Rules: Meant to Be Ridiculous?

Hi friends (any of you still out there?). I'm back, with a post I meant to write a week ago.

Last week Cheryl Lavin re-posted one of her "all-time favorite columns," "Rules for Women."

I'm amazed it's something she wanted to dig out of the archives: I found it bewildering at best, offensively sterotypical at worst. What confuses me most is its inconsistency: much of it reads as though written by a bitter man raging against the games he thinks all women play. Other parts sound, in contrast, like an attempt at a humorous women's code for bashing men (and other women, for that matter). And a few odd ones seem meant to be taken seriously. These are the most problematic, it seems to me, since they're the ones that make it hard for readers to tell if the column is parody or prescription.

"The Rules" (no, not those rules) are below, with some commentary interspersed. Am I just being too stodgy and totally missing the joke, here? Or do they seem as odd to you as they do to me?

Invite a man to go shopping with you only if you need someone to carry your packages or drive.
[Ho hum--typical, cliche girl-bonding stuff, that's also deprecating: we can't transport ourselves or haul our own stuff--and men are just here to serve us]

Assure your boyfriend that every female movie star has had a boob job. [Our bonding, of course, reaches its limit with famous, beautiful girls. Them, we bash, because we know that our partners will be so taken with a character on-screen that we need to run interference. Whaat?]

When your man asks you what's wrong, say, "Nothing." However, when Oprah, Dr. Phil or Dr. Laura asks you, go into excruciating detail. Leave nothing out. [This, to me, sounds like a sarcastic barb from a bitter guy. Surely it's not meant to be taken seriously....so, from a woman, to other women, what's it supposed to mean? ]

The negative effects of cheese puffs and chocolate-chocolate chip ice cream are offset by the positive effects of diet soda. [yes, yes, more coffee-mug slogans]

Feet are flexible and can be made to fit into shoes varying from size 7 to 9, depending on what's on sale. [again...]

You can skimp on clothes, but a good bra is worth its weight in gold. (That's Victoria's secret.) [So this one is true, girl-bonding stuff, Stacey and Clinton approved (though why the product placement?--and therefore totally out of place with the rest of the list]

The Patricia Principle: The more you've been trying to attract the attention of a particular man, the more likely it is that you'll run into him when you're sweaty, short of sleep, without makeup, wearing house-painting clothes, with your hair in a bandana. [Ok...]

The best response to a married man who's hitting on you is, "Say, don't I know your wife?" [Sounds reasonable enough...]

Learn how to say "back off" very loudly and look fierce while you say it. [This one, too]

Let every new man in your life know that you've got a black belt in karate. [Um...what? Or--now here's an idea--only allow men in your life who don't require such a warning?]

Make friends with your hormones. They're what make you colorful and unpredictable. If other people have a hard time with that, that's their problem.

When you hear your mother's words coming out of your mouth, shut your mouth. Unless your mother was really wise.

When in doubt, say no.

You're under no obligation to tell the truth when asked the number of your sexual partners.

Men love a woman who's good in bed.

But not the first time they go to bed with her. [ARRRRGH (to the above three, in all)]

No matter how much they fight it, all men need a woman to organize their lives and their closets and tell them what kind of hair products to use. [I can't tell if this is a sarcastic, bitter, man comment, or a man-bashing-female-bonding comment. In any case, clearly, the joke is lost on me]

Consider yourself a sculptor and your man a block of marble. Chip away until you have created someone you can live with. He'll thank you. Later. [See above...once again, one hopes this is meant as a joke. But mixed in with sincere advice, who can tell??]

Always remember: Inside the biggest, burliest, most macho man lives an ego as delicate and fragile as a baby chick making its first venture outside the egg. [um?]

Laugh at a man at your own peril.

The only women who look good first thing in the morning are the women who don't know how to put on makeup. [I'm not even sure what this means]

When splitting a dinner check with girlfriends, it's perfectly acceptable to take out a calculator.

If you drop your girlfriends as soon as you have a boyfriend, you will live to regret your decision. [True]

Food eaten while preparing other food has no calories.

When consumed for its antioxidant properties, dark chocolate has less fat than broccoli.

It's a medical fact that some women gain weight although they eat only salads. [Gah, the obSESSion with food, weight gain, and justification! As if we have nothing else to think about]

It's another medical fact that too much lettuce can lead to depression.

Women who never binge have no souls.

Only a masochist weighs herself the day after a binge.

