Imagine spending eight years with someone you genuinely love. You’ve built a home together, shared important milestones and supported each other through life’s challenges. You both imagined growing old together.

Then comes a conversation that changes everything.

“One of you wants children. The other is certain they never want to become a parent.”

Suddenly, the future you’ve spent eight years building together may no longer be possible.

Who should give in? Should the person who wants children sacrifice parenthood for the relationship? Or should the person who wants a child-free life accept a future they never wanted?

Neither person is necessarily wrong. But both may eventually have to make an incredibly painful choice.

This isn’t an ordinary relationship disagreement. Having children can fundamentally change someone’s identity, responsibilities, freedom and lifestyle. And unlike disagreements about finances or household responsibilities, there may be no compromise that leaves both partners happy.

So, can love survive when two people want completely different futures?

Love Is Not Always Enough To Make Two Futures Compatible

We often hear that successful relationships require compromise. Couples negotiate finances, careers, household responsibilities and personal habits. But having children is fundamentally different.

For someone who wants to become a parent, raising a child may represent purpose, identity and a deeply meaningful life experience. For someone who prefers a child-free life, freedom, independence, and personal fulfilment may matter just as much.

Neither position is automatically selfish or immature.

Research published in Personality and Individual Differences has examined differences between people who want children and those who do not, highlighting how reproductive preferences can connect to broader personal values and life goals.

These aren’t necessarily preferences that ordinary compromise can resolve.

Someone who agrees to become a parent solely to save a relationship may eventually experience resentment. Equally, someone who abandons their dream of parenthood may carry a lasting sense of loss.

Sometimes two people can love each other deeply but still be incompatible in the life they want to build.

The Hidden Cost Of Hoping Someone Will Change

One of the biggest mistakes couples make is assuming the other person will eventually change their mind.

The partner who wants children might think, “They’ll feel differently when we’re older.”

The partner who doesn’t want children might believe, “Perhaps I’ll reconsider once we’re financially stable.”

People’s priorities can evolve with age and experience. But a possible change of heart should never be treated as a guaranteed outcome.

A 2021 study published in PLOS ONE examined childbearing intentions and fertility preferences, highlighting that reproductive intentions can change in response to personal circumstances and social factors. However, changing intentions are not inevitable.

There is an important difference between someone who is genuinely undecided and someone who clearly knows they don’t want children.

When couples ignore that distinction, the relationship can become a waiting game. One partner waits for a change that may never happen, while the other feels pressured to reconsider a decision they have already made.

Hope can keep a relationship alive, but it cannot replace an honest agreement about the future.

Is Having Children Worth Sacrificing A Relationship?

After eight years together, walking away can feel almost impossible. Couples may feel that leaving means wasting everything they’ve built, from shared memories to financial investments and emotional sacrifices.

But the years already spent together should not determine the next several decades of someone’s life.

This connects to the psychological concept of sunk cost: people sometimes continue investing in a situation because of what they have already sacrificed, rather than considering whether continuing is the right decision.

The same thinking can keep couples trapped in unresolved disagreements. One person may surrender their dream of parenthood because leaving feels too painful. The other may eventually agree to have children out of fear of losing the relationship.

Neither decision necessarily leads to a fulfilling future.

Eight years together are a reason to respect the relationship, not a reason to abandon something fundamental about yourself.

Can Couples Find A Middle Ground?

Sometimes, yes. But it depends on whether the disagreement is genuinely about having children or about the circumstances surrounding parenthood.

One partner might worry about financial stability, career opportunities or losing personal freedom. Another might be concerned about parenting responsibilities or whether they have enough support.

These concerns may be open to discussion.

Couples can explore questions such as:

• Are we disagreeing about having children, or about when to have them?
• Is one partner genuinely undecided, or are they hoping the other will eventually surrender?
• Are financial, career or lifestyle concerns influencing the decision?
• What would parenthood realistically look like for both of us?
• Are we considering alternatives because we genuinely want them or simply because we are afraid of losing each other?

Professional couples counselling can also help partners understand their underlying concerns and communicate without pressure.

However, adoption, fostering or having fewer children are not automatic compromises. They still involve becoming parents, and both partners must genuinely want that responsibility.

If one person firmly wants children and the other firmly does not, there may simply be no middle ground.

And recognizing that reality is not a failure of communication. It’s an act of honesty.

