Here I was thinking that the most interesting case from Monday was the one of the LW with the adopting father, and we have yet another adoption-based letter today. One almost has to give Monday's LW points. To have so many legitimate concerns when a parent adopts and to miss all of them for some petty nonsense about Not Sharing Daddy? It's a bit like the speculation in *A Murder is Announced* that Rudy Scherz could hardly have been aiming at anyone in the dark drawing room if he fired shots and managed to miss everybody.
I wish we'd known whether the LW's mother died during the marriage, divorced or was never married at all. Each raises its own concerns. In any case, I'd be inclined to ascertain before the adoption that it was being chosen of the adopter's own free will and not in response to some sort of coercion. I am less inclined, though, to worry about such things as possible disposition of a late and much loved mother's personal effects than I am to ponder the nature of family blending. Personally I can't bring myself to feel anything on accountn of a blood tie and would question the general standard that seems evident among posters for the treatment of newly acquired siblings/grandchildren/etc. by marriage because I would not necessarily treat a blood relative so. One behaves to a certain standard and if anything closer develops naturally, grand. Perhaps because I don't feel blood ties I may be more inclined than might be entirely correct to over-credit those who find them essential. Ah, well.
L1: Well, apparently here we have in LL1 a follower of the Lady Catherine de Bourgh school of micromanagement, had Her Ladyship had the opportunity of a lodger in the basement. Or perhaps she resembles Miss Marple's neighbour Miss Hartnell, renowned throughout Saint Mary Mead as a great one for being industrious on behalf of The Poor, and for complaining to the vicar about the extraordinary ingratitude with which her efforts generally meet.
I'd ask LW1 why he didn't change quarters at once. He clearly finds something of interest in the situation, whether or not he ever has even a fraction of any intention to take up any offer LL1 might happen to make. And I think there is a good deal of significance in his selection of first question. So many people lead with their best point, or their original instinct, and his is to apologize for being naked in his own rented bathroom when shaving and about to shower. It makes me want to require him to shave while wearing a suit and tie.
There is a course of action open to him if his wife has a spirit of fun and adventure. Given the likelihood that LL1 will make advances, LW1 and W1 might agree on a preemptive strike. The one I like best is for some friend of the couple who will happen to be near LW1's lodging to call in his absence and pose as someone having an affair with LW1. This might stop LL1 from making advances. Or the more fun route would be if she decided to try her luck, and, when rebuffed, attempt to bring about an affair through blackmail, thinking herself safe in the knowledge of an illicit relationship which actually would never have existed. There could be some great fun there, especially if W1 were prepared to act her part.
Moral: I keep thinking of Lady Catherine de Bourgh venturing forth to scold the villagers into harmony and plenty.
L2: I'm a little surprised there is so little commentary about this letter, but it appears that people are far more interested in expressing their personal views on tattoos. I confess it might be rather amusing to cross-examine W2. Especially if she only "eventually" forgave her husband, it would seem rather risky for a child to begin its life so precariously situated. One might guess that W2 wanted a child herself and didn't really care all that much about her origins. It would be a bit much to suggest in Court, but there are likely even women who might consider it a plus to be spared the ordeal of pregnancy, even if they would not go so far as to countenance the affair. But certainly, although in the best light one could paint W2 as similar to Colonel Brandon, who from the best of motives allows himself to be generally considered to be the father of her sister-in-law's daughter, W2 certainly has LW2 properly gelded for the duration of the marriage. I shall accord her the honour due to any successful parent should it so prove, but she does not need my sympathy.
If I feel for anyone, it is BM2. Letting her adulterous lover and her lover's presumably resentful wife raise her child? That strikes me as far from everybody's cup of tea. In BM2's position, I should be terribly worried that my daughter would be raised quite aware of my existence and being filled by both husband and wife with tales of my perfidy. I should fear for the inevitable confrontation on the occasion of the child's majority. And LW2 is treating her ungraciously, when she could easily have just never told him of the pregnancy or claimed it wasn't his and had the child adopted elsewhere. Really, that strikes me as vastly preferably. I don't think I'd actually put her on the witness stand, as I suspect that LW2's unkind assessment might have enough truth in it to prejudice the Jury, but I do hope she at least got a decent used car out of LW2.
The main question, once again, is incredibly lame. Has LW2 really reached such an advanced age without being able to cope with impertinent questions? One wonders how he ever managed to have an affair. As far as D2 is concerned, chances are excellent that a golden opportunity for The Great Explanation will present itself. One presumes they live in the world.
Moral: I keep thinking of Ms Li gloating how her video coverage of the Lawndale High camping trip will get those extreme sports endorsers by the hacky sacks.
L3: Hurrah - I get to cross-examine the Prudecutor! And I am convinced that, even were I to act on a violent impulse leading to a trial at the Old Bailey, were even a single person on the jury so far up the Kinsey scale as 1, I should enjoy a triumphant acquittal after my moving speech about provocation.
Kindly provide, o Prudecutor, the slightest scintilla of evidence that LW3 is heterosexual. It matters not that you completely decline to answer the question, instead (remarkably reminiscent of the response one might expect from Dr Schlessinger) choosing to air your own prejudices. In the course of whatever I might happen to say, I shall not even mention my own views on the practice in question, recognizing their relevance as being virtually or genuinely nil. Secondarily, do you really want to pin your entire prudecution on the slim evidence of its being M3's own parents in querstion and not her in-laws? That's your best point, and it's a remarkably feeble one.
FIND A NICE GIRL AND SOMEDAY HAVE THEIR GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN?!?!?!?!?!?!?
In the first place, should 25-year-olds be dating GIRLS (other than the ones acquainted with Ms Mermaid, who all apparently sought older dudes on purpose as the best way out of their unappreciated home lives)? In the second place, o Prudecutor, do you really want to leave your readers making the obvious inference that in your opinion there is nothing a non-heterosexual descendant can do to be a source of pride or by way of tribute in that line? Has your desire to forget that such a person as Mr Savage existed led you to wipe your memory clean of his venture into child-raising? Are you not usually the greatest cheerleader of regarding adopted siblings or grandchildren as every bit the entire equivalent of a twin or the grandchild long desired and planned for over the course of many long months as the perpetuation of the family name or genes, and willing to punish any and all who do not fall into line with providing full and equal treatment on every count? Have you not even sided with a LW in considering even adoption irrelevant and unnecessary in being willing to urge her to punish her in-laws for not paying more respect to her daughter than their own son, who had not adopted her, and did you not even go so far as to say that that LW's husband became her daughter's father on marrying her?
And I return to my original question. There is no evidence of LW3's heterosexuality or even bisexuality if you want to open that door. You can attempt to rely on the general proclivities of the population at large, but that's really no more evidence than assuming that any citizen of the United States is probably Christian or at least God-believing. If you want to go on anything actually in the letter, the closest you have to an indication is the LW's description of himself as a 25-year-old dude. Now, I cannot say what sort of person you might happen to know who would self-describe as such, but most of those of my acquaintance would likely belong to the community of skaters or others inclined to participate in the X Games (really they ought to be called the Y Games).
O Prudecutor, have you seen such a person, heard such a person or smelt such a person? While Mr White did go on record as wanting to date Ms Cohen during the 2006 Winter Olympics, one would be hard put to imagine anyone wishing less to make a favourable impression on those of the female of the species.
I rest my case.
Moral: I very nearly included, and I wish I had, a Match the Snarks question along the line of: Ms Libby said, "I wish I hadn't told the president of the Sex and the City Fan Club to date a skateboarder. Now she's all upset because he just [blank]ed her Manolo Blahniks."
L4: I was going to address this vital question, but the combination of oatmeal and tuna is making me too nauseous.
Moral: Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
2/17 - Get Ready to Match the Snarks
How I wish I had the time to do a full-length episode - maybe some week in the future. I have just been given GSN on my cable system, and am now living in hope of completing my little collection of great moments in game show history. It so happens that some years ago the USA network reran the Scrabble series, so that I had the good fortune to record the four-day relationship between Chuck Woollery and three-time champion Terry Wray (Ray? One only heard the name and never saw it). I live in hope of seeing the episode of whichever Pyramid it was when Jack Klugman tried to list What Peter Pan Might Say only he got everything slightly wrong (even better than the time they gave William Shatner 30 seconds to see if he could switch chairs and give both the clues and the answers to himself and he just failed, Mr Clark's theory proving correct that he'd get too caught up in devising the clues and waste too much time), and eventually (all the details escape memory) the only time on Match Game I can remember anyone actually matching Eva Gabor.
L1: Mizz Liz Probert would have a field day with your husband. This letter is a cross-examiner's dream. LW1's husband is uncomfortable bathing in the presence of his 5-year-old daughter? Clearly he's a pervert, because only a pervert would have that sort of thought about his 5-year-old daughter. And the neat thing is that it works just as well the other way around. If LW1's husband were not uncomfortable bathing in the presence of their daughter, then he would clearly be a pervert for thinking it acceptable for a girl that young to be in the presence of a naked male member. Give the case to a Radical Feminist Lawyer and just watch LW1 rake in a Massive Divorce Settlement. And witnesses like the husband are usually so easy to trip up that one would not need the skill achieved in the art of cross-examination by Her Ladyship Mrs Justice Erskine Brown to get him so caught up in his own testimony that he would end up admitting to being a paedophile.
