I have always been in love with the idea of being in love. Cliché, right? But it is very true.
It may have had to do with the my vast collection of Disney Princess movies that I watched over and over again when I was in elementary school. At the time, I had no idea what the characters were saying exactly as I did not understand English. But, I was still able to follow the plot through the help of my Dad. I always marveled at how Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and the other princesses were able to find their Prince Charming's in an instant, and how the princes wooed and fought gallantly for their princesses. I hoped to find the same kind of fairy-tale love and could not wait.
And thus, my search for the "prince" began early and I thought I had met my "true love" in 1st grade. His name was Oh Jong Won. He and I moved into the same neighborhood in kindergarten and played together a lot as a result.
But obviously, as I grew older, I learned that I will never be able to find "the prince". In my 20 years, I had countless amount of crushes, and somewhat above-average number of relationships as well. Every one of my encounters with the potential "princes" clearly failed, as I am single. But I cannot deny that with each failure, I learned something about those feelings I had - or dare I say, love.
Tonight, I want to talk about the hardest part of those experiences: the heartbreak.
My first real heartbreak was when I was dating someone in sophomore year of high school. I dated him for over 11 months, and I liked him enough to attempt to learn Starcraft. Although it was I who suggested to break-up, I was still very hurt. Why? I had broken up with him because I knew I should not be with anyone who suggests tossing a coin to decide to break up or not. And when he actually said that, I wasn't sure if that was a joke or not. So I took it as a serious suggestion, and tossed the coin. (I know, I was very dumb.) It was heads for "staying together", but minutes afterward, I realized that it was not right.
From that day, I stopped talking to him. I usually sat next to him in French class, but I purposely moved my seat away from his. At home, I listened to a lot of music. (It was ironic though, he was the one who got me into music in the first place.) Some nights, before I fell asleep, I cried because I was thinking about the relationship. It took at least a month to get over him.
With later break-ups, I did other things in hopes of mending my heart.
When I had excess access to alcohol, I drank a little too much, and I became very emotional. (Just a note, I am normally not an emotional-drunk, I am a happy-drunk.) I cried, clutching my heart and unable to face the others, talking about how it hurt so much to think about the ex, and how I missed him a lot.
I listened to a lot of "emo songs" and when there were songs that described what I was feeling at the time, I kept the song on repeat. I also started posting parts of the lyrics or YouTube links to the song on my status, hoping that the ex will get the message.
I talked to my friends a lot more than usual, in order to fill in the void that my ex left. (Thank you my lovely darlings!)
Although this does not do anything to help me get over the ex, I sometimes daydream about the ex suddenly realizing that he needs me and begging me to take him back. I watched too many kdramas and read too many shoujo mangas. Don't worry, I know in reality, that will never be the case. But until I truly get over him, I will always end up hoping that he will realize his mistake and fight to have me back in his arms. It is what I do, I dream.
To everyone who is experiencing a heartbreak right now: I'm there for you. Let me know if you need a shoulder to cry on or someone to give you a big, warm hug.
To those who have gotten over it: Congratulations, I hope that your next lover will be the one as close to your "perfect prince/princess" as possible.
To, specifically, me: Look ahead, not backwards. Take what you've learned from the past relationships and be more prepared for the next one.
I end this post with this song, a song for the heartbroken:
<3,
Margi
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Chitter Chatter, Blah Blah Blah
Long time ago, a friend of mine said he was reading a book called The Art of Conversation.
To quote directly from a review by the Publishers Weekly (found on Amazon.com),
The formal definition of conversation is an "oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas" (from Merriam-Webster). But for the sake of this post, I would like to broaden the definition to include the "exchanges of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas" occurring through media other than our mouths.
The media we use to hold a conversation has evolved alongside the advances of our society.
I can only guess that in the Paleolithic era, humans must have used a lot more hand-gestures and body language to convey information, as languages may not have developed fully. I can almost imagine a conversation between two people being similar to a continuous game of charades. Once stable forms of spoken languages were established, writing systems must have followed suit. (No more uses of humans and their faulty human memories to deliver a message!) And with it, the possibility of holding a proper long-distance conversation emerged.
Of course, as we humans are impatient creatures, better and faster ways of communicating were sought after. Since letters, we invented other media of communication such as Morse codes, telephones, emails, instant messages, and texts. Ultimately, without having to physically face the person, we can hold an instant conversation. I almost want to say that certain technology was implemented for the sake of having easier methods of conversing.
