As the Prudecutor finally addressed the main point of Homocentric August directly (while both revealingly and badly), it seems fitting to close off the month by looking exclusive at L3, in her response to which the Prudecutor cannot make herself more clear. The opening sentence shimmers with unPrudecutorlike brevity and lack of equivocation - "Invite him." Now, perhaps this may surprise some readers, but my response is not going to be an instantaneous, "Don't invite him." A kneejerk call in either direction is automatically wrong in approach, even if it turns out to be the stopped clock in this particular direction.
I shall begin by parsing the Prudecutor's reply. I don't know where she gets the idea that she is agreeing with LW3 about the world changing, as LW3 never said any such thing. Conflating living openly and entering marriages suggests a simultaneity that does not exist, probably for some nefarious purpose. The article to which she linked was quite weak. At the very least, President Obama ended up, deliberately or otherwise, hiding behind the most politically palatable reason for his change of heart, his daughters. Actual gay people entering actual social institutions had nothing to do with it; his daughters have friends with same-sex-couple parents. It is possible to view his support as indirectly insulting. I do not share such a view, but can see how some people conclude much similar support to be based on the idea that, because Queers Are Raising Kids (clutch pearls!), they had better be made as assimilated and normal-looking as possible - a sort of twist on Miss Barrett in Up the Down Staircase summing up her student Linda Rosen for the school psychologist with, "Marry her off quick."
Saving the Prudecutor's speculation on motive for another paragraph, and her assumption about the meaning of BU3's accepting such an invitation for another, I shall jump ahead. There is something missing from the Prudecutor's response. If I were in true Conspiracy Theorist Mode, I might speculate both that this was indicative of something sinister in the Prudecutor's mentality and something that (almost) none of the straight commenters would catch. But I am not in such mode. I shall even go so far as to pay my readers the compliment that doubtless they all caught the glaring omission of the Standard Meaningless Prudecutorial Congratulations And Best Wishes bestowed upon any couple on the point of marrying or family-expanding.
Moving on to motive, the Prudecutor is quite right to point out that there could have been various reasons for BU3's vote. True, some votes against marriage equality are based on genuine opposition, while others are based on political expediency. The Prudecutor appears to feel that a vote based on political expediency means that said voter should get a free pardon in such matters as social invitations, but is a bit too much of a weasel to state such a thing explicitly. Here she lines up squarely in the same camp as Karl Rove (according to Andrew Sullivan). Circa late 2004, Mr Rove patronized a barbershop with a predominantly gay clientele. Apparently, relations were at least reasonably civil all round. Then Mr Bush was re-elected, largely due to Mr Rove's pushing for much of the re-election campaign to be tied to the backs of anti-gay ballot measures. When Mr Rove next appeared to have his hair cut, he was reportedly stunned by the unfriendly treatment he encountered. Why should anyone have taken offence when there was nothing personal about anything he'd done?
I take similar interest in the Prudecutor's presumption about the meaning of BU3's possible acceptance of the putative invitation. It would show that he's open to admitting he was wrong? That might coincide, but A would not necessarily imply B. And this leads me to an interesting view of Who Really Benefits from the system the Prudecutor recommends. I do think, by the way, that BU3 could have voted for the ban in a way that made his personal dissent clear, although in such a case think it highly unlikely that LW3 would at present be experiencing such angst.
LW3 mentions a fear of offending other family members if BU3 is not invited. Presumably, then, EF3 have brought pressure to bear on LW3 not to make waves or not to have any visceral reaction to BU3's objectionable vote in company. Flipping the coin, one deduces similar pressure on BU3 not to make too great a display of prejudice in public. And the same familial forces that would be offended if LW3 were to withhold the invitation would presumably be equally offended if BU3 were to decline it. What, then, becomes the picture? LW3 grits teeth and invites; BU3 grits teeth and accepts. Neither wants to be in company with the other and it spoils the day, but both capitulate to keep the Tyrannous Middle happy. It's quite reminiscent of Tom's account in Daria of how the Sloanes always handle problems by pretending they don't exist, which is inconvenient when there are odours involved.
Now for some points about which L3 is unclear. BU3 served as an elected official. Presumably he is out of office at present. When, oh, when, did the vote occur? What were the political consequences and follow-up? How has BU3 addressed the matter within the family, if at all? I suspect that he has not had to address the issue within the family, and that perhaps there has been considerable pressure exerted on him to avoid doing so. Or perhaps he has been able to skate along in the presumption that of course his entire family agrees with him. Oh, dear. Has LW3 had any contact with BU3 about the nauseating vote? Has BU3 met LW3 and F3 as a couple? Perhaps most importantly, has BU3 apologized in any way, shape or form?
I shall now jump ahead a bit and propose a solution. I suggest that LW3 contact BU3 privately - assuming, of course, that the date retains some wiggle room. LW3's tone should be one of presuming and completely accepting that BU3 doesn't want to attend the wedding any more than LW3 wants to invite him. The contact should be an offer to conspire to hold the wedding on a date on which BU3 could not possibly attend. Then nobody has to confront the Tyrannous Middle.
In one respect, the Tyrannous Middle subconsciously play into the hands of the Bigots. It is not often stated, but I am convinced that the TM, as does the Prudecutor herself, is quite attached to the Gay Doormat, who will always Be the Bigger Person, Turn the Other Cheek, and Accept Hateful Behaviour in exchange for the few Crumbs of Approval the TM deign to provide. If BU3 has not apologized, then one of the main signals sent by Just Inviting Him thoughtlessly because it's the Thing to Do is that Bigots Can Mistreat Queers as badly as they like and still be invited to their weddings. For a prime example of this, Mr Savage was recently so foolish as to invite one of the main bigots, Mr Brown, into his own home for dinner and a Biblical debate that 95 people out of a hundred could have predicted would come to no gain for either side. Mr Savage was sufficiently deluded to think that such a gesture would force Mr Brown to acknowledge his humanity. Mr Brown has not done so. Huge net loss for us across the board, as now our homophobic relatives will feel entitled to similar treatment. After all, if the Head F***** can do it...
