Monday, May 7, 2007
YOUNG MOM IN OKLAHOMA
I have a 4-year-old who tends to act up from time to time. I have tried "time-outs" and even soft spanking and have taken his privileges away. Nothing seems to work. However, I have found that smashing one of his small toys with a hammer works well. Do you see any danger in this form of punishment? -- YOUNG MOM IN OKLAHOMA
DEAR YOUNG MOM:
Thank you for your question. I spent ten minutes laughing hysterically, the kind of laugh where you can't catch your breath--then I got utterly depressed.
Yes, psychological torture works. If your only aim is to solve the immediate problem of getting him to stop "acting up"--mission accomplished!
Here are some other suggestions you might want to try:
1. Hold a sharp knife to the throat of his favorite stuffed animal and slice the head off after one warning.
2. Hold a cap gun to your head and say that if he doesn't stop his tantrum, you'll kill yourself. Fire the cap gun, fall to the ground in a heap and remain unresponsive for at least one hour. Then rouse yourself like a zombie and pretend you're going to eat him.
3. If he has a cherished pet, hold it's head underwater until he stops crying.
If you're wondering if resorting to violence to get the response you want out of your son will teach him solve his problems with violence, the answer is yes. The only advice I have if you're going to hammer away at his toys is to be sure to instill a mistrust of psychiatry in him so you won't have to pay for the therapy bills he will undoubtedly need.
Your advice, readers?
Friday, May 4, 2007
BROKENHEARTED IN PORTLAND, ORE
Long story short, my husband of 11 years and I were having serious marital problems and on the verge of divorce. At the same time, my sister moved in with us -- at my invitation. Apparently, one thing led to another, and she and my husband say they have fallen in love.
My husband and I decided to try and save our marriage. Then, two days later, he and my sister slept together! I kicked both of them out of my house. They think they did nothing wrong because, according to my husband, he has no intention of working anything out with me. I say he's an S.O.B., and my sister is a @#!%#. Am I wrong?
Everyone in my family agrees with me, and I am being painted by my sister and my husband as "turning everyone against her." I say I'm justified.
What makes it harder is I still love them both and have now lost my sister and my best friend, and I don't know what to do. -- BROKENHEARTED IN PORTLAND, ORE.
DEAR BROKENHEARTED:
You must cold-heartedly cut both of them out of your life forever--or at least for the few months they stay together, at which point you can have your sister back with an unspoken yet ever-present chasm between you. Even though he's an S.O.B. and she's a @#!%#, I suspect you aren't capable of cutting them out forever. Family drama fuels your sense of victimhood and my guess is that playing the victim looms large in your life.
Of course your family is taking your side on this. But I bet you love twisting the knife in your own wound to try and drain every last drop of sympathy from them. I'll let you in on a secret. Your family was already sick of you complaining about your bad marriage for 11 years. They are thrilled something has sparked a change, even if that change qualifies the whole family for a guest spot on the Jerry Springer show.
You were prepared to divorce this guy. Wouldn't the fact that he boinked your sister--most likely in your bed--be enough to downgrade him from your "best friend."
Stop kidding yourself. You don't "love them both." You love the constant state of drama and chaos you're used to after 11 years of serious marital problems. In that sense, the only advice you're likely to take is to try and win your husband back from your sister. It will never work. It will lead to utter catastrophe. But you will be happy in your own miserable way.
Your advice, readers?
Thursday, May 3, 2007
FARMER'S WIFE IN KANSAS
I had to write after reading the letter from "Ready to Serve in New Hampshire" (Feb. 23), who felt compelled to delay her dinner party when her guests brought fresh vegetables from their garden.
My husband's summer hobby is a large vegetable garden, and he, too, enjoys giving away the fruits of his labor. When we are invited to dine with friends, he also brings a gift of his wonderful vegetables. But in no way does he expect our hosts to prepare them for us. They are intended for the family to enjoy at future meals.
I doubt that "Ready's" guests intended for her to cook those veggies, either. She should have thanked them and stored their gift for future dining. -- FARMER'S WIFE IN KANSAS
DEAR FARMER'S WIFE:
I think you're missing the real reason she decided to put dinner on hold. Obviously she did not want to force her family to eat vegetables that some non-farmer had grown in their garden. While the idea of growing your own food and sharing your bounty with friends is a concept full of hearty, self-reliant goodness--not everyone sees it that way.
How exactly were these veggies fertilized? By her guest's two golden retrievers? The neighborhood skunk? Are there baby slugs hidden within the layers of lettuce? Was her guest's garden box made of treated wood, leaking arsenic into the soil?
I agree the host shouldn't have prepared the veggies which forced her guests to consume them out of politeness. Perhaps she was trying to get even with her sniping, small-minded friends who complain that their painstakingly prepared food was served a few minutes behind schedule.
It would have been easier to graciously thank the guest, then shove the suspect produce down the garbage disposal, preferrably after all the guests had gone home.
Your advice, readers?
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
DEFLOWERED IN PENNSYLVANIA
I am a 28-year-old woman and have been dating a 26-year-old man I'll call "Chris" for four months. We have become good friends. On our last date, the topic of sex came up, and Chris told me that he was a virgin and that it was very important for him to find a girl who had "never been with anyone" either.
Well, Abby, that bridge was burned when I was a teenager. I was honest with Chris about it, which was not easy because I now regret some of the poor choices I made at that time of my life. I am a completely different person now due to a religious conversion and am waiting until I am married to have sex again.
I told Chris this, and asked if he wanted to continue the relationship. His answer was he'd "have to think about it." We are still friends. He says he likes me and still wants us to date.
However, although I care deeply for him, I now feel devalued. I'm afraid this issue is going to cause problems in the future. I believe that purity is an issue more of the heart than the body. If I had known that virginity was so important to Chris, I would never have dated him in the first place. I can't change the past, and I have strong opinions about men who sing "Amazing Grace" in church while insisting on marrying virgins. What should I do? -- DEFLOWERED IN PENNSYLVANIA
DEAR "DEE":
First of all, you refer to losing your virginity by saying "that bridge was burned when I was a teenager." That conjures up quite an image.
You also say "We are still friends." Yes, a friend is what you call someone you like but aren't having sex with.
Here's advice option one: I'm assuming Chris doesn't drink, so you'll need to figure out a way to sneak alcohol or drugs into his system. Once he's throughly hammered, bring in a prostitute to "burn his bridge". From then on, you'll always have the upper hand because you can say, "At least I never screwed a hooker."
I actually like option two better: Tell Chris you are in fact a virgin, but you wanted to test his purity by pretending to be a non-virginal skank. Now that you know he's also pure, you can become engaged, have a wonderful church wedding. Then on your wedding night, announce that you do not believe in post-marital sex. Chris dies a virgin. Game, set, match.
Your advice, readers?
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Welcome to Jeer Abby!
Jeer Abby
Dear Abby
Advice
Relationships
Humor
Satire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
