Mullets Galore!

spygirl_t: 30th Mar 2006 - 15:21 GMT

I have an urge to hind under the desk in fear.. Scary shit! No if, ands or buts about it.

Catherine Penfold-Waxman: 30th Mar 2006 - 15:25 GMT

I expect that when you sport a hairstyle like this you are intrinsically unaware of everything and everyone around you. So I'm not surprised that this guy didn't notice you taking pictures on the train from about two feet away.

Peter: 30th Mar 2006 - 15:27 GMT

the woman he was chatting with did notice. she gave me the evil-eye then muttered something to him, at which point he stayed facing away from me the rest of the trip (see last shot)... though i like to think he was just giving me some quality-time to view his coiff head-on.

and the kicker, which i was unfortunately unable to photograph, was the fact that he had on a led zeppelin tshirt.

ROCK, ROLL and MULLETS FOREVARRRR!

a'la: 30th Mar 2006 - 15:28 GMT

Ha ha ha! It looks like his barber jumped ship halfway through his haircut, and only managed to get the top part completed!

Catherine Penfold-Waxman: 30th Mar 2006 - 15:56 GMT

I've heard the mullet described as the perfect hairstyle: all business up front and a party in the back.

grange: 30th Mar 2006 - 20:05 GMT

wow,,, no jacked up pick up truck , no easy rider rifle rack , no confederate flag in sight ..?? but i bet thats his sister hes dating whos is the pic with him ....
Maybe he got kicked out of the clan and like Jed Clampet ,,, moved to the city

Micah: 31st Mar 2006 - 01:59 GMT

If you wanna see mullets galore you should go to Cornwall, Ontario. When I was living there five years ago its citizens appeared to be still living in the 80s. Of course they might have caught up to the 90s now and have long grunge hair... Really special. (No offence to any non-mullet-sporting Cornwalians (?) reading this of course.)

Glenn: 15th Apr 2006 - 02:50 GMT

I live in new york city and wear my mullet proudly,it is the perfect haircut!why would anyone want to wear a short 1940's monotonous,boring haircut and be a clone of every other guy on the street? Long hair rules ,short hair blows!why doesn't anyone make fun of bald dudes or mohawk haircuts.I never understood why mullets get such bad press.Mullets live forever!!!!!!!!!!

EvilGentleman: 14th May 2006 - 11:16 GMT

You used to live in Cornwall, Micah? Small world. From 1980 to 1983, I lived at 1110 Edythe Ave. That's just south of Queen Street heading towards Riverdale.

Glenn, I used to sport a Mohawk haircut that was short on top, and long in the back, usually tied into a ponytail. Of course, I am a Mohawk Indian, so maybe it was more of a cultural statement than a fashion one.

chiamattt: 8th Jun 2006 - 22:56 GMT

I had a mullet in Korea due to a horrible haircut. I should have shaved my head.

brett: 20th Jun 2006 - 21:45 GMT

HE'S ALL BUSINESS UP FRONT AND ALL PARTY OUT BACK....!!!!

aer suzuki: 20th Jun 2006 - 23:42 GMT

while this is funny and i'm not really the type to ruin a party i gotta wonder about the ethical implications of taking someone's picture without their permission and posting it in a high profile, public forum.

with the advent of tiny digital cameras and camera phones, it's getting extremely easy for all of us to spy on each other, it's a bit unsettling. i'm not so sure i'd want someone to snap a shot of me on the busride to work when i'm looking haggard and uncaffeinated and have that shot turn up on the freakin internet. i'm not sure anyone on this site would either.

you could argue that the guy's wearing a mullet for god's sake and therefore deserves to be ridiculed, but that's not really the point. reverse the situation, put your own face up on that international screen and imagine : would you feel comfortable? even if you would, you should still ask yourself : do we have the right to do this? it's a question, not criticism...

not that i'm defending mullets, they're god-awful haircuts and i'm surprised they've survived this long.

Peter: 21st Jun 2006 - 01:48 GMT

"do i have the right?" well, most people accept the tenet that anything done in public is in the public domain, unless otherwise specified. thats why cabs that use cc-tv warn you, thats why calls to most corporations warn you that youre being recorded, etc.

weve had this discussion before, but i think it predated your appearance here. utilitarian as that may sound, you gotta admit, it rings true. you dont want it turning up online/getting photographed/discussed, then dont do it in public ;) thats why people dont fuck in public, carry out personal melodramas in public (often) or walk around nude in public. cause some things are for personal moments.

others are free game for the public. thats the joy of life. finding a $20 on the street, running into some strange incident on the sidewalk, running into some dude with a mullet.

just cause technology has caught up with freaky public sightings doesnt mean we should put it under the magnifying glass. even if they couldnt always snap an easy cameraphone pic in the past, they could talk about it.

if we should magnify it, what content, if any, on this entire site, is viable? building, car, person, haircut... whats the difference? it was all snapped without permission in public, eh?

id be interested in knowing *your* opinion, beyond the argument of hte status-quo. :D

dave: 21st Jun 2006 - 05:32 GMT

That is a man ! My mind is made up, i want a mullet too.... dude, u just started a trend

SingleGuy: 21st Jun 2006 - 06:31 GMT

Speaking of taking pictures of unwilling strangers in public. ..This guy looked like he was about to eat me when he saw my camera pointed in his direction. (origionally i was just waiting for them to get out of the way so i could snap a pic of the old building).

