I tried to begin on Monday, but there were just so many letters from admitt... sorry, from open heterosexuals that I just couldn't get into the mood. Give people a few rights and before long they take over the whole place, right? Just kidding. (I think.) There was the LW whose husband cheated with a woman and her circle of friends welcomed him at social events, but that just goes to show how straights are desperately eager to win bisexuals over to their side. They show absolutely no respect for the relationships of others, especially when they can steal men's husbands and advance their own agenda at the same time. At least, the more unpleasant activists among them are like that. On to today, when we have to cope with even more... open straight people:
L1: Now, there are some people who might wonder whether straights even ought to have the right to get married if they are incapable of coping with such time-honoured institutions of an extramarital encounter, especially when it is performed with another couple. But I do not think we ought to be too quick to disparage straight couples when one half or the other of such a couple finds it to be too much with which to cope. After all, straight couples lack the natural advantage of having both partners of the couple being of the same gender. In a same-sex couple, any little issue relating to size will come up at once during the premarital period as soon as the couple is intimate. By the time they are ready to have extramarital affairs, they will be quite clear about any issues one or the other might have about one partner or the other being larger or smaller, and what this might mean about any third or fourth they might acquire for a wee romp.
Even those who are fully accepting of heterosexuality instead of simply tolerant of it can surely accept that LW1 is not the brightest card in the deck. After all, here he is writing after the fact to the Prudecutor, whose reply we could have predicted in almost perfect detail beforehand. What he should have done was apply to Mr Savage before the extramarital adventure. Mr Savage, through tireless sacrifice and great personal distaste, is a greater authority about straight sexuality than 99 straights themselves out of an hundred. He would surely have been able to keep LW1 from falling into the morass that now engulfs him.
As for what LW1 can do now, there is really only one option. And this is a solution that will please almost all readers, too. He must divorce his wife. Clearly he will never be able to cope with her in either a closed or an open marriage. But for his next wife, he should select only a bisexual woman who has never had an actual male partner before (except perhaps one who transitioned after the relationship ended) and is about a good Kinsey 5, so that she will not be strongly tempted to have another man. They can then proceed to have a number of merry encounters with multiple participants in which LW1 himself is the only male. This should please LW1, soon-to-be XW1 who will be free to have better sex with a new husband, and, most importantly, the lesbian who would have married the future BW1 instead of him, and would be spared the heartbreak of her home being wrecked.
L2: Another couple of open heterosexuals. Now here, I must admit, I am sorely tempted to get on my high horse for a bit. What is the point of opening up the sacred institution of marriage to admit straight people if they insist on flouting one of its basic tenets? Everyone knows that marriage comes first and children come second. Now, I shall not be an extreme left-winger on this one. I shall not side with those would take away the children of those straights who are so irresponsible as to breed before they marry. But it is very hard on the good straights, who follow the rules of society in an attempt to assimilate, to perpetuate such a stereotype that it is little wonder that straight rights are voted down - however bigoted such voters may usually be - so often.
Now we come to the more lasting matter of L2, and again, it's tempting. This is the sort of thing that happens when people just insist on reproducing the unscientific way. Who on earth is ever going to be able to prove paternity without tests afterwards? Now, I admit that I have heard of same-sex couples who, choosing to reproduce the proper way with medical and scientific assistance, made the conscious decision not to know which partner's genetic contribution was being used for the act, but that is considerably different from sexual behaviour involving a minimum of three people. LW2 claims she has no wish to hurt FMIL2, although her attitude is clearly not the best. Even the Prudecutor can deduce that much.
What LW2 ought to have done would have been to ask FMIL2 shortly after meeting her who had been F2's biological father. The blue and brown eyes would have given her sufficient cause. Now that it is too late, however, there is only one honourable course of action open to her. She must tell F2 that he is not the baby's natural father. After all, F2 has been able to come to terms with his own presumed father despite the bad family history. It should round things out nicely if he carries a similar misapprehension about the next generation. And the main truth will still hold - that FoF2 and UB2 will have no biological connection.
L3: Now, we are getting somewhere. The Prudecutot gives away the solution to this letter. She supposes that LW3 has heard about X's unsatisfactory work history from an assotment of people who have no particular axe to grind. If one is going to assume facts not in eivdence, then one should at least back them up. There are alternative solutions to the letter depending on the gender of Y.
If Y is male: One wonders first why LW3 might be so willing to have X come to work at the same company. It is not too hard to appreciate that the best motivation for such a desire would be that LW3 wants to become closer acquainted with X. And by getting X a job LW3 would be earning X's appreciation, and appreciation can often be extended into a date or two, sometimes more. If Y is male, then it is quite clear that Y wanted to make a nice XY couple, and invented this tale of X's poor work history (it is highly suspicious that LW3 would have been so oblivious to such a thing) and coerced a few other people into supporting the fiction. But LW3 and X seem jolly well suited. After all, how would LW3 have had the time to hear from so many different sources that X is not a good worker if the promised referral had been submitted in a prompt or even a timely manner? And why has X not already inquired? I suspect that there is a glimmer of truth in Y's story, but nowhere near enough to justify reneging on the referral. LW3 need only add the proviso that X is every bit as competent as is LW3 himself, and let the employer take it from there.
If Y is female: Now it gets even more sinister. Clearly we have a case of the Woman Scorned. Y tried to seduce X, and took her revenge on him by getting him fired. Story Number Forty-Two - the oldest story in the book. That would explain all the other people, many of whom might be quite sincere, coming to LW3 and supporting Y's story.
What LW3 can and should do is to prepare X beforehand by going through a practice interview, posing as the interviewer. It should be easy to ascertain how much of Y's story is correct. I suspect it will be little, and the referral can go through as planned. By the way, the Prudecutor is being a bit short-sighted, is she not, in rejocing in the need for stellar references to get any sort of position? She certainly can't count on the same when she is in search of her next position, can she?
L4: This one is easy. This is what happens when women who divorce their wives insist on keeping the dog because the wives gave it them as a gift. This also happens with men, but less often. As the dog is of the utmost importance, LW4 must reconcile with her wife at once.