Lion of the Blogosphere

1988 peak hair?


maj writes in a comment:

I think you have to go still further in the decade – ’80s fashion got bigger and flashier as the decade wore on, and changes in fashion occurred much more dramatically and quickly in that decade than at any time since. If I had to guess I’d say peak hair occurred approximately 1988. Things started to calm down at the very end of the decade as the zeitgeist began its slow downshift into grunge era despair-chic.

OK, above is a picture of the tri-Delta sorority at University of Maryland College Park in 1988.

* * *


And above, Demi Moore from St. Elmo’s Fire in 1985.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 5, 2016 at 5:17 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

36 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Demi Moore proves once again that a beautiful woman can wear anything and stiil sttract men. Not so most of the sisters, unless thembrothers are drunk.

    When Hesburgh made Notre Dame dry, the students (all men then) carried signs: Do youmexpect us to date these women sober?

    bob sykes

    January 5, 2016 at 5:36 pm

  2. Such a strange religious cult.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    January 5, 2016 at 5:36 pm

  3. The look Iike Orthodox Jewish girls today.


    January 5, 2016 at 6:02 pm

  4. Girls may have only wore their hair like that before going to parties or whatever.


    January 5, 2016 at 6:08 pm

  5. No discussion of 1988 is complete without reference to “Mercedes Boy”:

    Abelard Lindsey

    January 5, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    • Straight men should hate that song as much now as they did then.


      January 5, 2016 at 8:15 pm

  6. I always thought Demi Moore looked somewhat ethnic, although I’m pretty sure she isn’t at all. Too indifferent to wiki.

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 5, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    • I looked it up. She’s part Cherokee.


      January 5, 2016 at 8:41 pm

    • Believe she’s of mostly Greek extraction. Not that long ago, many considered that to be “ethnic.”

      Sgt. Joe Friday

      January 5, 2016 at 9:27 pm

  7. what does the board think about there being a recession in 2016. I am going on the record as predicting one. Let’s get everybody else’s call.

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 5, 2016 at 7:07 pm

    • Obama won’t let a recession happen until after the election in November.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 5, 2016 at 7:32 pm

      • Presidents don’t have as much control to influence the economy in a positive way as many people think. Mostly what they can do is step aide and not get in the way. OTOH, presidents have a tremendous ability to bring harm to the economy by implementing stupid policies. This applies to Republicans and Democrats alike, BTW. Housing bubble anyone? Clinton and Bush 43 both thought it was a swell idea to encourage people to buy homes they could not afford.

        What Obama can do is to lean on various cabinet departments to fudge their numbers to give the appearance of a healthy economy, e.g. GDP growth, which will then be quietly “revised downward” at a later date.

        Sgt. Joe Friday

        January 6, 2016 at 11:36 am

      • They can temporarily ramp up government spending and direct the Fed to lower interest rates.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 6, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    • Construction by me is BOOMING! My kids’ businesses are booming! My friends are raking it in. I, in my own little way, am passing six figures, which is insane, because I’m not worth it, objectively speaking. The view from the ground is positive for the Jews. I dunno how it is for other folks or for the office rats. My boss is offering to pay me what I need to stop doing side jobs. I’m taking him up on it. Soon I’m gonna have tons of time on my hands to do all sorts of fun stuff. Everything looks terrific, but the best thing is that Trump is gonna win! A mild Recession may happen, but probably not, it won’t affect me much, or at least this is what I think.

      We are living in very exciting times, mates. I think there is tons of opportunity right now.


      January 5, 2016 at 7:53 pm

      • I, in my own little way, am passing six figures,

        Does that mean your take home after (not paying) taxes is the equivalent of what an honest tax paying person making six figures would take home?

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        January 5, 2016 at 8:33 pm

      • Yes, at this point, but by the end of 2016, who knows? I dunno. My boss is buying another company, he claims that if things go well I can make 250,000 eventually . I don’t believe it, but 150,000 is doable. He doesn’t have cash to give me even now, I launder it myself, lol.

        You keep saying ‘honest’, but I’ve paid a fortune in my corporate years. My kids have legit business and earn and pay a fortune in taxes now. So our tribe has to rent forever, not to be able to afford the best education and medical care? Why? Until you cover your basics, which require $250,000 after tax for a normal family, it’s a jungle out there. Survival of the fittest, raw evolution in action. You make money and you procreate and you survive or you are history.

        Now, it would be nice to be fully legit, but it’s a luxury that you need a lot of money to afford.


        January 5, 2016 at 11:05 pm

      • Yakov, admitted ex-con and HVAC tech, claims to be a beneficiary of “survival of the fittest”. Doesn’t get any better than this.

        Vladivostok 2000

        January 6, 2016 at 2:18 am

      • Honest tax paying person, please. President Trump is telling you that he was only able to accomplish what he did by oiling the political machine in NYC. He is telling you that his primary obligation was to his family, his partners and his workers, this is why he was doing it. Don’t make me laugh now. Check how Obama made his money before he came to the White House. Check it and stop this broken record – ‘honest tax paying person’ – it’s a legend.
        Half of the United Russia parliamentarians are dollar millioners. How? Clinton, US Congress are honest paying persons? Stop it, or I’m going to burst, mate.

