Letters like the one from spoincey (and as awful as it was to read that letter, at least I don't have to spend the rest of my life inside that brain) are a great reminder of how science-deficient the whole debate is. As if women spontaneously combusted into pregnancy from their own nasty behaviour and repulsive genitalia. A few thoughts:

1. There's a man intimately involved in the onset of every pregnancy.

2. Yet the level of male participation by the birth date in the US ranges from 83% to 54% by state, and about 70% worldwide.

3. I'd be alot more supportive of anti-abortionists if there were A.N.Y. consequences for men incorporated into the mix. For example, let's make not wearing a condom during intercourse a misdemeanor on the first occasion, and a felony thereafter. Misogynists don't seem to care what an unplanned pregnancy of any sort does to a women. Why should we care about the fertile irresponsible men?

4. Anyone opposing abortion who wants to be considered "pro-life" should have to subscribe for their lifetimes to a fund to help support the resulting children, and by extension, society at large. Life does not begin at conception and end at birth. About 40% of children in single parent households are raised in poverty. Even Ann Coulter admits children of single parents "are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home."

Lastly, abortion is a debate based on belief systems, and until one side or the other can definitively prove its case, there is no justification for inflicting one group's beliefs on everyone else. That is, unless all of us are also going to eschew pork, allopathic medicine, foreskins, haircuts and blow jobs.

...Have never been funny, except to other adolescent dunces. Ugly is not humorous, it's cheap and lazy. Since Reagan elevated ignorance to the level of sanctity, we've been subjected to one Stupid Male Movie or Stupid Male TV Series after another. The point of all this stupidity seems to inevitably demonstrate that, no matter how stupid they act, men will always triumph and women must fall into line or fail.

But I'm not bitter.

Just way past exhausted with all this incessant and enduring stupid.

Bringing Up Baby

But I'm a Cheerleader

Saving Grace (the movie)

Turtle Diary

Groundhog Day

Jules et Jim

Go Fish

Return of the Secaucus Seven

Appaloosa (yes, it's a love story - just not the one you expect)

Gregory's Girl

The Shop Around the Corner

Arsenic and Old Lace

I Love You to Death

...and seconding some that have already been mentioned (Moonstruck, The Philadelphia Story, Annie Hall). Gosh, this is fun.

Well, you're indeed right. I might have been pushing the envelope there. But there was romance. There was comedy. Don't I at least get partial credit?

What would you say to It's a Wonderful Life or His Girl Friday? How intense does the romance have to be to be eligible? I'm reluctant to name recent romantic comedies, because the comedy fraction is often so miserly for anyone over the mental age of 12. Maybe 10.

Monsoon Wedding, yes! Must add Eat Drink Man Woman.

What, me bitter? Ya think?

The problem isn't what you do, but who you're doing it with. You seem to be trying to work out some rejection/abandonment issues by picking the same guy over and over again. So stop it. As a previous letter suggested, overlook the instant chemistry guys and look at the guys standing next to them. Or behind them. Or behind the potted palm. And find a therapist who can help you work out your issues on a different plane. More expensive in one way, less expensive in the most important ways.

Immediate chemistry is generally a sign that your unconscious is screwing with your heart. It rarely works. And for those people for whom it does work, it's because, besides both being temporarily in rut, they also have an assortment of other interests, politics, religion, and personal styles in common, not to mention the possibility of a handy set of dovetailing issues. The classic definition of neurosis is doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different outcome. Your one-night-stands qualify. Better to take action to get out of your, ahem, rut.

Almost uniformly, the responses to this column have been well-informed and compassionate. In that same vein, I'd like to suggest both that the LW might be angry with his wife, and have rape fantasies of his own which shame him.

There is nothing wrong with this. Rape fantasies of both genders can be normal, just like fantasies of hanging someone slowly, or slapping their brains out with a baseball bat. The mature adult knows the difference between fantasy and behaviour. Only when acted upon do these fantasies present a problem. That's when the mistake is made of crossing significant social and legal boundaries. Private personal thoughts: okay. Invading someone else's actual life and harming them: not okay. Don't do that. But do talk, honestly, with a good shrink. S/he won't be scared or disgusted by any of your thoughts.

REALLY? So they're also against the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, capital punishment, sport hunting AND they're vegans?

Geez Louise, Tracy! Get a clue.

Many thanks for the embedded link to the Worldwide Fistula Fund. Donating through Paypal took three clicks and produced a warming frisson of satisfaction.

Also to point out that in the U.S. there are many silent sufferers. A friend went through years of affliction while her godlike OB-GYN continued to insist that Kegels were the answer. She ultimately did her own research, found the surgery and a new lease on life. And, not surprisingly, finally a new OB-GYN.