# Did the U.S. military commission studies on the benefits of long vs. short hair? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 9, 2011, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593 "2011-12-09T05:11:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/21 "2011-12-11T16:10:42Z")
Obligatory quote from Skippy’s list: “16. Must get a haircut even if it tampers with my “Samson like powers”.” In the US Air Force, males much have their hair groomed to less than an inch and a quarter in bulk, and not touching the ears or the collar. Females can have up to 3 inches in bulk, and the hair must not go down to the collar unless they are in PT gear or wearing a gas mask. In both of the latter cases, the hair is pulled back into a ponytail that hangs down the back (tucked under the chem-suit in the case of a gas mask, of course). ---
**Author:** ![JerseyMarine2092](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8491ac/32.png) [@JerseyMarine2092](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JerseyMarine2092)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/22 "2011-12-11T16:49:41Z")
FWIW I find longer hair to be uncomfortable when spending large amounts of time in the field. It gets matted and greasy, and it bunches up and make the helmet uncomfortable. I prefer to get it cut short when I’m going to be spending a lot of time in the field. ---
**Author:** ![Damfino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Damfino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damfino)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/23 "2011-12-11T21:11:40Z")
> [@installLSC](#): > > Couple of questions: > –What is the currently allowed hair length in the U.S. Armed Forces? > –Are there any formally organized armed forces anywhere that do allow their soldiers (of either sex) to wear long hair? The [Dutch army](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_Netherlands) apparently allowed long hair from the 1970s to the end of conscription in the 1990s. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/24 "2011-12-11T21:14:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Fish Cheer** : > An eighteen-year-old recruit (that was back when there still was mandatory service for young men) then filed a complaint after his company commander had threatened him with three weeks of confinement for insubordination if he didn’t cut off his 10 inch ponytail. A military court found that the standing order violated basic human rights and was unconstitutional. Was the rights violation the haircut itself, or the double standard for men and women? In other words, could the military have stayed within the law by requiring men and women alike to get buzz cuts? ---
**Author:** ![Fish\_Cheer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fish_cheer/32/17179_2.png) [@Fish\_Cheer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish_Cheer)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/25 "2011-12-11T22:48:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Was the rights violation the haircut itself, or the double standard for men and women? In other words, could the military have stayed within the law by requiring men and women alike to get buzz cuts? That’s not made entirely clear in the article I linked to. Upon further research, it gets even more complicated and apparently there is no consensus after all. I will try to summarize [what I’ve found](http://www.deutsches-wehrrecht.de/WR-Urteile_Text_03.html#Haar-%20und%20Barterlass), but please take it with a grain of salt. I don’t know all that much about the structure of the legal system in Germany, and I know even less about the military. Anyway, here goes: There are two military courts of first instance, the _Truppendienstgerichte Nord_ and _Süd_, with jurisdiction for disciplinary matters in the north and south of Germany, respectively. Each of those courts in turn consists of several independent chambers. Now, the [article I had linked to](http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/vorab/0,1518,360998,00.html) was about a decision of the 4th chamber of the _Truppendienstgericht Nord_ in late 2004. They found that the army had wrongfully coerced the plaintiff to cut his hair, in violation of his right to free development of his personality (a fundamental right granted by article 2 of the [Basic Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany)). That was an ad hoc decision, though; they did _not_ challenge the standing order itself (the _[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]Zentrale Dienstvorschrift der Bundeswehr[/SIZE][/FONT]_[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2] ZDv 10/5[/SIZE][/FONT]), as I had incorrectly claimed above. The Ministry of Defense promptly stated that they had no intention of rescinding the order. In another case before the 1st chamber of the _Truppendienstgericht Süd_, the court found in March 2007 that ZDv 10/5 did not excessively infringe on article 2 of the Basic Law, neither was the double standard a violation of its article 3 (equality). This position was subsequently confirmed in several case-by-case decisions of the 8th chamber of the northern court. It seems as if the parliamentary ombudsman for the military keeps [pestering the ministry](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarerlass#K.C3.BCnftige_.C3.9Cberarbeitung_des_Haarerlasses.3F) about the situation, but so far to no avail. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/26 "2011-12-11T23:07:07Z")
> [@installLSC](#): > > Couple of questions: > –What is the currently allowed hair length in the U.S. Armed Forces? > –Are there any formally organized armed forces anywhere that do allow their soldiers (of either sex) to wear long hair? I would say the Sikh soldiers in the the Indian Army ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/27 "2011-12-11T23:50:58Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I would say the Sikh soldiers in the the Indian Army Sikh soldiers in the US Army. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/28 "2011-12-12T00:14:31Z")
