Of course women can pay for sex. Women also can pay for air, but why would they want to when both air and sex are available to women in abundant quantities and without charge.

I think we, as a species, have been too strongly conditioned to conform to expected gender roles for this type of brothel to prosper.

When I clicked on the link provided, I read an article describing how Ms. Geist chose to give up a career in order to find a way life that will serve the needs of her heart. How can this be seen as "very bad news?"

As noted in the article, caregiving is a culturally accepted "excuse" for women to withdraw from the perpetual pursuit of meaningless titles and spend more time looking inward. This is not a "narrative" being imposed on women by any type of vast male conspiracy. It is, instead, a choice increasingly made by women because, by "opting out," they are able to live a more humane and satisfying life. Why do women choose to opt out in greater numbers than men? Because it is culturally acceptable for them to do so.

If you are shooting for numerical gender equality in the workplace, the best plan of attack is not to disparage women who choose to opt out. Instead, I would urge you to encourage the development of conditions and attitudes that would allow more men to opt out until the numbers come out to your satisfaction.

I fear that the art of damsel rescue must itself be rescued and permanently wrenched from the hands of red-state writers.

The most advanced princes and damsels recognize that damsel rescue cannot occur without the mutual love and respect of both the prince and the damsel. Further, if properly done, an act of damsel rescue results in the mutual rescue of both the prince and the damsel. Ultimately, the young prince pursues his quest in a manner that serves to allow the damsel to rescue herself from herself. In turn, the acts taken by the damsel serve to allow the prince to rescue himself from himself.

The required mutuality of both love and respect seems lost on the author of the cited text. Moreover, this author apparently cannot "grasp" the basic symbolism of the use of a sword by the young prince in the course of his damsel rescue.

At a minimum, I think we need a few mandatory federal standards for the certification of damsel rescue instructors.

L.L., perhaps I should turn to the words of Butler (Rhett) and say, “what a woman.”

While I understand and appreciate the thoughts expressed in your letter, I must tell you that your merciless attack on our cherished, “Rockwellian” image of the spinsterish, bun-haired librarian has left me at loose ends and unable to focus.

I enjoyed Allen’s article and had been prepared to compose a responsive letter, the text of which would have been littered with literary allusion, infused with irony, and peppered with parody. Unfortunately, I missed my “train of thought” while lingering with the image of a legion of lovely, leggy, lipsticked librarians. Even now, I see them with their cascading hair defiantly un-bunned as they continue to stride suggestively in high-heeled boots through a dusty, dewey-decimalized landscape.

With librarians like this roaming the recesses of my mind, I’m afraid I’ll never get any work done. I hope someone can assure me that the warm, comfortable world of Allen’s bun-haired, spinster librarians remains alive and well.

taking some time to ponder and analyze the choices we make in life is "self-absorbed," I wish there were more "self-absorbed" people in this world. If publicly admitting periodic confusion and paralysis is "whiny," I wish there were more "whiny" people in this world. In my view, "Paralyzed," together with all those who took the time to provide advice and encouragement, are worthy of respect and admiration (for my part, I would urge "Paralyzed" to pursue enlightenment by following the path of zoegreenbergism).

It's odd that few writers seem to be willing to give "Paralyzed" the benefit of the doubt. Most writers here appear to believe that "Paralyzed" is paralyzed due to a fear of failure in the pursuit of a "self-agrandizing," change-the-world-in-a-hip-way-while-getting-rich-and-famous-at-the-same-time type of goal. I think there is an equal, if not greater, chance that "Paralyzed" is motivated not by ego but by a sincere desire to make a positive difference.

What does/should it mean to be a "man" in modern American society? What types of behavior do modern American women expect to see in modern American men? Is there a disconnect between what women say they want in a "man" and what they actually want in a man as demonstrated by their behavior?

In my opinion, these questions are worth serious discussion. Unfortunately, it seems you'd prefer to avoid serious discussion by setting up a strawman (or strawperson) that we can all gleefully slash to bits. You say, "[y]es, some women have a thing for cads," thereby defining "manliness" as "cadliness" and allowing us all to safely avoid the very real, and often subtle, issues relating to gender-based expectations in modern society.