Absolutely heinous advice. A child should come into the world WANTED by the adults who will live with and care for him or her. If that's a single parent, fine. If it's a couple of any orientation, fine. If it's a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or any permutation or combination of the above, or the members of a commune, or whoever else, fine.

What's not fine is to have a main caretaker (which the LW will be; legislate/fantasize about it all you want, but if you bear the child and live with the 'primary' caretaker, who also happens to be your beloved husband, you ARE a main caretaker) who's deeply equivocal at best about that child's existence. I put the husband at around age 47 now, given the details of the letter. Will he have the energy at 52 to give a 5-year-old what that child needs? How is his health? Even if it's flawless, what if he's in an accident, or the marriage breaks up, and the mom must assume primary caretaking responsibilities? This is a crazy idea. Just crazy.

Kids know when they're not wanted. This scenario sets in motion a perpetual tug-of-war between this woman and the child over the husband's love and attention -- a struggle each one is bound to lose in his or her own way. And do we really think the marriage will survive and thrive under the circumstances?

Get real, folks. When it comes to doing the right thing by kids, you CAN'T have it all. Grow up and make an adult decision for once in your lives.

Really.

I'll grant that there are myriad quack practitioners out there -- and that they, in turn, have many whingeing, insufferable clients.

But there are also thousands, if not millions, of skilled, compassionate practitioners who do some significant good in the world. And that good is magnified exponentially by their clients who have both the heart and the cojones to do what it takes to change themselves for the better.

Now how's about a little compassion on a Friday morning, all?

Thanks very much.

... if you can allow yourself to get this exercised over something this trivial. Lucky guy!

The writer Mary Gordon was interviewed for yesterday's New York Times Magazine. When asked to comment on the current literary scene, she said:

"I think coldness is chic among writers, and particularly ironic coldness. What is absolutely not allowable is sadness. People will do anything rather than to acknowledge that they are sad."

If the LW can be with the friend and allow him to be sad about his loss -- without judging, or wallowing, or forcing him through it -- the friend will heal authentically in his own good time, and the LW will have provided something infinitely more valuable than a cleaned-out closet OR a bottle of Jack. Start where you are.

Interesting.

Less snarkily, though, if you live anywhere near a dental school, student clinics are a great option, and are more likely to offer nitrous (given the students' need for training) than your average dental practice.

Otherwise, this is ABSOLUTELY a dealbreaker. Holy cow.

... and it also ain't his fault that he didn't.

It's very, very hard to sustain love, though, when one partner resents the other for things over which s/he had no control, and has no power to change -- like the socioeconomic status of his/her family of origin. And that cuts both ways. The contempt you feel for him and his background poisons your relationship just as much as any judgment he might make of you based on yours (which would be reprehensible, but you give no indication of his doing so).

This is about you, not him. And if you choose to sabotage this relationship -- and, long-term, to perpetuate the financial and emotional deprivation of your earlier years -- that's your choice. But this difference doesn't have to be a deal-breaker. Personally, I have a hell of a hard time finding sympathy for anyone who throws love away for any reason! It's a whole lot harder to find than money (and I grew up with neither, so I have some idea of the search to find both).

The most redemptive thing going? Gratitude, without a doubt. You may want to think about trying that one on for size.

In another context, it might also mean "free from STDs" or "non-usage of drugs and/or alcohol," but based on eHarmony's general bent, I doubt it's either of those.

Anyway, this letter strikes me as pretty darn crazy. eHarmony men may be doing themselves a real favor by turning the LW off!

and a great party or two afterwards. Takes a huge amount of pressure and stress off of it, and ensures that the event itself will be about you and your fiance, as it should be!

Not to mention putting everyone on the road at risk?

Don't even bother whingeing that weed doesn't impact your driving, because it does, and not for the better.

What an unbelievably self-indulgent, irresponsible, reprehensible set of actions (never mind a column). I'm disgusted.

Not to mention putting everyone on the road at risk?

Don't even bother whingeing that weed doesn't impact your driving, because it does, and not for the better.

What an unbelievably self-indulgent, irresponsible, reprehensible set of actions (never mind a column). I'm disgusted.

... it's our friend Rupert.

Chill out, dude.

Peace.

This paean to manners was written by the selfsame Gary Kamiya who drives while (by his own description) "extremely stoned" --with his child in the car, and placing hundreds if not thousands of innocent, sober drivers, passengers, and pedestrians at risk? Yes?

Just making sure. Thank you kindly.