I watched 'before sunset' too. And I suppose it had the same sort of effect on me. But just in a less poetic way. It made me wonder about ex-girlfriends, and what they mean.. and as Celine said 'each person I loved left me with something, and perhaps a part of me will always love them'. (or words to that effect).. which seems to be a bit of a theme in my life recently. Doing the relationship dance with women when we both know nothing more can come of it.
There is a romantic intensity in the absence of time. I figured that a long time ago, and Mr Linklater figured out a much better way to express it than the above sentence.
But what I'm wondering now is this.. do I function best only in the twilight zone of the 'near relationship'? With ex-girlfriends from the past with whom I spent long perfect evenings.. of the sort that rarely happened in the last year we actually did go out. With attractive women I meet at parties and airports when we're both leaving the country. And people from the past who finally admit to wanting something between us only when its not really feasible..
Which brings me to the next, almost contradictory point.. Why complain about it? I have a dry spell, and then meet interesting women. In and of itself, that should be brilliant. Even my best friend says to me "fuck off and dont expect any sympathy from me". So whats the problem?
The problem is this maladaptive, healthy, wholesome, new-age male bollocks that I can only refer to as the 'post-coital emotional outburst'.. ie I meet someone, we both know it cant go anywhere serious, we enjoy it for what it is, I wake up the next morning and think "hmm... I dont know.. maybe we could make something of it", and spent the next few weeks in a vaguely depressed state of something resembling loss. That sucks. I'm supposed to be the emotionally distant male- incapable of knowing what I feel if it hit me over the head with a spanner. How then did I get transformed from being your average slacking, unemotional guy, to your average slacking guy with frequent PCEO's?
Most of the women I know are actually far more controlled about their emotional states than drivel like cosmo would have the rest of the world believe. And a lot of the guys I know actually suffer the PCEO too. And for all that crap about wanting "a nice guy, who's in touch with his emotions and all that", its the charm of the emotionally distant bastard version of the bloke that many women find strangely attractive. Hell, I've been transformed into an object of lust when I've acted like a bastard.
The moral of the story- the status quo- emotionally distant guys and women who actually like these guys but think otherwise following a short burst of cosmo reading works a lot better than two confused people suffering PCEOs! Go figure.
[Editor's note: the article lost any thread of continuity a long time ago. But seeing how he is a boy of little brain and only about three people read this anyway, we'll just let it slide.]
Thursday, September 16, 2004
on ethan hawke and lost masculinity..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
hmm... ONE.
bugger, its about the stumbling upon the "right person at the right time" shit ("right time" being as critical as anything else). one day you will meet the "attractive" woman, despite all your failings (i.e. pulling neil young type con), who would think you are the smartest thing going.
i believe in a relationship of two people, on a net basis, there is a giver and taker. the relationships that survive are the ones, where both think they are the "takers" - subject both being attracted etc.
wenerd bugger.. i'm not going to go into the 'neil young web of lies'you spin on a public forum like this! ;-)
i agree with you on the bit of much happiness when both parties feel like they're 'getting' more than they 'give'. but on the flip side of the role issues question, i get the feeling that the best relationships are often those when the roles of the people in the relationship aren't fixed. i could be the strong one on a certain day, and on another feel the need to be reassured etc. in cases when the roles are fixed, i find the relationship falls into a rut really quickly.
but in the non-relationship phase, the projected bastard role works well.. (ok i'm being kinda facetious there).
take your point. and thats precisely what i meant when i said - "giver and taker on a NET basis". i.e. after taking into account all such instances where you become the "reassured" from the the "assuring" one, there is 1 giver and 1 taker. thats a rule of life. anyways, this discussion is very academic. CARPE DIEM MY MAN!
To add to the academic discussion...I have to agree with Zen on the fact that most woman like guys who are bit of a bastard and a chuth. They look at you being nice as some fucking form of weakness. Some of the nicest ladies I know have ended up with total assholes who treat them like shit. Screw all that "a nice guy, who's in touch with his emotions...". Woman say that because it is the right thing to say. Some of the woman I have been with have had me thinking..."Is it the winter or the fact that she just walked into the room".
Kogi, I have to agree with you on that one.. about women pickin' guyz who're a bit of a bastard. all the guyz i know who have gals are two-timing a**h*les. btw check this out..
If you have to deliberate about being naughty or nice… Well, that in itself, defeats the purpose of connecting with someone. Be who you are – if you are a dickhead, well then go ahead, be one – and anyone who wants to get to you will. In my view, the men and women are attracted to all kinds; you just tend to notice the women with the jerks, because they’re just so damn loud. At the end of the day, I don’t think the burden of playing out a charade is worth the effort.
Post a Comment