Breaking news from stuff.co.nz...an article with the intriguing headline "Timberlake, Biel's 'Open Relationship'" informs us that apparently JT and Jessica Biel are just "friends with benefits."
This article pisses me off. Not because it is undoubtedly entirely fictional. I have no problem with the media conjuring up imaginary celeb scandals - we expect nothing less.
1. In the words of the omnipresent and omniscient "source", "Justin was very clear with Jessica that he didn't want to be in a serious relationship with her anymore where he wasn't able to date other people. Jessica took the news very hard, but once she calmed down and they started talking again, he convinced her to stay friends who hook up, without all the pressure of a relationship."
Did they really need to put this wee stereotype out there? Jessica Biel is fucking gorgeous, wealthy and successful. If she wants a goddamn relationship, I have no doubt at all that she could get one. Why then is she suddenly being portrayed as some wilting wee flower, being forced into a fuckbuddy relationship against her will? The dog catching the sexual crumbs from JT's table, as it were?
2. "Friends who hook up" is not an open relationship. That's called being fuckbuddies or FWB. An open relationship can be many things, but it IS a relationship, meaning that on some level it is a meaningful commitment to another person, with a MUTUAL agreement not to be monogamous.
This sort of drivel is the reason people cannot comprehend the concept of an open relationship, always convinced one of the parties has been somehow convinced against their will. They cannot accept that one can make a meaningful commitment to someone without the M-word (monogamy).
3. "Justin gets the best of both worlds. He doesn't have to lose Jess as a lover or a friend, but he's free to explore other relationships." They. THEY are free to explore other relationships.
4. "...Justin was not ready to make a commitment and settle down." This is not the reason one enters an open relationship. This is why one gets a fuckbuddy. Which is apparently what JT has done. Props to him. Now can they stop bandying about the "open relationship" phrase, when clearly that's not what's going down?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Eureka Moment
I have finally figured out what everyone I like has in common. It is their ability to communicate things in unexpected ways. A sort of poetical, unexpected twist to every phrase.
I have also finally figured out why this is. It is because they tend to be drug-fucked to the point where they lose the words or phrases for common objects or experiences, and are forced to describe things in different ways. If the point of poetry is to express something in a way in which it has not been expressed before, then surely someone who is incapable of expressing things in the expected way epitomises the entire point of poetry.
Example: (line breaks added, the rest is word for word)
still, theres that elusive thing
i'm not sure how to put it into words
like sitting somewhere, and people, and you
and their faces, and conversations; interesting,
but its like tiny nerves
like fingers typing, just tiny things,
it's the subtle reactions, the nerves
that make things interesting
eyes scanning a bit
but just tickling isn't sex
often you need to FUCK
don't know if this makes sense
kinda what i'm looking for
sometimes i find it, but it's so easy to lose
like getting into this groove
not really sure what that means
other than the obvious
I find people who talk like that strangely sexy. God knows why. Unless it is that I am turned on by people incapable of cliches?
I have also finally figured out why this is. It is because they tend to be drug-fucked to the point where they lose the words or phrases for common objects or experiences, and are forced to describe things in different ways. If the point of poetry is to express something in a way in which it has not been expressed before, then surely someone who is incapable of expressing things in the expected way epitomises the entire point of poetry.
Example: (line breaks added, the rest is word for word)
still, theres that elusive thing
i'm not sure how to put it into words
like sitting somewhere, and people, and you
and their faces, and conversations; interesting,
but its like tiny nerves
like fingers typing, just tiny things,
it's the subtle reactions, the nerves
that make things interesting
eyes scanning a bit
but just tickling isn't sex
often you need to FUCK
don't know if this makes sense
kinda what i'm looking for
sometimes i find it, but it's so easy to lose
like getting into this groove
not really sure what that means
other than the obvious
I find people who talk like that strangely sexy. God knows why. Unless it is that I am turned on by people incapable of cliches?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Pros and Cons
Pros of Moving to Auckland:
1. If I get the internship, it's too good an opportunity to turn down. The company will look nice on my CV, and statistics suggest I have a 70% chance of being offered work after my degree.
2. Working fulltime will mean I can afford to live. Oh the novelty! No more the constant choices...food or cigarettes, alcohol or doctor, textbooks or power bill, glasses or rent.
3. I will have an excuse to wear heels every day.
4. I will be able to wear pencil skirts and blazers as often as I like.
5. More gay people.
6. Less scarfies.
7. Better understanding of the concept of indoor/outdoor furniture (I hear they keep couches indoors in Auckland...oh the glamour of it!)
8. Better shopping.
Cons of Moving to Auckland:
1. More expensive rent.
2. No student benefits (cheap student doctors, free student gym, low-fee student bank accounts, interest-free overdrafts, etc.)
