The secret to a long and happy marriage

I am a marriage expert.

Haha obviously I'm not, I do not have a degree in marriage, and I've only had one marriage, so that makes me far from an expert. I expect Henry VIII was much more of an expert than I am. However the other day A Novice Mum asked me about the secret to being married for a long time.

You'll remember that Mr TM proposed in a casual but cute way, and that I had a casual but cute wedding reception. And all of that was over 24 years ago. We have actually been a couple now for over 30 years. That's just ridiculous, I could have done 2 murders for that!

Which leads me nicely to the secret.

The secret to a long marriage (the happy bit we shall discuss separately in a minute) is "don't kill each other". No really, that's it. There will be times in a marriage that you disagree about something, it may be a small thing or a big thing.

Maybe you like to leave the washing up on the draining board to dry naturally and your significant other (SO) likes to dry everything with a tea towel and stack it away in the cupboards, or you like back bacon and your SO likes streaky. These small issues need compromise.
Compromise should be taught in school, in the 'me me me' culture we have nowadays, where young people talk about 'doing what makes you happy' and 'making time for you',  compromise can be so easily forgotten. It's unlikely (though possible) that you find a partner on which you totally agree 100%. Even if you think that now, you may find as time goes on, issues you had never thought of appear over the horizon and you disagree. Compromising can stop you killing each other. Buy both types of bacon, take it in turns to be in charge of the washing up...

Some issues though are either so huge or so diametric that there can not be a compromise in which you both win, only a decision in which one of you does.

With some things, there can be a decision to both do your own thing, or keep your own thoughts, for example where you have conflicting religions or political views. Or as in our case where I attend festivals and Mr TM stays at home in the land of warm rooms, beds and running water. And that separate time can be a marriage saver too, if you look at many marriage guides there are lots of tips and ideas on things to do together and of course that's important, but don't be afraid to do things apart too. Mr TM likes to practise playing the piano, I like to blog.

But some decisions are just a dichotomy, what about getting a dog? or having children? I hope that every couple discusses big issues before they marry. But maybe you forgot to mention you hate dogs while he assumed you'd get an Afghan hound. Here is an impasse, what to do? You cannot get half a dog. Maybe you could still compromise a bit, get a smaller dog, arrange for a cleaner, get a dog walker..but if not you need to be able to talk...without killing each other, and one of you needs to be brave enough to not get what you want. (if you didn't talk about having children before marriage...well that's a big conversation to have, but you still need to have it, and listen to each other's reasons for their thoughts too)

*an aside

When we married Mr TM made it clear he didn't want children. I did, but after some years of us being together I realised that I would rather be with him, without children, than without him but with children. Mr TM is 20 years my senior. We married. I mentioned getting a dog, Mr TM declared dogs too much of a tie and a responsibility. I pointed out that I had agreed to no children, could I not have a dog to mother instead? And so he relented, 3 years after getting a puppy he suggested we have a baby, maybe he saw how I was with the dog, maybe he saw other parents, who knows, but he changed his mind, once I was pregnant we bought a second dog to amuse the first so that he should not be annoyed by the baby. Now 17 years on those dogs are gone, but DD and I missed them, Mr TM enjoyed the clean house for a while...before agreeing we needed more mud and hair on the carpet....

Never fall into the trap of "but if you loved me you would ..." because your SO will surely just think "but if you loved ME you wouldn't..."

So there is the secret. The secret is in 3 parts.

1. Talk
2. Compromise
3. Be prepared to not always get what you want

And the happy bit? Well I assume that the day you got married you were happy? Now you are together all the time (apart from the time you are not) you are talking, sharing, not bottling stuff up, compromising...what's not to be happy about!

I wonder if you read this far and thought "But my SO doesn't help around the house" or "but my SO is messy" or a million other annoying things your SO might do. If so, ask yourself, have you talked about it? Properly, not yelling or moaning or nagging. Have you both come to a compromise about it? Have you thought of a way to move on? If not, why not? go and do it now, make you SO a cup of tea/coffee/beverage of their choice and go and have a chat.
 
(Don't panic I asked Mr TM for his input on this blog post and he's cool with it. He said to tell you I'm the messiest wife in the world and he is not a neat freak, that's just his wife being rude, he is just averagely tidy, despite that, neither of us has killed the other...yet)

Wordy Wednesday's author interview with Andy Gibney

A controversial book today I expect, but never let it be said I'm into censorship. Today's offering for Wordy Wednesday is the suggestively titled How to Seduce Your wife by Andy Gibney.