t@ngent: 21st Jun 2006 - 08:25 GMT

he looks as though he may be packing heat under his shirt. i'd be careful. where do you live, palestine?

aer suzuki: 21st Jun 2006 - 09:13 GMT

"you dont want it turning up online/getting photographed/discussed, then dont do it in public ;) thats why people dont fuck in public, carry out personal melodramas in public (often) or walk around nude in public."

but he's not doing anything, looks like, except minding his own business. saying that because a person is out in public so that makes it ok is a lame argument. aside from total shut-ins most of us have to go out in public at some point, but that doesn't mean we want our image recorded and held aloft for potential world-wide public scrutiny.

i'm one of those whackos that thinks a person still retains some right to privacy even when they need to go to the grocery store, or run to the post office, or get to a job. being in public shouldn't mean all rights to some respect are suspended. and i think it's more a matter of respect than right or wrong, i don't wanna jump on a soapbox about it.

"just cause technology has caught up with freaky public sightings doesnt mean we should put it under the magnifying glass."

maybe not but we should at least glance at it a bit. new technology may need new etiquette. look at the cell phone, many people haven't learned that yelling in someone's ear is not ok just because now you're holding something up against your own that you can babble into.

"if we should magnify it, what content, if any, on this entire site, is viable? building, car, person, haircut... whats the difference?"

well, just look at what you listed : building, car, person, haircut. which of these is not like the others? [not to be a smartass] obviously a building isn't gonna care much one way or the other if you take a snap of it. a car isn't gonna feel embarassed if it ends up on the internet. that's the difference.

don't get me wrong, i laughed my ass off at the actual website entitled "mullets galore" and i thought a little bit about how those people would react if they knew they were on the net, but not too much at the time. i don't presume to know what's right or wrong, i just know i wouldn't want that kind of spotlight on me unless i'd given permission.

beyond all that i truly am curious how you'd feel if the camera were turned on you and the results posted on the web.

t@ngent: 21st Jun 2006 - 09:27 GMT

like this you mean?

aer suzuki: 21st Jun 2006 - 09:41 GMT

yeah except whoever that is looks pretty willing to be snapshotted tho. mullet guy looked pretty unwilling. look, if peter wants to shoot & post dudes with mullets that's fine, just wondering how he'd feel in the same position, if he's cool with it, cool. i just think it should be given some thought, but y'all have apparently already thought about it anyway, right?

funny shot, by the way.

EvilGentleman: 21st Jun 2006 - 10:09 GMT

One must take the view that all that is done in public is open to be published in the open domain. Otherwise, a whole bunch of considerations will overwhelm everything until nothing is fit to be published.

Can you imagine if you had to have the permission of CN rail to photograph the CN Tower, or Sears had to ok any pictures that include the Sears Tower? Or how about a picture of the crowd in Times Square at New Year's? If you had to have permission from all one million people in the photo, such photos would cease to exist. Where do you draw the line?

Personally, I would consider pictures taken over backyard fences or through bedroom windows to be an invasion of privacy. But even in those cases, what if you take a shot of a city street at night, and then later discover that the picture includes a nude woman standing in a brightly lit window? If she does not care whether or not people see her naked, why should we worry about posting it online? It was already on display to the public.

The only pictures that I feel should be withheld are ones of situations like when a person has been stabbed, and the paramedics remove the person's clothing so they can treat the wound. Obviously, the only reason that person is nude in public is because of medical necessity, not consent.

I am also reminded of the case where an elderly lady complained about a man in a neighbouring building who often wandered around his penthouse apartment in the nude with the curtains open. At first, it seemed like an everyday case of indecent exposure. But when they investigated further, they found that the only way that lady could have seen him was to stand on a chair diagonally in front of her bedroom window and use binoculars. The case was thrown out.

Just use common sense, people. If you had to actively break a law to take the picture, then don't post it. But if you were behaving yourself and caught something on film, too bad for the subject.

Jamie: 21st Jun 2006 - 10:52 GMT

"If you had to actively break a law to take the picture, then don't post it"
that rules out a whole bunch of my photos... oops

Peter: 21st Jun 2006 - 13:41 GMT

1) what EG said.

2) the shot of the guy on the bike (above) is me. i have a zillion photos of myself online, so... as far as how i feel about having photos of myself online, well...

3) this is a banal thread. i love privacy as much as the next guy, trust me. and i dont typically go around snapping photos of people for no reason. but, sometimes i do, and thats that. i get your point, for real, but its sounding a bit "devil's advocate" at this point. we can pick it up again if mullet-man ever shows up here demanding that his photos be removed. lol.

i mean, this *is* a urban photoblog. what did you expect? ;)

aer suzuki: 21st Jun 2006 - 20:44 GMT

only reason i responded a second time is because you asked:

"id be interested in knowing *your* opinion, beyond the argument of hte status-quo. :D"

do whatever you want, it's not that important, but you did ask my opinion.

Susannah : 15th Jul 2006 - 23:37 GMT

What I'm learning from this is that hairstyles and choice of clothing are the latest lines of segregation, ie if you have a mullet, don't ride this train (stick to the back of the bus), don't be caught dead in the city, use mullet only water restrooms, etc. I think that guy is rather handsome, but what I know - I was born and raised in the heart of NYC and would rather live in NJ (as would most people who actually grew up and lived for generations there).

Susannah : 15th Jul 2006 - 23:41 GMT

PS I always hated when people brought their bikes on the train - you dweeb!