breathe. We'd have to live in a bubble to avoid every so-called carcinogen. I'm not quite ready for the bubble yet. Actually, the material that the bubble is made with is likely a carcinogen.

[ktani]

I agree with every point, ktani. And yes, there have been some very, very toxic products in use in both cosmetics and as hair dressings/styling lotions in many previous decades--well centuries, really. Actually the '50s was indeed a particularly scary decade in the cosmetic world, as you point out.

As for people who have virgin hair that looks damaged, it could simply be a case of friction damage, exposure to the elements, whatever; we have no way of knowing.

I don't know about you ktani, but in my 49 years, I've heard reports that just about everything from tomatoes to coffee to barbecued foods are carcinogenic, as well of course, as the air we breathe. We'd have to live in a bubble to avoid every so-called carcinogen. I'm not quite ready for the bubble yet. Actually, the material that the bubble is made with is likely a carcinogen.

I edited for clarity and then punctuation before you replied, so I am leaving the edited version to stand.

I agree with you that scientists are finding new things every day that are possible health risks and I think it is great that they are doing so. I now eat less barbequed meat, although I do eat it. I still smoke, which I can in no way defend. I do not allow that to have me abandon all reason. I am completely without defence on that issue though.

What one can take out of all the research on health risks is paying more attention to product labels, modifying one's diet, reading up on current research, and buying hair care products from companies that can back up the safety of their products with answers to questions, that come from reputable, referenced sources.

[mellie89]

And if it's to be considered only when the hair hasn't had any contact with chemicals and it's "pure", it's hard to get virgin hair in the kind of enviroment most of us live in. There's toxins in both air and water, in hairtoys that's not made of unlakeret wood, the fabric in your clothes, scrunchies and bandanas, the food you eat if it's not organic... not just schampoo and other hairproducts.



I like this post a lot.

Take it from someone studying environmental engineering... there are toxins EVERYWHERE. It is impossible to remove every source of toxins from your environment. You aren't going to achieve the "purest of the pure" hair by using shampoo without sulfates. There is literally no way to avoid chemicals and toxins. They are in the water you drink, the food you eat, the air you breathe, and every product you use. It's a fact of life. If people got cancer from using conventional shampoo and conditioner, the life expectancy wouldn't be almost 80 years in America. We'd all be doomed.

I understand trying to achieve healthier hair by using more natural products. Plenty of people here do that. Just saying, there is no way to achieve perfectly "pure" hair because you are always going to be surrounded by toxins.

[ktani]

I like this post a lot.

Take it from someone studying environmental engineering... there are toxins EVERYWHERE. It is impossible to remove every source of toxins from your environment. You aren't going to achieve the "purest of the pure" hair by using shampoo without sulfates. There is literally no way to avoid chemicals and toxins. They are in the water you drink, the food you eat, the air you breathe, and every product you use. It's a fact of life. If people got cancer from using conventional shampoo and conditioner, the life expectancy wouldn't be almost 80 years in America. We'd all be doomed.

I understand trying to achieve healthier hair by using more natural products. Plenty of people here do that. Just saying, there is no way to achieve perfectly "pure" hair because you are always going to be surrounded by toxins.

That is very true. It is about minimizing risks overall. While I do take certain risks, as I have said, that does not mean that I ignore others.

All natural does not automatically equate with safe. Conventional products do not automatically equate with health hazzards.

The key to me is staying informed.

[nicolezoie]

BTE and a couple others touched on one additional "virgin" qualifier, and that was hair also had to be un-cut. That's what I learned from this board and others on what the definition of virgin hair is supposed to include.

This kinda sounds like a political-correctness discussion rather than a fact clarification discussion. :)

[jenwexler]

You know what I always wondered? How native americans used to grow hair. Before white men came to America, they didn't even know what disease was. Imagine their life style. I think our hair kind of reflects our life style in a way. Same with our skin right?

[FrannyG]

That is very true. It is about minimizing risks overall. While I do take certain risks, as I have said, that does not mean that I ignore others.

All natural does not automatically equate with safe. Conventional products do not automatically equate with health hazzards.

The key to me is staying informed.

People really get caught up with the "all natural" thing, but sometimes to a fault. Poison ivy is all natural, but I won't be rubbing it on my skin; skunk's spray is all natural, but I won't be putting it in my hair; hemlock is all natural, but I certainly won't be ingesting it.

You're right. Staying informed about all things we use or ingest really is the key.

[ktani]

You know what I always wondered? How native americans used to grow hair. Before white men came to America, they didn't even know what disease was. Imagine their life style. I think our hair kind of reflects our life style in a way. Same with our skin right?

I have not looked that up yet. However, I think that you have a highly idealized view of that era. And what era exactly? People from all countries and cultures suffered from diseases since time immemorial. What indigenous peoples of North America died from I would think, included diseases by definition, that are still around today.

They may not have made certain connections between what they were ingesting and applying to themselves, the way that European and other peoples did not, especially if the toxins were cumulative and had a traditional history. I am referring to a time prior to contact with Euopeans, when their isolation had given them no immunity to European diseases.

I used to romanticize about past times too. The reality in many cases is that "life back when" was harsh and people had much shorter lifespans for a number of reasons.

Here you go, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19145693. I do not have full access to the article.
"The main goal of this article is to remind us all that cancer, a disease very often considered as being an "epidemic" disease of modern times, actually affected human kind almost since its origin."

