The letter-writer, who signs herself "Thanks for Rescuing Me After I Was Drugged and Left for Dead-Not!" and whom we'll call "Thanks" because "TFRMAIWDALFDN!" sucks, went to hear some music with two old friends (both female). The last thing she remembers is leaving for the bathroom — someone had drugged her drink, and a police officer later found her lying alone on a sidewalk. Figuring she'd just left, her friends had left too, without looking for her. Thanks writes,

Later, when I called them from the street, sobbing in hysterics and asking for help, they told me to go back to the club and that they would have an ambulance pick me up there. When my mother-who lives 2,000 miles away (and hopped on a plane the next day to be with me)-later called these two friends of mine to beg them to join me while I was recovering, they refused. It wasn't until I told them that the hospital wouldn't release me until I had someone to drive me home that they came to pick me up. They then angrily drove me to my car, and I drove home alone. By then, it was the next morning.

Sounds shitty, right? Not to Rosenfeld. She says,

Wow, that's a tough call. A spouse or even a boyfriend? Yes, it would be his or her duty to haul ass to said hospital at 4 a.m. But your single female friends who are already, presumably tucked in their beddy-bies? I have to admit that, if I got a call like yours (or your mother's) in the middle of the night, I'd do what I could from home, but would be hard-pressed to jump in my car until morning.

Ouch — apparently if you're single, and don't have a willing mom, you are SOL if you need middle-of-the-night help. Or, as commenter L.S. Newfarmer eloquently puts it, "The message of your advice seems to be: if you expect to have someone there for you, find a boyfriend or live close to your mother." I have to admit, when I've been in relationships, I've tended to dial my boyfriend first if I need a difficult favor (like a ride to the hospital late at night). That said, I've also relied on my friends during both single and non-single periods for everything from midnight reassurances to last-minute apartment visits in faraway cities, and I think this might actually be healthier.

While it's nice to have someone who will drive you to the ER at 4 a.m., this isn't necessarily the best basis for a romantic relationship. Plenty of people, myself included at times, are willing to stay with a partner for the safety he/she provides — but friendships can provide this safety too. And being the only person your significant other can rely on creates a lot of stress in a relationship. Maybe one reason for the famed isolation of American life — and the equally famous (if slightly specious) excessive expectations American place on marriage and coupledom — is that too many people believe, like Rosenfeld, that you can depend on a boyfriend but not a friend.

Thanks might have been wise to make an agreement with her friends before the show that they would leave together. She might be wiser still, as commenter Newfarmer says, to "find friends who love you as much as you love them." Many Americans live far away from their moms, and many don't have parents who are alive or able-bodied enough to hop a plane. But the best solution isn't to get a boyfriend who's sexually obligated to respond to your midnight call. I'd much rather take Newfarmer's advice and build a network of people who take care of each other, so that my single days — and since we still generally outlive men, odds are that lots of a woman's days will be single ones — aren't filled with worry. And so that when I'm with someone, it's for love — not a ride to the ER.

Friend or Foe: My Friends Ditched Me When I Got Drugged! [Double X]

• Director Roman Polanski has been arrested by Swiss police, at the request of the United States, after he tried to enter Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival, where a tribute to his work is taking place. [CNN]