The Prudecutor, who is, of course, proven many times over to be irredeemably heterosexist, is entirely in the wrong. Even with all the young people who have recently come to the general notice as being the intended audience for the It Gets Better Project (or perhaps in particular *because* of them, if my little theory that the Prudecutor is at least in part seething inside that a punk of a colleague of hers has done something Relevant), it would of course never occur to her that there might be as much need for same-sex modesty as for opposite-sex modesty. I think both she and LW1 want LW1 to become the Good parent in all this who doesn't get squeamish, whether either of them ever admits this. I'd say it should be a Both or Neither deal.
Moral: "It's okay; you can say it. I'm a wimp."
L2: And once again, we have everybody's favourite dog that does not bark in the night. Yet another letter from a married woman making no mention whatsoever of the actions or even the opinions of her husband relating to the question she poses. The Prudecutor, who doubtless considers husbands to be as unnecessary to daily life outside the bedroom as bicycles happen to be to the continual well-being and self-fulfillment of fish, does not even see this glaring omission. Whether H2 is on the brink of filing for divorce or whether H2 is more supportive than 99 people out of an hundred apparently is immaterial.
My instinct is to punt on the question, although I suppose LW2 might as well just save time and get a divorce now. She will later, and this incident is showing that she and her husband come apart under pressure rather than drawing together. For the short term, LW2 might send her husband to do everyhting she does for her parents, and then ask him what to do to proceed.
Another solution, such as occurred in the case of Sir Daniel Derwent only in reverse, would be to acquire pamphlets on suicide and leave them in strategic places where, if either parent finds them, (s)he will think the other is contemplating ending it all. If they resist the suggestion, then feed them poisoned omelettes.
Moral: "You should wait for me to call out your name." "Sometimes I call out your name... but you never give me the answer."
L3: Clearly LW3 has been passive-aggressive about the pregnancy. All this false pretense about caring that he and his wife have spoiled the biggest day of S3's life. Sure and they did it deliberately! Unplanned my Aunt Norris! They probably calculated exactly when to procreate and in what positions to give themselves the best chance at a pregnancy falling in the right time period and they hit the jackpot - well done indeed. Now he could just pull on his Big Boy Pants and admit it, but - No. He's too twisty to do anything such as to stand up and take credit for a job well done. Death and defeat to all Bridezillas! Even the Prudecutor would have sufficient sense to support such a worthy cause.
Unfortunately, if LW3 and W3 really cared about ruining S3's wedding half so much as he claims to do, they would already have opted for the obvious solution. Or, of course, they would have been clever enough not to boink during the very limited period of time that was known to create a conflict with the wedding, or at least would not have done so without triple protection. But there is another obvious answer. Get W3's best friend to seduce SF3 while acquiring plenty of hard evidence. Much easier to break up the engagement than conceal the baby. If they are real experts, they can follow the pattern set by Julius King in *A Fairly Honourable Defeat* and manipulate the fiance and the chosen partner in the case against the will of the both of them.
Moral: "You may get an overpowering urge to hug me if you win." "Don't do it? Well, you'll just have to worry about that... I might really hug you if I lose."
L4: Oh, good grief. LW4 even admits to being aggressive and thinking it a positive quality as well as one that is an asset in her chosen field and the Prudecutor can't pick up on it? It's very difficult to pick a side here, as Job Interviewers are of course among the Lowest Forms of Life on the Planet. They revel in making applicants try to second-guess and third-guess and fourth-guess them, and then try to jump through real or imaginary hoops blindfold while tap-dancing and reciting *The Walrus and the Carpenter* backwards in Hungarian. In a way, perhaps LW4 could make a virtue of her failing to please such revolting and disgusting specimens of humanity. However, as she persists in the ridiculous notion that her True Self would be a Desired Commodity (and the Prudecutor even blindly supports the idea), I can hold out no hope for her, alas.
LW4 might apply to the Sisterhood of Radical Lawyers, so ably headed by Mizz Liz Probert. As it is clearly established that any woman is automatically the superiour to any man, while at the same time an obvious victim of Male Privilege and Male Oppression, she ought to be able to carve out a nice little niche among those who excelled in Women's Studies programmes. And why not? After all, a good barrister doesn't need to have any knowledge of the Law.
Moral: "Who are they kidding, One Size Fits All?"
L1: Mizz Liz Probert would have a field day with your husband. This letter is a cross-examiner's dream. LW1's husband is uncomfortable bathing in the presence of his 5-year-old daughter? Clearly he's a pervert, because only a pervert would have that sort of thought about his 5-year-old daughter. And the neat thing is that it works just as well the other way around. If LW1's husband were not uncomfortable bathing in the presence of their daughter, then he would clearly be a pervert for thinking it acceptable for a girl that young to be in the presence of a naked male member. Give the case to a Radical Feminist Lawyer and just watch LW1 rake in a Massive Divorce Settlement. And witnesses like the husband are usually so easy to trip up that one would not need the skill achieved in the art of cross-examination by Her Ladyship Mrs Justice Erskine Brown to get him so caught up in his own testimony that he would end up admitting to being a paedophile.
The Prudecutor, who is, of course, proven many times over to be irredeemably heterosexist, is entirely in the wrong. Even with all the young people who have recently come to the general notice as being the intended audience for the It Gets Better Project (or perhaps in particular *because* of them, if my little theory that the Prudecutor is at least in part seething inside that a punk of a colleague of hers has done something Relevant), it would of course never occur to her that there might be as much need for same-sex modesty as for opposite-sex modesty. I think both she and LW1 want LW1 to become the Good parent in all this who doesn't get squeamish, whether either of them ever admits this. I'd say it should be a Both or Neither deal.
Moral: "It's okay; you can say it. I'm a wimp."
L2: And once again, we have everybody's favourite dog that does not bark in the night. Yet another letter from a married woman making no mention whatsoever of the actions or even the opinions of her husband relating to the question she poses. The Prudecutor, who doubtless considers husbands to be as unnecessary to daily life outside the bedroom as bicycles happen to be to the continual well-being and self-fulfillment of fish, does not even see this glaring omission. Whether H2 is on the brink of filing for divorce or whether H2 is more supportive than 99 people out of an hundred apparently is immaterial.
My instinct is to punt on the question, although I suppose LW2 might as well just save time and get a divorce now. She will later, and this incident is showing that she and her husband come apart under pressure rather than drawing together. For the short term, LW2 might send her husband to do everyhting she does for her parents, and then ask him what to do to proceed.
Another solution, such as occurred in the case of Sir Daniel Derwent only in reverse, would be to acquire pamphlets on suicide and leave them in strategic places where, if either parent finds them, (s)he will think the other is contemplating ending it all. If they resist the suggestion, then feed them poisoned omelettes.
Moral: "You should wait for me to call out your name." "Sometimes I call out your name... but you never give me the answer."
L3: Clearly LW3 has been passive-aggressive about the pregnancy. All this false pretense about caring that he and his wife have spoiled the biggest day of S3's life. Sure and they did it deliberately! Unplanned my Aunt Norris! They probably calculated exactly when to procreate and in what positions to give themselves the best chance at a pregnancy falling in the right time period and they hit the jackpot - well done indeed. Now he could just pull on his Big Boy Pants and admit it, but - No. He's too twisty to do anything such as to stand up and take credit for a job well done. Death and defeat to all Bridezillas! Even the Prudecutor would have sufficient sense to support such a worthy cause.
Unfortunately, if LW3 and W3 really cared about ruining S3's wedding half so much as he claims to do, they would already have opted for the obvious solution. Or, of course, they would have been clever enough not to boink during the very limited period of time that was known to create a conflict with the wedding, or at least would not have done so without triple protection. But there is another obvious answer. Get W3's best friend to seduce SF3 while acquiring plenty of hard evidence. Much easier to break up the engagement than conceal the baby. If they are real experts, they can follow the pattern set by Julius King in *A Fairly Honourable Defeat* and manipulate the fiance and the chosen partner in the case against the will of the both of them.
Moral: "You may get an overpowering urge to hug me if you win." "Don't do it? Well, you'll just have to worry about that... I might really hug you if I lose."
L4: Oh, good grief. LW4 even admits to being aggressive and thinking it a positive quality as well as one that is an asset in her chosen field and the Prudecutor can't pick up on it? It's very difficult to pick a side here, as Job Interviewers are of course among the Lowest Forms of Life on the Planet. They revel in making applicants try to second-guess and third-guess and fourth-guess them, and then try to jump through real or imaginary hoops blindfold while tap-dancing and reciting *The Walrus and the Carpenter* backwards in Hungarian. In a way, perhaps LW4 could make a virtue of her failing to please such revolting and disgusting specimens of humanity. However, as she persists in the ridiculous notion that her True Self would be a Desired Commodity (and the Prudecutor even blindly supports the idea), I can hold out no hope for her, alas.