The Real Danger Is Staying Together While Secretly Hoping To Win

The disagreement itself isn’t always the most damaging part. It’s what happens when couples avoid confronting it.

One partner may keep postponing the conversation because everything else feels wonderful. The other may quietly assume that marriage, financial stability or growing older will eventually change their partner’s mind.

Meanwhile, resentment can develop beneath an otherwise happy relationship.

The person who wants children may feel their future is slipping away. The person who doesn’t may feel pressured into a life they never wanted.

This is why the conversation should happen before major commitments such as marriage, buying property together or making other long-term decisions.

Neither partner should use pregnancy, guilt, emotional pressure or ultimatums to force an outcome. Parenthood should be a freely chosen responsibility, not the price someone pays to keep a relationship.

A healthy relationship cannot be built on one person secretly hoping the other will eventually surrender.

Sometimes Walking Away Is More Loving Than Staying

We often measure relationship success by how long two people stay together. But longevity doesn’t necessarily mean compatibility or happiness.

Sometimes, the most respectful decision is accepting that love cannot resolve every fundamental disagreement.

The person who wants children deserves the opportunity to experience parenthood if it is genuinely important to them. The person who wants a child-free life deserves the freedom to pursue that future without pressure or guilt.

Ending a relationship over different expectations about parenthood doesn’t mean the relationship was meaningless. It means both people recognize that their desired futures are incompatible.

The hardest part may be accepting that neither person has to be the villain for a relationship to end.

Sometimes, walking away isn’t giving up on love. It’s refusing to build a future in which one person has to give up who they are.

So, Can The Relationship Survive?

Yes, but only if both people genuinely want a future that can accommodate their differences.

If one partner firmly wants children and the other firmly does not, love alone may not be enough to make the relationship sustainable.

And perhaps that’s one of the hardest lessons about relationships: finding someone you love doesn’t always mean finding someone who wants the same life.

“Sometimes, the most loving decision is accepting that you can not build your future together.”

Thanks for reading!

One of You Wants Children, The Other Doesn’t. Who Gives In? was originally published in Boomerangs on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

“One person reaches for the bill. The other waits. In that awkward moment, two people may discover they have completely different ideas about romance, equality and respect.”

The First Date Bill Is a Bigger Test Than People Admit

The date went well. The conversation flowed, the chemistry was real, and both people seemed interested in meeting again.

Then the bill arrives.

One person reaches for it. The other waits. Suddenly, a simple payment can feel like a test of generosity, equality and romantic interest.

Is offering to pay a sign of genuine interest? Is splitting the bill fairer? And does expecting someone else to pay make a person entitled?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: people often judge the same financial decision in completely different ways, then assume their interpretation is the only reasonable one.

In 2026, traditional dating expectations coexist with modern ideas about financial independence. The problem is that people often judge the same decision differently and assume their interpretation is the only reasonable one.

Perhaps the real issue isn’t who pays. It’s expecting someone to follow rules you never discussed.

The Traditional Rule: Men Should Pay

For generations, heterosexual dating has often followed a familiar script: men initiate, men pursue, and men pay.

Under this tradition, paying for dinner signals generosity and serious romantic interest. Some people genuinely value this approach, and there’s nothing wrong with choosing it. The problem arises when a personal preference becomes a gender-based obligation.

Research suggests that expectations are changing, although traditional views remain influential. A 2024 Pew Research Centre report found that 34% of American men and 33% of women considered it highly acceptable for a man to split the bill on a date with a woman.

Source: Pew Research Centre — Gender and Age Differences on Splitting the Bill

The findings suggest that even men and women do not necessarily share the same expectations.

Traditional dating roles can feel romantic when both people want them. They can feel restrictive when one person is expected to follow them regardless of their circumstances.

Tradition is a valid choice. It isn’t proof that everyone else is dating incorrectly.

The Modern Alternative: Splitting the Bill

Splitting the bill seems straightforward: both people participated in the date, so both contribute.

For some, it represents independence and mutual respect. For others, it can feel less romantic or suggest a lack of interest. Neither interpretation is automatically correct.

A 2025 study published in the Journal of Pragmatics examined payment offers and negotiations on the British television programme First Dates. It associated offers to pay the entire bill with conventional masculine identity, while suggestions to share expenses reflected different gendered expectations.