I can almost feel wave after wave of commentator glaring at me for daring to think that issuing the invitation might not necessarily automatically be Best. Let me guess. Almost all of the Just Invite Him crowd are straight, straight, straightstraightSTRAIGHT. Well, isn't that special, as Church Lady would say, without a question mark. The Prudecutor did, to her credit, manage to avoid the common pitfall of making a comparison between BU3 and that irritating relative that opposite-sex couples only invite out of obligation. While there is much that L3 did not include, we do know in part from such a system of omission that LW3 feels deeply wounded by BU3's vote. And I sincerely doubt anyone in the Just Invite Him crowd has experienced anything like what LW3 has experienced in the form of a potential guest actually casting a vote on record in opposition to the very possibility of the marriage. Even if the invitations to the wedding took on a remarkable similarity to everybody in the class giving a Valentine to everyone else except Charlie Brown, LW3 would be entirely justified in taking that vote as a complete dealbreaker.
I shall close with disappointment that certain family members will be offended if the invitation is not issued. Offended? Offended is what LW3 has every right to be by that disgusting Amendment, in addition to the conduct of BU3 in voting for it. If that's the dealbreaker, so be it; there shall be no reproach from me. If not, and LW3 can invite BU3 with peace and joy at heart, then fine, though I still hope something prevents BU3's actual attendance.
The Prudecutor should be ashamed of herself.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
8/23 - Would That Be Phobic?
Dear LW4: W4 presumably has some sort of phobia, but it would not be phobic of you to divorce her. People might find such tricks charming or cute or harmless. Really, it manifests a mental attitude that is little short of the mindset of the Queen of Hearts when one thinks about it. If you don't divorce W4, who has shown such a demonstrable phobia for accuracy, at least be sure that you negotiate a similar concession (though likely you already have one and just don't recognize it).
Dear LW1: We are all capable of loving things which ought not to form part of our daily surroundings, be those things children or ice cream or maddeningly attractive serial cheaters. You are to be commended for appreciating that your style of life would not create a suitable atmosphere for a child. Accepting this is not demonstrating a phobia of disorders, but rather humane attitudes about acceptable home environments. But this is not necessarily all bad. It gives you one of the best of goals to motivate your desire to change. Change is difficult, often unpleasant, and generally not really something towards which those who may know they must change without feeling it are able to work with an undivided will. You may well find out the full extent of how capable you are of abandoning your routine, which could be information of great use to you.
Oh - and don't foster, either. I could add, be thankful that you aren't a heterosexual couple, as they just tend to get pregnant often when they are actively trying to avoid doing so, but some people would consider that heterophobic, and therefore I won't.
Dear LW2: Welcome to dealbreakers 101! The odds are that whatever D2 has done might not rise to standards sufficient for declining the stipend. But these are matters which each must decide for himself. There are those who might accept (however cringingly) a Trump Fellowship who might draw the line at some other public figure considered more reprehensible, and others who would decline an offer from a less nauseating source.
But I am almost inclined to emulate Antony Blanche in speculating about the crimes D2 has committed, as you seem to be reacting the same way most of fashionable Venice did when Lady Marchmain's presence led to the shunning of Lord Marchmain and all those connected to him. Visions of murder, rape or heterosexuality might arise. (I shall resist the temptation to cite the stereotype that heterosexuals never fund fellowships because they waste all their cash on abortions or the upbringing of the results of all their unplanned pregnancies, as that would be rather heterophobic.) Now heterophobia might likely cause your declining the offer, but would not necessarily coincide with it. But it is just as legitimate for you to claim to have accepted for Macchiavellian reasons.
To be practical, there ought to be a Moral Fellowship Swap, where people who have been offered fellowships from objectionable sources can swap the moral intentions of their donors.
Dear LW3: Here we have another case for Lucy Angkatell. If T3 were male, you would have no compunction about reporting to the appropriate authorities that he'd indulged in predatory conduct towards F3, and quite right and proper. But T3 is female. No doubt you consider yourself a young person of character, imbued with the noble ideal of being heteroaccepting. Good for you. But you clearly fear that it would be heterophobic of you to report T3. Perhaps there would be a little pleasure in the reporting on that account, which is where Lady A comes in. As she rightly points out, it is much trickier when the right thing to do is pleasant. But, as people as well-regarded as Mr Savage tell us so often, not all heterosexuals are good people. Equality means that they are capable of beimg just as villainous as anybody else. It is not heterophobic to dish out equal punishment when they are.
Dear LW1: We are all capable of loving things which ought not to form part of our daily surroundings, be those things children or ice cream or maddeningly attractive serial cheaters. You are to be commended for appreciating that your style of life would not create a suitable atmosphere for a child. Accepting this is not demonstrating a phobia of disorders, but rather humane attitudes about acceptable home environments. But this is not necessarily all bad. It gives you one of the best of goals to motivate your desire to change. Change is difficult, often unpleasant, and generally not really something towards which those who may know they must change without feeling it are able to work with an undivided will. You may well find out the full extent of how capable you are of abandoning your routine, which could be information of great use to you.
Oh - and don't foster, either. I could add, be thankful that you aren't a heterosexual couple, as they just tend to get pregnant often when they are actively trying to avoid doing so, but some people would consider that heterophobic, and therefore I won't.
Dear LW2: Welcome to dealbreakers 101! The odds are that whatever D2 has done might not rise to standards sufficient for declining the stipend. But these are matters which each must decide for himself. There are those who might accept (however cringingly) a Trump Fellowship who might draw the line at some other public figure considered more reprehensible, and others who would decline an offer from a less nauseating source.
