This is my theory. The marriage is probably as good or better than average, and is not being hurt by H's email fantasy relationships. LW should be grateful it's only an internet relationship. Men get bored, want some excitement,read: new woman. H here apparently is satisfied (assuming all the facts are known) by this erotic emailing. You might be able to scare him into not doing it anymore, but you cannot scare him into not WANTING to do it. I'd say this if in her shoes and if I really had the strength, which is probably need not be super human: my H wants this kind of diversion so he won't have an actual affair. In that sense it's not only harmless, it's helpful -- an outlet. Meanwhile, if there are things wrong in the marriage, this is either at worse a symptom, or even immaterial. And if he likes fantasies about new women, I'll get a new hairdo, surprise him when we are alone with some new monkey tricks, and in general deal with him as a person, not somebody I dreamt up before I got married. I'll bet LW is fairly young, maybe 30. Time to deal with life as it is, and yours does not seem bad, except as you have decided it is bad.

Nat Nabob just said:

Not to be too mean to wrist-slashing boozepots, but every one of the people I've ever met who spent that much time online was a mess both physically and mentally. Pretty women online tend to write things online like "When are you going to take me out? I'm not just a piece of ass!" I don't mean to be too mean to crazies who have all day to spend online writing dirty fantasy emails

Nat, baby, sounds like you spend a lot of time online -- or is it that your correspondents are online a lot and you're not? Who the hell made you the judge of people? Look in the mirror, Nat., I'll be you ain't so hot yourself!

I can think of two people off the top of my head who married the woman they slept with on first date. So LW's premise is false. although it might be accurate most of the time. Anyway, it's worth noting that if she does marry and have a child she won't have sex to worry about any more.

sorry to be pesky, just askin'

Being voted down by Dems means the public option is alive; this is very good. What's that? You think I'm speaking gibberish? Did you go to an Ivy League school?

Storm the Skies (spanish w/subtitles) 1996 documentary -- fascinating, great photos/footage on the man who assassinated Leon. Not to be confused with crappy docu-drama with Richard Burton, Assassination of Trotsky (1972).

She supported his campaign knowing he was a time bomb that could've blown up the Dems' chances. She has zero sympathy. Even if you're under the worst health cloud there is that doesn't excuse playing with our country's well-being. Polanski has no sympathy from me either.

Glenn, I wish all my negotation counterparties were as clueless as you. Iran agreed to nothing of importance, but bought who knows how much more time to refine their uranium to weapons level. I trust that Obama's advisors are more sophisticated then you are.

Perhaps the Right is gleeful because after the prez announced he was going to Denmark we were told that'll be enough to sway the "one or two" votes that will make the difference. Also fun: the "professional" pundits who told us solemnly the inside information that O would not be going 'twere it not in the bag.

People are just sick of mainstream media with their superior BS, and sick of those who think the prez can sway anybody who is not an avowed enemy.

Maybe we'll be over this by Monday and we can start acting like a serious country, and Obama can cut down on the TV and the speeches. Enough already! He's bright and hard working, but he's flushing the mystique of the presidency, which is a big part of the office.

Today's (Oct. 3) NY Times reports iranian officials denying they've agreed to exporting uranium for enrichment or allowing inspection of Qum. But what would this have to do with Glenn's giddy celebration of great progress under the Democrats? Facts are annoying and should not be allowed to interfere with ideological blather. That Iran seems to be continuing on its "negotiation" path as established for decades is not surprising, but Glenn's adolescent enthusiasm is, somewhat.

....would we need a book on why women want to get laid.

i now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that liberals/feminists are as hypocritical as anybody else on the planet. I wasn't sure until I read this and some of the comments. Meanwhile, was hanging in the air like the stench of a skunk is that if any of Letterman's women file a case, the feminists will immediately assume he's in the wrong.

I know plenty of women as friends, and not one of them buys into feminist bullshit. They're too busy leading successful, busy lives.

I can understand this letter writer's disdain for what he calls boomers obsession with the Viet Nam analogy. (I am not a boomer -- I'm older than they are -- do I get a pass?)

I think vwcats misses what the obsession is: not that the miltiary/political/geographic situations are, but that Viet Nam taught a lot of Americans that they should not rely on the expertise or even good will of their own government.

Re Rangel (who, btw, is enormously charming in person): I love when Dems justify their crap by saying the reps were as bad or worse.