Because the research examined interactions on a television programme, its findings should not be treated as representative of every couple’s behaviour.

Source: Anne Barron, “I’ll get it”: Payment offers, payment offer sequences and gender on First Dates

The important distinction is this: splitting the bill isn’t inherently unromantic, just as paying for everything isn’t inherently romantic.

A fair arrangement should reflect the people involved, not an imaginary universal rulebook.

Does the Person Who Initiates the Date Need to Pay?

Here’s a different approach: the person who invites someone out should offer to cover the cost.

The logic is simple: if you choose the restaurant and propose the outing, you should be prepared to cover the cost. This approach also avoids making payment an automatic responsibility based on gender.

However, an invitation doesn’t necessarily mean an offer to pay for everything. One person might suggest dinner simply as a shared activity, while the other assumes the invitation includes a free meal.

A 2026 Finder survey of 1,006 Australian respondents found that 44% believed the first-date bill should be split evenly, while 39% thought the person who initiated the date should pay. Another 11% said the decision should depend on gender, and 6% chose the higher earner.

Source: Finder — From Romance to Receipts: Aussies Rethink First Date Expectations

The results illustrate how differently people approach the same decision.

The practical lesson? If you’re inviting someone somewhere expensive, discuss the plan or choose an activity you can comfortably afford. Don’t use an unspoken payment expectation as a test the other person doesn’t know they’re taking.

What Does Paying Really Communicate?

Money can carry different meanings depending on the people involved. Three interpretations are particularly important.

1. Paying Might Communicate Generosity

Someone might offer to pay because they enjoyed the date or want to make a thoughtful gesture. But paying for dinner doesn’t purchase affection, sex or a second date.

2. Splitting Might Communicate Fairness

Someone might prefer to share the cost to avoid financial pressure or maintain independence. That doesn’t automatically make them ungenerous or uninterested. Equally, preferring a traditional gesture doesn’t automatically make someone entitled.

3. Refusing to Contribute Might Communicate Entitlement

If someone consistently expects expensive dates while dismissing the other person’s budget or refusing to discuss payment, the pattern may be worth examining. However, one awkward moment doesn’t establish someone’s character.

The distinction is between a preference and a pattern of behaviour. A single disagreement about the bill tells you relatively little; how someone responds to an honest conversation can tell you much more.

The Double Standard: Different Expectations for Men and Women

Consider two hypothetical situations.

Situation A: A man earns $45,000 a year. His date earns $95,000. He suggests splitting the bill, and she decides he’s not financially generous enough.

Situation B: A woman earns $95,000 a year. Her date earns $45,000. She offers to pay for dinner, and he refuses because he believes paying is a man’s responsibility.

Both situations expose the same underlying tension: expectations about money can be shaped by gender even when those expectations conflict with the couple’s actual financial circumstances.

Of course, people are entitled to their preferences. Someone who wants a traditional provider role can seek a partner who wants that arrangement too.

Likewise, someone who values equal financial contributions can look for a partner who shares that value.

The problem isn’t having a preference. It’s demanding a particular arrangement while dismissing the other person’s preferences, circumstances or boundaries.

Equality isn’t about forcing everyone to follow the same payment rule. It’s about giving both people a meaningful say in the arrangement.

Is Paying for the First Date a Green Flag or a Red Flag?

Neither paying nor splitting the bill is automatically a green flag or a red flag. More revealing is how someone behaves around money.

Potential Green Flags:

• They discuss payment without making you feel embarrassed.
• They respect your budget and don’t pressure you into expensive plans.
• They offer to contribute or pay in a way that feels genuine to them.
• They accept your decision without treating the bill as a debt you must repay emotionally.
• They can disagree about dating expectations without insulting you.

Potential Red Flags:

• They use the money they spend to demand affection or control.
• They deliberately choose expensive activities and then shame you for not affording them.
• They expect you to pay every time but refuse to discuss the arrangement.
• They make assumptions about your worth based on your salary or willingness to pay.
• They treat a different financial preference as proof that you’re a bad man, a bad woman or a bad partner.

The distinction is important: the warning sign is pressure, disrespect or a repeated pattern of behaviour, not simply who paid the bill.

A Smarter Way to Handle the Bill in 2026

You don’t need a complicated conversation about gender politics while the waiter stands beside your table.