But I am almost inclined to emulate Antony Blanche in speculating about the crimes D2 has committed, as you seem to be reacting the same way most of fashionable Venice did when Lady Marchmain's presence led to the shunning of Lord Marchmain and all those connected to him. Visions of murder, rape or heterosexuality might arise. (I shall resist the temptation to cite the stereotype that heterosexuals never fund fellowships because they waste all their cash on abortions or the upbringing of the results of all their unplanned pregnancies, as that would be rather heterophobic.) Now heterophobia might likely cause your declining the offer, but would not necessarily coincide with it. But it is just as legitimate for you to claim to have accepted for Macchiavellian reasons.
To be practical, there ought to be a Moral Fellowship Swap, where people who have been offered fellowships from objectionable sources can swap the moral intentions of their donors.
Dear LW3: Here we have another case for Lucy Angkatell. If T3 were male, you would have no compunction about reporting to the appropriate authorities that he'd indulged in predatory conduct towards F3, and quite right and proper. But T3 is female. No doubt you consider yourself a young person of character, imbued with the noble ideal of being heteroaccepting. Good for you. But you clearly fear that it would be heterophobic of you to report T3. Perhaps there would be a little pleasure in the reporting on that account, which is where Lady A comes in. As she rightly points out, it is much trickier when the right thing to do is pleasant. But, as people as well-regarded as Mr Savage tell us so often, not all heterosexuals are good people. Equality means that they are capable of beimg just as villainous as anybody else. It is not heterophobic to dish out equal punishment when they are.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
8/16 - Towards New Horizons?
Dear LW4: Yours is a tricky letter, as you really ought to be commended for going through testing before sleeping with a new partner. Please note that I avoid the biphobic trap of adding, "especially given your selection of partners of both genders". (As an aside, someone on the Prudecutorial staff did a better job than usual at suggestio falsi through suppressio veri.) The tricky part is that, as Lucy Angkatell points out in The Hollow, the answer appears to be a self-serving or enjoyable suggestion. But the solution is obvious - if women won't get tested with you, then just stick to men. The world will not end if bisexual people make the conscious choice not to indulge their capacity to take pleasure from both (or all, if one goes beyond the binary) sexes. And the men you partner don't make any sort of kerfuffle when you bring up testing.
Now, to provide a more practical suggestion than the Prudecutor, who would rather berate someone for the horrible crime of having the wrong manner than make a useful suggestion - after all, why on earth would an advice columnist ever want to make an useful suggestion? If people solved all their problems, then they might never consult advice columnists any more. (That they might develop new problems seems not to have occurred to her.) The answer is unilateral disarmament. Should you insist on sleeping with women in future, then, when a relationship progresses to the point, accompany your inital suggestion with a copy of your test results. Quite naturally, your initial suggestion is intended to precede the actual first boink, as both parties should have time to consider. Any potential partner favourably inclined will then respond in kind. This may be a bit passive-aggressive, but passive-aggressive is at least an improvement over overtly aggressive.
Dear LW3: Why do people assume that they will be able to sneak around behind someone's back and get away with it? Such short-sightedness can only be a sign of desperation. If the problem is S3, it is quite possible that they have tried to raise the difficulties his condition has given them with you, only to be shot down. Or perhaps they have observed your conduct with others and made the pre-emptive decision that you wouldn't listen or understand (much as, in the specualtions of Gladys Stern, Maria and Julia Bertram likely decided well in advance that there would be no point in opening their hearts to Sir Thomas, who would in their opinions be incapable of understanding them).
But I have a little idea that goes beyond the thought of the Prudecutor and probably most of those who will comment on the situation. I note that you mention you and your children have shared a house with families. This is a most interesting point. The mere fact that you are a single mother does not make your family any less a family than those which have the good fortune to be headed by two adults (and there are those opting to treat arrangements with more than two adults as a single family unit besides). But many people feel otherwise, and will require two parents. If you are of that persuasion, I suspect that your friends are also. And there we have the rub. You mention your two friends, but not their spouses. It is highly possible that the mother who raised the ugly truth either dislikes your not being equally friendly with her wife, or suspects you, as a single interloper, of having Designs on the poor woman. Not every couple can socialize well with a single on a permanent basis - not necessarily great, but a possibility. Or perhaps there were threesome hints you missed. If your friends are also both single parents, they might be conducting a clandestine romance, and your son was the most convenient lie available. Tough on him, but another possibility.
Dear LW2: Now we may be moving towards a post-straight society. Had you not signed your letter as you did, I might never have caught on to this being an opposite-sex couple. Now, the Prudecutor almost makes an interesting suggestion here. But she forgets an important aspect of her own advice. Perhaps conservatives do care very strongly about traditional families. But, in traditional families, the Husband does deliver just as many lectures as he pleases, and the traditionally submissive Wife accepts whatever instruction he deems fit to bestow upon her, with the Children ideally following her lead in this regard.
The real answer is to give H2 what all Republicans want. This, of course, is a Divorce. In fact, his conduct is begging and pleading for it - if he at all has any clue as to the effect of his conduct. He is doing this deliberately in an attempt to induce you to divorce him. And then he gets to run for office, New Trophy Wife by his side, claiming all the while that he was the Victim in your marriage. If you are not so generous, you can refuse to perform such a kind action.
Dear LW1: Now, this is quite serious. You have discovered something you did not know aboutn your daughter, and naturally it has thrown you off a bit. But far more important than whether you warn her off the dangers of sexting (and shame on you for sexist assumptions that only one sex cannot be trusted with pictures of privities) is that you immediately go and enroll in Parents and Friends of Straights, a worthy organization that will see you all the way through your daughter's accidental but now-enforced coming out. That will prevent you from falling into such homosexist traps as calling the genitalia of the opposite sex nasty names. Do remember, however, that PFS is really just a starter organization, and not the be-all and end-all of Straight Acceptance.
Now, to provide a more practical suggestion than the Prudecutor, who would rather berate someone for the horrible crime of having the wrong manner than make a useful suggestion - after all, why on earth would an advice columnist ever want to make an useful suggestion? If people solved all their problems, then they might never consult advice columnists any more. (That they might develop new problems seems not to have occurred to her.) The answer is unilateral disarmament. Should you insist on sleeping with women in future, then, when a relationship progresses to the point, accompany your inital suggestion with a copy of your test results. Quite naturally, your initial suggestion is intended to precede the actual first boink, as both parties should have time to consider. Any potential partner favourably inclined will then respond in kind. This may be a bit passive-aggressive, but passive-aggressive is at least an improvement over overtly aggressive.
