One might get used to the new format at Slate over time, but the initial impression is not favourable. It is probably fortunate that time was short today anyway; it suits the questions.
L2: Then: Sow. Now: Reap.
L3: Two words. Word 1: Buh. Word 2: Bye.
L4: Missing the following is a bit much, even for the Prudecutor: "I can't fathom sending my kids to live with people who won’t even spend their time and money being more involved in our children’s lives." LW4's defending barrister must be rather white in the wig. Any counsel of discernment would never let such a witness take the stand.
L1: The short answer is that this is why God in Her wisdom created Reconstructive Surgery.
What the Prudecutor is doing blathering on about genes, which have nothing to do with the case, I don't know - one could not even call it so much of a Rattling Good Yarn as the opening for the Prosecution when that provider of pure historical bilge water, Miss Amelia Nettleship, sued the Daily Beacon for libel. There will be much debate about whether LW1 needs to find some way to forgive her mother or not, and I have an examplar for her to consider when she finds herself torn between the Scylla of loving forgiveness and the Charybdis of further separation. LW1 should consider and perhaps follow the example of Marigold Featherstone.
It so happened that Marigold was away from the Featherstone abode in Knightsbridge when Sir Guthrie, after being savaged by the Court of Appeal for reckless comments when passing sentence in a case in which the conviction was reversed, sought consolation in inebriation at the Sheridan Club. Upon leaving the Sheridan, he chanced upon the Bexley Heath Thespians, led by his old clark Henry from #3 Equity Court. Invited to accompany the Thespians for a bit of a bop and lured to accept by the attraction's of Henry's new typist, Dot Clapton, Guthrie shuffled about the floor for a bit, called Dot Debby, and maundered on about the Appeal Judges.
The next day, Guthrie met the newly elected Claude Erskine Brown and guest at the Sheridan. In order to cheer himself up still further and deflect attention away from the Court of Appeal, he told a tale full of Amourous Intrigue of how many young women - girls, even, prefer the slightly older male as a partner - in every sense of the word, relating how he struck lucky afterwards - in every possible way. Unfortunately, this conversation was earwigged by one Toby Harringay, a habitue of the bridge club frequented by not only Marigold but also She Who Must Be Obeyed, to whom the old earwig related the entire tale before he could recall the name of the lascivious judge involved.
Of course, She wasted no time in relating the treacherous tale to the mortified Marigold, who confronted the groveling Guthrie over breakfast, telling him that Little Miss Whatsit was perfectly welcome to his attentions, such as they were. Did that mean she forgave him? Well, she could hardly do that when he went blabbing about it at the Sheridan Club. Guthrie then thought that Marigold would leave him. But a big No to that also. That would make it far too easy for him.
Marigold, that Thinker Outside the Box, decided that she would stay at home and not forgive him.
Moral: "But, Marigold - I appeal to you!" "I'm sorry, Guthrie; you've lost your appeal."
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
9/22 - A New Guest
To the Regular Readers of This Column:
Please do not be alarmed that Rumpole is not writing this week. Hilda hasn't murdered him - yet. His absence, perhaps due in part to overindulgence in Pommeroy's Ordinary Red, also springs from my having convinced him that it is high time his readership were exposed to a less patriarchal view of the questions he addresses here. Then too, he has permitted Claude Erskine Brown to write here as a guest on more than one occasion. It was not difficult for me to persuade Rumpole that I could perform the task at hand much better than Claude. I suppose Rumpole must have thought that I had far too many more important things to do, what with running the Sisterhood of Radical Lawyers and all that, but what I always say is that, if the personal is political, then the political is personal, and so here I am.
L1: Do you know, LW1, that until the very end of the letter, I thought you were a man? Your unnecessary emphasis on your husband's co-worker being female, when you called her She in the next clause, made it appear that there was an unusual emphasis on her being a woman. My original assumption was therefore that you were a male couple, hence the emphasis. We are, after all, soon to have full marriage for same-sex couples soon (Americans already have such marriages in several states), and most of the couples in civil partnerships I meet when I do Legal Aid work in support of Gay and Lesbian Rights (they really ought to include Bisexuals as well; such exclusion is highly patriarchal and divisive) call their spouses their husband or wife. But then just at the end you mention his sleeping with another woman, and that settles the question.
I am a little surprised that you ask which of the pair to believe. For one thing, even when she commits the unpardonable act of trying to steal your man, another woman is much less likely to be telling you a lie than any man, of course, because patriarchy. I'm sorry that this was how you had to learn that you didn't really have a good marriage after all, but better now than later. After all, as the wisest character in Shirley Valentine (Jane, of course) tells us, All Men Are Potential Rapists (even the Pope). And it is hard to see why you could think that the answer to your question makes any difference. You know he's a cheater and can't be trusted, and it only matters how many times if it will affect your divorce settlement. That might depend on where you got married. To be absolutely honest, which of course I am, being a woman, I don't think I've done a divorce since Singleton v Singleton. If you had consulted me before you'd married, I'd have advised you to make him sign a prenuptial agreement giving you 90% of his assets if you ever split up. I should not advise any woman to marry a man without getting him to sign such an agreement. There are people who say it's not romantic, but they're just misogynists. Why shouldn't a man sign it? After all, as long as he remains faithful and doesn't give his more deserving wife any reason to want to divorce him, it won't cost him a penny. And if he refuses to sign, it's proof positive that he's already thinking of cheating, and who wants to marry that?
