I suppose it's because I take it as given that as women, we all know that it's women and children who suffer the most in war. You can't protect yourself, you can't protect your children. The threat of sexual violence only adds insult to injury, and it is women, worldwide, and in all times, who have borne the brunt of it.

Most of us are lucky to have grown up in nations at peace. But I still know many women who've been raped. Raped by fathers, brothers, boyfriends, strangers.

Rape exists in every nation even in peacetime, but its use as a weapon of war should be no surprise to anyone who's read Susan Brownmiller's book Against Our Will. I have always remembered (though I paraphrase) General Patton's order concerning his own men: "In spite of my most diligent efforts, there will undoubtedly be some raping...and I want the offenders brought to me so that I can see them properly hanged." He was as good as his word, too - expeditiously trying and executing four American troops in Sicily who had raped Italian women.

Patton knew his history, and he knew that the story of conquest is indivisible from rape. But it was Brownmiller who made it clear that rape is not committed by retreating armies (too busy saving their skins) nor, generally, by front-line troops (too busy winning the battle). It is those who follow that cut a swathe through defenceless womanhood worldwide - the second-line Russians marching into Berlin, frustrated grunts in the Vietcong-infested jungle, irregular troops, militias, marauders and skirmishers of every description, in every war, everywhere, at every time.

In my lifetime, Americans have raped the Vietnamese wholesale, Pakistanis have raped Bengalis, Serbians have raped Bosnians, Israelis have raped Palestinians, and on it goes. The current world focus is on the Janjawiid militias, who are terrorising the women of Darfur, but in the most recent wars, militias raped virtually ALL the women in Liberia, while to this day, the women of the Congo are fair game for every soldier on every side, even those in the uniforms of peacekeepers.

As far as rape in warfare goes, the younger the victims the better (little girls are the best), and the more public the crime, the more effective it is - preferably gang-based, preferably in front of the men, preferably resulting in children of another colour, so that the entire fabric of society is shattered. There is no more certain way to plunge a nation into chaos than to pollute its women. So wholesale was the rape of Bengali women in the Bangladesh war that the government of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declared all such victims 'heroines of the state' to prevent them being ostracised or killed by their own families.

The adoption of resolution 1820 in the Hague will do nothing to stop rape in war, but it is at least a step in the right direction and let us hope that it leads to the crime being seen for what it is - a political strategy used by the unscrupulous to create conflict and disorder for generations to come.

The dancer and actress Cyd Charisse has died at the age of 86 at Cedars Sinai in Los Angeles. She was one of the last of her generation of Hollywood stars. Dancing partners Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire both predeceased her by many years, but she leaves behind her husband of 60 years, singer Tony Martin.

Charisse was a ballet dancer from a young age and performed with the Ballets Russes from the age of 13. Born Tula Ellice Finklea, she picked up the name Charisse when she married her dance instructor Nico, and kept it even after divorce and remarriage to Martin, with whom she had two children.

In her first film role, in Something to Shout About (1943), she was billed as Lily Norwood, but continued to dance in films as Cyd Charisse until the decline of Hollywood in the late 1950s. She never tap danced, but took roles where her balletic skills were to the fore - always elegant, usually a lady. Her major films included Brigadoon, It's Always Fair Weather, and Silk Stockings - a musical remake of Ninotchka, which she always claimed was her favourite role. In later life she appeared both in non-musical films and on stage, as well as on television.

Charisse was not a great actress, singer (she was usually dubbed) nor even a great beauty, but in the Hollywood of the time, she was able to use her one magnificent talent - dancing - as a springboard to become a major star. The MGM machine was right behind her and her costumiers, make-up artists, hairstylists and cameramen worked with her splendid physique to create for her an enduring image of grace and beauty. Her stunning legs were often on show, especially in publicity shots, and were widely (though falsely) rumoured to be insured for a million dollars.

Along with her green costume in Singin in the Rain (above, a performance she undertook when she had just had a baby), her glittering black dress in Bandwagon has always remained in my mind as the epitome of the womanly fashions of that era, along with her white, pleated, supposedly 'unsmart' skirt worn later in the same movie (see image below). The strapless, full-skirted gowns of the day suited her down to the ground, while hairstylists such as Sydney Guilaroff changed her natural soft auburn hair to black for a decidedly more striking appearance.

