I get a chuckle in this site and "sfgate.com", where there is a clearly labelled puff piece and people swarm in, posting diatribes about priorities and complaining about how the puff piece is "front page news". Considering the front page has about 50 things on it, I have to wonder where they get the time to get outraged over the 50 things on that page. And you KNOW that they are reading about a half dozen web sites a day, at LEAST. So, either they are reading and responding to 300 or so articles a day or they are looking for stuff to get outraged about like articles on sex, clothes, chocolate, or kittens. Um, actually, no one gets outraged about chocolate. But, jeez. Have a three line article about a kitten being rescued in Hanover, NH and about 100 cat haters stomp in from as far away as Syndney to complain about the coverage. Post about a fluffy movie, and you may as well be bulldozing Iraqui orphans.

What is interesting is that all of these people with puckery assholes are busily pounding the keyboard to complain about things that make other people happy and are not busily pounding the keyboard writing letters to Congress to, you know, DO something.

Anyway, most of my friends are puckery assholes, so I am going to be hard pressed to find some women to see the movie with. Its already gotten a rave review in San Francisco as the women's movie of the year. Halleluiah! A movie about WOMEN who talk to other women! Imagine that!

Oh hush. I'm sure they talk about shoes, too.

Its a dystopian science fiction fantasy. You know, like the concept of "joke". It also is an interesting exposition of what men want and what frustrates them about real women. I remember being in a group that was discussing male female relationships. The question was posed, "What are you looking for." People would start talking and this one woman kept harumphing and huffing and making loud sotto voce comments. I finally told her to shut up because if we want to hear the truth, we need to listen.

is that this was on the front page of the NY Times Magazine. The article belongs in Cosmo and not the Times. I am angry at the editors and publisher who made the decision to turn the mag into a rag.

In real life, I have usually dated (and once married) men 2-6 years younger than myself. They suddenly became a bit thin on the ground when they all hit their mid 40s and I found myself using the internet personals. I send notes to various people in an age range of 5 years younger to 5 years older. I get form letters that are the online equivalent of recoiling in horror from all of them. I get earnest email from men 10-20 years older than myself. Funny thing is that I know they're lying about their age and they are, in fact, older. Why do I know this? Because I know some of them in real life. In their profiles, they all want considerably younger women.

Their usual excuse is "biology" or "that's just how it is". And yet, in real life, on the rare occasions I find single men in the same room with me, I am doted on by younger men. Its an interesting divide between reality and fantasy and math and biology. A man may think, at 45, that he is "old" and not want someone his age or older. However, there are a lot of women who are nowhere near as decrepit or depressed as he is and will appear a good bit younger than him, regardless of their chronological age. Young men will say terrible things about women the same age as their mothers - just read fark.com. It spreads to older men who should know better.

In any event, I soldier on. I am still looking and still look pretty decent, biology or fashion notwithstanding. However, I do not think women are falling all over themselves looking for younger men. I think they are just as conventional as the men are and want to find someone a year or two older...just not 10 to 20 years older.

Strangely enough, that's not a lot of money, certainly not in California. Its certainly not enough for a pair of 27 year olds to retire on. I work with Silicon Valley types. Some get that big windfall, most don't. Of the ones who get that big windfall, I have noticed that most continue to work. It gives them structure. It gives them a normal life. It gives them a community. It is an age-appropriate behavior. I have met (mostly on online dating venues), men who have made some sum of money and "retire". In my eye, as a jaded middle-aged dater, they are not very different than the unemployed guys I have met. They have a lot of time on their hands, don't do much interesting with it and are looking for a woman to entertain them. But I digress.

Put the money away, come up with your life plan, be glad you have it, but have the life. By the way, diamonds may be forever, but quite honestly, love is not. Make sure the both of you keep in mind that there may come a time when you are not together.

Don't mind brightstar. He's got more woman issues than the archives of Ms Magazine and "O" combined. I looked at the pie chart and "Languishing in Obscurity as Paralegals" made me just about pee my pants. I'm so glad I'm not a paralegal anymore.

If I were a young woman in Washington State, the policy of keeping screamin' babies under the age of 2 1/2 would definitely keep me on the straight and narrow.