Dear LW3: Why do people assume that they will be able to sneak around behind someone's back and get away with it? Such short-sightedness can only be a sign of desperation. If the problem is S3, it is quite possible that they have tried to raise the difficulties his condition has given them with you, only to be shot down. Or perhaps they have observed your conduct with others and made the pre-emptive decision that you wouldn't listen or understand (much as, in the specualtions of Gladys Stern, Maria and Julia Bertram likely decided well in advance that there would be no point in opening their hearts to Sir Thomas, who would in their opinions be incapable of understanding them).
But I have a little idea that goes beyond the thought of the Prudecutor and probably most of those who will comment on the situation. I note that you mention you and your children have shared a house with families. This is a most interesting point. The mere fact that you are a single mother does not make your family any less a family than those which have the good fortune to be headed by two adults (and there are those opting to treat arrangements with more than two adults as a single family unit besides). But many people feel otherwise, and will require two parents. If you are of that persuasion, I suspect that your friends are also. And there we have the rub. You mention your two friends, but not their spouses. It is highly possible that the mother who raised the ugly truth either dislikes your not being equally friendly with her wife, or suspects you, as a single interloper, of having Designs on the poor woman. Not every couple can socialize well with a single on a permanent basis - not necessarily great, but a possibility. Or perhaps there were threesome hints you missed. If your friends are also both single parents, they might be conducting a clandestine romance, and your son was the most convenient lie available. Tough on him, but another possibility.
Dear LW2: Now we may be moving towards a post-straight society. Had you not signed your letter as you did, I might never have caught on to this being an opposite-sex couple. Now, the Prudecutor almost makes an interesting suggestion here. But she forgets an important aspect of her own advice. Perhaps conservatives do care very strongly about traditional families. But, in traditional families, the Husband does deliver just as many lectures as he pleases, and the traditionally submissive Wife accepts whatever instruction he deems fit to bestow upon her, with the Children ideally following her lead in this regard.
The real answer is to give H2 what all Republicans want. This, of course, is a Divorce. In fact, his conduct is begging and pleading for it - if he at all has any clue as to the effect of his conduct. He is doing this deliberately in an attempt to induce you to divorce him. And then he gets to run for office, New Trophy Wife by his side, claiming all the while that he was the Victim in your marriage. If you are not so generous, you can refuse to perform such a kind action.
Dear LW1: Now, this is quite serious. You have discovered something you did not know aboutn your daughter, and naturally it has thrown you off a bit. But far more important than whether you warn her off the dangers of sexting (and shame on you for sexist assumptions that only one sex cannot be trusted with pictures of privities) is that you immediately go and enroll in Parents and Friends of Straights, a worthy organization that will see you all the way through your daughter's accidental but now-enforced coming out. That will prevent you from falling into such homosexist traps as calling the genitalia of the opposite sex nasty names. Do remember, however, that PFS is really just a starter organization, and not the be-all and end-all of Straight Acceptance.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
8/9 - 20 Minutes
Time to set another speed record, even for Homocentric August.
Dear LW4: A golden opportunity lies before you. You have seen first hand how the system works. If you were a member of an oppressed minority, you could resolve to change the system (better from the outside than the inside; people who try to change the system from the inside are mainly Boy Scouts who end up just going on camping trips and telling themselves their minor efforts are Making All the Difference). But I see the conflict in your letter. At first you begin by acknowledging your luck. And you have had luck. But instead of channeling your anger more towards the system, you end by emphasizing your hard work (read - sense of entitlement) and fury at your friends. The Prudecutor's answer is just to continue the system as is - and why not, as it works for her? But she is all wrong, of course. Changing the system is the answer, but you have already indcated that you will (a bit like Phyllida Erskine Brown) Join the Oppressors. Adieu.
Dear LW3: As much as I want to like a woman whose daughter calls her Daddy (a clever nickname - quite out of Vonnegut in a sideways manner), this one is so easy even the Prudecutor can't boot it. Anyone who marries someone who bullies her child ought to be forced to turn heterosexual and have the child taken away from her in court.
Dear LW2: This is a fake question. I have read all about it in a book. Or, what happened might have been real, but it was cribbed from the book. A group of boys at a summer camp did this sort of thing all summer. Your son's mistake was doing this into something which would leave evidence in the event of discovery. Now, in the book, I am quite sure that it was done into a sock, which would surely never have risked expulsion from camp, unless there were a serious attempt at enforcing an explicit rule against self-pleasure - in which case, who'd have been left by the end of the first week?
But it is interesting that you and his other father have managed to rub along so well together despite your many differences over all these years. Let that serve as encouragement. Just because you didn't go to that sort of summer camp (I suppose that your husband did) does not mean that the world is ending. As this is more up your husband's line, let him advise your son on leaving no evidence. You stick to emulating Martha Stewart and making nice potpourri sachets, and the two of you can each support the other and strengthen the household in his own way.
Dear LW1: Until I saw the closing, I was puzzled. But you heterosexuals think you have all the fun, don't you? You automatically assume, just because your sex can result in pregnancy, that there is an automatic default assumption of monogamy in order to assume paternity. But just because there is an assumption in place that is not there for most of us does not free you from having The Monogamy Talk. Not that your late husband's last adventure was not wrong - though quite a lot of people will regard something that did not go beyond exchanging inquiries as actually Out of Bounds (which is why you HAVE THE TALK) - but, given conditions (and how somebody dying could actually have brought about such a tryst with a full-time caregiver is something I'd like to go into in greater detail in future) a generous heart would want to forgive someone in such a situation, especially if there HAD BEEN NO EXPLICIT AGREEMENT ON THE SUBJECT. For better or worse, you are what you are, and your instinct to punish him and his relatives for, among other things, something that might have happened as early as the first incident, shows clearly your punitive nature. With your next husband, be as explicit as if your next spouse were a wife. I do not like you enough to recommend a wife until you have at least one more husband and show you can get this right.
