Vanity fair's circulation has been flat for a while, and is now dropping. This trite offering from Ford simply continues the process. Despite what some anaymous posters think, most people do NOT seem to find disembodies female parts erotic. Otherwise, this issue (and others) would fly off the shelves. But healthy people don't find the scent of serial killer erotic.

Straight women should NOT have to act like gay or straight men to get what we want. If we act like men, we might as well be men. On the other hand, healthy males don't necessarily WANT women to feel that they have to act like men to have their desires fulfilled. Straight men drop their clothes for straight women across America everyday in bedrooms. Clearly, the problem is NOT that straight women are not enthusiastic enough. Something is very wrong when some men think it ok to say "We'll listen to you women if you act like males". The people who don't see this problem generally ARE the problem. And I don't want a daughter of mine dating you.

Traister is right in pointing out the lack of erotic, theme, or even thought in the layout. Ford is making fun of women. He thinks we will buy any crap he does, because of who he is, or because we are stupid. He's wrong on both counts.

1.1 million versus an average 4 million subscription circulation for a magazine of this type (Time, Newsweek, and People magazines are the points of comparison) is pretty bad. It's not just down from Tina Brown- it's down period. The parent company has already made noises about the falling subscription problem. People magazine has 3+ times more readers. If you want celebrity gossip, People does it better. If you want fashion, Vogue and InStyle does it better. If you want intelligent articles, The New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly does it a LOT better. I'm a multiple subscription holder for several magazines, and I've been offered free subscriptions to Vanity Fair multiple times THIS year. I'm not tempted at all.

"I am willing to bet that what is really going on is that the divergence being seen is due to a huge increase in girls seeking college degrees from the lower economic segments, and not a sudden drop-off in the number of boys from white collar household deciding to head down the economic ladder. After all it the lower economic rungs that have a stronger tendency to disparage education and maintain the belief that a young man can make his fortune as a professional athlete and if that doesn't work out there is always a well-paying factory or trade position to be had."

This is a part of what is happening. You also have some young men who got technical jobs (web design, etc) out of high school at a time when you did not need credentials for it. They are now being laid off and going back to school, or taking the web based courses. Middle class boys go to college in the same percentage- working class boys are the ones lagging. Working class girls need a college degree (as a teacher or a RN nurse) to make as much as a working class guy with a technical degree in plumbing, automotive repaire, etc.

Most of this handwringing is exaggeration, anyway.

Many top flight lawyers have stay at home spouses, so hubby's comments seem a little weird. This woman is working, and has not said she wants to be stay at home.

Hubby should investigate careers in politics (as an aide), or government (working for the consumer protection or other parts of government (from FBI to universities to CIA to business regulation, etc). Better hours, significantly lower pay, more interesting cases, saner expectations. The problem is his.

It's ironic. A lot of people wind up divorced because one partner works all of the time and neglects the children, etc. Here, the workaholic partner is demanding this same detrimental behavior from the sane partner. The behavior he wants is the sure course to divorce court. He needs some therapy, ASAP.

Here I am, cleaning house, working for a living, sharing half of my income, and my only downside is giving up the dough of prostitution? Assuming that it would have been a high dollar call girl, and not a $50 hooker? Or that they forgot the cost of busts, the drugs used to hook the girl (or make it tolerable), or the beatings from the pimp? Oh, that thing called reality. Why let it get in the way of a stupid comparison?

The LW said that people ASKED the BIL why he was ignoring his brother. He said that he WASN'T ignoring his brother. BIL DENIED he was ignoring his brother. He does communicate, this is not the silent treatment.

Some people are just quiet. I'm voting that the LW is making a mountain out of a molehill. This guy is just quiet.

Why come into the family starting trouble?

I don't see the elements of passive-aggresiveness here. He's just shy or quiet, or has very little in common with the LW.

"Sometimes guys tend to look backward to girls from their past because they are looking to drink a bottle of wine and get laid."

Amen.