L2: Now, Rumpole tells me that he often makes literary references in his answers, and this letter makes me think of Oscar Wilde, who, even though he was a man, wrote some clever things. Rumpole, of course, being just a teensy bit homophobic, like almost all heterosexual men, does not often quote Oscar Wilde, but at least it makes it go down easier to be quoting a man at all. Wilde once said that there are only two trageides in life, not getting what you want, and getting it.
LW2, you appear to have gotten what you want. You say you have always appreciated your friend's directness and pragmatism. And here she has just given you a remarkable example of the qualities you so appreciate about her. I agree that it is possible for such a gesture to be intended badly and to be hurtful, but don't think that's the case here - after all, it's not as though it were a man not inviting your father to a wedding, or your mother not being invited. And men don't really appreciate weddings, anyway. In my opinion, most weddings would be far better off without them. I'm sure it's not as if your father would want to go, if he were alive, that is.
You say your friend is direct and pragmatic. Well, what can be more direct and pragmatic than this? You and your mother can't possibly object unless she would have RSVP'd that both your parents would attend, when clearly that isn't going to be the case. Your father would have to go on the list of those planning to att end, which means that your friend would have had to include him in her seating plans, and that, in case you never happen to have gotten married, can be an absolute nightmare. So many women, who, after all, are often marrying mere men, need the consolation of having nice, even numbers at all the tables, and a guest who accepts an invitation only to die before the event is a major headache. And as long as your father is on the list, then your friend can't decently invite someone who would make a nice couple with your mother once she's a widow. And that would not feel quite nice if your friend were penciling in a replacement guest. It's just not at all the same thing.
Yes, your friend ought to have apologized for hurting your and your mother's feelings. But you made a mistake confronting a bride-to-be over the telephone. One never knows what madness might be engulfing her during the call. Correct procedure is to take her to lunch and then take her to task when she's far removed from disturbing influences and can give you her proper attention. Of course, if you really want to end the friendship, then it would be silly to try to stop you. But the Prudecutor, as Rumpole calls her, frequently advises people to give a bride the benefit of the doubt in questionable cases, and I have worked with Rumpole long enough to find it suspicious that she considers this to be a clear case of a friendship-ending insult? Don't burn your bridges, LW2, because after a long dose of burying your head in the sand next to your mother's, you'll probably be in the mood for some of your friend's direct pragmatism before too much longer.
L3: Your parents (who appear to have acquired their fiscal brains from Sir Walter Elliot) have just provided you with a classic example of Ageism. They are bad people. They denied you your agency in choice of university and then turned around and billed you after cheating you out of the opportunity to take the bill into account in agreeing to attend the uni you did when a poly probably would have done just as well. They probably dislike your choice of career, although good for you for going into public service. Now, once again, they are attempting to deny you your agency in trying to force you to travel with them and pay a ruinous amount in expences. Cut them out of your life once and for all. You are far better off without ageists of this ilk around you.
L4: And we finish by going from Ageism to Ableism. You ought to check your privilege, LW4, and be aware that the T in TAB and TAM stands for Temporarily. But sadly, prejudice and discrimination against the non-TAB and non-TAM have been on the increase. Why, in the States, I've heard that there are people who are actually trying to establish that the Presidency and other major political offices not be open to those who are non-TAB or non-TAM. Perhaps they realize that they can hardly be trusted to choose such office holders in open elections, but I don't know why the idea should scare them. After all, we've been quite content with non-TAB and non-TAM elected officials at the highest levels for ages, and it hasn't done us irreparable harm.
However, a woman has the right not to be bothered by a man in her own home. This is something that your non-TAM neighbour can appreciate to at least a partial degree if he is able to be out and about by himself without supervision. (Perhaps he ought to be supervised at all times, but it does not appear from L4 that this is the case.) It probably behooves you to involve his mother in establishing a comfortable relationship - after all, as All Men Are Potential Rapists (see LW1), it should entirely be the woman's prerogative to select the degree of acquaintance with which she is comfortable.
Well, all, I hope that this was a satisfacotry first attemtp. I may appear again in future, when I hope I shall have more time, instead of having to rush to a meeting about Claude Erskine Brown. You'd think that by now he wouldn't be given any more female pupils...
L. Probert, S.R.L.
Please do not be alarmed that Rumpole is not writing this week. Hilda hasn't murdered him - yet. His absence, perhaps due in part to overindulgence in Pommeroy's Ordinary Red, also springs from my having convinced him that it is high time his readership were exposed to a less patriarchal view of the questions he addresses here. Then too, he has permitted Claude Erskine Brown to write here as a guest on more than one occasion. It was not difficult for me to persuade Rumpole that I could perform the task at hand much better than Claude. I suppose Rumpole must have thought that I had far too many more important things to do, what with running the Sisterhood of Radical Lawyers and all that, but what I always say is that, if the personal is political, then the political is personal, and so here I am.
L1: Do you know, LW1, that until the very end of the letter, I thought you were a man? Your unnecessary emphasis on your husband's co-worker being female, when you called her She in the next clause, made it appear that there was an unusual emphasis on her being a woman. My original assumption was therefore that you were a male couple, hence the emphasis. We are, after all, soon to have full marriage for same-sex couples soon (Americans already have such marriages in several states), and most of the couples in civil partnerships I meet when I do Legal Aid work in support of Gay and Lesbian Rights (they really ought to include Bisexuals as well; such exclusion is highly patriarchal and divisive) call their spouses their husband or wife. But then just at the end you mention his sleeping with another woman, and that settles the question.
