I dunno. To me this reads like the best way to really destroy another person (the husband—Mr. Status Quo).

 If the older woman in question is single, sure—more power to you! sounds awesome!—but that’s not what this is about.

 Just reverse it — the marriage is a routine, but there’s a tight little coed who is intrigued by the husband’s maturity and sophistication. The wife doesn’t have a clue he’s boinking this young thing on the side, but he thinks she’d better get her act together if she wants to compete with the youth for his affections. He’ll stay in the marriage for practical reasons, but not really even try to love his wife anymore, just use what she provides.

It’s an old story and I don’t really feel empowered by the genders being reversed.

Right on. I totally agree, Wende.

(To be honest, I was surprised that remarks about tallness would be interpreted as negative to begin with.)

Head Over Heels — You sound like a really thoughtful and humble person who appreciates what you have. It’s nice that you try to take both sides into account, but I agree with Margo and the others that you are old enough to decide for yourself. Your BF’s been working full-time and has returned to school, so it sounds like he’s not a slacker at all, and maybe that’s something you can emphasize to your parents. And you can still appreciate your parents’ concern for you without being required to let them control your judgment about his qualities.

Yeah, but I meant the three megarich leads whom everyone knows. I should’ve clarified.

Absolutely, Karen. "Kawaii" (cute) is enthusiastically embraced, even by grown women, in a way that it definitely is not by many adult North American women. Cultural difference. I think it would face a backlash if they tried the same strategy in North America.

I always enjoy your articles, Margo. I was thinking about this topic recently because of the release of the Harry Potter movie and the opposite path the Harry Potter kids seem to have taken. Tons of money and fame thrust upon them—no way to avoid instant recognition wherever they go—and they seem so completely level-headed. Not sure how they managed it, but at least it’s still possible. Maybe it’s because they actually work all the time and aren’t famous for doing nothing?

Absolutely respects to Patrice. It was a very nice story. I was just laughing at myself and how I read it at first.

That’s one smart goat!        (Just kidding.)

I thought I hadn’t seen any famous women in person, but remembering more fully now, I have seen Sissy Spacek and Jessica Lange in person (at a film festival). They’re both beautiful, but I was most shocked by Sissy Spacek. I’ve never found her very attractive on film, but in person she was gorgeous. Her skin is just luminous.

For nonfamous people, the most beautiful person I’ve seen in person is my best friend, named Helen. Her ethnicity is half-Hakka Taiwanese and half-European American. Physically she’s very beautiful, but the intelligence and humor in her eyes is what really kicks it up several notches.

F Fox, I’m glad you mentioned Aishwarya Rai. In an early scene of "Devdas," the first time she turned around and I saw her face—it really did take my breath away. Shockingly beautiful.

My other top favorite beauties are Isabella Rossellini and her mother, Ingrid Bergman. But there are too many women I think are gorgeous to name, really.

Does the commercial in the middle explain why this seems to be hair week?

Anyway, my favorites were Cher’s long, thick curls in "Moonstruck" and Sherilynn Fenn’s short do in "Twin Peaks." I tried to mimic both of them at the time—unsuccessfully, I’m sad to say. But I like my own hair now, finally.  Hurrah!

Thanks for replying. I care about the country too, and Palin is not someone I agree with on many issues, so…okay, difference of opinion politically, no problem. It will be interesting to see if your prediction comes true. From my point of view, I don’t think she can really do much to affect the situation in the lower 48 or help others get elected. I think her presence sank McCain’s ship, to be honest, so I can’t see career politicians asking for the help of such a polarizing figure. And, well, I still don’t see that this course of action is so radical or such a dire emergency that she couldn’t finish out her term. I am really hard-pressed to see her as this miracle-working savior figure for the nation.

Erm, that was in reply to a post that disappeared. Now I look like a crazy person talking to myself.

There you wrote: "I firmly believe Palin is fighting for the survival of this country and that it requires immediate action … not conventional expected ritual.

By resigning , she frees herself to be geographically available to be more engaged in the broader United states…"

Now I see where you’re coming from. But until she clearly defines her plans, everyone’s views on it (including yours and including mine and including Ann and Margo’s), are just speculation. If she’s taking immediate, radical action for the good of the nation, OK, I get it. But she hasn’t said that. She’s advancing "in another direction"—OK, what’s the other direction? Do you truly know her plans? (Is that you, Todd?) So, yeah, I still think she owes that clarity to the people who elected her. I hope she will provide it soon so the speculation can be put to bed.

I just feel bad for Alaska. When Palin was campaigning, the governorship of Alaska was portrayed as very important. (Since it was her only qualification, I guess it had to be.) Remember Putin rearing his head into her airspace, being on the front line of American defenses against the Russians, etc.

 But now that it’s no longer politically expedient, suddenly the governorship of the state of Alaska is being dismissed as "stuck dealing with fishing licenses in Anchorage," to quote Ann above. If that’s all it is, so what was her qualification for national office again?

If I were Alaskan, that would piss me off. (Or make me relieved to be done with the mess. One or the other.)