duo

I went across this blog entry from Lynn’s blog - “Are Women Vampires?” I believe it’s written by one of her friends.

I find it sad how after so many freaking centuries, it seems like men still feel women evolve around them. Despite whether he’s stating the truth or not, despite whether women are or are not vampires, despite if women go for personalities or wealth, the bottom line is, women go for men. It’s not the fact that he feels “women are money-grubbing, blood-sucking, materialistic vampires that use sex as a weapon and turn men into zombies” that ticks me off, it’s the fact that he feels women seem to have this unbearable need to be with men that ticks me off. He’s under an invisible assumption that women need to be with men. This leads me to think, do women need men more so than men need women? I couldn’t help but to wonder, why are men so full of themselves? Don’t even try to deny it, the concept of men > women is pretty much embedded in our society. I don’t even want to discuss that topic because it seems useless to talk about it. (It’d be an interesting topic, but I just don’t feel like writing about it.)

I don’t want to and will not comment on whether I agree with his statement of women target men who are wealthy more so than men with personalities. I just want to say that if women do go for men who are more successful than they are in every other way, the relationship simply won’t work out. Despite you are a man or a woman, you’d still have some degree of dignity, so how would you feel if you are under a roof with someone who does everything better than you? There has to be some balance, the woman has to be better in some aspects that the man simply cannot match. I also don’t believe that successful women only go for even more successful men because if they are already superior in that aspect, they’d view being successful as something that’s trivial. For example, I don’t think I’d be very attracted to some guy who’s good at painting, I’d see him as a threat, because it’d make me want to draw something that’s even better. Whereas if he excels in music, I’d probably feel he’s very talented and thus attractive. This works the same way in making money in my opinion. Just take a look at the successful women in the TV series “Cashmere Mafia“. I feel the reason women go for successful men is because the ones who do go for them are the ones who aren’t good at being successful themselves! I can only imagine myself going after a man simply because he makes a lot of money if I am bad at keeping up with a lifestyle that I cannot afford. Thus I will need to rely on marrying rich to satisfy my urges. I believe this is true for every woman. I also believe that with the rise of equalities in work fields and study fields (even more encouraging for women in many fields) that this will soon be changed! Women with ideas will soon realize that they no longer need to rely on men for such urges, thus will not see that as a primary criteria for mate selection. This also indicates that my opinion on his statement relies on whether I believe all women have urges for a lifestyle they cannot afford. (You can judge whether I believe that’s true or not.)

On the ride back to Toronto, Mark mentioned that if a guy does not watch TV and does not play games, then he must be awesome. I then mentioned that Jim was like that but he’s not awesome. (I’m very bitter, yes I know.) This sort of relate to “successful men”, which is why I’m bringing it up. I told Mark that Jim focuses on school and work to keep himself busy. When he’s in school, he tries hard to keep his grades up and goes to the gym regularily when he’s not busy with course load. During coop terms, since he is very career driven, he’s chosen to work on the trading floor thus getting very little time for himself. 12 hours of work was fairly typical. He simply has no time to watch neither TV shows nor being addicted to some online game. If he keeps this up, by this, I mean being determined and being career driven, he’d be pretty successful, right? (In terms of making money strictly.) I guess the chance of him being making top cash is questionable, but I’d say there’s no way in hell that he’d be making below average salary. (He has a supportive family, both emotionally and financially.) But our relationship didn’t work out and it’s pretty much because he is so keen on being successful in the future. Well, not quite, but I feel it has something to do with it. Perhaps it’s because that he feels the need to excel in that area more so than relationship that brought an end to us. Ultimately, there wasn’t enough care devoted strictly to our relationship compared with the rest. I think that there will be a woman out there to drive him crazy though, it just wasn’t me. When a guy can still deduce logical statements to argue that you are wrong, even when you are crying, you know he’s not the one. I guess I learned that the hard way. But I did learn to counter argue while I’m in emotional distress, so I guess it’s true that you do learn something in everything.

So now, as I revisit my first paragraph, I realize that I’m a bit carried away as I encountered the Jim topic. (It’s the first time I wrote about it after the breakup. I find the very fact that we can still casually chat on MSN an indication of weak bond while dating.) I guess the bottom line is - I believe in common interest and opposite attract, but I don’t believe that women are vampires. Because based on my belief, if women are vampires, then so are men. When women are desperate for love, there will always be more men desperate to get laid (with or without love). The need is mutual and the attraction is mutual. QED.