Ditto anyone who looks at herself naked in a three-way mirror. [Seriously? Still?]

Even Angelina Jolie has some part of her body she hates. [STILL? Can we move on?]

Falling in love is a sure way to lose 5 pounds.

Getting dumped is a sure way to gain 10. [Guess not]

Nothing is sweeter than finding out that the cute boy who dumped you in the 12th grade lives in his mother's basement. [Mm, yes, living with vengeance in the past is SO attractive....]

Except going to your high school reunion and seeing that the prom queen shops at Lane Bryant. [even better: living in the past, with vengeance, while obsessing about weight and bashing other women!]

Black really does make you look thinner. [OK, true.]

So what's the deal with these rules? Where did they come from, and what on earth are readers expected to do with them? This Sunday Cheryl printed some feedback from readers (all men, interestingly), which is what reminded me that I, too, had been both confused and annoyed when I read them last week. Advice isn't always helpful--given the constraints of a column, sometimes it can't be--but when it actually tends toward harmful, well, that's frustrating, and sad.

Advice columnists are in a unique position to revise social norms, to encourage people to be better and wiser than they were, and to see relationships and society in new ways. It's frustrating--a waste of space, even--to see those column inches devoted to mixed messages and stale stereotypes.

3-2-1...Contact!

Guess what! I got an email from Cheryl Lavin today. And here's what she had to say:

hey! why don't you link to my columns: www.creators.com and my brand new blog: www.talesfromthefront.com ???????????

I assume she means, from this blog, though I'm pleasantly stunned that she knows about it, since I didn't send her the link when I emailed her a (much condensed version of my) response to the weekend-first-date-disaster a couple of days ago. How did she find us?? No matter! Well, Cheryl, ask and ye shall receive! (See links at right)

In fact, I used to have a link to her Chicago Trib column, but dropped it when I couldn't access the columns for free anymore.

In a separate message, she added that she plans to use my response (or some fraction of it) in an upcoming column! So keep your well peeled eyeballs on Tales from the Front for an alias like "Beth," and a handful of contempt for "Christopher" and "Patricia," and you'll know it's me!

Long Distance First Date Disaster: The Alternate Analysis

This follow up to the first-date-disaster weekend was supposedly written by "Christopher," a friend of "Patricia." Christopher describes everything he thinks "Russ" did wrong on his doomed first date--an entire weekend with Patricia. Had Russ done the things Christopher suggests, he indeed may have come off as super smooth--he probably also would have seemed artificial. But Christopher, like Patricia, doesn't really take into account that fact that just to be there for this joyous occasion, Russ has driven 5 hours (one way) and paid for 2 nights in a hotel. Let's check out his analysis, shall we?

To recap: In the last column, we met Patricia, who had just spent a looooooong Saturday with Russ, a set-up.

She told her tale of woe to her friend Christopher. In the interest of male solidarity, Christopher offers these words of advice to Russ and all the other Russes out there ...

"Your first mistake was not meeting Patricia for drinks when she invited you. There's a 50-50 chance you would have caught her feeling good and relaxed. Whenever there's alcohol, a woman and a Friday night involved, go, no matter how tired you are. [1. If you'll recall, Russ had just arrived at his hotel after a 5 hour drive. Assuming he had worked that day, it was 11 or 12 at night. And he was supposed to go out and charm a group of strangers? 2. Re: Friday, alcohol, and women: EW. Yes, Christopher, you're a real charmer]

"You don't have to dress like you're going to be on the cover of GQ, but you have to have some style. Lose the mom jeans, and lose the Old Spice. Men should never wear Old Spice unless they're over 75. [I've honestly never heard the term "mom jeans" applied to menswear, and don't even know what this looks like. And also: not fair to judge someone's appearance when you swoop down on their hotel room in the middle of the night!]

"You should've ordered a round of drinks for the table when you got there. You would've looked like someone with style and someone who has the potential to take care of a woman. At the end of the night, you should have walked Patricia to her car, given her a simple kiss on the cheek and told her you looked forward to seeing her the next day." [Indeed, this would have been classy and impressed everyone. But I'm hard pressed to believe it's OK to expect someone to drop 2 tanks of gas and two nights in a hotel on your first date, and THEN buy a round of cocktails for all your friends.]

(Says Patricia: "Wow! If he would've done that, I'd have approached Saturday with a completely different perspective.") [I bet.]

