"Maybe I am suggesting it is time for men to rethink the boundaries of what we allow women to do and what we allow them to upbraid us for. After all, who elected them God?"

This is perfectly vague. Are you arguing that it is currently acceptable for women to perform the kind of invasion of privacy that the guy in Clark-Flory's article performed on the woman in question? Or that men have the right to take pictures up women's skirts? You've been rather evasive on this point, offering a confusing diatribe concerning "rethinking the boundaries of what we allow women to do". What does this mean, exactly?

"You only see things as defined in the present by WOMEN and women alone. We men have allowed women to define the public sphere."

Only women think it's repulsive to take pictures of a stranger's underwear when they haven't invited such an act? Got any evidence for this?

"It seems women openly criticize everything men do, but the reverse seldom occurs, and even then, trogs like you even try to thwart what little defining men do engage in."

Ah, nothing like extremely broad generalizations to bring a point home. Can you be a little more specific regarding the kind of "defining" you'd like to see happen? (The Troggs, by the way, were a great band, and I'm honored to be associated with them.)

"She knew exactly what she was doing because of the way she was looking at my friend, as he described it. But if she had not, you sound like you just came in from Jupiter if you doubt women do such things in the first place."

I was actually referring to the woman in Clark-Flory's article, not the red-headed "skank" you referred to. Of course there are some women who do such things. I just wanted to know why you were so convinced that the woman Clark-Flory is writing about had invited such treatment. If you aren't able to address any of these comments DIRECTLY, as you failed to do in your previous letter, I'll assume you're not serious.

Oh, Brightstar.

"Men like to be voyeurs, women do not."

Any evidence to suggest this? If you do, please share it. As for the other examples you cite, I fail to see what they have to do with invasion of privacy. You did not address Leeandra's point regarding the fact that it would be illegal for women, not just men, to perform such an act. Also, I think a lot of women would be surprised to learn that, biologically, they have no voyeuristic tendencies. No such curiosity on their part, huh? Again, cite some evidence.

"Men are the active agents making all the moves, taking many of the risks in getting together with women for the promise of reproduction. THEREFORE, a consideration ought to be made in favor of men in terms of how strictly the law deals with them vs how it deals with women.

In other words, things are upside down. Men, who are active agents in society, have a slew of laws stopping them from engaging their natural instinct."

Care to explain how taking a picture of someone's underwear is relevant to the pursuit of the "promise of reproduction"? Are you honestly suggesting that such an act is an act of romantic pursuit, instead of the pursuit of fodder for internet jerkoff sessions?

"Therefore we have cuckoldry and other crimes being not only permitted but ENABLED by the sick old degenerate men who OSTENSIBLY run society."

Hey, now you're speaking my language! Heh heh.

Brightstar, you have utterly failed to relate your points to the specific case in Clark-Flory's article. You are clearly an ideologue who looks for any excuse to air his views, regardless of whether or not the context really fits. Some of your points would be relevant to a different discussion of male/female relations, but not this one. Not that it matters to you, of course, as long as you get to spew. Heh.

Nice work with all of your comments. I have nothing more to add, except that I was overjoyed at Brightstar's recommendation that we make belittling illegal. In the world he lives in, the police must be positively swamped. Heh.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

The Hustler

Sweet Bird of Youth

Hud

Cool Hand Luke

Sometimes a Great Notion

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

Quintet

The Verdict

The Color of Money

The Hudsucker Proxy

Road to Perdition

This is a significant chunk of Mr. Newman's filmography, none of which fit the description of his "unadventurous" career that you put forth. There may be many others I could have included, but naturally, I haven't seen every film he made. He certainly took on the occasional piece of fluff, and the two movies you mention can be described as such, on some level. To propose that they represent his output in general, however, is absurd. A question, then: what percentage of "risky" projects does an actor need under his or her belt in order to qualify as a truly worthy performer? I'd also be interested in hearing why Clark Gable and Gary Cooper deserve to be denigrated, and which actors from "outside the system" you would rank above Newman. Hoffman, Nicholson, De Niro? God knows they would never do "fluff", would they?

Can tomreedtoon explain why gay viewers of "Desperate Housewives" are crueler than straight fans of the show? Or why he would undermine an otherwise intelligent posting with such a bizarre, seemingly random reference? (Also, tom did at least once refer to Heather as a "heartless snob", so I'm willing to cut carrrie a little slack if she did think he's the kind of person who can hate someone's guts.)