What is it with you breeders?

First it was "man dates," and now this.

Maybe my problem is with the New York Times style section -- that's a distinct possibility, given how it pales in comparison to the substance and literary flair on display every day in the WashPost or, for that matter, the Times A section. But I think I'm really bothered by what seems to be the underlying theme of both this story and the recent NYT piece detailing the shocking news that straight guys can hang out together without being, you know, gay.

The message seems to be this: You can be attracted to another person, dazzled by them, rendered speechless by them, and even, in the case of one woman quoted in today's Times, "have such a potent crush on woman that she became sweaty in her presence" without at least having a passive, snake brain urge to have sex with them. (Sweating doesn't signify some sort primal urge? How about drooling, then?)

I'm not saying I disagree with the notion that you can be kinda, sorta in love with your friends. (That is, in fact, kinda, sorta the story of my life prior to age 32 or so.) But this comes awfully close to another line of reasoning I keep hearing from those kind, forgiving Christian folk who argue that my spouse and I are going to hell. Just because you're attracted to someone, the thinking goes, doesn't mean you have to act on it. This whole gay thing is a self-control issue, not a question of genetics.

See why I might be a little sensitive? Now I'm certainly not one to talk about crushes and whether a given infatuation is or isn't sexual. Mine are. But then again, as JudyBat would not hesitate to point out, I'm drawn to a particular kind of woman: Live ones.

It just strikes me that there's a little bit of sophomoric fear involved here. Not that there's anything wrong with that.