By: Monica
It is officially cramming time for finals. For the next two weeks, my brain will be on constant fast forward and, at the end, I WILL CRASH. Wish me luck!
P.S. Oh, and Kelly is going to have a couple of adventures this summer and promised me she would blog about them. So we will hold her to that, won't we? YES.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Self-Realization
By: Monica
It was about three in the morning last night. I had chugged a vanilla coke ensuring I would not be able to submit myself to the relief that is sleep. And so, being that it was 3 AM and I needed to be annoying in some way, I began to complain to my roommate, Nicole.
Me: "I will never have a relationship."
Nicole: *attempting to off-the-cuff reassure me* "Don't worry, you have time. You'll find somebody."
Me: "No, that's not the point. I'm sure I could, I just don't want to."
Nicole: "You don't want to?"
Me: "No. I feel like I have to in order to be "happy and successful" in life but, in reality, I always shy away from it. A guy can like me, and I can like him back, and I will still deny it. There has to be a reason for that. Maybe something in my childhood wired me to be like that?"
Nicole: "That's a possibility but I'm not really the one to assume that, if you are a certain way, it's because of your childhood."
Me: "But, I mean, it's the only reason I can think of. The human race is predetermined to WANT a relationship and WANT romance and WANT somebody that will believe they are special. I don't. I've never moved past friendship because I never felt the need to. People cough it up to me being scared or nervous into getting involved. No, that's not it. I'm not scared. I'm not nervous. I just don't want to be attached. You think it's a commitment issue?"
Nicole: "Maybe. I'm sure you are not the only one that feels like this, though. I'm sure there are other people out there that have the same opinion."
Me: "Maybe. I have yet to find one. I just feel so selfish. I don't want to have to say, 'this is the right person'. I don't want to be exclusive. I just want to have a close friendship with somebody. A VERY close friendship. You'd think it would be easy to find a guy who wants the same thing, but it's not. Guys can sometimes be more romantically inclined than girls. And those who think like me are just assholes. One-night-stand fanatics. Until, of course, they find the right girl and then become completely enamored. There is no in-between."
Nicole: "Again, I'm sure you're not the only one out there." *searches something on Google* "Have you ever heard of an aromantic? Not a-space-romantic. Aromantic, one word."
Me: "Um, no. But that sounds like someone who is thoroughly disgusted by relationships in any way. I LIKE the idea of having someone for yourself to confide in. I LIKE seeing people extremely happy with someone else. I bring people together, for Heaven's sake! I love it! Just not for me."
Nicole: "Exactly. Listen to this definition: 'An aromantic is one who may or may not be repulsed by relationships and romance in general, but in relation to themselves or themselves in reality, it is not a desire. This does not mean that an aromantic is incapable of having a romantic relationship. However, the lack of desire to have a romantically exclusive relationship plays a large role in the love life of an aromantic. Many will not have a relationship until well into their twenties or beyond. This is by choice and does not mean they do not have relationships of other sorts.' Sounds kind of like you, eh? They even have a forum."
Me: *still a bit skeptical* "Maybe."
At this point, I was intruiged. I started up my computer and read a couple of entries until I was sure that this was a label for me. Here is the post that convinced me so:
"I've been calling myself aromantic not because I don't understand or am incapable of romance. I've had crushes, even mutual ones, but I avoided relationships because it's the idea that I really like, not the reality. The thought of being in a relationship had definite appeal, but the thought of giving up my privacy appalled me (and it had already begun--the guy and I had only hung out once or twice before I had people who were only acquaintances sitting me down and begging for all the details of my fledgling love life). The cons vastly outweighed the pros.
But I've also realized that there are MANY different kinds of attraction, and trying to lump them all into either "sexual" or "romantic" only compounds the confusion. Looking back, I honestly don't know if I have ever experienced true romantic attraction. But I have experienced intellectual attraction, and aesthetic attraction, and hero-worship, and a sort of maternal attraction when someone is feeling badly and I desperately want to comfort them. The symptoms might be similar to those of romantic attraction, so much so that I presumed I was feeling romantic attraction when really I was just flattered that someone cute, nice, and smart was giving me the time of day. :P But when I thought about it, I realized that romance really wasn't what I wanted.
