Two Brownie Points to anybody who immediately got the point of the title and can guess to which letter it refers.
L2: The obvious solution to any impending situation in which one knows that a particular set of Privileged People will be Practising Privilege (here what might be called Dotage Privilege) is simply Not to Go. One might give the Prudecutor the tiniest bit of Wiggle Room on the question of it being both harmless and gracious to give the old dears permission to ride their fantasy for a bit. She has laid no foundation for the supposition that OD2s actually are imagining any sort of heat radiating from themselves. After all, one might say that she is presumably well past her prime - but there is no good purpose in speculating as to the nature of her private reading matter.
But there is a far better and more important question. There are people bound to ask whether the situation would merit the same response if the readers of some ghastly pornographic book were LW2's father and uncles instead of her mother and aunts. Of course it wouldn't, and there's an excellent reason. Old Women are Officially Past It. Old Men often are not deemed to have lost viability. When, to pull a hypothetical out of thin air, Betty White dating the winner of the Heisman Trophy were to generate no greater scandal than Hugh Hefner marrying a Playboy Bunny of the Year, come back and we'll talk.
L3: I thought the no-brainers were usually saved for L4. When in doubt, contact the recipients and ask. Some might be delighted; some might prefer not; some might opt for vetting. But whatever LW3 does, the worst thing to do would be to add the ridiculously obvious bits of smarm suggested by the Prudecutor, who has demonstrated on many occasions that she is convinced that her faked sentiment will fool the reader as surely as Imperial Margarine will convince Mother Nature it's butter. And we all know it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
L1: Whether XBF1 is a jerk, an abuser, both or neither, some of us will be concerned with the fact that we are, after all, dealing with hearsay evidence. It is one thing to know and understand what might or might not incline one to accept or doubt something told one by a friend, but here we are forced to trust both LW1 and LW1's account of F1. Who wants to be certain on such grounds? How often does one get a detail wrong? I can recall three occasions on which I posted a comment in one forum or another in some detail about something that happened on a television programme, with a majority of the details and the whole spirit right, but with an inaccuracy (for instance, saying that action X took place after both A and B when it was really after A and before B, though the timing was inconsequential to the point). Of course, when the welfare of a child is at stake, Mizz Lizz Probert will be the first to inform any Court in the land that we are not bound by legal quibbles about hearsay - even if that one comes back to bite her in the end.
In defence of F1 (if this really is a Degree of Separation letter, which I'll believe by default), at least she is not duplicating the conduct of Dr Schwyzer's potential partner in procreation, who simply decided (with excellent reason) which of two possible candidates she preferred for the role of Daddy, never informing her preference that she'd had any other encounters and convincing the future doctor to keep the secret. While I understand the temptation to arrange a relationship in such a way, giving oneself all the power to ruin one's partner's life in a moment of anger, it seems almost impossible that being in that relationship with such a lopsided power dynamic must surely have done the relationship harm.
Mainly, though, I wonder how long it will take, given the rush to the declaration that F1 should do all that is humanly possible to make sure that her secret is kept perfectly guarded in perpetuity, for straight men who want nothing to do with potential progeny to start wishing cancer and dead puppies all around. Not to knock the capacity of women to determine veracity, but it seems a plausible consequence.
L4: This was the title reference. Gentle readers may recall that Alice met Humpty Dumpty when she passed into the Sixth Square on her chessboard journey. One might recall that it was Mr Dumpty who persuaded Alice (or made a gallant attempt so to do) of the superiourity to birthday presents of unbirthday presents, due to the extreme superiourity of frequency of days on which they might be received.
As might readily be deduced, H4 has an entire year in which to manifest his delight in providing some less fortunate relation with The Perfect Present. I suppose it is encouraging that some men are as susceptible to the socialization of the obligation of such fanaticism. Some feminists may be pleased with this letter on that account. But his insistence on producing the goods only at Christmas in front of a Full Family Audience guaranteed to be amazed by the spectacle is behaviour to which a great many people would assign an adjective rhyming with, but with the prefix of an extra syllable than, flattery.
And H4's insistence (or the LW's; it's hard to say which) that he just wants to have the freedom to express his love of Christmas has a HUGE smack of the Christianist crowd that just wants to have the freedom to express their love of their version of Christ Jesus by indulging in what they view as his favourite pastime and stoning (or some socially-acceptable-in-Western-civilized-society equivalent, although I suspect most of them would go for stoning if they could) sodomites.
