DEAR SUSAN: "Sex without mutual caring — on the third or 30th date — reduces what could be spiritual communion to rutting" — your words — are fine words. Mutual caring is an absolutely essential ingredient in meaningful sex. An excellent point. — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: ...But hardly one that needs praise. It seems only common sense to wait for a meaningful relationship before sharing your body. This is not to preach from on high, where unsullied gods proclaim the right thing to do with the human body. As a columnist deeply involved with the unmarried community, I am privy to many casualties of sexual activity without caring — women (and, yes, also men) who confide their lingering shame and regret at being pressured into sex. Being a casualty of casual sex (an unfortunate pun) is a painful choice that cheapens a glorious act and lowers self-esteem. In my value system, that is the cruelest part of all.

DEAR SUSAN: I don't think we need a survey to show that some of the anger toward men is caused by past abuse. But it's not easy for me to understand how a woman who hasn't been victimized can hate someone simply for being male. I agree with you, Susan, that there is more to the anger some women have toward men; as you rightly point out, decades of anti-male propaganda has fueled this hostility. Recently, a magazine article asked, "Are men necessary?" (A feminist also wrote a book with that title.) If men questioned the "usefulness" of women as glibly as women question men's usefulness, they would be correctly derided as misogynists. To me, it is a red flag when someone starts to question the "fitness" or "usefulness" of a large group of humans. When anyone (male or female) calls into question the "usefulness" of half the human race, I seriously question his or her judgment. — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: And I applaud yours! That extra dimension to women's hostility could well be inheritance from a mother whose only failing was being born during years of male dominance and being shown the rightness of gender equality in her later years, when she felt it was too late to define herself. A frustrated mother who was born before feminism existed can be a virulent reminder to a daughter of the odds stacked against women. (Strong emotions can certainly triumph over an inaccurate premise.) Never mind the illogic — planting the anti-male seed early on can produce a viciously anti-male daughter. (Time for a deep sigh.) The time is ripe for gender reconciliation, but who will lead?

DEAR SUSAN: Women will obviously hate my saying this, because it implies they're superficial. Well, they are, just like men. The problem is that women don't like to admit that their failure to find good guys is partially their own doing. They prefer to blame it all on men and a lack of available nice guys. It's easier that way. So, ladies, stop pretending that you want a nice guy, as if nice were the most important quality, when you really want a hot guy with a fat wallet who happens to be nice. In that order. — a repeat from the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: More and more, women are earning their own money and making choices based on their net income. Or haven't you noticed? Love partnerships are being built with two salaries, a good thing that can only strengthen the cooperative nature of their togetherness. For the first time, women are equal also in their ability to contribute financially to a committed relationship. And the results are positive. They've got to be, with that sort of teamwork. And hey, men with fat wallets aren't stupid; they know all too well when they're being taken for a ride, when their funding is the main attraction. I'll bet anyone — including you — that the number of cash-supported romances is plummeting. Dramatically, I rest my case.

Have a question for Susan? Send it to her in care of this newspaper or online at www.creators.com.