Relaxing/Texturizing Actually "Good" For Our Hair?

Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

[ QUOTE ]
So women who texturize with the 3rd type of chemical treatment are naturally relaxed? General chemistry was my least favorite class freshman year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm gonna take a guess at this and say no. ANY chemical you use (whether natural or synthetic) on your hair is considered a relaxer.

[ QUOTE ]
The misconception is partly because of clever advertising.


[/ QUOTE ]

BTW - Will you please point out the misconception in this thread? I'm trying to figure out where it says we think a texturizer is considered natural.
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

Sorry. Can't help but chuckle.
laugh.gif
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

I didn't see anyone on this thread say that texturized hair is natural hair. If that myth is still being perpetuated, it's not from this forum. With the number of threads we've had in the past about this subject, (and Lord, have there been many!) I think we've established the fact that texturized hair is not natural hair, a long time ago.
smile.gif
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

Muse of Troy mentioned:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to offend anyone on here but texturized hair is NOT NATURAL. I had to say that because there is an abundance of women assuming the texturized hair is "natural".

[/ QUOTE ]

I also know people who lump gentle chemical treatments in with natural hair care, especially if their chemical of choice claims to be natural. I think such advertising is clever marketing because it appeals to people who want easier combouts but who politicize hair care to the point that they would refuse a lye or no-lye relaxer because it's not natural.
laugh.gif


I was natural for years, and now I relax. Yet my hair continues to inconvenience me.
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

I don't think anyone here is saying texturized hair is natural. That's why the designation itself is different. I don't see any texturized heads perpetratin' like they're natural. I don't think my hair would ever reach its length potential if I were to have remained natural.
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

I'm really confused now. I want to get a texturizer but I have my reservations because I don't want anything bad to happen-in the long run.I've been thinking about it a while now. I just gave my mom one with the Revlon Realistic relaxer(with lye, suggested by CurlyCrl in another thread!) and it came out perfect. But my mom's hair was already past her shoulders before she put chemicals on it and my plan was to wait until I reached my goal length before I even considered chemicals.
But here I am with 10 inches of natural hair and I honestly don't know what to do with it. If I'm not wearing extension braids then I am wearing two french braids with my own hair and I think my edges are thinning out. I used to wear puffs 'n' things,but for me that also means teasing.
So my question is to the people that have longer natural hair, what type of styles do you wear? How do you comb it without losing tons of hair and time? What are things I can try before turning to chemicals? Please help!!
whyme.gif
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

I think we have sort of lost the point of this thread. Which was relaxers can be GOOD for the hair. Now if you mean by 'good' you're saying that the comb-out is much gentler with the loss of LESS hair, that's good. And if it retains moisture because the curl pattern is loosened, good also.

But. If like me, your hair looses elasticity and eventually breaks off NO MATTER how short you leave in the product before rinsing, then texturizing/ relaxing isn't good.
Generally relaxers work for people with strength to the hair (no matter what the hair type--3a, 4d,whatever) I just don't think genetically I have a whole lot of elasticity, so the relaxer takes it ALL leaving me/w broken hair. Adrienne thrives w/relaxers and I think that she has more natural elasticity than I do and so relaxers aren't damaging for her. Make sense?
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

I meant to add that it's good for some, not for others. But it's not a COMPETITION. We can all have long hair. whichever the road
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

[ QUOTE ]
If like me, your hair looses elasticity and eventually breaks off NO MATTER how short you leave in the product before rinsing, then texturizing/ relaxing isn't good.
Generally relaxers work for people with strength to the hair (no matter what the hair type--3a, 4d,whatever) I just don't think genetically I have a whole lot of elasticity, so the relaxer takes it ALL leaving me/w broken hair. Adrienne thrives w/relaxers and I think that she has more natural elasticity than I do and so relaxers aren't damaging for her. Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes perfect sense.
smile.gif
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

I think that if I went to a relaxer again, I could grow my hair long with it thanks to this board.

