Compatibility

"How long can you wait for a person to tell you that love is not enough? That all of the wonderful things that make a great couple are just too much? That energy, passion and opinions can't compete with cool, lovely and nice?

I suppose there must come a time when Defeat holds up its flag and tells you that you're pathetic, but also that you are more than what you are sinking into, and therefore you need to buck up and move on. Waiting to be discarded, or to be told that the energy is too much, that Love is too complicated and not worth a hop - let alone a leap - of faith is something that can kill any crevice of optimism and romance that a person may hold."

I wrote the above a little while ago as a way to explore a non-development. It's interesting to look at this now in a different context, feeling slightly more cynical. Or maybe it's not even cynicism, but rather realism.

I read something earlier today in Malcolm Gladwell's excellent 'The Tipping Point', which put an interesting slant on compatibility and perhaps why Failure must slap you in the face from time to time:

Perhaps most important, though, we store information with other people. Couples do this automatically... Wegner [Daniel, University of Virginia psychologist] argues that when people know each other well, they create an implicit joint memory system - a transactive memory system - which is based on an understanding about who is best suited to remember what kinds of things. "Relationship development is often understood as a process of mutual self-discolsure," he writes. "Although it is probably more romantic to cast this process as one of interpersonal revelation and acceptance, it can also be appreciated as a necessary precursor to transactive memory." Transactive memory is part of what intimacy means. In fact, Wegner argues, it is the loss of this kind of joint memory that helps to make divorce so painful... The loss of transactive memory feels like losing a part of one's own mind."

Practically, I think this can help to explain why some people just cannot work together. If you are so out of sync with each other, with completely different temperaments, alternative ideals and contrasting politics, then you are both likely to approach your environments in completely different ways. Although this could be a harmonious coupling, where each individual will remember what they are best suited to remember and bring different valuable things to the relationship, it could also be a source of frustration. Expectations are sometimes not met, and one half of the couple is left wondering why the hell the other has put so much weight on something they consider to be trivial, and consequently see the other as redundant. And vice versa.

The individuals will be left disappointed and frustrated, and expectations will not be met.

Perhaps this could be applied practically in a work scenario: you have spotted three recurring mistakes in a client's short automatic email. This email reaches hundreds of people per year and could have a negative impact on their business, and consequently your own. (See this BBC article as an indication of why easy business can be lost.) You'd like to advise them of their mistake but are unsure about how to approach it delicately, though you feel strongly that it is an appropriate course of action to contact them.

Just to be sure, you ask a colleague their opinion. Highlight the paragraph to them, and show them the three mistakes. Then ask them how they think the errors can be communicated. The colleague responds unexpectedly by saying that only two of the three mistakes should be highlighted, because in his opinion only two can really be noticed and the third is less important.

Perhaps he thinks that this approach is a softer blow to the person who has made the mistakes? To me, the colleague's answer is wholly stupid, and merely fuels ignorance. The fact is that there are three mistakes, and he is too much of a dolt to understand them all. However, if his partner of over two years asks him the same advice, she is likely to accept it as sound as they are so harmonious together. They bring different ideas and memory systems to the table in their relationship and get on brilliantly. In their world, their individual thoughts, opinions and memories are cohesive. In my world the ignorance - granted, of something relatively small - is unacceptable. Of course, we would never get on and never be able to build anything like a transactive memory system.

With this in mind, suddenly, thinking about relationships and compatibility makes more sense. You offer different things to the table so that you benefit each other, but each individual notices and appreciates the offering, making it clear that the offering is valued and applauded. This failure that sometimes happens? It's just a practical wake up call that you need, to encourage you to try something different.

Is this the best coffee in London, nay, the world?

Some people feel wretched if they have no access to coffee. If I am in the presence of one of these folk, I consequently feel wretched as they verge on being unpleasant. So if I can ply them with good coffee, or help with directions to good coffee, then I am more than happy to comply.

I love coffee, but do not consider myself to be an aficionado. I know the difference between very good and okay, but possibly not between very good and exceptional. Perhaps the difference between very good and exceptional lies in individual opinion anyhow. But how valid is the individual opinion if they frequent Starbucks et al?