LW4 might apply to the Sisterhood of Radical Lawyers, so ably headed by Mizz Liz Probert. As it is clearly established that any woman is automatically the superiour to any man, while at the same time an obvious victim of Male Privilege and Male Oppression, she ought to be able to carve out a nice little niche among those who excelled in Women's Studies programmes. And why not? After all, a good barrister doesn't need to have any knowledge of the Law.
Moral: "Who are they kidding, One Size Fits All?"
Thursday, February 10, 2011
2/10 - The Site Ate My Post
I am FUMING. I just finished this week's post and clicked on Publish, and it took me back to the main page, made me sign in again, and my post was GONE.
I had wondered who of the many other posters around might make the best bridge players, and vowed to be very short-winded in protest of the heterocentric column.
L1: I asked who told LW1 that heterosexual congress was supposed to be enjoyable, and listed half a dozen people associated with Chambers at #3 Equity Court by way of example. I advised that LW1 may well find perfect happiness in sexual activity by just making the tinest of changes in the gender of her partner.
L2: I commented that the Prudecutor had to be very awkward to avoid being ageist, but to say that a 50-year-old woman isn't "planning on kids" borders on the overly coy. I asked why it's unfair for anyone to prefer not to take a partner for life with a 15-year age difference, regardless of gender. There is no guarantee that, if the BF were 50 and LW2 35, she'd want him. I also wondered whether a 30-year age difference might not be preferable. What sort of life one might prefer at age 55, 60 or 65 seems much more likely to rule out lovers of various ages than gender differences. Then the Prudecutor went into heterosexual climaxes and I elected to leave off, as, unlike Mr Savage, I am not paid to opine about such topics. Besides, as I have never seen one, I can reasonably doubt that such a thing really exists.
L3: While LW3 is fairly self-aware, unluckily she can acknowledge but not accept that relationships evolve in phases, and she wants to remain permanently in Phase One. Too bad, in a way. I advised her getting twelve different men, ideally each in a different country. Then she can be with each paramour for one month in the year, and every year it will be fresh all over again. Of course, the thought of so much heterosexual boinking forces me to make use of my Victorian Fainting Sofa.
L4: As the ashes of my cats are kept on a desk in the living room, I recused myself.
I had wondered who of the many other posters around might make the best bridge players, and vowed to be very short-winded in protest of the heterocentric column.
L1: I asked who told LW1 that heterosexual congress was supposed to be enjoyable, and listed half a dozen people associated with Chambers at #3 Equity Court by way of example. I advised that LW1 may well find perfect happiness in sexual activity by just making the tinest of changes in the gender of her partner.
L2: I commented that the Prudecutor had to be very awkward to avoid being ageist, but to say that a 50-year-old woman isn't "planning on kids" borders on the overly coy. I asked why it's unfair for anyone to prefer not to take a partner for life with a 15-year age difference, regardless of gender. There is no guarantee that, if the BF were 50 and LW2 35, she'd want him. I also wondered whether a 30-year age difference might not be preferable. What sort of life one might prefer at age 55, 60 or 65 seems much more likely to rule out lovers of various ages than gender differences. Then the Prudecutor went into heterosexual climaxes and I elected to leave off, as, unlike Mr Savage, I am not paid to opine about such topics. Besides, as I have never seen one, I can reasonably doubt that such a thing really exists.
L3: While LW3 is fairly self-aware, unluckily she can acknowledge but not accept that relationships evolve in phases, and she wants to remain permanently in Phase One. Too bad, in a way. I advised her getting twelve different men, ideally each in a different country. Then she can be with each paramour for one month in the year, and every year it will be fresh all over again. Of course, the thought of so much heterosexual boinking forces me to make use of my Victorian Fainting Sofa.
L4: As the ashes of my cats are kept on a desk in the living room, I recused myself.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
2/3 - D for Dreary
I was pleasantly surprised by the Monday discussion. Ms Messy left herself wide open (she mentioned that, when Mr Messy works at home, he has a loving wife who shoots him a sandwich on occasion) and nobody followed it up. I hope the Messys enjoy Hawaii, which will be good compensation for missing the Shaddap I was anticipating directed to last week's LW3.
This week's letters are not inspiring.
L1: Who the bleep says that one has to like one's children? Parental affection would not have improved anyone's cross-examining skills. Be reasonably fair to all the offspring involved and be content with that; how well they are treated by their parents won't necessarily stop them from consulting the Prudecutor in their time.
As this quickly devolved into a technical question on how to raise children, I shall stop here.
Moral: Mickey Mouse meets Jack the Lad; he's never sad.
L2: Now, are the alcohol and cigarettes considered sinful, or did LW2 just abuse them in a way that she considers self-destructive? Then again, I'm just being a bit of a sin wonk here. My prediction is that the vast majority of posters will fall all over themselves saying that LW2 did nothing wrong. That is completely beside the point. Now there are many letters from LWs in her position who do present questions in regard to which how wrong the reader or advisor considers the conduct given makes a difference to the answer. But LW2 is clear enough. She indulged in self-destructive behaviour. Whether it just means that, like Hugh "Snake Legs" Timson's wife Hetty, she had a glass of tawny port at Christmas, or whether she drank five bottles a day of Chateau Thames Embankment is relatively immaterial. Would it make that much difference to the tone of the response if, say, she'd become addicted to a drug and gone through successful rehabilitation? Smoking seems a bit strange, as it's not the sort of conduct which leads easily to such abuse as would be recognizable in so short a time for someone so young. As for the casual sex and multiple partners, well, at least LW2 got a little bit of luck on that one. I might feel the tiniest bit more comfortable with her if I believed that her experiences have instilled in her increased compassion for others who follow her example (from L2, it seems as if it could go either way), but that's irrelevant. She's entitled to her own value system and to have answers that respect it.
Now, I commend LW2 for recognizing that her behaviour was not taking her in the direction she wanted to go, and getting her life back on her chosen path. While her brother and his wife have clearly established themselves in the wrong, the key is to find a way to establish that without making LW2 embrace or excuse her past conduct. It does seem that there ought to be a variety of texts much to the purpose. The case of Nappier and Lorraine Lee brought up the text about there being more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repenteth, etc. And B2 and wife might benefit from having a Bible study group meeting about what happened after the Prodigal Son's return home. I'm a little surprised that the brother's pastor has not had something to say about this sort of conduct. Maybe LW2 can casually manage to arrange a social event with her brother at which his pastor might put in a surprise, unnoticed appearance. It would be interesting to know whether B2 really thinks his conduct is completely justified, or whether he knows what a pill he's being.
Moral: Not much legs can do but open or close.
L3: So we finally hear from the parents in one of those relationships between a well-educated man of "good" background and a woman either less refined or of a less prestigious family. LW3 seems as if he might be used to fence sitting, but we'll come back to him later. I'd like to cross-examine S3. Is his assessment close to that of his mother, of his father, or vastly different from those of either? The level of education is black-and-white, but what does S3 think about his intended's maturity/infatuation/clinginess? Are these points attractions for him? If he sees past her flaws, does he do so in a manner like that of his mother, his father, or someone completely different?
There are two practical course LW3 could take. The obvious answer, which I think the Prudecutor would have given had she not been unable to see past her disapproval of LW3 and W3, would be for W3 to embrace the young woman and keep acting as if the relationship is rather farther along than it is. She ought to be able to push marriage on S3 in a way that makes him head for the hills before long.
But I think I prefer the example set by Mr Parker Pyne in "Problem at Pollensa Bay". After determining that Basil and Betty are well-suited to each other, depsite the objections of Basil's mother, he recruits his assistant to come and vamp Basil while presenting so alarming an alternative to Betty as to melt all Mamma's opposition.
Moral: She's a PhD in I Told You So; you've a knighthood in I'm Not Listening.
L4: Putting aside the logistical problems of the bet (when exactly did LW4 intend to pay up, if ever), why this has come to the surface for LW4 now, and the possibility of some sort of collusion or manipulation, especially if LW4 and H4 knew each other at the time the bet was made, I cannot approve of repaying the entire thousand, at least without knowing how much extra LW4 has spent on treating the couple or gifts for her friend or the pair of them in the interval.
Or, of course, LW4 could make a reciprocal bet over something she wants to do more than she's let on.
Moral: And if you pull a double one...
This week's letters are not inspiring.
L1: Who the bleep says that one has to like one's children? Parental affection would not have improved anyone's cross-examining skills. Be reasonably fair to all the offspring involved and be content with that; how well they are treated by their parents won't necessarily stop them from consulting the Prudecutor in their time.
As this quickly devolved into a technical question on how to raise children, I shall stop here.
Moral: Mickey Mouse meets Jack the Lad; he's never sad.
