Haven't even been reading the whole darn discourse, so who the hookey am I to comment?

However... someone needs to call the Reactionary Crackpots for what they are. So what if they managed to fundraise themselves into the Sublime Light of Respectabilty, the lunatic RW fringe of the US of A (and hey, folks, they`ve been out there since... Forever. Since Jim Crow laws, slavery, etc. That`s just the yolk ya`ll need to wear on your collective face. Of course you don`t here at Salon, but...)?

Stop giving the Reactionary Right the time of day, the discoruse space, etc. Call a liar, a(n) hypocrote, etc. where you(se) see(n) it.

G`day.

Okay, maybe it was a cable network, but I don't subscribe to any porno cable stations so imagine my surprise when I was channel-flipping and landed on some bareback (straight) vaginal/anal footage that was coming into my home, unfettered and completely free, thanks to the magic of television.

Whatever adults decide is best for themselves, whether as consumers of or participants in the porn industry, I do think there might be a compelling argument against allowing bareback footage to be shown on non-porn-specific TV stations/cable networks that can, plausibly, be encountered by people who have yet to reach the age of consent and/or make decisions about how they will choose to practice (or not) safe sex. I mean, cigarette ads no longer are allowed on TV for precisely that reason (the protection of impressionable/vulnerable young people).

After recently stumbling on this little bareback-on-TV surprise I actually got into a bit of a snit over people who will get on their high horses about wearing sneakers manufactured under "unacceptable" working conditions but prefer their porn to be condom free (kind of like the vegan cat owner who feeds the pet soybased food but wears leather and/or a leather-lookalike in a way that glamorizes the notion of wearing animal skins... and I'm not vegan, I just like a little consistency). So I was quite intrigued to see TC-F's article.

I agree that Cary gave an excellent response. But he didn't cover the territory of what might happen down the line if, say, your relationship with this person for whom you feel so strongly should blossom and carry you into the realm of shackin' up or marriage.

The thing is, if you are spending a lot of your otherwise spare time and a noticable chunk of disposable income (and, presumably, devoting a portion of your present domestic space) on a hobby that a potential significant other might not want to share, you will bump up against a whole 'nother set of issues. It happens in *any* relationship, not just those where addictions and other demons are on the table.

A friend of mine once brilliantly summarized it as the "wagon-wheel coffee table syndrome," e.g. the stuff that someone you otherwise adore seems hellbent on dragging into your potential future together. Her example: the boyfriend who is genuinely puzzled when the girlfriend isn't keen to welcome his beloved wagon-wheel coffee table -- a hideous, tacky object that eats up most of the available floorspace in what might already be a cramped living-room -- into their first shared home. The question my friend posed, when various of the gals in our circle started getting serious about the boys, was:

"Do you love him enough to embrace the wagon-wheel coffee table and welcome it into your life? And... does he love you enough to give it up.?"

Dear LW,

I don't mean to be mean either, but sulking alone in the kitchen, hoping that someone will ride in on the proverbial white charger and rescue you from your silent, internal misery, may not be the way out of solitary confinement and into the clique.

You see yourself as the outsider in your family, and odds are you are, you are right, etc. But the thing is, your sisters will NEVER get it (the same way no bigot eversees his/herself as a bigot). One of my very dearest friends on earh is the youngest in his family, by over a decade, and the older sibs still, four decades into the "baby" brother's life, fail to include him as a full participant in family gatherings. Amazingly the parents respect the "baby" as the responsable adult of their brood and brush off any thoughtlessness on the part of the elder "kids" -- all of whom have adult children of their own --as the inevitable solipsism of teenagers. One mark of my dearest friend's maturity is his ability to call the older sibs on the exclusion front, but I have no doubt that the process is painful, thatfact that the need persists is brutal, that my friend msut sometimes wish his 50-something siblinsg would grow up.

It might help (a little) if you can ask yourself what the roots of your singular status might be. Were you, too, a late arrival? Perhaps someone yuor parents thoughtlessly discussed as a "surprise" addition or an afterthought? Or maybe you came first, before your parents had time and energy to make you feel special and specially loved? Did you fall in the middle and come off as basically competent to look after yourself, so everyone let you?

Or maybe you were conspicuously smarter, or prettier, and the sisters gave you space because they felt you showed them up?

You have worked hard to get close to your sisters, but you can't make them work hard to get close to you. You can find a space in your heart for ongoing and relentless forgiveness, if you want, but you don't have to.

The friend you invited along? You need to talk to her... and you need to ask yourself why, when you can choose anyone at all in the whole world to be your best friend, you sought out someone who treats you just like your sisters. You don't need to work on this alone.