Din­nertable con­ver­sa­tion turns to sub­ject of porn

The Washington Times Daily - - Life - ABI­GAIL VAN BUREN STEVE BECKER

DEAR ABBY: At a re­cent din­ner party, the men and women got into a heated de­bate about porn. The men said men love porn be­cause it shows women en­joy­ing sex with aban­don. We women protested that women who be­have this way in real life are la­beled “sluts” by both men and women. Do men not re­al­ize this makes no sense? If you can’t an­swer this, maybe your male readers can. — NO FAN OF PORN

DEAR NO FAN: Not be­ing an ex­pert on the sub­ject of pornog­ra­phy or why men en­joy it, I posed your ques­tion to a rec­og­nized ex­pert — Larry Flynt. His an­swer is dif­fer­ent from the one given by the men at the din­ner party. He said men love porn be­cause men are aroused by the vis­ual. Then he added that women are more turned on by the writ­ten word, which is why tor­rid ro­mance nov­els are so pop­u­lar.

P.S. Women who en­joy sex with aban­don are not nec­es­sar­ily “sluts.” Many of them have high morals, are very hap­pily mar­ried and find it stim­u­lat­ing to watch porn with their hus­bands.

DEAR ABBY: I’m get­ting mar­ried this sum­mer. I want to send an in­vi­ta­tion to my brother, but I don’t want his live-in girl­friend to come. We used to be friends un­til I re­al­ized she was ly­ing to me and us­ing me. Now she’s with my brother, who is 23 years older than she is, which caused a rift in my re­la­tion­ship with him. We barely talk any­more.

I want my brother there, but I’ll feel ter­ri­ble if he feels alone. What’s the best way to han­dle this? Should I tell him ver­bally that only he is in­vited and not send an in­vi­ta­tion? — WANTS A HAPPY WED­DING IN MAS­SACHUSETTS

DEAR WANTS A HAPPY WED­DING: Telling your brother with whom you are no longer close that his livein girl­friend isn’t wel­come at your wed­ding is sure to go over like a lead bal­loon. If you want him to be there, ac­cept that his girl­friend is part of the pack­age deal. You can bank on the fact that he would feel alone with­out her, so plan on seat­ing them some dis­tance from your ta­ble at the re­cep­tion. It will make her pres­ence less painful for you.

DEAR ABBY: My boyfriend, “Justin,” and I are in our early 20s. We were high school sweet­hearts and we have a lit­tle girl to­gether. Ev­ery­thing was go­ing well un­til Justin went to a car lot to look for a car for his mother. He came home that day with a new one. My prob­lem is he used the money he told me he was sav­ing for my en­gage­ment ring as the down pay­ment.

I am very hurt. I tried to seem happy and ex­cited for him, but he knew I was up­set and says I’m be­ing “ridicu­lous.” At this rate, with the new car and the in­sur­ance for it al­most dou­bled, I don’t see how he’ll have any­thing put away for a ring.

I have told Justin I don’t care about the size or the price of the ring, it’s the thought be­hind it that counts. Justin still says he wants to get me an ex­pen­sive one.

I’m be­gin­ning to think he’s mak­ing ex­cuses so he won’t have to pro­pose to me any­time soon. What do you think? — EN­GAGED-IN-WAIT­ING IN OHIO

DEAR EN­GAGED-IN-WAIT­ING: I think you nailed it.

Con­sider this deal where West led the queen of spades against two notrump. East won the spade with the ace and there­upon re­turned the king of hearts. With­out this star­tling play, de­clarer would have made the con­tract eas­ily. Let’s sup­pose East had re­turned a club, which seems the nat­u­ral thing to do. South would win with the ace, es­tab­lish dummy’s di­a­monds and score eight tricks con­sist­ing of four di­a­monds, two clubs, a spade and a heart. But the king-of-hearts re­turn put an end to this threat, hold­ing de­clarer to one di­a­mond trick in­stead of four.

De­clarer took the heart king with dummy’s ace, then led a low di­a­mond to the king and a sec­ond di­a­mond to dummy’s 10, West fol­low­ing with the three and four. Had East made the mis­take of duck­ing the 10, South would have had his eighth trick. But East took the ace of di­a­monds and re­turned the 10 of hearts, and South could score only seven tricks.

West’s play of the three fol­lowed by the four in­di­cated that he had started with ex­actly three di­a­monds. East there­fore had no prob­lem win­ning the sec­ond di­a­mond be­cause he knew South had only two cards in the suit.

Had West been dealt the dou­ble­ton 4-3 of di­a­monds, he would have played the four first and the three next. In that case, East then would have ducked the sec­ond round of di­a­monds, know­ing that South had the re­main­ing di­a­mond.

Whether one plays first the three and then the four, or the four and then the three, might seem like split­ting hairs, but the fact is that hair­split­ting of­ten makes the crit­i­cal dif­fer­ence in the del­i­cate art of de­fense.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.