I grew up watching every film of Cyd Charisse's, along with Ann Miller and Ginger Rogers and all of those great dancing stars, and it saddens me that she's gone. The DH and I still watch her a few times a year, most notably in Bandwagon, where her 'dancing in the dark' sequence in the park with Astaire has to rank among the sexiest, subtlest dance routines ever filmed. For a more overtly sexy routine, her Louise Brooks-inspired appearance in the dream sequence of Singin' in the Rain takes some beating. It makes perfect sense that a man attracted by the pert Debbie Rogers in 'real life' would focus on someone who looks more like Cyd in his dreams.

So come to think of it, maybe that's what we'll do tonight - turn out the lights, pop in a DVD and once more watch Cyd pick up Gene Kelly's hat with her green shoes...

Congratulations to them.

In a very sweet move, they both wore white and had a traditional cake, but with two brides on it. The ceremony was a traditional Jewish one conducted under a huppah - 'traditional' obviously being a fairly flexible word here.

The couple have repeatedly tried to get married in their 15 years together. For eight years they showed up at the courthouse each Valentine's Day and were repeatedly denied a marriage licence. Eventually they undertook a high-profile lawsuit to have California's ban on same-sex marriage ruled as unconstitutional.

For this, the couple were chosen to receive the county's first licence "in recognition of their unique role in the court's decision," said acting LA County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan.

Hundreds of guests and three television networks were on hand to greet the couple but of course, the nutjobs were also out in force with their placards complaining about how this will all be the end of civilisation as we know it.

What IS their problem? Do they seriously feel threatened by the level of personal commitment shown by these law-abiding, tax-paying adults? Are they equally threatened by Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83, who married each other in San Francisco on the same day, the culmination of their 55-year relationship? In a world as fucked-up as this one, you'd think people would be happy to celebrate two human beings' obvious love for one another.

Nevertheless, whatever the right-wingers think, in the long run what might count for more is the pink pound (or gay greenback, in this case). There are about 80,000 resident gay couples in California and doubtless many of them will want to marry (there are said to be 650 lined up in San Francisco alone). With each couple spending a shedload on flowers, cakes, clothes and venues, any business connected with weddings stands to make a serious buck in the next six months.

So I hereby make a prediction - the world will not stop spinning on its axis because gay people get married. Let's see if I'm right....

As of yet, the hospital has released no other information and has declined to comment on rumours that the girl has been reunited with her mother, grandmother and surviving siblings.

Josef Fritzl remains in custody.

For more on this story, visit the BBC website.

A few weeks ago, Burma was struck by a massive cyclone, closely followed by a devastating earthquake in China. These two events have cost the lives of around 200,000 people, a total which will almost certainly rise. Heaven only knows how many people have been injured - lost limbs, crush injuries, infections. Some earthquake victims had limbs amputated in order to remove them from the rubble.

We all recognise that natural disasters just happen - there's nothing you can do to prevent them, little you can to do prepare for them, only deal effectively with the aftermath. We also know that we are able as human beings to come together and deal with the problem. Like so many tiny ants, we scramble about, and extricate bodies and rebuild shattered lives. In particular, the Chinese Government's response has been exemplary. It is, of course, one of the advantages of a totalitarian state with a massive standing army, but the Chinese have mobilised, parachuted in help, assessed what they need and asked for international aid, particularly for tents. They are, fundamentally, on top of the situation.

Burma is a totalitarian state also, but differs in that the junta's main aim is to keep itself in power. Hence the agonisingly slow response and arrogant assertions that rescue and recovery are not needed - they will cope just fine by themselves thank you. This causes immense frustration in any caring human being who recognises that time is of the essence. And yet it is still not deliberate cruelty on the part of the junta - these people don't hate the cyclone victims, they just - utterly mistakenly - think they know what's best for them.

But the Fritzl case is a different matter. This is not a natural disaster, but an example of terrible human cruelty, only made worse by the length of time involved. Some men commit incest. Some men commit rape. Some men commit multiple rape or gang rape. Some men imprison their victims, or chain them up or otherwise degrade them. But this man did all of this to the people he was meant to love the most - his own children. And he did it over the course of 24 years. How on earth, we wonder, is this possible in a society that is meant to be civilised?

Keeping up this kind of sustained criminality is beyond our ken, as it the fact that this terrible thing occurred in peacetime, right under the noses of his neighbours. It wasn't a war situation, where everything is in chaos, and where terrible events occur every day which are then regretted.

The Fritzl case reveals to us the dark underbelly of our own society, and it's something we're unable to deal with, except by crying for revenge - as if revenge will solve it, or give this family back their lost years. Better to study Josef Fritzl, and attempt to understand him, in the hopes of preventing this from ever happening again.