My original post seems to have provoked snark, rebuttal, apology... which is pretty much par for the course when you're the first to comment on a sex column about celibate older women in Salon.

Yes, there's a power balance. Roughly speaking, women hold the cards initially and men gain on them as the years go by. Of course, as someone said, boys also die first.

The essential conflict we all face within ourselves is the tension between our "divine self" that seeks to elevate our interactions with each other and treat others as equals, and our "animal self" that is focused on genetic transfer, rutting, power dominance, establishing sexual hierarchies and fighting for our chance to breed. I realize saying this puts me at odds with many people who argue that sex is spiritual and it's all integrated, but I honestly believe at this point that that's a crock full of shit.

Honestly, my biological urges have always gotten in the way of my efforts to be as good of a human being as I can be. This isn't some Catholic thing where I think sex is dirty; I don't.

It's just that whenever we introduce sex into the social equation, it always leads to these power dynamics that make so many people miserable; the women vs women, men vs men, men vs women stuff.

I guess the crux of my ramblings is this; sex makes things more unequal, and maybe celibacy (voluntarily chosen, of course) isn't so bad. Maybe the denial of sex as a way to elevate oneself, while an old ideal, isn't yet hackneyed.

-Diomedes

Will you marry me?

Alexandra-

The problem with your argument isn't that you are saying the Republicans are entitled to their opinion. They most certainly are. The issue is that you didn't articulate during your interview -and I suspect during your film- *why* we should be concerned with how they feel.

Let's examine the facts. They've been in control for almost a decade. They've had two full Presidential terms to pursue their agenda at home and abroad. They won in 2004 by maybe 1% of the electorate and nodded along with George when he said that constituted a mandate.

Now, four years later, they've lost the national elections by a much wider margins, their policies are discredited, and our country is in the throes of a massive recession. So, again, *why* should any of us listen? What new ideas could these people offer that could enrich the national discourse?

You seem to get so caught up in being 'fair and balanced' that you treat these people like they're some long-suffering, marginalized bunch that has been ignored by the powers that be and the national media for so long.

They're not. They were the rough-riding overlords for EIGHT LONG YEARS. THEY HAD COMPLETE AND UNADULTERATED POWER OVER ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. And they lost fair and square.

We don't owe them listening time and we certainly don't owe them sympathy.

Well, I AM impressed. Plenty of people with enough time don't get off their duff and do it. The extra time in fact serves as a convenient excuse. This guy got off his duff and said to hell with middle-age and my paunch. Good for him. And thanks for being evocative enough with your language that now I want to do it.

The vast majority of American people, I think, were horrified by the murder of a father of four in his own church, and the callousness of the "pro-life" crew braying for his blood.

We as a nation should be working together to minimize unwanted pregnancies in the first place. RU486, contraceptives, sex ed in our schools that goes beyond abstinence and deals with the human sexual urge in a frank and mature way.

One reason I think many of us ultimately fall on the "pro-choice" side, even if we are extremely squeamish about abortions (especially disgusting late-term abortions) is that the Religious Right dismisses these other measures that would actually reduce the need for abortions in the first place as immoral and symptomatic of our spiritual decline.

This construct reduces the argument to pro-con debate on the merits of abortion when we could be recognizing that most Americans agree that the need for fewer abortions is a good thing in and of itself.

Of course we've heard about the military recruiter shooting? Are you criticizing us for not commenting on it in a letter thread about the abortion shooting? Why would we?

As for your "point" that we godless liberals get worked into a lather over an abortion doctor murder but not a military murder, because we obviously don't care as much, let me flip it on you; why don't you conservatives ever make a fuss BEFORE we send those soldiers into war in the first place? That would probably save a bunch of their lives too, huh? I mean, since you guys are the ones who REALLY care about them and all.

You two deserve each other. Seriously, get married.

introverted guys complaining about why women keep falling for douchebags in three... two... one...

I think the fallacy many are operating under is that it's an either/or proposition; the dependable limp guy vs. the skittish outlaw. Neither will ever make you truly happy.

The outlaw attracts you because he's unpredictable and not totally dependant on others for affirmation. But he treats you like crap and will never be faithful. Limp dependable guy will be faithful, but you suspect it's partially because he's too scared to act out his true intentions, and he oftens harbors a mean streak as well.

Find a dependable guy who doesn't make daily itineraries and doesn't need others to tell him who he is or whether he has value. Then you may be happy.

My sincere condolences on your loss. You are not alone.