Like the author I was raised evangelical, and converted to Catholicism in my late twenties. I now attend mass weekly, cantor and sing in the choir. I always tell people I am not the pope's favorite Catholic. I don't pretend to agree with the church on every issue, but my protestant upbringing leads me to feel like that's OK.

I'm Catholic because I think the Church gets it right on the important stuff. You know, God. Growing up evangelical you are taught that it's the Saved versus the Sinners, and since you are Saved (right?) it's all good. You've got nothing to worry about. It almost demands the smug self-satisfaction that is apparent in all those insufferable evangelical leaders. But this "freedom" as it's always called is really a trap. If you are really Saved, how can you be such a screw-up all the time? You can't hold the two ideas in your head at once. So either you're not really Saved, or you're not really a screw-up (despite evidence to the contrary). Draw arrow directly to stereotypical evangelical hypocrisy.

The Catholic Church never lets you get smug. It insists that you recognize daily that you are a screw-up in need of God's mercy. How liberating! We are all screw-ups, we all need help. We bow our heads, we think about how we screwed up. We ask for help and resolve to do better. We kneel and say, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." This is a process utterly alien to my evangelical youth. My secret was out--I was a failure, and it was OK! That acknowledgment opened my heart and keeps me going back.

Women who are products of single-sex colleges are disproportionately represented in positions of power in both business and government. Girls who graduated from single-sex high schools have higher SAT scores and do better in math and computers. They have improved academic self-confidence and are more engaged academically.

As an alumna of a single-sex school, I don't really think the differences are due to teachers tailoring their methods to girls' learning styles. I think the main difference is that there weren't any boys around.

Lord knows I love men, but at a certain age I think there are benefits to both sexes in having some academic separation. I believe it was genuinely helpful to me to be able to study and learn outside of the fog of the mating dance. Once the skills were learned in that admittedly artificial laboratory, they were later easily applied in co-ed situations. And it's not like I was in a convent--male companionship was simply isolated to evenings and weekends.

Plus, I just liked the culture of my little single-sex liberal arts school. It was charming, comfortable and nurturing. It was one of those rare places where the honor code meant something. And I got a great education that got me into a top-five grad school. What's not to like?

My husband and I just had a good laugh over your reply.

OK, I should not have been so flip. My relationship with the aforementioned BF ended naturally when I moved to the opposite coast because I'd been accepted to a graduate program at one of the top five universities in my field. I am now very happily married to someone utterly unlike the BF in question. The BF in question now has a family of his own, I believe. The sleep deprivation incidents were just one messed up facet of a really messed up relationship with two relatively messed up people, much like the majority of relationships through time. He was not trying to hurt me, but he did. Lord knows I didn't want to hurt him, but I did. There are many, many unpleasant interactions between humans. Elevating every bad scene to the level of abuse minimizes real abuse. I guess the argument becomes semantic in the end.

Ok, I had a boyfriend who did the sleep deprivation thing. I broke up with him, and he would call me every night at 3 am and talk/beg until the battery ran out on my phone. (You may ask why I let this happen. I suffered brutally from being dumped in a previous relationship, and I would never wish the pain I experienced on my worst enemy. I thought listening to him would help him.) Yes, it utterly wore me down. Yes, it coerced me into staying with him so he would stop calling and I could get some sleep. But to call that behavior emotional abuse is absurd. He was just that upset. He was hurting. He was looking for a way to be ok. I understood that, I understand that. Some people need to talk, argue, can't let it go. That doesn't make them abusive.

Don't get me wrong, I finally moved to the opposite coast to get away from the guy. I don't think he was a bad person, but he was still a terrible match for me.

It strikes me that the husband of the LW could write a letter on his side of the story that would have all the internet declaring that LW emotionally abused *him*.

Usually, the Oscars are boring. This year, they weren't boring. I can't say that I was so enthralled by all the musical song and dance craziness, but it was entertaining. Not boring. I'm not a pop culture junkie, I don't know all the celebrities, I don't even generally make a point of watching the Oscars. Because of the boring thing. But if they continue to be this entertaining, I will probably keep watching them. I suspect that was the whole point.

People who CARE about the Oscars and have opinions about them will probably watch them regardless. People like me who only occasionally remember when they are on will watch if they are entertaining.