all financial and social strata as well, which would seem to contradict the point of the groomgrab. Booher, the first grabee, makes for an interesting study on this matter. West LA at the time was a fairly wealthy neighborhood. Booher, who it turned out lived in a $2 million home and had a six-figure trust fund, should not necessarily have been a test case for looking like poverty. Nonetheless, despite his wealth, as his groomgrabber Roddick said, ‘Money doesn’t always mean a kid’s not going to fall through the cracks.’ To which Marshall added, ‘Or have appropriate taste.’ The grabbers seemed to concentrate on how pathetic the grabbee seemed rather than his or her financial background. Another reason for the demographic well-roundedness of the grabbees might be the much-discussed notion of homosexuality as a vertical minority, encapsulating bits from every other group including the rich and the poor. As Blandershot-Fields writes, ‘Maybe it’s as simple as they went with what they knew. ‘
Official Reactions: A Note To Historians
Of course, groomgrabbing was, by any definition, as illegal as treason, and future historians removed from the Zeitgeist might quite credibly wonder where the hell the authorities were in all this? But picture if you will the state of the country at the time: The manned Mars mission had been sabotaged by extremist MarsFirst!ers; the Namibian Potato-Chip Debacle had its claws deep into the nation’s economy, sending unemployment into double digits; and the Argentinian War victory was turning out, thanks to the MSCNN investigation, to be even more Pyrrhic than previously thought. Malaise wasn’t even the word for it; the country was downright morose32. It’s the same reason Bonnie and Clyde and the James Brothers became cultural heroes at earlier parts of the previous century.
The Winfrey Administration, naturally, reacted to the trend with what became its legendary pragmatism. On February 17, 2001, shortly after the inauguration, the White House issued a press release stating, ‘I don’t see anyone getting hurt. In fact, I see people getting helped. What’s the problem?’ Not a single one of the over four-thousand known incidents of groomgrabbing resulted in even an arrest33. Local politicians typically opposed it until they met someone who was groomgrabbed, then the issue just dropped34. The official opinion seemed to be a need to condemn groomgrabbing, but secretly, everyone liked it and wanted it to go on.
At the bottom of it all, like so many other things about groomgrabbing, the true cause for the lack of reaction remains elusive.
The End
As does, it seems, the end of groomgrabbing. The last known groomgrabbing was on November 3, 200235, and after that, nothing. There weren’t even scattered grabs or copycat grabs. What happened? Why did it stop? It’s a circular question that leads back to why it began in the first place. A whim meets opportunity, and then the whim leaves. Blandershot-Fields touches on the subject only briefly36, but suggests that groomgrabbing simply ran its course the way all trends do.
The author has another theory. Rather more than a theory, actually. An unknown fact of groomgrabbing, not shared with any of the studies so far discussed in any forum, is the fact that all groomgrabbers imparted a single instruction to all grabbees. The author knows this because, as previously stated, he was a groomgrabbee himself. He has confirmed this with numerous private interviews with other groomgrabbees37 who are in agreement that the time for the instruction is near. They have graciously agreed to let the author be the first to make the instruction known, partially because this format38 lends itself so nicely to rumor.
The instructions were simply, ‘Pass it on.’
The way all trends do, groomgrabbing is going to make a comeback.
The first groomgrabbing of the second wave happens sometime next month39.
Ponce de Leon is a retired married couple from Toronto
From Elizabeth Bronwyn, Public Health Nurse (Ret.), Toronto, Ontario, to Dr Wayne Bronwyn, Ophthalmologist, Boston, Massachusetts. Handwritten. Mailed from unknown address, presumed to be central Australia.
Son,
As we’ve said many times, your father and I are enormously grateful to you for this trip. Our fortieth wedding anniversary has turned out to be the best we’ve ever had (except, perhaps, our always irreplaceable first). Our time here has been so wonderful, and we’ve come to know such great joy. Great Joy. How can I even say it? I can’t, son, I just can’t, and I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to communicate it to you in any way that you’ll understand until you’re older yourself.
We’re staying. There’s no way around it, so there it is. We’re staying. For good.
I know this is a great shock to you. Knowing you, you probably have some strong feelings on the matter, and six weeks ago, we’d have thought we were as crazy as you’re thinking right now. But such things have happened here, such wondrous, remindful things that have invigorated us. We’ve suddenly and unexpectedly rediscovered what it means to have new experiences and a new outlook. When you’re our age, I hope you’ll be lucky enough to know what it’s like to have your first completely new point of view in twenty years.
Through a friend of ours back home, we’ve already arranged the sale of the house. (We’ve known someone who’s wanted it for years; he was only too happy that we finally obliged. Don’t worry, we’re getting our money’s worth.) Because we’re from the Commonwealth, immigration doesn’t look to be a problem either, especially considering that my health and your father’s are excellent. (See what you missed when you naturalized? The only place in the world Americans are welcome to stay is America. And you, especially; a doctor in a country with no nationalized medicine. Tut tut, one last time.)
Yes, I know, what in the blazes are we thinking? After 61 years, what can I say? When you know, you know.
Your father says not to kick yourself for giving us the trip. You’ve no idea what a wonderful thing you’ve done.
All our love,
[signed] Mom & Dad
P.S. We’ll write soon.
From Dr Wayne Bronwyn, to Derek Bell, Executive Secretary to Ambassador Margaret Gottscheid, United States Embassy, Canberra, Australia. Via facsimile.
Mr Bell:
Per our phone conversation of today, I am faxing you the letter I received from my parents, Mr Henry L. and Mrs Elizabeth ‘Beth’ R. Bronwyn, this morning.
As I cannot possibly reiterate too clearly, the letter is so utterly out of keeping with any pattern of observed behavior that I am led to conclude that they are almost certainly being held in Australia against their will through unknown circumstances or by some unknown person.
To summarize what I attempted to express over the phone, here in short are the reasons I am alarmed:
(1)
