Thursday, April 5, 2012

4/5 - One Thing Right

With the leading adulterer in the Western Hemisphere in at level par after one round, I shall vary my usual method and select one thing in each letter that the Prudecutor didn't botch in each letter. Can it be done?

L1: The Prudecutor is more or less right about LW1's state of mind. After months of desolation, he is just about ready to rejoin the living. Everything else is a flight of sheer fantasy almost worthy of defending counsel.

How "odd" a stepfather barely older than herself must have been - unsubstantiated. Possibly DW1 was a Cougar and generally dated in LW1's age range. He seems to have gotten on well with her and doesn't seem particularly fixated on the age difference as a plus, which makes it plausible that other men his age might have gotten on equally well with DW1 before him.

How can the Prudecutor be "sure" this caused much fascination and speculation among SD1's friends? As it was likely she was in college at the time of the marriage or extremely soon afterwards, where does this come from?

Forbidden thoughts? Sounds like somebody's been reading her own diary again. Oh, dear.

Younger variation? Possible, or else that's just framing it in a way destined to produce confirmation bias.

Father-daughter relationship? Highly unlikely. It's one thing to become a step-parent to a child in need of double-parent parenting, but new or very nearly adult stepchildren are quite different.

As far as the relationship might go, it could be a bad thing under certain social circumstances for the original couple - none of which have been submitted into evidence. Yes, it's a higher-risk relationship, and I'd advise both parties waiting for a fair period of time and then deciding whether they wanted to proceed after more sober reflection - if LW1 were seriously interested, which he does not have to be.

L2: The Prudecutor is correct that P2s are lucky LW2 still visits them.

The Clementi suicide is being raised only by those who think the conviction far too harsh on the poor homophobic perpetrator. It is at the least tone-deaf to miss this, at the worst a way of siding with the bullies in secret.

Decency to acknowledge awfulness is one thing, but the Prudecutor has missed that the bullies go into gory detail after gory detail. This is not the conduct of the truly repentant.

Just pulling contact information and lying does nothing to get at the root of the problem. LW2 can send an email issuing a blanket pardon and closing discussion on the topic once and for all. Much more effective.

L3: The Prudecutor is more or less right about work bullies. But her approach is ridiculous. It assumes the presence or coporate hierarchy. Did she miss that the bully is #2 in the workplace? "One of the higher ups"? Only one exists.

This is a hard letter to answer without knowing the ins and outs of the company. It seems plausible that the president and the perpetrator-aka-VP are on reasonably good terms, and one might actually cover for the other. Is punking a common company occupation? If so, then the LW's approach will have to be rather different than in the Prudecutor-envisioned world in which every company runs on Perfect 1984-Style Compliance lines. And there surely is more to be found in VP3's harping on drugs and alcohol. A highly unsatisfactory letter.

L4: The Prudecutor should have stopped after the first sentence. Beyond it, she falls flat on her face. She apparently thinks sex work is a great way for women to level the wage disparity, and of course anything that the Prudecutor thinks must be okay she can't conceive as being considered harmful by anyone else. (If we find out later that this is how she paid off her college loans, we can probably force her to recuse herself - if she's winning the case.) What level of outside intimacy is permissible in a relationship is entirely a matter for the two people therein and not for the Prudecutor or anybody else not sleeping with either of them except perhaps a spiritual advisor if they so deem.

If the Prudecutor really thinks LW4 is such a controlling witch, why not advise an immediate break?

"Apologize" if he lied point-blank? Apology barely begins to cover it. How about - Have a really good defence ready to hand concerning why it ought not be a dealbreaker, either the stripper or the lie?

Lighten up? If there is one sort of person in the world on whom that is the worst possible advice, a bride-to-be is on the short list for that distinction. And strippers at baby showers are all the rage.

The Prudecutor completely misses the weird group dynamic. Why are the transgressing couple still included in group activities?

I advise all the wymyn in this little social circle, except the brothelkeeper, to take an immediate interest  - no, more, to become fascinated by the life, times, conduct and character of Vita Sackville-West. Give the men something to ponder.

Moral: "We all do so wish Charles had married Anne instead; we should all have liked that a great deal better."

No comments:

Post a Comment