L2: Now, are the alcohol and cigarettes considered sinful, or did LW2 just abuse them in a way that she considers self-destructive? Then again, I'm just being a bit of a sin wonk here. My prediction is that the vast majority of posters will fall all over themselves saying that LW2 did nothing wrong. That is completely beside the point. Now there are many letters from LWs in her position who do present questions in regard to which how wrong the reader or advisor considers the conduct given makes a difference to the answer. But LW2 is clear enough. She indulged in self-destructive behaviour. Whether it just means that, like Hugh "Snake Legs" Timson's wife Hetty, she had a glass of tawny port at Christmas, or whether she drank five bottles a day of Chateau Thames Embankment is relatively immaterial. Would it make that much difference to the tone of the response if, say, she'd become addicted to a drug and gone through successful rehabilitation? Smoking seems a bit strange, as it's not the sort of conduct which leads easily to such abuse as would be recognizable in so short a time for someone so young. As for the casual sex and multiple partners, well, at least LW2 got a little bit of luck on that one. I might feel the tiniest bit more comfortable with her if I believed that her experiences have instilled in her increased compassion for others who follow her example (from L2, it seems as if it could go either way), but that's irrelevant. She's entitled to her own value system and to have answers that respect it.
Now, I commend LW2 for recognizing that her behaviour was not taking her in the direction she wanted to go, and getting her life back on her chosen path. While her brother and his wife have clearly established themselves in the wrong, the key is to find a way to establish that without making LW2 embrace or excuse her past conduct. It does seem that there ought to be a variety of texts much to the purpose. The case of Nappier and Lorraine Lee brought up the text about there being more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repenteth, etc. And B2 and wife might benefit from having a Bible study group meeting about what happened after the Prodigal Son's return home. I'm a little surprised that the brother's pastor has not had something to say about this sort of conduct. Maybe LW2 can casually manage to arrange a social event with her brother at which his pastor might put in a surprise, unnoticed appearance. It would be interesting to know whether B2 really thinks his conduct is completely justified, or whether he knows what a pill he's being.
Moral: Not much legs can do but open or close.
L3: So we finally hear from the parents in one of those relationships between a well-educated man of "good" background and a woman either less refined or of a less prestigious family. LW3 seems as if he might be used to fence sitting, but we'll come back to him later. I'd like to cross-examine S3. Is his assessment close to that of his mother, of his father, or vastly different from those of either? The level of education is black-and-white, but what does S3 think about his intended's maturity/infatuation/clinginess? Are these points attractions for him? If he sees past her flaws, does he do so in a manner like that of his mother, his father, or someone completely different?
There are two practical course LW3 could take. The obvious answer, which I think the Prudecutor would have given had she not been unable to see past her disapproval of LW3 and W3, would be for W3 to embrace the young woman and keep acting as if the relationship is rather farther along than it is. She ought to be able to push marriage on S3 in a way that makes him head for the hills before long.
But I think I prefer the example set by Mr Parker Pyne in "Problem at Pollensa Bay". After determining that Basil and Betty are well-suited to each other, depsite the objections of Basil's mother, he recruits his assistant to come and vamp Basil while presenting so alarming an alternative to Betty as to melt all Mamma's opposition.
Moral: She's a PhD in I Told You So; you've a knighthood in I'm Not Listening.
L4: Putting aside the logistical problems of the bet (when exactly did LW4 intend to pay up, if ever), why this has come to the surface for LW4 now, and the possibility of some sort of collusion or manipulation, especially if LW4 and H4 knew each other at the time the bet was made, I cannot approve of repaying the entire thousand, at least without knowing how much extra LW4 has spent on treating the couple or gifts for her friend or the pair of them in the interval.
Or, of course, LW4 could make a reciprocal bet over something she wants to do more than she's let on.
Moral: And if you pull a double one...
Thursday, January 27, 2011
1/27 - Faux Outrage Day
I have been mulling over some ideas about moving the early-to-mid 1500's to later years and venturing across the Atlantic.
Catharine of Aragon would have been Elizabeth Edwards - placed in an unhappy but sympathetic situation, though more popular than her character might strictly have merited.
Anne Boleyn would have been Christine O'Donnell - an evangelist with witchcraft, purity and motherhood issues, and it's a neat parallel between having Protestant Bibles smuggled into England in consignments of French underclothing and flirting with Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect all to further the glory of the Saviour's Alliance for Lifting the Truth.
Jane Seymour would have been Newt Gingrich's wife, neglected and left to die just when times ought to have been most prosperous.
Anne of Cleves would have been Caroline Kennedy, whose brush with being a Senator worked out about as well as Anne's with being Queen, although at least Anne got a really happy ending.
Catherine Howard would have been silly enough to marry Rush Limbaugh. Had she not been rather stupid, I might have been tempted to say she'd have been Camille Paglia.
Katherine Parr would have been an ideological survivor - Barbara Boxer, perhaps?
Mary Tudor would have been either Nancy Pelosi or Sarah Palin. NP had tenure of about the same length trying to reverse the course of her country, but SP had the pregnancy issues. A toss-up.
Elizabeth Tudor would have been one of those cagey bipartisans like Mary Landrieu or Olympia Snowe.
Mary Stewart, given her silliness and taste in husbands, would have been Arianna Huffington.
***********************************************************************************************
This week, the questions are irritating enough that I shall declare a Faux Outrage Day:
L1: This letter is an outrage. If the LW had been male and revealed that the outline of one of his particular private parts had been inadvertently outlined through his clothing, the Prudecutor would have called him a pervert and a child molestor and demanded that he be run out of polite society in perpetuity. Additionally, we have the Prudecutor once again injecting her own preferences and sexuality into the situation in a completely inappropriate manner, and to the effect that I am feeling it necessary to go boil my eyeballs. Fortunately, I had no particular acquaintance with the person she names; had it been Stephane Lambiel, I could never have watched figure skating again.
For genuine advice on LW1's situation, I refer the question to the Submariner, who doubtless has far more experience than I on the subject, and is doubtless prepared to give a far more appreciative response. I shall only add that Claude Erskine Brown would completely support LW1's position, which is as good an argument as any I can recall for adopting the contrary viewpoint.
Moral: Anne Boleyn would have had a garment for this situation.
L2: This letter is an outrage. If the brother who hates his job and is deeply in debt had been a sister, LW2 would not have been so quick to write the sibling off as a complete failure or to have been so disgustingly judgmental about what he would likely do with the money. A sister would have been offered free room and board with LW2 along with a generous salary that would doubtless far exceed what has been ladled out to the brother in dribs and drabs by way of a token of gratitude. And the parents would have beenn investigated as abusers and blamed for ruining their daughter's life in perpetuity instead of their son's being called a blank-up for not getting with the program. In the Prudecutor's defence, however, she would most likely have made the assumption that everything has to be due to a diagnosable condition whether the sibling were male or female.
As for a real assessment of the situation, it seems reasonable for LW2 to offer to settle particular debts, not that that will really have any effect in the long run. I am a little reminded of those irritating people who fret endlessly in newspaper columns over whether they should retire credit card debt or student lines or contribute to their retirement accounts instead. They waffle on for paragraph after paragraph as if the whole of their moral worth would ride on whether they net an extra $1.67 to leave in their wills. Will it really make that much difference? Even if LW2 pays off her brother's most crippling debts, then he'll probably just live more on credit for a while as he racks up new debts instead of his taking a considerable cash sum and squandering it himself.
LW2 is more or less half there, and cannot be faulted too severely for not being able to get past the rigours of a severe upbringing. At least LW2 adores her little brother (with good reason, as he doubtless made her shine when she was facing the most critical of juries), and recognizes the value of his coming through for her in her time of need. But I would rather like to cross-examine her on exactly what she thinks maintaining the same parental attitude towards her brother as was upheld by their parents for all his life would accomplish. Does she seriously think her brother is suddenly going to become successful and motivated if she pushes him down the same path their parents tried for years and years to push him? Such hubris!
Moral: There are far worse things than hating one's job. Those who work to live instead of the other way around develop skills that can be of considerable value.
L3: This letter is an outrage. Mr Savage expresses it best. He recently received a letter from an infuriating woman who signed herself Serial Cheater in Love. She has been having an affair with her first love, who wants her to leave her second husband. The second husband has become much more attentive and loving since learning of the affair, when she was hoping he would divorce her and make the decision for her. She wrote to Mr Savage hoping that he would wave his magic wand and solve all her problems. His reaction to the letter was summed up eloquently in this sentence:
"This ***** can get legally married and I can't?" LW3 may not be quite that bad, but she's not a whole lot better.
If this were my novel, LW3 would hire someone (or convince a friend) to seduce her husband and arrange for her to catch them in the act. She would then be able to get a divorce without his feeling any right to feel ill-used, she would retain the affection and sympathy of his family, and everything would be lovely forn a while as she went off to pursue her desired adventures. After a year or so she'd want him back, only to find that he and his seductress had fallen genuinely in love.
But I really long for the sort of world in which one could tell such an idiot as LW3 that this is what happens to people who rush into making lifetime commitments without anywhere near the appropriate amount of serious consideration, and that it was too bad she didn't think before she opted for the Bridezilla path but now what was done was done, her husband had done nothing wrong, and just to grin and bear it. But that sort of thing only works in an ideal world. LW3 would doubtless punish her husband up the east coast, across Canada and down the west coast. I suppose really the only answer is for her to have an affair. That ought to get her vague lust for adventure out of her system. If she isn't caught, she may be sufficiently grateful to make sure that she treats her husband well. But I suppose she will probably be caught, and then he and his family will have a reason to resent her which will make them all feel a good deal better about themselves than if she simply doesn't want to be married at all and ruins things almost without any meaning.
