The other day, I bumped into a close female friend of mine who has long suffered  from alopecia, which means hair loss. Over the years, I have worked with myriad clients and friends, all victims of permanent hair loss, along with many who have endured temporary hair loss as a result of chemotherapy. One client of mine even went completely bald as a result of stress—she lost all her hair following an extensive and consuming remodel of her home. Many women with hair loss issues come to Los Angeles in the hopes that the L.A. professionals will be able to help them. After all, if you can’t get great-looking hair in Hollywood, where can you go?

A surprisingly large percentage of females have either very thin hair or are completely bald. Of the total number of Americans who suffer from hair loss, up to forty percent are women. Research indicates that, in the United States alone, approximately 25-30 million women are affected by some form of hair loss. And men think they have it bad! At the very least, male baldness is widely accepted in most cultures, and very often is even regarded as sexy.

What are the causes of female hair thinning and hair loss? Common causes include autoimmune conditions, such as lupus, in combination with stress. Nutritional deficits, such as low-carb diets or imbalances of certain nutrients, such as Vitamin A, zinc, manganese, B6, essential fatty acids, and iron, can also cause women to lose their hair. Drug side effects and certain hormonal conditions can also cause female hair loss, as can birth control pills. Anything that has the potential to negatively affect our minds, our emotions, or our physical selves has the potential to induce hair loss.

Most women deal with their thinning hair in silence, and the secret is incredibly painful to keep. Hair loss is more in the closet than homosexuality these days, as women rarely discuss this issue even with their closest friends. Since hair loss is not life-threatening, the medical community deflates the significance of hair loss for women, offering little in the way of support or treatment. But female hair loss is certainly a big deal, no matter what the doctors say. The psychological pressure to conform to absurd standards of beauty and lifestyle are difficult enough—as it stands, women must attempt to stay in shape, wear the proper clothing, earn their own money, maintain perfect relationships, and raise decent children. Worries about hair loss only exacerbate the disparity between the modern woman and her idealized self-image, chipping away at her already fragile self-esteem.

Hair loss can occur as early as a woman’s teenaged years, played out under the microscope of intense peer pressure. In order to maintain any sense of positive self image, these young girls must lie to friends and potential dates about something so beyond their control. A newly divorced woman face similar obstacles—re-entering the world of dating and mating, this woman feels pressured to lie to her suitors about the status of her hair, or her lack thereof. When we imagine a woman at her most sensual, slowly stripping to climb into bed with her partner, her hair does not usually land next to her pile of sexy lingerie.

Amy Gibson was starring on a daytime soap opera when she started losing her hair from alopecia areata, an auto-immune condition that eventually left her permanently bald. At the onset, she was only 13 years old. She managed to keep her condition a secret through decades of soap stardom. Eventually, in an effort to help other women in similar situations go “from feeling like a victim to being victorious” (amyspresence.com), Gibson decided to break her silence. A brave and compassionate woman, she now publicly sports different wigs in a variety of colors and styles—and she looks stunning in all of them!

I met an older woman recently who permanently lost her hair after being given ether during the delivery of her two children; she has been wearing wigs for over 50 years. I don’t know what options she had when she first started wearing wigs, but these days, so many wonderful possibilities exist. From gorgeous full wigs made of high-grade Russian human hair to less expensive wigs made of coarser Indonesian or Chinese hair, or wigs crafted from a variety of impressive new synthetics, the options have considerably improved. It takes a full-fledged commitment to figure out what will work best for each person. For some, hair extensions are the answer; for others, a small piece to add fullness to the top of the head does the trick. For some women, a full wig is necessary. The level of comfort is also a viable consideration, as is the versatility of the piece—can a woman swim in her wig? Will the piece require a good amount of time and preparation in order for a woman to feel ready for public outings?

None of these considerations are trivial. They say a woman’s crowning glory is her hair. Without it, the world sees her as ill or disfigured, inevitably affecting the way she sees herself. Hair so powerfully symbolizes sexuality that it will take some time for us to be as neutral toward the idea of a balding woman as we are toward balding men.

My heart goes out to all the women who expend the enormous amounts of time, energy, and money it takes to manage their hair loss, and to those who suffer the psychological grief of losing their “crowning glory.” I extend a special thanks to those who, like Gibson, have become comfortable enough with their hair loss to break the silence of shame.

