The Apostle John was described by every Tradition as long haired. What the Churches of GOD had for a Rule came reom the HOLY SPIRIT through the original Twelve Apostolic Shepherds. They were administering Nazarite Vows.

Paul had to tell people he was a Roman citizen, because he was visibly a Jew. His hair didn’t indicate Roman citizenship.

It is always assumed that when Paul writes that it is not good for a man to touch a woman, that he is quoting something asserted by an earlier Corinthian letter to him, in the understanding they had as Greeks from their culture’s philosophers. Is not the thing matter of thinking that nature teaches that it is a shame for a man to have long hair an issue addressed out of the same stream of cultural presumptions addressed to him for comment?

In the beginning, GOD warned of eating from a tree, not of leeting Adam’s hair be long.

In answer to your articles this is what the first one says.
‘vases depicting bearded men in feminine attire’
That just goes to prove my case not yours. The hair was masculine not feminine it was the clothes that were feminine. That is all I could see of any relevence in that article other then the usual biased assessment.
The second article is talking from the second century AD. This is latter and we already know the culture changed. Even in the article it compares the removal of body hair with the homosexual and that body hair is an indicator of the male gender. This book is trying to make sense of the verse by finding proof that the Romans and Corinthians had such views and customs that is that long hair is feminine. The writer admits at the start that they are biased. They say the Stoics and others tell us… on the other hand the article admits that Greek Male deities were depicted with long hair. We do know that the latter greeks saw men with long hair as weak. This was a change of culture. The distinguishing feature of the statue is the clothing not the hair. The article is somewhat misleading as the roman Emperors who saw long hair as weak were the later ones. Dio Chrysostom speaks of what we all agree was the custom of the greeks and romans after the culture change. In fact Dio Chrysostom was a Stoic that is he despised emotion and weakness. We don’t have the context of some of what is said for example that young men shaved off their locks at puberty. We don’t know who the young men it was referring to ar. Was it all the young men or just a select group such as the military were the fashion no doubt started. Somehow it changed from shorn hair being a shame reserved for slaves until the stoics changed it to being honorable to be enslaved to country.
Going on to the third book. Juvenile first condemns the Corinthians as being weak as a result of using perfumes and of removing hair from their legs.
Again they mention the statues of Barbarians wearing long hair. But the mention of weakness into it is a biased comment. The statues can’t speak for themselves. The statues don’t depict feminine weak men but rather warriors.
Again the writer is trying to use Juveniles comments to support their understanding of 1 Corinthians.