Send me your problems in care of Dr. Lovemonkey at the Providence Phoenix,
150 Chestnut Street, Providence, RI 02903, or by e-mail to
rcheeks[a]phx.com.
Dear Dr. Lovemonkey,
I recently logged onto to my husband's AOL account by accident. In doing
so, I noticed an unusual e-mail address. Curiosity got the better of me and I
opened the e-mail. It was from a woman who I don't know, and she's apparently
been corresponding regularly with my husband. It seems like a networking kind
of correspondence, but for some reason my husband has deleted all the e-mails
from this woman. I can see his responses to her e-mails, however, which seem
pretty innocent.
I believe that my husband and I have no secrets, so this situation is
eating me up. I've tried to engage him in conversations like, "Get any
interesting e-mails lately?", but he hasn't taken the bait. I feel like I can't
ask him about it, because looking at his e-mail was wrong. I'm just not sure
what to do.
-- C.P.
Dear C.P.,
You have a couple of options. You can continue to wonder and worry, or you can
'fess up. Explain that you accidentally opened his e-mail account and saw an
unfamiliar address, and ask him what it was. At this point, you don't have to
admit to snooping. If your husband has any brains whatsoever, he can assume you
might have opened the letter and read it. Of course, he might be angry and ask
if you did open the mail, at which point you must acknowledge that you did.
Assuming that it's an innocent "networking" correspondence, I'd think he would
tell you who this person is and why he's corresponding with her. It may all be
quite innocent, or they may have devised an elaborate system of codes. I
suspect he feels guilty since even corresponding with another woman is a
betrayal of sorts -- which means he at least has an active conscience.
It's your call: if it's really eating away at you, you'll have to be prepared
to tell your husband what you did. If you won't do that, you'll have to live
with it. I suggest you face the music, and with some discomfort, clear the air.
Dear Dr. Lovemonkey,
I was watching Breakfast at Tiffany's the other day on AMC. This is
supposed to be a classic "romantic" film. Somehow, I didn't get that. So what's
up?
-- Eddie
Dear Eddie,
Sounds like you understand the film, Eddie. It's "romantic" like the movie
Pretty Woman (where a hooker and a rich asshole make our hearts go
pitter pat) is romantic, or in the way that the Starr Report chronicles the
great love story of Bill and Monica. To get a better sense of the storyline,
it's instructive to read the more explicit novella by Truman Capote (a man
whose personal knowledge of whoredom was quite extensive) upon which the film
is based.
Audrey Hepburn plays a call girl, who, since this came from Hollywood, circa
1961, manages to sustain a thriving business without actually sleeping with any
of her "customers" (no Monica Blew-him-sky here). George Peppard is a gigolo,
being kept and paid by the "older woman" he's servicing, Patricia Neal. This is
also classic Hollywood: in real life, Neal was 35, Peppard, 33, and Hepburn,
32. (If you find this charming, you'll undoubtedly dampen your slacks with glee
every time Mickey Rooney appears as Hepburn and Peppard's Japanese neighbor.
It's still a mystery to Dr. Lovemonkey that Rooney didn't choke to death from
extensive scenery chewing.)
The extent to which people perceive this to be a feel-good, romantic film can
only be attributed to the enigmatic Ms. Hepburn. Take away Audrey and the
movie's no better than The Arleen Wuornos Story on Lifetime. It's
certainly not the anti-charismatic pre-A-Team George Peppard that
explains the film's continued popularity. In fact, after last watching
Breakfast at Tiffany's, I remember praying that when Peppard makes his
first appearance, emerging from a cab on East 71st Street, that Mr. T would be
revealed as the cab driver. Can't they do that sort of stuff with the magic of
digital computers?
Issue Date: June 7 - 13, 2002