The Stress Test for the Candidates

Watching news coverage of the presidential election campaigns can be exhausting. The relentless campaign schedules call forth memories of childhood books, whereby Dick and Jane become Obama and McCain, except the candidates—not their pets—do the running. “See Obama run!” says Fox news; “Run, McCain, run!” says CNN.
And run they do: the candidates race from city to city and town to town, speaking at multiple meetings and city halls, appearing as guests on television talk shows and swinging by swing states in an effort to secure more votes. All this, and the presumed candidates haven’t even chosen their running mates yet. Even watching their travels exhausts me; I can only imagine the levels of energy these nominees must exude, the levels of stress these men endure.
No matter how comfortable the plane, flying is a stressful endeavor. The presidential candidate jet-setters lack the ability to sit down and relax, to watch reality television and check out. They are constantly away from the comforts of their homes, the consistent warmth of their families, their pets, their beds. Instead, the presidential nominees spend their time with the media, shake hands with strangers, kiss babies that aren’t theirs, and sleep on their feet. The public does not allow their candidates the normalcy of an eight-hour day.
What do these candidates do to relieve the stress of campaigning, the stresses of keeping their children out of the public eye, designing policies and then redesigning the policies, keeping their faces bright and shining in front of the cameras, hoping their wives will continue to support them when they can’t even kiss them goodnight?
Do they practice yoga? Do they meditate? Do they install exercise machinery on the airplane, using their time in the air to work up a sweat? Do they get enough sleep? Do they get any sun? Do they take hot baths with scented oils? Do they throw around a football? How do these men relieve the constant stress they endure?
We, as a public, have come to expect this superhuman effort from our presidential candidates, even though we would never want to perform this way ourselves. If we caught Obama or McCain “indulging” in a 20-minute power nap, we might even think he was slacking off.
John McCain is in his early 70s, and the negative effects of stress on the heart of a septuagenarian are common knowledge. But even younger men, like Barack Obama, are not safe from stress or its effects—stress physiologically affects us all.  Still, we expect our candidates to handle the rigors of the campaign trail. We constantly watch and judge our candidates—and when every word one says is analyzed for impact, one can’t be tired or stressed, because one slip of the tongue could mean the demise of a campaign, the ruination of a name that had the potential to change our country for the better.
We use the constant stress of campaigning to gauge how well our candidates will be able to handle those 3 a.m. phone calls to the White House, knowing that the fate of the free world depends on how much calm and clarity they can elicit during times of crisis. Still, I, for one, would feel better knowing these candidates were taking an occasional day off to rest, a few unscheduled hours to accommodate a nap in a hammock or a laugh with friends, to sip a beer in the back yard and enjoy some sun.
Instead of running the candidates through a maze of appearances without any rest, my test for the candidates would be to put them on a solitary weekend retreat, with no access to blackberries, iPhones, faxes, computers, or any other form of communication. Could they manage an entire two days without going crazy, without thinking the world would collapse without them? A person who knows how to be with himself, by himself, a person who can allow himself to de-stress, in my book is a winner—at the very least, in terms of his physical and psychological health.

A slew of California weddings will transpire this week as gay marriage, for the first time, becomes legal in the state. West Hollywood is thrilled; Modesto is not. Many towns and cities across California are preparing to boost their economies through wedding and honeymoon services for homosexual couples.  Other individuals, though, are responding less favorably—Kern County Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Ann Barnett, for instance, decided to stop performing all weddings after unsuccessfully trying to resign her position as county clerk while keeping her other titles intact.  Barnett’s response likely results from her conservative religious beliefs, spurred by a pastor who is strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Just because the majority of people are heterosexual does not mean the homosexual minority is any less cap able of sustaining stable, long-term relationships—so why would the American majority work to deny a minority the same civil rights they’ve been allowed to enjoy?

My eyes were opened to the realities of sexuality when I started to raise animals.  I had a real menagerie, raising everything from ducks, cattle, and horses to chickens and llamas.