• The United States has had an outstanding warrant for Polanski's arrest since 1978; after being accused of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl, Polanski pled guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor but fled the country before a judge could sentence him. [CNN]
• According to the Associated Press, the Swiss Ministry released a statement noting that "U.S. authorities have sought the arrest of the 76-year-old around the world since 2005," and that the Swiss would now wait for the U.S. to formally request extradition. [MSNBC]
• Jaime Pressly married lawyer Simran Singh in Malibu yesterday. Pressly split from her previous fiance, Eric Cubiche, last November. [People]
• Gossip Girl's Kelly Rutherford says she's "going through a challenging time" during her divorce from her estranged husband, Daniel Giersch , whom she had to obtain a restraining order against. Her mom is helping her feel better, she says: "She sent me that Christina Aguilera song "Stronger" and that's when I'm laughing and crying at the same time, like, 'Mom, I love you!'" [People]
• "I have a tumultuous relationship with my mother, so obviously that story had a deep emotional interest to me — about women who are empowered and can be athletic and capable and kick ass out on the track and be their own heroes, and I think finding your tribe is everything. I certainly found it with my company. Every aspect of this story including first love and rite of passage, and being able to rock out in the car with your best friend, these are all themes that are crucial to my life. I was able to tell my story."- Drew Barrymore on her directorial debut, Whip It [LA Times]
• Tawny Kitaen, who just did a stint on Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, has been arrested for DUI in California. [AP]
• An essay written by a young Paul McCartney over 50 years ago has recently been discovered at Liverpool's Central Library—McCartney had won an essay contest celebrating Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. [BBC]
• "The magazine was even prepared to pay me $500,000 to pose with my clothes on. I didn't want Playboy on my resume at the age of 22. If they ask me when I'm 40 I'll probably say yes."- Nelly Furtado on being asked to pose for Playboy [DailyMail]
• Mashonda, the wife of producer Swizz Beatz has accused Alicia Keys of breaking up her marriage and is posting about it on her Twitter page: "If you are reading this Alicia, let me start by saying, you know what you did. You know the role you played and you know how you contributed to the ending of my marriage. You know that I asked you to step back and let me handle my family issues. Issues that you helped to create." [ONTD]
• Clive Owen says his daughters aren't terribly impressed by his fame: ""My days at home consist of my girls rolling their eyes at me. My oldest one's gotten into the habit of going ‘I wish they could see what you're really like.'" [ONTD]
• Edward Norton plans to run in the New York City Marathon on a team including three Maasai warriors in order to raise money for the Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust. [RunnersWorld]
• Charlize Theron says she has obsessive-compulsive disorder and can't sleep unless her cabinets are tidy: "I will literally lie in bed and not be able to sleep because I'll be like, "I think I saw something in that cabinet that just shouldn't be there." [DailyMail]
• Bruce Jenner was surprised when he heard his daughter, Khloe Kardashian was about to get married: "Honestly I thought it was a joke. Then I was on the driving range later that day and someone came up to me and said, 'Congratulations, I hear your daughter is getting married.' Then it was on the news that night and I thought, maybe there is something to this." [People]
• Jenner also says that Khloe and Lamar Odom are marrying today,only one month after they met, "is first they want to, and second Lamar starts camp next week and Khloe has a million things going on. If they're gonna do it, they want to do it now." Also: Khloe is "definitely not pregnant." [E!]
• Meanwhile, Khloe is already on the hunt for a new mansion to live in. [TMZ]
• And she can probably afford it, considering the Kardashian sisters have earned over one million dollars over the past few months, thanks to their high profile weddings and pregnancies. [PageSix]
• News anchor Amy Robach is engaged to marry Melrose Place's Andrew Shue. [PageSix]
• All the lies I tell are white lies. I tell a lie every day, it's the same lie. In answer to the 'Can you come to my wedding/christening?' question, I say: 'I can't, I am busy.' What I wouldn't say is: 'No, it will be a boring day, I would rather sit at home in my pants getting drunk.' That would be a terrible truth."-Ricky Gervais [TheSun]
• "It's one of those situations where she's young, they're both young. It was either a situation where she can grow. … There's a contention of young people who are going through the same things, and no one hears their voice. She can be their hero. Or she can choose not to grow from this."-Jay-Z on Rhianna and Chris Brown [UPI]
• Angelina Jolie says she doesn't read the tabloid reports on her life: ""I don't ask for all this tabloid attention so I never read what they write about us. First I see myself as a mother - that's my priority," she says, "I have a family to take care of, I don't even go out that much, I travel and do a film and that's about it so I don't understand why people want to know more about our lives." [ShowbizSpy]
• James Michael Tyler, who played Gunther on Friends, says that a Friends reunion movie is "definitely on." [ShowbizSpy]
• "My first boyfriend's mother was in wardrobe and I was her assistant. The first film I worked on was Mommie Dearest. I used to measure people nipple to nipple. The first line I heard from Miss Dunaway was: ‘Who is that fat girl in my eyeline?' I was terrified. Funnily enough, when I became a movie star for five seconds [in The People vs Larry Flynt, for which she won critical acclaim], Sharon Stone called me and said, ‘Welcome to the industry. When I got here, Miss Dunaway welcomed me.' And I was like, ‘Miss Dunaway has welcomed me already.'" -Courtney Love [TimesOnline]

Why do some shows feel so incredibly dated now? Watching the introduction to Friends in its syndicated amber, I physically cringe with embarrassment. Why did I ever watch this? I wonder. And why are they dressed like that? It's like coming face-to-face with a middle-school friend who still wants to listen to Jagged Little Pill on a loop, and to boot has married her 7th Grade boyfriend. Maybe it's because a show was so popular, defined an era and a sensibility - people actually got that haircut, and people imitated Joey, and we actually all wore jeans like that. Hortense, high priestess of pop culture, had a good theory: "I think many shows go through these weird periods where the dated-factor hurts them and later helps them, because people start tuning into the show not as a relevant commentary on their lives, but as a reminder of what their lives were like at the time. You move from making fun of the show for being dated to making fun of yourself for the way you dressed/things you thought were cool in 1994, if that makes any sense."

