Thursday, August 18, 2011

8/18 - Further HA

Well, at least this week has more promising fare on Thursday, even if there was no Monday.

L1:  This one is fairly easy.  If LW1's husband's parents are supportive, which appears to be the case, all LW1 has to do to close down the background inquiries once and for all is to mention, either in person or through the husband, that LW1's mother was instrumental in getting him sent to a prototype for one of those evangelical camps run by those extremists who, fearing that they have to rely on conversion to keep the number of heterosexuals in this country at a flourishing level, convince otherwise decent parents to entrust impressionable children to them and then try to brainwash those teens into embracing the heterosexual lifestyle.  Any reasonable person hearing such a sad tale will immediately fill in the blanks of quite a marketable little tragedy, and have the delicacy not to inquire further.

L3:  As the office romance seems to be the order of the day, LW3 likely needs to make a harsh and honest assessment of his position.  Is it the sort of post, if there are two people filling it, in which it is an advantage that their be similarity of background, or variation?  If the latter, he might just have to rely on dating a younger man.  Of course, a bit of reverse psychology on the boss might do the trick.  If the boss fears office romances, then all LW3 might need do is to impersonate a chicken hawk.

L4:  LW4 need only tell her in-laws that she doesn't care for Rosie O'Donnell, who is a staple on every kid-friendly cruise on the entire Olivia line.  There are other good reasons for not liking cruises.  Many of them plan stops in countries that do not adhere to strict modern-wave feminist principles, which can be a bit of a shock to the sensibilities.  The private islands, of course, change the concern slightly, but there is surely some philospohical point one can find on which to base a viable objection.  After all, being PC at the expense of personal enjoyment is what LW4 does best.

Now L2:  Well, the Prudecutor has done her best to supply a way to spin the summer for the best.  But she completely misses the point, as so often.  The point is that LW2 thought that she was the sort of person who would not sleep with somebody partnered (barring, perhaps, a clear understanding that the fling was within the parameters of the partnership agreement and had the full acceptance of the potential Wronged Innocent Party, whom the Prudecutor conveniently omits from the equation.  Well, she has now learned something about herself.  It is unfortunate, but at least now she knows that she is the sort of person capable of yielding to temptation.  Accordingly, when she is the partnered one herself, she may be able to guard against her own susceptibilities.  But trying to drown the guilt with such ridiculous posturing as suggested by the Prudecutor (even when the genders are corrected) will only see it come back some day, redoubled.

There is another concern.  LW2 has also slept with a bisexual woman, which might have been not to her liking.  It's all quite correct and proper to support bisexual people and the practice of bisexuality, but it is perfectly acceptable not to want to date people for such a reason.  And the boyfriend might not have entered the picture until before it was too late.  There are a few bisexual people who conceal their opposite-sex activities in an attempt to pass and maintain full homosexual privilege.  There is also the consideration that it is a little unfair to all the poor straight men, for whom there are not many straight women to partner them.  Straight people need all the bisexual partners they can get as they try to keep the number of heterosexuals flourishing.

As my back wants me to retire early, I shall conclude here.

No comments:

Post a Comment