The first llama I acquired was a stud, named Valentino for his healthy sexual appetite.  When he was delivered to my home, his seller leaned over and whispered me some sound advice: “Get him a bale of hay,” she said.  I obliged, and when I wheeled that bale of hay into his pen, Valentino promptly mounted it.  Valentino was so horny that he would mount that bale of hay every day.

Llamas, for those of you who don’t know, take their sweet time with sex. They don’t ejaculate; instead, they emit a constant drip over 45 minutes.  Pretty soon, the neighbors were coming over to check out the show.  I’m positive I overheard at least one wife say to her husband, “Look, honey, how long it takes him!”

We also had a gelding, which I named Bambi.  Valentino was equally as interested in Bambi as in his bale of hay.  At first, I assumed it was because Bambi was a gelding—meaning that Bambi was castrated and thus did not have a clear gender.  Later, when my husband and I started breeding llamas, I learned that studs are interested in anything they can mount, regardless of relation or gender, and we had to keep Valentino separated from his siblings in order to prevent inbreeding.

All my animals seemed blissfully bisexual—and their sexual behaviors are not unique to them, either.  After all, humans are part of the same animal kingdom.  With my observations of the animals’ sexual behaviors as a model for human sexuality, I concluded long ago that human sexuality moves on a continuum, unique to each person and based on the hormones they receive from the Creator.  Sexuality is most certainly an in-born orientation, and most definitely not a choice.

So why are my fellow Judeo-Christians in the United States so homophobic? Why in the world are people so worried about gay marriage? Oh, I’ve heard the myriad arguments: marriage is between one man and one woman (tell that to the FLDS); gay relationships are immoral (even though we allow convicted felons of all sorts—even child molesters—to get married); marriage is for procreation (uh, I don’t see our government legislating against childless heterosexual couples).  But in the face of these inadequate excuses, one the question still stands: why these rationales?

The answer, simply, is Fear—and in the case of gay marriage, two separate fears.

The first is a deep cellular fear of losing power and control.  Like our animal friends, the superior male is often concerned that any male further down the ladder could potentially challenge his preferable position of power.  In animals, the weaker male submits to the stronger one—a subordinate horse will back away, a llama will kneel.  People are unconsciously afraid that this same thing will happen to them—and this has nothing to do with sex.  It has everything to do, though, with the fear of losing power and becoming subordinate.

The second fear does have to do with sex.  Most men, it seems, are incredibly frightened of having any “homosexual” feelings for another man. And these are the same men who light up at the thought of seeing two women together!

Skin is skin, whether on a man or woman, and bodies respond accordingly.  When team members pat each other on their backsides, or when young teenage boys gather together and participate in a circle jerk long before they have girlfriends, or when an “accidental” touch occurs between two members of the same gender and the body unintentionally responds, fear arises. ‘Uh-oh,’ says the subconscious, ‘I shouldn’t be feeling anything for this person—I shouldn’t be aroused. Could I be gay?’  Try talking to a man about his unconscious feelings of sensuality for other men; he will undoubtedly unravel.

Personally, I think our society puts too much stress on the sexual aspect of homosexuality.  Gay marriages are no different than straight ones.  Any marriage based entirely on sex would be lucky to last a year.  I have been married for over thirty years, and I have found that the real marriages are the partnerships.  When libidinous passions subside, you are left with the person—and if you are lucky enough to have found someone who loves and cares about you enough to continue to share a life with you, with or without young lust, then you are truly blessed.  The concepts of love, friendship, and partnership in a marriage should be considered when remarking on the sanctity of marriage as an institution—not matters of sexual preference.

The opposite of love is not hate: it is fear.  Since many Americans equate marriage with love, those who protest gay marriage fear that it will jeopardize them personally—that a change in the traditional Judeo-Christean view of marriage will somehow compromise their family, their children, their lives.  These people fear that if we depart from what our grandparents taught us, or from what we think the Bible says, chaos will undoubtedly ensue.  But I cannot see any good reason to fear gay marriage.  If your colleague at work, or your child, or your next-door neighbor wants to sanctify his/her love for another of the same gender, does it really impact anyone else’s lifestyle?

