Trigger happy

I've voiced my doubts about trigger warnings before, but they're still very widespread and sometimes completely over the top.

I see the veteran actor Sir Ian McKellen has seen red over the multiple trigger warnings for the play he's currently acting in.

Audiences are warned that the play contains strong language, sexual references, discussions of bereavement and cancer, loud noise, flashing lights and mentions of smoking.

No doubt if the theatre thought really hard, they could come up with even more things that might trigger the unwary. Is there some unofficial competition among theatres to provide the biggest number of trigger warnings?

"I think it's ludicrous" said Sir Ian. "I quite like to be surprised by loud noises and outrageous behaviour on stage."

I don't remember so many trigger warnings in my childhood, though there might have been some about sex and violence.

Do people actually avoid an entire play or film or whatever because of one thing that might upset them? It seems unlikely to me.

If people are severely upset by, say, loud noises, shouldn't they be seeing a therapist and trying to get rid of such hyper-sensitivity?

Surely anyone who's seriously keen on culture and the arts will expect at some point to be offended or shocked or startled by something they're experiencing. One of the basic aims of art is to shake you up a bit, to question your usual assumptions. If you're likely to cringe at something a bit out of the ordinary, perhaps you're better off mowing the lawn.

PS: I agree with Infidel that there should be a warning about flashing lights, which can cause seizures and other physical disturbances.

Dress sense

Dress codes may be more relaxed than they used to be, but even so it's often anyone's guess what to wear at a social occasion.

Smart or even formal clothes used to be obligatory at things like funerals, weddings, job interviews, church services, restaurants, theatres and workplaces, but nowadays smart casual or even casual (or even a bit scruffy) is often quite normal at such occasions.

Personally I've never understood why formal clothes are considered so necessary at so many gatherings. They add little except a sense of good taste or good manners.

I wore smartish clothes for my mum's funeral, because I thought that would be expected, but it didn't change how I felt about my mum dying. I would still have felt the same if I was wearing a tee shirt and shorts or some faded dungarees. Obviously my mum had no objection!

Many workplaces no longer stipulate smart or formal clothing and only require their employees to be presentable. That's fine by me. My concern isn't what an employee is wearing but whether they're good at their job.

Even tattoos and piercings are now seen as normal and unremarkable, even in many work situations. When I was young they would have been met with horror and dismay unless you were a builder or a plumber or some sort of trades person.

Of course some people simply like the chance to dress up and show off, and they'll find some dramatic and eye-catching outfit for the occasion. Definitely not a tee shirt or ripped jeans.

I haven't owned a suit for over 50 years, and luckily have never been required to. If anyone can be bothered to attend my funeral, they can wear whatever they like. Budgie smugglers or bikinis? Be my guest.

Going on and on

I don't understand people who want to live forever - or at least many more years than their natural lifespan.

Tech entrepreneur Bryan Johnson, who's 45, follows a strict behavioural regime every day, convinced it will extend his life by umpteen years (it's not clear how many extra years he reckons he'll have).

He eats lots of vegetables, takes 54 pills every morning, does intensive workouts and undergoes red-light therapy (whatever that is). He looks healthy enough, but will a few extra years really justify this strenuous and time-consuming regime?

At the age of 76 I reckon I've lived quite long enough. I've had a fulfilling life with very few regrets. I've met lots of interesting people, soaked up every type of culture, travelled around the world. I've no desire to hang on till I'm 100 and due to get congratulations from King Charles.

How will this guy know if he's increased his lifespan, anyway? If he lives to 100, how will he know if that's his natural lifespan or his artificially extended one? Lots of people live well into their nineties (as my mum did) without any special attempts to live longer.

And why exactly does he want to live longer? Does he think the extra years will make him happier, or more knowledgeable, or more confident? Or is it just for a rather odd sense of achievement?

Not so long ago people often died in their thirties. Now many of us live three times as long. Surely that's enough? Do we really need to go on and on and on? Isn't that just a tad narcissistic?

Pic: Bryan Johnson

The joy of trees

I had no idea trees were so good for our mental and physical health. I thought they were just pretty objects that absorbed a lot of carbon.

Far from it. Apparently if you spend just 15 minutes walking among trees, your whole mood changes. You'll be calmer and you'll feel less tension, anxiety, anger, hostility, depression and fatigue.

