Forgotten, rationalized away, sublimated. Especially if he/she has never been seen or only dimly perceived. Defense mechanisms tend to work, which is why we use them. If we didn't have such mechanisms available at least some of the time, we just could not go on with our lives. This does not make the rationalizer any less human, but it does not make the child any less real either.

There is hardly any job in the U.S. that actually requires women to wear high heels (well, maybe topless bars).

I'm a lawyer and I often see women wearing flat shoes in court. In fact, even women attorneys have a lot more latitude in what they wear than men. Last month, at the Appellate Division -- the Appellate Division!! -- I was sweltering in a tie, jacket, long pants, shoes and socks, while the female attorney next to me wore a blazer over an open-neckline loose blouse, a mid-length skirt, and backless sandals with no hose.

Men wear ties because they *have* to. Women wear heels because they *want* to.

There are lots and lots of ways of looking at this.

At around age 30, I realized being a "nice guy" wasn't getting me anywhere. So I tried being selfish and incosiderate.

Before age 30, the women I was with were not that attractive, and tended to dump me. After age 30, women got attracted to ME, and they were a lot hotter, and I was usually the "dumpor" (to use legal terms) instead of the "dumpee".

Which made me feel pretty shitty. At least on the morning after.

So . . . I'm 13 years into a happy relationship with another grown-up. You know what? Women who've matured know that there are three things to look at before you decide:

1) The genitals: Am I turned on?

2) The heart: Do I like this person (not necesarily love him/her); and

3) The head: Is This A Good Idea?

Men, too, who've grown up,look at all of the above three things. Before age 30 I was fixated on #2. After, only on #1. When I met my future wife, I finally got onto all three.

Now as for the "Only Assholes Get Laid" issue:

It seems to be true for young (or unwise older) women. But not exclusively.

The one thing no one can dispute is:

There is a gap between the type of man women say they want, and the type they actually pick.

1. He has a clear agenda: he wants gayness to be innate, biologically determined, and will twist the facts and the research to support that opinion.

2. He is a slave to a political (not a scientific) dichotomy: Gayness is *either* biological *or* a choice. That it could be the product of early childhood influences and experiences -- entirely normal, nondysfunctional ones -- does not seem to have occurred to him, even though, before the current debate, those influences and experiences were universally acknowledged (by Freud and others) to be the wellspring of adult sexual preferences.

"As a gay man, I've always known that being gay was as innate as my eye color. It's not learned, it's no ones "fault" (fault would imply a wrong doing), it's just the way it is."

There is no way you would know whether your gayness is innate or not. You seem to be afraid of the other proposition -- that it is the product of early childhood influences.

Well, it probably is. So is being straight.

Whenever we talk about a "cause" for gayness, we must also talk about a "cause" for being straight. One is not better than the other. Influences that cause gayness are not more dysfunctional, or less healthy, than those that cause straightness.

You assume that, if sexual orientation is found to be determined in early childhood, it's the result of something bad. Not so. There is nothing wrong with turning out gay.

. . .than the women in "chick flicks".

Now why is this?

I still can't forgive him for advocating the Iraq war for mental health reasons, because he "felt it in his gut" that it was the right thing to do, that America had to strike out against SOMEbody after 9/11. Just about the most irresponsible thing any columnist ever wrote.

He has so much blood on his hands -- gave cover to all those "I can't believe I'm pro-war liberals", that he still can't admit to.

And then there's his the monumental engine of his ego. If only THAT energy could be harnessed to take the place of oil . . .

The problem with Friedman has always been that he wants to be a "player". The high point of his career was the proposal he elicited from the King of Morrocco to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, in exchange for Palestinian autonomy. Or some such thing. He was desperately hoping that Bush would take him up on it (because Friedman's name was on it). . . And he kept on toadying up to Bush, year after year, stretching his own predelictions to accommodate the Bush position on various issues. His support for he Iraq war was an example. Gradually he gave up on that when it was clear that Bush wasn't listening. And now that Bush is about to go anyway, he doesn't mind criticizing him outright.

Abortion is a wrong thing and should be eradicated.

If you think this, you're pro-life.

A thinking person would realize that the way to eradicate abortion is NOT to criminalize it. It involves, instead, the policies that Catherine Price lists -- such as freely available contraception, and support for mothers. We are helped by people like Baumgardner who are at last opening the discussion and not automatically assuming that pro-lifers are woman-hating, anti-contraception religious fanatics.

If those who call themselves "pro-choice" and those who call themselves "pro-life" can meet on a policy level -- what some of us call the "seamless garment" -- then the abortion controversy disappears. That would be a very, very good thing.