Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.
I think it's natural for Western people to expect someone like Shawn to "pay" for his ways. It's part and parcel of the role religion played in our early societies. Even if we're not religious ourselves, we still feel this ... wrongness about those who have a great time with what seems to be no repercussions.
But, when it's time for Shawn to want to change, is he allowed to? Or will our judgment of his past demand that he be punished for it, even if the casualties of that past have long healed?
But wait, there's Ian. Was Ian hurt by Shawn's approach to life? Maybe. Ian was obviously in love with him to have hung on as long as he did. But if Ian was suffering, didn't he have a responsibility to tell Shawn how he felt? Assuming someone "just knows" is maddening to me (which I remind my husband of periodically), so if Ian was made miserable by Shawn, he really should have said so. Instead, he took the path he took, and ultimately it worked out. As for what Ian got out of it, he got the man he'd been in love with for two decades. To be In Love with someone for that long likely means it will continue until the end. I've come to learn, particularly later in life, that's a huge gift.
So. Was Shawn "rewarded for his behavior"? I guess the question I'd ask in return is, "On what basis should he be denied happiness?"
Thanks again. 🙂