Re this article about taser parties
Over the years I’ve read various newspaper and magazine articles where the writer feels they need to mention the fact that a women described in the article is a “bottle blonde”. Given the fact that in modernity about 95% of female blondes are likely to be “bottle blondes” what’s the points of a descriptive notation like this? Is it to make her seem cheap or something?
Yes, it is to make her seem cheap. And the mention of her being 58 also points out that a woman of her age should be at least partially grey- or white-haired by now, and yet she’s obviously hitting the bottle.
Another use would be to intimate that her roots are showing and she needs to visit the salon.
Not just cheap, but in that context, the grandma also comes off as feisty and independent, someone who doesn’t follow the crowd.
This is what I get from it, not “cheap”. I get sassy and spirited and feisty and not the kind of grandmother who bakes cookies and crochets cozies for the air fresheners while watching Wheel of Fortune. Y’know, the kind of grandmother you’d expect to see at a taser party.
IME, these kinds of things are mentioned in articles written by women. Not just women, but catty women who want to get in their passive-aggressive digs, even in public.
It’s not intended to be useful, it’s just intended to be a description of the person you’re reading about. But in this case it’s a description that leads people to make assumptions about the subject.
Useful? No, unless it’s useful to make it clear to the reader that you mean to insult the blonde.
By the way, the reporter got his inches and millimetres crossed. A “.38mm” pistol would shoot a bullet smaller than a pencil lead. 
…except in the case cited.
Bottle blonde usually equals cheap and/or sassy, because no one’s commenting on her ‘natural-looking honey highlights’ or ‘face-framing streaks.’
I’ve got to ask for a cite on this ‘fact’. It seems unlikely based on my own experience that people with naturally blonde hair are as low as 5% of the population around here… so the statistic given smells very fishy. I’d accept a number of over 50%, but not over 70-75% or so. Of course, it’ll vary depending on how many women of other hair colors choose to actually ‘go blonde’, and just how widely we’re casting our geographic net.
And just to be clear, in my opinion, somebody with naturally blonde hair who uses artificial dyes to modify the shade slightly, cover a fairly low incidence of gray hair etcetera doesn’t count as a ‘bottle blonde.’
The most oft quoted statistic (as seen here) is 1 to 2% of adults worldwide are naturally blond. Of course, that number goes way up if you include children, and if you limit yourself to Europe.
Here’s a map of Europe showing relative percentages of natural blonds. I haven’t been able to find one of Ontario, and I don’t know enough about your immigration and settlement history to have any idea how to extrapolate a meaningful statistic from that.
I’d say that no where near 5% of the population around here are naturally blond.
Okay, that’s fair.
But a reference like the one given is seldom going to be in the context of ‘some uncertain area in the whole of the world.’ In some places, natural blondes would be very rare and people who dye their hair blonde would likely be doing it as a way of standing out perhaps. For a lot of places in north america and north europe, say, blondeness isn’t so unusual.
I still think it’s at least a misleading statistic to throw around without referring to context.
And out of curiosity, around what proportion of the population near where you are is artificially blond, as nearly as you can make it? Have you noticed a lot of people with typically japanese features and bright platinum hair? 
I was wondering about that sort of thing when I first brought up the question, but didn’t mention it.
First, let me say that googling “Asian Blonde” with the safe mode off is a NSFW practice! :eek:
But I did find some SFW pictures of blonde Asian women who are quite striking. Sweet girl next door. Urban and edgy. Techno babe. Are any of them Japanese? I have no friggin’ clue; I flunk the “name that Asian” test every time.
I’d say first you have to define “blonde”. There are many shades of natural blonde. But if a person is only talking about that very lightest white-blonde shade, then yes, I’d have to agree that a very small percentage of the world’s heads sport “blonde” hair.
If all shades of natural shades of blonde are also considered blonde, I’d say that the 95% bottle blonde tag, at least in these United States, is pretty high and incorrect.
I don’t think we’ll get a definition because it’s too subjective. This is something that’s has always bothered me a little too, because it’s so confusing. Well over a third of the people (almost all women, since men talk about their hair less often) who I’ve heard them describe themselves as “natural blondes” have light brown hair. It’s only confusing because other women & men with identical shades of hair do call it brown.
Back in the day, blonde was either platinum (and very unnatural looking on an adult) or brassy. The products and techniques just weren’t as good as they are today. Also the artificial thing made a difference to people back then. “Only her hairdresser knows for sure…” and all that crap. It’s an antiquated notion. These days, hair color is an accessory!