The last time I drank a Starbucks coffee was after a friend highlighted that they now make flat whites. With respect, I felt that it was good. I would be inclined to venture in for another if I had a hankering for one and the store was convenient. Previously, though, I asked for a latte and it was vile. I asked them to make it again on account of it being watery and burnt. They duly made it again and it was the same shit. This was not a one off.

Could the same thing happen at Monmouth (coffee company)? Or in... Kaffeine? This is doubtful.

Monmouth has a tone of middle class country farm about it, despite being perched confidently in Covent Garden, London Bridge, and Bermondsey Street, with contrived communal heavy wooden tables, a style also exemplified perfectly in the popular and oh-so-pretentious coffee shop, The Town Mill Bakery, in Lyme Regis in Dorset, neighbour to the original place of Monmouth, from where I believe the coffee company gets its name. However, I think a pretentious place can embrace this title with something resembling pride if they can make it work. And both Monmouth coffee and The Town Mill Bakery work because the goods that they offer are really very good..

However, for something a little less twee, with a touch more elegance, Kaffeine could be the place that tops it. Coffee after coffee is a success, and although I think that Monmouth coffee is exceptional, the overall coffee-drinking experience is often let down by service with an attitude. Kaffeine has always been friendly without gushing and I always feel comfortable being there. I thank the friend who introduced me to it. Best in London? A definite contender. Others... Flat White? A bit tired... Macaron in Clapham? Delicious, delightful, indulgent - this is high on the list. 

But what makes a good coffee? Good beans, ethically sourced of course, because there's nothing worse than the taste of guilt; top-notch equipment; good skills. No burnt milk, not too much froth, a cup that is not too large (grande, anyone? I think not. A 5oz cup is just perfect), a smooth texture, a good consistency that is thicker than a glass of full fat milk but thinner than honey. Apparently, the Synesso Cyncra is "the holy grail of espresso machines", and is what is used to make the deliciousness as provided by Kaffeine.

A friend in Sydney is saying that it is the best place in the world for coffee, beating Italy and France. Apparently, a coffee movement is happening. Lots of new and previously uncommon techniques are being used to satisfy the needs of the common coffee aficionado. Perhaps I shall soon find out if he is boasting, deluded, or indeed spot on.

nom-nom

Life: pro-abstinence group to advise the UK government on sexual health

Diversity is a wonderful thing. Diversity in opinion is particularly great, as it can generate all sorts of discussion and ideas, not to mention stimulating arguments, allowing us to see the different shades of grey between the black and the white.

Often, because of recognising the different opinions in between, you form a strong conclusion. Neutrality on anything but cleaning products, socks and pencils is a fool's stance.

However, what about when one is at loggerheads with a person on the other end of the scale? I'm going to refer now to my beloved 'The West Wing', that America television series created by the exquisite Aaron Sorkin, and in particular to a scene with the crazy Christian, Mary Marsh. It comes towards the end of episode 1, season 1 and she wants to know "whadda we get?" for being insulted the day before by the deputy chief of staff, Josh Lyman, on television. She brashly provides a list of options that she wants the White House to arrange: school prayer, the eradication of pornography (!) or getting rid of condoms from schools. Although aware that they reduce the risk of teen pregnancies and HIV, she asserts that abstinence also does the same trick.

Well of course it does, but not eating also reduces the number of fat people, and taking cars of the roads reduces the number of cases of asthma and bronchitis.

I couldn't help but watch in awe the first time that I saw this, because this opinionated character is in the White House making crazy demands from the government! Trying to force teenagers to stamp down on their curiosity and unsettled hormones, and deny them the education that allows them to make safe decisions? How does she even get the meeting?! How is somebody who is striving to eradicate key parts of science and social studies, not to mention responsibility, even allowed such a prominent voice? How is such strongly worded ignorance allowed any kind of place in public? Obviously, it's not only in America, but for this topic to get such serious attention in such an advanced nation blows my mind, and I could never see anything like this happening over in the UK or in Australia, and certainly not France or Germany.

Except that now this is happening in the UK. An anti-abortion/pro-abstinence group, 'Life', has been drafted in as a sexual health adviser to the government.