We must also make note that our usage of words during conversations also changed over the centuries.
When classism (or any other ism's promoting hierarchy amongst humans) came to be, words and language played a part in keeping the social distance among people of different statuses. This usage is still prevalent today. In countries that still supports the monarchy - an obvious example being Great Britain - the commoners do not address the Queen as "Elizabeth II", but as "Her Majesty". Even in America, we do not call a professor by his or her first name, but by title and last name. But in contrast to “Your Highness” and “Professor”, certain words and phrases have lost their original purposes and were inevitably replaced. For example, “God’s blood” (or any word with “God” for that matter) used to be a curse word – pretty laughable, isn’t it? It is now replaced by several other words like “damn”, “shit”, and my favorite, “fuck”.
And what about new words that spring out of nowhere? Every year new slang words are made up and they are pocketed in our brain for later use. Often-used ones are even added to the dictionaries. (No I’m not talking about UrbanDictionary.com; I’m talking about creditable dictionaries like Oxford English Dictionary.) These words reflect the changes in our society, as for new things we need words to describe them in our conversations.
In a way, our need to converse has shaped society, and society, in turn, shaped the composition of our conversation!
Despite these changes, there are certain rules to a “good” conversation that should remain unchanged. For each individual, these rules are not the same but very similar. After all, some individuals enjoy listening a lot more than talking. Some enjoy talking one-on-one rather than being in a group setting. Again, I have not read the aforementioned book but I believe it to be Blythe’s opinions on such subject, not facts.
With that established, let me briefly talk about what I think drives a “good conversation”. (In the following section, I am assuming that one is holding a one-on-one conversation. Within a group, it would be very different.)
1. Questions
With questions as simple as “How are you?” to ones as complex as “What is the meaning of life?”, one can open up a discussion that can last hours. We may go on a tangent and start talking about a random topic unrelated to the question, but the point is that the question starts up the conversation. But it can’t just be a Q&A interview, where only one person asks the questions and one person answers. The questions must be asked by both people and both people must answer them. I think it is somewhat rude to let one person be the only one asking questions because it implies that that person is the only one interested in holding a conversation.
2. Being aware of the other person’s reactions.
As having a conversation involves multiple people (unless you are insane and you talk to yourself), it is important to act and react to the others. With modern ways of talking, it is hard to figure out how the other person is reacting as sometimes we cannot see the person’s body language, or hear the tone of voice. But you can still figure out what his or her reactions are through diction or hesitation, and hold a conversation appropriately. No matter how much a person tries to hide his or her original reactions, the person will subconsciously slip. If you are talking about something that is uncomfortable for the person, he or she may not react to it directly. But as the conversation goes on, there will be tell-tale signs. He or she may hesitate before responding, or they might not be as cheerful as before. So in that case, you should move onto a different subject.
3. Manners
I am only going to mention a few key manners that matter to me the most. If you have to leave the conversation, don’t just leave. Tell them that you have to leave. No reason necessary, just letting them know is fine. You should always be polite and respectful, and hold your tongue if you have anything bad to say to the person. I personally think it is unpleasant to say anything negative in general. It is unpleasant to even hear negative things. (But to be frank, I am guilty of saying such things, but I really try not to.)
4. Sincerity
One should be sincere in one’s interest in the other person. By interest, I do not mean romantic feelings. I mean the willingness to hear the other person’s thoughts and opinions. Personally, I can tell when someone is faking his or her interest in the conversation. How can I tell? Well, the signs that I look for are the lack of meaningful responses or the lack of effort from the other person to keep the conversation alive. If you don’t want to talk to me, then don’t. I’d rather do something else than to pointlessly keep talking to someone uninterested.
If I end up talking to you, I hope I will be able to keep to these four rules and follow yours as well. For the quality of the conversation for both parties, it would be nice if you could also respect my rules too.
Let me know what you think about the content of this post! I understand that that the post is not eloquent or strong as a writing piece, but I hope the subject was interesting enough for you to contemplate on.
