How different do you think attitudes towards male pattern baldness would be if the pattern was inverse?

[BurningCoals]

So I was reading through some older threads a while back and found this one: https://www.hairlosstalk.com/intera...cial-to-frame-your-face-dont-shave-it.113040/

One of the comments, written by @ManinBlack , writes about how having hair on the top of your head makes a huge difference, and that it would have been better if the balding pattern was inverse, so that instead of losing the hair at the top of our heads and keeping it at the sides and back, like we do IRL, we instead kept the hair on top and lost it at the sides and back.

This got me thinking. How different would the negative attitudes towards male pattern baldness be if the inverse pattern was the real one?

On one hand, you're still losing a big chunk of your hair, which is definitely not an attractive or pleasant sight and feeling. And the process would still be associated with aging, which is not attractive as well.

But on the other hand, the top of your head is much more central and apparent than the sides IMO. It screams much more "bald" to have no hair on top than at the sides. I feel like the problems with self-image and identity wouldn't have been so pronounced with the inverse pattern. And the hairline is also the most important for framing your face, and since the hairline would stay the same, that aspect wouldn't have been an issue.

I think that if the pattern was inverse it would still be viewed as a negative and unattractive trait, but not to as big of a degree as with the IRL one. So how different do you think the attitudes towards male pattern baldness would be if the pattern would be? Would they be different, or just the same? Why?

 

[whatevr]

That would easily be far less aesthetically damaging. Hell, that look is stylish these days. You have guys all the time wanting a 'narrower' look, shaving the sides short and fading it into the top. OK, it would probably look a bit more 'sickly' if it was completely bald, but it would still do rather OK I think. Maybe it would limit your styling options and give you a permanent punk look, but it would still be a hell of a lot better than what we're stuck with.

Perhaps they wouldn't even bother making medication for it. Would you want to transplant hair from the top to the sides? Most likely not, doubt most people would. Never seen anyone leave long sides and buzzing the top. Ever. It's just an aesthetically unpleasing look, unproportional.

I would let all of my sides & back hair be harvested if it could fill in my top.

 

[lonelypanda]

I agree, I think the stigma surrounding baldness is largely due to how damaging it is to someone's appearance of health, youth, and attractiveness. There are tons of little small but noticeable changes in appearance due to aging that cosmetic companies and the general public don't even care about or actively think about. The vast majority of people don't discuss or market products towards the elasticity of eyelids or the amount of hair on wrists. If half the population had a faulty gene that made people's eyelids enlarge and look like chameleons as they aged, I imagine that that would change.

I feel like balding in reverse would definitely result in less negative attitudes towards hair loss. I imagine we would see a lot more mullets than we do now if nothing else lol

 

[Demitri]

Male pattern baldness is a sign of inferior genetics, old age, and sickness. That is the reason it does not look pleasing, it is built into society's mind that way.

It might be hard to imagine, but if the pattern was reversed it would still be viewed the same way. In this alternate universe, men would be letting their sides grow and cutting the hair on top short to compensate (the reverse of what we do now) and you would be making a forum post thinking it would be so much better if male pattern baldness started from the centre of the head instead.

 

[JohnSmith21]

1. This thread is totally pointless. 2. The poster above is stupid, it has nothing to do with inferior genetic. Hair frames your face. You look worse when your bald bc your face isn’t framed by your hair. If it only happend on the sides, it would still frame your face, just maybe a little less bc no temple points.

 

[JohnSmith21]

Male pattern baldness is a sign of inferior genetics, old age, and sickness. That is the reason it does not look pleasing, it is built into society's mind that way.

It might be hard to imagine, but if the pattern was reversed it would still be viewed the same way. In this alternate universe, men would be letting their sides grow and cutting the hair on top short to compensate (the reverse of what we do now) and you would be making a forum post thinking it would be so much better if male pattern baldness started from the centre of the head instead.

This is absurd. Hair frames your face, that’s why you look bad when you bald. Has nothing to do with inferior genetics. It wouldn’t look as bad if you balded on the sides bc you would still be framing your face. Your insane if you think it’s a society thing, and that shaving the top and leaving the sides would look good in any universe

 

[WaccWaccWacc]

Male pattern baldness is a sign of inferior genetics

Simply false. You cannot say LeBron James or Michael Jordan have inferior genetics. Its just not accurate.

