Maried Bliss

A good piece from Caitlin Moran in today's Times..

There’s a new book in town that’s getting everyone riled: Guy Thomas Blews’s Marriage & How to Avoid It, which stakes out a bold arena for combat. In a nutshell, Blews’s claim is that a happy marriage is impossible. This is, he asserts, because human beings in general — but, really, when you come down to it, mainly men, grrr, the tigers — are incapable of lifelong relationships. They are compelled, at some point, to voyage out of the stifling environs of the wedding vows and bang that chick in marketing.

The tragedy for both Blews and his argument — which is as old as the hills, and about as sprightly — is that he is such an obviously damaged individual. Those opposing his claims have simply pointed out how uniquely unqualified he is to comment on marriage, rather than attack his actual argument head-on. Really, Blews has had the kind of life that would make anyone eschew the engagement-ring tray at Elizabeth Duke. His parents were locked in a loveless marriage, which he was able to observe only during the summer holidays from his boarding school. Subsequently, when Blews attained his majority, his first lover became so agonised in the final stages of her multiple sclerosis that she blew her head off with a shotgun. In any other age, Blews would probably have abandoned any further attempt at trying to deal with human relationships. He would simply have become a sad-eyed and slightly bitter monk, tending a vat of hyssop liqueur and kicking the priory’s chickens out of the way.

However, in the 21st century, the coping mechanism of the troubled middle classes is slightly different: they come up with a theory about how awful people are and then get a publishing deal. And, so, here we are with Marriage & How To Avoid It, which some cultural commentators (primarily the men’s magazines Nuts and Zoo, albeit that their commentary consists predominantly of “phwoar!”), have hailed as a great truth.

Of course, the concept that a man simply cannot be satisfied with a mere, single woman is ancient. The Greeks thought that men couldn’t be satisfied with women, full stop, and that they would have to flee into the bed of another man to have a decent relationship. The idea of homosexuality as a solution isn’t, oddly and sadly, much touted in modern society, but the theory behind it — that men must roam from the home — is still the same. It’s an idea that is always announced a little proudly. Men’s “natural physical urges” are “so strong” that they “cannot control themselves”. Men, of course, wouldn’t look proud of a single other “natural physical urge” “so strong” that they “cannot control” it — such as soiling their pants, or succumbing to sleep at the wheel of the car and being smashed to death under a lorry. Such a theory also ignores that if it’s by and large a “natural urge” for men to be unfaithful, then it’s also by and large a “natural urge” for their wives and children to wish them to be not unfaithful.

Men may very well be more prone to unfaithfulness. But then, women are more prone to investing too much in a relationship and subsequently becoming resentful and boorish. Both traits are equally likely to break up a marriage. But no one is advocating that women’s neediness is also a “natural urge” that can’t be controlled. Indeed, women tend to acknowledge their weaknesses, and subsequently buy tedious self-help books on the subject by the dozen. Interestingly, the self-help section in my local bookshop carries no books about curing infidelity aimed at men. This is, presumably, because the kind of men who buy into this theory of monogamy being impossible would rather exhaust themselves in persuading a sceptical humanity that their vices are irrevocable “natural urges” rather than simply to try to become better human beings.

While luck and synchronicity do play a part in it, the simple truth is that a happy, lifelong marriage tends to be the result of sheer hard work on both sides. Blews is a good-looking, charming man in his mid-thirties who is unlikely to see the value in a deal that involves selflessness, biting your tongue, minding your manners, repeatedly rejecting the heady thrill of a flirtation, and remembering to never, ever talk during a rerun of Moonlighting — not when he could be banging the chick from marketing, anyway.

But surely, at some point, he must ponder what the results of his theory will be. For myself, I can think of few things more aspirational than an old couple holding hands. That speaks of a lifetime of jokes, shags, winks, kids, secretly slagging off the neighbours, 52 Christmas trees, and crying with laughter at a some terrible new haircut.

Blews’s touted alternative, by comparison, does not seem like anything to wish for. For while society might still have a sneaking regard for the rampant stag, ultimately it dislikes a weak, priapic, sybaritic old goat in a Bath chair.