Research shows that marriage tends to promote stability, so it seems that more married couples, heterosexual or not, would actually benefit society.  Having witnessed so many Eleanor Rigbys in this world, so many people who swallow pills or eat themselves into obesity in a futile attempt to combat their loneliness and depression, I applaud those who have the guts and self-worth to choose an alternative lifestyle to increase their personal happiness. Instead of judging others and forbidding them from forming a union of happiness, I ask that we allow people to love and support one another.  Life is hard enough; why do it alone?

As the weddings commence, let us pop open some champagne and raise our glasses for those gay and lesbian partnerships now eligible for all the delights—and hazards—the rest of us have always been allowed to enjoy. Congratulations, new marriages—and good luck!

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, ruled today that the grounds for seizing over 400 children and putting them in temporary custody with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services were “legally and factually insufficient” under Texas law. The higher court found that the Department had not, contrary to the requirements of the Code, presented enough evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of the children; especially not to any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty. This ruling only addresses the immediate custody of the children.

What will this mean? Likely, it will occasion the immediate return of the children to their parents. The State of Texas may, nevertheless, continue to pursue the sect for creating unsafe conditions for children, or, for that matter, for polygamy. They may also petition the highest court in Texas to review the decision of the Appellate Court.

As the media continues to carry news on this topic, I hope that both sides of the case will be fairly presented. Willie Jessop, a church elder, and Rod Parker, attorney for the FLDS, have driven the media with their point of view. I’d like to defend the Texas authorities in one problem they have faced in this situation.

Child Protective Services had to revise down the number of underage pregnant girls and underage mothers, finding far fewer than originally claimed. Contrary to FLDS claims of “lying and cheating” by the Department, it was very difficult for Child Protective Services to get a correct count. Initially, the women refused to identify themselves or their children; the women don’t have driver’s licenses; the children call several women “mother”; and the women look much younger than their actual years, most likely a result of diet. After the DNA testing, the mothers became more forthright about the facts, which allowed the department to determine accurate ages.

We are still left with the question why any parent would willingly keep their child in a household where girls are at risk of a forced marriage to some old codger before the age of 16.

In the long run, perhaps young girls (and boys) will be safer in FLDS compounds everywhere in the U.S. now that it is clear that sexual abuse of young girls won’t be tolerated by the State. At least, as an attorney and sexual abuse expert, I hope so.

From San Angelo, Texas

Five judges, five separate courtrooms, hundreds of hearings. Beginning today, and lasting for the next three weeks,San Angelo, Texas, is host to the largest custody case in history. What’s at stake? The future of 463 children taken by Texas authorities from the polygamist Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) group ranch and placed in foster care. I flew in late last night on a small 50-seater jet that was more than half-filled by media from every national TV station and news outlet. Hotel rooms are at a premium.

When I pulled up in front of the courthouse this morning, it was 100 degrees outside, frosty cold in the overly air-conditioned courthouse. But the heat was on for the 168 mothers and 69 fathers of these children. The sole purpose of the hearings is to review the “family service plan” from Child Protective Services for each child. Is it specific enough so the parents know what they have to do in order to regain custody?

Six-year-old Samuel Jeffs was the subject of the first hearing I attended. It was being tried in the courtroom of State District Judge Barbara Walther. She’s very bright, engaging, clear speaking, and much to the dismay of some of the attorneys for the parents who attempted to sidetrack the proceedings, she doesn’t put up with any bull.

Little Samuel is the son of 34-year-old Sharon Barlow, a petite, almost child-like looking woman, and sect leader Warren Jeffs, who is currently in jail. Jeffs was convicted in Utah of being an accomplice to rape in the marriage of a 14-year-old to her 19-year-old first cousin (the 14-year-old was Elissa Wall, who has just published a book called Stolen Innocence about growing up in the cult). And little Samuel, one of 10 children in state custody who are believed to be the children of Jeffs, has a birth defect that requires a prosthetic leg. Barlow only has this one child, possibly a result of the FLDS belief that birth defects (as well as all disease) indicate wrongdoing. Samuel is being fitted for a new prosthesis by the state of Texas, and set up with a course in physical therapy.

The attorney for the boy’s mother objected to the CPS plan for her to get the boy back, saying it wasn’t clear enough. According to the plan, Barlow must take parenting classes, find a safe living environment, and undergo a psychological

evaluation.