Moral: If only LW3 could take Catherine Howard as a role model.
L4: This letter is an outrage. The fund collects an equal amount from everyone in the office and then doles out presents to those workers who become PREGNANT? This is discrimination of the clearest variety against men. I suppose LW4 and her female associates will try to cover their derrieres by claiming that they will spend just as much on whatever present they buy any man who happens to become pregnant as they do for any woman, but this is just another variation on the old trick of offering benefits to married couples and then telling same-sex couples that it's not discrimination, as unmarried heterosexual couples don't get preferential treatment, and if ever... well, at least some of those discriminators have gotten theirs.
As for this situation, it is interesting that a higher-up in the office would be the one to refuse to contribute to the fund in question. That just seems so typical. But I am more interested in LW4 putting herself in the role of the New Broom determined to change the entire corporation to suit her own sense of what might be right or appropriate. It might be fun to see her receive what she has coming to her.
Moral: Katherine Parr at least knew how to treat Mary, Elizabeth and Edward.
Catharine of Aragon would have been Elizabeth Edwards - placed in an unhappy but sympathetic situation, though more popular than her character might strictly have merited.
Anne Boleyn would have been Christine O'Donnell - an evangelist with witchcraft, purity and motherhood issues, and it's a neat parallel between having Protestant Bibles smuggled into England in consignments of French underclothing and flirting with Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect all to further the glory of the Saviour's Alliance for Lifting the Truth.
Jane Seymour would have been Newt Gingrich's wife, neglected and left to die just when times ought to have been most prosperous.
Anne of Cleves would have been Caroline Kennedy, whose brush with being a Senator worked out about as well as Anne's with being Queen, although at least Anne got a really happy ending.
Catherine Howard would have been silly enough to marry Rush Limbaugh. Had she not been rather stupid, I might have been tempted to say she'd have been Camille Paglia.
Katherine Parr would have been an ideological survivor - Barbara Boxer, perhaps?
Mary Tudor would have been either Nancy Pelosi or Sarah Palin. NP had tenure of about the same length trying to reverse the course of her country, but SP had the pregnancy issues. A toss-up.
Elizabeth Tudor would have been one of those cagey bipartisans like Mary Landrieu or Olympia Snowe.
Mary Stewart, given her silliness and taste in husbands, would have been Arianna Huffington.
***********************************************************************************************
This week, the questions are irritating enough that I shall declare a Faux Outrage Day:
L1: This letter is an outrage. If the LW had been male and revealed that the outline of one of his particular private parts had been inadvertently outlined through his clothing, the Prudecutor would have called him a pervert and a child molestor and demanded that he be run out of polite society in perpetuity. Additionally, we have the Prudecutor once again injecting her own preferences and sexuality into the situation in a completely inappropriate manner, and to the effect that I am feeling it necessary to go boil my eyeballs. Fortunately, I had no particular acquaintance with the person she names; had it been Stephane Lambiel, I could never have watched figure skating again.
For genuine advice on LW1's situation, I refer the question to the Submariner, who doubtless has far more experience than I on the subject, and is doubtless prepared to give a far more appreciative response. I shall only add that Claude Erskine Brown would completely support LW1's position, which is as good an argument as any I can recall for adopting the contrary viewpoint.
Moral: Anne Boleyn would have had a garment for this situation.
L2: This letter is an outrage. If the brother who hates his job and is deeply in debt had been a sister, LW2 would not have been so quick to write the sibling off as a complete failure or to have been so disgustingly judgmental about what he would likely do with the money. A sister would have been offered free room and board with LW2 along with a generous salary that would doubtless far exceed what has been ladled out to the brother in dribs and drabs by way of a token of gratitude. And the parents would have beenn investigated as abusers and blamed for ruining their daughter's life in perpetuity instead of their son's being called a blank-up for not getting with the program. In the Prudecutor's defence, however, she would most likely have made the assumption that everything has to be due to a diagnosable condition whether the sibling were male or female.
As for a real assessment of the situation, it seems reasonable for LW2 to offer to settle particular debts, not that that will really have any effect in the long run. I am a little reminded of those irritating people who fret endlessly in newspaper columns over whether they should retire credit card debt or student lines or contribute to their retirement accounts instead. They waffle on for paragraph after paragraph as if the whole of their moral worth would ride on whether they net an extra $1.67 to leave in their wills. Will it really make that much difference? Even if LW2 pays off her brother's most crippling debts, then he'll probably just live more on credit for a while as he racks up new debts instead of his taking a considerable cash sum and squandering it himself.
LW2 is more or less half there, and cannot be faulted too severely for not being able to get past the rigours of a severe upbringing. At least LW2 adores her little brother (with good reason, as he doubtless made her shine when she was facing the most critical of juries), and recognizes the value of his coming through for her in her time of need. But I would rather like to cross-examine her on exactly what she thinks maintaining the same parental attitude towards her brother as was upheld by their parents for all his life would accomplish. Does she seriously think her brother is suddenly going to become successful and motivated if she pushes him down the same path their parents tried for years and years to push him? Such hubris!
Moral: There are far worse things than hating one's job. Those who work to live instead of the other way around develop skills that can be of considerable value.
L3: This letter is an outrage. Mr Savage expresses it best. He recently received a letter from an infuriating woman who signed herself Serial Cheater in Love. She has been having an affair with her first love, who wants her to leave her second husband. The second husband has become much more attentive and loving since learning of the affair, when she was hoping he would divorce her and make the decision for her. She wrote to Mr Savage hoping that he would wave his magic wand and solve all her problems. His reaction to the letter was summed up eloquently in this sentence:
"This ***** can get legally married and I can't?" LW3 may not be quite that bad, but she's not a whole lot better.
If this were my novel, LW3 would hire someone (or convince a friend) to seduce her husband and arrange for her to catch them in the act. She would then be able to get a divorce without his feeling any right to feel ill-used, she would retain the affection and sympathy of his family, and everything would be lovely forn a while as she went off to pursue her desired adventures. After a year or so she'd want him back, only to find that he and his seductress had fallen genuinely in love.
But I really long for the sort of world in which one could tell such an idiot as LW3 that this is what happens to people who rush into making lifetime commitments without anywhere near the appropriate amount of serious consideration, and that it was too bad she didn't think before she opted for the Bridezilla path but now what was done was done, her husband had done nothing wrong, and just to grin and bear it. But that sort of thing only works in an ideal world. LW3 would doubtless punish her husband up the east coast, across Canada and down the west coast. I suppose really the only answer is for her to have an affair. That ought to get her vague lust for adventure out of her system. If she isn't caught, she may be sufficiently grateful to make sure that she treats her husband well. But I suppose she will probably be caught, and then he and his family will have a reason to resent her which will make them all feel a good deal better about themselves than if she simply doesn't want to be married at all and ruins things almost without any meaning.
Moral: If only LW3 could take Catherine Howard as a role model.
L4: This letter is an outrage. The fund collects an equal amount from everyone in the office and then doles out presents to those workers who become PREGNANT? This is discrimination of the clearest variety against men. I suppose LW4 and her female associates will try to cover their derrieres by claiming that they will spend just as much on whatever present they buy any man who happens to become pregnant as they do for any woman, but this is just another variation on the old trick of offering benefits to married couples and then telling same-sex couples that it's not discrimination, as unmarried heterosexual couples don't get preferential treatment, and if ever... well, at least some of those discriminators have gotten theirs.
As for this situation, it is interesting that a higher-up in the office would be the one to refuse to contribute to the fund in question. That just seems so typical. But I am more interested in LW4 putting herself in the role of the New Broom determined to change the entire corporation to suit her own sense of what might be right or appropriate. It might be fun to see her receive what she has coming to her.
Moral: Katherine Parr at least knew how to treat Mary, Elizabeth and Edward.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
1/20 - Up the Down Staircase
Some of the comments from Monday about the question of a retroactive confession of cheating have really depressed me. I suppose I'm just alien; it has almost never happened, but when I was last cheated upon (by someone even more torn apart by misery and guilt than the LW in question) my one strong or lasting instinct was to comfort him and to make sure he was thoroughly comforted and back to normal before holding a discussion about all the ramifications and what to do in future. All the prognostications of fury depress me, as do the claims that the husband in question had not maintained his end of the bargain. [See: Spencer, Diana] My take on the situation of the LW in particular is that she wants the friend with whom she cheated back in her life as a friend, and she thinks that confessing her transgression will get her over her guilt enough to allow her to reopen the friendship, even if she genuinely means not to slip again. I advise Divorce.
On the positive side, Kim Clijsters has perhaps set a new standard for how to treat questions of a Particular Nature. Interesting that Rennae Stubbs showed KC the message from Todd Woodbridge to begin with, but it seems to have ended all as a bit of good fun.
This week we visit Calvin Coolidge High School.
