The late and maybe great B.F. Skinner made the case that we are always affecting others' behaviors, because we are part of others' environments. If we are always affecting others' behaviors, he reasoned that we might as well do so in a way that benefits us (I'm paraphrasing a great deal). If you're going to react to your partner's foibles one way or the other, why not choose to do so in a way that makes your life easier in the long run (assuming that the partner isn't harmed)? In this case, everyone was happier.

I didn't get the feeling that this was directed solely at husbands. It happened to be written by a woman.

I am not a Christian. Many of my family, friends and students are Christians and it's my perception that your average not-in-the-spotlight Christian is a kind and loving person. There's a real disconnect, all right: between the Dobson brand of Christian fundamentalism and the garden-variety Christian.

I wonder why more of the nicer Christians don't speak out.

My husband was in the OR when my daughter was born via C-section and there was a drape that obscured his view (and mine, I had a heavy-duty epidural and was completely conscious, not wanting a general anesthesia hangover). He could look if he wanted but he certainly didn't have to see anything that he didn't ask for. I figured it was this way for all C-sections with a partner present.

My son was born the traditional way and my three words of advice are epidural, epidural, epidural. Sometimes I hear about men that don't want their partners to have epidurals. That's just cruel.

I see all the "hot" trends on campus every year and I've noticed that there are often trends that look good on almost no one who is not an underwear model. Those trends often look really bad on a woman who is heavy. There are clothes that flatter a heavy woman - I've seen them - but they might not be the hot "in" thing. Case in point: those very short miniskirts don't look great on anyone whose thighs are bigger than curtain rods, and they make a size 12 butt look a mile wide (and no matter who they are on, they have caused me to unwittingly glimpse a lot of underwear, especially if the wearer is in the front row). Remember that thigh-high stocking and miniskirt look about 10 years ago? NO ONE has EVER looked good in that, outside of magazine photos. I think the sausage casing look is a perfect example of a trend that will look really silly when kids look at their pictures a few years from now.

And if legislation passed that confined Speedos to members of swim teams, I would be perfectly happy.

Having logged many hours with freshmen, I can attest to a group difference between men and women in terms of willingness to study and attend class. Even though I have more female than male students, it's more often male students that don't turn in minor assignments that add up, skip two classes in a row, stuff like that. This is a group difference: I have downright obsessive men and slacker women.

I think a fair amount of this difference exists because women mature earlier than men and this extends to the college years, particularly 18-19 years old. Eighteen is an age with a wide range of maturity, but males of that age may be a little younger than the women. Isn't going to class when you don't want to, making sure you understand an assignment, and preparing for an exam in a hated class (not psyc, of course) all markers of maturity? It makes sense then that women would outperform men to some extent, given that these are all part of academic success skills.

By the work years, men have caught up and it's not surprising that women's edge lessens.

"For the first time we have created life using artificial sperm."

And all this time I thought that if there's one thing the world's got plenty of, it's sperm.

How about increasing the availablity and production of low-cost protein sources, vaccines or at the very least good chocolate?

What a difficult situation for the LW. Enlightened man? Yeah, right. Cary is right calling this an affair, given the emotional intensity.

I'm not certain the marriage is over. If this is a one-time blind crush related to various issues ("ooh! I'm still sexually desirable when I'd written it off!") , it can pass and the couple could use what they've learned to address problems in the marriage. However, if the wife is emotionally "checking out" of the marriage, the situation is more bleak.

My only concern with the advice so far is that by denying access to Mr. Enlightenment, as logical as this seems, he becomes even more forbidden thus desirable fruit (I believe social psychologists call this the Romeo and Juliet effect). This may make the wife yearn for him or idolize him even more. Letting him come over and visit doesn't sound good either, though. Possibly doing some very non-sexual things with the other couple could open the wife's eyes to the fact that the man is a very ordinary man who won't ask for directions or uses too much incense (enlightened man just sounds like incense to me) or is curt to his wife or whatever. That's a risk too but I think it's no more than having the wife in a situation where she's likely to romanticize and dramaticize her "lost soulmate". The LW would be the best judge as to whether this would be a good or terrible idea.

If the situation is something they can work through, great. If the marriage is always going to include a woman looking over her shoulder, then it's probably better to divorce than model a marriage for the children that features a mommy who seems to be only vaguely aware of daddy.