I don’t crave that type of arrangement, I only see it as a possibility and not one that’s very likely, as there aren’t many people who would be compatible with me, or that I would feel I wanted that type of relationship with."
And so I have atleast a somewhat understanding of my thoughts and actions: my lack of interest in an exclusive relationship, my happiness in others' relationship successes, my bipolar personality towards those I am attracted to, and my extremely diverse "taste" in guys.
Just hoping this will maybe help some of you understand yourselves, as well as others, more deeply. If someone doesn't see themselves in a relationship, it doesn't necessarily mean they are afraid.
It was about three in the morning last night. I had chugged a vanilla coke ensuring I would not be able to submit myself to the relief that is sleep. And so, being that it was 3 AM and I needed to be annoying in some way, I began to complain to my roommate, Nicole.
Me: "I will never have a relationship."
Nicole: *attempting to off-the-cuff reassure me* "Don't worry, you have time. You'll find somebody."
Me: "No, that's not the point. I'm sure I could, I just don't want to."
Nicole: "You don't want to?"
Me: "No. I feel like I have to in order to be "happy and successful" in life but, in reality, I always shy away from it. A guy can like me, and I can like him back, and I will still deny it. There has to be a reason for that. Maybe something in my childhood wired me to be like that?"
Nicole: "That's a possibility but I'm not really the one to assume that, if you are a certain way, it's because of your childhood."
Me: "But, I mean, it's the only reason I can think of. The human race is predetermined to WANT a relationship and WANT romance and WANT somebody that will believe they are special. I don't. I've never moved past friendship because I never felt the need to. People cough it up to me being scared or nervous into getting involved. No, that's not it. I'm not scared. I'm not nervous. I just don't want to be attached. You think it's a commitment issue?"
Nicole: "Maybe. I'm sure you are not the only one that feels like this, though. I'm sure there are other people out there that have the same opinion."
Me: "Maybe. I have yet to find one. I just feel so selfish. I don't want to have to say, 'this is the right person'. I don't want to be exclusive. I just want to have a close friendship with somebody. A VERY close friendship. You'd think it would be easy to find a guy who wants the same thing, but it's not. Guys can sometimes be more romantically inclined than girls. And those who think like me are just assholes. One-night-stand fanatics. Until, of course, they find the right girl and then become completely enamored. There is no in-between."
Nicole: "Again, I'm sure you're not the only one out there." *searches something on Google* "Have you ever heard of an aromantic? Not a-space-romantic. Aromantic, one word."
Me: "Um, no. But that sounds like someone who is thoroughly disgusted by relationships in any way. I LIKE the idea of having someone for yourself to confide in. I LIKE seeing people extremely happy with someone else. I bring people together, for Heaven's sake! I love it! Just not for me."
Nicole: "Exactly. Listen to this definition: 'An aromantic is one who may or may not be repulsed by relationships and romance in general, but in relation to themselves or themselves in reality, it is not a desire. This does not mean that an aromantic is incapable of having a romantic relationship. However, the lack of desire to have a romantically exclusive relationship plays a large role in the love life of an aromantic. Many will not have a relationship until well into their twenties or beyond. This is by choice and does not mean they do not have relationships of other sorts.' Sounds kind of like you, eh? They even have a forum."
Me: *still a bit skeptical* "Maybe."
At this point, I was intruiged. I started up my computer and read a couple of entries until I was sure that this was a label for me. Here is the post that convinced me so:
"I've been calling myself aromantic not because I don't understand or am incapable of romance. I've had crushes, even mutual ones, but I avoided relationships because it's the idea that I really like, not the reality. The thought of being in a relationship had definite appeal, but the thought of giving up my privacy appalled me (and it had already begun--the guy and I had only hung out once or twice before I had people who were only acquaintances sitting me down and begging for all the details of my fledgling love life). The cons vastly outweighed the pros.