For twelve years Andy Gibney was a therapist. His first clients wanted help with phobias, stopping smoking and losing weight, but gradually more and more people came to see him with depression and anxiety. Andy realised that the cause of many of their problems could be traced back to the quality of their relationships. Coming out of a long term relationship himself, Andy found himself on the dating scene, a scene in which the internet had changed everything. Andy found many new experiences were now available to him and as such much of this book comes from the experiences of his old clients and his own interesting adventures in the new era of social media and dating.

As usual I threw some random questions at Andy so we could all find out a little bit more about how he 'ticks'.

Do you have any pets? 
I don’t at the moment, but I like cats and dogs. I had a rabbit a few years ago. It escaped and ran away. And I looked after it really well!

Who is your favourite author? Do they influence your writing or are they a total break from the sort of thing you write?
It changes all the time. At the moment, I’m loving the experience of finding Agatha Christie for the first time. I like her thought process so that has helped. Also, the same thing with Roald Dahl.

Which book(s) are you reading at the moment?
4. Storyteller – Roald Dahl’s biography. Phil Collins’ autobiography and I’ve just finished ‘And Then There Were None’ by Agatha Christie which is one of the best books I’ve ever read. (ooh last weeks author, Malcolm Parnell is a big Agatha Christie fan too, as am I!)

Where do you do most of your writing?
At my office on my computer. Nearly always early before anyone else comes in. Editing I can do if someone else is around. Most of my planning for a book is done in my small office at home.

Tell us about a bit of this book that you like the most - no spoilers!
I really loved writing many of the women’s stories in ‘Seduce’. Some were inspiring and some were hilarious.

What is your favourite biscuit?
Half chocolate Viennese shortbread or in a pinch, a chocolate Hobnob.

Tea or Coffee?
Neither. Haven’t touched caffeine for a dozen years. I am partial to hot chocolate though. (If authors are grouped by beverage choice, I'd have to put you in the group with Kate Harrad)

In the film of your life who would play you?
David Duchovney. If you’ve seen ‘Californication’ I think he already did. Some of it anyway.

If you could genetically cross an animal and a vegetable, what would you pick and why? I like the idea of a water melon sheep dog, just for the 'Melon Collie' pun.
You win the prize for oddest question ever. A cat with a cucumber. A catcumber. (Hmmm would it make itself jump?)

Andy's book How to Seduce Your Wife is published by 3P Publishing Ltd , and they tell me that
"It’s a book every man can learn from and every woman will want to read. "

You can get your own copy from Amazon and read a sample too.

Let me know what you think, are guides to relationships useful? or is the whole dating game so varied they can't help? And do all relationships take work, or should they happen naturally?

Thanks to Andy for taking part in Wordy Wednesday, follow the rest of the blog tour starting here ...

I don't listen to the Archers anymore

Picture from the fabulous Plarchers on Twitter

I'm 50 years old, I've been listening to the Archers since I was about 18. When I was in my 20s a friend of mine went to Africa to do VSO and I recorded the Archers omnibus for her on tape every week to send out so she wouldn't miss it. You might say I'm a fan.

And then Rob happened.


The story line around Rob and Helen has had all the press coverage. It has been described as well written as 'a gripping drama' as 'realistic portrayal of domestic abuse' etc etc and all of that may be true, but I have had enough.

Rob has succeeded in making listeners sit up and take notice, his slow burning take on domestic coercion and control of first Helen and then her child, and now it seems even her family, made people think about relationships. His creeping control not only of Helen but of other people, his lying, his cheating (who can forget the cricket match) has probably enticed new listeners to the show.

But while he has been doing that the Archers has lost something, it has lost the story of other people, the country folk, the cows, the humour, all has taken a back seat. In every scene Rob enters the listener is on tenterhooks (much like Helen) what will he say?, what lie will he tell? where will his devious and malicious nature take us now?

He has, as a character, taken over the Archers. No one is safe from his meddling and his deceit.