Moral: "When I pay a word, it means what I tell it to mean."
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
12/13 - Pru World Disorder?
With the run-up to Christmas producing its usual quantity of difficulty in ducking the relentless assault of heterocentrism, a brief moment of congratulations to all those newly married this week in Seattle, Mr Savage prominent among them.
This is a brief What is the World Coming to? sort of post.
As far as L1 goes, if the world is the sort of place where the relations of a perpetrator have to take legal advice before making a sanitized expression of sympathy with anything of any real feeling or meaning sucked out of it, the world has already lost. And it might have behooved the Prudecutor to pay some attention to the difference between the LW's loss of an illusion and the bereaved family's loss of someone who, whatever his faults, at least is not known to have committed an active forfeiture of a large portion of merit. Additionally, the obvious solution is to find one of the numerous friends in common to serve as, if not exactly an intermediary, then at least as a sort of sounder out.
L2 is disqualified on technical grounds. The information is insufficient to judge whether OF2 is being swamped on home or neutral ground by BF2. Besides, First World Problems, Inc.
L3 makes me wonder how conservatives get anything done when they don't have blackmail-worthy evidence to hold over people's heads. But I am more saddened by the Prudecutor's more than acquiescence in this horrific system in which one must from the youngest of ages compose a presence that will satisfy the Great Corporate Behemoth about matters which absolutely concern it not.
As for L4, it could be quite possible that a donation would be just the thing to be the ideal present all around, but, not only was the peremptory manner of the Prudecutor's recommendation (more of a command) well off key, the timing is wrong. Just as one does not make the funeral of an uncle the time to make one's polyamourous orientation the main focus, introducing such a style of gift suddenly and as a surprise with such short time for preparation is not the best receipt for success and happiness all around. LW4 would be best advised to pick a low-key time for an introductory donation and all the attendant activities.
I think I'll pass on the moral.
This is a brief What is the World Coming to? sort of post.
As far as L1 goes, if the world is the sort of place where the relations of a perpetrator have to take legal advice before making a sanitized expression of sympathy with anything of any real feeling or meaning sucked out of it, the world has already lost. And it might have behooved the Prudecutor to pay some attention to the difference between the LW's loss of an illusion and the bereaved family's loss of someone who, whatever his faults, at least is not known to have committed an active forfeiture of a large portion of merit. Additionally, the obvious solution is to find one of the numerous friends in common to serve as, if not exactly an intermediary, then at least as a sort of sounder out.
L2 is disqualified on technical grounds. The information is insufficient to judge whether OF2 is being swamped on home or neutral ground by BF2. Besides, First World Problems, Inc.
L3 makes me wonder how conservatives get anything done when they don't have blackmail-worthy evidence to hold over people's heads. But I am more saddened by the Prudecutor's more than acquiescence in this horrific system in which one must from the youngest of ages compose a presence that will satisfy the Great Corporate Behemoth about matters which absolutely concern it not.
As for L4, it could be quite possible that a donation would be just the thing to be the ideal present all around, but, not only was the peremptory manner of the Prudecutor's recommendation (more of a command) well off key, the timing is wrong. Just as one does not make the funeral of an uncle the time to make one's polyamourous orientation the main focus, introducing such a style of gift suddenly and as a surprise with such short time for preparation is not the best receipt for success and happiness all around. LW4 would be best advised to pick a low-key time for an introductory donation and all the attendant activities.
I think I'll pass on the moral.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Prize show?
Was this week the Thick Awards?
LW1 is about as self-aware as Sir Walter Elliot. At least, that was the first thought to spring to mind. It might be quite apt, as one wonders exactly how much indulgence one might have to extend to AW1. We recall well how Lady Elliot had been an excellent woman, sensible and amiable, whose judgment and conduct, if they might be pardoned the youthful indiscretion that made her Lady Elliot, had never required indulgence thereafter.
LW2 and LW4 apparently appear to be competing for the same award. LW2 is in slightly the more sympathetic position. While LW4's concern for the elderly might be exaggerated into something almost touching, it might be a truth universally acknowledged that the difficulty in informing one's partner of an unpleasant aspect of an Otherwise Highly Desirable Body Part decidedly lies in the challenge of making the communication without being consequently denied access to the Otherwise
Highly Desirable Body Part in question. But LW2's selection of the Prudecutor by way of consultant is the less explicable. They both could use a touch of Miss Bates, who could not keep anything to herself for five minutes, or perhaps Mrs Allen, who could never remain entirely silent.