"After the Saturday morning pancakes, you should've thanked her for preparing a wonderful breakfast and said you hoped to cook breakfast for her someday. It's important to say thank you no matter how small the deed. If a woman thinks you're taking her for granted on a first date, just imagine how she thinks you'll treat her after a month. [Yes, you should always thank someone when they feed you. It's true that Russ sounds a bit awkward--this is perhaps why he is looking for a date 5 hours away from his home....?]

"You should've realized Chicago was her city and taken her suggestions.

When you're on a woman's home turf, listen — otherwise, you'll look like an idiot. If you would've taken the taxi, you would've gotten to the boat in time to talk and relax. [This I agree with--again, I'm inclined to be a bit sympathetic to Russ since he's already gone so far out of his way, but better to trust the judgment of the native].

"Even if you're not thirsty, ask your date if she needs anything. After all, she just worked up a sweat giving in to your demand. Once again, you show you care and can take care of the little things.

"You should never have let Patricia pay for the drinks. And if she ordered a beer, you should've ordered a beer. If a woman can't drink with you, she's not going to sleep with you. [Again: EW. I do not understand why both Patricia and Christopher are so appalled that Russ chose to order lemonade on a Saturday afternoon at Navy Pier. Maybe he wanted to save money (though Patricia was paying and it's not like Navy Pier Lemonade is exactly cheap--probably still $5), but maybe he just doesn't drink, or didn't FEEL like drinking if he hadn't eaten since breakfast. Jeez.]

"Pizza on Saturday night is OK if you're on a fourth or fifth date. And always offer the lady the leftovers, especially if it's pizza and she has two sons. Burping and farting should not occur for at least six months. If it accidentally does, Excuse me is appropriate. [Once again--totally not taking the situation into account. On a typical first dinner date, yes, a "nice" restaurant might have been ideal. But considering the drive, the hotel, the boat tour, Navy Pier...come on. Give the guy a break! Plus pizza is such a Chicago "thing," I think it's always appropriate to present it as a great first-dinner-in-town for visitors. The burping? Yes, manners are appropriate. Again, Russ doesn't exactly sound like George Clooney]

"You should've suggested returning to the suburbs so you'd both have time to shower before you got together later for a nice dinner. It would have given you both a chance to get ready for what might have hopefully been a long evening. [Indeed a break would have been nice, but I wonder what Patricia would have said if Russ had said he wanted to "freshen up" and meet back in a few hours. She seems to have been at the point of criticizing everything he did]

"While you were at your hotel, you should've asked the front desk to make a reservation at a nice restaurant. You would've earned some major style points. At dinner, you could've had some wine, and talked about the day and the boat tour. After dinner, you could've asked Patricia if she wanted to go for a drink. Who knows? Maybe she would have invited you to have a nightcap back at her place." [Or, you know, Patricia could have made a recommendation, even gladly picked up the tab. Yes, it's nice when a guy can be chivalrous, smooth, and show a lady around. But once again--he's already made a huge gesture by getting himself there, and he's also not on his own turf. Patricia could have stepped up a little, bringing more to the table than pancakes and lemonade].

What do you think? Who's right? Russ or Christopher? [I think Christopher and Patricia should get together, because clearly they want the same things.]

And most importantly, I think people should seek out first dates in their own areas. What would they have done if they date had gone well? Launched into a "long distance relationship" after having met only one time? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the LDR in the right circumstances. They CAN work, and they CAN be important and valuable periods of growth in a relationship. But only if there's actually a relationship there. I think this debacle just demonstrates that it's really foolish to be set up on a blind date with someone who lives so far away. Patricia and Russ gave up a weekend, and a fair amount of time and money (not to mention the 2 months they spent talking on the phone), only to learn that they're just not a great match--something that could have been discovered with much less investment, and thus much less bitterness over a coffee or two if they'd been out with people in their own neighborhoods.

And I'm going to write to Cheryl and say so.

Long Distance First Date Disaster

This woman moans to Cheryl about her terrible, three-day-long first date....and it does sound pretty uncomfortable. But I don't think she was particularly fair to the guy, either. This date was doomed from the start....so let's wallow in the awkwardness with them.

Today, we hear from Patricia. She's been dating, post-divorce, for eight years. It can be, as so many of us know, "brutal," so she took an 18-month hiatus. When a friend offered to set her up, she decided to get right back on the horse, so to speak.