I stopped listening because it's gone on too long. Arguing that real abuse goes on for a long time too is, I think, not the point. The Archers is not real life (ducks as eggs are thrown form the cheap seats). Rob has fulfilled his prupose, he has moved on from a subtle abuser and is not a fully fledged pantomime villain, to the extent that I want to hiss and boo as he appears stage right. He has shown what abuse is like, he has raised 'awareness' he has even spurred people to donate thousands of pounds to women like Helen. But enough is enough.

What started as a curious tale of growing control, has moved into what feels like voyeurism. To be forced to sit and listen each Sunday, helpless, has gone beyond entertainment, well beyond. I now feel complicit in Rob's treatment of Helen and I've had enough. So I have walked away. I'm lucky ot to be Helen, but I refuse to be Rob either.

I haven't listened to the Archers in over 4 weeks now, and it feels better but sad. I'm sad because I miss my Sunday morning tweet-along, and I'm angry that a program that used to be balanced between 'issues' and 'an every day story of farming folk' has turned into a drama ridden, over the top, soap of the worst kind.

Do you still listen? Pop over to my facebook page to chat about it!

An Archers post - look away now if you don't listen to The Archers

Rob. We all hate him, I've blogged before about his bullying, controlling, and often blatant abusive behaviour.

He continues to cheat and lie and bully not just in his personal life with Helen, where he tells her what to wear, what to eat, when to rest, when to use her phone, when to read, when to work, when to have sex, when to not interfere with his life, whether she can star in the Ambridge panto (spoiler - no Helen, think of Henry!), and on and on; but also in his dealings with others, where he lies about being out at a cricket match so he can appear the hero of the hour, where he lies about his job so that his polish workers get the blame for his mistakes, where he lies about ditches and sluices during the great Ambridge flood, where he hurts hunt saboteurs yet ensures he is seen as the victim (and most of us feel he somehow switched semen samples to escape his now unwanted child with his previous wife)...in fact I wouldn't put it past him to have killed Scruff.

Picture from the simply brilliant twitter feed of @ThePlarchers

And yet

And yet I fear that my initial hope that he would be unmasked as the villain he is at Christmas time (when surely he would finally snap when Helen dared question his choice of bread sauce over cranberry, causing her to have a terrible 'fall' or accidental bump into a kitchen cupboard door) is not going to happen. I suspect that the arrival of his parents, whom he has made clear he is not keen to see, may reveal another darker tale. Maybe we will discover that Rob was a bullied child, made to feel small and useless by a bullying father while a weak mother allowed it to continue and now he lives with the ring of his fathers words in his mind

"Useless boy, never make a cricketer, can't even hit a ball, pathetic"

"Scared of a dog, idiot boy, I might as well have a girl"

"School reports no surprise, fool. Doesn't study enough, no friends, hopeless"

"Will never amount to anything"

"Wet the bed til you were 11, pansy"

"Can't even manage to clear a ditch properly, waste of space"

"Pregnant? Ha! I'd be amazed if it was yours you simpleton, no lead in your weak pencil"

and suddenly the worst thing will happen, we will feel sorry for him! Sorry for Rob!! Helen will see what his parents are like and will faun all over him worse than ever, he will then either a) continue as before with Helen making allowances for his appalling treatment of her or b) (and this would be worse still) he will go for counselling and be cured and become lovely and live in Ambridge with Helen happily every after.

It's a horror story. You read it here first...

Why does the ‘Rob’ scenario in the Archers bother so many people and why is it so upsetting?

Information on the Rob character in the Archers for those that are not regular listeners, can be found here.

I, like many people, have never been personally involved with domestic abuse, not coercion, not control, not violence; but like many I am aware of it.

I would expect people that have experienced it to find the storyline uncomfortable at best but at worst to cause stress and flashbacks and real fear. But why does it also cause other people, people with no experience of abuse to feel similarly?

I think the reason that the Rob story line in the archers affects people who have no experience of abuse is because it turns us into voyeurs, allowing us to stand idly by while Rob lies, cheats, controls and demeans, it makes us feel complicit with his abuse as we are forced to listen but unable to do anything to help.

Perhaps this is the writers intention, to allow us to feel as powerless as one of Rob’s victims, to feel that impotence to be able to act, the same thing that surely the other characters feel when confronted with his clever words that are always ‘not quite obvious abuse’, ‘not quite worth calling out’.

