Gee, don't make me use my brain when I can just have it all passively spoon-fed to me in dull, uninspired chunks.

Lookee - an erotic life for a generation of drooling television addicts.

Yawn.

I hate it because it's numbers but it's not math. If it were math I might be interested, but it's not. It's just groups of numbers waiting to be rearranged. You could have little pictures if puppies and kitties and have essentially the same effect, but the numbers are there to make it look challenging. Plus, most adults wouldn't be caught dead with the puppies/kitties thing.

But hey, if it keeps the people in their seats and not whining at me the whole flight about why there are no pillows/magazines/food/movies, I'm all for it.

Because, hey, I've got crossword puzzles to do.

Kurth was not put in jail simply because he was rude.

Rudeness is not a crime. If it was, a whole lot more airline passengers (and certainly more than a few airline personnel) would be sitting behind bars right now. And believe me when I say the police get more than a little peeved when they're called to a flight to arrest a passenger because he was obnoxious. It certainly isn't going to result in extended jail time.

Kurth refused to follow the orders of the flight crew and was therefore viewed as a threat. I'm sure the whole story of his illness and ill-advised mixing of medication and alcohol came out after the fact, but by then it was too late. Crews have to work with situation they're presented with, i.e.; a person who's behaving in an erratic and possibly dangerous manner. When you're 40,000 feet over the Atlantic with 300+ passengers on board, your reaction to one passenger's very strange behavior is not going to be, "Oh, leave him alone, he's probably just having a bad day." Kurth admits this much in his story.

Nobody is suggesting that this man deserved to spend several weeks being sexually assaulted, but he certainly didn't do himself any favors in dealing with the authorities.

>>Airlines serve alcohol full well knowing that altitude potentiates the effects of alcohol and a third of their passengers are probably medicated anyway and giving them alcohol is just begging for trouble. As enablers and coconspirators in this affair the airlines are also culpable for these types of incidents.<<

Airlines serve alcohol to adults with the understanding that said adults are responsible and know their limits. Flight attendants are trained to monitor the amount of alcohol served on board and stop service to those who appear intoxicated or have simply consumed too many drinks relative to the length of the flight, knowing full well that the vast majority of in-flight incidents are caused by too much alcohol consumption.

Blaming the airline for Kurth's intoxication and subsequent arrest fits very nicely with his own version of events, however - let's pin the responsibilty on anyone and everyone but him.

At some point we're all going to be subjected to our significant other's wind-breaking, butt-scratching, and open-mouthed-chewing. Must we really need to know all of their darkest, most negative innermost thoughts as well? Maybe for the occasional serial killer you might stumble across, but for the garden-variety decent human being? Not so much.

It's a wonder anyone's relationships survive in these days of full disclosure.

In the meantime, remember this - vent and delete, vent and delete. No need to keep that kind of thing around for anyone to "accidentally" trip over.

>>Last week, Neil Whitehouse, 28, was jailed for a year after refusing to switch off a mobile phone on board a flight.

This is a stellar example of the punishment not fitting the crime. Even if you have no sympathy for Whitehouse, taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for keeping this guy locked up for a year.<<

A. This incident happened on a British airline, not a U.S. carrier - and I think we've established that British laws are much tougher in this regard. Nonetheless:

B. A one-sentence summary of the case tells us nothing about what actually happened on that flight. The majority of cell-phone violations bring a fine at most. There is obviously much more to this story.

Feminism about self-actualization.

In other words, using your own brain to make your own decisions, not take dictation like you're someone's admin assistant.

And for the others here who think this sounds like a good idea - puhleeze. Sure it's nice to be absolved of responsibilities occasionally, but to be told you essentially have no choice in the matter? No, no, no!

Adulthood involves responsibilty. "Surrendering" all of that to one's husband reverts one to child status. It's the definition of patriarchy.

>>What you mean to say of course is that WOMEN should not take dictation from their HUSBANDS, etc. Obviously when necessary to avoid the woman being "dominated" by the "patriarchy"<<

I mean to say that women - particularly women who expect to be treated as equals - should behave as responsible adults, not children who allow other people to make decisions for them - be they husbands, parents, friends, or fellow feminists for that matter.

And to Solomon - any woman who falls for this drivel is indeed, taking dictation. From Ms. Doyle in this case, who I'm sure is chuckling all the way to the bank.

>> Laura Doyle is a friend of mine who I've known for some years, and I think most of the respondents here would be absolutely amazed by her personality and views. She's a very smart, driven, independent woman <<

In other words, it's more "do as I say, not as I do".

Shades of Phyllis Schlafly.

Sorry, but anybody who runs around using the word "classy" just...isn't.

I really love it when men have to drag out the ol' biological imperative every time they need a convenient excuse for some form of reprehensible behavior.

"But, honey, I'm hard-wired to do this! I have no control! You're a woman - you wouldn't understand!"

Why, of course we would - because we know full well that the only cure for PMS is to go out and buy three dozen pairs of shoes, right?

The people justifying this guy's behavior are probably more than guilty of it themselves. They do it so everyone must do it, and that makes it acceptable. Except they don't and it isn't. And please don't drag the entire species down into the muck with you just because you enjoy wallowing there.

If we continually indulged our basest compulsions we wouldn't have a polite society. Claiming you have no control over your your own eyeballs is disingenuous at best. In the case of the LW's boyfriend, it's truly tacky and disrespectful. Learning to make herself feel better about the situation is not the answer - there are some areas in which compromise is out of the question. Never, ever disrespect yourself in order to be a "good girlfriend".