It would be funny if it weren't quite so troubling. Sexual health advice from a group of people who are against an individual's right to choose and to make informed decisions about their lives? It's likely that the drafting in of this group is merely a political manoeuvre, one that allows certain groups to feel like they are being listened to when in reality they should be keeping their distinctly skewed observations to church meetings.

Remarkably, 'Life' compares behaviour in 2011 to that in the 1950s, claiming that the 1950s was a time when people celebrated the notion of waiting until one was mature enough to deal with the consequences of having sex, that "it was a culture that supported and cherished marriage and faithfulness". Of course, a vital bit of information is left out about a woman's right to work and have a career, to be taken seriously as a working woman, to receive a decent wage to live off, and to be able to live independently and make informed decisions about themselves. 

It was more of a patriarchal society then than it is now, and women had no choice but to submit to the repressive tactics of men - if a woman were to become pregnant, what were the chances of her making a 'respectable' marriage? Slim. Consequently, without this chance of a respectable marriage, how would she be able to have a life outside of her ageing parent's home if she is not allowed a living wage? How would she be able to have any material comforts and make any friends with the label that the male-driven society has given her?

Women in the 1950s didn't choose not have sex, they were forced to behave how men wanted them to behave, whilst observing the very same men choose their own fun without the same possible visible consequences of unsafe sex. For 'Life' to be melancholic about this limited existence is a sick and ignorant mistake. For the UK government to allow them a public voice is a disgrace.

In response to the government's move, The Telegraph's Ed West comments about how contraception is only effective with "sensible, responsible people" and that it is "vastly less effective with semi-literate 14 year olds who half want to get pregnant  to fill their lives with some meaning". Not a ridiculous comment in itself, but surely, then, this semi-literacy and boredom or 'lostness' is the thing that needs addressing? The alternative cannot surely be to preach abstinence as the correct and sensible course and so narrow the semi-illiterate's education even further? What a stupid idea.

If abortion rates need to be tackled, then we need to be looking to the women who are having the procedure. The most recent figures (as of 24th May 2011) outline that around 80% of abortions in the UK are carried out on women over the age of 20, and 29% of these are carried out on women over the age of 30. (About 12% of abortions were for 18 and 19 year olds.) Now, presumably, the latter of these women have been out of the education system for some time - is Mr West suggesting they go back to school in order to learn that abstinence is key?

An interesting figure in this context is that 16% of all abortions occurred within marriage. Again, for West and co to suggest that this married 16% would listen to sexual advise from a group that preaches abstinence is ludicrous.

What is also ludicrous is the idea that these numbers can explain a situation. Every individual that decides to have an abortion does so in personal circumstances. In times when 2 million young people (those under the age of 25) are unemployed, with few prospects to get good work, and when thousands of people have been made redundant due to the incapabilities of the country-controlling banks, how could it be a bad thing for people in uncertain times to make the decision not to give themselves more financial insecurity?

And perhaps the financial aspect of raising a child isn't the main factor for these women who choose to have an abortion. Perhaps they are not healthy. Perhaps they are physically fine but mentally unstable. Perhaps a full time job that they feel pressurised to have in a society that demands time and money to be given is their priority. Sex is often the release from the pressure and the stress. And I'm going to say it: accidents happen.

If trying to limit the number of abortions is more about the financial strain on society that the government is trying to stem, then perhaps they could also place limitations on other factors that put a big strain on the health care system. Perhaps a fat person should be restricted to just the fruit and vegetable and the meat aisles in the supermarket. Fancy some bread? You're over 14 stone? I don't think so, go back to the veg aisle, buddy, we don't want to operate on your straining heart - can't afford it.

Of course, that's ridiculous. Everybody has a right to choose what they eat, just as everybody has a right to choose on the massive impact of having a child. A woman has a right to decide about what happens to her own body if she is able to - and yes, a foetus is part of the woman's body via the umbilical chord. (The latter comment had to be clarified as 'Life' are unsure about it, according to their website.)