It'll also improve your cardio-vascular health and your immune system, and lower your blood pressure.*

Who knew? How come in 76 years on this earth I've never known all that? Why isn't it common knowledge? Why isn't it written about in the media? Why has no doctor ever enlightened me?

As it happens, this immediate neighbourhood is awash with trees so I'm getting the benefits all the time. The local park is full of trees and so is the Stormont estate just up the road.

So that's another good reason why we should be planting as many trees as possible, quite apart from the carbon-absorption aspect. We have five trees in our garden and front yard - a cherry blossom tree, a pittosporum, a eucalyptus and two rowans. So we're doing our bit for everyone's health.

I guess the healthiest place to live would be a log cabin in the middle of a forest. Could be a bit impractical though, when you needed a bit of shopping or some medical attention. I think I'll stay where I am for now.

*Harvard University School of Public Health

Sight unseen

There's been a big increase in the number of people who buy a house or flat unseen - except on videos or virtual tours or 360-degree photography. The trend really took off during the pandemic, but has continued since.

I wouldn't be happy doing that, I would always want to visit the place and have a good look round it in the flesh, as it were. There could always be something wrong with it that isn't apparent from a remote viewing. Like a nasty smell or a neighbour who plays loud music at 2 am.

Then again, do you find out everything you need from a physical viewing? The average viewing is only 20 minutes, and often less than that. If the place has been thoroughly redecorated and refurbished, there could be something seriously wrong with it that you don't notice because its been hidden.

So in practice a physical viewing isn't much better than a remote viewing. Of course you can get a surveyor's report that will tell you if it's structurally sound, but that still won't tell you about the nasty smell or the noisy neighbour.

Jenny and I spent about 20 minutes looking round this house, which looked fine but the surveyor's report told us a lot of things we were unaware of (nothing too serious thankfully - nothing to stop us buying the house).

I've read a few times about people buying a property after seeing it online, only to find that the house or flat doesn't exist or it's owned by someone else and not the seller. But that seems to be very rare.

Call me old-fashioned but if I'm thinking of buying a house, I want to have a look at the actual thing, not some online sample.

Can I do more?

I don't think much about climate breakdown these days. It's one of those things I have little control over, so what's the point of dwelling on it?

Jenny and I do whatever we can to avoid over-consumption, atmospheric pollution, long-distance travel, global supply chains and all that, but at the end of the day there's only so much we can do as two individuals.

Our contribution to climate breakdown is miniscule. The real offenders by far are manufacturers, big corporations and the very wealthy, and they're the ones that need to drastically change their perspective and their belief that they can exploit the planet's resources indefinitely. Sadly there's little sign of their doing that.

I could spend all day obsessing about what more I can do to reverse climate breakdown, and drive myself totally neurotic with anxiety and fear and self-doubt, and it wouldn't do much for my mental health.

But the media contribute to the idea that we should all be scrutinising our every purchase and every activity and asking ourselves if there's more we could do to save the planet and curtail our selfish and extravagant spending patterns.

An entirely hypocritical stance of course, as the media do everything they can to increase our consumption levels with their pages on property, motoring, fashion, travel, home furnishings and all the rest.

Given the general head-in-the-sand attitude and lack of urgency on the part of the biggest polluters I don't see any realistic chance of climate breakdown being reversed, and we might as well prepare for the worst. Many people have already had a taste of the worst in the form of extreme weather events like floods and heatwaves.

And there are still people who deny climate breakdown is even happening.

Generous or what?

I must admit I'm not an especially generous person. I'm not in the habit of giving loans, giving sandwiches to homeless people, paying for someone else's groceries, volunteering at a food bank, helping someone move house, or just giving things away.

On the other hand I'm generous in other ways. I often give large tips to restaurant servers and cabbies and hairdressers, I give clothes and books to charity, I give money to charity, and I've given blood 33 times. So I'm not all bad.

Of course generosity is a slippery concept, and depends very much on the context. If a billionaire gives a sandwich to a homeless person, that's not exactly generous because the billionaire has nothing to lose. But if someone desperately poor gives the sandwich, that's generosity in spades.

Generosity can also take subtle and invisible forms we tend to overlook. Like taking the time to listen to someone who's in distress, or being tactful about someone's awful cooking or hideous haircut, or guiding someone out of a tight parking space.

And generosity can mean not just giving something but waiving something. Like cancelling a debt or letting a flat rent-free or not charging for a bit of professional advice (not that I've ever been the recipient of such gestures, sorry to say).