I agree, but some shows are definitely more prone to it than others Seinfeld, which always existed out of time and never had anything to do with any discernible fashions of the moment, doesn't have the cringe factor, even if it's mellowed from must-see to Raymond-reliable. And Sex and the City, even if it dates itself from season-to-season, feels like a time capsule - like a 2001 Spring collection or something, albeit one you wouldn't have worn. Watching it, you know that they, too, (were they real and not 2-dimensional and underwritten) would scorn to wear a name necklace or an enormous flower or the weirdly androgynous wardrobe they saddled Cynthia Nixon with in early episodes. And, that said, I'd still find it very odd if someone replicated one of the glass-and-steel Cosmo palaces they visited on the show; those locations looked quite bad enough at the time.

Other shows, for me at least, age well. When the Gilmore Girls was on, I despised it. I was very vocal and annoying about it, too, and any timid endorsement would be met with a stream of criticisms of the preciousness, the ersatz cleverness, the incredibly grating, colorful townsfolk, the cutesy vocal scoring. Did I watch it regularly? Of course - the better to dismiss it with. And then I caught it in syndication a few months ago and was totally riveted. The character of Rory was so smart and serious! The references were sometimes clever! Was it saccharine and frequently twee? Yes - but in a world where Glee is hailed as brilliant, it started to look like early Arthur Miller. It seemed I was not alone. Two of my friends mentioned to me recently that they've fallen into belated love with Gilmore Girls. "It's sad," said one, "that as a 30-something woman, the only thing I can relate to is a ten-year-old show about a teenager."

Maybe Hortense is right, and when another ten years have passed, Friends will start to feel nostalgic and even iconic. But I'm just not sure it's good enough. I suspect things have to be really good - like My So-Called Life - or Saved by the Bell campy to really pass into the firmament. That's why this Central Perk seems so weird - it would be one thing if this had opened during the show's heyday. Surely most 20-somethings know it at least as well as a syndication bolster, and Jennifer Aniston as much as Professional Sad-Sack as hair role-model. Maybe it's strange, too, because the studio-set New York in Friends was so artificial, and I wasn't familiar with any comparable yuppie-havens; nor, had one existed, would I have wanted to patronize it. But what do I know? Apparently the place is going gangbusters, even though it's coffee-only in a tea town. And as for the "iconic orange couch," well, "there is no possibility of getting comfortable there, due to the constant disruption of people wanting their photographs taken on it."

Cafe Opening Stimulates Friends Fans [BBC]

In her paean to heterosexual female-on-male friendship (appropriately titled "Guy Friends Rule"), Williams does make some annoying generalizations. She writes,

My guy friends [...] will hang out for an entire evening and never once mention anything to do with feelings. If one of them forwards me an e-mail, there's an 85 percent probability it involves "Star Wars" and zero chance it contains a quote from Maya Angelou. If a man I'm not sleeping with tells me I'm beautiful, I believe him. I have had guy friends gallantly toss me over a shoulder and carry me through big puddles. They have, when I've been blue, asked if I needed somebody's ass kicked. My guy friends have never asked to split an appetizer because they were really trying to stay in the Zone, nor looked at me like I was a war criminal for ordering dessert.

At times in my life when I've had more guy friends, they've been wonderful confidants about feelings (note to current guy friends: you still are). If a woman "looked at me like I was a war criminal for ordering dessert," I probably wouldn't be friends with her. None of my friends tend to e-mail me about Star Wars, but if an e-mail includes sharks, there's an 85% probability it came from my mom. Williams also commits what I'm now christening Geek Deadly Sin #6, using the word "frak" in a context not related to Battlestar.

Stereotypes aside, though, Williams makes some good points about the value of dude friends for straight women. She writes,

You want to have good relationships with the opposite sex? Get to know a few members of it. That's what friends are for. To hear you out. To keep you in check. To make you a better person. And your girlfriends and wives and boyfriends and husbands will thank you for it.