Am I missing a point? The Christian/moral point. Excuse me, but until the Christian soldier with that weapon hands it over and never kills another human life again, until pigeon shooting and deer stalkers hand over their guns, until farmers cease to slaughter lambs for food, I cannot consider morality in absolute terms, and certainly not in relation to abortion. 'Thou shallt not kill... except for when it suits you' often seems to be the missing part of this commandment. You cannot claim to be absolutely religious or moral only when it is convenient. Or at least, you cannot claim to be strongly moral and expect me to listen if you also advocate war, believe in the death penalty and you eat meat.

The sex education that I received was excellent. This education came through school (science and religious education), magazines and common sense. There were no cartoons or bananas, there was no condescension but instead a respectful relaying of useful information about all of the types of contraception available, how to use it and why we should use it.

There was encouragement not to be promiscuous because sex is a big deal and it is intimate! You are placing much trust in your partner and there needs to be mutual respect. We were told of all sorts of diseases and how they could be contracted. We were not scared off, but informed that in this fun activity there can be consequences, and you need to be prepared for the risks. We were prepared, and I am sad that students in other countries are not offered the same information to be prepared, or that poor schools in the UK cannot reach their children properly. Abstinence is a fool's message.

I had a Catholic upbringing, so I am not insensitive to the argument that we should respect the sanctity of life. And this is an important point: the woman earning £15,000 a year with an unemployed partner, or the 38 year old woman whose own life is statistically more physically vulnerable if she has to play house to a foetus for a while, or the woman who was raped, or the 26 year old phd student who forgets to take a pill for the first time in 5 years... I find it hard to believe that any of these women find the decision an easy one to make. But it is theirs to make, and if she has the support and love of a partner, then so much the better, and they can make the decision together. An informed decision.

An informed decision similar to the one that the 16 year old should be able to make about being sexually active and about contraception with information provided at schools, clinics and in magazines. Ignoring the facts will help no one - ignorance is the biggest and most troubling disease.

Mama monkey & her baby

Death of an Activist

Jose Claudio Ribeiro da Silva and Maria do Espirito Santo de Silva fought against illegal loggers and farmers in the Amazon rainforest, standing up against the practice that destroys thousands of square miles of rainforest per year. They were killed in an ambush near their home in the Brazilian Amazon on 24th May 2011 for denouncing the actions of illegal loggers, actively seeking to put a stop to the practice that could have a colossal and irreversible impact on biodiversity, indigenous people, and climate change.

Ribeiro de Silva and his wife had received numerous death threats throughout their attempts to protect the rainforest, but no police protection was offered. 

These are just two people out of hundreds who have been killed in the past few years because they sought to protect their environment from further abuse. An elderly nun, Dorothy Stang, was killed in February 2005 for campaigning to stop violence against peasants in the land disputes in the Amazon. The predatory expansion into the rainforest by big farmers is brutal - they are known to employ slave labour, to illegally exploit natural resources and to falsify claims to land. 

The latter activity - and activities like it - is common amongst people illegally farming with $ signs for eyes - they cannot see for the prospect of riches. Indeed, James Ho, chief operation officer for Samling in Malaysia, a company that has dramatically damaged the habitat of the Penan through logging, claims that the nomadic Penan have "no rights to the forest". Malaysian law states that permission of the Penan must be granted to logging companies before action can take place. The Penan have erected blockades time after time in order to prevent forest destruction, but the police have been taking them down again. (To see how Samling try to make amends from a PR stand point, how they become part of the community after polluting the Penan's water supply through their logging  see here: http://www.samling.com/eng/responsibility/assistance_case17.htm)

Certainly, it seems that environmental activists have been struggling against those that are supposed to be offering protection, as well struggling against the pig headed brutes that are actively destroying their homes. In the Amazon, these brutes are often known as 'agrobandits'.

Activists work hard against the disastrous changes that these agrobandits are making. The soil in the Amazon is only productive for a short period of time (weed growth is rapid and soil fertility is poor), so a farmer that has destroyed a patch of land must move on to the next patch of forest to slash and burn in order to cultivate crops for the next short period of time. One can only imagine the real impact this is having on biodiversity in the rainforest. "Experts estimate that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation" (www.rain-tree.com).

