DEAR SUSAN: To me, a lover-turned-friend relationship proves that the love between the two of you is so deep that it doesn't end when the sexual side doesn't work out. Keeping those relationships in your life lessens the pain if a romance sours, teaching you to be more accepting of your lover's flaws. I believe this can work if the two people involved are mature and respectful — and truly care for each other. Too often, though, from what I've seen, breakups occur with one of the partners slamming the other so hard that friendship isn't possible; the separation needs to be complete for the hurt party to fully recover. Often, one party is blindsided, either by discovery of infidelity or by the more honorable "Sorry, but this isn't working for me." Also, it can be a recipe for disaster if one party is pushing for "friendship" while secretly hoping the door will reopen to romance/sex in the future. I think it's wrong for one party to stay around as a "friend," phoning and visiting, when that closeness keeps the other from emotionally moving on. — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: The way you frame it, ex-lovers' residue from an expired love affair can be instructive or, likelier, a emotional disaster. Much like the case with casual sex, one of the lovers is hiding a longing for more than is offered by the newly titled "friend," and therein lies the pain. In both scenarios, full disclosure is missing, as is (sigh) mutual respect (which explains why the path to emotional equilibrium is strewn with dashed hopes and lingering bitterness). As rosy as is the dynamic of lover-turned-friend, it takes a mighty mature couple to bring it off. The frustrating part (for me, at least) is the waste of perfectly good friendship, a commodity not easily come by in a world hungering for emotional authenticity. To trash it seems quite irresponsible and careless. Well, at least I've put it down on paper, inked indelibly for all to see — and some to act on. Here's hoping.

DEAR SUSAN: I can't really comment on the "pervasive mindset" you mentioned, because, well, I don't see it. What I do see (and do not at all agree with, by the way) is the attitude that all men are bumbling idiots with anything related to homemaking. Apparently, men can't cook, clean, care for a child or sometimes even change a light bulb. I see this mainly in sitcoms and commercials, and I dismiss it as misguided attempts at humor. But I haven't yet read a magazine article saying men are awful. Actually, the truth is quite the opposite. I find that most of them are focused on pleasing your man, e.g., "10 Tricks To Please Him in Bed." One article even suggested women should move to Alaska, where men are more plentiful! Of course, you have feminazi publications out there that think all men are evil and eagerly await the disappearance of the Y chromosome from the general population, but I really think that the women who subscribe to such nonsense represent a statistically insignificant portion of the female population. — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: Even articles purporting to educate women about pleasing their men demean men. (They also demean women, but let's dissect that another day.) That kind of instruction casts men — subtly but persistently — as fumbling lovers needing guidance from their women every step of the way. Women alone hold the key to female eroticism, so they must educate men in their ways ever so tactfully for the protection of men's much-hyped machismo, cleverly inculcating their clumsy partners into the mysteries of sexual delight. No man can resist his woman's wiles in the bedroom — or so it implies. He's cast as the big, clumsy oaf looking to her for sexual skills. Oh, that poor, underestimated American male. (Sigh.)

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