Dear LW4: A golden opportunity lies before you. You have seen first hand how the system works. If you were a member of an oppressed minority, you could resolve to change the system (better from the outside than the inside; people who try to change the system from the inside are mainly Boy Scouts who end up just going on camping trips and telling themselves their minor efforts are Making All the Difference). But I see the conflict in your letter. At first you begin by acknowledging your luck. And you have had luck. But instead of channeling your anger more towards the system, you end by emphasizing your hard work (read - sense of entitlement) and fury at your friends. The Prudecutor's answer is just to continue the system as is - and why not, as it works for her? But she is all wrong, of course. Changing the system is the answer, but you have already indcated that you will (a bit like Phyllida Erskine Brown) Join the Oppressors. Adieu.
Dear LW3: As much as I want to like a woman whose daughter calls her Daddy (a clever nickname - quite out of Vonnegut in a sideways manner), this one is so easy even the Prudecutor can't boot it. Anyone who marries someone who bullies her child ought to be forced to turn heterosexual and have the child taken away from her in court.
Dear LW2: This is a fake question. I have read all about it in a book. Or, what happened might have been real, but it was cribbed from the book. A group of boys at a summer camp did this sort of thing all summer. Your son's mistake was doing this into something which would leave evidence in the event of discovery. Now, in the book, I am quite sure that it was done into a sock, which would surely never have risked expulsion from camp, unless there were a serious attempt at enforcing an explicit rule against self-pleasure - in which case, who'd have been left by the end of the first week?
But it is interesting that you and his other father have managed to rub along so well together despite your many differences over all these years. Let that serve as encouragement. Just because you didn't go to that sort of summer camp (I suppose that your husband did) does not mean that the world is ending. As this is more up your husband's line, let him advise your son on leaving no evidence. You stick to emulating Martha Stewart and making nice potpourri sachets, and the two of you can each support the other and strengthen the household in his own way.
Dear LW1: Until I saw the closing, I was puzzled. But you heterosexuals think you have all the fun, don't you? You automatically assume, just because your sex can result in pregnancy, that there is an automatic default assumption of monogamy in order to assume paternity. But just because there is an assumption in place that is not there for most of us does not free you from having The Monogamy Talk. Not that your late husband's last adventure was not wrong - though quite a lot of people will regard something that did not go beyond exchanging inquiries as actually Out of Bounds (which is why you HAVE THE TALK) - but, given conditions (and how somebody dying could actually have brought about such a tryst with a full-time caregiver is something I'd like to go into in greater detail in future) a generous heart would want to forgive someone in such a situation, especially if there HAD BEEN NO EXPLICIT AGREEMENT ON THE SUBJECT. For better or worse, you are what you are, and your instinct to punish him and his relatives for, among other things, something that might have happened as early as the first incident, shows clearly your punitive nature. With your next husband, be as explicit as if your next spouse were a wife. I do not like you enough to recommend a wife until you have at least one more husband and show you can get this right.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
8/2 That Time Again!
At long last we return to Homocentric August!
Dear LW1: On one count, I say, good for you for not yielding to pressure to conform to anti-stereotypes. Doubtless you have heard tell for decades that heterosexuals are notoriously fickle, and that, if they were ever granted the right to marry which obviously all your lovers have been, they would destroy the institution of marriage by undermining the concept of marital fidelity. Heterosexuals are entitled to the benefits of matrimony no matter how promiscuous, or, if one prefers, sexually open they are.
This stereotype is similar to the notion that all heterosexual women can't kill spiders and only like to watch Sex and the City or Real Housewives instead of some nice dykish sport. But there is one important difference. That stereotype is dissimilar to the one about heterosexuals changing partners every three minutes and having babies whose paternity must be determined by Maury Povich or Jerry Springer in that you, LW1, are playing with other people's hearts, whether they know it or not. You might be entirely magnanimous, but, for all you know, the fact remains that it is quite possible that you could cause serious harm to one of these other women just due to your own whim of the moment should it so strike you. This does not mean that you should drop your wicked ways and conform to the image of Shiny Happy Breeders that the political leaders want to put before the public thinking only that if we like you will the road to your getting your just rights be eased. But it does mean to be diligent about what you're doing before you start yo enjoy it too much for the wrong reasons.
Dear LW2: My, aren't the heteros coming out of the woodworks? But this problem fortunately has nothing to do with sexual orientation, although it might be true in some parts of the country that acceptance comes more easily for people who present themselves to best advantage. The Prudecutor, who thinks of nothing but Korporate Amerika, wants to homogenize your fiance's speech, not because it irritates you, but because how dare any good little Corporate Drone show any sign of individualism? Bad Prudecutor! But he already stands out as a breeder. The idea of both of you improving your speech is the new "let's both eat healtheir and exercise more" - condescending. You could offer to cure the fault he finds to be your equivalent - far more useful.
Now there is the stereotype that heterosexuals go to extreme lengths to hang on to their youth. Who can blame them, really? After all, it is when they are generally most fertile (as long as they are not trying to appeal to the paedophiles), and that is one of the greatest reasons advanced for people choosing the heterosexual lifestyle. In your fiance's case, he speaks like a permanent teenager instead of wearing inappropriate clothing.
I shall point out only one advantage. At least he is not spending six hours a day in the gym (and when breeders go to the gym, I am told that they actually work out the whole time, as there are no distractions unless they are co-educational) maintaining a youthful body. Think about it. But I suspect that the main thing is that you simply don't love him because of his speech. If you can't embrace his faults and find them charming, then dump yourself already.
