Instinctively, we can agree that Maryland law has got to be wrong. Something is amiss when you can't withdraw consent for sex and demand that that decision be respected.

But does the penalty for rape really fit that crime? I don't think so, just as I don't think forcing sex with your wife is really the same as traditional rape.

Among the reasons we have for making rape a serious crime is that it often is done by a complete stranger and thus is terrifying. Even date rape is typically done by someone with whom the victim has not consented to sex with before.

But where consent is initially given, or has been given so many times in the past that sex with this person is a very familiar thing, the circumstances just are not as outrageous as typical rape.

I think the answer in such cases is to treat the act as some form of misdemeanor battery, still punishable as crime, with some sort of jail penalty available, but not as felonious behavior with a long prison term.

And if the unconsented sex is accompanied by violence beyond forcing penetration, that can enhance the penalty, perhaps into a higher category altogether, such as aggravated battery, which can be felonious itself if bad enough.

I hope there can also be some way to cut just a little slack for the poor guy who is given consent, is highly aroused and has penetrated and well on his way to orgasmic bliss and is given the bad news that he has to stop. That happens all the time for a variety of reasons, such as some external surprise, or a baby crying, or phone ringing, or whatever, and men have to deal with it. But when it's just a change of mind, can he not have at least a minute or two to discuss it without withdrawing and without being criminalized?

I am reminded of one of the games from "Games People Play" called "Rapo" in which a woman entices a guy to do something (sexual or nonsexual) and then turns on him for it. That doesn't apply where the turnabout is sincere.

But it is so close to the present situation that it reminds me that it is not a good idea to place major penal sanctions on one side of an intimate situation like this, commenced with consent and without violence, normal in every way except for a unilateral change of mind. We cannot let lives be ruined upon such fleeting whims.

There are two things about Lieberman that trouble Democrats: (1) he votes wrong on some really important issues, and (2) he refused to accept his party's judgment in the primary. Of these, (1) is far the worse.

But it is not like he is some Zell Miller kind of wacko, a real right-winger hanging around the Democratic caucus mainly to gain intelligence to betray them with. He is in many respects a solid traditional Democrat whose support on traditional Democratic issues is well-documented and more reliable than that of Confederate Democrats.

But (2) will make the Democratic Party nervous for a while if he is re-elected, which now seems sure. He is technically not a Democrat now. He is running against a Democrat. He will have to be forgiven by the party in a way the Republicans have never forgiven one of their own who did something like this. And the forgiveness will certainly be given, because the Democrats need him badly.

But nerves are frayed and some feelings have been hurt. Some time will have to pass before the sore heals.

Mr. O'Hehir is one of those critics who thinks he can make a name for himself by archly and cleverly demeaning the creative work of others.

I am one of the millions who think "Twelve Monkeys" was a fine movie, intriguing, creative as Gilliam always is, with an excellent performance by Brad Pitt as a nut case, and a dependably able one by Bruce Willis in his best role of pounded-on hero, in a captivating story that, while asking for belief in time travel, never ruins that premise with other implausibilities. And it is frightening in terms of what devastation human beings are willing to cause, using great wars and tiny microbes, while concluding optimistically for the world if tragically for the hero.

In other words, not "crap".

Given that Mr. O'Hehir is so myopic where Gilliam is concerned, I do not trust his review of "Tidelands" and look forward to seeing the film, confident that it is yet another fine achievement by Gilliam.

Of course most of the Raelian philosophy is just cuckoo, including trying to turn evolutionary concepts into a religion, but let's give them this:

"Raelian theology states that . . . nudity and sexuality are pure and beautiful, and that if people were more in touch with their feminine sides, there would be less violence in the world."

Now, who can argue with that?