If you let guys into your life and your heart, you can't hear the phrase "there are no good men out there" without recognizing it for the stupid sexist bullshit it is. You can likewise toss out the male canard that they're all just booty-chasing simpletons as the smokescreen that is as well.

Especially if you've been burned in romantic relationships, there is no quicker recipe for a hopeful attitude toward future relationships — and a continued appreciation for half the human race — than a male friend who treats you well and doesn't try to sleep with you. Bitching about men with your girlfriends is a time-honored (at least on TV) activity, but it can become an echo chamber of bitterness, clichés, and, frankly, sexism. I'd argue that all women, not just straight ones, can benefit from friendships with men, if for no other reason than the fact that these friendships force us to recognize that the problems of gender roles in our society are a lot more complicated than "men are pigs."

My dad once said, of someone who didn't read books published after 1950, "why would you want to cut yourself off from so much interesting stuff?" I feel the same way about guys. So although my recent woman-centric years have been wonderful (I used to be one of those girls who "didn't get along with other girls," which, as many commenters have pointed out, also sucks), I'm trying to get better at calling my old guy friends. Because although it may be harder to maintain female-to-male friendships as you get older — after college, it's tougher to become close with men without giving off a datey vibe — it's totally worth it.

Guy Friends Rule [Salon]

(Remember, kids: Don't do drugs!) In this episode, Rich and I answer questions about gayness, gay porn, and Italian cuisine and fashion. Got a burning question? Send it to potpsych@jezebel.com. Or to Twitter. If we remember to check it, we'll answer those, too.

Do I Have To Change My Tampon Every Time I Pee? from Pot Psychology on Vimeo.

Heroine Wendy Murman is an editor at a leftist magazine, living with her husband in Brooklyn and struggling to conceive. Her best friend Daphne is a flighty, self-absorbed, semi-employed beauty who shocks Wendy when she ditches her unreliable married boyfriend for a hot, successful arch-conservative named Jonathan. Soon Daphne is married, pregnant, and installed in a beautiful house, and Wendy is beside herself with envy.

A little jealousy is certainly normal, but Rosenfeld paints the relationship between Wendy and Daphne — and indeed, between Wendy and all of her girlfriends — as so negative and competitive that you wonder why any of these people spend time together. Her e-mail exchanges with frenemy Paige are unrealistically bitchy, as when Paige writes,

Meanwhile — f.y.i. — I just read a very interesting article about infertility among women in our age group. It turns out that most of the issues (tube blockage, lack of cervical fluid, etc.) have their origin in STDs. Which is not to say you have one. Still, it might be worth checking.

Wendy begins the novel by wearily disregarding Daphne's threat of suicide, seems to find her conversation annoying, takes every interaction they have as a chance to compare herself to Daphne and find herself wanting, and remembers countless times throughout their friendship when Daphne has let her down. She recalls, for instance, the night her first boyfriend dumped her, when Daphne promised that they could "go to the movies 'and forget about all [their] guy problems." Instead,

An hour later, Daphne was putting on her coat and saying, "I totally forgot I said I'd meet Josh. Are you going to be okay if I go out for a few hours? I promise I'll be back soon." (Face squinched up.)

Face squinched up? Given this and basically every other scene between Wendy and Daphne, it's hard to see why Wendy doesn't just find better friends — or at least friends who make her feel better.

Unless Rosenfeld's point is that female friendship is inherently toxic. She says on her website, "every woman has a Daphne in her life — a so-called "best friend" whose seemingly effortless successes never fail to make her feel like a Huge Loser." Really? Everyone has a best friend so fake she deserves quotes? And for whom her jealousy outweighs her joy? Sadly, reviewers seem to concur. Publishers' Weekly calls I'm So Happy For You "a dark, hilarious and painfully accurate view of the less-than-pure reasons why women stay friends." And Zoe Heller calls it "a finely observed and witty account of the jealousies that lurk within even the kindest female hearts."

Rosenfeld's Double X advice column, Friend or Foe (tagline: "Boys are easy. Friendships are hard.") adds fuel to the girlfriends-totally-suck fire. Her most recent column implies that a friend's disappearance after the birth of a child must be the result of envy. She also writes about dangerous friend archetypes like the "Instant Best Friend" who dumps you at the slightest provocation (and who quite easily recognizes herself and lashes back in the comments!), or the "Time Energy Suck [...] who dins and sniffles in your ear for hours at a time about first dates who never called again and ex-lovers with whom she broke up eight years ago-'it's just still so hard.'" Friendships can be hard, but are they really so hard that we need names for different bad ones? Doesn't this just perpetuate a sad stereotype of women as catty bitches who undermine each other?