Like most people I hope that Rob gets what’s surely his due very soon. But part of me feels that maybe, as so often in real life, he won’t, that his smarmy control of business rivals and his frightening control of Helen and her child will just continue for ever.

On a practical fictional note Helen has lost a previous partner to a death (also a brother) so I imagine that Rob will not meet a sticky end, as surely that would finish Helen too. I wonder if perhaps finally he will be called out, discovered and like the feeble bully he is he will run away, to remain a shadow character, lurking in the dark of the stage wings, always threatening return, maybe having already become Henry’s legal father.

What ever happens I hope some thing does and soon, as from reading tweets it looks as if people are no longer just annoyed at Rob’ original ‘panto villain’ status but are now uneasy, afraid and creeped out by his increasingly dubious behaviour. Some victims of domestic abuse have said they have had to stop listening as the familiar phrases and controlling nature of his character are just too upsetting. In the sleepy world of Ambridge will his cheating at cricket be the final straw?

I’ve love to hear what you think, please join the conversation in the comments below. Do you like having a an evil character in the Archers? Is Rob really scary or just a silly character? Do people that take the Archers this seriously need to get a life? Is the actor’s portrayal of Rob’s gradual descent into an abusive partner a thing of genius or a step too far on a sleepy radio show for a Sunday afternoon.

If you or anyone you know are affected by domestic violence you can seek help here

Wolves, and my take on 50 Shades

When my lovely teen daughter (hereafter known as DD) got into the car this morning she automatically flipped my car radio from radio 4 (don’t judge me – I’m 49) to radio 1. Because the film of the 50 Shades book series was premiered yesterday they were talking about it and even had Jamie Dornan in the studio. After 30 seconds, totally unprompted DD turned and said ‘why do they keep saying it’s a romance when it’s about abuse?’ (we have read some of the book together, I expect, being a teen she has read more with her school friends too)  And it's a good question.

Abuse of power in life and in relationships has obviously gone on for a long time, long before a mediocre set of novels and a film, portrayed damaged people in a damaging relationship, so why are we all (OK not all, but a fair few of us judging by twitter and the blogosphere) up in arms about this one? Maybe because it’s suddenly mainstream, discussed on Radio one at breakfast time, used by every marketing agency going (stop it, it’s lazy at best and vulgar at worst – have some pride). Maybe because young women like my daughter are talking about it in the playground and lots of them are not like DD, lots of them are seeing it as ‘real love’.

Look how much he loves her! He follows her! He wants her all to himself! He loves her so much she is his and his alone, she’s not allowed friends! It’s so romantic!

Last time Dd and I discussed a relationship in the media with this much hype it was the Twilight saga. Both DD and I loved the books (again, stop with the judgy looks) and we quite liked the movies (despite Kristen’s constant miserable expression). I was very Team Edward (I love vampires) and DD was Team Jacob (I believe her reasoning was ‘I like my men hot and hairy’ can’t argue with that!) so we talked about the dynamic of each relationship. We concluded that Jacob loves Bella more than Edward does. Edward is selfish, hungry and obsessed. It looks like love but it’s obsession and desire. Jacob lets Bella go because he wants her to be happy. Yes the old “If you love something let it go” is a cliché but it’s also true.

Christian Grey gets away with his obsession and desire and selfishness because he is rich, handsome and powerful. Just as Edward is.

I don’t want stories like Anastasia and Christian’s to be banned. I want them watched, but what I do want is people to stop romanticising an unbalanced relationship. To stop saying that control, stalking and violence are romantic or the fault of the victim (I can’t help it – I love you so I get angry)

Fantasy is fine, S&M is fine, it’s all fine if you know what it is. But Fifty Shades is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

And if my daughter ever dates a wolf I’d like it to be a Jacob Black style wolf, not a Christian Grey one.

What do you think? Have you read the book or seen the movie? Did you love or loathe them?

Grabbed

A few days ago twitter had one of it's little viral hashtag things going on. Women were tagging events in their lives where they were 'grabbed' by men. It was to demonstrate the way women were, and often still are, treated. It made me think. I reflected on times I'd been grabbed too. I tweeted one of my experiences.

I was #grabbed too, both breasts grabbed, in a club, when I was 18 I blamed myself as I had a sheer top on
— Tattooed_Mummy (@tattooed_mummy) May 8, 2014

It led to a couple of replies from men. Which was nice! Telling me what I should have already known. Being grabbed wasn't my fault.

