But "almost" is the key word, and while I hate most of it, and hate the slimey political maneuver it's attempting, I do think there's a bit of truth in there worth acknowledging.

Prior to feminism there was chivalry. It's a pretty long-lived concept that women should be treated with deference and respect, and that men, as the stronger and rougher sex, are supposed to protect women. That, in fact, any man who does not protect a woman is morally lax. Of course, that respect only went to women's bodies and emotions, not their intellectual opinions, which was a hugely unfair trade-off.

Feminism said "screw that, we aren't you're object for protection" and yes it does send out a confusing message about to what extent men should protect women and to what extent men should interact with women just as men interact with other men. If Brown's actions were against another man, Broadsheet would not be concerned with it. There would be no articles about man-on-man violence. I doubt there'd even be any "black on black" articles. Changes are the other man whould have turned and attacked him right back and they'd both end up in jail and the media would tell them they both acted like fools.

But, of course, the analogy doesn't work because of the difference in physical strength and the difference between how we feel women should be treated vs. what we think men should just have to take. And that feeling really does go back to chivalry and the idea that women are somehow genuinely different, physically weaker, and must be protected rather than confronted.

There is a double standard, but I'd rather feminists and people whose philosophy I support to be considering and working through those double standards, instead of the authors at NR, who clearly have a different agenda. It's one of the reasons I'm here calling Broadsheet on its double standards, not at some neo-con website agreeing with them. Because my fundamental support is on the left, not the right.

Thank you, too.

Thank you so much! I'm really complimented by your words.

Glad to send you a friendly word. It seems to me I've gotten irked by comments you made in the past, but I don't even remember what they were. I'm not someone who holds onto arguments, especially internet arguments, for long. Life's short, and we should make it pleasant. Plus, I often get people and the posts written confused anyway. Sorry you feel unappreciated around here. Sometimes I do, too. That's how the internet works.

I appreciate the explanation, and you're probably right that my characterizations are off. You're also right that a good show can reinvigorate cliches or make potentially cliched characters into something new and interesting.

The biggest being that he just wants to get laid with a younger man. But I want to address this. If you think "give it up, unless you want to pay for it," well, my friend you are pretty clueless about the gay community. I'm gay, and one of the things that's funny and comfortable about it is that no matter what type you are and what type you want, there are people who fit it.

There are sexy young men (built or slender) who really dig older heavyset men. Not for money. That's just all they get off on. There are really beautiful men who can't stand other beautful men. There are club kids who like leather daddies and leather daddies who really want some preppy to read poetry with. There are unlimited combinations. People who want mirrors of themselves and people who want the complete opposite, and a lot in between. It's really quite eclectic. And it works in reverse. You can be the hottest guy of any age, the perfection of your type, and really want someone, only to find the person who fits your fantasy doesn't like your type, or your age range, or give a damn about looks at all. No matter what your age, or what you look like, there is someone of the type you you want who wants you. There are people who want to stop by regularly for just sex, then go. People who want friendship with benefits. People who want romance.

So I say to the LW, get online. Put up a profile honestly saying or showing what you look like, but also stating honestly who you do and don't want. There are people out there who will fill it. And are looking for you.

But I don't think that's central to what LW is looking for. I think he's looking for a way to confront his past, his present problems (of which love is just one), and get some vision for the future. I think Cary's advice is pretty good, and so is the fact that LW is already in a support group. I reiterate my suggestion of going online. And in this case I'm not speaking about sex, but any chat rooms/discussion groups relating to similar interests. Just because you haven't met someone around you lately who is the sort of in-synch friend you're looking for doesn't mean he isn't out there. The world is large.

One thing I worry about is the student/teacher thing. If it were just a question of younger, I wouldn't bother, but the combination of suffering sexual abuse in the past with a history of turning a role as teacher into the role of lover makes me uncomfortable. Make sure that the people who you get involved with really want this combination and are not simply vulnerable people who will do anything to please the person they look up to. Because that's fucked up. And, as I said before, there are people who want that lover/mentor combination. I'm just saying be honest and up front with them as well as honest with yourself.