I could resolve to be more generous, but I don't think it's something you can just switch on. I think it's something that comes naturally, maybe with generous parents or generous friends showing the way.

Anyway, what about all the fascinating and thought-inspiring posts I've churned out in the last 16 years. Isn't that a magnificent act of generosity?

Tricks of the trade

I was thinking about the TV programmes where people have houses full of junk and clutter, stuff they've probably bought on a whim only to be shoved away in a corner somewhere and forgotten. Then I was musing about all the little tricks that encourage us to spend more/consume more than we actually need.

• Like souvenirs. It's the done thing to come back from a holiday with souvenirs of the places you've visited. It doesn't matter how tacky they are, as long as they prove you've been to X, Y and Z. Personally I don't go in for that, I buy something because it's pretty or amusing or informative, but not as a souvenir.
• Like fashion. Just about everything is now subject to the whims of fashion. Have I got the latest smart phone or the latest trainers or the latest lavishly praised bestseller? The answer is no, I don't have the latest anything, only what I take a fancy to. With my stout shoes and dumb phone and umbrella I'm gloriously unfashionable.
• Like elaborate weddings. It's not enough to pop round to the local registry office, you should be dancing and carousing in some exotic location and getting expensive presents from all the guests. Well, too bad, Jenny and I were happy with the local registry office.
• Like the idea that your kitchen/living room/bathroom is looking a bit "tired" and needs updating. Why not blow a few thousand on "refreshing" it and impressing the neighbours?
• Like the idea of pampering, of treating yourself. Feeling a bit low? Life's getting you down? Then why not give yourself a little treat? How about a box of chocolates, or a manipedi, or a hairdo, or a box set?

Hopefully I'm wise to all these tricks, but marketing grows ever more sophisticated....

Still covering up

Almost ten years ago I wrote about Julie Bailey, a whistle-blower who was relentlessly persecuted and harassed after she exposed sub-standard care and unnecessary deaths at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Supposedly, since then whistle-blowers have received stronger protection and support and can expose malpractice without being treated as the guilty party.

Well, that's the theory. In practice it seems that little has changed and whistle-blowers can still be told to shut up and stop making trouble.

The recent case of Lucy Letby, the nurse who murdered seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and could easily have murdered several more, showed that pointing out wrong-doing can still be seen as a hostile act rather than a necessary warning.

Two medical consultants, Dr Stephen Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram, both raised concerns about unexplained infant deaths at the hospital as early as July 2015.

But both were rebuffed constantly by hospital managers. Dr Jayaram was told "not to make a fuss". It wasn't until June 2016, after repeated complaints, that Letby was finally removed from her clinical duties.

Of course it's obvious why whistle-blowers are so badly treated. The members of staff who are at fault are desperate not to lose their good reputation, and in this case the good reputation of the hospital. So they turn on the whistle-blower to save their own skin and they refuse to admit to any mistakes.

There needs to be a new attitude that says it's okay to make mistakes, we all make them, and that admitting mistakes as soon as possible is a positive move and not a negative one. Confessing promptly to mistakes shouldn't damage your reputation, it should enhance it.

How many dangerous mistakes are still being covered up?

Pic: Lucy Letby

.......................................................................................

No, I haven't died. Jenny and I have been in Liverpool for the Art Biennial, and to see two old friends in Chester. We had a great time and saw loads of wonderful artworks.

Wrong think

I think it's extremely worrying that hundreds of trans activists around the country feel it's perfectly okay to condemn people for having opinions they disagree with and it's perfectly okay to then persecute, harass and abuse them until they change their opinions or keep a strict silence. And it's perfectly okay if the persistent wrong-thinker is sanctioned or sacked by their employer and their life is shattered.

The Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan, who co-created the unforgettable character Father Ted, has been persecuted for years now over his opinion that nobody can change sex, that transwomen aren't women, and that sexual self-identification is a nonsense. As a result of his stance, he has lost lucrative work, become financially destitute, and has seen his marriage collapse.

Just this week his scheduled appearance at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe was cancelled because of his views on transgender. The venue Leith Arches said that "his views do not align with our overall values." Whatever that means.

It's incredible and shocking that in the year 2023 someone's opinions can be ruthlessly monitored and they can be victimised and censured simply for having an opinion that differs from the prevailing view.