Dear LW3: I am sorry for your addiction and hope that you have been able to get your life on track. Congratulations for setting a good example for your children. And what you ask is not unreasonable to a certain extent. Your husband's relations (and the one thing the Prudecutor got right is that H3 does seem to be waffling a bit) can reasonably be asked to understand that you were an addict and that you have made a considerable recovery.
But that is all. You can reasonably request understanding. You cannot demand forgiveness. Now, if your conduct was exemplary in the years prior to your fall, this would seem to be a point in your favour. But it could be chickens coming home to roost. There is an excellent chance that your husband's family contains one or more heterosexuals - as you can see from the other letter, they are everywhere, in even the best of families. Have you ever been even the tiniest bit heterophobic, judging those members of his family whose lifestyles didn't suit you? If so, chances are that they were just waiting for you to fall from your own state of grace. It also sounds as if you have not made truly repentant reparations for your thefts. Attend please first to that before making demands.
Dear LW4: This is a technical question. The library needs to be warned to check their stock. As for your naughty thoughts about your colleague and her student, let them lie.
We shall leave the reader to settle on a moral of his or her choice.
Dear LW1: On one count, I say, good for you for not yielding to pressure to conform to anti-stereotypes. Doubtless you have heard tell for decades that heterosexuals are notoriously fickle, and that, if they were ever granted the right to marry which obviously all your lovers have been, they would destroy the institution of marriage by undermining the concept of marital fidelity. Heterosexuals are entitled to the benefits of matrimony no matter how promiscuous, or, if one prefers, sexually open they are.
This stereotype is similar to the notion that all heterosexual women can't kill spiders and only like to watch Sex and the City or Real Housewives instead of some nice dykish sport. But there is one important difference. That stereotype is dissimilar to the one about heterosexuals changing partners every three minutes and having babies whose paternity must be determined by Maury Povich or Jerry Springer in that you, LW1, are playing with other people's hearts, whether they know it or not. You might be entirely magnanimous, but, for all you know, the fact remains that it is quite possible that you could cause serious harm to one of these other women just due to your own whim of the moment should it so strike you. This does not mean that you should drop your wicked ways and conform to the image of Shiny Happy Breeders that the political leaders want to put before the public thinking only that if we like you will the road to your getting your just rights be eased. But it does mean to be diligent about what you're doing before you start yo enjoy it too much for the wrong reasons.
Dear LW2: My, aren't the heteros coming out of the woodworks? But this problem fortunately has nothing to do with sexual orientation, although it might be true in some parts of the country that acceptance comes more easily for people who present themselves to best advantage. The Prudecutor, who thinks of nothing but Korporate Amerika, wants to homogenize your fiance's speech, not because it irritates you, but because how dare any good little Corporate Drone show any sign of individualism? Bad Prudecutor! But he already stands out as a breeder. The idea of both of you improving your speech is the new "let's both eat healtheir and exercise more" - condescending. You could offer to cure the fault he finds to be your equivalent - far more useful.
Now there is the stereotype that heterosexuals go to extreme lengths to hang on to their youth. Who can blame them, really? After all, it is when they are generally most fertile (as long as they are not trying to appeal to the paedophiles), and that is one of the greatest reasons advanced for people choosing the heterosexual lifestyle. In your fiance's case, he speaks like a permanent teenager instead of wearing inappropriate clothing.
I shall point out only one advantage. At least he is not spending six hours a day in the gym (and when breeders go to the gym, I am told that they actually work out the whole time, as there are no distractions unless they are co-educational) maintaining a youthful body. Think about it. But I suspect that the main thing is that you simply don't love him because of his speech. If you can't embrace his faults and find them charming, then dump yourself already.
Dear LW3: I am sorry for your addiction and hope that you have been able to get your life on track. Congratulations for setting a good example for your children. And what you ask is not unreasonable to a certain extent. Your husband's relations (and the one thing the Prudecutor got right is that H3 does seem to be waffling a bit) can reasonably be asked to understand that you were an addict and that you have made a considerable recovery.
But that is all. You can reasonably request understanding. You cannot demand forgiveness. Now, if your conduct was exemplary in the years prior to your fall, this would seem to be a point in your favour. But it could be chickens coming home to roost. There is an excellent chance that your husband's family contains one or more heterosexuals - as you can see from the other letter, they are everywhere, in even the best of families. Have you ever been even the tiniest bit heterophobic, judging those members of his family whose lifestyles didn't suit you? If so, chances are that they were just waiting for you to fall from your own state of grace. It also sounds as if you have not made truly repentant reparations for your thefts. Attend please first to that before making demands.
Dear LW4: This is a technical question. The library needs to be warned to check their stock. As for your naughty thoughts about your colleague and her student, let them lie.
We shall leave the reader to settle on a moral of his or her choice.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
7/26 - Almost August
The front page is acting up - this will be at blitz speed.
L4: Why on earth is LW4 asking the Prudecutor this question? Surely the correct expert would be Estelle Getty - or is she even still alive? At any rate, this is a technical question, and does not merit a measured response.
L3: The Prudecutor is more or less on the right track here, but does not see far enough to the correct solution. Although LW3 does not deserve this good fortune, the easy solution is for F3 just to duplicate the present he buys for M3, give it to H3, have H3 pay for it and give it to LW3. A little incestuous, but isn't that fitting?
L1: Rehiring the nanny would be the supreme feminist gesture - of the branch of feminism that would replace patriarchy with matriarchy if it could. After all, N1 never took an oath not to cheat on LW1, whereas H1 did. And it will serve brilliantly to demonstrate the lack of need for men in the world. If these ideas appeal to LW1, then she should hire away. But the Prudecutor's suggestion of giving H1 a second chance is entirely wrong on all fronts.
L2: LW2 ought to read Emma and attend to the debate between Emma and Mr Knightley over the question of why and/or how Frank Churchill might manage to visit his father despite the objections of the aunt who rules his life. Emma maintains that it is difficult for a young man who has tempers to please, while Mr Knightley is all for the young man standing up and announcing that he would gladly sacrifice any pleasure for his aunt's convenience, but that it is his duty to visit his father on the occasion of his marriage, and that he intends to leave on the morrow. He thinks it would actually raise Frank in the Churchills' esteem, for they would know they could always count on him to do his dfuty by them as well as by his father. Emma is highly entertained, and convinced that only Mr Knightley, who has always been his own master and has never had to manage anyone else's temper, would think it possible to make such a declaration.