But I've also realized that there are MANY different kinds of attraction, and trying to lump them all into either "sexual" or "romantic" only compounds the confusion. Looking back, I honestly don't know if I have ever experienced true romantic attraction. But I have experienced intellectual attraction, and aesthetic attraction, and hero-worship, and a sort of maternal attraction when someone is feeling badly and I desperately want to comfort them. The symptoms might be similar to those of romantic attraction, so much so that I presumed I was feeling romantic attraction when really I was just flattered that someone cute, nice, and smart was giving me the time of day. :P But when I thought about it, I realized that romance really wasn't what I wanted.
I don’t crave that type of arrangement, I only see it as a possibility and not one that’s very likely, as there aren’t many people who would be compatible with me, or that I would feel I wanted that type of relationship with."
And so I have atleast a somewhat understanding of my thoughts and actions: my lack of interest in an exclusive relationship, my happiness in others' relationship successes, my bipolar personality towards those I am attracted to, and my extremely diverse "taste" in guys.
Just hoping this will maybe help some of you understand yourselves, as well as others, more deeply. If someone doesn't see themselves in a relationship, it doesn't necessarily mean they are afraid.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Neil Strauss: Hire Me
By: Monica
For those of you unfamiliar with Neil Strauss's The Game, go check it out. Go check it out because I think it is both true and false at the exact same time. Neil Strauss claims to have learned the ins and outs of picking up women. Here you have it, Ladies! The Classic Pick-Up Artist!
HOLD IT.
Everyone who reads this book hails it's genius. Applying mathematics to the dating life makes sense to me, too. In fact, I agree with a good chunk of the book. HOWEVER, you know me and I have to call bullshit. Here's why:
The other day, SoThenShe-- a blog I religiously follow-- posted about having dinner with Neil Strauss and asked him a few questions. When asked how women can pick up men, Mr. Strauss introduced the idea of approaching a man with a question where he can offer his opinion and then, once he seems interested in the conversation, decking out to reverse the roles of the food chain. In the world of dating, women want to be the prey.
I fully agree with all of the above. But it all goes downhill from there because he is asked to offer an example and supposedly THIS is what he says,
"[R]emark that your male cousin doesn’t have the best skin complexion, a bit of an oily face, and you heard about this male makeup kit. Say it won’t look like he’s actually wearing makeup, but it’ll take off some of the shine and oil on his face and it’ll make him look a little better. Then you finish with, ‘I know he has problems meeting women and I think this’ll help him, so the question is, if you had subtle makeup that would make you look better, would you wear it?’ From there you can start a conversation with him."
Mr. Neil, Sir. You cannot be serious. I thought you were a pick-up expert! Here you have the chance to set women straight on how to properly approach your own sex and you come up with that?! I would assume that, while out at a bar on a Friday night, the last thing a guy wants to be discussing is your cousin's acne. That's one of the last topics I'd want to bring up. If you're going for the shock factor, there are many, MANY other ways and examples. But acne and make-up? Oy.
So, I would like to know, dear Neil Strauss, when you introduce such great concepts to the public (because I really do agree with most of them), why, oh why, must you spoil them with the crappy examples? you think people are going to hear that and go, "Oh my God, he's right! Cousin Albert's acne it is!" or, when a couple is approached as to how they met, the husband starts with, "Well Judy here came up to me and asked if I would wear men's make-up if I had acne. I was so intrigued, I asked her to go out with me that Saturday!"
No. Just no.
I know, I know, this was only one poor example, right? Well, if you're interested, you can check out his work and explanations with Mystery, his mentor. Again, great concepts, horrible examples. But entertaining nonetheless.
P.S. Neil Strauss, you should hire me. Face it, you need me. I can provide you with good examples and then all will be well with the world. I'll be sure to run my resume past you.
For those of you unfamiliar with Neil Strauss's The Game, go check it out. Go check it out because I think it is both true and false at the exact same time. Neil Strauss claims to have learned the ins and outs of picking up women. Here you have it, Ladies! The Classic Pick-Up Artist!
HOLD IT.