One mother, Barbara Jessop, whose son Sampson was fathered by Merrill Jessop (the husband of Carolyn Jessop, who left the cult and wrote the book, Escape), wouldn’t speak to the court at all because of a pending criminal investigation.

She didn’t want to acknowledge that she had even read the plan, clearly worried that anything she said could be used as evidence against her. Some parents did not object to the plan they were presented with. Cynthia Joy Jessop,

with an infant she was allowed to keep at home, and Richard Samuel Jessop have six children together, and they are trying to get their three older boys together into one foster home in San Antonio. Unlike the others I saw, these parents made eye contact with each other and with the court. They felt they could do the plan.

It’s true the plans are somewhat similar, for good reason. They all involve training in parenting, psychological evaluation, vocational evaluation of the parents, and housing. From there, the “cookie cutter” aspects disappear. As the weeks go on, the plans will become more and more individualized. As the parents implement the services named in the plans, the experts report back and the plan can change.

Some parents claimed surprise at the proceedings, although they’ve had sufficient notice about the public hearings. How could they be surprised by anything? These are members of a cult known for its capricious and arbitrary events. A man can be told to leave his wife and kids and go to another town to “repent,” while his wife is “reassigned” to marry another man, who has to be seen by her kids as their new father.

If a boy shows any indication of wanting to think for himself, he is dumped outside of town by his parents and becomes a non-person, unable to contact his family. Out of the 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys, but there are only 17 boys aged 14 to 17 compared with the 53 girls in that age range. A young teen girl can be told at any time that she will now be married to a man, possibly many times older, who can be a total stranger. More than half the 53 teen girls between the ages of 14 and 17 have children or are pregnant, state officials said. As a spokesman for Child Protective Services said, “It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive.”

It’s hard to imagine what will happen with these children. Even freed from the possibility of being dumped on the street or married off too young, how will they be freed from the fear of the “outside” world? Fear of the good people of Texas who are trying their best to help them?

With much time, and much kindness.

Is Miley Cyrus following in the footsteps of Britney, Paris, and Vanessa Hudgins by posing for provocative photos that circulated on the Internet last week, as well as those from a suggestive Vanity Fair photo shoot in which she’s wrapped in a satin sheet and appears to be nude?

To our tweens and teenagers, it must seem like this kind of behavior is a winner. Kids know it’s unlikely that the photo shoot, especially by someone as stellar as Annie Leibovitz,will throw a monkey wrench in Miley’s career. After all, hardly anyone had ever heard of Paris Hilton before her sex tape, and Britney’s posing without her panties hasn’t hurt her either. The truth is, and kids know it, release of these photos may actually throw her career into overdrive. Miley has apologized and said she’s “embarrassed” about the whole affair.

Miley’s embarrassment and apology offer parents a great opportunity to discuss with their kids the pros and cons of posting photos to social network sites. The Vanity Fair photos are actually tame compared to what some girls post without their parents knowledge. I recently had a workshop participant whose 11-year-old daughter had herself videoed in a bra, draped over a sports car, and posted it to her MySpace page. While kids are savvier about technology than their parents, they aren’t emotionally mature yet and don’t have a clue about the consequences: they don’t realize that a photo can come back to haunt them when they’re trying to get a job or applying for college, or worse, being stalked by an online predator.

I urge parents to treat their children responsibly, rather than handing down a decree. Use Miley’s experience to open a discussion about what’s a good idea long-term, about privacy, about the risk of online predators. Ask your teen to consider “could this be bad news for me later?” Start a conversation with your teen rather than trying to police them.

Just as with alcohol and drugs, parents need to load up their kids with ammunition to understand that when they communicate on sites like MySpace and FaceBook, they are communicating to the world.

We all instinctively know the difference between a photo that sends a message of youthful life and vitality vs. photos that sexualize a child, as does the Vanity Fair shot. I would certainly question the photographer’s judgment; posing a 15 year old in a sheet is going to send a sexual message that conflicts with the squeaky clean image more appropriate to her age. When People magazine did a survey, 77% thought the photos were inappropriate for a girl her age. In our country, where recent statistics demonstrate that sexual abuse of girls is approaching 60% and boys 45%, it would seem smart to err on the side of caution and encourage our kids be kids as long as possible.

