<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on CaddyShack</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:13:10 EST</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Natalie Davis</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/28/175540.php#comment-30742</link>
<description>That makes sense for some, I suppose. </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30742@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:13:10 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Eric Olsen</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/28/175540.php#comment-30740</link>
<description>I know, I was just saying that for some people - and this certainly was much more prevalent in the &quot;not until marriage&quot; past - that getting married means actually being able to move in together, travel together, etc, in which case the bloom would not have been necessarily rubbed off the rose prior to marriage, so to speak.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30740@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:10:45 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Natalie Davis</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/28/175540.php#comment-30739</link>
<description>I see. That is certainly not the case for everyone, thank god.

But I was referring to the old chestnut that after marriage, the frequency of sex tends to decline.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30739@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:06:05 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Eric Olsen</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/28/175540.php#comment-30729</link>
<description>Not if getting married equates to increased physical proximity.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30729@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:42:49 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Natalie Davis</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/28/175540.php#comment-30725</link>
<description>Wow, what a comment. You must know Tiger pretty well.

:(

A thought occurs -- isn&#039;t sexual activity supposed to &lt;i&gt;wane&lt;/i&gt; after the &quot;I dos?&quot;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30725@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:43:45 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by TDavid</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/28/175540.php#comment-30721</link>
<description>Good for Tiger, he needs to get laid more regularly. He was getting pretty intense and it was affecting his gameplay. I like the dominating, &quot;I&#039;ll Kick Everybody&#039;s Ass on the Golf Course&quot; Tiger better.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30721@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:02 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Natalie Davis</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/28/175540.php#comment-30681</link>
<description>I wish Tiger and Ellen all happiness. They are such a cute couple and just imagine how gorgeous their potential kids could be!</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30681@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:24:46 EST</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>