She and Russ talked on the phone for two months and exchanged photos. Then they arranged to meet in person. Unfortunately, Russ lives a five-hour drive away. [This seems to be an unfortunate side effect of our hyper-networked-society. Why would you try to casually date someone who lives that far away? As we'll see, it doesn't make for anything resembling a reasonable beginning] That ruled out any casual if-we-don't-like-each-other-we-can bail-after-15-minutes coffee date. A dinner date was also pretty much out of the question. What would happen to Russ at the end of dinner? Would he have to get in his car and drive five hours?

"You cannot just end the day when someone has made that much effort," says Patricia. A weekend was called for. A weekend was arranged. [Um...no. What was called for was to choose a location in the middle, both drive 2 1/2 hours, and spend an afternoon together. That's still a heckuva lot of driving, which is why perhaps what's really called for is to seek dates within your own time zone. But at least it's a little more fair, and doesn't require the commitment of a weekend.]

Russ arrived on Friday night, checked into the hotel and called Patricia. She was out with friends having drinks and invited him to join them. [Under normal circumstances, meeting a guy with friends seems like a reasonable, low key beginning. But it's totally out of line to expect someone who just drove 5 hours to clean up and show up for late night drinks, where he has to impress not one, but a whole gaggle of cocktail-laden women] He said he was "a little tired" from the drive. She offered to come by the hotel and say hello. When she arrived, he appeared freshly showered "with some weird wet hair action going on." The strong smell of Old Spice wafted off him.

"I was not too impressed." [Yeah, I hate when men wash their hair and use deodorant]

On Saturday morning, Patricia invited Russ to her house for breakfast. He arrived wearing mom jeans. (See President Obama throwing out ball at All-Star game.) She cooked him pancakes.

"It was a nice, simple breakfast, but he did not say thank you." [Has she yet thanked him for the $100+ he's dropped before they even started their date, just trying to get here and spending a night in a hotel?]

The next order of the day was a trip to downtown Chicago and a boat cruise on the river. They took the train into town.

Patricia suggested they take a cab to the boat so they'd be sure to get a good seat. Russ insisted they walk. Walk they did. Actually, they half-walked, half-ran. [I personally like walking around the city and don't like taking cabs...though I also hate running to get somewhere on time. Obviously, he wanted to cut costs--again, not unreasonable, since he's the one dropping several hundred bucks just to put himself geographically close enough to go on a date with this woman]

"At one point, we were running, and Russ was laughing. I asked, 'Why are you laughing?' He said, 'I'm laughing with you.' I said, 'I'm not laughing.'" [you've GOT to have a sense of humor and a sense of adventure....this woman seems to be lacking both, along with common sense]

They got to the dock three minutes before the boat was scheduled to leave. All the seats were taken, so they had to stand for the 90-minute tour.

"If we had taken a cab, we would have had a seat on the top deck. He never even asked me if I wanted a drink." [Again, it just sounds like they have totally different expectations. I wouldn't want buy an overpriced drink on a boat tour if I knew the rest of a date lay ahead. I suppose it would have been generous of him to offer, though again...if she wants a drink, why doesn't she just go get one herself? (And bring one for him?)]

After the tour, they headed over to Navy Pier. Patricia said she was thirsty and walked over to the drink stand. She pulled out her wallet. Russ made a show of offering to pay but let Patricia do it. She ordered a beer, and he had lemonade. [Is she trying to spin this as more evidence of undateability or cheapness on his part? What's wrong with lemonade?]

They headed back to the suburbs for pizza and a movie. It came down to one piece of pizza. Russ wrapped it up and said he'd eat it for breakfast. [Again, clearly poor Russ is hurting here. It would have been generous of Patricia to offer him the pizza to begin with, since she presumably has a stocked kitchen at home and he's going back to his second night at the hotel]. Then they went to see "The Hangover."

"For some reason, he found it appropriate to burp with the ease that one should only feel after dating for years." [Well, I mean, when you pick "The Hangover..." Also, she hasn't complained that she had to pay for any of these things, which suggests that he paid for the movie and pizza. Not an extravagant event, to be sure, but a perfectly reasonable first date--especially on top of the trip downtown, boat tour, and Navy Pier extravaganza]

After the movie, they arrived back at Patricia's home. "He had that are-you-going-to-invite-me-in look. I told him I was tired and that I'd talk to him the next day."