A little clarity can prevent a lot of unnecessary interpretation.

Here are three simple approaches.

1. If You Invited Someone and Want to Pay:

“I invited you, so I’d be happy to get this one. We can figure out the next one together if we meet again.”

This communicates generosity without implying that the other person owes you anything.

2. If You Prefer to Split:

“I had a great time. Would you be comfortable splitting the bill?”

This makes your preference clear without suggesting that the other person did something wrong by expecting a different arrangement.

3. If Your Date Offers to Pay and You Want to Contribute:

“That’s really thoughtful of you. I’d be happy to split it, but if you’d like to treat me, I appreciate the gesture too.”

The exact wording matters less than the attitude behind it. Be direct, respectful and willing to accept an answer you didn’t expect.

And if you cannot agree on who should pay? You’re allowed to decide that your dating expectations aren’t compatible.

You don’t need to label the other person a villain to recognise that you want different things.

There Is No Universal Rule, but There Is a Better Standard

Who should pay on the first date in 2026?

The person who invited the other, the person who wants to treat, or both people sharing the cost can all be reasonable choices. The right arrangement depends on individual preferences, financial circumstances and mutual agreement.

But one standard should apply regardless of gender: paying for a date should be a choice, not a tool for control, a test of someone’s worth or a transaction that creates romantic debt.

If you prefer traditional dating roles, be honest about it. If you prefer splitting the bill, communicate that confidently. Neither approach guarantees a successful relationship, but understanding each other’s expectations can prevent unnecessary conflict.

Ultimately, the first date isn’t just an opportunity to judge someone else’s behaviour. It’s a chance to discover whether your expectations are compatible.

Sometimes, the most revealing part of the bill isn’t who reaches for it. It’s how both people react when they discover they disagree.

My Questions

Should the person who initiates the first date pay, should the bill always be split, or should men still be expected to pay in heterosexual dating?

And here’s the harder question: if someone refuses to date you because of your approach to the bill, is that unfair judgment or useful evidence that you’re incompatible?

Comment below… Thanks for reading…!

Who Should Pay on the First Date in 2026? was originally published in Boomerangs on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

I’ll be honest with you. The hardest part of starting Well After 50 wasn’t the website. It was me.

I’m 64. I don’t have kids or grandkids to tell my stories to. But I’ve lived a good bit of life, and I figured someone out there could use what I’ve learned. So I decided to start a website for folks over 50.

Then the other voice showed up. The one that says, “Who do you think you are? You don’t know the first thing about this. You’re too old to be starting something new.”

I listened to that voice for a long time. I reckon most of us do.

What finally got me moving was a simple thought: now’s a better time than never. I wasn’t getting any younger, and waiting wasn’t going to make me smarter about websites. So I jumped in.

And I made a mess of it.

I started on Blogger. Google stopped showing my site because of a problem on Blogger’s end, and nobody could tell me when it would be fixed. So I moved everything to WordPress, which I knew even less about. I tried letting an AI program fix up my site, figuring it would be quicker. It changed things I told it not to touch and broke my pages. Then it did it again. One morning I sat there looking at my site and thought it looked like a child made it. I almost deleted the whole thing.

I didn’t. I restored it, fixed it one post at a time, and kept going.

Here’s what happened when I kept going. A couple of scientists in Brazil, the ones who came up with a test where you sit down on the floor and get back up without using your hands, found an article I wrote about their work. They reached out to thank me. Me, a fellow in his 60s with a website he could barely run. That one email made every bad morning worth it.

I’ve learned a few things since I started:

You don’t have to know how before you start. I learned most of what I know by breaking it first.

The voice saying you’re too old doesn’t go away. You just stop letting it make the decisions.

Starting small is still starting. I work out four days a week now and eat better than I did. None of it happened overnight.

If you’ve been putting something off because you think it’s too late, I’d tell you what I finally told myself.

Now’s a better time than never.

Tom Green writes Well After 50, a site for men and women figuring out life after 50.

I Started a Website at 64 Knowing Nothing About Websites was originally published in Boomerangs on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

An epidemic is sweeping America, and nobody seems particularly interested in finding a cure.

The disease? Zombie sleepwalking.

We all get distracted. Every one of us can have moments lost in thought. I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about an American epidemic. Don't know if it's global, but it's spreading in the States like a California wildfire.