For what it’s worth, when I was young I was given a book on Vietnam and instantly became hooked for some odd reason. I read every book on the subject I could find, especially first person special forces accounts because they were usually more interesting, and I’ve never heard of Native Americans being sought out for their tracking ability, or for any other reason for that matter. Nor do I remember Native Americans being overly common in the units. I know many did serve in special forces, but I don’t think every unit was assigned a tracker through some recruitment drive on the reservations. I can only remember reading about one, Billy Walkabout, who became the highest decorated Native American in the war. Good soldier, but I’ve never heard a word about his tracking ability. Special Forces did recruit locals like the Montagnards. Having lived their entire lives in the mountains and jungles of Vietnam, they _were_ famous for their tracking abilities. In their villages, they often wore loincloths and went barefoot in the jungle, so they were a lot like what us white folks think of the stereotypical Native American with mystical tracking abilities. I’ve never seen a photo of a Montagnard with long hair. ---
**Author:** ![SeldomSeen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ba0ec/32.png) [@SeldomSeen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeldomSeen)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/29 "2011-12-12T01:58:06Z")
FWIW, my dad, WW2 army vet, Pacific theater has mentioned that the army’s long-standing prohibition of beards on enlisted men was waived for those on the front lines. Seems light-skinned faces had a way of reflecting light on dark nights, making them a handy target. Everyone let their beards grow out while they were in the field. This has probably been done elsewhere too, although I suppose today it’s been supplanted by grease paint and other camouflage techinques. SS ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/30 "2011-12-12T04:14:49Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > Lots of things look like ass in formation. Different haircuts are authorized. Mustaches. Girls can put their hair up or cut it a bit shorter. Fat people look like ass. > > I mean, I know why they say the rule is there, it’s just an outdated rule. Differing haircuts are hardly noticeable with headgear worn in formation. Females’ hair is an entirely seperate issue, but I am just happy I dont have to deal with that. Leaders are too tolerant or too lazy with respect to the hairstyle worn by female Soldiers. The standard is simply not upheld. As for fat people… There is a standard for that too. If you have fat people in your formation, that is your leaders’ fault! They do look like ass and they need to shape up or ship out. Thankfully the new SMA is cracking down! Mustaches? ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/31 "2011-12-12T04:20:37Z")
And are you seriously saying that we should allow new standards that look like ass simply because we already have a couple that do now? That makes little sense. We shouldn’t be adding new, loser standards. Instead we should focus on tightening up the standards we presently have. Wash and wear uniforms for garisson office work and even semi-formal occassions? Why!? Dirty boots? Hell no! ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/32 "2011-12-12T06:40:33Z")
Interesting question… I never really thought about it much, except as others have mentioned for the “uniformity of look” factor. As long as I can remember, the idea of short hair was because of potential lice (or other parasitic) infestations, but I haven’t found anything that confirms this. It certainly seems logical. From a personal standpoint, wearing a crew cut is definitely the way to go when spending time in the field. It’s just more hygienic, easier to clean and cooler. ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/33 "2011-12-12T13:21:11Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Differing haircuts are hardly noticeable with headgear worn in formation. Females’ hair is an entirely seperate issue, but I am just happy I dont have to deal with that. Leaders are too tolerant or too lazy with respect to the hairstyle worn by female Soldiers. The standard is simply not upheld. > As for fat people… There is a standard for that too. If you have fat people in your formation, that is your leaders’ fault! They do look like ass and they need to shape up or ship out. Thankfully the new SMA is cracking down! > > Mustaches? Yes, mustsches. They look like ass. If we are gonna let people be their own self, let them do it. If not, stop with the laxness, is what my point is. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/34 "2011-12-12T15:00:53Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > Yes, mustsches. They look like ass. … Did they induct porn stars in the '70s? ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/35 "2011-12-12T15:42:23Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Did they induct porn stars in the '70s? Mustaches are authorized. Not big porn staches, but yes. Lots of soldiers wear them. Usually older guys and non-white guys. Not many younger white guys, IDKW. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/36 "2011-12-12T16:39:24Z")