However, I think my hair thrives better in its natural texture. I retain more length with natural hair than with relaxed hair. Also the combout process is really not that bad. Thanks to the right products and patience, my hair is growing and is extremely healthy.

Also, I have a hard time believing that someone's hair is too kinky/nappy to grow and manage. When you are natural, your hair is not straight so you cannot treat it like it's straight. Your techniques just have to change.

-Ebony
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible that we who have been natural for years have developed such a distaste or chagrin toward relaxers that we have blown out of proportion how damaging they can be for our hair?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the point that you are trying to make but I completely disagree with you. My hair is very nappy and it does not tangle or knot up at the ends. When you learn how to work with naps that are in good condition they are just as easy to comb through as relaxed hair.

Hair is dead matter, but your scalp is very much alive. I have never seen a woman re-touch their roots without the chemicals touching their scalps in some way - shape - or form.

I used to think just like you do a few months ago, but I no longer feel this way. Now I am anti-relaxer.

If relaxers are so good for your hair then why do beauticians wear gloves?
If relaxers are so good for your hair then why do you base your scalps before relaxing?
If relaxers are so good for your hair then why can't you shampoo right before you get a touch-up?
If relaxers are so good for your hair then where is this "Scab hair" phenomenon comming from?

We can go back and forth on this topic forever and a day. There are women here who will still believe that relaxers are good for your hair. There are also women here who will still believe that relaxers are bad for you.

I was always under the impression that there would be no "relaxers Vs natural" type topics on this board?
Am I wrong?
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

[ QUOTE ]
My hair is very nappy and it does not tangle or knot up at the ends. When you learn how to work with naps that are in good condition they are just as easy to comb through as relaxed hair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...I have more patience with my natural hair than I did with my relaxed hair. Now that I know how to deal with my naps, the comb outs are quite easy!

-Ebony
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

I could be wrong, but I don't think they are saying the chemicals are "good"--just not as bad for their own hair as they thought. The original poster was natural for over 12 years and was under the impression that relaxers=damage for everyone. She found out that it wasn't true in her case.
The chemicals are "good" for her because she isn't ripping her hair out anymore.
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

[ QUOTE ]
I could be wrong, but I don't think they are saying the chemicals are "good"--just not as bad for their own hair as they thought. The original poster was natural for over 12 years and was under the impression that relaxers=damage for everyone. She found out that it wasn't true in her case.
The chemicals are "good" for her because she isn't ripping her hair out anymore.



[/ QUOTE ]
True!
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

I don't thing relaxing is "good" for the hair like somethin liek a conditioner would be, but I don't think it's bad either. Somewhere in the middle. It's all on how you look at it. My texturizer ended my fight with frizz and after I finally did a protein treatment, I honestly can't tell a difference in the condition of my hair, mainly only a difference in frizz. This is good for me and the look I wanted to achieve. This may be bad for someone else who doesn't know how to take care of their hair or whose hair doesn't agree with the relaxer/texturizer.
 
Re: Relaxing/Texturizing Actually \"Good\" For Our Hair?

Good topic. I went to a relaxer for easier combout, styling, and less frizz. Unfortunately, during the summer months I'm always losing the frizz battle. And my hairline has always reverted long before my touchup. So I always wonder if I should go back to natural hair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MizaniMami
  • Poll Poll
Poll: Relaxing-Straight, Bone Straight, Texturizing, Texlaxing, For Long-term?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
23K
*Michelle*
*Michelle*
ToriLynn
Question about texturizing!!
Replies
6
Views
2K
ToriLynn
ToriLynn
soslychic
Will you take me through your texturizing regime?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Carefree
C
C
Any Naturals thinking about Texturizing?
Replies
18
Views
2K
missykeyana
M
C
relaxing after a texturizer
Replies
1
Views
1K
Amour
Amour
Back
Top