<3,
Margi
To quote directly from a review by the Publishers Weekly (found on Amazon.com),
[Catherine] Blyth mixes personal anecdotes into a salmagundi of selected quotes from anthropology, history, literature, philosophy and pop culture to analyze and give advice on the dynamics of good conversation.I have no idea if this book is well-written as I have never read it. The only reason I mention it is because it explores an aspect of human life that is sometimes regarded as trivial: conversations.
The formal definition of conversation is an "oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas" (from Merriam-Webster). But for the sake of this post, I would like to broaden the definition to include the "exchanges of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas" occurring through media other than our mouths.
The media we use to hold a conversation has evolved alongside the advances of our society.
I can only guess that in the Paleolithic era, humans must have used a lot more hand-gestures and body language to convey information, as languages may not have developed fully. I can almost imagine a conversation between two people being similar to a continuous game of charades. Once stable forms of spoken languages were established, writing systems must have followed suit. (No more uses of humans and their faulty human memories to deliver a message!) And with it, the possibility of holding a proper long-distance conversation emerged.
Of course, as we humans are impatient creatures, better and faster ways of communicating were sought after. Since letters, we invented other media of communication such as Morse codes, telephones, emails, instant messages, and texts. Ultimately, without having to physically face the person, we can hold an instant conversation. I almost want to say that certain technology was implemented for the sake of having easier methods of conversing.
We must also make note that our usage of words during conversations also changed over the centuries.
When classism (or any other ism's promoting hierarchy amongst humans) came to be, words and language played a part in keeping the social distance among people of different statuses. This usage is still prevalent today. In countries that still supports the monarchy - an obvious example being Great Britain - the commoners do not address the Queen as "Elizabeth II", but as "Her Majesty". Even in America, we do not call a professor by his or her first name, but by title and last name. But in contrast to “Your Highness” and “Professor”, certain words and phrases have lost their original purposes and were inevitably replaced. For example, “God’s blood” (or any word with “God” for that matter) used to be a curse word – pretty laughable, isn’t it? It is now replaced by several other words like “damn”, “shit”, and my favorite, “fuck”.
And what about new words that spring out of nowhere? Every year new slang words are made up and they are pocketed in our brain for later use. Often-used ones are even added to the dictionaries. (No I’m not talking about UrbanDictionary.com; I’m talking about creditable dictionaries like Oxford English Dictionary.) These words reflect the changes in our society, as for new things we need words to describe them in our conversations.
In a way, our need to converse has shaped society, and society, in turn, shaped the composition of our conversation!
Despite these changes, there are certain rules to a “good” conversation that should remain unchanged. For each individual, these rules are not the same but very similar. After all, some individuals enjoy listening a lot more than talking. Some enjoy talking one-on-one rather than being in a group setting. Again, I have not read the aforementioned book but I believe it to be Blythe’s opinions on such subject, not facts.
With that established, let me briefly talk about what I think drives a “good conversation”. (In the following section, I am assuming that one is holding a one-on-one conversation. Within a group, it would be very different.)
1. Questions
With questions as simple as “How are you?” to ones as complex as “What is the meaning of life?”, one can open up a discussion that can last hours. We may go on a tangent and start talking about a random topic unrelated to the question, but the point is that the question starts up the conversation. But it can’t just be a Q&A interview, where only one person asks the questions and one person answers. The questions must be asked by both people and both people must answer them. I think it is somewhat rude to let one person be the only one asking questions because it implies that that person is the only one interested in holding a conversation.
2. Being aware of the other person’s reactions.
As having a conversation involves multiple people (unless you are insane and you talk to yourself), it is important to act and react to the others. With modern ways of talking, it is hard to figure out how the other person is reacting as sometimes we cannot see the person’s body language, or hear the tone of voice. But you can still figure out what his or her reactions are through diction or hesitation, and hold a conversation appropriately. No matter how much a person tries to hide his or her original reactions, the person will subconsciously slip. If you are talking about something that is uncomfortable for the person, he or she may not react to it directly. But as the conversation goes on, there will be tell-tale signs. He or she may hesitate before responding, or they might not be as cheerful as before. So in that case, you should move onto a different subject.
3. Manners
I am only going to mention a few key manners that matter to me the most. If you have to leave the conversation, don’t just leave. Tell them that you have to leave. No reason necessary, just letting them know is fine. You should always be polite and respectful, and hold your tongue if you have anything bad to say to the person. I personally think it is unpleasant to say anything negative in general. It is unpleasant to even hear negative things. (But to be frank, I am guilty of saying such things, but I really try not to.)