I am a little surprised that you ask which of the pair to believe. For one thing, even when she commits the unpardonable act of trying to steal your man, another woman is much less likely to be telling you a lie than any man, of course, because patriarchy. I'm sorry that this was how you had to learn that you didn't really have a good marriage after all, but better now than later. After all, as the wisest character in Shirley Valentine (Jane, of course) tells us, All Men Are Potential Rapists (even the Pope). And it is hard to see why you could think that the answer to your question makes any difference. You know he's a cheater and can't be trusted, and it only matters how many times if it will affect your divorce settlement. That might depend on where you got married. To be absolutely honest, which of course I am, being a woman, I don't think I've done a divorce since Singleton v Singleton. If you had consulted me before you'd married, I'd have advised you to make him sign a prenuptial agreement giving you 90% of his assets if you ever split up. I should not advise any woman to marry a man without getting him to sign such an agreement. There are people who say it's not romantic, but they're just misogynists. Why shouldn't a man sign it? After all, as long as he remains faithful and doesn't give his more deserving wife any reason to want to divorce him, it won't cost him a penny. And if he refuses to sign, it's proof positive that he's already thinking of cheating, and who wants to marry that?
L2: Now, Rumpole tells me that he often makes literary references in his answers, and this letter makes me think of Oscar Wilde, who, even though he was a man, wrote some clever things. Rumpole, of course, being just a teensy bit homophobic, like almost all heterosexual men, does not often quote Oscar Wilde, but at least it makes it go down easier to be quoting a man at all. Wilde once said that there are only two trageides in life, not getting what you want, and getting it.
LW2, you appear to have gotten what you want. You say you have always appreciated your friend's directness and pragmatism. And here she has just given you a remarkable example of the qualities you so appreciate about her. I agree that it is possible for such a gesture to be intended badly and to be hurtful, but don't think that's the case here - after all, it's not as though it were a man not inviting your father to a wedding, or your mother not being invited. And men don't really appreciate weddings, anyway. In my opinion, most weddings would be far better off without them. I'm sure it's not as if your father would want to go, if he were alive, that is.
You say your friend is direct and pragmatic. Well, what can be more direct and pragmatic than this? You and your mother can't possibly object unless she would have RSVP'd that both your parents would attend, when clearly that isn't going to be the case. Your father would have to go on the list of those planning to att end, which means that your friend would have had to include him in her seating plans, and that, in case you never happen to have gotten married, can be an absolute nightmare. So many women, who, after all, are often marrying mere men, need the consolation of having nice, even numbers at all the tables, and a guest who accepts an invitation only to die before the event is a major headache. And as long as your father is on the list, then your friend can't decently invite someone who would make a nice couple with your mother once she's a widow. And that would not feel quite nice if your friend were penciling in a replacement guest. It's just not at all the same thing.
Yes, your friend ought to have apologized for hurting your and your mother's feelings. But you made a mistake confronting a bride-to-be over the telephone. One never knows what madness might be engulfing her during the call. Correct procedure is to take her to lunch and then take her to task when she's far removed from disturbing influences and can give you her proper attention. Of course, if you really want to end the friendship, then it would be silly to try to stop you. But the Prudecutor, as Rumpole calls her, frequently advises people to give a bride the benefit of the doubt in questionable cases, and I have worked with Rumpole long enough to find it suspicious that she considers this to be a clear case of a friendship-ending insult? Don't burn your bridges, LW2, because after a long dose of burying your head in the sand next to your mother's, you'll probably be in the mood for some of your friend's direct pragmatism before too much longer.
L3: Your parents (who appear to have acquired their fiscal brains from Sir Walter Elliot) have just provided you with a classic example of Ageism. They are bad people. They denied you your agency in choice of university and then turned around and billed you after cheating you out of the opportunity to take the bill into account in agreeing to attend the uni you did when a poly probably would have done just as well. They probably dislike your choice of career, although good for you for going into public service. Now, once again, they are attempting to deny you your agency in trying to force you to travel with them and pay a ruinous amount in expences. Cut them out of your life once and for all. You are far better off without ageists of this ilk around you.
L4: And we finish by going from Ageism to Ableism. You ought to check your privilege, LW4, and be aware that the T in TAB and TAM stands for Temporarily. But sadly, prejudice and discrimination against the non-TAB and non-TAM have been on the increase. Why, in the States, I've heard that there are people who are actually trying to establish that the Presidency and other major political offices not be open to those who are non-TAB or non-TAM. Perhaps they realize that they can hardly be trusted to choose such office holders in open elections, but I don't know why the idea should scare them. After all, we've been quite content with non-TAB and non-TAM elected officials at the highest levels for ages, and it hasn't done us irreparable harm.
However, a woman has the right not to be bothered by a man in her own home. This is something that your non-TAM neighbour can appreciate to at least a partial degree if he is able to be out and about by himself without supervision. (Perhaps he ought to be supervised at all times, but it does not appear from L4 that this is the case.) It probably behooves you to involve his mother in establishing a comfortable relationship - after all, as All Men Are Potential Rapists (see LW1), it should entirely be the woman's prerogative to select the degree of acquaintance with which she is comfortable.
Well, all, I hope that this was a satisfacotry first attemtp. I may appear again in future, when I hope I shall have more time, instead of having to rush to a meeting about Claude Erskine Brown. You'd think that by now he wouldn't be given any more female pupils...
L. Probert, S.R.L.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
9/15 - A Gradual Return
With service finally restored after the not-all-that-recent hurricane, I shall resume with a short post today, including doing the format backwards and poking at Monday after the Thursday letters, which shall all be Quick Takes.