Day after day after day, at airports, grocery stores, ballgames, restaurants, every nook and cranny of public life, millions of people are moving around absolutely oblivious to the people around them.

In fact, if they weren't so self-absorbed, I'd swear it was consciously contemptuous. I mean, at least zombies have a goal, right?

Consume human flesh. Awful but pretty straightforward and identifiable.

No, these zombie sleepwalkers don't seem to have a goal other than narcissistic self-service. They want to do what they want to do and don't give a rat's ass if their sleepwalking invades your space/life. In fact, most of the time, they get annoyed when you try to wake them from their egotistic slumber.

There are several variants of zombie sleepwalkers.

The first is the 'smartphone zombie'

You've seen them, watched them, been them. They stumble around, heads down, usually earbuds in, glued to their fucking smartphone.

Are they following a directional map, searching for a restaurant, the holy grail or perhaps on a mission to feed the poor? Nope.

They're watching some fucking TikTok video of a cat who can fly a drone or a streaming show about a seventeen-year-old blonde model who doubles as a heart surgeon or, and this is the most banal, they are doctoring one of 48 photos they took of themselves in the last hour.

Why?

Because they desperately need to post polished pics for their "followers," since God forbid, they should have an authentic living moment without getting 127 likes. In other words, if no one knows I just crossed this bridge with my hair just so, then it didn't actually happen.

When you say excuse me as they're about to walk into you, or step into an oncoming train, they react as if you are the problem. It's usually a grunt, a slide by without looking up, or a good old-fashioned ignore because they are immersed in something vital to the care and feeding of their own fragile egos.

The second is the 'my space zombie'

Not that my space, but the actual, planting a flag on my physical space.

You see them mostly in grocery stores. They have a list, don't have one, doesn't matter and they stand with a cart in the middle of the fucking aisle searching for the creamer with 4% yak milk or their favorite brand of cocoa made from leaves grown in the eastern Ivory Coast.

They are so focused, i.e., self-absorbed, that they are unaware of the line of twelve people trying to get by. Only twelve because six other people decided to circle around rather than wait for this one person's momentous choice.

Sometimes they are on their smartphone speaker, talking to some nameless person (usually whoever is in operational command at home base), debating whether they should go with Peruvian or Mongolian yak milk. Ask to slide by or offer a polite "excuse me," and you are just as likely to get a glare, an annoyed "I'm looking," or my favorite…nothing at all, as if you are a fucking ghost, invisible in their precious life journey.

And by the way, these same zombies are often the ones who take forever in the checkout line because, wait for it, they were certain that the Mongolian Yak milk was on sale. "Can you please go check and see?"

The third, and this one is tricky, is the 'socially inept zombie'

Now I recognize some people are naturally shy or on the spectrum. Let's absolve those people for now. I'm talking about the ones with no excuse other than a set of parents who were too immersed in their own bullshit to teach their kid one ounce of basic manners.

You remember manners?

Things like 'yes sir, no ma'am, excuse me'… you know, the stuff that separates us from the animals.

Not only do these winners meander around in public with no social awareness, but they treat every interaction with strangers like a Carmelite monk who took an oath of silence. As you pass or move around them in the yak milk section of the store, they treat common courtesy like a foreign fucking language.

It’s clear they don’t have a clue how to behave.

A slight variant of this is, of course, the zombie who combines socially crippling silence with, wait for it, disrespectful attire.

Look, you want to wear flip-flops and a T-shirt that says 'get hammered at Raul's Taqueria'? Go ahead. You want to wear a ball cap that looks like it was excavated from the town dump and rolled in dog shit, be my guest. You want to wear a bikini that is five sizes too small, with a tattoo on your belly that says 'get hammered at Raul's Taqueria' — whatever.

But please, zombies, for the love of all that is holy, don't do it at a wedding, a funeral or a wake.

Your selfish, narcissistic comfort does not trump respect for others and awareness of the occasion. When two people are tying the proverbial knot, or someone you know is lying in a fucking box or ground up in an urn, show some class. When the occasion calls for a modicum of respect, leave your fucking pyjamas at home.

Oh, and while you're at it. Leave the smartphone in your pocket too.