L1: This letter would certainly have more impact had it been written by H1 instead of LW1. There are two main issues. How much foundation does LW1 have for her claims against MIL1's sanity? As a side line, one might wonder what H1 and his brothers have been doing propping up their mother in all her delusional insanity for all their lives. Then there is the matter of how much justification if any MIL1 had for contacting the authorities about suspected baby abuse, and what she has done since she has been proved to be in error. There are ways in which people act when their conduct has been doubtful that demonstrate responsibility. From what we have to go on thus far, MIL1 is not acting in such a manner.
At least LW1 and H1 are sufficiently in accord to stick to their agreement, but why is H1 continuing to mope so? What does it matter which side of the family supplies any grandparents worthy of being known? And why would H1 continue to mope if MIL1 continues to behave in an outrageous way, making increasingly unreasonable demands? Something is just off.
I cannot see LW1 as Miss Barrett, the protagonist in UtDS, for all her railing against the insanity of the system. She might be the embittered Mr Barringer, Miss Barrett's fellow English teacher, who cannot treat a student in love with him with common decency. MIL1 might at a stretch be the battered Linda Rosen, who, asked by Miss Barrett if she can do anything for her, asks if Miss B can arrange for dancing in the cafeteria. But I think I settle for H1 as a cross between the school nurse, who cannot touch a wound or remove foreign particles from the eye and must accordingly settle for giving Linda Rosen a cup of tea, and the guidance counselor, Miss Friedenberg, who might have served as a role model for sound bite politicians. In her zeal, Miss F can produce at a pinch a Pupil Personality Profile for every student in the school with all his/her teachers' Capsule Characterizations, producing with pride about a thimbleful of empty generalization by way of insight into the characters and troubles of the members of Miss Barrett's class.
The solution to LW1's situation is simple enough: Divorce. C1 do not really see eye to eye. H1 is yielding to his wife now, but he will soon resent doing so.
Moral: "You have devoted... a whole generation of time to this work, haven't you?"
L2: The Prudecutor is at her most irritating. It may be reasonable to assume that meeting and marrying LW2 might be the best thing that ever happened to H2, but there may well be other things that have happened to H2 that could well vie for the honour, or at least sufficiently appear so to do as to make it unwise to make the bold declaration advocated by the Prudecutor. And it is a bit much for the Prudecutor to be so aggressive in her assertion that C2 have done Nothing Wrong when it is clearly a point of conduct that anyone could have predicted would have been considered questionable by the small-minded in a conservative community. Do we even know for sure that LW2 objects only to what she perceives to be entirely unjustified and malicious attacks, or whether what stings ios that some part of her inner self is not entirely convinced she has in this matter acted in strict accordance with the dictates of her own moral code. Personally, I'd be inclined to be content with congratulating C2 on beating the odds against rebound romances. Then again, I know so little of religions that I cannot pronounce with the glib assurance of the Prudecutor that it is ridiculous to disapprove of a separated but not yet divorced person dating or boinking. Religions contain many prejudices with which one might disagree while allowing that, given the basic premise of the faith group involved, a particular prejudice X or Y is understandable.
It might help to know whether LW2 entered into the campaign as an ostrich, or whether this particular race is an exception to the usual manner in which local politics tend to be conducted there. Is this the first race in which the incumbent has run a negative campaign, or one reaching so far as the personal lives of opposing candidates? I am almost inclined to guess that LW2 just did not foresee the campaign taking this particular turn, and that she is basically at peace therefore with her own conscience, but cannot be certain.
LW2 does seem to fit Miss Barrett's model, that of the innocent fumbling in the unexpectedly complex arena into which she finds herself drawn, coming to the brink of surrender, but just in time embracing her situation. Not a bad role model for a Candidate's Wife. LW2 could choose worse.
As to what C2 ought to do, one potential idea is to run on the truth, own what they have done, acknowledge that some people will vote against H2 accordingly, respectfully disagree with the wisdom of such a vote on such a basis, and perhaps reap a reward in a harvest of votes from those who choose to stand against prejudice. Then again, such a plan might not be feasible in their community. But it is possible.
Another course, and the one I prefer, is either a sham or a real divorce. A pretence of yielding to community standards might serve H2. However, given the odds against toppling a popular incumbent, however bad the local economy, I am inclined to favour a genuine divorce. Either H2 is as green as LW2, in which case he ought to have had better sense than to offer himself up as the sacrificial lamb, or he (or at least his party operatives) had some sense of the questions that would arise and did not enter the race on condition of dropping out at the first sign of LW2's discomfort. She doesn't care for the attention she's barely started to receive, and he's a real soldier. Not a match. Note that LW2 only mentions that she is considering asking him to drop out, despite her acknowledgment of the time and effort invested in the candidacy already. There is no hint that he has actually offered to drop out if she so desires. That may make a genuine divorce quite reasonable.
Moral: "Just walk slowly and think of the odds, 18 to 6."
L3: How has such a robot as LW3 actually managed to have an emotional relationship in the first place? It's easy enough to see why he's divorced, but I feel rather deprived, as I now cannot advise him to take such action. He has preceded me. On the other hand, it is interesting to encounter a male legal version of Dr Lilith Sternin Crane.
In his defence, at least he does not intend to boink more than one partner concurrently. And given that he has shown the ability to have sex with the same partner ten times while being willing to undertake an eleventh, we might even infer possible longevity for an individual partner. It would be interesting to delve into his relationship with partners who happened not to be age-appropriate - or would that be mean-spirited?
As I cannot tell LW3 to divorce when he has already done so and intends never to wed again, I can only advise him to date professionals with top-grade references. Who would be more likely to be more careful to guard against nasty litle diseases?
LW3's parallel in UtDS seems rather clearly to be the bureaucratic vice principal, Mr McCabe, who has neither vision nor insight nor compassion, but can be relied upon to uphold rules to the best of his considerable ability.
Moral: "It's the sound of thinking."
L4: A curious situation, which I can only compare to Mr Barringer's receipt of a love letter from Alice Blake. How does one cope? He didn't choose a clever method, opting to go over it line by line with the poor girl as if it were a poorly composed homework assignment. She ended by jumping out the window of his classroom some time afterwards.
Moral: "A love letter..." "Which I corrected for grammar and spelling and returned to the student..."
On the positive side, Kim Clijsters has perhaps set a new standard for how to treat questions of a Particular Nature. Interesting that Rennae Stubbs showed KC the message from Todd Woodbridge to begin with, but it seems to have ended all as a bit of good fun.
This week we visit Calvin Coolidge High School.
L1: This letter would certainly have more impact had it been written by H1 instead of LW1. There are two main issues. How much foundation does LW1 have for her claims against MIL1's sanity? As a side line, one might wonder what H1 and his brothers have been doing propping up their mother in all her delusional insanity for all their lives. Then there is the matter of how much justification if any MIL1 had for contacting the authorities about suspected baby abuse, and what she has done since she has been proved to be in error. There are ways in which people act when their conduct has been doubtful that demonstrate responsibility. From what we have to go on thus far, MIL1 is not acting in such a manner.
At least LW1 and H1 are sufficiently in accord to stick to their agreement, but why is H1 continuing to mope so? What does it matter which side of the family supplies any grandparents worthy of being known? And why would H1 continue to mope if MIL1 continues to behave in an outrageous way, making increasingly unreasonable demands? Something is just off.
I cannot see LW1 as Miss Barrett, the protagonist in UtDS, for all her railing against the insanity of the system. She might be the embittered Mr Barringer, Miss Barrett's fellow English teacher, who cannot treat a student in love with him with common decency. MIL1 might at a stretch be the battered Linda Rosen, who, asked by Miss Barrett if she can do anything for her, asks if Miss B can arrange for dancing in the cafeteria. But I think I settle for H1 as a cross between the school nurse, who cannot touch a wound or remove foreign particles from the eye and must accordingly settle for giving Linda Rosen a cup of tea, and the guidance counselor, Miss Friedenberg, who might have served as a role model for sound bite politicians. In her zeal, Miss F can produce at a pinch a Pupil Personality Profile for every student in the school with all his/her teachers' Capsule Characterizations, producing with pride about a thimbleful of empty generalization by way of insight into the characters and troubles of the members of Miss Barrett's class.
The solution to LW1's situation is simple enough: Divorce. C1 do not really see eye to eye. H1 is yielding to his wife now, but he will soon resent doing so.
Moral: "You have devoted... a whole generation of time to this work, haven't you?"
L2: The Prudecutor is at her most irritating. It may be reasonable to assume that meeting and marrying LW2 might be the best thing that ever happened to H2, but there may well be other things that have happened to H2 that could well vie for the honour, or at least sufficiently appear so to do as to make it unwise to make the bold declaration advocated by the Prudecutor. And it is a bit much for the Prudecutor to be so aggressive in her assertion that C2 have done Nothing Wrong when it is clearly a point of conduct that anyone could have predicted would have been considered questionable by the small-minded in a conservative community. Do we even know for sure that LW2 objects only to what she perceives to be entirely unjustified and malicious attacks, or whether what stings ios that some part of her inner self is not entirely convinced she has in this matter acted in strict accordance with the dictates of her own moral code. Personally, I'd be inclined to be content with congratulating C2 on beating the odds against rebound romances. Then again, I know so little of religions that I cannot pronounce with the glib assurance of the Prudecutor that it is ridiculous to disapprove of a separated but not yet divorced person dating or boinking. Religions contain many prejudices with which one might disagree while allowing that, given the basic premise of the faith group involved, a particular prejudice X or Y is understandable.