L1: The obvious person/people to cross-examine is/are MIL1's diagnosing doctor/s. LW1 seems to be making enough leaps of presumptive dislike to convince a Jury to find MIL1 Not Guilty because of LW1's overreaching. Did the doctor(s) make it abundantly clear that this was information to which other family members potentially at risk of procreation NEEDED (in capital letters) to have? Then again, this might only be useful in reducing LW1's anger. From a practical point of view, LW1 needs to decide what to do now. That her problem is largely that her husband isn't angry enough for her is telling. His mother faces a gruesome death, he has about an even shot of the same fate, and yet he's supposed to Yes, Dear his wife's rage and fury. I suspect that nothing short of his going over and murdering MIL1 in person would satisfy LW1, who is overplaying justifiable anger (although, when her son is tricked into parenting, perhaps she will extend to him the same sympathy she now seeks).
My advice to LW1, since her husband apparently does not intend to do him mother the kindness of sparing her from a gruesome death by murdering her himself, is to do so. As stated, it will be doing MIL1 a kindness to spare her such an end, and doing a kindness to those who have wronged us is one way to acquire an incredibly high level of self-satisfaction. Additionally, it would have the benefit of ending a doomed marriage (it would give me SUCH satisfaction if LW1 were the same woman who complained on Monday that her husband wasn't having an appropriate response to the 9/11 anniversary). However, most important of all, LW1 murdering MIL1 would eventually provide employment for one of the more deserving members of the legal profession, who might at the time be very much in want of a case that will provide him the opportunity to show off his masterful courtroom skills by securing an Acquittal (not to mention the much needed Daily Refreshers).
L2: I long to cross-examine W2 about exactly how many outside trysts she enjoyed before the engagement, or if indeed the couple were even exclusive. I advocate (and selflessly, in this instance, as I rarely do divorces, not having much innate fondness for the Family Division) immediate separation from this gaslighting spouse. And, with a conscience like his/hers (after all, there is absolutely no gender specification in L2), LW2 would be of the utmost service to us all in a profession where such a conscience is desperately needed - politics. LW2 should run for Congress immediately. This will have the side benefit of being the one thing that ought to, if anything will, flush PMF2 out of the woodwork. If PMF2 does not emerge while LW2 is running for office, he can remarry with hardly any fear of being exposed.
L3: When did you ever know what you wanted to do with your life, LW3? It appears that all you ever wanted was to please your parents with an endless pile of accomplishments that was never big enough for them. You have two choices. The first choice is to realize that a First in Law never made anyone a better cross-examiner, nor did a Fourth prevent one from excellence in the field, and draw the appropriate lesson. The second would be to give your parents what they most deserve in the world and indulge in suicide. Which course holds more appeal (no bets here)?
L4: You could always reply that you'd hoped you'd wiped your predecessor from the memories of your complimenters by your superiour performance. Or you could eliminate the compliments by impersonating her inferiour performance.
Now for Monday and a pair of letters. First, in the case of the BISEXUAL ex-boyfriend newly engaged to a sweet little Bible-blogger, it is incredibly tempting to suggest that SLBB not only deserves what she gets but also in all probability already knows exactly what she's getting, and that any interference will only serve to strengthen SLBB's determination to marry him, deliver him from his perceived deviance and in so doing prove her superiour womanhood in relation to that of her ungodly predecessor. But I am displeased with the LW over the incorrect use of mutual, too displeased to ask the obvious question: How on earth does the common friend know what the ex is doing (unless, of course, CF is the famed stereotypical Gay Best Friend, so beloved of television and film writers, who can give the most firsthand of testimony)? I smell Danish.
Then we have the LW bride suffering at the hand of Familial Guestzillas. LW, if you have the good taste to select a lesbian as your attendant, it seems hardly likely that you really want the bigots at the wedding in the first place. With or without advance warning that this will be done, simply remove anyone who objects to the selection of the wedding party or the composition of the guest list from that list. It's not that hard.
L1: The obvious person/people to cross-examine is/are MIL1's diagnosing doctor/s. LW1 seems to be making enough leaps of presumptive dislike to convince a Jury to find MIL1 Not Guilty because of LW1's overreaching. Did the doctor(s) make it abundantly clear that this was information to which other family members potentially at risk of procreation NEEDED (in capital letters) to have? Then again, this might only be useful in reducing LW1's anger. From a practical point of view, LW1 needs to decide what to do now. That her problem is largely that her husband isn't angry enough for her is telling. His mother faces a gruesome death, he has about an even shot of the same fate, and yet he's supposed to Yes, Dear his wife's rage and fury. I suspect that nothing short of his going over and murdering MIL1 in person would satisfy LW1, who is overplaying justifiable anger (although, when her son is tricked into parenting, perhaps she will extend to him the same sympathy she now seeks).
My advice to LW1, since her husband apparently does not intend to do him mother the kindness of sparing her from a gruesome death by murdering her himself, is to do so. As stated, it will be doing MIL1 a kindness to spare her such an end, and doing a kindness to those who have wronged us is one way to acquire an incredibly high level of self-satisfaction. Additionally, it would have the benefit of ending a doomed marriage (it would give me SUCH satisfaction if LW1 were the same woman who complained on Monday that her husband wasn't having an appropriate response to the 9/11 anniversary). However, most important of all, LW1 murdering MIL1 would eventually provide employment for one of the more deserving members of the legal profession, who might at the time be very much in want of a case that will provide him the opportunity to show off his masterful courtroom skills by securing an Acquittal (not to mention the much needed Daily Refreshers).
