Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 569 Editor's Choice: 40
-
I don't trust some of these responses.
[Read the article: My boyfriend is checking out chicks while I'm standing right there!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Not all men look." "I don't look when I'm with my significant other."
I call bullshit. Maybe you're head isn't moving across the room as she crosses it, but you aren't aware when an attractive girl is nearby? All men look. I think all men look all the time.
"What would these men do if their girlfriends checked out other guys?"
Well, there are plenty of letter writers here acknowledging just that, and having no problem with it. But women do seem to be less look-oriented than men. Which is not to say a woman doesn't notice a physically attractive men, but women don't respond the same way. We aren't identical sexes.
"Judging women on their looks isn't feminist. It's a reduction." Sure, but before we are intellecutalized feminists, we are animals looking to mate. It's the primary bilogical motive, and it will out.
None of this means the guy will cheat on his girlfriend. None of it means he doesn't get a woman is more than her body. It means he saw a physically pleasing shape, and enjoyed it.
-
That letter is the best self-parody I've read in forever.
[Read the article: "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your eagle eye apparently did not catch that the reviewer is a woman. Unless you aren't aware that "Stephanie" is not a gender-neutral name. By the way, her name is right above the dialogue box where you wrote your letter. Not sure how you missed it, as you seem not to miss anything. Maybe you were too busy thinking about the obituaries.
-
Nope, wrong. All men look.
[Read the article: My boyfriend is checking out chicks while I'm standing right there!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"All men look at porn" is probably nearly the same thing, except that one has to actively seek porn, so if a man doesn't actively seek it, he may not look. But as good-looking, sexually stimulating people cross one's path about a billion times a day, yes most men look.
And drop the "oogle" business. Appreciating a nice-looking person, and being attracted by the site, is not the same as oogling. Can a man "control himself"? Perhaps. Why should he? It sounds ludicrously puritanical. Cheating is one thing, looking quite another.
-
The Times is indeed terrified of new media
[Read the article: The New York Times misses the CNN/YouTube debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was a participant on several of their forums. The control they tried to exert over them was ridiculous. It actually got to the point where the only movie comments acceptable were posts related to current Times reviews, explaining why the posters agreed or disagreed with the Times critic. Posts were deleted that did not conform. Things like this happened all over the board, and of course now they are gone. The Times insists on Olympian control. Futile, in this day and age.
-
No pleasure in this.
[Read the article: We're still watching, Tammy Faye]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hate to speak ill of the dead. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for Tammy Faye Bakker. She took people's money and lived well off of their desperation (and poverty). She's the Rexall Drugstore edition of Eva Peron, I guess. Was it moral idiocy that kept her from being mean despite her abuse of millions, that allowed her to think she was a nice woman just trying to do good work? Was she on some level an innocent, caught up in a big trap? But the narcissism wouldn't let her stop. No PTL? Very well, she'd do Politically Incorrect. Did she call King up for that interview (she called him) to make the world aware of cancer, to get one last gasp of fame?
Baily and Barbato play at laying it all on Jerry Falwell (a name worthy of Hawthorne). They clearly don't believe it, or believe it's that black and white. They're taking diggs at Tammy Faye even as they write her obituary. She was a pimp, but they seem to be whores. They'll do it with a smile...for a price.
I think they are as creepy as she is.
-
Anonymous,
[Read the article: We're still watching, Tammy Faye]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wrote a response because the article, and the ongoing rehabilitation of Tammy Faye Bakker's image (since The Eyes of Tammy Faye) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. No, I didn't get pleasure from it. Sometimes you do things for other reasons.
-
Anonymous,
[Read the article: We're still watching, Tammy Faye]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your question doesn't make more sense when asked a second time. There are reasons beyond pleasure for writing a letter. There are reasons beyond fun for strong language. Nor is it only when something is pleasurable that one does it without being compelled. Or are you not capable of understanding that? It sucks to speak ill of the dead. It sucks more more a fairly loathsome person to become beloved just because she refused to go away. There's no pleasure in responding to you, either.
-
Notice the only starred letter agrees with the article's viewpoint.
[Read the article: We're still watching, Tammy Faye]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Way to support diversity of opinion, Salon!
-
Not sure how I feel about removing "Anonymous" as a choice.
[Read the article: Who are you, Anonymous?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Granted, it's very confusing in most discusions, because there are so many "Anonymous" posts, and connecting personalities, following a thread of thought, can be difficult.
But as one Anonymous pointed out so well, "Tom 123" is as anonymous as anyone bearing the label. These are all made up names essentially, or could be, and when someone has chosen a unique mask, that doesn't imply they are revealing their true face. What does my own username tell anyone? Any hint as to my personality> Any assurance that that's really my first or middle name? Does the number represent my year of birth, the number or online arguments I strive for per day, or is it some odd statistic relating to casualties in the Gulf?
I think the idea that someone is putting themselves out there, really showing themselves, by using a consistent username is probably ridiculous.
On the other hand, I really support the removal of attacks from one letter-writer to another. On the other hand, I don't think vitriolic posts should automatically be removed. There are issues and situations where they are appropriate. A hard, case-by-case line to follow, but I suspect the most effective.
-
I suspect the guy can't control it.
[Read the article: A man farted in my face on the plane and I said nothing!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Considering the description, it sounds like that, and like he was too embarrassed to comment. I'm glad you didn't say anything, as bad as it was, and glad you wrote in, as it gave me a giggled I needed.