3 ms·
I agree, and as a bald man myself, it's a tad surprising to read this from the spouse of a man who's currently only thinning - and someone they have two kids wi
by valarauko 4y ago
I agree, and as a bald man myself, it's a tad surprising to read this from the spouse of a man who's currently only thinning - and someone they have two kids with. That thinning hair has been extrapolated to something that's irrevocably damaging to their marriage. I get it - a shiny pate isn't everybody's thing - but it's still surprising to read that it's worth losing a spouse and the father of your children over.
- happytoexplain 4y ago>irrevocably damaging to their marriage >worth losing a spouse and the father of your children over. Again, this is uncharitable exaggeration/rewording. Doing this to people perpetuates the unwillingness of many to speak honestly even at times when it would be ultimately beneficial.
- missingrib 4y agoI'm confused as to how this is at all uncharitable, here is a direct quote from the commenter: "I guess that would work for a lot of people, but I'm personally not attracted to bald men. So I think I'd prefer if my husband got the transplants, I think our only problem is money... but the more I think about it, it'll probably be worth it for our marriage in the long run." Is it being uncharitable to assume that she thinks that her marriage will be negatively affected by her husband going bald? She specifically states she's not attracted to bald men, and says she'd be willing to spend money they don't currently have for him to get a hair transplant in order to save their marriage "in the long run".