> [@Fish\_Cheer](#): > > Until 2005, the German army had a standing order that required men’s hair to be short enough not to cover ears or eyes, while women only had to wear their hair in a way that did not interfere with military headgear. Not quite. When a lot of the 1968-generation was drafted, long hair was so prevalent that the Ministry of defence issued a “[hair net resolution](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarnetz-Erlass)” in 1971 and bought thousands of hairnets. The ridicule this generated in the population lead to quickly rescinding it in 1972 again. > [@](#): > > Im Verlauf der 1960er Jahre waren bei jungen Männern verbreitet Langhaar-Frisuren aufgekommen. Noch 1967 hatte ein Erlass ausdrücklich „das Tragen einer schulterlangen oder sonst feminin wirkenden Haartracht“ bei Soldaten untersagt. Insbesondere bei Wehrpflichtigen stieß diese Vorgabe auf Ablehnung. > > Der damalige Verteidigungsminister Helmut Schmidt erlaubte mit dem Haarnetz-Erlass das Tragen langer Haare im Dienst. Im Detail schrieb der Erlass vor, dass Haar und Bart gepflegt sein mussten und dass ein Haarnetz getragen werden musste, falls das lange Haar den Soldaten bei seinen Aufgaben behinderte. Die Bundeswehr rüstete sich dazu mit 740.000 Haarnetzen aus. > > Der Erlass kann als Ausdruck der allgemeinen Liberalisierung unter der sozialliberalen Koalition um Willy Brandt verstanden werden. Über seine eigentliche Bedeutung hinaus löste er eine breite, wenn auch nicht immer vollkommen ernst gemeinte Debatte aus. Ein Brigadegeneral der Bundeswehr warnte: “Eine Vernachlässigung im Anzug und im Benehmen des Soldaten ist für jedermann der Beweis für eine schlechte Disziplin. Mit ihr steht und fällt aber der Abschreckungswert und damit der Friedensbeitrag der Truppe.” Der Wehrbeauftragte des Bundestages nannte das Erscheinungsbild langhaariger Soldaten „schlampig und verdreckt“. > > \*During the 1960s, long hair had become widespread among young men. In 1967 still a resolution especially forbid soldiers to wear “shoulder-length or otherwise feminine-looking hair”. Especially with draftees this resolution met resistance. > > The then minister of defence Helmut Schmidt (a cool pragmatic guy) allowed with the hair net resolution to wear long hairs on duty. In detail the resolution required that hair and beard had to be clean and maintained, and that a hair net had to be worn, if the long hair hindered the soldier at his duties. The Army got 740 000 hairnets for that reason. > The resolution can be seen as expression of the general liberisation under the democratic-liberal coalition under Willy Brandt (a real idealist). Beyond his literal importance, the resolution caused a larger, not always entirely serious, discussion. A brigade general warned " Neglience in dress and behaviour of the soldier is an obvious sign for everybody of discipline problems. With it (discipline) however falls and stands the worth of the Army as instrument of deterrment, and with that the worth for peace of the Army." The Parliamentary Commissioner of the Armed Forces called the appearance of long-haired soldiers “grubby and dirty”.\* ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2011, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/37 "2011-12-13T11:26:00Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > Mustaches are authorized. Not big porn staches, but yes. Lots of soldiers wear them. Usually older guys and non-white guys. Not many younger white guys, IDKW. They were pretty much mandatory during the month of March when I was in Korea. But that might have been because one of the past commanders of our wing there was [Robin “The Wolf” Olds](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Robin_Olds_during_vietnam_war.jpg/250px-Robin_Olds_during_vietnam_war.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/38 "2011-12-13T18:24:17Z")
The famous and excellent work _Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds_ by Mackay, available for free download from many sites, contains a lengthy section on men’s hair fashions and the drivers for them through the centuries, which may be of related interest. ---
**Author:** ![OwlPath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/45deac/32.png) [@OwlPath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OwlPath)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2013, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593/39 "2013-03-18T00:34:05Z")
> [@Rusalka](#): > > Someone posted this story on my facebook page and my B.S. meter went off for some reason: [http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234783-The-Truth-About-Hair-and-Why-Indians-Would-Keep-Their-Hair-Long](http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234783-The-Truth-About-Hair-and-Why-Indians-Would-Keep-Their-Hair-Long) The article claims that Native American scouts during the Vietnam war lost their abilities when their hair was cut. While I might find this plausible for cultural reasons, it goes on to say that the government commissioned studies comparing long haired with short haired scouts and found a difference. I want to know if these studies really happened. “For example, the hair follicle acts as a sensory organ and immunologic sentinel for the skin. Hairs detect mechanical stimuli above the surface of the skin, and the slightest bend in a hair activates neuroreceptors in the follicle, relaying important sensory information to the nervous system.” The Biology of Hair Follicles / Paus, Ralf ; Cotsarelis, George The New England Journal of Medicine, 1999, Vol.341(7), pp.491-497 [Peer Reviewed Journal] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-military-commission-studies-on-the-benefits-of-long-vs-short-hair/605593.md?page=1)