Things are getting a little strange when the Prudecutor's main column is more same-sexer-related than Mr Savage's.This week, LW1 chooses to consult an outsider. Why? Is it because the problem involves (at least on the fringes) the question of assimilation? Does he want to avoid being given the standard line he might fear receiving from Mr Savage, to DTMFA? Did he read Mr Savage's response to the woman with the pro-life boyfriend advising her to lie and tell him she was pregnant, and immediately lose all faith in non-breeders?
The matter seems to merit inquiry because his choice of the Prudecutor could well hint at his cast of mind, which could have more than the usual influence on how one might want to deal with his question. This could be something to do with the situation. Or it could help fill in the noticeable gaps in the information presented.
[My boyfriend and I have been together just under three years. It was a whirlwind romance and we have a strong, honest, and loving relationship.]
The operative word is "honest". I am really rather sad here that this was L1, as that meant necessarily that one could not read the letter without having seen the headline and knowing the nature of the problem. It would have been interesting to have been able to read the letter without knowing it would necessarily end up concerning the closet, to see what would have seemed the best guess. Whastever difficulty a couple might have, there are at least a dozen problems that coincide better with the relationship in general being described as "honest", even if, as I presume, LW1 merely means that they are honest with each other - which is actually possible.
[We both have fulfilling careers with hectic schedules—I do a lot of traveling overseas. He is now an actor working in Hollywood]
In other words, the couple has spent relatively little time together and must rely a great deal more on trust on a regular basis than those couples who do not spend lengthy periods apart. And what was BF1 doing prior to acting in Hollywood? Was this career turn a bit of a blindsider?
[and he is paranoid about anyone finding out he is gay, even though most people who meet him suspect he is.]
What the flip does that mean, and why on earth does the Prudecutor miss such a nasty remark - or, at least, nasty way of phrasing it? One suspects that Colonel Mustard did it in the billiard room with the lead pipe, or that one's spouse has been having an affair for the past decade.
He's in his mid-20s and still struggling to come to terms with his sexuality. I'm a few years older, and much more comfortable with who I am.]
Okay, so LW1 bagged a hottie. But one might wonder how strong a relationship is likely to be if one of the participants is still struggling to come to terms with his sexuality. In conjunction with his selection of the Prudecutor, this suggests that LW1 may be what we can call by the almost neutral term "discreet". It does raise the question, though, of exactly how open LW1 is in general, and wants to be, which the Prudecutor misses his never really addressing.
[He worries about the amount of hate that can be directed at an openly gay public figure in America, despite all the recent high-profile coming-outs, and I understand his dilemma. He’s concerned that his parts will dry up once directors and producers think of him as a “gay” actor.]
BF1 seems the sort of person who Acts Now and Plans for the Consequences Later. And he seems mighty assured that the parts are going to keep rolling in if he toes the appropriate line, which raises a curious comparison to the religious debate over works-based salvation.
[When we met, he was not working in the entertainment industry and we were not burdened with this.]
Okay, a little hint, but we still don't know how he got started and if he was heading in that particular direction or if Hollywood, as it were, found him. Was LW1 or the editor responsible for this lack of clarity?
[The situation is causing huge friction, as I never meet his friends or anyone he has worked with.]
The Prudecutor omitted to point out that surrounding oneself with entirely straight associates is likely to be considered a significant tell. And this does not seem entirely to gel with LW1's seeming discreet. I begin to suspect (word choice deliberate) a little game going on here of Who's the Man? - and am not in the least surprised that this one would sail so completely over the Prudecutor's head that she wouldn't even notice anything in the vicinity. One can almost give her half a pass, given that she has never been half of an MM couple, but then, given how much Mr Savage has learned to tolerable effect about Women Parts, perhaps not today.
[I stay home or make my own plans when he socializes. I’m not even allowed to friend him on Facebook or any other social media.]
Although not a Facebooker, I'll still ask why anyone would "friend" his spouse. I can give LW1 and BF1 half a pass given the amount of time they spend away from each other. And it's an interesting twist on the Martyred Wife theme.
[We had discussed marriage; but that’s now on hold and I'm doubting whether I should base myself permanently in LA with him as we had planned. I have no desire to play the role of a McCarthy-era secret lover. What should I do?]
Who the flip discusses marriage with somebody who is still coming to terms with his sexuality??? And the Prudecutor missing that one is about as bad as Serena Williams missing a 50-mph serve from Chris Evert.
Now for general points. One remarkable thing about this letter is that it illustrates the difference between seekers asking How Do I... (X) and those asking What Do I Do; LW1 manages to give away remarkably little in the nature of how he has acted and what he wants to do. In this case, it seems almost plausible that LW1 has just gone along with BF1's restrictions without ever having had any sort of conversation about them with the other person involved. There's a radical idea. And instead, here he is asking the Prudecutor, as if, should she have chosen to lecture him about the dangers of open homosexuality and the benefits accruing to those in the closet, he'd have taken her advice to adjust his own attitude with the same application with which he'd have been prepared to DTMFA or Issue an Ultimatum per her recommendation.
And, of course, the Prudecutor completely misses (as does LW1) something quite likely to be pertinent to the discussion. From her response:
[Maybe he’s partying with straight friends and pretending to pick up girls. Maybe he’s on the town cheating on you.]
While the Prudecutor did not finish the second sentence with the phrase, "...with other men," nowhere in her response to a LW whose BF is struggling to come to terms with his sexuality does she explore or even mention the dreaded B word? Being given the large number of people who round their sexual orientation presentation for convenience or some other purpose alone ought to have been sufficient grounds for her to inquire whether BF1 might have a stripe or at least a hint of actual or at least desired bisexuality. That could keep a cross-examiner with a perilous overdraft in refreshers for a few weeks.
There's so little LW there in the letter beyond the not wanting to be a Throwback Guilty Secret that there really doesn't seem to be much more to say at present. Of course LW1 has a legitimate dealbreaker, but one has so little idea of how inclined he is or isn't to use it. Possibly some of the earlier questions would help in that line.