Please send your questions for publication to prudence@slate.com.

Prudie,

You semi-blew it with "David in Akron," IMHO. He has two conflicting impulses: to celebrate his love for his partner and to maintain discretion about his orientation. You advise him, in effect, to tell "busybodies" who ask about his "very nice diamond ring" to mind their own business. Such a reply, bordering on rude, will only expose the fact that he has something to conceal.

David has to decide whether he wishes to exhibit his big honking engagement ring or conceal his orientation. I applaud your kindness in seeking to blame inquiring co-workers for his dilemma. If only you'd pointed out that the dilemma is of his own making. And his fear of "career altering" disclosures is a phony. What career? He's 20!

—T.D.

Dear T.,

You are probably right about wearing the ring and then being unwilling to speak of his happiness. It's a mixed and provocative message. A surprising number of letters arrived on this subject. The following one makes your point and socks it to Pru for another overlooked angle.

Dear Prudence,

Perhaps the homosexual man engaged to Chris should refrain from wearing a ring at work if he doesn't want co-workers to ask about "the woman." It's similar to putting up one of those huge cutout storks in your front yard, attaching balloons to your mailbox, then telling your neighbors to mind their own business when they ask about the bundle of joy. A ring (engagement or wedding) is an announcement in and of itself.

And I disagree with your advice to the person whose neighbor had a key to his/her apartment . S/he needs to demand that the landlord change the locks immediately. Who's to say this is the only key floating around? The previous occupant could have given a key to anybody. It's possible that there are several previous occupants with keys. I thought landlords had a legal duty to change locks after a tenant moves, but I could be wrong about that.