I've nothing insightful to say, but I'll add some beard quotes from Clement of Alexandria to encourage your bearded bliss. (btw, I don't currently have a beard)

“How womanly it is for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, and to arrange his hair at the mirror, shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them!…For God wished women to be smooth and to rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane. But He adorned man like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him as an attribute of manhood, with a hairy chest–a sign of strength and rule.” Clement of Alexandria, 2.275

“This, then, is the mark of the man, the beard. By this, he is seen to be a man. It is older than Eve. It is the token of the superior nature….It is therefore unholy to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness.” 2.276

“It is not lawful to pluck out the beard, man’s natural and noble adornment.” 2.277

I haven't heard anyone ever suggest it, but as I pondered the question I thought about male pattern baldness.

Studies -do- indicate that Mediterranean men have the highest incidence of male pattern baldness on the planet.

Given that Paul was surrounded by balding Mediterranean men a good part of his life - and simultaneously given that women in the same area did not have this problem - I suspect that the "nature" Paul was referring to was that men go bald but women can grow their full heads of hair long.

Joe,
Thanks. I feel very manly now. I do keep my beard clipped short. I wonder what Clement would say about that?

Daniel,
I don't know--that sounds a bit reaching to me. The terms here involve hair length, not hairline position. I do realize you're just speculating. Interesting to note, and possibly supporting your hypothesis, is the fact that male pattern baldness is caused by testosterone. The more testosterone a man produces, the more prone he is to go bald (Don't tell Rev. G.W.). However,I'm still holding out for a better answer.

Joe, that is good stuff!

I dont know, have you looked in the greek to see what is ment by long hair. I will check it out as i am curious now.
It makes me think about how men nowadays will shave their chest legs pluck their unibrow etc. I dont know i will get back with you on this one.
currently unbearded with short hair "whats left of it"

Link

interesting reading scroll down number 12

Hey Bo,

Thanks for the link. Calvin's view is always worthwhile. I see he doesn't really answer why either. He just affirms that it's true, and that men in general have come to that same conclusion.

I don't pluck my eyebrows, either, just so you know.

This is an excellent question. Perhaps it is the feminine beauty and natural attraction that long hair elicits in males. Paul does continue with the woman's hair being her "glory". Looking for anomalies with this answer, Fabio aside, I have no idea what kind of hair styles elicits attraction in women; perhaps women simply look deeper than hair. I do think that women were designed to desire protection the same as men were designed to desire beautiful hair. That said if a woman is in trouble, do you think she would rather see Fabio running to her rescue, or a Marine? Of course there’s Sampson; boy this could go on and on; I think I’ll quit here.

Danny,
You might be onto something. Cultural influences aside, are women more naturally attracted to shorter hair on men? I'm sure I can't answer that, but that's a possible angle, I suppose.

I am not sure this would be the correct answer but I thought I would add a comment concerning a commentary I read.

When looking at chapter 11 as a whole and the history of the traditions in Corinth, I find it was custom for honorable woman to cover their heads.

Looking at verse 7...it says that men should not cover their heads because he is the image and glory of God. Verse 10 says woman should have power on their heads because of the angels.

In the commentary I read, when woman covered their heads, it was a sign they were under a man's power. Therefore prostitutes in Corinth did not cover their heads.

The commentary says that angels are present when we assemble before God and references Psalm 138:1. Angels "delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places" Going back to verse 7 we see man is the image and glory of God and should not cover his head because of this.

So in one interpretation, in God's natural order, it would be shame for the man to grow his hair long as a covering like a woman because he was not created for woman...woman was created for him.

Also, in Corinth the nature of things or law was woman subordinate to a man covered her hair. It was shame for a man to cover his head. So it was lawful in Corinth for men to keep their hair short and woman to grow it long. This unlike the Nazarite where long hair was lawful in men.

Corinthians by their laws had woman grow their hair long and men keep their hair short. So Paul related that to the orderly conduct and submission in the assembly. "Nature" here would not refer back to creation or natural growth of the hair but to the law of the Corinthians. It is good to note as well that the Greek word "phusis" has law in it's definition, "the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature".

Again, not saying I think this is the correct answer but I am throwing out what I have come across in relation to your question.

This has been a very confusing subject to me for a very long time now. Taken in the context of the bible as a whole, and taking a straight, flat understanding of 1st corinthians 11, the hair length verses, seems very out of place. It doesn't seem at first glance, to be consistent with many other Christian ideals. The first question I always come to is "What in the world does a persons'hair length have to do with the condition of their soul or spirit?" or other questions similar to that. One could easily say that since Paul clearly said that long hair on men or short hair on women is shameful then it is rebellious to so such things. So be it, maybe. But that doesn't do much to answer the question. This has been such an issue with me that I went back to my King James last night and read it again, noticing for the first time maybe, that Paul finishes the subject by saying that if any man is contentious about it there is no such custom recognized by the churches of God. Well what exactly does that mean? If the King James interpretation is word for accurate, could it mean that the symbolic, natural value of gender related hair length really doesn't have much to do with following the Word of God? (except in symbolism) In the same way that the symbolic value of circumcision really has nothing to do with with following the Word of God?
I heard on one TV show documentary that biologically speaking ther is no difference between male and female hair. Of course men are more prone to balding than women. I'm not sure that was what Paul was talking about. Seemingly very confused subject. I'd like to read more of what people have to say on the subject.

"What in the world does a person's hair length have to do with the condition of their soul or spirit?"

Hair length, per se, has nothing at all to do with anyone's spiritual condition. However, a person's desire to please God, as demonstrated by their conformity to his declaration concerning their hair length, is indicative of their heart's condition.

Scripture clearly shows that God wants men to be masculine and women to feminine. Scripture also teaches that long hair is feminine. Those are undeniable facts that I don't question. I know those things because God said so.

What confuses me is that God says that I should be able to discern those things from nature, and I can't. Nature seems to say the opposite. My question is not "what's the truth here," but "what am I missing that keeps me from seeing it."