Who gives these fanatical activists the right to act as thought police? Why don't they realise that what they're doing is outrageous? And why aren't more people speaking up and saying this is unacceptable behaviour?

It's beside the point whether you agree with Graham Linehan's opinions or not. What matters is that there's a long tradition of freedom of speech in Britain and suddenly that tradition is being relentlessly trampled on.

PS: He performed in front of the Scottish Parliament on Thursday evening.

Pic: Graham Linehan

No kids

Jenny and I decided very early on in our relationship that we didn't want children. We just never had that overwhelming urge to reproduce and "continue the family line". And we still feel the same 41 years later.

We know all the arguments for having children. You'll love their unpredictable ideas and comments and questions. You'll be invigorated by their physical energy. We need plenty of young people to keep the economy healthy and provide care and services for the elderly. And we hope our children will look after us when we're old and decrepit.

None of these arguments were strong enough to make me want offspring. Firstly, I have plenty of unpredictable ideas of my own. Secondly, I'm invigorated very easily and don't need any further invigoration. Thirdly, there are plenty of people to provide for the elderly, including all the young migrants the government is trying to keep out.

As for our children looking after us, that argument is highly dubious. In particular, why should children feel obliged to look after their parents, just because their parents brought them into the world?

And there's an assumption that people's children will be physically and mentally fit as well as happy to care for their elderly parents. But they may turn out to be disabled or seriously ill or mentally disturbed and unable to fill that role. They might be dead, they might hate their parents, they might live on the other side of the world. That optimistic assumption about being cared for is full of holes. And very presumptuous.

If other people want to have children, good for them, and I hope they get a lot of joy and satisfaction from doing so. Just as long as I can enjoy a restaurant meal without hyper-active children running amuck.

Asking for help

Journalist Oliver Keens admits he's still the stereotype male when it comes to asking for help. He can't shake off the entrenched idea that men should be helping other people, not seeking help themselves.

He thinks this is a common male trait, but is he right? Men are supposed to be reluctant to consult a doctor or ask for directions or clarify a puzzling restaurant menu or seek help when they feel depressed or suicidal.

It may be true that other men are that unassertive, but personally I've never been shy of asking for help or asking questions. I would ask for help in all those situations.

If men think they should be able to solve problems without help, that asking for help means they're some sort of sissy or failure, that's ridiculous.

No wonder three quarters of suicides are males if men are reluctant to voice their feelings of hopelessness and despair and defeat to other people. I'm sure that if I was feeling as bad as that, I wouldn't hesitate to tell Jenny or ring the Samaritans - or both.

And I would consult a doctor straightaway if I had any seriously worrying symptoms. I wouldn't just shrug them off and hope they'd go away. It helps of course that I have several great doctors I would happily confide in.

I know women can be exasperated when a man refuses help even when it's the obvious thing to do. The enduring fantasy of masculine self-sufficiency and independence has a lot to answer for.

Helpless parents

It must be incredibly distressing for a parent when their child adopts some clearly self-destructive behaviour but won't listen when they encourage him or her to change their ways before it's too late.

Zhanna Samsonova, a Russian online influencer who had followed a strict diet of raw tropical fruit for ten years, and said she hadn't drunk water for six years, has died, reportedly of malnutrition, exhaustion and infections, at the age of 39. Her mother Vera was alarmed at her daughter's extreme diet and had tried to coax her into more sensible eating habits but got nowhere.

Can you imagine what her mother must have gone through, watching her daughter waste away but being unable to keep her alive?

Other parents must suffer the same way when their children become drug addicts or heavy drinkers or hardened smokers, and steadfastly refuse to accept that their behaviour is doing them harm. No doubt the parents often blame themselves for their children's bad habits, thinking they must have triggered them in some way. But of course self-destructive habits have very complex causes.

As one parent says: "It's devastating and very sad and tragic at times, just heart-breaking. As a parent, you want to save them. You want to shake them and scream, Why are you doing this? The problem is that there is no good answer to the question, Why are you doing this? There is so magic cure for the heartache and sorrow you experience as a parent."

I may have been a pain in the arse to my parents at times, but at least I never had them worrying that I was on a path of self-destruction. For one thing, I'm not that keen on tropical fruit.

Pic: Zhanna Samsonova - when she still looked healthy

Blissful ignorance

When I was young I seldom gave any thought to the possibility of old age and all it implied. I lived in a self-absorbed juvenile bubble, aware only of my youthful vitality and my still coalescing personality.

