Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Monday, 6 November 2017
My new relationship
As this is open knowledge on my Facebook feed - and on someone else's, as will be noted in a moment - I ought to mention here that I have a girlfriend. After meeting a few short weeks ago and dating, my girlfriend and I made it official today and announced it publicly. We are crazy for one another and are breathless with excited anticipation at where life takes us from this day forward.
Sunday, 2 October 2016
Muslim hugs
This positive article appeared on my Facebook feed yesterday:
Hajer Sbehawi and her much-younger sister, both from Michigan, attended a rally of Hillary Clinton's main rival in the United States presidential election. Their purpose was to spread love and to educate the participants of the rally that Muslims, such as themselves, are not at all violent - they're just people, like everybody else. Sbehawi reckons that many people at such rallies have never met a Muslim and are ignorant rather than purposely hateful.
What is sad is that Sbehawi and others like her feel that it's necessary to educate others that Muslims are not inherently violent. I met several Muslims at college and it would be ridiculous to assume that all, most or even just a handful of them were evil people. They were there to learn and to make friends - the same reason that everyone else went to college.
Hajer Sbehawi and her much-younger sister, both from Michigan, attended a rally of Hillary Clinton's main rival in the United States presidential election. Their purpose was to spread love and to educate the participants of the rally that Muslims, such as themselves, are not at all violent - they're just people, like everybody else. Sbehawi reckons that many people at such rallies have never met a Muslim and are ignorant rather than purposely hateful.
What is sad is that Sbehawi and others like her feel that it's necessary to educate others that Muslims are not inherently violent. I met several Muslims at college and it would be ridiculous to assume that all, most or even just a handful of them were evil people. They were there to learn and to make friends - the same reason that everyone else went to college.
Wednesday, 21 September 2016
The friend zone redux (again)
Years ago, I wrote a few posts about the "friend zone" (here, here and here). To summarise my thoughts about the friend zone: I don't believe it exists - it's simply a case of feelings/attraction not being returned and not one person randomly or vindictively putting someone in a "zone" of sorts. I also mostly regarded the friend zone as a term that men rather than women use.
Interestingly enough, today I came across an article that was written before I wrote the first of my aforementioned links:
The writer, Chelsea Fagan, wrote about her experience of being "friend zoned" and said that the concept is not something that only happens to men (in one of my posts, I did mention that men do reject women). I thought it was interesting - albeit saddening, of course - how Fagan discussed how she became attracted to a friend but the friend rejected her. While she said that those being rejected should not turn into jerks, I also found the following passage from her article fascinating:
Interestingly enough, today I came across an article that was written before I wrote the first of my aforementioned links:
The writer, Chelsea Fagan, wrote about her experience of being "friend zoned" and said that the concept is not something that only happens to men (in one of my posts, I did mention that men do reject women). I thought it was interesting - albeit saddening, of course - how Fagan discussed how she became attracted to a friend but the friend rejected her. While she said that those being rejected should not turn into jerks, I also found the following passage from her article fascinating:
"We should never take advantage (as can sometimes happen) of the person
who is clearly devoted to us, using them as an ego-boost or exploiting
them being at our beck and call. We shouldn’t go out of our way to tell
them all about our dating follies when we know that they have feelings
for us and are doing their best to be respectful and a friend."
Fagan documented how her friend talked about his romantic life with her, in the full knowledge about how she felt towards him. Long story short, the friendship ultimately ended.
I haven't changed my thoughts about the friend zone: I think it doesn't exist, as I've explained before. Romantic rejection is a sad fact of life but it's not the end of the world. Someone else will come along and in the meantime, it is possible for a friendship to survive - even become a better, stronger friendship - when one person has rejected another. It is upsetting it couldn't happen in Fagan's case.
Monday, 5 May 2014
Love locks
Until today, I had no idea this existed:
I think that love is beautiful and should never be underrated or undervalued, but there are better ways of expressing love than attaching a padlock with a couple's names engraved onto it to a bridge and then throwing the key into the underlying water. As the article states, left unchecked, the combined weight of all the padlocks can cause structural damage to the bridge and the water can become contaminated from the keys rusting.
I am, of course, pleased that the couple highlighted at the beginning of the article are still married. It would have been disappointing if they had attached a love lock to the Pont des Arts bridge in France only to get divorced a few months or years down the line.
I think that love is beautiful and should never be underrated or undervalued, but there are better ways of expressing love than attaching a padlock with a couple's names engraved onto it to a bridge and then throwing the key into the underlying water. As the article states, left unchecked, the combined weight of all the padlocks can cause structural damage to the bridge and the water can become contaminated from the keys rusting.
