As to Mike possibly trying to show your husband what he's missing, I don't know. What IS he missing?
Atlanta, Ga.: Dear Carolyn,
My husband and I are "bidding" for a closed adoption through our church. The birth mother is a 17-year-old girl who already has a child. She is currently considering us as well as one other couple. This process involves a lot of waiting and is really fraying my nerves. We are the "better" couple -- higher income, more childcare experience, a son who can't wait to be a big brother, and we live in the suburbs (while the other family has a condo in the city). We have not yet met the mother, but the other couple has apparently established a friendly relationship with her. We hope to do the same over the summer, to help her decision process.
My problem is I cannot come to terms with the fact that the choice will ultimately rest with this girl, whom I've never met. On paper, my husband and I are the easy choice. Nothing against the other couple, but I believe if it were up to an objective party, anyone would choose us. But the process is designed so that the girl has the final say, which I can't understand. Why should it be her decision? She has already demonstrated questionable decision-making capabilities, and she will never know anything about us besides what she learns over a couple of casual lunches. We hope to make a good impression on her, but I am really going to pieces over the thought that maybe there are factors we won't be able to influence. Why is this okay???
Carolyn Hax: If I were the mom, your quickness to dismiss both the other other couple and my right to make decisions for my baby would disqualify you without so much as a follow-up "casual lunch."
What I see are two families who want a child, and who both may well be in a position to give a baby a wonderful home -- neither "better" than the other, just different. And I see a mother who got herself in a stupid spot but who is doing her best to get out of it (see the physics of digging out of holes, above) in the way that best serves her child.
If you can't get over yourself long enough to see that this isn't a competition, it's a community effort to save a life, and that any good home is a great outcome, even if the home isn't yours, then I hope you'll recuse yourself from the "auction" altogether.
-- City-Dweller
Aaaagh, shudder, shudder shudder! So much about this upsets me. First of all, "bidding" for a baby--which Carolyn jabs at nicely with her "auction" barb in the last line of her response.
Next: a closed adoption? I am certainly no expert in adoption but I have done a little bit of research about it, and have discovered that domestic adoptions are rarely fully "closed" anymore--most agencies and offices recommend and facilitate arrangements that are at least semi-open, that is, where there is some communication between the biological parent and the family.
The idea that a child needs to be protected from the shadowy reputation of "bad" parents by a black box of secret records is (thankfully) gone now, and for both medical and just psycho-cultural-social-emotional reasons, at least some interaction with the biological family seems to be the healthiest and most productive approach for everyone. And in this case the child in question has a biological sibling that everyone knows about--are they planning to keep that a secret from the baby? Or tell her about it but refuse to allow the kids to know each other? Everything becomes doubly (or triply) complicated when another child is involved.
Also, if the birth mother is personally meeting with, interviewing, and selecting adoptive families, aren't we already beyond the strictest sense of a "closed" adoption? (Wikipedia article on closed adoption)
Information from an Atlanta adoption agency that I admit I obtained through a quick and dirty google search:
Then: the entire attitude about how her family is "better" on paper. Ugh. Don't even have anything useful to say about it. Too busy shuddering. More childcare experience? Because experience is always a pre-req for parenthood....
Also, I like that the "other" family has taken the time to establish a friendship with the mother, something this writer hasn't bothered to do, but wants to push for in order to "help" her make a decision. I wonder if she even had any interest in meeting the mother until she heard that the other family had--clearly she WISHES the choice would be made by an "objective" party based on a paper application.
On the other hand, Carolyn's response, while appropriately sharp, in some ways feels unrealistically altruistic to me. Of course the most important outcome is that the baby be placed in a loving home. Nevertheless, I think it's unreasonable to expect that waiting adoptive parents--who most of the time are seeking adoption because they can't have children--won't be desperately and devastatingly hoping to be chosen every time.
Nevertheless, this woman sounds like a control freak who can't come to grips with the areas of her life over which she has no power: her and her husband's inability to have biological children (if that's the case), perhaps other potential adoptions gone awry, and certainly this mother's choice to place her baby with the family she thinks best suited to love it, guide it, and provide the kind of life she would want to give it if she could.
It's very sad, actually...this writer sounds lost somewhere between frustration and devastation. But that doesn't make it OK that she's letting those feelings out by turning them against the biological mother of a child she says she wants to raise, and against an innocent family that seems eager to know both the baby and the source of its genes.
I am sad for this woman because she's dealing with obstacles to building her dream family--something that is probably particularly frustrating as she interacts with teenagers who have no such problems, and reproduce in a manner that must seem, well, willy-nilly at best. But if she can't brush the chip off her shoulder and embrace what she's got and what the future holds for her family, I can't see anyone choosing her as a loving, nuturing parent for their unborn child.
Dear Carolyn:
My husband and I, both 24, were the first in our social circle to get married. Most of our friends have more active dating lives than I ever had. I don't feel jealous -- I love my husband -- but something they all seem to do really bothers me.
Whenever we meet up in groups, to chat or have drinks or hang out at the park, the conversation always turns to everyone's latest dating woes. The guys and the girls are equally guilty of indiscretion, but it's the girls I always seem to notice. They go on and on about the club scene where they live and their polygamous sex lives. They wear revealing clothes that I gave up after high school and they often get hit on by strangers while we're hanging out. [So much judgment of the friends! They get hit on by strangers!? Who else would you expect to hit on your friends? They shouldn't lead monk-ish lives just because they're hanging out with your husband, who is clearly off-limits. As we'll see in a second.]
I don't feel they should be talking and acting that way around my husband, a married man. ["a married man." This sounds like a phrase from a Doris Day movie, or maybe something Jack Lemmon would say to his skeazy colleagues in The Apartment. "But you're a married man!" I think, though, the poor guy has to do something more than sit in the presence of single women (his wife's friends, no less) for him to be slammed with this "friendly" reminder] I would prefer he not be thinking about our female friends' wild sex lives or noticing how hot everyone thinks they are. [I would bet good money that if she were to ask her husband the details of any of these stories, he wouldn't have a clue. He's probably watching the game on the bar's flatscreen! When I'm out with SK and others, and the conversation turns to gossipy girl-talk my top two concerns are 1) I hope he's not bored to tears and 2) I hope he's not so spaced out that if someone asks him a direct question he misses it completely. "I hope he's not drawn into a complicated fanstasy based on Friend A's date last night" doesn't even register on my list. ] I know this is why married couples naturally gravitate toward other married couples [it is? more on this below], but these are the friends we have and I do not want to trade them in, so to speak.
Can I say something to my girlfriends about how uncomfortable I feel, or since I'm so outnumbered do I have to just suck it up and be miserable around them all the time? [Or can I get over myself and not make a stink or be miserable??]
Maryland
Oh, my goodness. Were you miserable around them before you married? [I think this is an important question....the fact that this woman married young suggests that she and her husband were dating for several years--at least, that's been the case with most of my friends who are getting engaged and married right now. And if these are their only friends...well, what's changed? Besides their legal status?]
I can't speak for anyone but myself, obviously, but this married person does not gravitate to other married people because the single ones are flaunting their hotness.
I don't even know what to do with this idea -- do I rail first against the idea that people cover themselves up when they get married? Because plenty of people dress the way they do because they like it, and don't change a stitch of what they choose to wear after marriage.
But then that demotes to second rail the whole idea that single people = temptation = a group to avoid once married; railing against that deserves at least to share top billing.
How 'bout -- I'll rail against the idea of controlling what your husband sees.
People have eyes and ears and temptations no matter what they've vowed to whom or why. If your husband misses the single life, he's going to do that whether your friends raise provocative discussions or not.
People who marry young probably do struggle more with the whole issue of regrets and what they may have given up, and their immersion in a world with a lot of raging singles does contribute to that struggle. However, this is the choice you made, and it's going to stand on its merits alone.
In other words, if the only way you can keep your boat from sinking is to put it in dry dock, then that's a choice you and your husband need to make together -- after, I would suggest, as open a discussion as possible. If your boat really is leaking, I also wouldn't suggest blaming it all on the ocean. [Another winner of an analogy. Thanks Carolyn!]
Tomorrow: Maryland and readers reply.
Dear Carolyn:
Maybe I didn't explain myself well [in yesterday's column]. My marriage is not in trouble and I'm not afraid my husband is being reminded of what it was like to be a "raging single." It's my friends themselves who bug me. [A ha! More evidence that she has no right to be upset! If her husband were actually reacting to these stories in a way that bothered her, the issue would be with him (not her friends) but it would be more understandable that she would want to blame them. But in fact, he's not doing anything to suggest that he's unhappy with his choice, or wishes he were out with a harem of singles because their stories are so hot(tt). She's upset on principle alone--and over a principle that apparently has no basis in reality. So what's the deal?]
When Friend A is recounting the story of how her last date ended with making out in a cab, or men walking by are commenting on Friend B's amazing chest, it seems only natural that my husband would take a closer look at Friends A and B. [Doubtful. Again, this is where to me it seems only natural that husband would tune out entirely, because this conversation has nothing to do with him or his interests. I mean, not that he couldn't be a part of it. But I bet he's not. Maybe it's this tuning out that Married in Maryland is mistaking for his drifting into gawking and fantasizing. Also, how is it conceivably Friend B's fault if sleazy dudes walking by are stoked because she's stacked? She would probably prefer that they don't make such juvenile comments about her bod.]
In my view, more mature people respect each other's marriages by not presenting those kinds of temptations. I wouldn't talk about my sex life with my friends' dates because only my husband should look at me in a sexual way. [My guess is that these conversations happen specifically because the friends don't see the husband in a sexual way, or consider that he'd see them that way--like a brother or a gay friend, the husband probably seems completely sexually apathetic--which is why they have no qualms about oversharing] So I don't get why you reacted as though I'm being outrageous.
[Maybe another issue to consider here is that she brings her husband along in situations when she really shouldn't. Sounds like there's a lot of girl-talk going on, and maybe her friends are carrying on as usual, and this one keeps bringing her husband to martinis-and-manis night. We might be (ok, probably are) getting a skewed perspective because Married says there are men present who do the same thing as her single girlfriends, but the picture she paints for us just makes me feel bad for the husband, like his wife brought him a long to a slumber party and then got mad at her friends for playing Truth or Dare, sharing private tales and putting their bras in the freezer.]
Married Maryland Girl Again
Because you're being outrageous. Your husband could just as well be looking at your friends during tales of their exploits and saying, wow, A and B are gross. I can assure you he already noticed B's chest and decided whether it was amazing long before your friends prattled on about it.
You have constructed a wall in your mind between marriage and singlehood that doesn't exist. Okay, you don't hit on those you know to be in life commitments -- otherwise, you treat people as people.
Now, if you've outgrown your friends, that's something else. But if you'd enjoy the raunch in unmixed company and it's just having your husband there that freaks you out, then I think you're getting worked up over something that "more mature people" shrug off. Real partners are secure enough to handle real experiences and real people together. [And also secure enough to socialize apart, on occasion]
Re: Maryland:
It strikes me that Maryland is enforcing a lot of our bad social prejudices, too. She acknowledges that the men in her group are just as "guilty of indiscretion" (guilty?!) as the women, but it's the women who bother her more. We're not a culture that holds men and women to equal standards when it comes to expressing sexuality, and she's probably been a victim of that herself.
Also, why should their talking about their lives now be any different from before the wedding? I get the sense there's a lot going on under the surface of this woman's question, and she might want to evaluate her own assumptions about men and women.
Anonymous
Agreed. I saw it as a he's-my-man-and-vixens-be-gone reflex, but you're right that even if it were a legitimate reflex to act upon (which it isn't, said the broken record), it doesn't justify the double standard. Maybe she's just lost, and grabbing on to her old ideas of what marriage is "supposed to be."
Re: Maryland:
I always assumed the married people gravitated to each other for the sole purpose of boring any unfortunate nearby singles into a coma with their talk of mortgage refis, kids and vinyl siding. I'd have killed to hang out with some fun, trampy singles.
I think the older you get, the less you think of marriage as this wormhole gate that forces you to dress, think, talk and behave like a pod person.
Anonymous 2
A little hope-driftwood to cling to, thanks.
In short, I think Married in Maryland is just really, really insecure--could even be the case (though I'm making a real assumption here) that she married so young precisely because she didn't think she'd ever find someone else, or be able to compete with her friends--or because she wanted to "beat" them in something--anything--that would prove she was just as desirable as they were. And now she's judging them for living the lives they want to live, rather than conforming to the choices she made for herself. Mostly, I feel pity for Married--but not enough that I'm willing to condone her making herself comfortable by reigning in everyone around her. She needs to get comfortable with herself first, then her husband and her marriage, and then think about whether she's still a good fit for these friends.
Dear Amy: My grandniece is graduating from college in two weeks, and I am perplexed as to what would be an appropriate gift. When she graduated from high school, we gave a quite generous cash gift. Now she will be returning home to live with her parents and will be employable.
She has a car, and all her college expenses were paid for by others. Should we give money again? — Perplexed
Dear Perplexed: There are myriad acceptable gifts besides cash, such as books, artwork or heirlooms. I also like the idea of helping set up a college graduate with a very long-term investment, rather than giving cash.
You should check with your accountant to see if you can set up a retirement fund for your grandniece. You could fund it initially with a gift to her now — and encourage her to sock money away.
If the aunt chooses to give money, I think this is a great way to do it. Forward-looking grandparents often do this when children are born, typically to save specifically for college. Ideally, this plants a seed about saving and investing in the minds of the children, and encourages them to do the same for themselves.
That is, if they have any income to spare. If they have a place to put it. And if they were aware of the investment, its changing value over the years, and its direct impact on their college experience, or some part of it.
The last of these "ifs" may be the least likely, in particular in a case where college was entirely all-expenses-paid for the student. But this is a lesson it's never too late to start learning....though the earlier it is learned, the more benefit can come from it.
The aunt seems skeptical about giving cash, apparently because the girl didn't really "need" it before. Now that she's "employable," the implication seems to be that she really won't. But even if she finds a good, steady job right away, it's unlikely that as an entry-level college grad she'll have much spare money to set aside for the future, or much of a retirement plan. Setting one up and encouraging the recipient to follow it and add to it (hurrah for Direct Deposit making this really easy...) would be a gift worth a lot more than just the initial cash value.
To me it seems a leeetle strange that the aunt seems so gun-shy about giving money, again, apparently based on the fact that it seems to have been spent frivolously (or at least she seems to think so) the last time she did. This rubs me just a little bit the wrong way. A gift is a gift...you can't specify how it will be spent....in fact, I tend to think that cash gifts are meant to be spent on, well, a gift or gifts for oneself: a nice dinner out with friends, a new outfit, an armload of books, etc. to celebrate the birthday, graduation, or whatever.
If the aunt wants the money she gives to be put toward "good" use, I think Amy's suggestion about setting up an investment is the best way to approach it. But if she's going to be so particular, I think I'd encourage her not to give money at all, and to just stick to something over which she has more control (though she still can't prevent the niece from selling the "artwork" or "heirloom" on ebay).
I'll wrap up with one of my favorite Carolyn mantras: When it comes to graduations, weddings, and other gifty occasions, it is never acceptable to ask for money, but it is always acceptable to give it.
Dear Readers: Some time back, I ran a letter from "No Babies in South Dakota," about how to respond to frequent queries about when she and her husband would have children.
Because they don't plan to have children, they were looking for a "snappy comeback." Readers responded by the bushel. A surprising number of readers accused people who don't wish to have children of being selfish. [This is unbelievable to me! Selfish with respect to whom? Whose needs are not being considered? It just makes no sense!]
Other readers offered snappy comebacks or other responses to the age-old question: "When are you going to have kids?"
Dear Amy: Why is it necessary to have a snappy comeback? Most people ask out of curiosity.
Being a person who is decided against kids and marriage, I always politely but firmly say that was my lifestyle choice.
Only a Neanderthal would push the point, and then I still politely but firmly say, "These questions are getting a little personal." — Personal Choice
[Hmm...as is so often the case, the vanilla answer is probably the only one that will get the inquisitor to realize that THEY'RE the one being rude. Snappy feels good, but just gives the busybody the chance to denounce you as a terrible person and rejoice that you're not choosing to multiply your DNA. Which I guess still achieves the same end.....]
Dear Amy: I'm a 49-year-old woman. When people ask me why I don't have children, I just say, "I love doting on other people's children, and with such a wonderful niece and nephew, that's enough for me." This has worked well for me, but on occasion I have had to set some boundaries with particularly insistent people. In those cases, I said, "It is a personal decision that is not open for discussion." — Elisa
Dear Amy: "No Babies" should more honestly rationalize her decision by just admitting, "I'm selfish, and I don't want to interrupt my lifestyle" or "I dislike children; they are so untidy," or "I'm afraid I'd make a child turn out as miserably neurotic as myself." — Disgusted
["Disgusted?" Seriously? I cannot understand why these people are SO BITTER and judgmental. "I don't want to interrupt my lifestyle?" A child is not an interruption--it's a paradigm shift. You shouldn't be having children unless family life IS your lifestyle. Choosing how you want to live your life, and how you CAN live your life, is not selfish. Having a child that you know you can't love or care for properly--THAT'S selfish.
You can LIKE children without wanting to be a parent. Or you can honestly DISLIKE children--in which case the decision not to have them would be well-founded--but that doesn't mean the only "honest" recourse is to announce this preference widely. Just as, in the company of a garbage collector, one wouldn't say "I could NEVER be a garbage collector, it's so DISGUSTING," tactful people who don't want kids are probably right to remain reticent about their reasons--not only because those reasons are personal and private, but to avoid giving the impression that they look down on the choices of their friends and relatives who ARE parents--something parents tend to read into these situations, but non-parents generally have no desire to convey.]
Dear Amy: If you don't have kids and you're happy with it, you're "childfree." If you don't have kids and you're not happy with it, you're "childless." — Childfree by Choice[
[Yay semantics!]
Dear Amy: My husband and I have known couples that have "elected" not to have children. It seems that these couples always replace the children in their lives with a very pleasant lifestyle that includes frequent vacations, nice clothes, fine cars, above-average homes, season tickets to sporting events, plays, concerts and a lifestyle that couples with children never dream of.
All to replace the emptiness of an empty nest. This all smacks of the '60s hippie culture through the '70s "me generation." — Not Buying It
[This, to me, smacks of the Depression-era/Greatest Generation, raised to sacrifice, adhere to one's duty, live simply and frugally--and that to do more than that is ostentatious and selfish. That there's something shameful about a "very pleasant lifestyle." Yes, couples who do not have children, in most cases, have more disposable income. That's just math. It does not mean that they're trying to "replace" children with luxury or embrace a profligate lifestyle that "couples with children never dream of." WHY would people without extra mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, and minds to educate stick to the same budget and lifestyle as people with them, while their earnings sit in a stack at the bank?]
Dear Amy: To the couple with concerns about inquiries: Bottom line — it is your private business! Remember, too, that you have the right to change your mind. In one case we know of, it took 17 years, but when the baby came, it was for all the correct reasons. — No Excuses/No Regrets
Dear Amy: I, too, have the same "no babies" problem.
Nothing infuriates me more than when people say, "You want them, but you just don't know it yet." I am 31, and my husband is 33. We know, and it's a no for us.
I am starting to think "We can't have kids" is the easiest response. — No Babies in Meraux, La.
[Right, until people start asking questions about your fertility and your attempts to have children or pursue adoption.....]
The Ann Landers Encyclopedia, A to Z: Improve Your Life Emotionally, Medically, Sexually, Socially, Spiritually. (Doubleday, 1988).
"Are you ashamed to ask--but would like more information on orgasm? Face lifts? Rape? Contraceptives? Bashful kidneys? Homosexuality? Constipation? Frigidity? Shyness?"
Dear Miss Manners: My husband and I are renting a nice home in an upscale neighborhood outside Washington, D. C. Since moving in, at least a dozen neighbors have approached us with the off-putting welcome of “So, you are renting this house?”
We both find the question to be rather forward and rude.
Without knowing our reason for renting, it puts us on the defensive for not being “able” to buy a home, when, in fact, we are more than able to; we just choose not to in this current market.
Could you help us with an appropriate comeback that lets them know that yes, we are renters, but that in no way makes us second-class citizens and we don’t appreciate having to defend our status?
Gentle Reader: Don’t you want to get the curtains up before you start sparring with the neighbors?
Miss Manners is not at all sure that you have any cause. She has no tolerance for pure nosiness, real estate or otherwise, but surely you understand that neighbors have a legitimate interest in what is going on in the neighborhood. Maybe they hate your landlords and hope they are gone for good. Maybe they like you and are hoping you are there to stay. Maybe they also rent.
Besides, don’t you know that nowadays, seeming rich is considered more offensive than seeming poor?
Everything about this is really weird. If this woman was trying to make her neighbors look intrusive and boorish, she didn't inject nearly enough drama into her rendering of their question. Although the details of their finances are of course private, and should be, whether a house in a neighborhood is owned by you or someone else is not. And an "upscale" neighborhood seems especially likely to be conscious of these details. Aren't property holdings public information? Maybe not (I invite any of my readers with knowledge about information policy to weigh in).
Even without digging into local records, the neighbors have probably seen the "for rent" in front of the house, or knew the previous renters.....there are so many clues that make "Are you renting this house?" a perfectly reasonable question to ask.
Not to mention that, according to this writer, the question is not "Why are you renting?" but simply "Are you renting?" They are. Why does that require offering any explanation at all?
I think it's fair to say that when someone reacts to an innocuous question this way, it's usually because THEY have a problem with the situation being asked about--not that the inquirer does. Perhaps her husband made the call that "this market" was not the time to buy a house and she disagrees, or perhaps she's bitter about paying out years of rent in a particularly pricey neighborhood if they want to be prepared to buy a few years down the road. Or maybe it's just a neighborhood attitude thing--perhaps she expected the residents of this neighborhood to be snooty and look down on her, so that's what she's seeing. Or maybe she's new to big cities where many "first class" citizens rent their entire lives.
There could be countless reasons....but whatever the issue is, it seems to lie with the renter, not her new neighbors.
Maybe she should fill her house with really expensive furniture and throw a fancy party, so they'll all understand that, whatever her situation, it's NOT because of the money. At least not her own.
Dear Cheryl,
I'm going out of my mind over my current situation. I met my wife three years ago in a chat room. We talked a bit, exchanged phone numbers and eventually met. It was love at first sight. We got along great, same interests and all that. I moved in with her and her five kids not long after that. We got engaged a year later and married soon after, in October 2007. We had the wedding at the house. Lots of family and friends came. It was a wonderful day. We had our honeymoon in the Smoky Mountains.
Everything seemed to be going just fine. Everyone got along. My family even came over for Thanksgivings. I met the kids' fathers. My wife had been married twice before me, and I got along with her ex-husbands just fine.
I knew she had issues with her dad growing up as well as self-esteem issues, but she seemed to be handling them well. She would always tell me how glad she was that I was with her, how great I was with the kids, how much I loved her and how much she loved me.
Then I found out she had an eating disorder. She would purge. She shared the information on a Website for mothers. She told me to just deal with it. I let it go thinking it wouldn't last. I also didn't want to upset her. I wasn't working for a while, and she worked part-time, so I did the whole Mr. Mom thing, taking care of the kids, the house, cooking, cleaning, etc.
Then she started getting distant. One day, I came home from a funeral, and out of nowhere, she asked me to leave.She just told me to get out. She said she didn't want to be with me anymore. I moved out a day later because I didn't want to upset the kids who really love me, and I didn't want her making any false accusations about me and have me arrested. She has a mean streak.
I've tried to talk to her since, but she wants nothing to do with me at all. She doesn't want to work on our marriage or try to save it. I just don't understand how someone who I thought loved me so much could turn so cold. — CONFUSED
Dear CONFUSED,
Get on a plane, fly directly to Las Vegas, and start playing the slot machines because you are one lucky dude. Do you have any idea how lucky you are to be rid of this nutcase? Buy a couple of lottery tickets, buster, because you're getting away with just a broken heart and whiplash. You could have had a baby with her, and you'd be tied to her for life.
She's certifiable. Trust me. Any woman who allows a man whom she's just met to move in with her and her five children is so unfit it's not even funny. I really hope the kids have decent fathers because they need them.
Lack of self-esteem, daddy issues and purging are just the tip of her particular iceberg. She has some major personality flaws, and the sooner you're legally divorced from her the better off you are. No going back, even if she begs you!
And by the way, someone with a mean streak might deliberately say something cruel. Someone who would falsely accuse a man of sexually abusing a child is evil. And that's who you know she is.
Put five bucks on red for me.
Wow, for me the sexual abuse thing came out of left field....I suppose (maybe) that's what he was implying when he said he left quickly before she could make any false accusations, but to be honest that hadn't occurred to me until I got to Cheryl's response.
The only problem I have with this kind of snarky response is that it doesn't actually offer any help. Every columnist has their own style. Amy tends to be all business, while Carolyn has a knack for empathy interwoven with wit. Amy Alkon will mock you openly, but while she's at it, at least she tells you what to do. Cheryl, on the other hand, is too busy playing out her "lucky" bit to dispense any practical advice. That in and of itself is not a bad thing....it might help this guy get his head around the fact that it's GOOD that this is over. But she says nothing about finding a lawyer and getting divorce proceedings underway immediately (just that a divorce would be good) or at least filing for a legal separation. Nothing about ensuring that his wife has no access to his finances, nothing about talking to the other ex-husbands, which might not be a terrible idea if they had met and been friendly before. Nothing about ensuring that the kids are protected from abuse and manipulation.....
I mean, I know she's a love columnist, and so here she focuses on the love: it was a bad, false, dangerous and manipulative love. It's over. Yaaaaaaay.
But if that bad, false, dangerous manipulative love led to a bad, false, manipulative marriage, then there are all kinds of practical and legal implications that are now inevitable. Since this guy still seems to be holding his head in his hands, heartbroken, I wish she had given him some steps to make sure he doesn't wind up with his credit rating stomped on, as well as his heart.
Posts
All Comments