When we visited my mother's parents, all I took in was that they were old. I thought very little about what that entailed. I was aware that granny had a bad back and some arthritis but that was about it. Most of her life was a complete mystery to me, likewise grandpa's.

Of course one reason I thought so little about old age was that for most people in those days old age didn't last very long. The generally-observed retirement age was 65 and most people only lived for a few years after retiring. Because of that they were less likely to develop the multitude of medical problems that afflict so many of today's oldies. So if I ever thought about old people's health, I assumed they were physically fit rather than frail and decrepit.

I think it's also the case that youngsters, if they think of old age at all, simply don't want to know that one day they might be old and enfeebled, so they try not to think about what's coming down the line. They tell themselves that they'll never get old, or they'll die before they reach old age, or that all the infirmities of old age might happen to others but not themselves.

I was convinced at one time that I wouldn't live very long and would thus avoid old age altogether. In my twenties, I was quite sure I wouldn't reach 30, and was rather surprised when I did. I also thought I might die at 70, as my father did, but that never happened either.

Nightmare holiday

When we book a holiday, we assume it will go ahead as planned and there'll be no last-minute glitches to stop us in our tracks.

Luckily we've never fancied Greece so we didn't book a holiday in Rhodes. Those vacationers who happened to be there when the wildfires broke out must have been tearing their hair out and wondering what was coming next. Hotels burning down, luggage lost, flights cancelled, bedding down who-knows-where. Dream holidays in ruins.

Meanwhile those holiday-makers who've booked a stay in Rhodes some time in the future are wondering if it will ever happen. Every day they ask the same questions. What's the latest? Are the fires still burning? Are our flights still on? Does our hotel still exist? They're left in an uncertain limbo.

Not forgetting of course the distressed residents of Rhodes themselves, who're seeing their homes and businesses burnt to the ground and tourists keeping well away. They can't just jet back to their home country, they have to adjust to what's going on around them.

To cut down on flight pollution, we decided on staycations this year rather than anything more ambitious. We're glad we did. We've booked a stay in Liverpool in a few weeks' time. This being the UK we can be sure temperatures will not hit the mid-forties celcius. We'll be lucky if they reach the twenties.

We were in Melbourne once when the temperature hit 40 celcius, and doing anything in that heat was almost unbearable. Anything higher than that would have been pretty gruelling.

Bricks and mortar

Given the current housing crisis, dating youngsters are said to be paying more attention to the housing situation of their dates. Which may seem rather unromantic, but it's something that looms large nowadays.

Unless your only concern is whether you love each other, how compatible you are, and how likely you are to stay together, and you absolutely refuse to think about such practical issues as bricks and mortar, then housing is bound to come up sooner or later.

Does your date own a flat or house? Are they planning to? Do they have enough funds to do so? Or are they easily affording a hefty flat rental?

Such considerations weren't so pressing when I was young and dating. If you gave the matter any thought at all, you assumed your date was happily housed somewhere and able to afford whatever it cost.

I hardly gave a moment's thought to housing when I was dating, and neither did my parents, even though parents generally were often very curious about a prospective mate's financial status and future prospects.

When I met Jenny we were both working in bookshops. Although our salaries were low, we assumed we wouldn't have any trouble renting and subsequently buying a flat or house. At that time this was such a reasonable assumption that we barely discussed it. Since then of course both rents and property prices have sky-rocketed and salaries have declined.

So it's not surprising that the practicalities of where you and your loved one might live, and whether you can possibly afford it, often comes up.

Not very romantic but hard to avoid.

Word association

I'm bemused by those fanatical campaigners who think that endless tinkering with the words and phrases we use somehow makes life better for all those groups of people who're discriminated against.

The latest daft initiative from an obscure pressure group reprimands anyone who uses phrases including the word black, because according to them this could be racist. We shouldn't say someone deserves a black mark, or we're feeling in a black mood, or we're in someone's black books, or we bought something on the black market. We should find alternative phrases that avoid the word black.

This seems to me absolutely dotty. If I say I'm in a black mood, how on earth is this linked to racism? Wouldn't people understand it to mean simply that I'm feeling rather grumpy and irritable, with no sense whatever of a racist overtone?

Surely the way to combat racism is not to make umpteen changes to our vocabulary but to treat black people like fellow human beings, with courtesy and respect and fairness. Obviously we avoid the offensive n-words that are clearly abusive, but terms like "black mood" are referring to something quite different.