There is, however, a slightly more hopeful way to interpret all this. As Wendy descends further and further into insane jealousy of Daphne, her husband Adam offers this explanation of her behavior:

You're never satisfied. That's just who you are. You felt deprived as a child, and there's nothing anyone can do to make it up to you. You could marry Bill Gates and still think you were getting fucked over.

It's harsh, but also feels true — a lot of Wendy's problems seem to come from her constant sense of being worse off than others, and her inability to appreciate what she has. Only when she stops comparing herself to Daphne can she finally be happy. It is possible to read I'm So Happy For You as a cautionary tale against the kind of jealousy that makes every baby, every relationship, every apartment, every job into a mere data point in a constant status accounting. If it's Rosenfeld's point that this is no way to live your life, more power to her. But why does she have to make it sound like every woman lives this way?
I'm So Happy For You [Amazon]
I'm So Happy For You [Official Site]
Friend Or Foe [Double X]

After moving to a new city, the author, Ryan Blitstein, and his girlfriend, who both work from home, have a hard time meeting friends.

So my girlfriend and I have embarked on a process akin to a platonic version of dating. Parties, for us, resemble nothing so much as speed-dating events. We search for friends of either sex, sending garbled nonverbal signals back and forth, waiting to gush about our new same-sex and opposite-sex crushes on the train ride home. I search for wedding rings on the fingers of women I like — not because I'm hoping they're single, but because I'm hoping they're not, and that maybe their husbands will be willing to double date.

Blitstein's essay is about the larger challenges of making a meaningful connection in a world where superficial friendship comes cheap. But he touches on something particularly challenging: couple friendship. Because however hard it might be to form a connection between two people, four is that much harder. Maybe you have a friend and envision cute double-dates and grown-up group friendships like all our parents seem to have. But one of them is a weak link, or the chemistry's not there, or the girlfriend is so much less awesome than you were led to believe and why didn't he notice that, and why is my boyfriend being such a dick other people do this how hard can it be it's really hard I'm a terrible adult and why don't you make an effort, cue fighting.

Actually, I come from a family where one party's sociable and the other - my mom - genuinely does think hell is other people. She's perfectly content with a couple of friends in other states, and to let my father go out to dinners and plays, as long as she's not required to go. Maybe a bad template to grow up with, but not one that fosters codependence. It's probably because of this, but reading Blitstein's essay, which is thoughtful and well-written, I found myself thinking uncharitably that maybe if they broke out on their own, with fewer joint parties and "activity groups," the friend search would go a little faster. Even if Blitstein and his lady friend are considerably nicer and less judgmental people than I, which they almost certainly are, insisting on friends by committee seems like a dicey proposition. We all have the occasional friend who's joined at the hip to a boyfriend - surprise! Jake's going to come see Shopaholic too! - and it's awful, especially because you know they think they're a better couple for it and silently pity you for your independence. I, on the other hand, am the antisocial girlfriend who never shows up anywhere; people have about stopped asking.

I hope the author and his girlfriend find a nice group of other couples to hang out with, I really do, and that they go on vacations together and have game nights and dinner parties and all that awesome, adult stuff that pricklier infants are not suited to. Some of us have solo dance parties to attend now.
Couple seeking couple for good time [Salon]

According to Tom Geoghegan BBC News Magazine, a study of 10,000 US residents showed that those who had the most friends at school made the most money later on — each extra friend added 2% in salary (we assume "extra" here means friends above the average number, but we still wouldn't want to be someone's "extra friend"). The average person apparently has about 150 friends — anthropologist Robin Dunbar says this is "the number of people that you know as persons and you know how they fit into your social world and they know how you fit into theirs." Geoghegan says, "it may sound like a lot, but think of your Christmas card list - 50 cards to 50 couples = 100 friends," thus assuming that we are 1) very popular and 2) very organized and 3) for some reason uninterested in single people.

Geoghegan breaks this group of 150 down further, writing,

They usually consist of an inner circle of five "core" people and an additional layer of 10, he says. That makes 15 people - some will probably be family members - who are your central group and then outside that, there's another 35 in the next circle and another 100 on the outside.

