I didn't say anything at the time, but I almost was going to give Just-Go-In-The-Closet-Dear-Around-Me-Mamma a You Go, Girl! Seriously. It would be the best thing she could do for herself to get herself into PFLAG as quickly as possible, but she's way past the expiration date for reasonable qualms and difficulties, and I am more concerned with the best outcome for the innocent. At her age and given her long history, the odds are not very good that she would make the sort of substantial improvement that would make her an asset in her son's life. She may pick up a bit of the acceptance jargon, but it won't run deep, and the end result will be, more likely than not, that her son will despair from not knowing whether to keep in contact or not. As I am almost inclined to give her a consolation point for being honest (but she's only being honest because she's deluded into thinking she's being reasonable), I'd tell her to be even more of the same and keep making her point louder and more forcefully. The effect of her doing so will be, with any luck, that her gay son is able to write her off without feeling major qualms about it, and that she will make herself so outrageous that her straight son will feel inclined to take his twin's side. Therefore, she will unify her two sons, perhaps even creating a bond between them that isn't there now, one which will serve them well long after her death.
I am actually riding fairly high this week, having come up with the most creative solution to the vastly superiour problem in one of this week's SLLOTDs. The LW was a father who has been having an affair with a close family friend for some time. Recently, while friend was on a family vacation, they had been chatting by computer, and LW, who was on the family computer, forgot to log off his Gmail account. His 15-year-old daughter and her best friend saw the explicit email still up, impersonated him, got friend to send pictures, recognized her, and immediately fired off pictures to anyone they knew even remotely acquainted with the woman. LW set a new high for the Chutzpah Bar by asking what punishment is appropriate for his daughter, thinking that she should be grounded for a year, sent to live with her grandparents and forbidden to see her best friend, whereas his wife only wants community service if anything. I was the only one on the whole thread who thought it might be helpful to discuss the incident with the other girl's parents, and came up with by far the best deterrent - forcing the daughter to watch a series of irritating made-for-Lifetime films and writing an essay about their handling of the moral and ethical issues that arose in each. Either that or send her to juvenile FBI training camp.
Quick Thoughts for the rather dull DP this week: If I were doing each letter in full individually, I'd be tempted to make a theme that the LWs are all expecting men or a man to act like a woman, a theme which might stand up to cross-examination. But I won't.
L1: If there is another answer this week that is not the Prudecutor's own work, this one is my choice. I dislike both LW1 and F1. It at least appears that his food preferences are crowding out hers (although it would not surprise me to discover that she is projecting a bit) and that he just refuses to go along with plans that would indulge her. I don't like her because she clearly knew this before the engagement. Presumably she thought that raising the issue earlier would have made him dump her. They really seem to deserve each other's torment for all eternity.
L2: Well, at least LW2 gets a couple of points for not asking if (s)he "is wrong" for feeling the way (s)he does. "Am I overreacting?" is at least a slightly better question. But LW2 is still being a bit pathetic. What is the point in being hurt because an invitation is declined for a frivolous reason by someone who has already refused to vist LW2 because (s)he lives in a boring city? Take a page from the son of Homophobic Mamma. He is standing up for himself and getting on with his life, not hanging about and whimpering that Mamma Doesn't Love Him.
L4: $80 instead of her (or his - I must practise for Homocentric August!) husband's $100 is offensive? LW4 should trade FIL4 for what's behind Door Number Three. I'm sure I could produce at least a dozen people within a day who'd be delighted to have a FIL who gave them $50 as an individual birthday present, and some who would settle for a ten-spot and a Happy Meal.
Now for L3. LW3 had to be treated for cancer. Very sad. And her "friend" not only never offered to help her, he never once offered to help her. And he lived closer to her than any of her other friends, yet his presence was completely lacking during her time of greatest need. Very poetic. If I ever have to take sick leave, perhaps I should invite LW3 to fill in for me. We Drama Queens have to look outn for each other.
But now I come to a question in cross-examination that feels very much like asking Dr Pamela Gorle what happened when she conducted the test for hypostasis on the corpse of her ex-lover's wife. Dear LW3, I am so sorry you were so ill-treated by someone you considered such a good friend. And what happened, LW3, during your time of greatest need, when you asked this dear friend who lived so close to you if he might possibly assist you in coping in some small way with one of your great ordeals?
Now, I say this as someone who, when a close friend was laid up in bed on her back for a week, loaded up with provisions and made about four thirty-mile treks to keep her fed and entertained, which was more than her children did for her. But, believe it or not, there are actually some people on the face of the planet who, although they will go above and beyond the call of duty time and again for someone, actually have to be asked first. I've no clue why. It's one of the great mysteries of life. Doubtless the world would be a better place if everyone it ran around acting at all times exactly the way LW3 thought they ought to act, but, sadly, people are different.
And now a brief word for the Prudecutor. Abominably? That's rather a strong word, is it not? Especially when we don't know that he responded callously when LW3 asked him for assistance? (Or, of course, that LW# even requested aid at all?) If I had to pin the word abominable on anyone, it would be on the one or two female friends in whom LW3 confided (I can affirm on the highest authority that a Drama Queen of such calibre could not possibly keep such a terrible offence to herself) how hurt she was who, instead of calling XF3 and nudging him into making the gesture that LW3 wanted, sat back chuckling to themselves as LW3 wrote XF3 out of her life and they moved up a rung on her Friendship Ladder.
I am reluctant in my comparison. It is not that it strikes me as less apt than usual. It is just that I think it treats LW3 better than she deserves to compare her to Jane Lane. But this is quite like the episode Mart of Darkness. Jane, who has discovered that Gummi Bears make a great glaze when microwaved, has sorted out large quantities for weeks while preparing a masterpiece. When the time comes, she has an empty bowl and Tom has a full mouth. As Daria and Jane scour the megamart in quest of Jane's Gummi Bears and a bootlace for Daria, Daria probes into why Jane is angry with Tom for spoiling her art supplies. Jane hadn't kept them in a particular place or labeled them Art Supplies or even told Tom that that's what they were, yet she still thought that anyone who saw the Gummi Bears sitting in an open bowl in the kitchen should have jumped to the conclusion that they were being readied for the microwave rather than being on offer to all and sundry.
As I can't advise LW3 until I get an answer to my question in cross-examination, I jump to the moral.
Moral: "TOM ATE MY GUMMI BEARS!"
No comments:
Post a Comment