Dinnertable conversation turns to subject of porn
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.