L2: I long to cross-examine W2 about exactly how many outside trysts she enjoyed before the engagement, or if indeed the couple were even exclusive. I advocate (and selflessly, in this instance, as I rarely do divorces, not having much innate fondness for the Family Division) immediate separation from this gaslighting spouse. And, with a conscience like his/hers (after all, there is absolutely no gender specification in L2), LW2 would be of the utmost service to us all in a profession where such a conscience is desperately needed - politics. LW2 should run for Congress immediately. This will have the side benefit of being the one thing that ought to, if anything will, flush PMF2 out of the woodwork. If PMF2 does not emerge while LW2 is running for office, he can remarry with hardly any fear of being exposed.
L3: When did you ever know what you wanted to do with your life, LW3? It appears that all you ever wanted was to please your parents with an endless pile of accomplishments that was never big enough for them. You have two choices. The first choice is to realize that a First in Law never made anyone a better cross-examiner, nor did a Fourth prevent one from excellence in the field, and draw the appropriate lesson. The second would be to give your parents what they most deserve in the world and indulge in suicide. Which course holds more appeal (no bets here)?
L4: You could always reply that you'd hoped you'd wiped your predecessor from the memories of your complimenters by your superiour performance. Or you could eliminate the compliments by impersonating her inferiour performance.
Now for Monday and a pair of letters. First, in the case of the BISEXUAL ex-boyfriend newly engaged to a sweet little Bible-blogger, it is incredibly tempting to suggest that SLBB not only deserves what she gets but also in all probability already knows exactly what she's getting, and that any interference will only serve to strengthen SLBB's determination to marry him, deliver him from his perceived deviance and in so doing prove her superiour womanhood in relation to that of her ungodly predecessor. But I am displeased with the LW over the incorrect use of mutual, too displeased to ask the obvious question: How on earth does the common friend know what the ex is doing (unless, of course, CF is the famed stereotypical Gay Best Friend, so beloved of television and film writers, who can give the most firsthand of testimony)? I smell Danish.
Then we have the LW bride suffering at the hand of Familial Guestzillas. LW, if you have the good taste to select a lesbian as your attendant, it seems hardly likely that you really want the bigots at the wedding in the first place. With or without advance warning that this will be done, simply remove anyone who objects to the selection of the wedding party or the composition of the guest list from that list. It's not that hard.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
8/25 - HA Concluding
Due to time constraints and a bad back, this will be fairly short, but we'll get right to it.
L1: Dear LW1, the solution to your dilemma depends largely on the size of your wife. If your wife if a large woman, you can instance her desire, consciously expressed or not, for you to gain weight so that the two of you can be bookends, a popular look among many couples. If your wife is petite, you can express to your sister how much you envy her freedom to eat as she pleases and not to have to work out more than she chooses. Even if your wife is exactly your size, if she has femme tendencies, you can envy that your sister is more butch than you are, or vice versa. The idea is that there is sure to be some way to make it appear to your sister that you think her grass is greener than yours. That should be enough to quell this outbreak of rivalry.
L2: It was very noble of you, LW2, to become pregnant at 17 in order to bear a child for a male couple. Naturally, assuming your nobility received the lauds it deserved from your friends and relations, your sister might resent this. By the way, if you later reveal that you were both up for the role of Womb For Rent and you were chosen over her, then you are guilty of Lying By Omission. There is also the possibility that your sister feared you might be turning straight. It is one thing for people to accept and even approve of heterosexuality in others at a safe distance, but not everyone is comfortable with it in her own home. And it must be particularly difficult for a twin, who might have had a crisis of questioning her own sexuality. We well recall the recent scientific studies showing that identical twins in particular are far more likely to have identical sexual orientations than fraternal twins or other siblings. It's quite natural that her searching her soul for latent signs of heterosexuality might have contributed to her general unpleasantness. As for what to do about it now, I'd suggest matchmaking. It means you will come in for some unpleasantness should things turn sour, but her seeing the situation as being chosen in preference to you will do much to heal a bruised ego.
L3: Now this one is fairly easy, LW3. Your boyfriend's twin is an Angry Breeder Type. In fact, does he actually use the term Breeder when self-presents, in order to reclaim the slur? Whether he does or not, it seems clear that he resents the superiour attention and approval lavished on your boyfriend for having the "right" sort of relationship. And with cause, LW3, with cause. Unpack your privilege, please, and you will see that it must be particularly galling to those of the straight persuasion if everything they do never measures up to the lesser accomplishments of a gay sibling. Not that your boyfriend is necessarily less acoomplished than his twin, but it is common. Those straights who feel how society judges them often go through a stage of acquiring extra accomplishments with the idea that people will view those as a sort of compensation. It rarely works that way.
The Prudecutor actually almost gets this one right. She notes that most people don't have delightful relationships with each and every member of a spouse's family. And that this one particular family member makes you rethink the question of marriage makes me wonder. Are you sure there's not a little element of heterophobia at the root of your reluctance? Yes, it's unpleasant to be around people who don't try to get along, but they do have some decent cause for being antisocial, even if insufficient cause for so much action as the Angry Breeder Type often takes. Using the F word was highly inappropriate, but it is not fair to pretend that a member of an oppressed minority using the F word is every bit as bad as a member of the oppressive majority using the B word to hurt and wound. Given how society raises "normal" people to think of straights as just a little less than ourselves, it's quite understandable if you've absorbed a few of these messages and aren't comfortable yet with having a straight person so close in your husband's family tree. Maybe a little visit to PFFS is in order for your 101 work, a role that Parents, Friends and Families of Straights has done to general admiration for some time.