It might help to know whether LW2 entered into the campaign as an ostrich, or whether this particular race is an exception to the usual manner in which local politics tend to be conducted there. Is this the first race in which the incumbent has run a negative campaign, or one reaching so far as the personal lives of opposing candidates? I am almost inclined to guess that LW2 just did not foresee the campaign taking this particular turn, and that she is basically at peace therefore with her own conscience, but cannot be certain.
LW2 does seem to fit Miss Barrett's model, that of the innocent fumbling in the unexpectedly complex arena into which she finds herself drawn, coming to the brink of surrender, but just in time embracing her situation. Not a bad role model for a Candidate's Wife. LW2 could choose worse.
As to what C2 ought to do, one potential idea is to run on the truth, own what they have done, acknowledge that some people will vote against H2 accordingly, respectfully disagree with the wisdom of such a vote on such a basis, and perhaps reap a reward in a harvest of votes from those who choose to stand against prejudice. Then again, such a plan might not be feasible in their community. But it is possible.
Another course, and the one I prefer, is either a sham or a real divorce. A pretence of yielding to community standards might serve H2. However, given the odds against toppling a popular incumbent, however bad the local economy, I am inclined to favour a genuine divorce. Either H2 is as green as LW2, in which case he ought to have had better sense than to offer himself up as the sacrificial lamb, or he (or at least his party operatives) had some sense of the questions that would arise and did not enter the race on condition of dropping out at the first sign of LW2's discomfort. She doesn't care for the attention she's barely started to receive, and he's a real soldier. Not a match. Note that LW2 only mentions that she is considering asking him to drop out, despite her acknowledgment of the time and effort invested in the candidacy already. There is no hint that he has actually offered to drop out if she so desires. That may make a genuine divorce quite reasonable.
Moral: "Just walk slowly and think of the odds, 18 to 6."
L3: How has such a robot as LW3 actually managed to have an emotional relationship in the first place? It's easy enough to see why he's divorced, but I feel rather deprived, as I now cannot advise him to take such action. He has preceded me. On the other hand, it is interesting to encounter a male legal version of Dr Lilith Sternin Crane.
In his defence, at least he does not intend to boink more than one partner concurrently. And given that he has shown the ability to have sex with the same partner ten times while being willing to undertake an eleventh, we might even infer possible longevity for an individual partner. It would be interesting to delve into his relationship with partners who happened not to be age-appropriate - or would that be mean-spirited?
As I cannot tell LW3 to divorce when he has already done so and intends never to wed again, I can only advise him to date professionals with top-grade references. Who would be more likely to be more careful to guard against nasty litle diseases?
LW3's parallel in UtDS seems rather clearly to be the bureaucratic vice principal, Mr McCabe, who has neither vision nor insight nor compassion, but can be relied upon to uphold rules to the best of his considerable ability.
Moral: "It's the sound of thinking."
L4: A curious situation, which I can only compare to Mr Barringer's receipt of a love letter from Alice Blake. How does one cope? He didn't choose a clever method, opting to go over it line by line with the poor girl as if it were a poorly composed homework assignment. She ended by jumping out the window of his classroom some time afterwards.
Moral: "A love letter..." "Which I corrected for grammar and spelling and returned to the student..."
Thursday, January 13, 2011
1/13 - Operative Questions
What IS it with all these women who insist on playing coy games with The Proposal? Waiting Around for Him to Ask - my Aunt Fanny! And in the Monday case the Everything-but-the-Ring couple has already experienced what stereotypers would term Lesbian Bed Death. Part of me insists on thinking that it couldn't happen to a nicer couple. Another part of me has been continuing my little discussion about Eleanor Butler with Dr Susan. I used to be very White Richard, backing the Duke of Buckingham as the agent behind the murder of the Princes in the Tower. Recently, however, R3 has reminded me of Macbeth, and I have wandered into the Grey Richard camp.
Today I shall devise a few Operative Questions.
L1: LW1 confuses me somewhat. The tricky part with secondhand letters is that it's not alwas easy to discern what a LW is calling something and what the other person is calling the same thing. One is so inclined to reword things. Which of them called anal a Fetish? It certainly sounds as if he did, but I still want to make it absolutely clear that that is his own thinking and not just her mental association. The F word gets thrown about almost recklessly these days. If it originated from him, my guess would be that he is trying to manipulate her into making it their primary entree on the menu, as it were. If it originates from her, I suspect that she wants to make it into something seen as an exotic activity that is far outside the range of what a Normal Person might Reasonably Be Expected to Do. In a way, this is almost like watching a Cutthroat Defence when one knows one of two accused parties must be guilty and each accuses the other.
Another important question is, How has he presented the matter to her? He seems to have been a bit clumsy about it, not laying the groundwork properly and ensuring his partner's comfort along the way. Is he inconsiderate, just not very good at it, or has he made a reasonable effort and just met with a badly mismatched partner? The dealbreaker matter is sort of a side issue to this. Presumably he does not have to have it that way every time. It seems more a question of reasonable accommodation.
The question I like best is, Why has LW1 written to the Prudecutor instead of to Mr Savage, who is a good deal more expert in these matters? One possible answer is that she might not be aware of Mr Savage, but that seems not the most likely. She might have decided in advance that Mr Savage would definitely tell her to be GGG and that his comments section would, to be punny, savage her. Interestingly, just yesterday or so he pointed out in response to a young gay man that anal isn't automatic. Especially if LW1 pinned the F word on this of her own volition, I suspect she consults the Prudecutor because she knows just what answer she'll get back and she feels confident of a sympathetic reception. And it certainly seems that she got more or less what she expected.
I can go on and cross-examine the Prudecutor a bit. Just exactly when is exactly the right time to introduce a non-vanilla interest? Particularly with somewhat bland partners, advancing in small steps is much more likely the way to go. If anything, ABF1 has jumped the gun a bit or gone too fast for LW1. It likely depends on the exact meaning of dealbreaker (people are so like Humpty Dumpty and expect words to mean exactly what they pay them to mean). Unless the construction of the letter is rather off, he appears capable of functioning without indulgence. If he doesn't require it every time, then isn't it simply a question of whether he can be accommodated, and, if so, how often they should agree to do it?
And how, oh how, does the Prudecutor know exactly what is Standard Operating Procedure in bedrooms where her participation would not be required or welcomed? I would hesitate to spout myself, having Retired from Romance, but I should still venture to think myself a good deal more knowledgeable on this topic than the Prudecutor.
Moral: "What many men desire/That many may be meant/By the fool mutitude that choose by show/Not learning more than the fond eye doth teach"
L2: This time I shall begin with the most interesting question. Just when did The Father morph into My Fiance?
FSIL2 may have a good deal in common with more than one person or character, but the one who comes most definitely to mind is the Prodigal Son's Older Brother. Has FSIL2 basically played by Mamma's rules all her life and been rewarded very sparsely for it? Seems plausible enough to me. This does not justify her attack on LW2, but one can understand resentment on the part of someone who has done The Right Thing for year after year and barely been thanked for it when in swans someone who has done what would seem to be Clearly a Wrong Thing (or at least the Right Thing in the Wrong Order), and off she waltzes with a Big Reward.
There are so many questions one could ask. In many respects, this is reminiscent of the holiday questions we had featuring a LW and her MIL - where oh where has the Little Dog Gone? What is F2's contribution to LW2's decision-making process? It seems a bit much that he should be pushed out of the Family Interaction Prototype or get to check out on his own volition before the pair of them are even legally wed. Has FSIL2 had rather a hard time of it for someone with a rich mamma? Or perhaps did FSIL2 have a similar situation of her own in which Mamma behaved rather differently? Has FMIL2 always favoured her dear little boy over his two sisters (or at least the one who's complaining)? Is FSIL2 just badly behaved in general, greedy-grabby and wanting to keep her hands on as large an inheritance as she can? How is the Other FSIL2 taking the whole situation? Does FMIL2 tend to inject money into social transactions on a regular basis? There is just way too much one doesn't know to be truly comfortable with any particular line. My working hypothesis would be that FMIL2 typically is used to being on the receiving end of a good deal of sucking up - Miss Crawley in Vanity Fair, perhaps? And we all know that regular Sucking Up puts one at risk for turning into Goneril or Regan.
Then again, it is at least possible to look at the proposed gift as a Lovely Gesture. One hardly wants one's first grandchild to be raised by parents who are Financially Insecure. And there do exist young women who become Pregnant on Purpose, taking, as it were, Lucy Steele for a role model. Not that LW2 necessarily seems to be one of this type, but FSIL2 might have reason to think her so that has been Conveniently Omitted from L2. And some people do hold hat it matters whether a future child is the result of a commitment or the cause of one.