An argument for such activities is that with a world population that is ever increasing, we need to sustain these lives. With more farming and logging, we will be able to provide more for more people. The fact is that these illegal activities only have limited monetary value and productivity rate. This is not sustainable action, and it decreases the value of each square mile of rainforest. The environmentalist C M. Peters stated in 1989 that there is economic as well as biological incentive in protecting the rainforest: "One hectare in the Peruvian Amazon has been calculated to have a value of $6820 if intact forest is sustainably harvested for fruits, latex, and timber; $1000 if clear-cut for commercial timber (not sustainably harvested); or $148 if used as cattle pasture" (Wikipedia (sorry)). The majority of land that has been cleared has been for cattle pasture.

Brutally and greedily cutting down acre after acre of trees in an area of a size that would make it the ninth largest of nations if it could be classified as such will have a catastrophic effect on our earth's climate. The rainforest is now less able to deal with environmental changes,  and other environmental changes are consequently affecting the rainforest more dramatically. 

Furthermore, extreme drought is affecting the area - 2005 and 2010 saw nearly 2 million square miles of forest die because of drought. The impact of this is troubling: "In a typical year the Amazon absorbs 1.5 gigatons of CO2; [instead] during 2005[,] 5 gigatons were released and in 2010 8 gigatons were released" (Wikipedia referencing 'Science' magazine).

Brave and persistent people like the da Silvas, Stang, Chico, not to mention the 1000 or so murdered activists during the 1980s (of which only 10 people were brought to court for) and the 125 people in the 3 years since President Luis Inacio Lula de Silva took office deserve so much more by way of positive action. These people willingly risked their lives for a magnificent cause. They could do nothing to stop the drought, they are probably going to have had no impact on the UK's CO2 emissions, or the CO2 emissions of China which seem larger because the UK and the US are outsourcing their greenhouse gas emitting business to them, but they fought damned hard, publicly, to protect the land from thugs who are only making the conditions worse. They did what they could to make a difference.

Why isn't more being done to save this land? Why isn't more being done by the people with money and power to protect it? Does it really require a Tesco clubcard equivalent to insentivise action? This land looks after all of us, and is home to millions of plants, animals, people... As George Monbiot puts it in his article 'Shoot the -- in the Face' (http://www.monbiot.com/2011/01/21/shoot-the-in-the-face/) "The great majority of greens are powerfully motivated by a concern for social justice, and recognise that if we don’t defend our life-support systems, humanity will suffer grievously".

A Fine Healthy Snack

One of my favourite healthy snacks - and I'll admit that there are few of them - is a delicious natural yoghurt and blueberry combo. 

I'll take it up a notch and emphasise the particulars that make it exceptional: o.r.g.a.n.i.c. natural yoghurt and o.r.g.a.n.i.c. blueberries.

The health benefits of blueberries, according to the Blueberry Council *snicker* are vast. They are high in vitamin C, which helps to maintain a healthy immune system, and is "needed for the formation of collagen [and helps to] maintain healthy gums and capillaries". They are a good source of fibre, an essential part of keeping a healthy heart and an efficient digestive system. They also contain antioxidant properties, which fight against harmful free radicals in our bodies. http://www.blueberrycouncil.com/nutrition.php

Natural yoghurt can also have a healthy impact for the following reasons: it can lead to an improved immune system, it helps to maintain strong bones and thereby reduce the risk of osteoporosis, it can help to treat and prevent thrush, and it encourages the absorption of calcium into the intestine. Other health benefits for yoghurt are also suggested, including 'helping to prevent cancer', but nobody really knows anything about cancer, so I'm loathe to include that in my casual list.

It is tasty, refreshing, and makes me feel like a goddess for the few minutes that I eat it. Or, rather, I feel somehow saintly for a short time. It's all quite pleasant and I recommend that you grab yourself a bowl and enjoy the perfect food partnership!

The Free London Papers

"You'll get booed but it won't be the Boar War"

"Drew the grunge girl turns into a goddess (thanks to a posh frock)"

Sitting on the tube, you have to make space for the Metro paper. Commonly placed on the ledge behind the seats, but also atop the seats themselves, the Metro is the most popularly regarded item on the tube. They're left in these areas because the person who has picked up a paper cannot be bothered to take them to a bin. Should I specify 'recycling bin'? Don't be silly! The person who has picked up a free paper does not feel the responsibility to behave appropriately because of the association of the paper with this particular means of transport, therefore it is the duty of the underground staff to dispose of their free rubbish. And they don't have a responsibility because their very good shitty salaries don't cover recycling. (Pffff.) Okay, many of these papers are being re-used, but that also happens to be part of the problem.