L4: It is admirable to want to jump in and advocate for your mother-in-law, but please tone down your White Knight inclinations. You presumably don't really know anywhere near so much as your husband's family does about straightness and how your mother-in-law's mental health might have been impacted by negative life experiences related to her open heterosexuality. Not all legally married opposite-sex couples have found everyone to be accepting of them. It is admirable of you to want to change that, as you doubtless do, and you quite naturally might feel that her family's treatment of her is not right or proper. But you are not the expert here. Her family are the experts on how to help her get through her life. There are few things more annoying to members of a minority than some well-meaning do-gooder riding in on the High Horse of Privilege claiming, without any knowledge of the particulars of the case, to hold the key to Enlightenment.
L1: Dear LW1, the solution to your dilemma depends largely on the size of your wife. If your wife if a large woman, you can instance her desire, consciously expressed or not, for you to gain weight so that the two of you can be bookends, a popular look among many couples. If your wife is petite, you can express to your sister how much you envy her freedom to eat as she pleases and not to have to work out more than she chooses. Even if your wife is exactly your size, if she has femme tendencies, you can envy that your sister is more butch than you are, or vice versa. The idea is that there is sure to be some way to make it appear to your sister that you think her grass is greener than yours. That should be enough to quell this outbreak of rivalry.
L2: It was very noble of you, LW2, to become pregnant at 17 in order to bear a child for a male couple. Naturally, assuming your nobility received the lauds it deserved from your friends and relations, your sister might resent this. By the way, if you later reveal that you were both up for the role of Womb For Rent and you were chosen over her, then you are guilty of Lying By Omission. There is also the possibility that your sister feared you might be turning straight. It is one thing for people to accept and even approve of heterosexuality in others at a safe distance, but not everyone is comfortable with it in her own home. And it must be particularly difficult for a twin, who might have had a crisis of questioning her own sexuality. We well recall the recent scientific studies showing that identical twins in particular are far more likely to have identical sexual orientations than fraternal twins or other siblings. It's quite natural that her searching her soul for latent signs of heterosexuality might have contributed to her general unpleasantness. As for what to do about it now, I'd suggest matchmaking. It means you will come in for some unpleasantness should things turn sour, but her seeing the situation as being chosen in preference to you will do much to heal a bruised ego.
L3: Now this one is fairly easy, LW3. Your boyfriend's twin is an Angry Breeder Type. In fact, does he actually use the term Breeder when self-presents, in order to reclaim the slur? Whether he does or not, it seems clear that he resents the superiour attention and approval lavished on your boyfriend for having the "right" sort of relationship. And with cause, LW3, with cause. Unpack your privilege, please, and you will see that it must be particularly galling to those of the straight persuasion if everything they do never measures up to the lesser accomplishments of a gay sibling. Not that your boyfriend is necessarily less acoomplished than his twin, but it is common. Those straights who feel how society judges them often go through a stage of acquiring extra accomplishments with the idea that people will view those as a sort of compensation. It rarely works that way.
The Prudecutor actually almost gets this one right. She notes that most people don't have delightful relationships with each and every member of a spouse's family. And that this one particular family member makes you rethink the question of marriage makes me wonder. Are you sure there's not a little element of heterophobia at the root of your reluctance? Yes, it's unpleasant to be around people who don't try to get along, but they do have some decent cause for being antisocial, even if insufficient cause for so much action as the Angry Breeder Type often takes. Using the F word was highly inappropriate, but it is not fair to pretend that a member of an oppressed minority using the F word is every bit as bad as a member of the oppressive majority using the B word to hurt and wound. Given how society raises "normal" people to think of straights as just a little less than ourselves, it's quite understandable if you've absorbed a few of these messages and aren't comfortable yet with having a straight person so close in your husband's family tree. Maybe a little visit to PFFS is in order for your 101 work, a role that Parents, Friends and Families of Straights has done to general admiration for some time.
L4: It is admirable to want to jump in and advocate for your mother-in-law, but please tone down your White Knight inclinations. You presumably don't really know anywhere near so much as your husband's family does about straightness and how your mother-in-law's mental health might have been impacted by negative life experiences related to her open heterosexuality. Not all legally married opposite-sex couples have found everyone to be accepting of them. It is admirable of you to want to change that, as you doubtless do, and you quite naturally might feel that her family's treatment of her is not right or proper. But you are not the expert here. Her family are the experts on how to help her get through her life. There are few things more annoying to members of a minority than some well-meaning do-gooder riding in on the High Horse of Privilege claiming, without any knowledge of the particulars of the case, to hold the key to Enlightenment.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
8/18 - Further HA
Well, at least this week has more promising fare on Thursday, even if there was no Monday.
L1: This one is fairly easy. If LW1's husband's parents are supportive, which appears to be the case, all LW1 has to do to close down the background inquiries once and for all is to mention, either in person or through the husband, that LW1's mother was instrumental in getting him sent to a prototype for one of those evangelical camps run by those extremists who, fearing that they have to rely on conversion to keep the number of heterosexuals in this country at a flourishing level, convince otherwise decent parents to entrust impressionable children to them and then try to brainwash those teens into embracing the heterosexual lifestyle. Any reasonable person hearing such a sad tale will immediately fill in the blanks of quite a marketable little tragedy, and have the delicacy not to inquire further.
L3: As the office romance seems to be the order of the day, LW3 likely needs to make a harsh and honest assessment of his position. Is it the sort of post, if there are two people filling it, in which it is an advantage that their be similarity of background, or variation? If the latter, he might just have to rely on dating a younger man. Of course, a bit of reverse psychology on the boss might do the trick. If the boss fears office romances, then all LW3 might need do is to impersonate a chicken hawk.
