Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS asked at 3 if he could have one and I really couldn't think of a good reason not to let him have one.
How about "cultural appropriation"?

Anonymous wrote:I can understand teenagers, on the right teen, it can be a very cool look. But for kindergarteners? Why? Because mommy wants Johnny to be a bad-ass?
It just looks stupid, silly, trashy, red necky (not as much as the mullet/rat tail combo on a 7 year old, of course).
Let's hear why, moms of mohawk boys.
Anonymous wrote:DS asked at 3 if he could have one and I really couldn't think of a good reason not to let him have one.
Anonymous wrote:DS asked at 3 if he could have one and I really couldn't think of a good reason not to let him have one. He's asked for one a few more times but I think that at the age of 9, he's over them.
My Brazilian friend hated it and couldn't understand why he would want to look like a footballer. On the flip side I've had people come up to me in Walmart complimenting it and asking where it was done because the back was faded.
best post yet.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Holy over-thinking things batman. Its hair. They are kids.
The troll who constantly chirps 'poors' is so sad.
I'm am not a troll. I used the word poors once in the past year on dcum. I save it for special occasions, and trashy fake punk 1970s hair on a 4 yr old is something poor people do.
+1. Come on. It's beyond cavil that Mohawk or any fashion like hair-styles on a little boy exhibits white trash sensibility. Not subject to debate really.
Next thing you know bass boats and four wheel ATVs will start popping up on ccmd front lawns. Budweiser bottles next to the recycling can.