Russ spent Sunday doing who-knows-what and finally called Patricia Sunday night. She didn't answer the phone. [OK, you don't get to gripe about someone not calling if you don't answer when they DO call. What is she thinking, "you should have called me earlier so I could snub you sooner?" He probably HIT THE ROAD and was home by Sunday night, unless he was supposed to take Monday off work for this]

"Can you blame me?" [Well...]

In the next column, Patricia's friend Christopher tells Russ what he did wrong. [Can't wait! Look for an update!]

Found: Tales from the Front

In the early days of this blog, I was often inspired (enraged? amused?) by Cheryl Lavin's column, "Tales from the Front," which was housed by the Chicago Tribune and syndicated at least regionally (I found out last night it used to be in the Detroit Free Press) until recently. Known for writing way too many columns on "nice guys and overweight wives" and making whole columns out of reader anecdotes without dispensing any advice--no matter how badly it's needed, the column was dropped from both the print and electronic editions of the Chicago Trib last fall.

But now Cheryl's back, convieniently, on creators.com, the same site that hosts Dear Margo, Classic Ann Landers, Annie's Mailbox, Advice Goddess, and others. In honor of her return, I present you with a breakfast blend of disasters, heartbreak, and attempted sass, in honor of my friend JZ's friend (haaaa JZ), a recent advice column enthusiast, who inspired me to go looking for Cheryl one more time.

Dear Cheryl,

I'm going out of my mind over my current situation. I met my wife three years ago in a chat room. We talked a bit, exchanged phone numbers and eventually met. It was love at first sight. We got along great, same interests and all that. I moved in with her and her five kids not long after that. We got engaged a year later and married soon after, in October 2007. We had the wedding at the house. Lots of family and friends came. It was a wonderful day. We had our honeymoon in the Smoky Mountains.

Everything seemed to be going just fine. Everyone got along. My family even came over for Thanksgivings. I met the kids' fathers. My wife had been married twice before me, and I got along with her ex-husbands just fine.

I knew she had issues with her dad growing up as well as self-esteem issues, but she seemed to be handling them well. She would always tell me how glad she was that I was with her, how great I was with the kids, how much I loved her and how much she loved me.

Then I found out she had an eating disorder. She would purge. She shared the information on a Website for mothers. She told me to just deal with it. I let it go thinking it wouldn't last. I also didn't want to upset her. I wasn't working for a while, and she worked part-time, so I did the whole Mr. Mom thing, taking care of the kids, the house, cooking, cleaning, etc.

Then she started getting distant. One day, I came home from a funeral, and out of nowhere, she asked me to leave.She just told me to get out. She said she didn't want to be with me anymore. I moved out a day later because I didn't want to upset the kids who really love me, and I didn't want her making any false accusations about me and have me arrested. She has a mean streak.

I've tried to talk to her since, but she wants nothing to do with me at all. She doesn't want to work on our marriage or try to save it. I just don't understand how someone who I thought loved me so much could turn so cold. — CONFUSED

Dear CONFUSED,

Get on a plane, fly directly to Las Vegas, and start playing the slot machines because you are one lucky dude. Do you have any idea how lucky you are to be rid of this nutcase? Buy a couple of lottery tickets, buster, because you're getting away with just a broken heart and whiplash. You could have had a baby with her, and you'd be tied to her for life.

She's certifiable. Trust me. Any woman who allows a man whom she's just met to move in with her and her five children is so unfit it's not even funny. I really hope the kids have decent fathers because they need them.

Lack of self-esteem, daddy issues and purging are just the tip of her particular iceberg. She has some major personality flaws, and the sooner you're legally divorced from her the better off you are. No going back, even if she begs you!

And by the way, someone with a mean streak might deliberately say something cruel. Someone who would falsely accuse a man of sexually abusing a child is evil. And that's who you know she is.

Put five bucks on red for me.

Wow, for me the sexual abuse thing came out of left field....I suppose (maybe) that's what he was implying when he said he left quickly before she could make any false accusations, but to be honest that hadn't occurred to me until I got to Cheryl's response.

The only problem I have with this kind of snarky response is that it doesn't actually offer any help. Every columnist has their own style. Amy tends to be all business, while Carolyn has a knack for empathy interwoven with wit. Amy Alkon will mock you openly, but while she's at it, at least she tells you what to do. Cheryl, on the other hand, is too busy playing out her "lucky" bit to dispense any practical advice. That in and of itself is not a bad thing....it might help this guy get his head around the fact that it's GOOD that this is over. But she says nothing about finding a lawyer and getting divorce proceedings underway immediately (just that a divorce would be good) or at least filing for a legal separation. Nothing about ensuring that his wife has no access to his finances, nothing about talking to the other ex-husbands, which might not be a terrible idea if they had met and been friendly before. Nothing about ensuring that the kids are protected from abuse and manipulation.....