Perhaps it’s because I’m living in a divorced family, or perhaps it’s because of my skeptical nature, I never quite understood the concept of marriage. When I was young, I thought of it as a legit way of living with someone else. I was under the impression that people will look down on you if you live with someone but is not married with that person. I think I developed that idea based on TV shows. A bit later, I found out that moving in with someone is actually a common practise in a relationship. In fact, my uncle lived with his girlfriend for 15 years before they got married. They have no children. So then I thought to myself, maybe marriage is like a security check, you know, for financial purposes. But not long ago, I found out that if you live with someone for more than half a year, you’ll have to split everything. That includes the house, even if one side made the purchase and it’s only under that person’s name, after living with someone else, the house will be split between the two. So now I wonder, what’s the purpose of marriage?

A common definition for marriage is a commitment between two people to stay in the relationship. So in a sense, we can say it’s a mutual agreement. A promise, if you will. But it’s a promise that can be broken if agreement does not stay mutual. For every other form of contract, there is an ending date, except marriage. Instead of making divorce so readily available, they should have an ending date to marriage with strict clause stating high profile punishment if one side wants to terminate the agreement. Once the contract ends, two parties may agree to extend or withdraw. For example, if I think the guy I’m dating is not bad, I can sign a 5 year marriage with him, just to test out the water. This means in 5 years, I am devoting myself into this relationship and that I cannot leave him. After 5 years, If I’m still on good terms with this guy, I can extend it, to maybe 10~20 years. For 10~20 years, it’d be a commitment that possibly involve giving birth and raising a child or two with him. Again, within those years, I cannot leave him nor the family. Thus during the key years of a child, the parents cannot be separated.

What I’m proposing is just an idea. There are obvious flaws in it just like the marriage system we have now. But I feel it makes marriage a bond that is a bit stronger. For a period of time, I did not believe in getting married. I simply don’t see the purpose of it, other than the general social trend. Marriage is just a piece of paper, just like a promise is just a few words coming out of someone’s mouth. They’re meaningless to me. Of course it depends on coming out of whom, but still, I feel nothing is forever, nothing lasts eternity. Everything that is set on a timeless time frame is bound to be terminated sooner or later. I remember reading this romance novel where they guy promised the girl, “I know you feel insecure and longs for a sense of foreverness. I cannot promise you forever, for I do not know the future. But I can promise myself to you for as long as I live.” I thought it was quite touching, yet I couldn’t help but to wonder, how can someone be so sure to give such a promise?

按理说20岁后似乎就不应该是懵懂的季节了不是么。我们这一代的人拥有着老一辈人没有过的自由。相对来说，我们应该更容易幸福才对。然而，过多的自由，过分的成长，似乎也会造成畸形的交往态度？

我发现身边很多人在现今的社会会有过于自我的认知。这种感觉会由于不同的性格以不同的方式展现出来。比较含蓄的表现就好比说走进了半满不满的公共汽车，会觉得所有的人都在看着自己。我很想要将这种心理合理化。我觉得出生在中国的孩子以自我为中心很有可能是因为独生子女的关系。在成长的过程中一直都有着父母的全部关怀。当然也会有例外的，好比本人。但毕竟我这样的属于少数，起码我希望如此。而后来过来的孩子一般来说都是家境还不错的。没有太多孩子会为了柴米油盐这类的事情而烦恼。良好的家庭背景，文化层次相对来说较高的家长，这些都是促成我们这一代人初生牛犊不怕虎的心理状态。我原本以为这种心态只会在学习以及工作上表现出来，实则不然，在异性交往中也会被这种心态影响。

我还是先说些故事吧。下面的几则都是发生在我身上或周围人的故事。由于是不同圈子认识的，所以我想应该不太可能会让人有对号入座的感觉吧。下面有以女孩角度叙述故事的，也有从男孩角度叙述故事的。这并不代表主人公就是那个男孩或者女孩。我只是选择最容易理解的一方来叙述而已。下面每一个都是独立的人物跟不同圈子的故事。为了更加隐藏这些人，我把每个故事的细节都扔掉了。我还想要提的是，我所知道的不仅仅只有这些。比较重复的故事我甚至没有写出来。

1.）女孩跟男孩A交往，觉得男孩A没有上进心，多次鼓励没有回应后感觉很失败。这时遇到了男孩B，从一开始男孩B就很积极向上，努力地筹划着未来并且追求着女孩。女孩被感动了，开始喜欢着男孩B，但为此感到对男孩A的愧疚与抱歉，所以迟迟未曾提出分手。男孩A不放心女孩，总是查她的MSN记录跟手机信箱，终于发现了她跟男孩B的故事。大发雷霆之后，两个人分手了。

