One of the most cringe-worthy sights I can’t seem to come to terms with is bald men who drive sports cars. You know – the bright red or canary yellow ones with the tops down. Call it stereotyping if you like but the drivers always seem to be men with little to no hair. Obviously they don’t need to worry about ending up with a Bridget Jones-style mop at the end of a long and windy drive, but I’m not entirely certain they’re not trying to compensate for something else.
The thing that I find difficult to grasp is that they’ve clearly got money to spend on expensive suits and flashy cars, so why are they so blasé about their hair, or lack thereof – do they not know there are treatments for male hair loss that are actually scientifically proven to work? No doubt most men realise that they’ve got a pretty good chance of ending up as bald as their old man, so they’ve got some time to come to terms with the idea. Maybe that’s why you see some men embracing hair loss by shaving it all off – Bruce Willis-style – before baldness can make its move. Then there are the guys who haven’t quite come to terms with the whole male pattern baldness thing, who try to conceal their hair loss by wearing baseball caps 24/7, or worse – with the dreaded comb over.
I mean really, if the two worst hairstyles in history – the comb over and the mullet – had a competition to see who could hold a woman down, which one do you think would win? Well, take a look at Bon Jovi vs. Donald Trump. The 80s rock star and mullet icon is still married to his childhood sweetheart while ‘The Trump’ and his comb over have been through three marriages (although not surprisingly the wives got younger each time).
Now, there was a theory a few years back that suggested why younger females are generally attracted to older men. I won’t go into detail, you can read the full story here – http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/mar/02/evolution.genetics. But to give you the gist, it says:
“…any stag that can still display a fine set of antlers in the twilight of its years, or an old peacock that can still rustle up a first-rate plumage – or an ageing Lothario who can still sport a Rolex and a riverside apartment – has to be considered a major catch. Only a creature with really powerful genes can do that and therefore attract females who are, in general, the ones who choose partners while males wait to be selected.”
So what about the rest of the male population? If the above theory is anything to go by, the present economic climate could mean we’ll see a decline in marriages and shortage in babies in the coming years. After all, it’s a fact that hair loss is more concerning during a recession as men (and women) try to obtain a competitive advantage in both work and social situations.
Who knows – maybe if he’d only do something about his own shiny light bulb, British taxpayers wouldn’t be so hard on David Willetts. Besides, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has certainly done well to remain where he is so far – could it have something to do with those thick, wavy locks he sports so well? Come on – there’s got to be something that’s keeping the leader of the most unpopular Labour government in history in his place.
Apparently, even though women are supposedly attracted to successful, older men, they’re also five times more likely to date men with hair. So it seems that ‘bingo!’ for the majority of women would be a successful man who’s getting on in life, drives a sports car and has a decent crop of hair. Well, touché. I suppose I know which amigo I’d rather if a saw Chevy Chase and Steve Martin dragging at the traffic lights.