Today over breakfast I discussed it with Mr TM. He agreed that it was prevalent in the 70s and 80s, neither of us go clubbing now so can't comment on today! But it led to an interesting conversation.

I mentioned that the reason women went to the toilets in groups, at least when I went to clubs in the 80s and 90s was because leaving the group to go alone was dangerous. Walking across a club alone would leave you open to cat calls, and grabbing. You would often be surrounded by a 'pack' of guys, touched, kissed, generally leched over and the only way to cope was to laugh, to join in and to look like you enjoyed it because saying no or trying to push them away turned the 'banter' into aggression, cries of 'frigid cow' or 'touchy bitch' or 'I wouldn't want to shag you anyway' , which would often turn physical. I was grabbed when I went alone to buy a drink.

So when men are joking about women going everywhere in packs including to the toilet maybe think about why.

When we were talking Mr TM also said that while he never joined in when his mates behaved this way, he also didn't stop it, because like the lone woman, a lone dissenting voice in the pack will be turned on too, and anyway, the woman is laughing, she looks like she likes it...she doesn't. Now he realises his mistake.

So two things, why women travel together in groups in clubs, and women might look like they are having fun when they really are not. (and that the laughing and apparent enjoyment can apply to men too)

These packs of men turn usually normal friendly blokes into bullies. That's what they are, arrogant show offs, bullies.

Have you experience of this sexual bullying? Does it still happen? is it worse or better to be a woman at a club these days? I'd love to know because DD is 14 and soon she'll be wanting to go out with the girls..what are you teaching your sons?

Birds, Bees and Pornography

Every so often the subject crops up, should schools discuss (and maybe even show!) porn to the children as part of their sex education and personal development and of course many people shouted "NO!"


NO!!

NO !!!

what are you thinking!?

NO!!!!

But I wonder if the schools may have a point. Porn is everywhere and whether paraents like it or not it's unlikely to go away. Children (and I'm talking of early teens but each day the age seems to reduce) have smartphones or access to smartphones via their peers. One argument was along the lines of "I'd prefer to talk to my children about that myself!" and for a second I agreed but then the opposing view was put forward, and that is pretty clear, not all parents DO talk to their kids about sex and not all want to, in fact the original commenter went on the say

"we've all, as parents, had that horrible, cringeworthy, talk with our kids, about the birds and the bees"

and I thought 'have we?' I know I haven't, I've had quick questions about sex, I've had HILARIOUS conversations about where babies come from, I've read some quite genius children's books on the subject with DD, I've been amazed at the breadth of her knowledge and the breadth of her investigational questioning! But horrible and cringeworthy? Nope.

Because I've always just answered what was asked, always have (we bought Mummy Laid and Egg when she was about 3) . Seems to me like the most simple thing in the world. And even now that DD is 13 she asks questions that surprise me or make me laugh, but nothing that makes me cringe. (Saturday morning comment a case in point "Hmm you two are very jolly this morning, was there fun and frolics last night?" cue my husband and I crying with laughter (and *ahem* not answering! LOL)

But lately she has been asking other questions, questions that start "I saw on TV ...." and it's obvious that some things she sees are confusing (not least the fact she pointed out no one on TV uses condoms, they just cuddle and have sex, so she quite reasonably wanted to know when you would stop to put it on) and while I'm happy to discuss all this there are many parents that are not.

So I think schools SHOULD talk to kids about porn, and about the dangers of sexting, and the risk or pictures online, of photos on phones, of facebook, about respect about the fact that prawn isn't very 'real' (as many wags on twitter have pointed out "Porn gives young people an unrealistic and unhealthy idea of how quickly a plumber will come to your house.") That people come (unintentional pun honest guv) in all shapes and sizes, that sex can be funny as well as passionate, that stuff can go wrong and you can still be friends with and love your partner, even if there are fanny farts and lost condoms ...I'm straying off the point (another pun, good grief it's turning into a carry on film, not a porn one!)

any way - to cut a long (oh for goodness sake!) story short, I think porn should be discussed in school, and I think parents should talk about sex and relationships at home, and I think boys and girls should be taught respect and caring are as important as 5 minutes of fumbling fun.

what do you think?