More about the Lover

By now, the soon-to-be lover will have confirmed his presence and changed his status. He put himself into this little narrative so I make no apology for giving you some background. He's 39 years old, he lives in Wokingham, Berkshire, and his name is James. He's married to Harriet who is oblivious to all this and he has two children as well. His loopy love profile has now been removed but it was a gag making pitch and, ironically, full of stuff about how he was not seeking sexual relationships but loves to talk and share and – probably - weep at sunsets. Sorry, I made that last bit up. Rather than give him a second-hand voice, let him speak for himself. After the Saturday conversation - OK one night and let's be friends - Jessica obviously e-mails him about her doubts and what I'm feeling. One of the things, by the way, that is hard to take in all of this is the way that a picture of me has been created. My identity has been stolen. Anyway, here is James’s reply:

“I guess you have had a very confusing few days and your head is
>spinning. I am going to try and clarify a few things. You are a
>young woman and I am a wise old man, so just be quiet and listen to
>me.
>
>Sit down and have a nice cup of tea first.....? OK, here goes.
>
>This is not a shag thing. I don't do that. Apart from last time,
>LOL. You either believe me on that one, or you don't. I don't know
>what else I can say. I have already told you that when I met Cath,
>I did not feel the emotional response I had (and I am sure you had)
>when you and I met. I really do feel for you and if you want me, I
>will stick around. Cath is totally out of the picture, I should
>stop mentioning her emails and I will.
>
>In any case what kind of moron/monster/mysogynist would pursue
>someone for a shag thing when they are as vulnerable as you are?
>Give me some credit, matey.
>
>Anyway, there's the crux - if you want me. You need to think hard
>about things, and if you honestly either (a) want a shag buddy or
>(b) don't really want me at all, you must tell me now.
>
>There are big issues at play here. My family and yours. My spouse
>and yours. My home and yours. We can slow down if you want (we
>have only met twice for coffee for God's sake, it's not exactly warp
>speed) .... grin .... or we can stop. I don't want to.
>
>And ... don't confuse the Jim issue and the James issue. I don't
>think they are the same. Your text talked about there being "no
>going back" to your marriage if you have two nights with me ... but
>you are not leaving Jim for me! Are you? I think we would be great
>together, but we have to consider these things carefully and take
>our time - don't we?
>
>Arguably you should consider leaving Jim anyway but you will get no
>heavy pressure from me. I think you should do it because I think
>you are wasting your time and your relationship has largely broken
>down. I find the idea that you are hurting him and prolonging his
>pain, a bit laughable, frankly. But don't be scared - if you think
>you would be happier on your own then I am sure you will. Don't stay
>in an unhappy relationship because you cannot stand the thought of
>being on your own!”

Well, dear reader, what do you think? Is there a subtext at work here? And, what is the agenda? I'll leave you to do the analysis of the ebb and flow of the argument. I think that James is a smarmy shit but you may see him otherwise. A narrative like this gives you the choice. I also have to confess that I obtained this e-mail in a devious yet accidental way. I installed a Mozilla Browser and then discovered that it saves passwords so I was able to access Jessica's Hotmail account. I don't feel good about that but, in wartime, morality gets compromised. And, of course, you are entitled to the 360 degree view!