ALL ABOUT AMBIEN

May 5, 2008

The popular sleeping pill Ambien is a sedative and a hypnotic, causing relaxation and sleep. It affects chemicals in the brain that have become unbalanced, which results in insomnia. So Ambien sounds like a good solution, but how many people actually read all the little print that contains the warnings?

Ambien is not a good choice of sleep aid for anyone who drinks alcohol or has a history of addiction problems, even to cigarettes, because it’s so seriously addictive. It can become addictive in a very short time, even less than 10 days, and withdrawal symptoms, including rebound insomnia, can occur—the very thing you were trying to address in the first place.

It is frequently found in cases of driving under the influence, indicating abuse. It is also abused recreationally by those who force themselves to stay awake to experience vivid visuals and a mild euphoria and light-based hallucinations. Once a tolerance to the drug is reached, the sedation effect decreases and the euphoric side effects remain, along with increasing anxiety.

If mixed with alcohol or marijuana, the effects of Ambien effects are intensified. Nor is it a good choice if you’re dealing with depression. I urge people to try safer alternatives for sleep, like St. John’s wort, kava kava, or valerian, but not if you’re using Ambien, which reacts adversely with these popular sleep preparations as well as with many antidepressants and even with caffeine.

If we’re having trouble sleeping, it’s often because we’ve lost our connection to Mother Earth – so easy to do today in our fast-paced world of computers, artificial lighting, and freeway living. Before asking for a prescription, try getting more fresh air and sunshine (20 minutes a day of sun is a natural sleep aid) and exercise every day for a week to reconnect your body the natural world. Also consider drinking no caffeine after early morning, turning off the TV an hour before bedtime, and having the same sleep time every night. Nine times out of ten, this will address insomnia; if not, see a sleep expert. Menopause can also cause insomnia; if that’s the situation, see someone who can deal with the symptoms of menopause.

The Huffington Post

Posted April 21, 2008 | 07:27 PM (EST)

I’m leaving for San Angelo, TX, in the morning. I’ve got to see for myself the mothers in floor length pioneer dresses buttoned up the neck and down the wrist, all wearing the same pattern, their long-handled underwear peeking out, their uncut hair pulled up in a pompadour. I want to ask these young women what could possibly compel them to stand by and watch while their underage daughters are handed over to men old enough to be their grandfathers—men who already have any number of wives and a passel of children. Men who are often close relatives.

What has been pulled over these women’s eyes that they don’t see this as abuse? And what of the family practice that routinely subjects their male children to the “lost boys” fate? How do they feel when their young teenage sons are abducted in the middle of the night, taken out of the compound and dumped on a faraway roadside to fend for themselves? Do they not see this as barbaric? Does it not turn their stomachs the way it turns mine?

No doubt, these women have been subject to systematic victimization. Beaten down and into submission, they fear the patriarch and give up their own mind. They have a detached, eerie quality and all speak in little girl voices with a false sweetness. The fear of God and the patriarch have permanently shut them up. To a woman, these wives and mothers cannot look squarely at the camera. The truth is not to be told—that is the law of the land. When questioned by Larry King if underage girls are forced to marry older men, all the women gave the same stock response: “not that I’m aware of.”

But these women are also perpetrators; complicity is its own form of abuse. Carolyn Jessup is a former cult member and 6th generation polygamist. Refusing to take the complicit route, she took action instead. When she realized that her eldest daughter would be next in line for statutory rape under the guise of marriage she chose to escape. She gathered up her eight children and fled. Interviewed on TV during the custody hearings, she laid it on the line, saying: “Every mother is born with a protective instinct—these mothers know that it’s an unsafe environment.” Thank you, Carolyn for showing us the courage it takes to speak the truth and keep your children safe.

My father sexually abused me from age two until age twelve. Where was my mother? What caused her protective instinct to go belly up? Did she take any action to protect me? She did not, perhaps for the very same reasons the women in Texas don’t protect their own: expedience. Such inaction is, pure and simple, self-serving. A woman gives up her voice and her instinct to save herself, her position in the family and in the community.

The judge made the correct decision when she ruled that the state had enough evidence to justify taking custody of the children pending further investigation. If a mother’s instinct is not intact, a society must act. The safety of children is sacrosanct and must come first.