Everyone who reads this book hails it's genius. Applying mathematics to the dating life makes sense to me, too. In fact, I agree with a good chunk of the book. HOWEVER, you know me and I have to call bullshit. Here's why:
The other day, SoThenShe-- a blog I religiously follow-- posted about having dinner with Neil Strauss and asked him a few questions. When asked how women can pick up men, Mr. Strauss introduced the idea of approaching a man with a question where he can offer his opinion and then, once he seems interested in the conversation, decking out to reverse the roles of the food chain. In the world of dating, women want to be the prey.
I fully agree with all of the above. But it all goes downhill from there because he is asked to offer an example and supposedly THIS is what he says,
"[R]emark that your male cousin doesn’t have the best skin complexion, a bit of an oily face, and you heard about this male makeup kit. Say it won’t look like he’s actually wearing makeup, but it’ll take off some of the shine and oil on his face and it’ll make him look a little better. Then you finish with, ‘I know he has problems meeting women and I think this’ll help him, so the question is, if you had subtle makeup that would make you look better, would you wear it?’ From there you can start a conversation with him."
Mr. Neil, Sir. You cannot be serious. I thought you were a pick-up expert! Here you have the chance to set women straight on how to properly approach your own sex and you come up with that?! I would assume that, while out at a bar on a Friday night, the last thing a guy wants to be discussing is your cousin's acne. That's one of the last topics I'd want to bring up. If you're going for the shock factor, there are many, MANY other ways and examples. But acne and make-up? Oy.
So, I would like to know, dear Neil Strauss, when you introduce such great concepts to the public (because I really do agree with most of them), why, oh why, must you spoil them with the crappy examples? you think people are going to hear that and go, "Oh my God, he's right! Cousin Albert's acne it is!" or, when a couple is approached as to how they met, the husband starts with, "Well Judy here came up to me and asked if I would wear men's make-up if I had acne. I was so intrigued, I asked her to go out with me that Saturday!"
No. Just no.
I know, I know, this was only one poor example, right? Well, if you're interested, you can check out his work and explanations with Mystery, his mentor. Again, great concepts, horrible examples. But entertaining nonetheless.
P.S. Neil Strauss, you should hire me. Face it, you need me. I can provide you with good examples and then all will be well with the world. I'll be sure to run my resume past you.
Masculine/Feminine Attraction
By: Monica
Here is an article from the UK's The Telegraph which introduces the idea that the more masculine a man is, the more he is attracted to an extremely feminine female. It also claims that hormone levels fluxuate day to day so, depending on how high or low your estrogen/testosterone level is that day, you would be attracted to someone who is the exact reverse of your hormone ratio.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with it. I am attracted to a diverse amount of men. One day I will fawn over gentle Diego Luna and the next I will ditch him because I need a tough man like Eminem. Usually though, I will stay middle of the road with someone like... like... I don't know, everyone else.
Anyhoo, here's the link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2964139/Men-with-high-testosterone-attracted-to-women-with-feminine-faces.html
Here is an article from the UK's The Telegraph which introduces the idea that the more masculine a man is, the more he is attracted to an extremely feminine female. It also claims that hormone levels fluxuate day to day so, depending on how high or low your estrogen/testosterone level is that day, you would be attracted to someone who is the exact reverse of your hormone ratio.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with it. I am attracted to a diverse amount of men. One day I will fawn over gentle Diego Luna and the next I will ditch him because I need a tough man like Eminem. Usually though, I will stay middle of the road with someone like... like... I don't know, everyone else.
Anyhoo, here's the link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2964139/Men-with-high-testosterone-attracted-to-women-with-feminine-faces.html
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Relationships: A Short Film Definition
By: Monica
Thought this was a clever/heartfelt/melancholy way of portraying the beauty and the tragedy of relationships. Beauty in the ugly, anybody?
Thought this was a clever/heartfelt/melancholy way of portraying the beauty and the tragedy of relationships. Beauty in the ugly, anybody?
Thought of You from Ryan J Woodward on Vimeo.
">
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)