3. Could conceivably miss Dunedin people.
4. Degree will take a year longer.
5. Will have to find replacement flatmate for the flat, get rid of all my shite, etc.
***
Ah well, I have been short-listed for the internship (only two of us, so quite a short list as lists go), so shall just try and forget about it for the immediate future, or the waiting will drive me mad.
1. If I get the internship, it's too good an opportunity to turn down. The company will look nice on my CV, and statistics suggest I have a 70% chance of being offered work after my degree.
2. Working fulltime will mean I can afford to live. Oh the novelty! No more the constant choices...food or cigarettes, alcohol or doctor, textbooks or power bill, glasses or rent.
3. I will have an excuse to wear heels every day.
4. I will be able to wear pencil skirts and blazers as often as I like.
5. More gay people.
6. Less scarfies.
7. Better understanding of the concept of indoor/outdoor furniture (I hear they keep couches indoors in Auckland...oh the glamour of it!)
8. Better shopping.
Cons of Moving to Auckland:
1. More expensive rent.
2. No student benefits (cheap student doctors, free student gym, low-fee student bank accounts, interest-free overdrafts, etc.)
3. Could conceivably miss Dunedin people.
4. Degree will take a year longer.
5. Will have to find replacement flatmate for the flat, get rid of all my shite, etc.
***
Ah well, I have been short-listed for the internship (only two of us, so quite a short list as lists go), so shall just try and forget about it for the immediate future, or the waiting will drive me mad.
ACC: Not the Most Popular Kid in the Class Right Now
Groin sprains: not as amusing as they sound. Quite a similar sensation to the bruising following an overly vigorous forty-hour-fuckathon, but without the fond memories. Although if I end up claiming ACC for my inability to walk without intense discomfort, I shall definitely be claiming it as a sex-related injury. Oh the novelty value. Plus my ACC record couldn't make me look like more of a gutter scum slag if it tried. Instead of writing "someone put something in her drink and she lost all memory of what happened", the nurse at the hospital wrote "drug reaction and sexual assault." Which doesn't really communicate the fact that the drug was not ingested voluntarily, instead giving off the vague impression that I overestimated my ability to handle a toxic cocaine and heroin mix, became somewhat incapacited, and my pimp and/or drug dealer went in for the grope.
A week later, I was dragged hysterical and lapsing in and out of consciousness into A&E mid-panic attack, and a nearby nurse read the phrase "drug reaction" on my medical record, and said something to the effect of "Leave her, she was in here for the same thing last weekend." Implying that my propensity for being drug-raped is not only inconsiderate on my part, but ties up valuable medical resources, and should disqualify me from all medical attention in the immediate future. If I had had any faith in the medical system, that would have been enough to destroy it.
A week later, I was dragged hysterical and lapsing in and out of consciousness into A&E mid-panic attack, and a nearby nurse read the phrase "drug reaction" on my medical record, and said something to the effect of "Leave her, she was in here for the same thing last weekend." Implying that my propensity for being drug-raped is not only inconsiderate on my part, but ties up valuable medical resources, and should disqualify me from all medical attention in the immediate future. If I had had any faith in the medical system, that would have been enough to destroy it.
Egoism
Am doing all the recommended readings for my Business Ethics paper, although as the exam is multi-choice, it's a bit of a waste of time as study goes, and should probably be classed as procrastination. But I'm highlighting bits like mad, and we all know that highlighters are magical instruments by which information can directly channel itself into your brain. Or something. And these are not just highlighters...they are ERASABLE. Which means that I am highlighting not-so-important bits, purely for the pleasure of deciding that they are not-so-important, and then erasing away. Life's simple pleasures, hey?
But I digress. Am reading, ahem "Contemporary Reflections on Business Ethics" by some chap named Duska, and it is utter bullshit. His wee speel about egoism made me laugh out loud.
"Egoists maintain a general principle of the following sort 'One should always act in one's own interest.' I imagine that most of us upon encountering such a principle think it is immoral." Uh...no. Obviously not. Else why would 99.9% of people act in their own interests 99.9% of the time. And I'm giving humanity the benefit of the doubt here with that 0.1%, as there is no such thing as an altruistic act. All actions are motivated primarily by one's own interests. The confusion only arises when it is in one's own interests to help others. Getting warm fuzzies / good PR / improved brand image / a CV boost from that volunteer work you did? Then you were acting in your own interests, you egoist, you.