He says the limit for close friends is probably between six and 12, and tells the story of one man who told a woman "he had no vacancies for friends," then sent her a card six months later notifying her of an opening. All this is interesting, but the explicit linkage of friendship and wealth, along with the carefully quantified tiers of friendship, makes a person's relationships with other people sound like an investment portfolio. This outlook encourages people to see friendship in terms of what people can do for them, rather than as a good thing for its own sake. And these days, isn't it more comforting to think of friendship as one thing that doesn't have to do with money?

What's the ideal number of friends? [BBC]

While Burger King's recent attempts at surreal edginess — "Whopper Virgins," anyone? — aren't going to raise many eyebrows, the fact that "Whopper Sacrifice" involved a notification that you'd been cut for a burger caught Facebook's attention: as everyone knows, people aren't normally told when you un-friend them, one of the few things that keeps the delicate ecosystem functioning. And, not unexpectedly, the scrutiny has opened something of a philosophical can of worms: what is a "friend?" Should you cull ruthlessly, or be generous? And what's the protocol? Justifies a marketer behind "Whopper Sacrifice" to the NY Times, “It seemed to us that it quickly evolved from quality of friends to quantity...which was interesting to us because it felt like the virtual definition of a friend became something different than the friends that you’d want to hang out with.”

Well, yeah. Nowadays those who keep their lists down to an exclusive circle of real friends are in the minority; even if you don't solicit friends yourself you're likely to be found by random elementary-school classmates or old coworkers — and it seems unkind to deny someone who's taken the time to search you out! Most people I know maintain an "everyone within reason" policy and have resigned themselves to distancing Facebook from anything truly personal. And among people under 20, it's standard for "friend" lists to top 300. Some folks I know feel somewhat misled; at first they accepted all requests because they felt honored; now, a year later, they see these relationships as reflections of a culture's diminishing currency.

And then the editing starts. Some Facebook expert tells the Times he "recommends culling your friend list once a year to remove total strangers and other hangers-on. Keeping your numbers down gives you more leeway to be selective about whom you approve in the first place." Part of the rationale for this discrimination is that, as a piece in today's Wall Street Journal makes clear, sites like Facebook are increasingly prone to hacking. "The popularity of social networks and social media sites has grabbed the attention of cyber crooks searching to pilfer passwords, called "phishing," and steal sensitive personal information. The hackers are exploiting users' sense of safety within these sites," and a smaller network could mean, hypothetically, a smaller risk.

But, at this juncture, is such an approach really practical? Whatever people wanted Facebook to be, now isn't it what it is: less a portrait of who you are than a loosely-drawn map of your history, your interests, your associations? Does anyone go to someone else's page expecting to see only bosom friends? No: for the most part you assume you're seeing a collection of friends, acquaintances and strangers, and we've become as adept at reading and interpreting these as a more straight-forward breakdown. If you want privacy, quite frankly, don't join a networking site anymore. As to unfriending, I get it, but it does seem to me a tad cowardly: much more honest, it seems, to reject someone in the first place. Whopper or not.

Friends, Until I Delete You [New York Times]

Beware of Facebook 'Friends' Who May Trash Your Laptop [Wall Street Journal]

In fact, regardless of the day, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that 54 percent of all pedestrians killed in car accidents at night had elevated blood alcohol levels. And, all it takes is one inattentive driver and one swerve-y pedestrian to do this.

My cautionary tale takes place the day before Christmas break began in my senior year in college. Upon discovering that — for the holidays, natch — my boyfriend had treated himself to a blowjob from someone else, I decided to get my entire day's caloric intake strictly from alcohol. By midnight, I had cycled through rum, White Zinfandel, tequila and made my way back to rum by the time I somberly told the older gentlemen hitting on me that all men were assholes. Then I threw up on them. The designated driver whose job is was to get me home (who wanted me the fuck out of her car) dropped me at the 7-11 that lay across 4 lanes of traffic from my apartment. I could barely squint enough to tell that each car was actually not equipped with 4 headlights each, and I could definitely not judge distance or speed. Horns were blown, tires screeched, and it turns out that at least one of those cars was closer than it appeared. That I didn't die 10 feet from my apartment door that night was a matter of sheer luck (thought it didn't feel that way the next morning) and a driver with quick reflexes. Those aren't things that you should count on, so tonight, get yourself the kind of friend who stays just sober enough to drag your drunken ass up again (pictured here) or loves you enough to make the U-turn.