I mean, I know she's a love columnist, and so here she focuses on the love: it was a bad, false, dangerous and manipulative love. It's over. Yaaaaaaay.

But if that bad, false, dangerous manipulative love led to a bad, false, manipulative marriage, then there are all kinds of practical and legal implications that are now inevitable. Since this guy still seems to be holding his head in his hands, heartbroken, I wish she had given him some steps to make sure he doesn't wind up with his credit rating stomped on, as well as his heart.

The Times, They Are A'Changin'

If you are one of the three people in the universe who use the links on this page to get to your advice columns, you may have noticed that many of them have, of late, become defunct.

This is because the Chicago Tribune has basically dropped its advice columns in the free online edition. You can still get Amy and Abby (though they're usually updated earlier elsewhere), but Miss Manners and Cheryl Lavin are GONE. Or rather, you have to pay to read them.

I've been looking for stable links to regularly updated publications of my columns, and am still making my selection. Abby is still available at the UExpress address linked on this blog (that's also where you have to go to write to her). I've been getting Ask Amy through the Denver Post, for the very carefully assessed reason that it's the second Google hit on Ask Amy (after, you guessed it, the Trib).

I'm thinking of switching over entirely to washingtonpost.com, which has Amy and Miss Manners, as well as Carolyn Hax, a new favorite (well, new to me). I'll update the broken links soon, fear not!

My real concern is Tales from the Front, my favorite bizarre love column. So far, folks even more devoted than I am have been sneaking it out through Tribune Media Services and posting it to various open chicagotribune.com forums so readers can still get it for free. My hat is off to you! I did locate Cheryl on another site that now, of course, I can't remember.

Anyway, let's be patient and persistent and power through. And boycott chicagotribune.com. Um....only kidding. Sort of.

In Media Res-ume

For reasons unknown to me, many writers (OK, I need some help standardizing my vocabulary here...when you see "writer," do you think, the person with the question, or the columnist? How should I differentiate between them in a concise and consistent way?)...

Anyway. For reasons unknown to me, before they even ask their question, many advice seekers feel the need to qualify themselves, proving that they deserve an answer, a better lot in life than they've got, and a shot at being printed (albeit under alias) in a syndicated column, by summarizing their perceived best qualities and major accomplishments.

I see this most often in the love columns, especially Tales from the Front. People griping about their horrific romantic experiences want to know why they, intelligent, solvent, reliable, honest, affectionate, hilarious, well-traveled, loving dog-owners and community leaders, etc., can't find a decent date. This litany has the opposite effect on me than the seeker intends for it to have. I grow immediately suspicious and contemptuous, and can't help but feel that the seeker doth protest too much. I sometimes write a critical letter about him or her to the columnist. But at least I understand why they've chosen to include their resume--it's part of their question: "Given this, why not this?"

But today Amy featured a writer (oops, there I go again) who did the exact same thing, for no apparent reason. The advice seeker (there MUST be a better term out there) here is a middle-aged gay man in a long-term committed relationship. He has come out to everyone in his life except his elderly mother, and wonders whether or not he should, how he should approach the subject, and even wonders why his mother has never brought it up with him first.

Inexplicably, his letter started like this:

Dear Amy: I am a 45-year-old man, own my own business, sit on the boards of several charities, and enjoy sports and travel.

I am also gay, and I have been in a committed relationship for more than seven years.

Um...congratulations on managing to be both gay, an athlete, and an entrepreneur? Are we to assume that your active lifestyle has made you too busy to arrange this heart to heart with your mother?

I don't see the connection here.

"Out, But Not Out" could have started his letter in its third paragraph (with his actual problem) and gotten right down to business. Considering that these letters are edited, I'm surprised Amy's people, or the Trib's people, didn't do it for him.

That he began his letter with a list of his accomplishments makes me wonder what he's trying to make up for. His dishonesty toward his mother? His homosexuality?

Would his question be treated differently if he were not on the boards of several charities, or if he were not in a long-term relationship? Or does he just fear that it would be?

