This item is arrant bullshit.

I know little about the accuracy of the claims of the H.S. student involved, but it's fair to assume that neither does the author of this Broadsheet item, since she presents no additional information on this subject.

Instead she unequivocally broadcasts the philosophy that a male's complaining about gender discrimination is necessarily without merit.

Such people as this author should not be paid, or published, by Salon.

(OR -- maybe Salon could just publicize a list of acceptable bigotries.)

I think Mr. Tennis said so much, so vaguely, that what he wrote doesn't add up to a hill of beans, just a hill of psychobabble.

My advice to the letter-writer is that she must put her foot down about uninvited visits. She must put her foot down when it comes to her mother-in-law refusing to hand over her baby when she asks. And if her attempts to insist on these items fail, she must bar her mother-in-law from her home.

In the letter, these options are never mentioned. I suspect this is because they are not easy: they will surely cause strife with the mother-in-law and the father-in-law, and quite possibly with her husband as well.

The best option would be for her to convince her husband that her preferences about unannounced visits and the handling of her baby are essential, and that he should act as the intermediary to convey this to the mother-in-law and father-in-law.

I hate to say it, but if her husband declines to intervene on her behalf, this marriage is doomed.

I've been thinking about the many letters that say, "Why should boys not have to follow the same rules -- sitting at their desks, not misbhaving -- as girls do?"

Well, I think everyone at school should have to follow the rules, within reason. But maybe these rules are unreasonable for most boys!

I can't prove it, but if you observe children at most playgrounds, you will usually see a lot more boys than girls running around.

What is often diagnosed as "hyperactivity" in boys is, I suspect, often nothing more than a mismatch between the rules about sitting still and boys' instinctive natures. (There's also the greed of the manufacturers of Ritalin et al., but that's a separate rant.)

There is Nothing. Natural. about having to sit still for 5-6 hours a day, even with a few minutes' break every hour. And from the playground observations, I suspect this is much harder on most boys than most girls.

Just as women rightly complain about some standardized tests that have gender bias (more questions relating to mainly-boy activities than mainly-girl activities, or mainliless activities), males have a righteous complaint about a school system that is biased against their very natures.

No one should be allowed to misbehave at school. (Please don't make me define "misbehave".) But I suspect that the antsiness caused by having to "sit still" much longer than is natural is a major factor in a lot of that misbehaving. And that this should all be taken into consideration when designing the way a school works.

Sitting still has been a centuries-long requirement of most schools, but that doesn't make it right.

It is indeed a letters-to-the-editor tradition in journalism that letter writers are supposed to sign their own names, although traditions aren't necessarily good things.

It's easy to see that asking letter-writers to use their own names would seem to put the responsibility for their words on those who wrote them.

But for me, not using my own name is an opportunity to express myself on a spectrum of topics that I would never otherwise comment on. Because if my opinion on a controversial topic conflicted with what my employer (or prospective employer) should deem appropriate, I could lose my job or miss out on a job prospect as a result.

There is always the risk that users writing under a shield of anonymity might express themselves libelously or incite uncivil discourse. So it's a good thing that Salon reserves the right to delete any letters that seem too unseemly.

Perhaps it wouldn't hurt for Salon to create a code of letter-writing conduct. Fortunately, few of the letter-writers so far would need such a thing.

. . . then it would seem only natural for you to see a physician, who can tell you if your hormone levels are normal.

If they are, then you might want to see a shrink, who may be able to determine if there are psychological factors obstructing what might otherwise be a robust libido. Perhaps sex has some negative association for you that the shrink can bring to light and help you shed.

Since sex can be one of life's great pleasures, I would think that you'd want to find out if this pleasure is accessible to you, despite your feeling no interest in it at present.

(As a child I was an ultra-picky eater, and in my early adulthood I had little interest in exploring unfamiliar cuisines. Eventually I became curious and courageous enough to sample them, and now a whole nother world of pleasure is open to me.)

It's not entirely clear from your letter whether you merely have no interest in sex, or if you have an aversion to it. If no aversion, then you might find it extremely pleasurable to be physically intimate with your boyfriend and experience that you can provide him with great pleasure. As Mr. Tennis suggests, you have nothing to lose by trying, and valuable experience to gain.