"Egoism is based on a distorted egocentric view of the universe...From my point of view, I am the centre of the universe. But how limited that view is...An objective, detached view recognizes that there are billions of other people in the world, more or less like me..." Crucial difference between me and those other gazillion people? I see the world from my perspective, experience the world via my senses, suffer/enjoy the results of my actions. How is it distorted to recognize that because my perceptions primarily result from my experiences, that my own life should be of more importance to me than the lives of those gazillion others? It is ridiculous to suggest that all people should be perceived as being of equal importance when considering an ethical dilemma. Obviously ones own interests should, and do, take precedence. If people genuinely considered all human lives to be of equal importance, then the $50 they just spent on that top would have been sent to some 3rd world nation to save a few starving Africans from imminent starvation. But they don't, and it wasn't. Human suffering taking place closer to us is more important than suffering we can't see, because at the end of the day, it comes down to our experiences and perceptions. If we can in no way experience the suffering of the starving Africans, then it becomes unimportant. The occasional informercial with the flies buzzing around the swollen malnourished bellies is simply not enough to make that suffering register as being a part of our perceived universe, and as such, is not in any way real for us.
But I digress. Am reading, ahem "Contemporary Reflections on Business Ethics" by some chap named Duska, and it is utter bullshit. His wee speel about egoism made me laugh out loud.
"Egoists maintain a general principle of the following sort 'One should always act in one's own interest.' I imagine that most of us upon encountering such a principle think it is immoral." Uh...no. Obviously not. Else why would 99.9% of people act in their own interests 99.9% of the time. And I'm giving humanity the benefit of the doubt here with that 0.1%, as there is no such thing as an altruistic act. All actions are motivated primarily by one's own interests. The confusion only arises when it is in one's own interests to help others. Getting warm fuzzies / good PR / improved brand image / a CV boost from that volunteer work you did? Then you were acting in your own interests, you egoist, you.
"Egoism is based on a distorted egocentric view of the universe...From my point of view, I am the centre of the universe. But how limited that view is...An objective, detached view recognizes that there are billions of other people in the world, more or less like me..." Crucial difference between me and those other gazillion people? I see the world from my perspective, experience the world via my senses, suffer/enjoy the results of my actions. How is it distorted to recognize that because my perceptions primarily result from my experiences, that my own life should be of more importance to me than the lives of those gazillion others? It is ridiculous to suggest that all people should be perceived as being of equal importance when considering an ethical dilemma. Obviously ones own interests should, and do, take precedence. If people genuinely considered all human lives to be of equal importance, then the $50 they just spent on that top would have been sent to some 3rd world nation to save a few starving Africans from imminent starvation. But they don't, and it wasn't. Human suffering taking place closer to us is more important than suffering we can't see, because at the end of the day, it comes down to our experiences and perceptions. If we can in no way experience the suffering of the starving Africans, then it becomes unimportant. The occasional informercial with the flies buzzing around the swollen malnourished bellies is simply not enough to make that suffering register as being a part of our perceived universe, and as such, is not in any way real for us.
Zomigosh, Could Totally Be Twins!!
Was walking to uni with Elder Sister this morning, when she suddenly yelled "OMG, we match!" I looked down doubtfully at my outfit, then realised she was pointing somewhere to my left. Turned to see a mannequin in an opshop window wearing an identical outfit to my sister. Oh the pain. Gently explained to her that, of all mannequins one could aspire to, Ms Sally Army might not be the one.
Twee at its Twee-est
Best definition of twee ever: Something that is cute ironically, with the irony taken out. (Thank you Urban Dictionary.)
I never fully understood this concept, until Elder Sister was explaining the idea of Engagement Photos to me. Apparently this is a crucial part of the engagement process, in which the happy couple go on a photoshoot and get a lot of pictures of themselves gazing into each others eyes. A lot of pictures.
In her enthusiasm, Elder Sister showed me no less than five sets of engagement pictures on Facebook last night, each worse than the last. Locations included:
1. A beach (think Happy Couple walking hand-in-hand, Happy Couple sitting on rock, Happy Couple sitting on rock again, Happy Couple snuggling on sand, etc, etc.)
2. A park in winter, with two red roses (think Happy Couple frolic in snow, Happy Couple sitting on bench, Happy Boy presenting Happy Roses to Happy Girl, Happy Boy kissing Happy Girl, Happy Couple by a tree, Happy Couple behind a tree, etc, etc.)
3. A sidewalk (Happy Couple leaning against conveniently placed wall, Happy Couple walking, Happy Couple placed next to a loveheart chalked on wall, Happy Couple gazing into each others eyes, etc, etc.)
4. Railroad tracks - uber-symbolic (Happy Couple walking on tracks, Happy Couple still walking on tracks, Happy Couple walking on tracks while looking back at camera, Happy Couple sitting on tracks, Happy Couple frolicking on tracks, and so on ad nauseum.)
Elder Sister mentioned a photographer that does "totally AMAZING engagement photos, so talented." Is there really talent involved in taking a naively happy couple, putting them in a twee-as-fuck location, and making them smile, occasionally pausing to chalk up pink lovehearts on nearby walls? If I had the choice between being an Engagement Photographer and a bus driver, I would have to think long and hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