I am, of course, pleased that the couple highlighted at the beginning of the article are still married. It would have been disappointing if they had attached a love lock to the Pont des Arts bridge in France only to get divorced a few months or years down the line.
Monday, 27 May 2013
The "friend zone"
We've all heard that story[1]: a guy meets a woman, they get along, he wants to be more than friends and he asks her out. To his surprise, she says no and he wonders, after being so amazing to her, what he did to be put in her "friend zone", a place where he cannot advance beyond being a friend of hers other than a "good friend", a "great friend" or perhaps, depending on how wonderful a friend he is to her, even "best friend"...but all hope is lost...why bother being friends?
Many men fear the strange yet fearsome friend zone, believing that if one woman puts him there, then word will spread throughout all womankind that this man is an inhabitant of the friend zone and should be avoided at all costs — at least for relationships, anyway. Except...
It's nonsense: the aforementioned hypothetical man never did anything to be put in the woman's "friend zone" because the friend zone does not exist. Why, you ask, do I believe this?
Well, it's because I think that a woman not being attracted to a particular man is no different from a man not being attracted to a particular woman; when a man doesn't have any attraction to a woman, do we usually say that he "friend zoned" her? Almost never, because we know that a man might have several reasons for having no romantic interest in a woman. If a woman simply does not have any romantic feelings for a man then in most circumstances there is little that the man can do about it; he might not meet her physical tastes, his personality might not be one that she would consider relationship material or she thinks they have too different/too similar interests. There wasn't some evil place the woman put him in to taunt him and no woman ever woke up one day thinking, "Hmm...I'm going to add him to my friend zone!".
The friend zone mentality assumes that men must treat every woman as a potential relationship, regardless of her opinions, feelings or even suitability for a relationship; thus, it considers male-female friendships to be wrong and that any man who is "just friends" with a woman is a failure with women. It propagates the myth that a man must make a move on a woman upon or soon after meeting her, otherwise he will become one of her friends and there will be no chance of a relationship; it also dismisses the possibility that a man and a woman can develop a relationship with each other after being friends for months or even years.
Often when a woman says that she doesn't want to advance to a relationship she says it's because she values the friendship; on some occasions, she says this to preserve the man's feelings, but on others she says it because she honestly believes that the friendship is valuable and does not want to ruin it! This is still not placing a man in any sort of friend zone and it isn't usually a vindictive act; either someone is into you or they're not (although, as I said above, sometimes the feelings can change, which is further evidence that there's not some anti-relationship zone you can be placed in to on a whim with no hope of redemption).
I'm still unsure about the origins and intentions of the friend zone. Is it designed to shame women for picking and choosing men when men already do that to women, or is it to instill fear into men that if they don't act in a certain way they will forever be condemned to only being friends with women? Perhaps it's both.
Regardless, I don't think that men should worry about the mythical yet menacing friend zone. There are billions of people in the world and thousands in our neighbourhoods: all because one woman doesn't want a relationship with a particular man doesn't mean that every other woman will share her opinion; women's tastes in men are as diverse as men's tastes in women. I am optimistic; there is someone for everyone.
Even if the friend zone did exist, there is nothing wrong with being someone's friend rather than a potential relationship partner. Besides, a good friend can help you find someone with whom you have a mutual romantic interest!
What is your opinion of the friend zone?
[1] This post covers the heterosexual man perspective, as the term "friend zone" is usually applied to them more than any other group. I have yet to hear it used in the context of gays and lesbians.
Many men fear the strange yet fearsome friend zone, believing that if one woman puts him there, then word will spread throughout all womankind that this man is an inhabitant of the friend zone and should be avoided at all costs — at least for relationships, anyway. Except...
It's nonsense: the aforementioned hypothetical man never did anything to be put in the woman's "friend zone" because the friend zone does not exist. Why, you ask, do I believe this?
Well, it's because I think that a woman not being attracted to a particular man is no different from a man not being attracted to a particular woman; when a man doesn't have any attraction to a woman, do we usually say that he "friend zoned" her? Almost never, because we know that a man might have several reasons for having no romantic interest in a woman. If a woman simply does not have any romantic feelings for a man then in most circumstances there is little that the man can do about it; he might not meet her physical tastes, his personality might not be one that she would consider relationship material or she thinks they have too different/too similar interests. There wasn't some evil place the woman put him in to taunt him and no woman ever woke up one day thinking, "Hmm...I'm going to add him to my friend zone!".
