Now, this case is different from the others in a number of ways. Most basically, Wife and Boyfriend 5 have never actually met in the flesh, so far as I know. This means that maybe I shouldn't bother to list him at all, grouping him instead with all of the non-physical crushes she has had over the years (or with those, like the lead tenor in the church choir a few years back, about whom I have questions but can't prove anything). But I am adding him to the list on the strength of her peculiar behavior around the computer, plus the fact that we have actually had The Conversation ("Are you in love with him?") and it ended in what has become the standard way (a slew of quasi-denials followed by "Yes, and I'm glad that you know because now I no longer have to hide about it.")
A second highly unusual feature of Boyfriend 5 is that he is actually (so she says) three different people: a father, a son, and the son's son. They all use the same e-mail and IM account, and Wife says she can tell them apart by the way they write. But she is giddy-in-love with all three of them. That, in fact, was one of the first ways she tried to deflect my question: "Well, I write to all three of them, so I suppose if you were to say I was in love with one you'd have to say I was in love with all three." (Of course this only invited me to ask, "Yes, and are you?" Apparently so.)
This three-generations-in-one could be kind of interesting, if you think about it, in case Wife and any of them actually ever meet in person. It's not like I think Wife would try to keep the whole thing platonic, after all. But which of the three would she take to bed: the old man? the one who's about our age? the teenager? Or would she even feel that she had to choose just one? If this ever happened, it could get seriously interesting on logistical grounds alone.
There are reasons that it might never happen, or at any rate that it might be significantly delayed. Basically, Boyfriend 5 (I'm going to keep using that name for all of them lumped together) lives in a different country, across an ocean. So it's not like any of them could just drop in for a quickie. On the plus side, this may keep Wife's pelvic life from getting a lot more complicated any time real soon. On the minus side, this keeps the relationship on the Internet; and Wife is way too trusting of strangers on the Internet. I have tried to point out that -- for all she knows -- these people could be shysters from Sheboygan rather than who they claim to be. Her response to this was to ask them "Are you really who you say you are?" and to get the answer "Yes." By her lights, that settles it. And gosh, I know it sure sets my mind at ease.
The last distinctive thing about this family is that -- again, according to what Wife tells me -- they are terrorists. No, wait, let's make that "politically-active freedom fighters". They live in a part of the world where ethnic hatreds go back for centuries ... I guess I could call it the Middle East without going too far wrong. And they are actively involved supporting one faction against all the others -- a faction that is small and out of power, I should add. Wife started her friendship with Boyfriend 5 by saying that their fight wasn't her fight, and by steering clear of politics. Then she started worrying about them getting blown up. By now, ... well, I said she was giddily in love, didn't I? She still claims to be apolitical on this particular conflict, but that means "so long as Boyfriend 5 and all their friends win." In a sense this puts a whole new spin on the slogan "The personal is political" ....
Not sure how much more I have to add at the moment. I was starting to wonder if I was just never going to have the time to keep up this blog, or if I was going to run out of news for it. I should never have worried on that score.
No comments:
Post a Comment