i'm flabbergasted after readin this article on alopecia-sufferin bird's:
.. it's essential that this treatment exists on the NHS because there are so many girls out there living half a life. Your hair is part of your sexuality and your glamour and without it you can feel like your whole word has come apart. It is a very isolating experience."..
right, but at taxpayers' expense? so a bird's self-esteem depends solely on her crownin glory? there's this thingy called a wig innit? and there are alternatives like the head scarf and hat, innit?
and i thought being glamorous is a state of mind? non?
methinks there's absolutely nothin wrong with being bald [one can't stop illnesses from occurin, innit?] as long as there's enough skilfully-applied warpaint to make one appear as glamorous - if not more.
and if one doesn't wish to spend much time warpaintin, put on the head scarf or hat and then match em with a pair of 60's style dark shades, and some deep red lipstick or lipgloss - very elegant, non?
but really, if one's not brave to go bald, then when is society goin to learn and accept premature baldness as a fact of life?
as enscribed by the letter b @ August 8, 2005 10:32 AM | someone's pinged