The friend zone mentality assumes that men must treat every woman as a potential relationship, regardless of her opinions, feelings or even suitability for a relationship; thus, it considers male-female friendships to be wrong and that any man who is "just friends" with a woman is a failure with women. It propagates the myth that a man must make a move on a woman upon or soon after meeting her, otherwise he will become one of her friends and there will be no chance of a relationship; it also dismisses the possibility that a man and a woman can develop a relationship with each other after being friends for months or even years.
Often when a woman says that she doesn't want to advance to a relationship she says it's because she values the friendship; on some occasions, she says this to preserve the man's feelings, but on others she says it because she honestly believes that the friendship is valuable and does not want to ruin it! This is still not placing a man in any sort of friend zone and it isn't usually a vindictive act; either someone is into you or they're not (although, as I said above, sometimes the feelings can change, which is further evidence that there's not some anti-relationship zone you can be placed in to on a whim with no hope of redemption).
I'm still unsure about the origins and intentions of the friend zone. Is it designed to shame women for picking and choosing men when men already do that to women, or is it to instill fear into men that if they don't act in a certain way they will forever be condemned to only being friends with women? Perhaps it's both.
Regardless, I don't think that men should worry about the mythical yet menacing friend zone. There are billions of people in the world and thousands in our neighbourhoods: all because one woman doesn't want a relationship with a particular man doesn't mean that every other woman will share her opinion; women's tastes in men are as diverse as men's tastes in women. I am optimistic; there is someone for everyone.
Even if the friend zone did exist, there is nothing wrong with being someone's friend rather than a potential relationship partner. Besides, a good friend can help you find someone with whom you have a mutual romantic interest!
What is your opinion of the friend zone?
[1] This post covers the heterosexual man perspective, as the term "friend zone" is usually applied to them more than any other group. I have yet to hear it used in the context of gays and lesbians.
Thursday, 11 April 2013
More bad ways to break up
I have written two posts on douchey ways to end a relationship. Thanks to a segment on the radio today about breaking up, here's my third installment on the subject.
The first way involved someone posting a link to Kelly Clarkson's "Already Gone" on their partner's Facebook profile (I love Kelly Clarkson, but I wouldn't use her to break up with someone). This was a short and deeply unkind split, with unhappy emoticons and unfriending — on and offline — being the consequences. Yes, this is another break up over the Internet, but it's important for reasons that I'll expand upon later.
The second resembled the first in that it used music: it involved a woman singing Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" down the phone to her boyfriend, thereby ending their relationship. I have a modicum of respect for the creativity of this one, but it was wrong for two reasons: 1. the breakup wasn't done face-to-face, but if he was a jerk then this is irrelevant. 2. "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" isn't even about breaking up...it's about not wanting to get back together, hence the name! I do understand the message, though.
I will grant the third one the honour of being clever, but it was still douchey. The person told their partner that their exes were beautiful; the bemused partner asked "Which one?", only to be told "Me!". It was done over the telephone.
The consensus on the segment was that the best method to end a relationship was over the Internet, which angered me. What is it with these people who think breaking up with someone over the Internet is acceptable? I hope in every one of these cases the relationship wasn't serious: I think it would be disgusting and cowardly to end a deep relationship in such a manner. In be fair, the people contacting the programme were all young (in their teens), so I'm hoping it was a case of collective youthful ignorance and that they will all mature.
Coincidentally, "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" played at one point while I was writing this.
The first way involved someone posting a link to Kelly Clarkson's "Already Gone" on their partner's Facebook profile (I love Kelly Clarkson, but I wouldn't use her to break up with someone). This was a short and deeply unkind split, with unhappy emoticons and unfriending — on and offline — being the consequences. Yes, this is another break up over the Internet, but it's important for reasons that I'll expand upon later.
The second resembled the first in that it used music: it involved a woman singing Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" down the phone to her boyfriend, thereby ending their relationship. I have a modicum of respect for the creativity of this one, but it was wrong for two reasons: 1. the breakup wasn't done face-to-face, but if he was a jerk then this is irrelevant. 2. "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" isn't even about breaking up...it's about not wanting to get back together, hence the name! I do understand the message, though.
I will grant the third one the honour of being clever, but it was still douchey. The person told their partner that their exes were beautiful; the bemused partner asked "Which one?", only to be told "Me!". It was done over the telephone.
