The gonzo scene mentioned may have been the last straw, but “what she did” appears to me to be a reference to her experience making porn in general.
I don’t know if there is any room between “I forgive you for the porn, and even for lying about it, but I am still not going to marry you” and “I can’t forgive this”, but ISTM that there is.
Joe is my friend. He steals a hundred bucks from me. I forgive him. So far, so good. Now he wants the keys to my house while I am out of town. Sorry, no.
Okay, that’s the most bizarre description of a porn shot I’ve ever heard. Is the idea that she’d actually been abused by her real uncle, and she was at a “porn shoot” where she was actually verbally and physically abused? As in, they committed actual crimes, filmed them, and put that video on the internet?
That’s…not how porn works. So much so that I wouldn’t even consider such an event to be something to be ashamed of - it makes her the victim of what was essentially an attack on her. Whatever she thought she was signing up for, it wasn’t that.
This colors what I would say to Josh.
And I would talk to Josh, though not necessarily to persuade him to change his mind. I’d want him to explain to me his thinking, and then I’d explain to him my thinking, until we came to an understanding of what had occurred, what he thought about it, and why.
My goals would be for me to understand his thoughts, so that I don’t misunderstand him. And I’d want to be sure he wasn’t misunderstanding the situation. If he understands and so do I, and he still wants to break of the engagement, well, that’s his decision.
Based on how bizarre and basically impossible the description of the porn in question and its aftermath is (they hired her because she’d been raped by an uncle? They rewrote the script on the spot?), I’m perfectly willing to believe the situation is hypothetical. Honestly the way it’s written is pretty fictional-sounding as well, in tone and content.
This is a made up hypothetical. If this were a real situation, I would have put it in MSPIMS, I think. If I posted about it all.
Sorry for any delay. With my legal blindness, it is difficult for me to skim through a thread of any length. The iPad will read the thread, true, but it also reads every bit of coding on the page, which swiftly grows tedious. And while searching is possible, it’s not easy either.
I have re-read the OP trying to see where it’s disgusting or horrifying or anti-women or any of the other stuff **Skald ** is being accused of, but I must be dense tonight as I can’t see it. What I mainly see is a bunch of people who aren’t familiar with either Skald or hypotheticals in general. Oh well.
That’s because there isn’t such a problem in the OP. People are apparently upset at the poster for something that happened nearly a decade ago. Since it isn’t relevant to what Skald is posting now, I suggest he ignore it.
They’re all familiar with how this board is arranged, and know where problems and “outrage” against a particular poster should be brought up.
To allow the reader to understand the emotional impact on both parties. If you want to tell a story, and a hypothetical like the OP is telling a story, you have to involve the reader. A clinical description doesn’t have the same impact.
The sensible answers are the ones suggesting ways to gently tell Lindsay they have to settle it themselves. How you say it I’ll leave to the more articulate, but no way insert oneself into somebody else’s romantic relationship that way.
As for people putting down Josh and his reaction, it’s really easy to judge somebody else in a case like that, where it’s not you. People feel how they feel about stuff like that.
Anyway seems to me the kind of thing that might (though might not) be addressed by time, Josh cooling off and reconsidering (though if by that time Lindsay says ‘forget it’ of course she’s within her rights).
A lot of people have said that you should not insert yourself or interfere. And I think they’re basically right. That said, there’s a big difference between “hey, here’s my opinion about whether or not you should get married or be offended” vs “I’m not going to tell you what to do, just, whatever you do, take your time, make sure it’s the correct decision, don’t do anything in the heat of the moment”. I think the latter type of advice is much more likely to find a receptive ear.
I understand the anger and sense of betrayal of “Josh”. I understand them because I’m feeling the same things after learning that the O.P.'s story was fictional.
Kudos to the posters who suspected or realized this early and alerted the rest of us.
If you’re going to post untrue stuff, have the decency to admit it upfront.
It’s doubtful that “Josh” could ever get past “Lindsay’s” deception. I know I’ll never again trust anything Skald the Rhymer posts.
There are obviously many things to criticize Skald for but this particular one doesn’t work. The scenario in the OP was clearly presented as a hypothetical (although it could be based on a real life situation, but still). So yeah.