the most boring hair disaster in history. it’s barely even noticable. however it is to me (in the sunlight at least). which makes it bad enough to merit emergency intervention. it is if i say so, ok?
which brings me to my question: so do i do the removing the color thing so i can do the blonde thing? haven’t been blonde since the 80’s. ahh. the 80’s.
which would be more expensive & probably more stressful to my hair.
or do i just go get a really strong deep red color that would be cheaper, less stressful, & also the same thing i’ve been doing for years upon years upon years.
don’t you dare suggest i grow it out. life is for living, hair is for dyeing.
or shall i do like i used to do back in the 80’s & go to that salon next to the pub & toss back a couple of emboldening brewskis while i wait, & then go in there & say something like, ‘there’s no such thing as too short. hair grows. remember annie lennox? like that.’ because in those days changing haircolor was something i did every couple weeks, & that is only really practical with veryvery short hair. i think the pale silvery lavender accident was the best. or maybe the ‘lush cherry’ that ended up looking black indoors & the most vibrant deep purple in the sunlight. sigh. the 80’s.
so blonde (most likely some sort of light apricotty blondie thingy) or red (again)? or — ‘so short in the back you can almost grab it with your fingers, & fluffy up on top, with bangs’? and then it would be all about the manic panic, baby. or not.
dammit this midlife crisis business is complicated.
now this is the hair we’re talking about here: it’s having a frizzy day, & my camera won’t focus in that light & there’s toothpaste on the mirror, but this is the hair: