And then I read about the lovely princess who convinced her fiance that amazing wedding night sex could be his in return for a big load of wedding related debt. And she even trained herself by watching actual porn! I'm not going to debase myself or the conversation further, but the point is that many of us managed to have weddings in the style that we wanted that cost less because we did not lose sight of the essential fact that it was our wedding, and as such, we had to pay for it and live with whatever we couldn't pay for at a high rate of interest. A wedding that prevents you from putting a down payment on a house or funding a year or two of graduate school is certainly yours for the taking, but don't pretend that it was within your means, it wasn't if it interfered with your longer term goals. It reminds me of what a friend of mine who lived in Japan told me was a fading custom in Japan, about 30 years ago -- families who gave a daughter a ritual, exceedingly costly kimono upon high school graduation. By the time my friend was in college, most families were offering the daughter a choice between a kimono and a college education. I doubt if most of us consider ourselves the kind of person who would choose the kimono. That doesn't mean our weddings can't be special.

to Interrobang's thorough (and thoroughly good) advice: If LW is still hesitant to take action, consider how deliberate D.J.'s conduct was. It was not a momentary lapse, or a misunderstanding (however contrived or unconvincing) based on something the student said or did. Rather than "forgetting" his official place for a moment and acting out of bounds, he deliberately used his position to lure a student to his office under false pretenses. That's really bad, in fact, much worse than the kind of incidents that usually lead to sexual harassment complaints.

This is LW's main excuse, so far as I can tell. So LW, I can virtually guarantee you that nothing the stepfather is doing or has done should be taken personally as a rejection of you. People who know that they are on the last leg of their journey through life begin disengaging from the living, even from those that they love most. The dying have little interest in meeting new people. Your main job is to comfort the living. Doing that without complaint will earn you a deep reservoir of good will, all the more so because it is probably apparent to those in a position to notice that your efforts are not appreciated by the stepdad. So really, Cary's advice is very, very good.

I can imagine LW and her brother as children forging mutual loyalty to each other as their parents left them in spirit if not in body. LW grew up to take care of herself, but her brother hasn't, and I can equally imagine how hard it must be to cut him loose to fend for himself, as their parents did to them when they were children. It's just possible that LW can't overcome her compulsion to help her brother without exiling him from her life, any more than a dieter can avoid eating junk food without banishing it from his house. But a brother is not like junk food, and it seems sad that would be the only solution. And it might very well be. I can only hope that LW will find the will and the means to stand up for herself without totally severing her relationship with her brother.

If LW had written to say that GF really wanted a baby and he didn't because he already had two nearly grown kids with his ex-wife or GF, then Cary's advice would ring true to the majority of Salon readers: LW and his GF are not on the same track; their lives have intersected but their wants and needs based on lived and apparently not yet lived enough experience are fast diverging. And what the heck does a 28 year old think that she's going to gain from drug use? Is it just possible that she chose LW as her boyfriend because he thought he would enable her? This is not a good situation. LW should trust his instincts, tell his GF what he thinks of her plan and then move on, with or without her, but definitely without enabling her drug related aspirations.