My working hypothesis is that FSIL2 has behaved more or less in a manner that she thinks worthy of being rewarded by FMIL2, although I'm torn on the question of whether FSIL2 particularly thought she deserved a bit of assistance, or that it would have been nice, or whether she hadn't had any particular thought about her mother's money until suddenly a large gift to a stranger pops up on her radar. This has the feel of L1 from last week and the ex-wife kept dangling for seven years about a child, and then LW1 got someone else pregnant and was thrilled forty ways to Sunday about everything. I wish F2 had written the letter; then we might know much more about his relationship with his sister. Has FSIL2 deliberately passed up the chance to become pregnant herself because it would have been financially imprudent (or even perhaps terminated a pregnancy for reasons of financial responsibility)? That seems a decent first guess, considering how little we've been given.
Should LW2 accept the offer? I can't bring myself to care either way. I don't really have a sufficient read on whether she'll earn every penny of it, and I cannot entirely settle on how much I dislike LW2. It is very curious that she first describes F2 as The Father, and then later calls him My Fiance without any mention of when the engagement occurred and any pertinent circumstances. I think I'm inclined to hope that the siblings and LW2 will all live unhappily ever after.
Moral: "Edwina said she was d****d if she was going to be Queen Lear."
L3: How on earth did this not all come out at the time of the estrangement? And why on earth would LW3 feel she ought not to tell the truth now? The only reason that comes to mind is that she thinks she might not be believed. But this whole letter just comes across as off. It could be a lot of fun; we have all the requisite characters, but we have the wrong LW. LWs calling a stepmother a total witch are rather a cliche. I think I'd most enjoy the perspective of the stepsister, quite the most original character in the piece. What has she been doing in all of this? Why has she now apparently aligned herself with her stepfather, presumably against her mother? What have her motives been? I so want a different LW that I just can't bring myself to go on with the current one.
No moral deserved.
L4: Well, who died and made her Queen Latifah? Why on earth is the whole neighbourhood so afraid of someone so ill-behaved? After all, it takes a village to kowtow to Hyacinth Bucket.
Moral: "Now, Emmett; if you're rude, she won't invite you again."
Today I shall devise a few Operative Questions.
L1: LW1 confuses me somewhat. The tricky part with secondhand letters is that it's not alwas easy to discern what a LW is calling something and what the other person is calling the same thing. One is so inclined to reword things. Which of them called anal a Fetish? It certainly sounds as if he did, but I still want to make it absolutely clear that that is his own thinking and not just her mental association. The F word gets thrown about almost recklessly these days. If it originated from him, my guess would be that he is trying to manipulate her into making it their primary entree on the menu, as it were. If it originates from her, I suspect that she wants to make it into something seen as an exotic activity that is far outside the range of what a Normal Person might Reasonably Be Expected to Do. In a way, this is almost like watching a Cutthroat Defence when one knows one of two accused parties must be guilty and each accuses the other.
Another important question is, How has he presented the matter to her? He seems to have been a bit clumsy about it, not laying the groundwork properly and ensuring his partner's comfort along the way. Is he inconsiderate, just not very good at it, or has he made a reasonable effort and just met with a badly mismatched partner? The dealbreaker matter is sort of a side issue to this. Presumably he does not have to have it that way every time. It seems more a question of reasonable accommodation.
The question I like best is, Why has LW1 written to the Prudecutor instead of to Mr Savage, who is a good deal more expert in these matters? One possible answer is that she might not be aware of Mr Savage, but that seems not the most likely. She might have decided in advance that Mr Savage would definitely tell her to be GGG and that his comments section would, to be punny, savage her. Interestingly, just yesterday or so he pointed out in response to a young gay man that anal isn't automatic. Especially if LW1 pinned the F word on this of her own volition, I suspect she consults the Prudecutor because she knows just what answer she'll get back and she feels confident of a sympathetic reception. And it certainly seems that she got more or less what she expected.
I can go on and cross-examine the Prudecutor a bit. Just exactly when is exactly the right time to introduce a non-vanilla interest? Particularly with somewhat bland partners, advancing in small steps is much more likely the way to go. If anything, ABF1 has jumped the gun a bit or gone too fast for LW1. It likely depends on the exact meaning of dealbreaker (people are so like Humpty Dumpty and expect words to mean exactly what they pay them to mean). Unless the construction of the letter is rather off, he appears capable of functioning without indulgence. If he doesn't require it every time, then isn't it simply a question of whether he can be accommodated, and, if so, how often they should agree to do it?
And how, oh how, does the Prudecutor know exactly what is Standard Operating Procedure in bedrooms where her participation would not be required or welcomed? I would hesitate to spout myself, having Retired from Romance, but I should still venture to think myself a good deal more knowledgeable on this topic than the Prudecutor.
Moral: "What many men desire/That many may be meant/By the fool mutitude that choose by show/Not learning more than the fond eye doth teach"
L2: This time I shall begin with the most interesting question. Just when did The Father morph into My Fiance?
FSIL2 may have a good deal in common with more than one person or character, but the one who comes most definitely to mind is the Prodigal Son's Older Brother. Has FSIL2 basically played by Mamma's rules all her life and been rewarded very sparsely for it? Seems plausible enough to me. This does not justify her attack on LW2, but one can understand resentment on the part of someone who has done The Right Thing for year after year and barely been thanked for it when in swans someone who has done what would seem to be Clearly a Wrong Thing (or at least the Right Thing in the Wrong Order), and off she waltzes with a Big Reward.
There are so many questions one could ask. In many respects, this is reminiscent of the holiday questions we had featuring a LW and her MIL - where oh where has the Little Dog Gone? What is F2's contribution to LW2's decision-making process? It seems a bit much that he should be pushed out of the Family Interaction Prototype or get to check out on his own volition before the pair of them are even legally wed. Has FSIL2 had rather a hard time of it for someone with a rich mamma? Or perhaps did FSIL2 have a similar situation of her own in which Mamma behaved rather differently? Has FMIL2 always favoured her dear little boy over his two sisters (or at least the one who's complaining)? Is FSIL2 just badly behaved in general, greedy-grabby and wanting to keep her hands on as large an inheritance as she can? How is the Other FSIL2 taking the whole situation? Does FMIL2 tend to inject money into social transactions on a regular basis? There is just way too much one doesn't know to be truly comfortable with any particular line. My working hypothesis would be that FMIL2 typically is used to being on the receiving end of a good deal of sucking up - Miss Crawley in Vanity Fair, perhaps? And we all know that regular Sucking Up puts one at risk for turning into Goneril or Regan.
Then again, it is at least possible to look at the proposed gift as a Lovely Gesture. One hardly wants one's first grandchild to be raised by parents who are Financially Insecure. And there do exist young women who become Pregnant on Purpose, taking, as it were, Lucy Steele for a role model. Not that LW2 necessarily seems to be one of this type, but FSIL2 might have reason to think her so that has been Conveniently Omitted from L2. And some people do hold hat it matters whether a future child is the result of a commitment or the cause of one.
My working hypothesis is that FSIL2 has behaved more or less in a manner that she thinks worthy of being rewarded by FMIL2, although I'm torn on the question of whether FSIL2 particularly thought she deserved a bit of assistance, or that it would have been nice, or whether she hadn't had any particular thought about her mother's money until suddenly a large gift to a stranger pops up on her radar. This has the feel of L1 from last week and the ex-wife kept dangling for seven years about a child, and then LW1 got someone else pregnant and was thrilled forty ways to Sunday about everything. I wish F2 had written the letter; then we might know much more about his relationship with his sister. Has FSIL2 deliberately passed up the chance to become pregnant herself because it would have been financially imprudent (or even perhaps terminated a pregnancy for reasons of financial responsibility)? That seems a decent first guess, considering how little we've been given.
Should LW2 accept the offer? I can't bring myself to care either way. I don't really have a sufficient read on whether she'll earn every penny of it, and I cannot entirely settle on how much I dislike LW2. It is very curious that she first describes F2 as The Father, and then later calls him My Fiance without any mention of when the engagement occurred and any pertinent circumstances. I think I'm inclined to hope that the siblings and LW2 will all live unhappily ever after.
Moral: "Edwina said she was d****d if she was going to be Queen Lear."
L3: How on earth did this not all come out at the time of the estrangement? And why on earth would LW3 feel she ought not to tell the truth now? The only reason that comes to mind is that she thinks she might not be believed. But this whole letter just comes across as off. It could be a lot of fun; we have all the requisite characters, but we have the wrong LW. LWs calling a stepmother a total witch are rather a cliche. I think I'd most enjoy the perspective of the stepsister, quite the most original character in the piece. What has she been doing in all of this? Why has she now apparently aligned herself with her stepfather, presumably against her mother? What have her motives been? I so want a different LW that I just can't bring myself to go on with the current one.
No moral deserved.
L4: Well, who died and made her Queen Latifah? Why on earth is the whole neighbourhood so afraid of someone so ill-behaved? After all, it takes a village to kowtow to Hyacinth Bucket.
Moral: "Now, Emmett; if you're rude, she won't invite you again."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)