L4: LW4 need only tell her in-laws that she doesn't care for Rosie O'Donnell, who is a staple on every kid-friendly cruise on the entire Olivia line. There are other good reasons for not liking cruises. Many of them plan stops in countries that do not adhere to strict modern-wave feminist principles, which can be a bit of a shock to the sensibilities. The private islands, of course, change the concern slightly, but there is surely some philospohical point one can find on which to base a viable objection. After all, being PC at the expense of personal enjoyment is what LW4 does best.
Now L2: Well, the Prudecutor has done her best to supply a way to spin the summer for the best. But she completely misses the point, as so often. The point is that LW2 thought that she was the sort of person who would not sleep with somebody partnered (barring, perhaps, a clear understanding that the fling was within the parameters of the partnership agreement and had the full acceptance of the potential Wronged Innocent Party, whom the Prudecutor conveniently omits from the equation. Well, she has now learned something about herself. It is unfortunate, but at least now she knows that she is the sort of person capable of yielding to temptation. Accordingly, when she is the partnered one herself, she may be able to guard against her own susceptibilities. But trying to drown the guilt with such ridiculous posturing as suggested by the Prudecutor (even when the genders are corrected) will only see it come back some day, redoubled.
There is another concern. LW2 has also slept with a bisexual woman, which might have been not to her liking. It's all quite correct and proper to support bisexual people and the practice of bisexuality, but it is perfectly acceptable not to want to date people for such a reason. And the boyfriend might not have entered the picture until before it was too late. There are a few bisexual people who conceal their opposite-sex activities in an attempt to pass and maintain full homosexual privilege. There is also the consideration that it is a little unfair to all the poor straight men, for whom there are not many straight women to partner them. Straight people need all the bisexual partners they can get as they try to keep the number of heterosexuals flourishing.
As my back wants me to retire early, I shall conclude here.
L1: This one is fairly easy. If LW1's husband's parents are supportive, which appears to be the case, all LW1 has to do to close down the background inquiries once and for all is to mention, either in person or through the husband, that LW1's mother was instrumental in getting him sent to a prototype for one of those evangelical camps run by those extremists who, fearing that they have to rely on conversion to keep the number of heterosexuals in this country at a flourishing level, convince otherwise decent parents to entrust impressionable children to them and then try to brainwash those teens into embracing the heterosexual lifestyle. Any reasonable person hearing such a sad tale will immediately fill in the blanks of quite a marketable little tragedy, and have the delicacy not to inquire further.
L3: As the office romance seems to be the order of the day, LW3 likely needs to make a harsh and honest assessment of his position. Is it the sort of post, if there are two people filling it, in which it is an advantage that their be similarity of background, or variation? If the latter, he might just have to rely on dating a younger man. Of course, a bit of reverse psychology on the boss might do the trick. If the boss fears office romances, then all LW3 might need do is to impersonate a chicken hawk.
L4: LW4 need only tell her in-laws that she doesn't care for Rosie O'Donnell, who is a staple on every kid-friendly cruise on the entire Olivia line. There are other good reasons for not liking cruises. Many of them plan stops in countries that do not adhere to strict modern-wave feminist principles, which can be a bit of a shock to the sensibilities. The private islands, of course, change the concern slightly, but there is surely some philospohical point one can find on which to base a viable objection. After all, being PC at the expense of personal enjoyment is what LW4 does best.
Now L2: Well, the Prudecutor has done her best to supply a way to spin the summer for the best. But she completely misses the point, as so often. The point is that LW2 thought that she was the sort of person who would not sleep with somebody partnered (barring, perhaps, a clear understanding that the fling was within the parameters of the partnership agreement and had the full acceptance of the potential Wronged Innocent Party, whom the Prudecutor conveniently omits from the equation. Well, she has now learned something about herself. It is unfortunate, but at least now she knows that she is the sort of person capable of yielding to temptation. Accordingly, when she is the partnered one herself, she may be able to guard against her own susceptibilities. But trying to drown the guilt with such ridiculous posturing as suggested by the Prudecutor (even when the genders are corrected) will only see it come back some day, redoubled.
There is another concern. LW2 has also slept with a bisexual woman, which might have been not to her liking. It's all quite correct and proper to support bisexual people and the practice of bisexuality, but it is perfectly acceptable not to want to date people for such a reason. And the boyfriend might not have entered the picture until before it was too late. There are a few bisexual people who conceal their opposite-sex activities in an attempt to pass and maintain full homosexual privilege. There is also the consideration that it is a little unfair to all the poor straight men, for whom there are not many straight women to partner them. Straight people need all the bisexual partners they can get as they try to keep the number of heterosexuals flourishing.
As my back wants me to retire early, I shall conclude here.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
8/11 - HA Continues
This week, Monday offers much better material than Thursday. I shall dispose of Thursday quickly and then look at Monday.
L1: Fear not, good sir. There is no need to live out your days in dull and sober truth. Many people your age think it entertaining to invent their own histories. The idea is to make your stories extravagant. Take for your role model Tom Ballard on Waiting for God. Instead of making up stories about solving crimes, you gave Hercule Poirot the vital clue on the Orient Express; instead of affairs with women, you were the lover renounced by Miss Austen, etc.
L2: Oh, good grief. By all means speak to a supervisor, but wanting to preserve a semi-cordial relationship with someone who might well be not only evil but planning ton perpetrate that evil on other innocents is not sufficient motivation to withhold the truth. Not to mention that allowing this bad adoption to go through unprotested will only give heterosexual adoption a black eye and run the risk of having the privilege rescinded from all the deserving opposite-sex couples, even if the jury is still out on whether OSCs raise children as well as SSCs.
L3: Of course - what's human life weighed against the horrible crime of Appearing to Interfere with a Mother's Agency? Be prepared to be expected to volunteer - a fitting penance.