LW3 makes one wonder how OC3 was in any position to be able to make any confidences at all. We do, do we not, have freedom of association. One might think that LW3 could have been capable of choosing whether to have any conversation with OC3 or not, and one might wonder why a LW of any number whatsoever should consent to continual conversation with OC3 or anybody like her. Now granted, as is the case of Emma with Mrs Elton, there are some social menaces who cannot be avoided entirely. However, if one recalls such customers as Mrs Bambi Etheridge, it seems reasonable to suggest that LW3 might have done a better job of ducking contact. Having been the recipient of the dangerous confidence, it's a little late to be out of it now, but things ought not to have reached such a state; LW3 should learn for the future.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
11/22 - For the Reluctant Cardplayer
Some of my favourite Austensplaining:
In the evening it was found, according to the predetermination of Mrs Grant and her sister, that after making up the whist table there would remain sufficient for a round game, and everybody being as perfectly complying and without a choice as on such occasions they always are, speculation was decided on almost as soon as whist; and Lady Bertram soon found herself in the critical situation of being applied to for her own choice between the games, and being required either to draw a card for whist or not. Luckily Sir Thomas was at hand.
"What shall I do, Sir Thomas? Whist and speculation; which will amuse me most?"
Sir Thomas, after a moment's thought, recommended speculation. He was a whist player himself, and perhaps might feel that it would not much amuse him to have her for a partner.
Moral: Bring the relation in question a copy of Mansfield Park.
In the evening it was found, according to the predetermination of Mrs Grant and her sister, that after making up the whist table there would remain sufficient for a round game, and everybody being as perfectly complying and without a choice as on such occasions they always are, speculation was decided on almost as soon as whist; and Lady Bertram soon found herself in the critical situation of being applied to for her own choice between the games, and being required either to draw a card for whist or not. Luckily Sir Thomas was at hand.
"What shall I do, Sir Thomas? Whist and speculation; which will amuse me most?"
Sir Thomas, after a moment's thought, recommended speculation. He was a whist player himself, and perhaps might feel that it would not much amuse him to have her for a partner.
Moral: Bring the relation in question a copy of Mansfield Park.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
11/15 - Quickie on the Recap
Well, to give the Prudecutor her due, at least she didn't pack the court with fawning follow-ups designed to attribute to her an infinite wit and wisdom which she possesses not. It certainly would have been easy to stack the deck; who could have proved it different? So the Unwanted House Guest turned out to be not quite so sinister as she thought.
But one glaring thing sticks out from the Twincest Follow-Up. Our LW mentions in the follow-up how his brother read the column at breakfast and flipped out when he caught on to the personal nature of the subject matter. One must wonder, therefore, why the flying flip the Prudecutor and her editorial council ran the letter without looking into the situation in the first place.
The LW obviously was familiar with the Prudecutor's column, and it stood to reason as highly probable that the twin was as well. As their circle had a reasonable degree of familiarity with them and their lives despite not being in on The Big Secret, it ought not to come as the greatest shock in the world if some of their acquaintance might just happen to be readers of the Prudecutor's column as well. Should such be the case, how possible could it be that any such person would not add up gay twins living together as supposed bachelors and not visibly dating?
As it would not take a team of rocket surgeons to work out the likelihood of discovery, the next thing is to wonder why the Prudecution would run the letter without first checking in with the LW that it would not ruin his life. Now, one could easily claim that there's no obligation to do so. And certainly the Prudecutor's conduct since the letters has been indicative of excessive salivation over the increase in traffic and revenue the letter would bring her way, given its vast superiourity to the legions of dull letters that only made this shine all the brighter. But not to check in first to make sure that both the LW and his brother were okay with the letter being run? Perhaps not necessary, but reasonably described as Heartless.
As for the follow-up itself, the LW comes across as rather the tedious sort, or at least borderline so. I do not blame him for Fitting the Stereotype; some people do, and he at least does not Universalize it the way one sees happening only too often. I just detect a bit of the wrong sort of uberassimilationist strain in the bit about sexual dropping-off being Not Uncommon Among Gay Male Companions and Guess What? Some Straight Couples Too!