Walking While Intoxicated [New York Times]

Earlier: Clark Gable's Granddaughter Kayley Doesn't Give A Damn

Here's the whole query:

Dear Amy: My husband and I are very friendly with a couple that we enjoy very much. We vacation with them and spend time with them in social gatherings. We love to entertain and are very good cooks. Whenever my friend and her husband come to our home, they always eat everything, and they usually have second helpings. My friend loves to entertain as well and does it well. You always feel very relaxed at their home. Our problem is that she used to cook wonderful meals, but now everything she cooks is fat-free. Her menu is always tasteless. She cooks it all in the morning and reheats it before serving it. She always makes a comment that she cooked too much because there is so much food left over. I would love to tell her it's because no one wants second helpings. My feeling is that most of her guests feel the same way we do. I don't want to hurt her feelings. Do we suck it up for the evening or say something? My husband said that we should just not accept invitations to her home for dinner and just go for parties, and eat before we get there. We were invited for Thanksgiving dinner, and the dinner was awful. Once again, she was overloaded with leftovers. How would you handle this situation? - Friend in Need

Amy says that, in the name of friendship, "Friend" must indeed make the best of the crap food - because "the most important aspect of being a guest is to allow yourself to have a good time, partaking of the fellowship of your friends, even if you don't particularly enjoy the food." Further, "your friend might have health issues necessitating her switch to low-fat cooking, or her tastes and abilities may have changed during the time you've known her."

In my opinion, there are a few details here that must be considered. 1: "friend in need" is something of a boastful jerk with misplaced, petty priorities - and yet, I trust her implicitly. 2: There is nothing worse than being trapped somewhere with horrible food, especially on Thanksgiving. 3: If the bad cook - who has no excuse since she used to be a good one, and how could her "abilities" have changed? - can't eat normal food, she has no business inviting people over and forcing them to conform to her diet. Harsh? Maybe. But if she's going to pull this kind of crap, then her friend can be equally selfish and turn down her invites (since, apparently, going to a restaurant is not an option and their relationship is completely based on foodieism.)

That said: obviously "Amy" is right and if you're a nice person you don't hold tasteless food against your friend and put the most charitable possible spin on her behavior. If you're not actually that nice but know you need to pretend to be, here is what you should have in your purse: beef, turkey or salmon jerky; dried apricots; almonds; if at all possible a Nature Valley fruit bar. (Some advocate a hard-boiled egg but I have had unhappy experiences with broken shells.) If you aren't on the go for a long time, a BabyBel cheese is a good addition, and the ball of wax is handy to have for molding under the table into miniature Easter Island heads. All of these can be downed during a clandestine trip to the powder room. Also: whenever at a deli, grab some of those little salt and pepper packets so as to easily doctor tasteless food on the sly. I know of what I speak: if, like me, you have certain close relatives who have been known to serve one ancient, unrefrigerated, dessicated carrot sticks, week-old supermarket rotisserie chicken with a soupçon of mold on the drumstick, and undefrosted clam chowder, such measures are a necessity.

Ask Amy: When host's food isn't to guests' taste [The Philadelphia Inquirer]

• A new study claims that eating extra amounts of choline, a chemical found in eggs, while pregnant can lead to an increased risk of developing breast cancer in offspring. • Nielsen Online says that the number of employees visiting porn sites while working has increased 23% over the past year. • A new study reports that young gymnasts are suffering new types of injuries to their hands, wrists and arms .• Women who have undergone breast augmentation and are being treated for early-stage breast cancer may have more treatment success with brachytherapy, a partial-breast radiation treatment.• Inducing labor before the 40 week gestational age has become more common in the U.S. • The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is taking the estate of Beverly Rogers to court over the estate's planned auctioning of Mary Pickford's 1930 Oscar for best actress. • Honor killings have increased by 70% in the southern Iraqi city of Basra where women can be murdered for "honor killings" by hired hitmen for as little as $100. • Amnesty International is asking the Haitian government to do more to stop the widespread rape of girls in the country's slums.• A BBC reporter's 12-year-old daughter gets the Somali pirates on the Sirius Star to talk. • Canadian researchers say that gay men who feel undesirable are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and develop psychological problems. • A recent survey claims that British men and women beat out the people of Italy, Germany, France and the US as the most sexually liberal. • We may have just missed the beginning of Advent, but surely this condom Advent Calendar will keep us up-to-date. • An Italian book that reveals unpublished excerpts of Amanda Knox's diary says that sex was a "predominant aspect of her life" and influenced her relationships with men and women. • A new study claims that individuals who wash their hands before making judgments tend to make less strict rulings. • More and more men are beginning to take primary care of their elderly and ill parents. • Meanwhile, the Gender-Based Violence Forum estimates that 60% of Sri Lankan women have experienced domestic violence.• An art critic for the BBC's Antiques Roadshow received criticism when he referred to a woman in a portrait as having "Shropshire ankle" (or fat ankles). • Are you ready for a relationship boot camp? • A Texan man claims that God told him to ram into a woman's vehicle on a highway while going 100 mph on Friday because she "wasn't driving right" and needed to be "taken off the road." The two only suffered minor injuries. •