This rubbish is produced five times a week, with a readership that stands at approximately 3,287,000 according to the National Readership Survey (http://www.mediauk.com/article/32696/the-most-popular-newspapers-in-the-uk). This is the figure that relates to adults only between January and December 2010, and I have an inkling that it is veering a little from the truth, for I can barely find space for these papers.

When I see somebody reading the Financial Times, or The Guardian or, by goodness, even The Sun I cheer on the inside. They have actively sought to gain knowledge and a version of truth through a medium that does not have quite the same tone of dictatorship. Naturally, most papers you read have a political slant and seek to  gain followers with the same slant, but the difference between the papers you seek and the papers you get handed free of charge is that the latter is a mindless acceptance of the words and pictures in your hands.

Indeed, it is the mindlessness that is the crux of the matter. Person after person reading and viewing the pages, lapping up the information about Emma from Wolverhampton whose baby nearly drowned in the paddling pool in the garden before the neighbourhood parrot came and rescued her; or how Gary from Puddletown had a dream about his best buddy Nigel being attacked in the night by a burglar with an axe, so he called the police and saved the day; or how Cheryl Cole is now 7 stone 1 pound and a quarter after being on a grapefruit juice diet.

WHO CARES ABOUT EMMA OR NIGEL OR GARY OR CHERYL?!

This must be so damaging - allowing one's complex brain become so riddled with fluff, and rife with other people's 'facts' about what the Tory government's wife is planning for her next celebrity bash, and what Nigel and Gary are doing at the weekend that one is less able to consider that, actually, there are other ideas and facts and events to consider. But when you are so overcome with fluff, it is difficult to see much else of substance.

And don't forget that much of this seems to have been written with the idea that the readership has a ten year old's vocabulary. But I suppose the vocabulary doesn't matter when there are so many pictures of nothing and so many pages filled with sports 'news'. "But it's 8am! I don't want to be reading Dostoevsky!" And that is a fair point. But there is much ground to cross between the sentences in the Metro and the sentences and meaning in Crime & Punishment. How about an audio book as an alternative?

I don't think that not thinking 5 days a week is something to be celebrated. We easily get into habits, and when the habit is not thinking, it affects our day to day life outside of our activities on the tube.

And when millions of people have sucked up the same information, suddenly we find ourselves with an army of dull and like-minded people, unable to process thought independently or interestingly. We find ourselves in a 1984-esque scenario, where we are instructed one way or another about what to think and how to think about it.

Furthermore, thinking about these papers also gets me a little annoyed at the liberty that people take with space. No, just because you have the Metro in your hands does not mean that you can venture into my area. Keep your arms in your own seat, and if you're tightly packed and standing, don't huff because there's not enough space to open it - I think people come before rubbish. And when you're turning the page, do you have to make quite such a song about it? Flapping the pages with gusto as if you are turning to Mummy and saying 'Look what I did! I read 10 sentences and looked at 20 pictures! Aren't I clever!" No. You're not. Keep it to yourself - I don't want it or your arm in my space.

p.s. the quotes up above were taken from a paper in 2010, May I think, which were just so damned bad that I had to write them down. If I'd had hold of a paper, or took one up once a month, I'm sure hundreds more like it would have followed, but these were hurriedly scribbled from my view across the aisle.

What Not To Do To Your Partner

I thought I'd be friendly and helpful by supplying some scenarios that could make or break a strong relationship, and suggesting solutions to avoid disaster. Some scenarios are common place but can be mishandled unnecessarily, others are a little more unique but could be helped by some suggestions. This come from a small pocket of experience, and a keen interest in the happiness of friends.

