I hear that you're giving up sex for a year. And you quit eating meat. (Somehow, in context, that didn't come out sounding quite right.) Strangely, while many news sources reported the no-sex proclamation, only a few reported the no-meat vow. But what's this about surviving on pasta? I have one word for you: veggies! No matter how efficient the metabolism you inherited, sooner or later your body will just plain give up if you don't feed it those green-and-leafies.

Actually, the news is not very explicit. While we know quite a lot - too much, perhaps - about the sex you've been having, very little is known about the sex you won't be having. Which variety of celibacy are we talking about here? If you belonged to a religious order, ascetic celibacy would mean the same as total continence - no sexual gratification of any kind. Chastity seems to be a somewhat relative, situational term, more like what's appropriate to the circumstances. For instance, chastity within marriage means that a person only does it with his or her spouse. Whereas chastity for a nun means absolutely no nothin'. Zero, zip, nada.

The report I read says you plan to "abstain from all carnal activity," which really isn't such a good plan, if you don't mind my saying so. No, the healthier way is what they term sensual celibacy, which includes hugging, phone sex, masturbation - basically anything but actual sex with another person. Therapists will tell you that total touch deprivation is very deleterious, so the best thing would be to have a nice massage every week or so, if your budget can accommodate it. Experts also remind us that, many times when people think they want sex, what they actually want is the simple comfort of being touched. Even for the non-celibate, buying a nice pedicure might be preferable to wasting an evening, someplace where you don't want to be, trying to hook up. And don't forget to spend some quality time with yourself, if you get my drift. Especially if you suffer from discomfort during your period. Orgasm is an extremely effective treatment for menstrual cramps.

Still, if it's classical, absolute, total celibacy you aspire to, there's nothing wrong with that. Remember the Seinfeld episode where the characters made bets on how long they could last without jacking or jilling off? It's great, it's all progressive and everything, that they put the subject on the table. Unfortunately, the general tone contributed to the mythical notion that if people go without sexual release for more than a few days, they become vicious wrecks. It doesn't have to be that way, but thinking so is one of the factors that make it so.

According to those who've tried it, ascetic celibacy becomes easier the longer it goes on. The surprising part, experienced celibates report, is that one leaves behind not only desire itself, but even the wish to feel desire. But it's always possible to pick up where one left off. The "use it or lose it" concept is false. For some conditions, such as impotence, a spell of celibacy can even bring about a cure.

I'm guessing that when most people talk about celibacy, they mean sensual celibacy, which does not exclude the "menage a moi." What they're really talking about is being unpartnered. Celibacy as a deliberate policy is not quite the same thing as drifting into a partnerless state, which may last for a shorter or longer time, and in which a lot of people find themselves for one reason or another.

Probably the only people who are comfortable with this brand of celibacy are those who've had a fully satisfactory sex life, and know that they're capable of it again, should the opportunity arise. When someone has never had a happy sex life, it becomes a very very big deal that preoccupies the thoughts and consumes a disproportionate amount of mental energy.

You told an interviewer, "Guys want you more if you don't just hand it to them on a platter…. You have to make them work for it." This is, unfortunately, all too observable. And yet, and yet…. what about this quotation from the splendid writer Paul Theroux, who said: "Most men grow up believing in sex as a favor they have been granted - sex as strategy or currency or power. Therefore, the act itself is full of threat." This all sounds too much like the old "war between the sexes" stuff - one of those wars where nobody wins.

You justifiably denounced those seducers who only pay court to you for the "I've had her" bragging rights. It must really suck, to never know if a man wants you for your own sweet sake, or because his ambition is to go around saying "I've been in Paris." The public conquest factor would lurk, a sinister possibility, always in the background. Being a human trophy probably gets old real quick.

You also talked about losing yourself in a relationship - "I'll put all my energy into the guy." Girlfriend, I know exactly where you are coming from. In fact, I've been known to get mentally and emotionally all wrapped up in a guy I'm not even balling. How not to? I wish I could tell you the answer.

I partly agree with you about the grossness of one-night stands, but not entirely. It all depends on what the participants do during that night. It's not the brevity of the connection that counts, but the quality. More often than not, quick get-off sex is like junk food. It tastes good, and might have a smidgen of nutritional value, and a person can even live on it - but not thrive. Thriving is different. When the act is over, both participants are supposed to feel like they've been well and truly fucked. Fucked to a fare-thee-well; to where they honestly wonder, "Why does anyone ever spend a single minute of any day doing anything else but this?" But the paradox is, once they get out of bed, they don't feel the need to spend every minute doing it. When they're really doing it right, it tends to last for a while.

Looking forward to when your celibate era is in the past, let me leave you with a few general principles:

1. In bed with another person, what you don't do is as important as what you do.

2. Sex is only an obsession when it's not good. Once you get it figured out, it becomes way less important.

3. In sex as in life, you can't make it with another person until and unless you can make it with yourself.

4. There is something worse than not having sex when you want it, and that is having sex when you don't want it.

A quick question: Considering the large number of cities where the Hilton chain maintains hotels, has it ever occurred to you how lucky it was that your folks chose Paris for your name? I mean, Craigendarroch Hilton just wouldn't have the same ring to it. Imagine a hot videotape starring Frankfurt Hilton…I don't think so. Shinjuku Hilton? Doubt it. So, next time you drop in on the folks, remember to thank them for making such a thoughtful choice.

By the way, about that ad where you're, uh, washing a car - When the women's movement endorsed auto-eroticism, this is not what we meant. And here's an angle which, if you didn't consider it, maybe you should have. No chain of hamburger restaurants will hire you now. Going public with your feelings about the vileness of meat might not have been such a good career move. But I suppose you'll make it up on the perfume and whatnot.

From the chaos of life in the new millennium, I sense the coalescence of a trend. You watched a movie about the cruel treatment of animals, and swore off meat. President Bush saw a Cousteau film about some Hawaiian atolls, and issued an executive order to create and rope off the world's biggest marine preserve, astonishing those who have never known him to show anything but hostility to the natural world. Now, if we could just get every legislator to watch America: From Freedom to Fascism. The message to activists is clear: Make more movies. But Paris - did you ever hear of that teenager from Alabama with the short little films on her Peace Takes Courage website? It pains me to say this, but what the media world needs is more Ava Lowery and less Paris Hilton.

Best of all possible regards,
Pat Hartman