I am FUMING. I just finished this week's post and clicked on Publish, and it took me back to the main page, made me sign in again, and my post was GONE.
I had wondered who of the many other posters around might make the best bridge players, and vowed to be very short-winded in protest of the heterocentric column.
L1: I asked who told LW1 that heterosexual congress was supposed to be enjoyable, and listed half a dozen people associated with Chambers at #3 Equity Court by way of example. I advised that LW1 may well find perfect happiness in sexual activity by just making the tinest of changes in the gender of her partner.
L2: I commented that the Prudecutor had to be very awkward to avoid being ageist, but to say that a 50-year-old woman isn't "planning on kids" borders on the overly coy. I asked why it's unfair for anyone to prefer not to take a partner for life with a 15-year age difference, regardless of gender. There is no guarantee that, if the BF were 50 and LW2 35, she'd want him. I also wondered whether a 30-year age difference might not be preferable. What sort of life one might prefer at age 55, 60 or 65 seems much more likely to rule out lovers of various ages than gender differences. Then the Prudecutor went into heterosexual climaxes and I elected to leave off, as, unlike Mr Savage, I am not paid to opine about such topics. Besides, as I have never seen one, I can reasonably doubt that such a thing really exists.
L3: While LW3 is fairly self-aware, unluckily she can acknowledge but not accept that relationships evolve in phases, and she wants to remain permanently in Phase One. Too bad, in a way. I advised her getting twelve different men, ideally each in a different country. Then she can be with each paramour for one month in the year, and every year it will be fresh all over again. Of course, the thought of so much heterosexual boinking forces me to make use of my Victorian Fainting Sofa.
L4: As the ashes of my cats are kept on a desk in the living room, I recused myself.