When I was young, I had full-bodied, luxuriant hair. Elvis Presley and James Dean had nothing on me! Though not conventionally handsome, I was slender, tall, and possessed of looks that were described as "distinguished", "refined", and "striking".

And then I turned 16. I began to have a "high forehead", followed by indents. By my late twenties, my hair had radically thinned, I had a deep receeding hairline, and the beginnings, horrors, of grey hair.

Now in my late fifties, I am bald. Really. Bald bald. Not much is left, and that only on the side. The few weak strands that struggle to grow on the top are so lonely I ruthlessly cut them down, regularly...... My 'stashe is pure white, and my eyebrows betray whiteness and grey.

So I've been dealing with this balding thing for some time now........ and have discovered that it is not what it is, it is what one does with it. I have chosen to accept it, even embrace it, given that drug-based treatments were far too improbable and expensive in my youth, and hair transplants have become sophisticated only in the last five years, well after I would even think of doing something.

I discovered that my prematurely balding hair, properly handled, with a good (generally expensive) haircut by a skilled barber/stylist who UNDERSTANDS how hair grows out over a two to four week period, led to my being accepted as more mature, more professional, possessed of far, far more gravitas than my age would reasonably suggest. I had client responsibilities by my late twenties with major clients of the firm I was with,that was almost unheard-of at the time. Certainly talent, drive and a passion for what I did were factors, but - I also looked the part, frankly, and carried off conference room dialogues that would not have been entrusted to me had they known I was not yet thirty.

I view a combover as a form of unethical behavior.

I met the woman who became my wife in my late thirties. She was attracted to me because I was, as she described it to me, tall, slender, distinguished-looking and well - a bit striking in an teutonic, sort of austere way.... and she got a kick out of kissing me on the top of my head. Where I was bald.

She still does.

Would I rather have a full head of hair? Would I have preferred the conventional handsomeness of, let's say, Matt Damon or Brad Pitt vs the angular austerity of - Daniel Day Lewis or David Hyde Pierce and the hairline of Bruce Willis (naturally achieved)? Perhaps, but that was not the set of cards genetically dealt to me. My resolution is to work with what I have. I am sure there are women who avoided me because I was bald. At least one, however, thought I was adorable in my slender, balding angularity.

As for the notion that men are viewed as more handsome by other men, and thus given more credibility in the marketplace if they are full-bodied on top, my own emperical experience is quite different. My early-onset baldness, accentuated by a meticulous cut that accented my facial austerity (created by my bone structure) became a tool I used to establish a premature maturity that I played, frankly, to the hilt. The depth of my professional portfolio in my field is STILL based on the reality that i was given, improbably, huge responsibilities 'way early in my career, in part, because I looked the part. And, my "conference room skills", honed over three decades of experience, are now quite formidable.

My suggestion to this delightfully young LW is to take her bf by the hand, find the most competent hair cutter for MEN in their community, book an appointment in an off-time of the salon, and sustain a serious discussion about what does and does not work. Consider the issue objectively, explore options, talk, use a mirror, let the pro do his/her job. Make a very big deal out of managing an endangered resource. And recognize that LW's boyfriend's hairline is a truly moving target, and that changes will need to be made, over time. If she truly loves this guy for who he is, she will support him in this endeavour of embracing an enforced maturity. If she does not, she should leave now, and seek Peter Pan.

The statute of limitations in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is quite brief. About two years ago, the Philadelphia DA ran an investigation and determined sufficient data to be indictable for 170 +/- priests and nuns, internally sheltered from removal from office via the now well-understood machinations of the church. NONE of the circumstances were, sadly, actionalble, becuase of the statute of limitations, although all, I believe, of the cited priests and nuns had allegedly committed abuses within a ten-year period. Certainly, in this heavily Catholic state, the issue will die an inglorious death.

For those who question an indefinite term, I note, in counter, that many survivors of childhood trauma block, repress or otherwise cognatively avoid the memory of the trauma, particularly when the family of the traumatized youtha are manifestly non-present (we love the church) or dysfunctioonal (we love the church and we're drunks.....). The process of extending the statute of limitations for at least some time into an individual's majority allows the adult to deal with a response to their own childhood traumas WITHOUT relying on a dysfunctional family setting.

As for me, my memories came back in a flood in my '30's and '40's, confirmed by my late brother prior to his suicide. Unfortunately, the perps were family members, and suing them was pointless. I marvel at those abused by priests in their ability to sue the perps, and am gratified when the church, in dealing with its malignant behaviors in foisting off priests like musical chairs, are forced to pay.

Money does not remove the pain, but it does pay for therapy.