The consensus on the segment was that the best method to end a relationship was over the Internet, which angered me. What is it with these people who think breaking up with someone over the Internet is acceptable? I hope in every one of these cases the relationship wasn't serious: I think it would be disgusting and cowardly to end a deep relationship in such a manner. In be fair, the people contacting the programme were all young (in their teens), so I'm hoping it was a case of collective youthful ignorance and that they will all mature.
Coincidentally, "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" played at one point while I was writing this.
Friday, 29 March 2013
On marriage equality
I promised to write a post about my opinions on marriage equality for gays and lesbians. With last month's vote in Parliament to legalise it and all the current activity in the United States over the issue, now seems a fitting time.
I am a strong supporter of marriage; I doubt this will come as a surprise to my family, friends and followers, but in short: yes, I support marriage equality. I hold no animosity towards gays and lesbians, and have no reason to deny them something I have the right to myself. I am entitled to marry a woman I love and vice versa (with each other's consent, of course), so why should the LGBT people I know, and others who love someone of their own gender, not be allowed to marry?
I do not consider gay marriage to be a threat to my future marriage or to anyone else's, nor do I think heterosexual marriage would be devalued by it. After all, in the United Kingdom and United States, on average a heterosexual marriage has a 50% chance of succeeding, greater amounts of straight people are becoming disinterested in marriage and certain celebrities treat marriage frivolously. None of these problems are caused by gays and lesbians, and marriage equality will not exacerbate them.
I reject arguments against gay marriage such as "it will lead to bestiality and paedophilia!", "gays will force straights into marrying them!" and "people will want to marry their kitchen sink!". Marriage is between two consenting adults who (usually) understand what they're doing. The sole result from legalising gay marriage will be couples of the same gender being allowed to marry; nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is paranoia and utter nonsense.
I don't believe in opposing gay marriage based on politics, either: LGBT people can be liberals, moderates, conservatives or even apolitical — my family and I once had a gay friend and neighbor who identified as a Republican, and his partner was a Democrat! I think it's wonderful that both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom — a Democrat and a Conservative, respectively — support equal marrying rights; never before has this happened, and ten years ago this would have been unthinkable.
It's also been stated that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry because marriage is only for producing children. If that were the case, then people who are old or infertile should be barred from marrying, and couples whose children have left home and can support themselves should divorce since their marriages have served their purpose. What about all those children born out of wedlock today, too? While on the subject of LGBT parenting, by extension of my support for marriage equality, I support same-sex couples being able to have and raise children; I might not know of many kids raised by gay couples, but I have yet to discover anyone who went off the rails because their parents were both of the same gender.
Nothing will be lost by granting marriage equality. I find it relieving that in this era of falling marriage rates, at least one group of people thinks marriage is worth fighting for. Who knows? Perhaps after gays and lesbians achieve the right to marry, other people might start valuing marriage again! I like to see the positives, and I think marriage equality will be a great step forward in civil rights, respect...and for marriage itself.
I am a strong supporter of marriage; I doubt this will come as a surprise to my family, friends and followers, but in short: yes, I support marriage equality. I hold no animosity towards gays and lesbians, and have no reason to deny them something I have the right to myself. I am entitled to marry a woman I love and vice versa (with each other's consent, of course), so why should the LGBT people I know, and others who love someone of their own gender, not be allowed to marry?
I do not consider gay marriage to be a threat to my future marriage or to anyone else's, nor do I think heterosexual marriage would be devalued by it. After all, in the United Kingdom and United States, on average a heterosexual marriage has a 50% chance of succeeding, greater amounts of straight people are becoming disinterested in marriage and certain celebrities treat marriage frivolously. None of these problems are caused by gays and lesbians, and marriage equality will not exacerbate them.
I reject arguments against gay marriage such as "it will lead to bestiality and paedophilia!", "gays will force straights into marrying them!" and "people will want to marry their kitchen sink!". Marriage is between two consenting adults who (usually) understand what they're doing. The sole result from legalising gay marriage will be couples of the same gender being allowed to marry; nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is paranoia and utter nonsense.
I don't believe in opposing gay marriage based on politics, either: LGBT people can be liberals, moderates, conservatives or even apolitical — my family and I once had a gay friend and neighbor who identified as a Republican, and his partner was a Democrat! I think it's wonderful that both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom — a Democrat and a Conservative, respectively — support equal marrying rights; never before has this happened, and ten years ago this would have been unthinkable.