Cheryl Lavin: Remissing in Action?

I've mentioned before that Cheryl tends to let her readers do the talking, often building whole columns out of the excerpts of her letters and e-mails. This works--sometimes. After all, her column is called "Tales from the Front," and sometimes that's just what it is--tales, rather than questions.

But when the story reveals that the teller is making a huge mistake--one that she doesn't even seem to be aware of, or want help with--should the advice columnist step in and help open her eyes?

It's true that unsolicited advice is often ignored....but I think by virtue of the fact that she's an advice columnist, she has the privilege to freely advise anyone who writes to her--and this woman needs it.

Today, Cheryl did what she so often does: picks a theme, and prints reader stories related to it. The column focuses on romances rekindled through a Google search. The first one is a lovely Cinderalla story, though it has sort of a bizarre "I have a friend who...." format. The second one cries out for help. It starts out as a typical tale of "the one who got away."

I've been married for more than 20 years, although the last eight have been a struggle. Mainly I'm staying for the sake of the kids, who will soon be out of the nest. Three years ago, I decided to search out Rod, the last boyfriend I had before I met my husband. Although I'd had several boyfriends prior to him, we shared a connection that was exciting, unique and unforgettable.

GASP--would you believe it--the woman googles "Rod," with some difficulty because of his common name (which means we know Cheryl must be using an alias. Rod?):

Undeterred, I narrowed my search, adding key terms that pertained to his career choice at the time. Bingo! I found his home address and wrote, just a friendly how-ya-doing? kind of letter, filling him in on some general details about my life (marriage, kids, job, etc.)

Twice, Rod cut off their communication, saying that he treasured the memory of their relationship, but refused to become involved with her while she was still married. But!

I protested that I wasn't looking for involvement—I just wanted to have lunch!

Mmmmhmm. When she persisted in emailing him (apparently to this reader a 6 month delay seemed sufficient for Rod to forget a) that she was married or b) that he had a problem with this), he really put his foot down. Though he packed his email with loving memories and kind words, the crux of it was this:

This is it, Rose. Please do not write me again or search for me on the Internet.

And yet, Rose says, a year later she is

much closer now to making a decision about my marriage.

and further,

when the dust settles, even at the risk of being disappointed with the outcome, I know who will get the first e-mail.

Cheryl--this woman needs help, and you gave her nothing! Unless you sent her a personal response advising her to quit harrassing and obsessing over Rod, you did her no favors by printing this letter. You're an advice columnist. Advise!

Ah, Love

There's no better way to introduce you to Cheryl Lavin (image from www.chicagotribune.com), author of "Tales from the Front," than by giving you a peek at Thursday's column. Her long-running feature on the challenges of finding and keeping love caters both to couples, who typically complain about each other's altered physical appearance after years of marriage, and singles, inevitably bitter, who list their "nice" qualities and ask why they can't find a date.

In fact, my one (to date) successful (as in, printed) advice column submission was related to this very issue. I gave a particularly obnoxious "nice guy" what-for and she printed it(!), thoughtfully providing me with a secure alias ("Beth") to protect me from...the niceness he would surely inflict on me, if he knew where to find me.

Since then, I've always felt a little bond with Cheryl (may I call her Cheryl?)--a bond that was solidified this morning when I read her headline:

"Unending discussions about nice guys and overweight wives"

...and snorted. As long as she's aware of it, I'll go with it! I also admire her boldness (apathy?) in throwing together these two topics that have nothing to do with one another except that they create the most sheer volume in her virtual mailbag.

I have to believe that this is really annoying for columnists....for the most part, they get asked the same questions, over and over and over and over again. Usually I (or anyone!) can guess how the columnist is going to respond without even reading the answer...unfortunately, that response is never "Look at yesterday's column, dumbass."

Instead, columnists exhibit a number of different approaches to this issue, from mocking the readers with a wry-but-weary headline, as Cheryl did, to abbreviating their answers with a handy, versatile acronym. This technique was made famous by Ann Landers (MYOB/mind your own business) and perfected by Dan Savage (DTMFA/dump the motherfucker already).

One final note on Cheryl: she is notorious for printing whole columns made up of readers' anecdotes, with little to no actual advice or even, um, writing, of her own. She did it with mine over a year ago, and she did it this morning. Does this even count as a column anymore?

And could this blog be any drier? I haven't written for an audience in awhile...it might take some time to refine my, um, voice. Please bear with me!