I find it interesting that LW has difficulty making a choice, given that her BF is encouraging her to go and she wants to go. At least, that is what she is saying. I agree with another writer who noted that LW may, just may, want her BF to play out the scene from Casablanca, or more, claim that his life will be shattered, just shattered, if she disappears for TWO YEARS!!!!

I think the subtext may be that she wants her love affair to be strong enough to make the decision a real choice, and for her to do that, the BF has to play his role of deep, deep reluctance. He's opted out. Shows signs of having perspective, self-awareness and a cogent and altruistic appreciation of her long-term wishes, even if it costs him two years/permanent loss of her time with him. Strikes me as a reasoned, affectionate and objective response. Last thing he wants to do is be a millstone around the "what if I had ....." scenario.

So - I'd suggest that LW embark on her frozen adventure, with full awareness of what that part of the country can do to your head and heart, and say her fond goodbys to her bf with an open heart. Several things will happen, in two years.

LW will become the 11th casualty, thus leaving the grieving bf to wonder about "what if she had stayed....."

BF will grow a set, carve out a life, and when she returns, she may discover that he has created the underpinnings of a dynamic and fruitful life that is self-directed. That should result in an interesting to-do, since her career demands some level of portable compliance as she chases tenure here, there or somewhere. However, it might lead to a much more dynamic relationship, assuming he has "waited for her".

BF will find another strong career-based woman who will keep him in pizza money in return for companionable good times, and will rebuilt his patterned relationship with someone more accessible.

BF will "float" waiting for his "anchor" to return. Of the three, I honestly think that is the least likely, since he shows so much self-awareness. Floating for two years is pretty boring......

In any case, she should follow her passion, which clearly, despite her personal desires, does not lie with her relationship with her tagalong boyfriend. If going to the brutal Artic is an error of judgement, it will have simply been a road explored, then abandoned. Won't know until she does it.

The polarization of sexual politics compounded by conservative Christian "overlays" has led to a culture that assumes that men are either all gay or all straight; Kinsey's impeccible studies, backed up by several decades of parallel research indicate that men and women can sustain a diversity of sexual feelings; some studies demonstrate that more than 40% of males have had at least one male/male sexual experience. Pansexuality is rampant in the animal world, as recent studies have demonstrated, and humans are hardly exempt. That said, LW's found that, after repressing the part of him that enjoys men, it now seeks full time in the sun. Better now than later, but your timing, after having had a child, is rotton. And, don't be surprised if, after reveling in the freedom of sexual choice following a relationship that determined your sexual expression, you find yourself longing, from time to time, for the sexual touch of a woman. (one of the most committedly gay men I know noted to me that he is mortified by his occassional "flashes" of sexual response to women; I reassured him that it was quite normal.......and that he did not have to act on it, after all. He was deeply relieved.).

This chap is in for a challenging time, and if he chooses to second-guess his wife's reactions, he'll loose himself in "he said she said" nonsense that will do nothing to promote an in-depth resolution of how to handle their progeny which is, first and foremost, the point.

The wife is entitled to whatever reaction she wishes to have, including shock and surprise. Many folks can maintain a state of "knowing and not knowing" simultaneously, particularly if the stakes are high - given that the stakes are this woman's committed marriage,her family and her conservative Christian values, she had every reason to minimize, deny and self-conceal. Perhaps not the strongest or most honest thing to do, but utterly human, just as human as this chap's form of self-denial about his own sexual nature. So - he's in no position to pass judgement, Christian or "liberated" as to her state of mind, that is her business and hers alone. That said, I doubt that, given her conservative Christian background, her repsonse will be warm and fuzzy. As Cary notes, she would be a paragon of compassionate loving if she could adjust, overnight, to this overwhelming change in her micro-world. She may lash out using child custody as a hurtful device, and she may seek, given her beliefs, to create a life that shields her son from the presentation of "sinful" behavior, or she may do both.

The next step lies with the wife; she will do what she will do, skilled opposing attorney or not. LW's best response, in addition to lawyering up, is to continue to apologize to his wife for his own human-ness, and to seek, through honest expression that involves speaking to his own heart without arrogantly presuming to speak for hers, a resolution for the care of their child.