It's been a while, but I figured to come back for a weekend edition Dear Prudence roundup. I've been pretty wrapped up with this baking class I'm taking, plus having relations with a real, live human being, which really cut into my GT time. Unfortunately, the second of these distractions is now finito (sob sob), and my thoughts turn once again towards other people, their troubles, and the sometimes bad advice they receive. This one guy's on swoon status with his lovely fiancée, and she returns his affections in spades, but now he's worried that all the care and attention she showers him with comes at the expense of her three and four year old daughters. He likes checking out for a bit of quiet time in his room with the door closed, possibly catching up on some vital sports blah blah, and his doting fiancée is more than happy to share this door-closed time with him.

It's not that I don't love the attention—I do—it's just that I feel for these two small children, as they have to come knocking at our bedroom door if something needs their mom's attention. Their knocks are met with an exasperated sigh from my fiancée, who deals with the situation quickly and returns to fawning all over me.

Prudie makes the point that you'd feel a little bad if she was treating her dogs that way, much less actual children. She also said that any babysitter who was so inattentive would be fired immediately, so they ought to hire an attentive one to watch the kids when they're up in the room cooing at each other. No, really, that's what she said. As for me, I need some clarification on his role with these kids, but maybe not as badly as he does. Do they have full custody and little to no bio dad, or joint custody with the bio dad out dadding it up? Does this guy see himself as a parent at all? Boyfriend status means you can sit back and idly note how your lover duck is kind of a shitty mom and fucking up when it comes to raising her kids. Dad status means it's YOUR failure too. If his fiancée can't just go switching off all parental responsibility whenever she wants some relax time, maybe he can't either.

Next one's a question about what to do when you see some lady out on the street wearing yoga pants, and the fabric covering her butt-ular area has stretched to the extent that her delicate unmentionables are quite visible. Should you "quietly approach" and let them know, or sit back and stick to your own biz? Prudie's firmly on the MYOB side of the equation, and responds to some peanut gallery doof who says that flashing's a crime with "I think you're on the wrong track if you're suggesting this man go up to strange women and accuse them of exposing themselves." I didn't see any indication of gender in the first question, but I figured that maybe it got edited out. Then the OP makes a somewhat indignant return and firmly states that she is herself a lady and "not a man of any kind, creepy or otherwise." Prudie says "Thank you for calling out my sexist assumption!" though I was like is that really sexist or just typically wrongheaded? If your assumption goes to the opposite of what stereotype might suggest, is that still sexist?

Then there's this lucky lady about to marry a baller "with an annual income in a seven-figure range." Because he's balling, his whole family is balling with the money he doles out on the regular. She tolerated this while they dated, but now that they're soon to be husband and wife, she thinks that the baller train ought to stop. The argument isn't that he can't afford it, because he can, but I guess she gets a say after the ring goes on, because it becomes her money too. But then, she wasn't supporting him while he went to Baller Academy or when he was stuck spinning his wheels in an entry level balling position. He was already rich as Croesus when they met. Prudie points out that a pre-nuptial agreement would settle whose money belongs to who, so she can go back to not stressing over how he disposes of his own fat stacks. My opinion: Don't stop the baller train. Just don't.

Advertisement

I got shocked with the final question, because it deals with UNDERAGE DRINKING, and I was all popcorn.gif, dis gon' be good, etc. Mom and dad are gone all night, and when they get back to the house they determine that an illicit party has taken place in their absence. Once the interrogation's complete, they know which 18 year olds were present and which older sister bought the booze. Dad wants to let daughter off the hook, but in addition to punishment, mom wants to call the parents "whose older daughter purchased the alcohol because I think she is like a drug dealer, and should be held accountable." This is where the shock comes in – Prudie has somehow morphed into Cool Mom, picking up her own 18 year old daughter's red solo cup wreckage without complaint. In fact, "frankly I think it's more dangerous to send kids to college being completely naive when it comes to alcohol." o_O Completing the clean sweep of radical reasonability, she says "Please do not rat out anyone. The older sibling is not a drug dealer, she's a kid with an ID that allows her to purchase alcohol." I'm like holy shit, this daughter better be grateful, cause Prudie just reached down from the heavens and handed her a get out of jail free card. Mom must have been positive that Prudie'd have her back on this one, all stacking the deck while pretending to seek an unbiased opinion.