I guess I am the odd one out because I do not believe that oils have the ability to actually moisturize the hair. My definition of moisturizing might be different.
Moisturization (hydration) is a characteristic of water. Oils are hydrophobic meaning they propel water chemically. Its difficult to moisturize if you can't even bind yourself to water. Oils do soften, nourish, and increase the hair's pliability, but this is not "moisturizing." Maybe I'm being picky and its an issue with semantics-- but moisturizing is not really the proper word for the action of oils, IMO.
True, the molecules of jojoba and other essential oils are smaller than conventional oils, but their ability to simply penetrate a few layers of the hair shaft do not suddenly give them the ability to moisturize. Penetration does not equal moisturization. Relaxers and bleach penetrate the hair shaft too, but I'm sure no one will argue that they provide a moisture benefit. Simply getting in does not mean any moisturizing is going on. So, you can't really say it penetrates or that something softens your hair so that makes it moisturizing.
Jojoba is the closest oil/wax to sebum-- but sebum is produced by the body to coat the hair-- not to penetrate and/or moisturize. Sebum is produced as a protective barrier to keep the moisture inherent in the skin from escaping off into the air--
not to actually give it moisture. It is produced by the sebaceous glands to make the hair and skin soft and pliable. I guess this is what many mean when they say "moisturizing." I define moisturizing as "hydrating" so thats why I take this position.
I just think its incorrect to use the word "moisture" or "moisturizing" to refer to anything other than water. *no rocks purty pwease*