I really need to know…

a 1 a 1

While we were visiting Jessica in Arizona, she was teasing me once again about how I used to have a mullet. I keep insisting that I had long hair, but it was not a mullet. Hey, I grew up in Berkeley. I know about long hair.

So she took a picture of my actual drivers license photo… the one you see above… yes, I haven’t changed it in quite a while… and posted it on Facebook. The general consensus is that I did have a mullet… at least at the time this picture was taken. The only good news to come out of this Facebook thing is that one of Jessica’s girl friends said that my picture makes me look a little like the actor Paul Rudd…

a 1 a 2

The disturbing part of that is that it turns out my daughter thinks Paul Rudd is one of the sexiest men on the planet… so… uh… anyway…

My theory is this: Yes, it was a little shorter in the front, tapering back to the longer hair, but the sides were not cut short enough or far enough back to classify as a mullet. At the very worst I had bad bangs that were too long.

Back in the 70’s and early 80’s, when my hair hung down to my butt, I had the full-on rock and roll hair…

a me photo1

You have all seen this picture by now… it isn’t even close to the longest my hair ever got… it is also the proof that I invented the ‘wardrobe malfunction’… but you can plainly see that my hair… aside from having the delightful ‘feathered’ look that was popular in those days… was still a little bit shorter in the front… you know… so I could see and not look like a sheep dog, or have to keep doing that annoying head-flipping thing to get the hair out of my eyes.

So come on, people… let’s get this settled once and for all… did I have a mullet or not?

Be honest… if you come down on the mullet side I promise to only hate you for a little while…

Unknown's avatar

About pouringmyartout

You will laugh at my antics... That is my solemn promise to you... Or your money back... Stop on by...
This entry was posted in Pictures of me, thinking about stuff and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to I really need to know…

  1. hastywords's avatar hastywords says:

    You are…uhh errr…he is pretty hot.

  2. benzeknees's avatar benzeknees says:

    If it looks like a mullet, sounds like a mullet – then it’s a mullet!

  3. Huffle Mom's avatar Cimmorene says:

    Not sure what made me decide to stick my head in here. Looking at your picture, I can see why people might be mislead into believing this is a mullet. Heck! I was fooled myself, at first. However, upon closer inspection, I see that this is just how your hair lies on your head when it’s long. The way your hair falls in front makes it look short and feathered. The way you have it pulled back behind your ears makes the sides look short, too.
    It’s a case of mistaken mullet! SAVE US, GOD!
    Love you, Art.

  4. gentlestitches's avatar gentlestitches says:

    It takes a big woman to admit she quite liked mullets when they were “in”. I am not a big woman therefore admitting it makes me big. Nope. your doo was not a mullet. The top is too long!

  5. jaklumen's avatar jaklumen says:

    I’m siding with those that specify a mullet needs to be short on the sides. I mean, seriously. I was born in 1974, and I think I’m old enough to remember distinctly what was a mullet, and what was just hippie and rocker hair.

    “Business in the front, party in the back.” Oddly enough, I don’t actually remember that slogan, but it really does describe the strange mixture of conservatism, excess, and a little bit of ’50s nostalgia that was the very late ’70s and much of the ’80s. That much I *do* remember and only the classic horrifying version of the mullet fits this: buzzcut front and sides, maybe with a flat top, with long strands in the back. That’s usually the version people think of on backwater rednecked hillbilly types (who apparently missed the fashion memos up to today). And even the horrible “updated” versions have hair on the sides slicked back… which you do not.

    Could be worse, though, Art. You could be admitting to having a poodle cut back in the day.

  6. REDdog's avatar REDdog says:

    Nope, not a mullet. The definition when I was a young fella was that it was “business in the front, party out the back”…your’s is all party Art.

  7. The hair definitely looks like what we always called a “shag”, not a mullet.

  8. Julie's avatar Julie says:

    “The mullet is a hairstyle that is short at the front and sides, and long in the back.” wikipedia.
    Not a mullet.
    Shag. but a long shag, not a short shag.

  9. It’s not a mullet.

  10. As a professional hair stylist. It is not a full blown mullet. The top would need to be short and spiked for it to be considered a full blown mullet. It so pained me when I had a client ask for a real mullet and I had on that did..lol

  11. For the hell of it, I called a professional stylist at a monster hair salon chain and described your photo in detail. Verdict?

    MULLET!

    Deal with it, dude. Chalk it up to youthful indiscretion and keep that back short from now on. Or live in Guns ‘N Roses T-shirts with the arms ripped off until you croak.

  12. The mustache makes it look like a mullet.

  13. It is a modified mullett. While the sides are considerably shorter than the back, the sides aren’t short enough for a mullett. I would call this more of a “shag” haircut like Carol Brady wore in the later years of the Brady Bunch. 🙂

  14. longchaps2's avatar longchaps2 says:

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
    If it looks like a mullet, walks like a mullet, feathers like a mullet, it’s a mullet.
    Dude, you got a mullet.
    Sorry.

  15. El Guapo's avatar El Guapo says:

    Tweak the outfit a little, and you could have been a member of Bay City Rollers!

  16. joehoover's avatar joehoover says:

    I would not class this as a mullet, it is too long at the sides to qualify. Some photoshopped mullets would be nice though

Leave a reply to pouringmyartout Cancel reply