|
|
Thursday, November 26th, 2009
| |
5:26 am - Relationships and intersections
|
I am of the mind that partners in relationships are like food: there's the type you like and the type that's good for you, which are not always the same thing. But unlike food (unless you like ones that bite back), a prerequisite must exist: the type that is also interested in you. What a small section of the Venn diagram that is!
Through a confluence of events, I presently find myself thinking more and more about why the fuck I am perpetually unpartnered. Is it my self-esteem? My body type? My place on the bell curve of female attractiveness? My habits? My personality? The type of person I am attracted to?
In the case of the latter, I find that I have a predilection for being attracted to words, and a propensity towards addictiveness. And by words, not just any words, but quick wit and quaint charm. Where does one find these things? Books, stages, the screen. Therein lies the rub. What chance does the average Juan have over the charming, faceless men engaging you in pithy banter online? It's a lot like pornography, except where some hold out for a chance with the knockout woman over the average one who's actually right there, here's one who would rather be alone and do without than be with someone she can't possibly see herself marrying. And why not? Fear of attachment. Fear of heartbreak. Fear of being abandoned. Fear of giving so much to someone who appreciates so little. It's a strange and delicate push and pull between risk and reward. Ironically, on the rare occasion I do actually go for it, it all bloody happens anyway. Those who are so good with words? Not necessarily so good for you.
A re-examination is in order. It's easy enough to know what's good for you in the long run, but difficult to reconcile with the concept of what you're attracted to if it isn't outwardly evident, and (this is backed up by scientific and social proof) nigh impossible without the other person's initial interest.
So I guess the only answer is to first do what's good for me. Lose weight, get a better job, become independent, develop new skills and interests, travel more. And then maybe that'll increase the sample size of the Venn diagram and with any luck, the intersection of the three conditions won't be so small. I only need one, after all.
current mood:  introspective
current music: The Style Council - The Story of Someone's Shoe
|
|
|
| Saturday, October 24th, 2009
| |
10:08 am - Let's be friends!
|
|
| Sunday, September 20th, 2009
| |
4:08 am - The things we fear the most have already happened to us
|
One of my favorite moments in music comes in the form of a Jeff Buckley song. Somewhere out there, a live version exists where in So Real, Jeff Buckley builds up to a crescendo and sings out passionately, almost wailingly, to the point where it ends in a screech, "Oh, that was so real! Oh, that was SOOOOOOO REEEEEEEEAAAL!"
And then his voice drops down to a boyish whisper.
"I love you, but I'm afraid to love you."
He repeats, softer, "I love you, but I'm afraid to love... you."
And in an even softer whisper, almost purely air, "Afraid."
* * * * * * *
Bonus: After the end of the song, he announces, "Stairway to Freebird, we're gonna do it right now, thank you!" And then he coughs a few times and says, "I think I messed up my voice."
current mood: nostalgic
current music: guess!
|
|
|
| Thursday, September 17th, 2009
| |
7:13 pm - Where Are They Now?
|
So I was telling ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) inklingfair about what the local LJ "scene" was like several years ago, and I couldn't help but pause for bouts of laughter. Thinking about all the LJ friending, unfriending, not-friending-back, deletions, revivals, migrations, multiple journals, secret journals, fake celebrity journals, the outings, the backstabbing, the gossip, the pretentiousness, and the politics made me simultaneously nostalgic and thankful that people, including me, eventually do grow up.
Emotionally-fraught ranting though - that never gets old.
current mood:  Candy Candy
|
|
|
| Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009
| |
12:39 pm - Zing
|
Within three years of its initial release, classifying any intense friendship as "totally a Harry-Met-Sally situation" had a recognizable meaning to everyone, regardless of whether or not they'd actually seen the movie. And that meaning remains clear and remarkably consistent: It implies that two platonic acquaintances are refusing to admit that they're deeply in love with each other. When Harry Met Sally cemented the plausibility of that notion, and it gave a lot of desperate people hope. It made it realistic to suspect your best friend may be your soul mate, and it made wanting such a scenario comfortably conventional. The problem is that the Harry-Met-Sally situation is almost always tragically unbalanced. Most of the time, the two involved parties are not really "best friends." Inevitably, one of the people has been in love with the other from the first day they met, while the other person is either (a) wracked with guilt and pressure, or (b) completely oblivious to the espoused attraction. Every relationship is fundamentally a power struggle, and the individual in power is whoever likes the other person less. But When Harry Met Sally gives the powerless, unrequited lover a reason to live. When this person gets drunk and tells his friends that he's in love with a woman who only sees him as a buddy, they will say, "You're wrong. You're perfect for each other. This is just like When Harry Met Sally! I'm sure she loves you--she just doesn't realize it yet." Nora Ephron accidentally ruined a lot of lives.
--Chuck Klosterman, Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs
|
|
|
| Sunday, January 18th, 2009
| |
10:29 pm - Masks
|
|
"No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true."
--Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter
current mood:  blank
|
|
|
| Sunday, October 19th, 2008
| |
6:11 pm - Slim Pickings
|
Last night's Chocolate Buffet at the Manila Peninsula was, in a word, underwhelming. The last time I went, back in 2004, my friends and I had so much fun, we tucked in truffles and macarons between paper towels and brought them home for our families to sample. (This time, we came Lock'n'Lock prepared!) After years of abstinence, Reitch, TJ, and I, plus Burt, Liz, and Paul (who had a Fun Run the next day), were really looking forward to feasting on all the chocolate we could possibly take. However, upon getting there, the buffet was not as good as I remembered. This time there were only 2 small buffet tables, no chocolate fondue fountain, no crepes freshly made by a crepe-maker, no macarons, and very little variety between dishes. I mean, you could get chocolate tortes, cakes, mousses, tarts and brownies just about anywhere else, so what's to set this one apart? The most imaginative thing there was the nigiri sushi made with a chocolate bed, sticky sweet rice, topped with a slice of mango or kiwi. The most exciting thing for me were the truffles... but nobody comes to a chocolate buffet just for the truffles. There was nothing exceptional, nothing that kept us coming back for seconds and thirds, nothing that made us want to stuff our faces and proclaim to the world that everyone, yes everyone, ought to partake in this decadent madness! The chocolate sculptures were pretty nice though, and the lobby was pleasant and conducive to conversation, with its dim lights and music from a string quartet on the balcony. It was a nice evening out with friends, there's that.
( Random l'etranger moments... )
current mood:  ho-hum
current music: Ben Folds and Regina Spektor - You Don't Know Me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ah yes