Hmmm, my two reactions the to piece were first that to assume women are somehow more virtuous than men is sexist and so I think it's good that you give an example of a woman behaving the same way and two that labeling a morality problem, i.e. narcissism, as a mental illness is troubling to me because of the path it takes us down which is the if you have different values from me, you're mentaqlly ill and so we can force treatment on you until you agree not just to have sex with whoever your mhp thinks you should and no one else but to like it path.

Well yeah, it's kind of a "dog bites man" story, thus somewhat unremarkable.

Sorry about the unintentional wordplay, but there it is. Normally these would have remained "inside words" not outside words but in the spirit of your recent two posts, I thought I'd better spill it.

Since you seem to be honestly curious, I wasn't quite sure what to make of your last post (though it certainly seemed cathartic!). It wasn't in your usual analytical style, and focused more on a particular personal experience, so maybe it was less likely to start a conversation (?). Or maybe I've just been (happily) out of the dating pool for too long and have forgotten what it's like...

your post was verbose in a way dissimilar to your previous peices. and filled with anger and hurt. i been relationships that have made me feel these ways too.
however,

yes, women (who are people) act in the same narsisistic ways people do. ripleys?

Just to note, there are more comments over at your DailyKos diary, although it's true that it didn't attract as much attention as some of your other posts. I thought it was interesting, I'm guessing people just didn't feel as strongly about the issue as they do about the politics of depression, for example.

I personally prefer to post at DailyKos, because I feel it attracts a wider variety of viewpoints than here, where - not that's anyone's fault - it often seems like everyone is singing in the same choir.

"I know I am going to anger a lot of my readers by writing this, but sometimes things have just got to be said." You started your posting with a presumption about how we'd react and then you are weirded out that your readers didn't react.

I personally tend not to leave comments on blogs or postings on blogs that are of a personal nature unless the writer is specifically asking for feedback. I'm grateful that folks such as yourself are willing to write about your life experiences, because it gives me the opportunity to think about things differently. You ended the post with "Back to you Dr. Friedman." Didn't seem to me that you were looking for a dialogue with your readers.

Echoing the sentiments of so many of the previous commentors, the last two posts were completely out of character vis-a-vis the general theme of the blog and most of your previous posts. That is why you didn't see as many responses as you'd probably hoped for.

I guess most people just didn't want to pass judgment on a troubling private issue.

Basically, you opened Pandora's box and no one wants to admit to being what is described in that post. I also believe that anyone with remote self-worth, dignity, esteem and sincere being would walk away from someone touting being a side dish on a conference route. What the post offers is a depressing look into how people have no loyalty, or whatever, I dont know. I also dont believe in a mid life crisis, I think any relationship will last if it started right to begin with.

Wall Street Journal adds social networking for readers to connect:

WSJ Adds SeenThis?,social network online.