2）男孩A跟女孩是同学关系。一开始是同学，逐渐转变成朋友，最后蔓延为暧昧。而女孩从一开始就在跟男孩B交往着，自始至终。男孩A希望能够将两个人的关系公开化，却又不想让女孩为难。由于女孩跟男孩B是远距离恋爱，所以事情就一拖再拖。直到最近，女孩才跟男孩B分了手，于是男孩A与其交往的事情缓缓地浮出水面。

3）男孩A跟女孩从中学开始交往，一起考入大学。男孩声称是为了女孩才进入那所大学的。但是在大一的时候，逐渐发现女孩变心了。男孩A是很自负的一个人，他十分费解女孩的动机。女孩告诉他，她想要试试看跟其他人交往。那个男孩B是大四生，让女孩觉得更有安全感。男孩A觉得自己比对方各方面都突出，所以开始对所有的女孩失去信心，认为是女孩们的问题。

4）男孩经过朋友介绍认识了女孩A，发觉喜欢并且积极地追求她。但正当两个人逐入佳境的时候，男孩跟前女友女孩B碰了面。叙旧的结果是男孩发现自己仍然十分喜爱女友B。回家后他并没有直接告诉女孩A，因为他不知道自己究竟更喜欢谁。男孩不想要伤害女孩A，也不希望让女孩B难过。但是纸包不住火，女孩A还是发现了。男孩无奈之余跟女孩A分手了。

5）女孩A在一次聚会中第一次遇见男孩。两个人几乎是一见钟情，马上打得火热。女孩A是一个敢作敢当，十分豪爽的女孩子，所以当她发现男孩其实在认识她之前就已经在跟另一个女孩交往的时候，虽然有些难过，但是仍然决定上门去跟男孩理论。巧的是，男孩的女友女孩B也在场。女孩B看到女孩A，虽然惊讶以及难过，但是跟女孩A的心理是一样的，都希望男孩可以做一个选择。男孩始终没有。等女孩A失望地走了后，他跪求女孩B的原谅。女孩B感到十分的无奈，不懂为什么男孩无论如何也做不出自己的选择。

6）男孩跟女孩A交往了五年，但是男孩在三年的那个坎儿就觉得两个人不合适继续交往。但是他不想要伤害女孩A，所以就一直拖着。他觉得也许有一天女孩A会厌倦他，就会跟他分手了。但是五年后的他们仍然在交往着，然而男孩开始喜欢上女孩B。出于无奈，男孩决定跟女孩A分手。一开始女孩A不敢相信，觉得仍然有挽救的可能。直到好几天过后她才能够接受事实。男孩没过多久后就开始公开跟女孩B交往，并且避免跟女孩A见面。

如果有好好阅读的话会发现前三个都是在讲一女两男的故事，而后三个则是一男两女的故事。我再次宣称，每一个都是不同圈子里的故事，是不同的六组人。

我不知道读过了的人会有什么感觉。但是每次我听到这样的故事，都觉得当事人不能被称为是坦诚的人。无论他们的理由如何：不想伤害对方，不想将事情搞得太复杂，不想改变目前的生活状态，等等等等。说到底，他们在害怕改变。他们害怕看到眼泪，害怕自己成为众矢之的，害怕失去原本的社交圈子。追根究底，无论害怕的是什么，理由都是自私而且懦弱的。

虽然我这样说，但是我仍然觉得感情这种事情，是没有对与错的。当我爱的时候，我就是爱啊；反之，不爱的时候也就是不爱。爱这种感觉本来就是很难掌握并且很难维持的，所以不见了并不稀奇。然而每个人都应该有将伤害减到最低的认知。我觉得很多人都有一个错误的概念，那就是让时间表明他们的心态。时间可以冲淡感情，但是却不能够说话。将机会留给时间往往会让人失去机会。而当他们没有在合适的时机表明心态，伤害是必不可少的。从小我爷爷就教导我要做一个坦率、正直的人。老一辈的人说的话其实大都不符合先进的社会，也不符合所有的社交圈子，但是对于我在乎的人，坦率、正直却是我希望我可以保障的。因为那个人值得我这么做。

我们这一代人，自由是足够的了，却没有足够的定力跟恒心。与异性交往常常是很随便的态度，并且在交往的过程中十分的自我。难道说自由反而是更大的拘束么？我希望身边的人都可以幸福，并不是那种短暂的幸福，而是细水长流的幸福。