Different strokes

[getoffmyskittle]

I've been questioning this idea that we have, that "different methods/products/routines work for different people," from a historical standpoint. I'm sure we can all agree that the vast and various world of haircare (and skin care, and cosmetics, and diet) is a fairly recent development. It seems like, in the past, things varied more by the culture than the individual. (This individualistic mindset is actually very American, though we're exporting it all over, which is hilariously ironic.)

So what does that mean about personal care? When you only had lard soap available, that was what you washed your hair with. Period. What happened if it "didn't work" for you, or if your water was hard? Was beauty as much a question of what worked with whose body chemistry as it was facial structure/coloring/body composition? Are our expectations now dramatically different?

[Intransigentia]

I would guess yes, with the 'healthy-looking' component of beauty especially. There would be people who just always have dry irritated skin, and since there's nothing else to try, there's not really any way to find evidence that it's the soap's fault. You'd probably just think it's how you innately are.

[Lamb]

Actually, I believe (and know from literary evidence) that people always did try to have as many different options for personal care as possible, within the obvious limits provided by the age they lived in. Human creativity and our penchant for inventing things has always been working.

Have you ever read The Vicar of Wakefield by Oliver Goldsmith, from 1761? I think there is a funny scene when the vicar's daughters are preparing "washes" for their faces, whatever that means, and the vicar "accidentally" tips the concoctions over. Or there is Wives and Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell - Molly is scolded by her stepmother about her hopelessly curly hair, and can't she wet it down to make it straight? Whereupon Molly replies that it only gets curlier if it's wet. Etc.)

What I mean to say is that even basic lard soap can be prepared in different ways. And let's face it, when you wash your hair once a month, wear updos, false hair, and wigs, and never go out without a bonnet or hat, you don't need to vary your routine as much as we do these days when our heads are in full display. But certainly, people have always tried to have more options available, and individual needs depending on hairtype/skintype were always taken care of to a certain degree.

[Madora]

It seems to me that there's a greater emphasis on achieving what ever "look" you're after as quickly as possible, regardless if the stuff you're using is actually good for your hair (in the long run). People don't want to wait for results. They want them yesterday!

Those tv ads with the stunning, flawless hair models are hard to ignore. The viewers don't understand that those models are just a "hook" to draw them in. For all we know, the models don't even use the product they're advertising!

[littlenvy]

It seems to me that there's a greater emphasis on achieving what ever "look" you're after as quickly as possible, regardless if the stuff you're using is actually good for your hair (in the long run). People don't want to wait for results. They want them yesterday!

Those tv ads with the stunning, flawless hair models are hard to ignore. The viewers don't understand that those models are just a "hook" to draw them in. For all we know, the models don't even use the product they're advertising!
That ^ :)

I totally agree.

[MsBubbles]

So what does that mean about personal care? When you only had lard soap available, that was what you washed your hair with. Period. What happened if it "didn't work" for you, or if your water was hard?

I don't have anything intelligent to add, but I have pondered what you're saying (above), and have thought to myself that I would've just looked awful if I only had lard soap. Maybe that's why all those outrageous white wigs were so popular among nobility.

I remember seeing an educational video back many years ago when I was in middle school. We were studying the Iron Age, and they showed the women washing their long hair by slopping mud all over their scalps and through their ends. I wondered how that could ever have gotten their hair clean, but since being on LHC it makes a whole lot more sense to me now.

So the commoners probably washed their hair with mud, and the nobles wore wigs. Class-based options!

[Anje]

Well, in addition to lard soap, people have always had the options to oil their hair, or to not wash it with soap. My hair did pretty well with WO, and while the ends got a bit dry, I think that if I'd done that from the time when they first grew out of my scalp, they might have taken well to WO and oil alone. As is, they like conditioner.

Washing with eggs or putting substances like milk or yogurt in for conditioning have also been options forever.

[Pyvsi]

For all we know, the models don't even use the product they're advertising!

:applause:
Tell me about it! I'm still amazed at how a notorious lace-front wig-wearing singer can be the spokesmodel for Loreal hair color. Seriously? You dye your wigs with shimmering color - because you're worth it - instead of just ordering the wig in the color you want?
:rolleyes:

[HairFaerie]

I don't think individual routines for beauty are new at all. Beauty aides were numerous in many cultures (Greek, Roman, Chinese and Egyptian come to mind offhand). There were many types of herbs and oils available (both plant and animal). So, I am not really convinced that these were not taken advantage of, especially by upper class women.
Now, if you are talking about people like early US pioneers or peasants, then perhaps their resources might have been a bit limited due to the traveling, etc. But some of them too had very skilled knowledge of indigenous herbs. But the women were usually working on the farm, etc., plus pioneers were usually devout Christians. Those things may have prevented them from being focused on their beauty routine.
But, in a lot of other cultures throughout time, I think for sure they focused on individual beauty and had many thing available to them depending on hair/skin type.

[virgo75]

I would guess yes, with the 'healthy-looking' component of beauty especially. There would be people who just always have dry irritated skin, and since there's nothing else to try, there's not really any way to find evidence that it's the soap's fault. You'd probably just think it's how you innately are.

2nd this.


Well, in addition to lard soap, people have always had the options to oil their hair, or to not wash it with soap. Washing with eggs or putting substances like milk or yogurt in for conditioning have also been options forever.

And this.
There have probably always been options, but they were different options based on the area, culture, and what was naturally available.


:applause:
Tell me about it! I'm still amazed at how a notorious lace-front wig-wearing singer can be the spokesmodel for Loreal hair color. Seriously? You dye your wigs with shimmering color - because you're worth it - instead of just ordering the wig in the color you want?
:rolleyes:

:lol:

I've noticed the irony of this as well.
Which is why I never buy products based on commercials or advertisements.

I usually choose based on ingredients and scent.
Ok, ok.
Scent first, then ingredients. :p