Yesterday I met my first black bus driver (Yes, Belfast is still mostly white). I would think that treating him as just another bus driver rather than something unusual and surprising is probably more appreciated than no one mentioning their "black mood".

I hope nobody offers him a black coffee or some black grapes. You never know, he might be mortally offended.

Putting the boot in

Anyone who really thought the British media had changed its ways in recent years and become more serious and more responsible must have been sorely disillusioned by the reporting of the Huw Edwards saga. It was atrocious.

To fill in the background for my American visitors, Huw Edwards is a very well-known news presenter who has worked for the BBC for 39 years. He reports on all the grand occasions like general elections, Royal coronations and state visits.

On July 7 the Sun (a down-market right-wing tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch) reported on allegations that a "well-known BBC presenter" had paid £35,000 to a 17-year-old man for "indecent images".

Instead of briefly mentioning these dubious unsubstantiated claims on an inside page, and stressing they were merely allegations, virtually all the mainstream media pumped out banner front-page headlines wondering who was the mysterious senior presenter and clearly implying he was a ghastly sleazeball who deserved his come-uppance.

Even the supposed serious papers like the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent all gleefully splashed the story for several days, seldom questioning the allegations and finding him "guilty until proved innocent".

On July 10 the young man's lawyer stated that "nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place" and that the allegations are "nonsense". So where the truth lies is anyone's guess.

Meanwhile Huw Edwards is reported to be so distressed by the coverage that he is now in hospital with "serious mental health issues". He is known to have had regular episodes of depression throughout his life.

The way the media, including papers that should have known better, have put the boot in on the basis of a totally unproven story in the Sun is despicable and I can only feel very sorry for poor Huw, who has always seemed decent and likeable.

Pic: Huw Edwards

NB: Huw is pronounced Hugh

Who needs grudges?

I don't understand people who hold grudges. Especially when they hold grudges not just for days but for years on end. What on earth do they achieve from it?

My father formed a grudge against me when I was 22 and didn't speak to me for 20 years. He wouldn't even let me into his house, so I had to see my mother at a local pub. There was no reasoning with him.

The grudge may be based on a complete misunderstanding of someone's words or actions, but they won't be corrected. They get some sort of emotional satisfaction from shutting the person out or refusing to treat them in a normal courteous fashion.

People are left out of wills in favour of the local dogs' home or some distant relative who is somehow seen as more deserving. People aren't invited to social gatherings or they're constantly abused and insulted behind their backs.

I've never held a grudge against anyone. Yes, there are people who've treated me badly or shunned me for no obvious reason, but I just put it down to "human error" and get on with my life. I don't want all that negative emotion festering away inside me.

Grudges can have such destructive consequences. From Putin having a long-standing grudge about the break-up of the Soviet Union to the next-door neighbour persisting with some convoluted boundary dispute to a local council hounding you for painting your door the wrong colour (this is currently happening to Miranda Dickson in Edinburgh).

There are plenty of people I could hold grudges against, but I'm just not going to waste my time and energy on them.

Spilling the beans

I think one thing that helps sustain a long-term relationship is as much honesty as possible. Whatever's on your mind, getting it out in the open always helps (well, usually) and brings you closer to each other (well, usually).

I don't say total honesty because there are always things you prefer to keep under wraps for very good reasons. I'd be surprised if there's any couple who're totally honest with each other at all times.

Jenny and I are very honest with each other about our thoughts and feelings, but some things we keep to ourselves. I won't say things that might cause her extreme embarrassment or offence, or things she simply wouldn't understand, or reveal intimate details about previous girlfriends.

I imagine Jenny keeps silent about similar things (substituting boyfriends for girlfriends).

That's the main reason I've never even considered having a secret lover. Keeping it secret would be an act of such total dishonesty I simply couldn't do it. Likewise I couldn't be secretly addicted to gambling or alcohol or drugs.

Of course there are situations when tact demands that total honesty be ruled out, like when one of us buys a new item of clothing and wants the other to compliment us on our choice. There's no way we'd say it was hideous (well, only if it was truly ghastly).

On the rare occasion that I've been dishonest and kept something important from Jenny, I've always regretted it afterwards and wondered why I kept it from her. I guess I was simply scared of her possible reaction.

Apart from anything else, it's hard work keeping a big secret for weeks or months on end. It's much easier to spill the beans and have done with it.