1. On holiday? By the sea? If you find yourself in open water, or indeed in water that is deeper than both of you, with a partner who is not a strong swimmer, it is advisable to help him or her when they are having a mild panic attack. Physically pushing them away because you don't fancy protecting your supposed loved one could end in disaster. Death perhaps. Instead, gently calm them down, offer a supportive arm and let them get used to the alien situation so that you can both enjoy the water.
2. Is your partner sick or injured? It is a good idea to spend a couple of hours looking after them. Maybe make a lemon, honey and ginger concoction, perhaps give them a head massage, or just spending a couple of hours with them in the week that they are off work because they are in so much pain or discomfort shows that you are not entirely selfish and do, in fact, care for more than yourself. Because you can't be bothered to get yourself across town to see them once during their time of woe is an indication that you're not good enough for them, and you should probably think about breaking up so that they can be with someone better, or spend some time as a single person. This is especially true if they always spend the time caring for you when you need it.
3. Is your partner scared of spiders? In a situation where your partner is cleaning and s/he comes across a spider that she cannot bare to touch but doesn't have the heart to send to the body of the vacuum, it's probably best not to shout at her/him and terrify her/him even more, prompting another form of panic attack and wondering why they are crying. Having an irrational fear is, well, something that cannot be explained, so if you don't have that fear, then maybe you could deal with it yourself in a humane way so that the scenario can be moved on from together.
4. Just had a lover's tiff at a party in the dodgy end of town? Don't leave your partner in said dodgy area alone. Solution? Be a little sensible and stick together. Leaving them on their own in a compromising area is another sign that you are weak and selfish and should try and end it on a note of strength, letting them get on with their lives by finding someone who is good enough for them.
5. Get to know your partner! What are they like when they are tired? Do they need some space? Do they need a coffee? Learn the signals, or listen when they say 'I'm tired', so that you can co-exist in harmony. Trying to force them into an excitable mood because that's the way you want them to be at that time is stupid. You are stupid. Even if you have just arrived on that exciting holiday together, and your partner isn't dancing around, it doesn't mean they are not happy to be there - it means they are tired. Buck up and stop being selfish. We're all individuals and deal with things differently.
6. Just gone on holiday and won't speak to your partner over the telephone for the two weeks that you're away because you need space? Without advising them that you need space? Don't expect them to embrace you lovingly on your return. You made a mistake and need to make amends.
7. Are your friends making bitchy little remarks about your partner? Are they being cold and unwelcoming? A good thing to do in this situation is to take hold of your partner's hand to offer them support, and to show your friends that you love your partner. Eventually, they may warm up and your partner will feel more relaxed and happy to be there, and they can start enjoying each other's company. If they remain cold, then unfortunately, you've got some shit friends with a superiority complex, and you may need to consider making alternative choices.
8. Does your partner try and have a conversation with you about the NHS/Tory vs Labour/nuclear energy/London's bicycle lanes/environmental concerns/problems in the Congo...? Do you know nothing about any of this? Read a paper or two then. There are many newspapers and online sources that offer insight into all of the above and more. If you continue to only read sources from the paper of the town you come from, you're going to be limited, a little stupid and very dull.
9. Does your partner make suggestions about going on holiday together? Are you holding back because you believe they wish you to cough up the money? This is probably not the case. A good response would be to consider the ideas and the options, ask what they want to get out of the holiday, and consider a time span that would enable you both to afford it. If you suspect that they wish you to pay, then the only way this can be clarified is if you talk to them about it. If you say nothing whatsoever and allow your partner to think that you don't want to go simply because you don't want to pay for them then you are a nasty and unreasonably high handed person, who has problems communicating.

Nine is my lucky number, so I'll hold it there. The points addressed come from a few things that I've seen, which are much more easily addressed retrospectively. Normally, you don't expect your partner or your friend's partner to be wholly selfish or cruel, so sometimes scenarios don't exist until you break them down in the future. But I think these are basic items that address flawed characteristics in human nature - how selfish are they? How narrow minded are they? How pretentious are they and the friends?

We're all flawed beings, but there are extremes that are not quite acceptable. Learning a balance is nothing but a good thing - nothing is ever perfect, but things can usually be better. And we should all remember to open our eyes, otherwise we miss those things that are wonderful, and the people who care and behave like they care, too.