The last is the 'elevator zombie'

You are in an elevator with three, four, five, or forty other people, looking at your shoes or at the ceiling. Zombies, your cue to stare at your cellphones. The door opens to the lobby where we ALL are getting out. The first person leaving steps out of the elevator and stops…dead as a zombie and begins to look around like Armstrong did on the fucking moon. In awe of the experience and agonizing over where to go.

Meanwhile, the rest of this portion of humanity is packed into a metal box, trapped waiting for them to get their shit together.

Could a zombie be more oblivious?

Paitent Zero?

Why has this epidemic proliferated among us? Why do they seem to be taking over? Because we allowed it. I'm a boomer, and I bear some responsibility but frankly we are all to blame.

You see, in an effort not to repeat the perceived mistakes of our greatest-generation parents, we let a lot of shit slide. We tried to be the cool parents, the ones that could talk to our kids, treat them as friends, let things go, connect. It was well-meaning, post-60s, psycho-babble bullshit. And our kids then passed it on to our grandkids.

We lost something along the way.

Social awareness and courtesy were hoisted on the petard of individuality, and you guessed it, they became watered down. Now we are stuck with at least two generations who believe their own individuality is way more important than something as "old-fashioned" as courtesy and social kindness. Their own personal comfort and self-expression beats decorum and respect.

Are these zombies evil or malignant? No.

They are just misguided and stunted in their social growth. They lack intellectual, emotional, and social maturity. You need all three to truly flourish in society, make the world a better place, and touch people in small but meaningful ways.

Are they game changers?

I don't know, maybe. I do know that with them, people seem to get along much better and there is far less conflict.

On behalf of all those not infected, I just ask that the next time you go to get hammered at Raul's Taqueria, or you're rushing out to buy yak milk, say "excuse me," hold a door for someone, and be aware that other humans are around you, sharing this amazing planet. Realize that other people are worthy of your conscious and respectful consideration.

Oh, and while you're doing that, wear your fucking ball cap with the brim facing forward, as the good lord designed it.

Zombie Sleepwalkers: An American Epidemic? was originally published in Boomerangs on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

And a bonus Medium Tipperoo!

How does a chin whisker—one that absolutely wasn't there when I went to bed—grow faster than my tomato plants?

It's not a pretty little thing either; it's dark, wiry-like, and sometimes it curls! Like Wtf, eh?

Is this a 65 thing? Cause I'm already over it.

And there's this unruly eyebrow hair now too—apparently auditioning for a career as a curtain rod — I had to cut that damn thing off, too!

I'm starting to think we should have installed bathroom mirrors with forensic lighting so I don't wander around Walmart looking like I'm fitting in.

I stood there stunned this morning — how in the actual fuck does that happen? Did I miss it, or did it actually grow that long overnight?

Maybe I'm losing it.

And now what do I do?

Pluck it, wax it, ignore it? Fuck — give it a name?

I'm searching Amazon as we speak for some kinda discreet facial mower.

How do you handle them? Confess your discoveries!! 😆

Ok, the serious stuff…

I wanted to introduce a new writer to Boomerangs, Kayne Young.

One of my favourite things about running Boomerangs is discovering new voices and giving them a place to share their stories.

Please give Kayne a warm Boomerangs welcome! Pop over, check out his latest story here, and say hello. A little encouragement from fellow writers can go a long way.

Welcome Kayne! It's been a pleasure working with you.

Your Medium Writers Tipperoo

Don't Forget Your SEO Settings!

Your regular headline is designed to catch a reader's attention on Medium. Your SEO title and description help search engines understand what your story is about, potentially bringing readers from external searches.

Here's where to find them:

1. Open your story in Medium's editor.
2. Click the three dots (…) in the upper-right corner.
3. Select More settings, then find SEO Settings.
4. Change both the title and the description.

Here's an Example from one of mine:

My Title: My Ex Never Got This Email

My SEO title: Finding Closure After a Toxic Relationship.

Your SEO description defaults to the first few sentences of your story, which isn't always ideal. So make it clearer by deleting the default text and using something like this:

Sometimes closure after a toxic relationship comes from the words we never send. A personal story about finding peace, letting go, and moving forward.

It's a small adjustment, takes only a couple of minutes, and doesn't require changing your actual headline.

Until next time…

Stay curious — Stay interesting.

Liz 🪃
Boomerangs — Interesting People Telling Unforgettable Stories.

The Hairy Truth About Getting Older was originally published in Boomerangs on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.