We already had a Clinton for eight years -- do we need another one for another eight years?

I suppose the voters will tell us if we do or don't.

Same thing with George and George. We didn't like the father enough to give him a second term, so how did we (America, not me personally) get stuck with the son?

Um...we elected him? Or, if you think we didn't, then you're question makes no sense.

My guess is she picked it so she could blather on in that shallow manner that pretends to analyze while simply tossing out the cliches. There's not an original thought here. Come on, Camille, if you went this far, why not belabor the Kennedy "curse" with a freshman Humanities gloss on The Golden Bough? Would you accept this sort of work from your students?

Yes, I said "blather." I, who have praised her return. Yes, I said "cliches" and "shallow." I, who was so excited about her reappearance here, and defensive of her earlier contributions. I figured she was warming up, maybe baiting her critics. I thought she was kicking back and having some fun. But she's kicked back so far, that she's landed on her ass.

Depressing. I still revere her early work, and some of her earlier social commentary. If she produces an art history essay (you know, something that involved scholarship, and demonstrated serious consideration of the subject), I might check it out. But as of now I will read her column no more.

It's a waste of my time. Apparently she wants to waste hers.

Movies, celebrity magazines, television shows, MTV interviews, the whole basis of enteratainment is objectification. We get out of Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise what we want. They live fantasies we like to escape into, and we use them as dream figures.

Porn does the same thing.

I do not believe interest in porn detracts from interest in one's mate, any more than interest in Jake Gyllenhaal or Drew Barrymore does, or any more than the sexy person who you eye going down the street.

Men in particular tend to "think cold" when it comes to sex (not saying women don't or can't, I'm speaking generally), to easily see it as a mechanical function of pleasure and release. Don't try to force your boyfrind to direct all his sexual impulses at you. I don't think we're even built for it.

If he was cheating, if his intererst in porn or other women was leading him to mistreat you, I'd say dump him now. But under the circumstances? Let it go.

What new ideas does she introduce in this piece? I'm sick of that response. I've been a big fan of Paglia's for a long time. But she's running on empty, and articles like this show no respect for her audicence...or even for her own analytical ability.

Thanks.

Anne in New York

I agree about the young Ron Jeremy.

Though I doubt we'll see that expose for some time to come. Same manipulation of women, same demands to throw away the past, cut off contact with all family members, and live as a slave. Same kind of stupid, dependent women. A couple of men thrown in, in Castenada's case. (Well, at least Salinger doesn't seem to have asked anyone to off themselves...should they be grateful for small favors?) I don’t respect this kind of man, but I don't have much sympathy for the weak minded people who give into them, either. “Oh, dear, you reject me if I don’t follow your rules!” WTF? Some people have no backbone. This isn’t about dark legacies. It’s about dim brains.

But Marshall is working a con as surely as Castenda did. Why is it the “compound” rather than his “home”? What is the supposed sinister motivation behind the praise Wagner’s book received from Updike, and his nomination for the Pen/Faulkner Book Award? (I suppose if they think the writing’s good, they think the writing’s good.) Why try to make this sound like a David Koresh/Charles Manson thing when it’s really just a money scam and some weak minded sycophants. And then, after all the portentous language, there’s the “he wasn’t all bad” sop near the end.

This article is mostly a lot of hot air.

If her partner respects her feelings, he'll drop it, the way we drop other habits for our spouses (like dropping clothes all ove the house or not watching chick flicks).

Love is not determined by our enslavement. After all, your statement could easily be reversed: "If she loves him, she'll learn to get off on porn because she must enjoy his interests."

You're perfectly right that she doesn't have to like porn if she doesn't want to. I don't even think it's about choice. Some of us like porn, some don't. She shouldn't be made to like what she finds anathema. On the other hand, he shouldn't be forced to give up something he enjoys.

I think we can politely choose to pick up our towels, but if a partner likes chick flicks, he or she deserves the time and space to watch them.