 

[Ritchie]

I know for a fact if it was inversed, alexander shenton would still be here.

bRuH aM i gOiNg BaLd oN ThE SiDeS? I AM NOT DELUSIONAL!

 

[Tom4362]

It might be hard to imagine, but if the pattern was reversed it would still be viewed the same way. In this alternate universe, men would be letting their sides grow and cutting the hair on top short to compensate (the reverse of what we do now) and you would be making a forum post thinking it would be so much better if male pattern baldness started from the centre of the head instead.

Hahahahahahahahaha
no

 

[Will Be an Egg in 5 years]

Would still look weird, but way better than the classic pattern. Actually, Nobody would care losing hair on the back and sides.

 

[Armando Jose]

Would still look weird, but way better than the classic pattern. Actually, Nobody would care losing hair on the back and sides.

 

[whatevr]

^ Bad example, of course a bad hair style can ruin any 'look'. If your sides are short / non-existent, the top needs to be either buzzed, crew cut, slicked back or faded in some way.

 

[dudealpha]

So I was reading through some older threads a while back and found this one: https://www.hairlosstalk.com/intera...cial-to-frame-your-face-dont-shave-it.113040/

One of the comments, written by @ManinBlack , writes about how having hair on the top of your head makes a huge difference, and that it would have been better if the balding pattern was inverse, so that instead of losing the hair at the top of our heads and keeping it at the sides and back, like we do IRL, we instead kept the hair on top and lost it at the sides and back.

This got me thinking. How different would the negative attitudes towards male pattern baldness be if the inverse pattern was the real one?

On one hand, you're still losing a big chunk of your hair, which is definitely not an attractive or pleasant sight and feeling. And the process would still be associated with aging, which is not attractive as well.

But on the other hand, the top of your head is much more central and apparent than the sides IMO. It screams much more "bald" to have no hair on top than at the sides. I feel like the problems with self-image and identity wouldn't have been so pronounced with the inverse pattern. And the hairline is also the most important for framing your face, and since the hairline would stay the same, that aspect wouldn't have been an issue.

I think that if the pattern was inverse it would still be viewed as a negative and unattractive trait, but not to as big of a degree as with the IRL one. So how different do you think the attitudes towards male pattern baldness would be if the pattern would be? Would they be different, or just the same? Why?

I think that you're right to some extent. Hairstyles are something that we value in a social context, so we've come to appreciate hair when it is full and we have a lot of it on top of our heads, because that's where we tend to lose it and therefore we treasure it the most. Who knows how the perception of baldness would've evolved if humans were balding like you suggested? Of course, if we take a mutant human that is balding this way and transplant him into our own society then yes, he'll have an easier time. But if we put him in a social context with other of his fellow mutants, I'm not so sure.

 

[TurboFixer]

BRB becoming a viking if this was true.

Would not give a single FCK if we would be balding like this;

View attachment 150250

Chadnar Chadbrook

 

[Ritchie]

There would also be different patterns aswell.

This would be norwood 1


This would be norwood 2


This would be norwood 7 probably since some peoples baldness goes further down the back and sides

 

[TurboFixer]

There would also be different patterns aswell.

This would be norwood 1
View attachment 150265

This would be norwood 2
View attachment 150266

This would be norwood 7 probably since some peoples baldness goes further down the back and sides

View attachment 150267

lol'd

holy sh*t Shia Shia LaBeouf is so hard to look at

 

[Ritchie]

lol'd

holy sh*t Shia Shia LaBeouf is so hard to look at

he is a bit weird lol

 

[Will Be an Egg in 5 years]

^ Bad example, of course a bad hair style can ruin any 'look'. If your sides are short / non-existent, the top needs to be either buzzed, crew cut, slicked back or faded in some way.

View attachment 150249

I'm actually not a fan of these kinds of hairsrstyle AT ALL. I don't think a single one looks good unless you're a good looking Man. It looked bad in the 40s, still look bad nowadays. BUT, having hair on top is always better.