After reading about "carpet guy," I have to admit that I felt more than a little frustrated with all parties concerned. First, it was quite obvious that carpet guy and co-horts were accustomed to ripping off customers--and you can't reason with con artists. That's for the criminal and civil courts. Second, it was clear that this "dark place" was more about confusion, and the inability to think clearly when one's anger gets in the way of one's logic. Having a receipt AND a check, albeit a bad check, is an admission of guilt, and both should have been taken to small claims court. Writing a bad check is also a criminal offense, and so that should have been taken to one's local prosecutor. The local Better Business Bureau should have been informed as well. In other words, taking a logical course of action denotes a certain level of maturity and ability to know what is your responsibility--and how to defend yourself against fraud and abuse.

I was also perplexed at the series of actions taken by Anne Lamott and church friends, as well as their anger over carpet guy's refusal to see them as somehow too special to be conned out of their money. Self-delusion about one's spiritual immunity to the all-American shakedown can, indeed, darken one's vision of the path in front of her/him. Apologizing to a con artist out of a misguided notion of spiritual obligation, moreover, does not empower the soul. To Ann I would ask, "would you have allowed your emotions to overwhelm your logic or your common sense if you were dealing with a carpet out of your own home?" In other words, the next time you deal with merchants in the real world, assume that they are not likely to give a rat's ass about your church or your religious identity. Assume that you must be an assertive woman who does not allow con artists or other assholes to drag you into emotional perdition, that you don't need to have a man to speak for you or intercede for you. You have the legal tools at your fingertips, and you have ability to write to local newspapers and take out ads, i.e., media tools to expose the wrong-doers, so why don't you use them? Now that would be empowering!

I'm tired of hearing about men who can't deal with hair on women's legs, or fat thighs, or flat chests, or hips, or untamed pubic hair, or wrinkles, or whatever makes real women different from those mannequins you see in film and television. Lots of men like to obsess over women who don't follow the mannequin program, but these same men won't even consider their own body maintenance issues. For instance, I'd like to see men spend more time trimming their toenails and scrubbing the crust off their feet before stepping into flip-flops. How about this, Mr. Insensitive-Misogynist-Mannequin-Obsessed-Husband: the next time you feel compelled to write about your wife's hairy legs, try shaving your legs yourself (and we all know what else you really want her to shave, so shave your too--or get your OWN bikini wax!). Share the burden, I say. You might change your mind about treating your wife like an object. Then again, maybe not. And Cary, shame on you--you know better than to encourage that misogynist to invent new games to control his wife's body like she's silly putty.

Mr. Snappy Dresser (SD) isn't just putting on clothes; he's wearing his desire to be admired and wanted all over himself. I've heard of men who play this very dangerous, very hurtful game with girlfriends and wives in heterosexual social settings, in other words openly flirting with other women or encouraging other women to "make a play" for him. The usual response is something along the lines of "if you dressed better," or "if you did such and such sexual act," or "if you weighed less/more," or "if you were more compliant/obedient," i.e., he's trying to renegotiate the marriage contract/relationship contract, he's trying to scoop up a bit more or a lot more power for himself. It's about power and control over one's spouse, or at least a desire to go out and play without taking responsibility for being a cheatin' heart; I see the same thing happening with SD and wife. I'm not sure if SD is gay, bisexual or heterosexual; in fact, he may be autosexual, i.e., he may actually desire himself, and he needs to see others' desire him in order to fuel his own desire to seduce himself. Talk about self-love!

I think some questions are due SD: for whom are you dressing? your wife, other women, or other men? or all three? Or do you have a particular man in mind, but you haven't figured out how to "man-up" to what gets you hot? Or do you have a fetish for being watched or admired by all eyes? If it's yes for the last question, maybe you need to consider the entertainment/fashion industry, the propagandistic purveyors of smutty objectification, celebrity-sized narcissism, and gluttonous consumption of empty and meaningless images. Strike a pose for the camera, strike two if you must, and use mass media to sate your appetite for being worshipped and admired.

I'm sure you'll find plenty of company. But please don't drag your wife into your game without her permission to be a participant in your drama, and please, please, please, stop playing games with men, because it's cruel and you really do come off like a dweeb who's using the closet and your wife to tease and humiliate hopeful suitors. It's oh so annoying, so cruel, and so evil! And sooner than you think, men and women alike will see you as the fake that you are, and ignore you.