Laissez-moi barf.
But one glaring thing sticks out from the Twincest Follow-Up. Our LW mentions in the follow-up how his brother read the column at breakfast and flipped out when he caught on to the personal nature of the subject matter. One must wonder, therefore, why the flying flip the Prudecutor and her editorial council ran the letter without looking into the situation in the first place.
The LW obviously was familiar with the Prudecutor's column, and it stood to reason as highly probable that the twin was as well. As their circle had a reasonable degree of familiarity with them and their lives despite not being in on The Big Secret, it ought not to come as the greatest shock in the world if some of their acquaintance might just happen to be readers of the Prudecutor's column as well. Should such be the case, how possible could it be that any such person would not add up gay twins living together as supposed bachelors and not visibly dating?
As it would not take a team of rocket surgeons to work out the likelihood of discovery, the next thing is to wonder why the Prudecution would run the letter without first checking in with the LW that it would not ruin his life. Now, one could easily claim that there's no obligation to do so. And certainly the Prudecutor's conduct since the letters has been indicative of excessive salivation over the increase in traffic and revenue the letter would bring her way, given its vast superiourity to the legions of dull letters that only made this shine all the brighter. But not to check in first to make sure that both the LW and his brother were okay with the letter being run? Perhaps not necessary, but reasonably described as Heartless.
As for the follow-up itself, the LW comes across as rather the tedious sort, or at least borderline so. I do not blame him for Fitting the Stereotype; some people do, and he at least does not Universalize it the way one sees happening only too often. I just detect a bit of the wrong sort of uberassimilationist strain in the bit about sexual dropping-off being Not Uncommon Among Gay Male Companions and Guess What? Some Straight Couples Too!
Laissez-moi barf.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
11/8 Donning the Deerstalkers Again
Now that things are operational again after the storm...
Well, colour me dizzy from trying to make sense of Tuesday. Why now, of all times? In part, I suppose we can be thankful that the Forces of Evil miscalculated after 2008 and thought they'd be better off rebuilding in 2010, when their incursion into blue states probably could have succeeded. But I have concluded that the answer could well be Spain, the one blatant exception to the glittering example of Scandinavia and near-Scandinavia in the Euro-equality catalogue. If RC Spain can out-equal France (a little like Sonny outscoring Cher on the Awesome Parent Test), then I suppose it isn't surprising that the increased Hispanic vote could have been enough to tip the scale this time around, even if the Grand Declaration of Support didn't move the African-American vote all that materially. Perhaps the truly weird thing is that Minnesota undecideds didn't break in the traditional direction (almost everyone was being at best guarded about Minnesota), but that speculation must wait for another time.
Once again, we have to wonder why a LW chose to consult the Prudecutor this week. And this letter is perhaps even more of a puzzle. The Prudecutor has proved many times over that she knows virtually nothing about gay social circles. Much of her commentariat is in the same boat. This is a vastly less assimilated LW than the BF of the Deeply Closeted Actor of recent past, which raises a number of ideas. If he is deliberately consulting someone who is not the most knowledgeable of the known likely choices to tackle the question, then I shall diagnose an ideological difference with Mr Savage, especially as this doesn't really seem to be one of those questions where a LW's choice of adviser seems designed to result in that LW receiving permission to do what (s)he wanted to do all along. I shall diagnose the LW as a likely Log Cabin Republican rather than a full-on GoProud type. GoProuders are more assimilationist than LCRs.If the LW has less disagreement with Mr Savage over politics than I'm guessing, then their circle is likely to be more singles-oriented or singles-accepting than that of his counselor of choice. Mr Savage appears to socialize in a highly couple-centric environment, where a single person such as the PWA was would perhaps stick out badly. The LW's social circle appears to be flexible, perhaps of the sort with a core group of people who pair and unpair from time to time without materially changing the overall constitution and tenor of the group.
The group dynamic can be vital with certain types of gay men. This is one main reason why I might marvel to such an extent over the choice of someone so out of the loop to consult. It is, perhaps oddly, rather more Sex and the City than Tales of the City. But, even so, there are still things one wonders. Why, for instance, did the subject go so long unraised with the friend? It would seem the sort of thing that a support circle would be quite likely to raise rather early on in the dating cycle. Another point largely missed by the Prudecutor is that everybody else in the group is backing the silent route, which, if this were a straight circle, would definitely suggest that there may well be something of which only LW1 is unaware. But this is less the usual pattern for gay circles than it is for straight ones. It certainly makes one wonder whether the group as a whole is so cavalier in general in the matter of the health of a member's partner. Is this standard operating procedure for the group as a whole? Is PWA1 a first for the assembled company?
