This week's crop is so poor that I cannot justify providing any of the letters with a parallel or a moral.
L1: Why consult the Prudecutor? Mr Savage would have provided LW1 with all the necessary justification and validation for continuing in his current line of conduct. I'm not quite sure why the Prudecutor assumes that W1 "easily" climaxes (assumes facts not in evidence) or why she thinks that anyone content with sex once a month would consider her own climax a boon to her partner. But those are minor points.
How certain is LW1 exactly that his wife would end the marriage over infidelity? There seem to be a number of possible reactions, of which outrage, while valid, is but one. She might resent the expenditure, and tell him to get a mistress instead. She might be quite willing to outsource the majority of his sexual expression. While it's not really kosher to present one's recent behaviour as a future possibility, it may be an option for initiating a discussion, little as I like it.
I am perhaps most interested in the Household Help sideline. If memory serves, one could well recall that, for years, Women in Authority have told Husbands who wonder why they aren't Getting Any that a freshly done and folded load of laundry is the Finest Aphrodisiac in the World. But the Prudecutor now gives this the lie, claiming that LW1's intent in relieving his wife of some of her burden being that it might lead her to be In The Mood more often negates the value of his activities. Somehow, I don't think the Radical Sisterhood of Wives Who Already Know They Aren't Going to Give It Up is going to thank the Prudecutor for showing up their scam.
L2: Why consult the Prudecutor? This one's obvious - LW2 is more successful than the Prudecutor. Any other columnist would likely talk down to him. It might be entertaining to debate the relative nature of Success, but not with someone who so desperately needs to stack the deck.
L3: At least one can see the case for LW3 consulting the Prudecutor (and LW4 as well, once we get there). If I were going to provide a parallel, it might have to do with Fred Couples, who never liked answering the telephone, because somebody might be on the other end. LW3 might not want to speculate too deeply about exactly what is going on in his son's home during the weekly telephone calls. Or, then again, if he's of the creepy variety, perhaps he might. I'm not sure why the Prudecutor thinks S3 should apologize beyond the obligatory Whoopsie for sending something to the wrong person. But it might be enjoyable to cross-examine LW3 on why, if he has such a brilliant relationship with S3, he chose to adorn a message with the worst possible spin and have an instant snit.
L4: And since when, LW4, does someone, even someone celebrating a birthday, merely decide with whom among her intended co-celebrants she intends to adopt the status of guest and inform the lucky recipient of her stay? Here the Prudecutor has actually given an excellent imitation of a stopped clock and gotten one right. The Tudors in particular were fond of a Royal Progress, and why not? They were most economical - potentially ruinous to the lucky hosts, but that was always a secondary concern. As for LW4's actual question, the obvious thing would be to have the boyfriend attend in drag. Anything else is just too boring to contemplate.