And http://www.cancerdecisions.com/speeches/galen1989.html.
"The Greek physician and writer Galen (129 C.E.-ca 199) was well acquainted with tumors. The index to K&#252;hn's edition lists over a hundred references to tumors (onkoi) and another hundred or so to cancer per se (karkinos)."

About the author, http://www.cancerdecisions.com/content/view/12/34/lang,english/.

[jenwexler]

i will definitely check those links out after i eat some sushi =]

[ktani]

i will definitely check those links out after i eat some sushi =]

Enjoy your meal!

I just finished mine.

Here is one more link for you too, full text.
http://utmj.org/ojs/index.php/UTMJ/article/viewFile/1252/1140
"Concepts of Cancer from Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century"

[jenwexler]

The sushi was great. =D And it's interesting that cancer can even be linked back to Ancient Egypt.

[ktani]

The sushi was great. =D And it's interesting that cancer can even be linked back to Ancient Egypt.

I love sushi! I am glad that you found the link interesting.

[Toadstool]

I noticed. Just too lazy to quote you! :D
I went to click the "Like" button on this one :)

[jenwexler]

Does anyone find sushi good for health in general? If I could afford to eat it every day I would. I just love it. The taste is so good especially with spicy mayo =] I'm sure the oils from the fish are really good for metabolism but I don't know what I believe about the mercury in it. I hear pregnant women can't eat sushi because of it but I haven't heard much else. It doesn't really stop me from eating it, but I am curious.

[Spike]

Sushi--it's not just the toxins, but the possibility of parasites that make this dangerous for pregnant women. Just like "don't clean the cat box"--there's a cross-species parasite in kitty feces.

Just another example of be careful what you put in your body and all-natural does not mean "healthy! and good for you!!"

[jenwexler]

Very true. But i don't eat sushi for the health. I eat it because it tastes so good =] Since it's my favorite food I should know the positives and negatives I guess. According to my friend's mother who is a chief, a professional sushi chief spends 7 years becoming a chief and 2 years learning to prepare rice alone. As for the nature of the fish, she said it is actually frozen after caught to kill parasites and what not. BUT things can go wrong, and eating sushi from places who do not take preparation seriously probably don't look out for that sort of thing. Which is unfortunate because when I go to a restaurant here, some of the people who prepare it for me look unsure of their skill which gets me worried. There's only one place I actually trust in the area.

[StephanieB]

Maybe virgin hair defines the safe haircare before the 50s, before chemicals were used in cosmetology.
Well, that ^ is quite incorrect.

Some of the worst haircare practices pre-date ... shall we say ... 1960, actually. Just off the top of my head - heated irons and pokers over a wood or coal fire to curl hair, or straighten it; hacking hair off with a straight razor; early permanent wave chemicals; early color/dye chemicals (even those that are 'natural', as in 'found in nature' and not synthesized); severe teasing and moderate-to-severe back-combing; singeing it with coals (or accidentally singeing it over a cookfire); braiding it tightly (often right to the scalp) and keeping it like that for weeks at a time witout ever letting it loose(er) or washing it; keeping it covered 24/7/365 with caps (or veils, earlier on); brushing it harshly and often. And there's more, but I think I made my point.

I can only speak for American English - but here, the term "virgin hair" means hair that is unprocessed (not processed with chemicals). No dye, no color (henna is a chemical process), no perms or straightening, etc. Washing your hair isn't "processing it chemically". Neither is it going naturally lighter by it just by being out in the sun, for example, when you're out-of-doors. In fact, I'd say that using any regular conditioners, oils, foods, and such, also would not count as "chemically processing", either. But that last is at least arguable.

In the United States (at least) anyone who defines "virgin hair" as anything beyond the scope of what I just said is - at least linguistically - stretching it too far to be considered accurate.

Of course, if you must define it differently for the sake of your class and your professor, then by all means - do what you must to get a good grade; don't sacrifice your grade for the sake of linguistics.

[embee]

As far as I am concerned, my hair is "virgin". It is certainly unprocessed. The last coloring I had was in the early 1960s. The last perm I had was in the early 1980s. My hair was "boy cut" in about 1989, so what is growing out now is just me, my hair, no color, no perms. I do not have or use hairspray or henna or gel. At the moment I don't even use conditioner! ;)

[jenwexler]

As far as I am concerned, my hair is "virgin". It is certainly unprocessed. The last coloring I had was in the early 1960s. The last perm I had was in the early 1980s. My hair was "boy cut" in about 1989, so what is growing out now is just me, my hair, no color, no perms. I do not have or use hairspray or henna or gel. At the moment I don't even use conditioner! ;)

Cool :) I'll be on my way to that path. I only have a little damage left on my hair which I will eventually cut off once it grows out a little more. Do you keep your hair clean by water only?

[embee]

No, I use very diluted whatever cheap shampoo is here.... probably Suave of some sort. Cheap is the operative word, and *extremely* diluted - one squirt in a big cup of hot water. It works better, for me. Instead of one big thick glob of shampoo I have lots of lathery liquid. It runs through my hair better. And since it's diluted so much, I have not needed conditioner to control static. We'll see if that changes come dry cold winter weather. ;)

[jenwexler]

That's really interesting. I have some suave in my dorm somewhere but it was never opened. I definitely found what works for my hair type but it's a nice idea to consider. During my in between days I like to spritz my hair with some mountain water my mother gave me. I guess it's more sentimental than anything else that makes it seem like it works wonders on my hair, but I don't use any other water on the in between days. I've noticed that I create a lot of sebum too, probably because of the vitamins I take now. I'm not grossed out by it. I'm starting to really fall in love with my hair =] hahaha