Of the possible approaches, LW1 could just up and tell ARBF1 directly, could mention it in passing as if taking it as a given that the Revelation had been made, could hold Standard Blackmailing Conversation #42 with PWA1, could hold a non-confrational conversation with PWA1, could ask individual friends about their chosen course of action or could even call a group meeting. It would really be advisable to know more about the particular dynamics of this particular group before trying to select one from a number of paths. As far as the legal issue is concerned, well, the less LW1 appears to know about that, probably the better all around.
Moral: "Knowledge of the law is generally a bit of a handicap to a barrister."
Well, colour me dizzy from trying to make sense of Tuesday. Why now, of all times? In part, I suppose we can be thankful that the Forces of Evil miscalculated after 2008 and thought they'd be better off rebuilding in 2010, when their incursion into blue states probably could have succeeded. But I have concluded that the answer could well be Spain, the one blatant exception to the glittering example of Scandinavia and near-Scandinavia in the Euro-equality catalogue. If RC Spain can out-equal France (a little like Sonny outscoring Cher on the Awesome Parent Test), then I suppose it isn't surprising that the increased Hispanic vote could have been enough to tip the scale this time around, even if the Grand Declaration of Support didn't move the African-American vote all that materially. Perhaps the truly weird thing is that Minnesota undecideds didn't break in the traditional direction (almost everyone was being at best guarded about Minnesota), but that speculation must wait for another time.
Once again, we have to wonder why a LW chose to consult the Prudecutor this week. And this letter is perhaps even more of a puzzle. The Prudecutor has proved many times over that she knows virtually nothing about gay social circles. Much of her commentariat is in the same boat. This is a vastly less assimilated LW than the BF of the Deeply Closeted Actor of recent past, which raises a number of ideas. If he is deliberately consulting someone who is not the most knowledgeable of the known likely choices to tackle the question, then I shall diagnose an ideological difference with Mr Savage, especially as this doesn't really seem to be one of those questions where a LW's choice of adviser seems designed to result in that LW receiving permission to do what (s)he wanted to do all along. I shall diagnose the LW as a likely Log Cabin Republican rather than a full-on GoProud type. GoProuders are more assimilationist than LCRs.If the LW has less disagreement with Mr Savage over politics than I'm guessing, then their circle is likely to be more singles-oriented or singles-accepting than that of his counselor of choice. Mr Savage appears to socialize in a highly couple-centric environment, where a single person such as the PWA was would perhaps stick out badly. The LW's social circle appears to be flexible, perhaps of the sort with a core group of people who pair and unpair from time to time without materially changing the overall constitution and tenor of the group.
The group dynamic can be vital with certain types of gay men. This is one main reason why I might marvel to such an extent over the choice of someone so out of the loop to consult. It is, perhaps oddly, rather more Sex and the City than Tales of the City. But, even so, there are still things one wonders. Why, for instance, did the subject go so long unraised with the friend? It would seem the sort of thing that a support circle would be quite likely to raise rather early on in the dating cycle. Another point largely missed by the Prudecutor is that everybody else in the group is backing the silent route, which, if this were a straight circle, would definitely suggest that there may well be something of which only LW1 is unaware. But this is less the usual pattern for gay circles than it is for straight ones. It certainly makes one wonder whether the group as a whole is so cavalier in general in the matter of the health of a member's partner. Is this standard operating procedure for the group as a whole? Is PWA1 a first for the assembled company?
Of the possible approaches, LW1 could just up and tell ARBF1 directly, could mention it in passing as if taking it as a given that the Revelation had been made, could hold Standard Blackmailing Conversation #42 with PWA1, could hold a non-confrational conversation with PWA1, could ask individual friends about their chosen course of action or could even call a group meeting. It would really be advisable to know more about the particular dynamics of this particular group before trying to select one from a number of paths. As far as the legal issue is concerned, well, the less LW1 appears to know about that, probably the better all around.
Moral: "Knowledge of the law is generally a bit of a handicap to a barrister."
Thursday, October 25, 2012
10/25 - More Careful Plodding
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)