No. I don't think it's such a bad thing. And I agree about the "condition" --
>that said, let us also be clear on something else, namely that one
>suspects this "accusation" was a throwaway on pollitt's part. i doubt
>she really thinks she was jilted merely because she never performed this
>particular "service." like a womanizer would have stayed with her if she
>did do it? whatever.
Yeah, agree. When they were breaking up, my little sister's ex complained mainly about the fact that she didn't wear matching underwear. I don't think that's the reason they broke up....but folks wind up saying stuff like that when they break up.
I read Pollitt's piece last night and, I have to admit, I was very disappointed. The one virtue of anonymity is that when your sweetie dumps you, you dont have to embarrass yourself all over the New Yorker. I used to read the Nation mainly for her column -- even though she was neatly ghettoized in the women's issues domain. Anyway, I guess she wouldn't be the first, or last, to fall prey to a charmer.
Bother,
Joanna