L4: Back to Animals 101 for you. Dogs are pets for Single People, who use them to meet other Single People. Those who are Married or Off the Market have Cats. Ask any Female Couple.
Monday offers up three gems: Lolito's boyfriend, Wife discovered friend's benefit, and Ashamed of sugar daddy.
ASD: Your friends ought to adore your older boyfriend. Don't worry; you at least have one thing in common given that you're all men. And there is an advantage you have overlooked. He can introduce your friends to his friends - prosperous friends, generous friends. Why not?
WDFB: The main point here is whether or not you like having a wife who is giving off signs of bisexuality. Some women do like such a thing and some women don't. Genuine lesbians (or gay men, for that matter) generally are able to take a past one-night stand between lifelong friends as quite typical, if indeed not to be expected.
LB: Now, it is perfectly reasonable for LB to be furious at the seductress. Sure, right, Lolito made all the running. that's what she convinced him to think. LB saved himself for the right man and was hoping he would get someone equally pure. Alas, he has not drawn such a prize.
But LB is missing a golden opportunity, one that he already really at least half embraces. Notice how he preens about Lolito's appeal to the older female. One might reasonably deduce that LB is rather more plain in appearance. The key, then, is to use Lolito's appeal to best advantage. Pimp him out. Set him up as a stripper for exclusive parties of female executives while the takings are good.
They can take as a role model Jacko Argyle from Ordeal by Innocence. Although a rotter to the core, Jacko has always had charm, enabling him to cajole extra sweets from the strict Kirsten Lindstrom and wheedle a near-constant stream of cash from his adoptive mother. Nobody is suprised that he apparently murders his mother when she cuts the supply. His alibi of being picked up hitchhiking falls through, and he is hanged. When the alibi, who'd forgotten the incident and been out of England during the trial, remembers Jacko and comes forward to prove him innocent, the investigation reveals Jacko's long history of stringing women along, repaying an employer he defrauded with money provided by the man's wife, and how Jacko's wife only turned up after the arrest, to the complete shock of the family. It turns out, of course, that Jacko had connived the murder and taken the role of the obvious suspect, with the murder committed by an accomplice (another lovestruck older woman) at a time when he would be sure to give himself an alibi. Had his wife not gone to his family after the arrest, the whole story might have come out rather earlier.
L1: Fear not, good sir. There is no need to live out your days in dull and sober truth. Many people your age think it entertaining to invent their own histories. The idea is to make your stories extravagant. Take for your role model Tom Ballard on Waiting for God. Instead of making up stories about solving crimes, you gave Hercule Poirot the vital clue on the Orient Express; instead of affairs with women, you were the lover renounced by Miss Austen, etc.
L2: Oh, good grief. By all means speak to a supervisor, but wanting to preserve a semi-cordial relationship with someone who might well be not only evil but planning ton perpetrate that evil on other innocents is not sufficient motivation to withhold the truth. Not to mention that allowing this bad adoption to go through unprotested will only give heterosexual adoption a black eye and run the risk of having the privilege rescinded from all the deserving opposite-sex couples, even if the jury is still out on whether OSCs raise children as well as SSCs.
L3: Of course - what's human life weighed against the horrible crime of Appearing to Interfere with a Mother's Agency? Be prepared to be expected to volunteer - a fitting penance.
L4: Back to Animals 101 for you. Dogs are pets for Single People, who use them to meet other Single People. Those who are Married or Off the Market have Cats. Ask any Female Couple.
Monday offers up three gems: Lolito's boyfriend, Wife discovered friend's benefit, and Ashamed of sugar daddy.
ASD: Your friends ought to adore your older boyfriend. Don't worry; you at least have one thing in common given that you're all men. And there is an advantage you have overlooked. He can introduce your friends to his friends - prosperous friends, generous friends. Why not?
WDFB: The main point here is whether or not you like having a wife who is giving off signs of bisexuality. Some women do like such a thing and some women don't. Genuine lesbians (or gay men, for that matter) generally are able to take a past one-night stand between lifelong friends as quite typical, if indeed not to be expected.
LB: Now, it is perfectly reasonable for LB to be furious at the seductress. Sure, right, Lolito made all the running. that's what she convinced him to think. LB saved himself for the right man and was hoping he would get someone equally pure. Alas, he has not drawn such a prize.
But LB is missing a golden opportunity, one that he already really at least half embraces. Notice how he preens about Lolito's appeal to the older female. One might reasonably deduce that LB is rather more plain in appearance. The key, then, is to use Lolito's appeal to best advantage. Pimp him out. Set him up as a stripper for exclusive parties of female executives while the takings are good.
They can take as a role model Jacko Argyle from Ordeal by Innocence. Although a rotter to the core, Jacko has always had charm, enabling him to cajole extra sweets from the strict Kirsten Lindstrom and wheedle a near-constant stream of cash from his adoptive mother. Nobody is suprised that he apparently murders his mother when she cuts the supply. His alibi of being picked up hitchhiking falls through, and he is hanged. When the alibi, who'd forgotten the incident and been out of England during the trial, remembers Jacko and comes forward to prove him innocent, the investigation reveals Jacko's long history of stringing women along, repaying an employer he defrauded with money provided by the man's wife, and how Jacko's wife only turned up after the arrest, to the complete shock of the family. It turns out, of course, that Jacko had connived the murder and taken the role of the obvious suspect, with the murder committed by an accomplice (another lovestruck older woman) at a time when he would be sure to give himself an alibi. Had his wife not gone to his family after the arrest, the whole story might have come out rather earlier.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
8/4 - Beginning Homocentric August
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)