Moral: "If he would say so to her at once in the tone of decision becoming a man, there would be no opposition made to his going."
"No," said Emma, laughing, "but perhaps there might be some made to his coming back again."
L4: Why on earth is LW4 asking the Prudecutor this question? Surely the correct expert would be Estelle Getty - or is she even still alive? At any rate, this is a technical question, and does not merit a measured response.
L3: The Prudecutor is more or less on the right track here, but does not see far enough to the correct solution. Although LW3 does not deserve this good fortune, the easy solution is for F3 just to duplicate the present he buys for M3, give it to H3, have H3 pay for it and give it to LW3. A little incestuous, but isn't that fitting?
L1: Rehiring the nanny would be the supreme feminist gesture - of the branch of feminism that would replace patriarchy with matriarchy if it could. After all, N1 never took an oath not to cheat on LW1, whereas H1 did. And it will serve brilliantly to demonstrate the lack of need for men in the world. If these ideas appeal to LW1, then she should hire away. But the Prudecutor's suggestion of giving H1 a second chance is entirely wrong on all fronts.
L2: LW2 ought to read Emma and attend to the debate between Emma and Mr Knightley over the question of why and/or how Frank Churchill might manage to visit his father despite the objections of the aunt who rules his life. Emma maintains that it is difficult for a young man who has tempers to please, while Mr Knightley is all for the young man standing up and announcing that he would gladly sacrifice any pleasure for his aunt's convenience, but that it is his duty to visit his father on the occasion of his marriage, and that he intends to leave on the morrow. He thinks it would actually raise Frank in the Churchills' esteem, for they would know they could always count on him to do his dfuty by them as well as by his father. Emma is highly entertained, and convinced that only Mr Knightley, who has always been his own master and has never had to manage anyone else's temper, would think it possible to make such a declaration.
Moral: "If he would say so to her at once in the tone of decision becoming a man, there would be no opposition made to his going."
"No," said Emma, laughing, "but perhaps there might be some made to his coming back again."
Thursday, July 19, 2012
7/19 Shock! Horror!
The Prudecutor actually came close enough to getting one right that I might actually give her a B+ for one answer. It may take me almost the entire next week to recover. Another 4x200 (with bonus):
L3: Here we have the dreadful occurrence of the Prudecutor managing not to get one wrong when the letter in question was not a complete softball the way some others have been. Some people are Natural Survivors who do their causes all the possible good in the world by being Out and Visible on the Front Lines. LW3 is not. A little more about the benefits of Choice Feminism, or skepticism about how LW3's unwilling and unenthusiastic participation could conceivably help the cause could have improved the answer, but basically it was on the right track. And, as always, I raise an eyebrow when the Prudecutor launches off on an assumption that the working world is so homogeneous that the same Corporate Culture is to be found in all working environments.
LW3's shaming coordinator would do well to take a page from the example of Virginia Trant in The Big Crunch. Shame is to be applied to those who don't contribute to the endless round of charitable collections undertaken by wives whose straying husbands leave them with little else to do (besides helping murder their pregnant schoolgirl mistresses), not to survivors who recognize that their contributions are better off remaining monetary.
L4: What interests me here is that the Prudecutor completely fails to make even the tiniest nibble at the most interesting piece of information in the letter. F4 is insisting that BM4 appear in less than all her usual hirsute glory for the wedding. That would seem to be the vital clue. One recalls when She Who Must was squired for an evening out and an unimpressive dinner by an old flame, Chappy Bowers. While the meal itself was less than inspiring, it was Chappy who gave SWMBO pause by using a coupon for the meal and trying to get a reduction on their bill because they didn't eat the bullet-hard potatoes included in their Selection of Vegetables. A man who would do that would very likely be the sort to investigate the contents of a woman's shopping basket, and that simply would never do.
As for the wedding-related problem, who the flip cares? This is LW4's greatest concern? If it were not for having so many friends who practice in the Family Division and do divorces, I should tell LW4 in clear and ringing tones not to marry F4. But I am too kind to my friends to advise so.
L2: Here there are clearly established procedures (or certainly ought to be) for what W2 can or cannot do given her position and the situation. It would appear from L2 that OP2 is positioning himself so as to take most particular advantage of the lifeguards' situation as they enter or leave their chair. But this requires definite confirmation as being a strong point in W2's favour should she choose to take direct action of the sort indicated as being her preference in L2. Given the Prudecutor's fondness for the idea that all employment cultures are alike, it is almost strange that here she chooses to take a more individual view of the situation here at hand. But this is enough of a technical question that it hardly seems fair to put as a question to the Prudecutor. W2 should do what she is able to do to remedy the situation, and perhaps one might understand if she were to go a little beyond what is most strictly permitted in the situation. It is like Emma Woodhouse wondering if she went beyond what she could say about another woman when she told Frank Churchill she thought Mr Dixon sent Jane Fairfax's pianoforte.
L1: Now one can practically hear all the wolves gathering at the door to proclaim that what occurred was absolutely not rape, at least in the more recent encounter. The Prudecutor actually starts out on somewhat safe grounds, though slightly inexact about implied consent. But then, while it is far from me to be out of sympathy with the Prudecutor or anyone else who cannot stomach the thought of intimacy taking place with her (or his) partner for life without the assistance of the prior consumption of at least a bottle of wine or preferably two, she must allow that not everybody is like herself. LW1 and H1 clearly are not. They are entitled to their own agreement. And I cannot help but wonder what is wrong with being punctilious, a quality surely in great demand among many couples trying, in the face of considerable difficulty, to conceive offspring.