        Listen mate, a house in Brooklyn goes for, say, a million +. How is a person supposed to be able to buy it? Give me ideas, come on. You don’t have any, so be quiet. Soon bananas will be the only affordable food to eat. We are supposed to become monkeys again becsuse of it? Ain’t happening.


        January 6, 2016 at 7:26 am

      • “Listen mate, a house in Brooklyn goes for, say, a million +. How is a person supposed to be able to buy it?”

        You’re supposed to go to Harvard so you can get a high-paying career.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 6, 2016 at 7:41 am

      • Go to Harvard just to afford a regular house? My cousin studied linguistics at Harvard and she knows a lot, but she would struggle to buy this house. You don’t make sense. A house in Bk should cost 300,000. Why? I don’t know, I just pulled it out of my hat because it makes sense to me.


        January 6, 2016 at 8:29 am

      • Because she’s a Harvard-educated woman, she will be able to marry a rich husband who can afford the house.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 6, 2016 at 8:57 am

      • You think people go to Harvard and study linguistics to become prostitutes? I don’t think so, but I can ask her if you want. Anyway, I’m talking about her total income together with her husband.


        January 6, 2016 at 9:01 am

    • This is a good blog, with a number of posts arguing in the affirmative.


      January 5, 2016 at 8:54 pm

      • Scared money makes no money.


        January 6, 2016 at 9:46 am

  8. I always thought of the 1960s beehive style as Peak Hair.


    January 5, 2016 at 7:24 pm

  9. Why has fashion remained the same from 1985 to 2015 relative to something like 1945 to 1975?


    January 5, 2016 at 8:49 pm

  10. An interesting comparison on this score is to watch Michael Mann’s LA Takedown, his 1989 proto-Heat, and then Heat (1995). LA Takedown has ’80s hair; Heat doesn’t. In fact, the ’90s were such a subdued decade style-wise, that the hairstyles and clothes in Heat don’t look dated at all today, 21 years later.

    Dave Pinsen

    January 5, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    • Video of LA Takedown below. Most of the women have big ’80s hair, and the male leads have mullets. Interesting cover of The Doors’ LA Woman on the soundtrack by Jane’s Addiction.

      Dave Pinsen

      January 5, 2016 at 11:29 pm

  11. A guido buddy from my male only Catholic high school (’89) with a fondness for babes with teased hair, tight jeans, and big bust would always say …”the higher the hair, the closer to God!”


    January 5, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    • I remember walking into a club in the mid-80s, big place, lots of people and blaring hair band music, and all of the girls had the teased hair, tight jeans AND WHITE LEATHER ANKLE BOOTS. I recall trying to find a woman who wasn’t wearing those things and having no luck.


      January 6, 2016 at 12:16 am

  12. I alluded to this in the other hair post, but big rock-video 80s hair was mostly a prole affectation, with some rebellious middle-class teenagers joining in. Even the huge hairspray mounds favored by rich Texas ladies betrayed them as high-prole.

    Sorority girls would aspire to upper-middle-class or upper-class (as they saw it anyway) hairstyles — sometimes hairsprayed for volume, but even then more understated than “big mall hair” — e.g., Ivana Trump / Marla Maples / Georgette Mosbacher / Linda Evans. The seated blonde at the right of the Tri-Delt photo is one example.


    January 5, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    • I agree that the big hair was prole. Ivy League girls form affluent New England protestant families didn’t have that hair. But Jappy girls from the NYC area did.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 5, 2016 at 10:46 pm

      • I agree, girls from top 10% avoided the teased hair, but that’s about it. Of course, college back then was only about 10% of the population (not like today where it is closer to 30%).


        January 6, 2016 at 12:23 am

  13. OT: Massive wave of sexual assaults on women in Germany during New Years by Muslim “refugees” just coming to light. German women literally had to run a gauntlet of groping Muslim hands, while having their clothes torn off in some cases (and even underwear in at least one instance). Tons of mainstream sources covering this, terrific amount of narrative collapse with regard to the Muslims favored by cucks like Merkel.


    January 5, 2016 at 10:58 pm

  14. Shawn

    January 5, 2016 at 11:15 pm

  15. It’s hard to be a woman. Every one treats you like a sex object. They don’t care about you mind, personality or soul. The hair, is she beautiful? Is she this? Is she that? All superficial attributes. Pretty beastly. I love hijab, I wish Jews wore it. It’s very dignified way to appear in public. Maybe this is why some want to transgender? I wouldn’t want to be a woman. I think the best for a woman is to combine the benefits of the technological advances and religion. A Christian is likely to better husband then an atheist. Women are treated like animals. This is true – they are looked over and talked about like they are horses or cows.

    This is funny. I was working by an old hassidic Jew and suddenly he goes: ‘Do it like my wife likes, I’m a feminist!’ I was laughing so hard! So he goes: ‘There is nothing wrong with feminism, I tell this to everyone!’ I actually agree with him in a sense of women’s rights and respect. This is good feminism. After talking to him, I also got a feeling that he was an atheist, so go figure.


    January 5, 2016 at 11:51 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: