Okay, King - I can let it slip that you didn't mention the Lakers beating the Celtics in Game 5 of the NBA Finals to stay alive; after all, the Celts still hold a dominant upper hand in the series, with the last 2 games on their home court.

BUT: even if you're not a golf fan, how could you ignore what is arguably Tiger's most impressive major win ever this weekend at the U.S. Open...in order to talk about, ummm, an MLB rule (made necessary...yes, necessary...by the current crop of dumb umps) that doesn't even take effect until Aug. 1st?

Even if you ascribe to the "*yawn* ho-hum, another Woods / Federer win of another tournament" attitude, as some in the sports business (fan or otherwise), you have to acknowledge that the way the Open played out - 19 extra playoff holes between a 45 y.o. never-was (Rocco Mediate) looking to slay the monster of the sport, all transpiring in nail-biting fashion - was pretty newsworthy, no? Anyone??

Reply to Allie:

Love and lust are not the same thing... it's possible to love someone deeply without feeling lust for them.

Sure - many family relationships, and close friendships wherw your comrade essentially becomes like a sibling/parent to you, thrive in such a lust-free loving way.

But....BUT:

Why can't men and women and women and men and men love each other and not necessarily fuck?

Because it simply never works, unless both parties are strictly asexual.

Look, many (if not most or all) straight men who develop platonic friendships with (straight or bi) women harbor some level of attraction to these female friends. [Brutal honesty: many men would not actively seek out platonic friendship with a woman they find fugly.] The attraction may not necessarily reach the level of a crush, and in truth it may NEVER be acted on...if the friendship interaction stays at the "acquaintance" level.

But if/when the friendship evolves into being true/close/best friends who love each other? Then everything goes to hell. Because on some level, the man does want to fuck his female BFF. And because the "Friend Zone" rules of platonic interaction forbid this, it leads to a lot of misery, awkwardness, pain & frustration on the part of the guy.

So no, straight men and women cannot necessarily love each other and not (at least WANT to) fuck. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule - e.g. asexual people mentioned before -but it is the rule nonetheless.

Et moi? I have lots of female acquaintances, and enjoy their company. But female close friends who I would "love"? Nope. Been there, broken heart that.

***********************

To Stackey-Dackey:

I don't agree that the letter writers here are being brutal. Furthermore, the nature of writing is that not everyone is gonna like your story. And that's a good thing!

I've participated in writer's workshops where we were encouraged to be as (constructively) critical as is possible of each other's work. Whether or not you acknowledged everyone's suggestions, complaints and criticisms, the process made you a better, stronger writer.

So I'd say try working on a thicker skin, and post your stories out there for others to read. If anyone is pointlessly mean-spirited and nasty, fuck 'em. Ignore them. But perhaps pay attention to those who would critique in a dignified, relevant way.

"Babies offer the promise of meaning, focus and love in lives that are desperately short on all three -- who can't relate to that, even if they're old enough to know how unreliable and fraught that promise is?"

This is indubitably the most eloquent, perceptive statement I've ever read in a Broadsheet article. Nicely done, Kate.

***********

As for teenage pregnancy: we need to remember that the problems associated with this are socially constructed. Biologically speaking, human females are "ready" to have kids once they have reached a proper developmental stage.

I have known 16-year old girls who have the emotional intelligence and maturity of a 30 year-old woman...and vice versa. So assigning a magic age benchmark when a female is ready to give birth doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It really depends on the individual.

Yes, there are economic struggles commonly associated with teen pregnancy; but who's to say that a teen mother cannot go to college, become highly qualified and have a lucrative, fulfilling career? And why can't our society take steps to improve the facilitation of this? It would certainly be in our collective interests to have more working, productive, well-educated citizens...and it would eradicate the notion/stereotype of welfare moms.

**************

In all, the libertarian part of me says that a girl/woman should have the freedom to choose to conceive a child when she wants. Isn't this part of the philosophy of feminism...freedom to actively choose one's paths in life, whether you are male or female?

Meaning that Verne Troyer can now purchase a fembot his size to love and, um, "luvvvv" for all eternity!

Naturally, he will call her Mini-She.

...and (presuming they are mostly WASP women), they choose to support McCain...

Then Hilary should not get a stinkin' dime from ANY Obama supporter/donor - or from Barack himself.

*************

As an Obama donor I would be more than happy to help Hillary out a little...IF her supporters would be willing to at least listen to her when she throws her allegiance behind Obama in the general election.

But if they abstain or vote McCain? No way.

As a previous poster hinted, I'm sure some of these millions of older middle-to-upper class white feminists can shell out some bucks to help their girl.