Where I shall tackle LW1 is on two fronts. First, is it so clear that H1 violated their agreement? This led to an agreement that he shouldn't be afraid of coming close to me in similar situations as long as he asked my consent. From LW1's description of the recent encounter, it's hard to say what constitutes what. Is starting to kiss her always a sexual advance? Did her conduct have anything to do with the situation becoming sexual? This is most unclear.
But I feel on firmer grounds questioning whether the situations were so very similar as LW1 maintains. C1 went to a friend's wine tasting. That event was supposed to so comparable to a night of party and drinking? Who organizes such wine tastings? Who gets that drunk at them? From LW1's description of the recent encounter, even if we overlook any possible effect on the relationship of six years of marriage, it sounds as if she only realized her state of inebriation when she could only recall half the encounter. How reasonable is it to suppose that H1 ought to have recognized her drunkenness and how sober is he supposed to be in the agreement to be able to be competent to make such a determination?
I have no quarrel with the couple having an agreement, but think that the agreement needs to change. As to whether or not the couple ought to divorce, of course they ought to divorce. Claude Erskine Brown is in desperate need of a brief. When he is briefless for too long, he starts looking for young lady barristers to take to the Opera. And we all know what happens then.
Moral: "As a bacchanalia, the Blind Tasting ranked very little higher than an afternoon out with the Temperance Society or a vicarage tea party."
L3: Here we have the dreadful occurrence of the Prudecutor managing not to get one wrong when the letter in question was not a complete softball the way some others have been. Some people are Natural Survivors who do their causes all the possible good in the world by being Out and Visible on the Front Lines. LW3 is not. A little more about the benefits of Choice Feminism, or skepticism about how LW3's unwilling and unenthusiastic participation could conceivably help the cause could have improved the answer, but basically it was on the right track. And, as always, I raise an eyebrow when the Prudecutor launches off on an assumption that the working world is so homogeneous that the same Corporate Culture is to be found in all working environments.
LW3's shaming coordinator would do well to take a page from the example of Virginia Trant in The Big Crunch. Shame is to be applied to those who don't contribute to the endless round of charitable collections undertaken by wives whose straying husbands leave them with little else to do (besides helping murder their pregnant schoolgirl mistresses), not to survivors who recognize that their contributions are better off remaining monetary.
L4: What interests me here is that the Prudecutor completely fails to make even the tiniest nibble at the most interesting piece of information in the letter. F4 is insisting that BM4 appear in less than all her usual hirsute glory for the wedding. That would seem to be the vital clue. One recalls when She Who Must was squired for an evening out and an unimpressive dinner by an old flame, Chappy Bowers. While the meal itself was less than inspiring, it was Chappy who gave SWMBO pause by using a coupon for the meal and trying to get a reduction on their bill because they didn't eat the bullet-hard potatoes included in their Selection of Vegetables. A man who would do that would very likely be the sort to investigate the contents of a woman's shopping basket, and that simply would never do.
As for the wedding-related problem, who the flip cares? This is LW4's greatest concern? If it were not for having so many friends who practice in the Family Division and do divorces, I should tell LW4 in clear and ringing tones not to marry F4. But I am too kind to my friends to advise so.
L2: Here there are clearly established procedures (or certainly ought to be) for what W2 can or cannot do given her position and the situation. It would appear from L2 that OP2 is positioning himself so as to take most particular advantage of the lifeguards' situation as they enter or leave their chair. But this requires definite confirmation as being a strong point in W2's favour should she choose to take direct action of the sort indicated as being her preference in L2. Given the Prudecutor's fondness for the idea that all employment cultures are alike, it is almost strange that here she chooses to take a more individual view of the situation here at hand. But this is enough of a technical question that it hardly seems fair to put as a question to the Prudecutor. W2 should do what she is able to do to remedy the situation, and perhaps one might understand if she were to go a little beyond what is most strictly permitted in the situation. It is like Emma Woodhouse wondering if she went beyond what she could say about another woman when she told Frank Churchill she thought Mr Dixon sent Jane Fairfax's pianoforte.
L1: Now one can practically hear all the wolves gathering at the door to proclaim that what occurred was absolutely not rape, at least in the more recent encounter. The Prudecutor actually starts out on somewhat safe grounds, though slightly inexact about implied consent. But then, while it is far from me to be out of sympathy with the Prudecutor or anyone else who cannot stomach the thought of intimacy taking place with her (or his) partner for life without the assistance of the prior consumption of at least a bottle of wine or preferably two, she must allow that not everybody is like herself. LW1 and H1 clearly are not. They are entitled to their own agreement. And I cannot help but wonder what is wrong with being punctilious, a quality surely in great demand among many couples trying, in the face of considerable difficulty, to conceive offspring.
Where I shall tackle LW1 is on two fronts. First, is it so clear that H1 violated their agreement? This led to an agreement that he shouldn't be afraid of coming close to me in similar situations as long as he asked my consent. From LW1's description of the recent encounter, it's hard to say what constitutes what. Is starting to kiss her always a sexual advance? Did her conduct have anything to do with the situation becoming sexual? This is most unclear.
But I feel on firmer grounds questioning whether the situations were so very similar as LW1 maintains. C1 went to a friend's wine tasting. That event was supposed to so comparable to a night of party and drinking? Who organizes such wine tastings? Who gets that drunk at them? From LW1's description of the recent encounter, even if we overlook any possible effect on the relationship of six years of marriage, it sounds as if she only realized her state of inebriation when she could only recall half the encounter. How reasonable is it to suppose that H1 ought to have recognized her drunkenness and how sober is he supposed to be in the agreement to be able to be competent to make such a determination?
I have no quarrel with the couple having an agreement, but think that the agreement needs to change. As to whether or not the couple ought to divorce, of course they ought to divorce. Claude Erskine Brown is in desperate need of a brief. When he is briefless for too long, he starts looking for young lady barristers to take to the Opera. And we all know what happens then.
Moral: "As a bacchanalia, the Blind Tasting ranked very little higher than an afternoon out with the Temperance Society or a vicarage tea party."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)