It's also been stated that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry because marriage is only for producing children. If that were the case, then people who are old or infertile should be barred from marrying, and couples whose children have left home and can support themselves should divorce since their marriages have served their purpose. What about all those children born out of wedlock today, too? While on the subject of LGBT parenting, by extension of my support for marriage equality, I support same-sex couples being able to have and raise children; I might not know of many kids raised by gay couples, but I have yet to discover anyone who went off the rails because their parents were both of the same gender.
Nothing will be lost by granting marriage equality. I find it relieving that in this era of falling marriage rates, at least one group of people thinks marriage is worth fighting for. Who knows? Perhaps after gays and lesbians achieve the right to marry, other people might start valuing marriage again! I like to see the positives, and I think marriage equality will be a great step forward in civil rights, respect...and for marriage itself.
Saturday, 20 August 2011
More thoughts on "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"
On the 11th of August, my grandfather took my brother, one of my cousins, and myself to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. I mentioned in my first post about this that I was completely satisfied with the film: it has been over a week since I thought that way about the movie and wrote it up here, and after some thinking, I still maintain that position, although I do have a couple of quibbles. If you have not seen the film yet and do not want to have it spoilt, I recommend stopping here for now until you have watched it!
The first was the deaths of Fred Weasley, Nymphadora Tonks, and Remus Lupin: to me, these deaths, while they all happened in the book, felt like they were "dropped" into the film. One moment, these characters were all alive, and then suddenly they were all dead, with only a minor acknowledgement of their fates. Granted, there was no need to have a bloodbath, and it was good not to see one, but due to the importance of these characters in other films/books, I think they should have received a slightly better send-off that a brief scene of their corpses.
The second was near the end of the film when Harry had the Elder Wand in his possession. In the book he used the Elder Wand to repair his original wand (and thus has his only "official" usage of the wand), whereas in the movie he merely snapped the wand in two instead of using it to make the repair. I suspect that him repairing the old wand and then snapping the Elder Wand would have been too slow a scene for a movie, but even so, it would have been nice for that to have occurred.
Still, these are both minor points, and neither detracts from the overall satisfaction I received from watching the movie: I have far more praise than criticism. On the opposite end of the spectrum, easily the best scenes from the film were those involving Professor Snape regarding his true loyalty, his love for Lily Potter, and caringfor Harry: I felt that the Alan Rickman's performance in those parts, few though they were, was truly excellent, and I thought that the film's portrayal of those areas of the story was as strong as the description in the book, perhaps even more so.
With the very last scene in the film, originally I did have concerns about how the actors would look aged, but I was relieved to see their ageing looked natural, rather than badly done as is often the case. Too many times have I seen actors made-up to look aged, and the ageing makeup either causes them appear too old or fake, but I did not think that in this case.
As I said, I am completely satisfied, and a minor point or two does not negate that. I think all the Harry Potter books have been portrayed well in their respective movies, and I am glad the film series has come to a well-deserved close.
The first was the deaths of Fred Weasley, Nymphadora Tonks, and Remus Lupin: to me, these deaths, while they all happened in the book, felt like they were "dropped" into the film. One moment, these characters were all alive, and then suddenly they were all dead, with only a minor acknowledgement of their fates. Granted, there was no need to have a bloodbath, and it was good not to see one, but due to the importance of these characters in other films/books, I think they should have received a slightly better send-off that a brief scene of their corpses.
The second was near the end of the film when Harry had the Elder Wand in his possession. In the book he used the Elder Wand to repair his original wand (and thus has his only "official" usage of the wand), whereas in the movie he merely snapped the wand in two instead of using it to make the repair. I suspect that him repairing the old wand and then snapping the Elder Wand would have been too slow a scene for a movie, but even so, it would have been nice for that to have occurred.
Still, these are both minor points, and neither detracts from the overall satisfaction I received from watching the movie: I have far more praise than criticism. On the opposite end of the spectrum, easily the best scenes from the film were those involving Professor Snape regarding his true loyalty, his love for Lily Potter, and caringfor Harry: I felt that the Alan Rickman's performance in those parts, few though they were, was truly excellent, and I thought that the film's portrayal of those areas of the story was as strong as the description in the book, perhaps even more so.
With the very last scene in the film, originally I did have concerns about how the actors would look aged, but I was relieved to see their ageing looked natural, rather than badly done as is often the case. Too many times have I seen actors made-up to look aged, and the ageing makeup either causes them appear too old or fake, but I did not think that in this case.
As I said, I am completely satisfied, and a minor point or two does not negate that. I think all the Harry Potter books have been portrayed well in their respective movies, and I am glad the film series has come to a well-deserved close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)