This is a thorny issue we're not unfamiliar with — Jessica's interview with author Janellle Brown touched on it memorably. Said Brown, who had written up just such a scene in her book All We Ever Wanted Was Everything, "There's always this awkward shuffle around the bill. Money definitely creates this imbalance, especially because in creative worlds it seems like it flows so easily and quickly, particularly when you're not the one getting it." These are issues that we're all aware of to one degree or another, but rarely are we forced to deal with these ugly realities except in the case of the birthday dinner. Sure, any dinner with friends can fall into this trap, but it's only in the case of a birthday that the facts are inarguable, on another's terms, a veritable test of your loyalty.

Swansburg defines it thusly:

As my friends moved from graduate programs and entry-level positions into decent-paying jobs, a birthday meet-up at a dive bar to pound SoCo-and-lime shots started to feel a shade déclassé. Yet everyone was still living in small studio or one-bedroom apartments—no place for a proper cocktail party. The compromise: People started celebrating their birthdays by inviting friends out to dinner, typically at a moderately fancy restaurant. The kind of place that frowns on bringing your own candles and Cookie Puss but isn't averse to sticking a sparkler in a crème brûlée.

He proposes three courses of action: shamelessly arranging your own check with the waiter; attempting to keep the bill down; resigning yourself and getting a good, partially-subsidized meal out of the ordeal. He readily admits that none is without its pitfalls. Having tried all of these with varying degrees of success, and having often ended such a meal feeling resentful, frustrated and broke, I've been giving this sort of thing a lot of thought lately. My boyfriend is of the school that brings his own flask and a wax-paper-wrapped sandwich to restaurants, which is not the solution. Recently a successful friend with a good job came to New York eager to paint the town red for her birthday. I simply didn't know how to say, "I can't afford that" without feeling like a killjoy or forcing her to pick up the tab. I know people who gripe about being broke right before the check arrives and it's far from comfy. Ultimately, I suggested a bunch of "creative" alternatives and hole-in-the walls I'd been wanting to try, and we did that instead, to everyone's satisfaction. But when can we get to the point where we can talk about this stuff openly? When it comes to someone's birthday, probably never.

Obviously a sensitive friend should be aware of the discrepancies in income and plan accordingly, but as we all know this is not always the case and it's easy for people to forget the difficulties of a really limited income. Then too, even the best-laid plans at the most modest restaurant can go up in a blaze of wine snob/"let's-all-share-starters/why not get champagne/let's try all the desserts!" glory at the hands of one enthusiastic bon vivant. One cheapskate throwing a $10 on the table and sitting back smugly, or somebody who didn't realize a place was cash only, costs everyone extra — and there's always one such person.

The only solution is to not go; create a prior engagement and suggest a dinner a deux at a later date. Alternatively, come late in the evening, after people have eaten. If such subterfuge goes against the grain, I can only say, people who want to make a big celebration of their birthdays as an adult (and I sort of fall into this) tacitly hold to the childhood rule that a birthday person is somehow special and should not be judged or confronted on an arbitrary date designated for self-celebration. And it must be said: there are certain infantile individuals who regard a disinclination to spend and show and duly worship the birthday person as a breach of friendship and tacit protocol. Obviously no one should be friends with such a person anyway (even though we all have been at different times) and if a friendship ends over such a trifle, well then, so much the better. Here is what we can do. Every one of us, individually, can take steps to stop this pernicious trend. I propose a new one: the brisk birthday walk. If necessary, the walk can take one through a supermarket that offers samples. They will probably be playing music too! Specify no gifts, and at the end of the evening pass a hat around — let's call a spade a spade.

Happy Birthday, You Bastard [Slate]

Earlier: This Is Not Chick Lit: A Q&A With Writer Janelle Brown