I don't know why, but I just have a bias against identical twin stories, especially when the punchline involves someone unknowingly sleeping with them both. How often does this really happen? My gimlet eye of suspicion comes out right away. This guy says that his identical twin has the charming habit of giving his brother's contact information out to the randos he bangs in one night stands – "his idea of a joke." One rando thanks him the next morning for the awesome, drunken sex they just had, and he jumps right into a relationship with her, maintaining the sham all the way to the point where he's getting ready to pop the question. Should he confess, or "keep mum about irrelevant sexual details that would only hurt the other partner?"

Prudie castigates both brothers for their deceit, but more importantly, reveals horrible CENSORSHIP taking place at Slate. In the unedited chat transcript, she reminds him of the danger that if his twin sucks down "too many champagne cocktails, he could tell the crowd quite a memorable cock tale." Over at Slate, they G-rated things into "quite a memorable tale." I don't know what to think – that pun was ghastly and I hate it, but cutting it out as though it's genuinely offensive or risqué seems super lame. I'm just glad no one involved was a pilot, because an idiot "cock pit" pun would have been more than I could bear.

The next question's from a "soon to be bride who has planned her dream wedding on a transatlantic liner." Sounds like a sucky thing to do to your friends and family, but she and her fiancé are really stepping up to the plate here and paying for everyone's nonrefundable tickets. In the time since the voyage was booked, her fiancé's uncle died "in a boating accident," and now her in-laws simply can't bear the thought of being on the water. They want her to get rid of that wedding and make a new one for them to enjoy instead. "We have no money left because what we did not spend on the ceremony is going into our new flat. My in-laws' economic situation is not great, and they have made clear that they want us to cancel this ceremony without expectation of contributing."

Prudie starts her response off with what I think is a very poor analogy. "I assume if they had to fly to witness your marriage, they wouldn't be canceling if they had lost a loved one in the Malaysian Airlines disaster." Actually, that seems like a pretty understandable reason to be nervous about flying. Unless the uncle died of norovirus, they are probably not going to be facing any similar kind of risks on a cruise ship. It's one thing to plead grief and say that you just can't bring yourself to celebrate, but something else entirely to say that your grief requires everything be changed into a different celebration that you'll like better. Fortunately, Prudie phrases her advice well, saying that the fiancé should be the one who speaks with his parents and that "He has to tell them their not being there for his marriage would cast a pall on this happy event, but the event is going on whether or not they come."

Next question's of the genre where Prudie's supposed to mediate a household dispute and determine which party is within the(ir) right(s). A husband and wife both work full-time, but "one of us is a teacher who has several weeks of vacation throughout the year and summers off." The wife's the one writing, but she's doing the thing where she doesn't identify which of them is the one working for the local school district. She wants to know whether or not that person's obligated to get another job to bring in more $$$ during the summer break, and Prudie sarcastically praises her faux-neutral phrasing, saying that "You magnanimously don't say who's the teacher and who isn't, but then present a totally lopsided version of the pros and cons of the teacher getting off his duff for the summer and contributing to the family instead of being a bum." This lady reminds me of Admiral Argument from a couple weeks ago who couldn't help but see every situation through the lens of flawless objective reasoning which, through no fault of his own, simply happens to confirm that he's always right.


First of all, teachers have to do a shit ton of work before the kids show up in September. Picking up some new clothes and some school supplies is NOT the sum total of their preparations over the summer. Sure, you're left with a string of a few weeks you can maybe squeeze a second job into, but really, no one appreciates having someone else total up their free time and then direct them to fill it with part-time work. Some people just try to run other folks like that, and to be fair, some of them respond really well to it. I fear for the relationship if this guy's anything like me, though, because I certainly do not. A side issue is whether him having more free time means he has to step it up more around the home front, and absolutely it does. She's going to be bitter like anyone would having to go to work while he doesn't, so that means that on top of making sure the house is straight and dinner is taken care of, he should come up with some bullshit, nice-sounding alibi for what he's doing with the rest of his time. As long as he doesn't make it too obvious he's just on his ass smoking weed and playing video games she doesn't have anything to complain about, but no, she wants a paycheck as proof his day is truly just as miserable as hers.