4. Sincerity
One should be sincere in one’s interest in the other person. By interest, I do not mean romantic feelings. I mean the willingness to hear the other person’s thoughts and opinions. Personally, I can tell when someone is faking his or her interest in the conversation. How can I tell? Well, the signs that I look for are the lack of meaningful responses or the lack of effort from the other person to keep the conversation alive. If you don’t want to talk to me, then don’t. I’d rather do something else than to pointlessly keep talking to someone uninterested.
If I end up talking to you, I hope I will be able to keep to these four rules and follow yours as well. For the quality of the conversation for both parties, it would be nice if you could also respect my rules too.
Let me know what you think about the content of this post! I understand that that the post is not eloquent or strong as a writing piece, but I hope the subject was interesting enough for you to contemplate on.
<3,
Margi
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Give Me Some Sugar, Baby?
Just yesterday, I randomly found an article on Huffington Post entitled: Seeking Arrangement: College Students Using 'Sugar Daddies' To Pay Off Loan Debt. I don't remember exactly how I came upon this article, but the 4 page story shocked me.
I recommend you read the article before continuing on with the rest of my post. But, for those of you who do not want to, here's the main jist.
Due to recent stress on the economy and the rise of college tuition, there has been an increase in sugar babies. A good portion of the new sugar babies are young women in college who desperately need money to pay off their student loans. One of the websites benefiting from this "sugar baby boom" is "Seeking Arrangement", a site that helps match sugar babies to sugar daddies/mommies based on described preferences. The article reveals how the website was founded, who makes up the population of sugar babies and sugar daddies using the site, and the intentions of those people. (As this article was posted in the Women's section, sugar mommies or male sugar babies are not mentioned.) It also discusses whether the exchange of money for companionship and/or sex between a sugar daddy and a sugar baby is prostitution, and how the secrecy of the "relationship" can create double/split personalities in the sugar babies.
A lot of thoughts ran through my mind when I first read it.
"I feel terrible for the sugar babies!"
"The founder of the website is such a creeper."
"How comes the article doesn't talk about male sugar babies and sugar mommies?"
"Of course, this is prostitution."
"Would I ever do this in their situation?"
It seemed that the women involved in this arrangements only looked at their situation as a temporary one. While that may be true, I feel that the repercussions of their engagement in such a risky business will last for sure.
For example, will the women be able to have a normal healthy relationship with men afterwards? It's not just a one-time thing for these women, they have to go on multiple "dates" if they want to get rid of all their debts. For a woman to decide to become a sugar baby, she had to have geared her mind toward the idea that having sex for money is an acceptable act to some degree. Eventually, even after she is done being a sugar baby and start looking for a serious relationship, she may still have that mindset. After all, an idea accepted for a long period of time is often hard to reject. Having such attitude toward sex will most likely detriment any normal relationship for the former sugar baby may subconsciously treat the other as a sugar daddy. Rather than wanting a relationship founded on mutual emotional connections with the underlying give-and-take, she may just want a relationship where she is given materialistic gifts and money just for being his girlfriend!
Furthermore, if the women end up encountering someone dangerous, the lasting consequences may be the physical, emotional, and psychological damage of rape or even death. There could be another "Craigslist Killer"!!!
Do I sympathize with these women? Well, I am biased as I am also a woman in college, and I can acknowledge that desperate times call for desperate measures. I just hope that I am never forced to partake in such activities.
So far, I only focused on the (seemingly helpless) sugar babies and neglected to address the sugar daddies. I do not have much to say about them except the fact that they are really creepy. In the article, a sugar daddy said in regard to the arrangements that "I guess I like the college girls more because I think of their student debt as good debt. At least it seems like I'm helping them out, like I'm helping them to get a better life." If he really wanted to help out the students, he would only donate, and not ask for anything else. Aside from their feel-good reasons for being sugar daddies, I can only suspect that their true reason is their lust for youthful women. I wish I can condemn them for "using" the women, but as the women are also using them for money, I have nothing to comment.
In this post, I have only poorly expressed my shallow opinions on the matter. So to further enrich your reading experience, I ask you, what do you think about all this? Would you ever be a sugar baby if you were strapped for money? Do you think it is excusable for women to essentially sell their bodies to pay back student loans?
<3,
Margi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)