The current formula one season is a non-starter for me. I've been a fan of Mclaren the underdog for years and things have turned around for them. They're now the dominant force.
So why do I say its a non-starter? It has something to do with the word underdog.
I've always been a supporter of strong underdogs. Teams that have the machinery, guts, talent and attitude but are somehow beaten to the finish line by one thing - sheer bad luck. I say bad luck because with the phenomenal research and testing they've done and talents like Kimi on board, how else would you characterize Mclaren's constant failure of past seasons?
Guess I'm not immune to the showbiz factor of formula one. I love the good guy/bad guy feeling. Every movie producer knows how that drives ratings, especially the good folks at the WWF. For Mclaren fans Schumi was for a long time the bad guy. Kimi was the veritable silver angel out to defeat the red devil. Michael's cocky attitude laid the groundwork for an exciting joust and Kimi's mysterious equipment failures never failed to draw out sympathies from his fan base. Jokers like Sato and Mantoya would liven the scene at the back.
How things have changed in a few short months. Bad boy Michael has retired (although still hangs out at the tracks). Kimi has switched horses to Ferrari and brought along his bad luck with him. Alonso the nerd is being trounced by his teammate Hamilton, also a nice guy who never ceases to smile. Massa, yet another nice diplomatic guy, is always in the top 3.
Aaarggh, the nerds have taken over the front line. No more attitude. No more villains to hiss at. Everyone's nice, cordial, cooperative, smiling. Shivers.
Things are getting predictable again albeit the tables being turned. Everyone's now betting on the silver car, the one with Hamilton in it. Kimi is sliding backwards to become just another driver despite sitting in a throroughbred. I found myself sitting happily at the mamak stall last Sunday when I should be watching the flag-off in Monaco and worse, I didn't feel any remorse.
Frankly I don't know which team to support any more. My favorite underdog is now running away with the trophies and the team I disliked is now the underdog. And the interesting characters like DC are now stuck in the middle of the field and definitely not adding to the excitement.
I have nothing against nerds. I just hate boring races where there are no more bad guys to beat.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Body art. Do you?
Business is booming in New York City. Not tattoo or body piercing shops but the tattoo removal business. That's according to CNN.
Apparently many wall street executives and young mothers who once clamored to have tattoos done are now clamoring to get them off, permanently. Enter the laser tattoo removal peeps.
We asians are smarter. We've got tatts that wear off after 2 weeks. But I'm not sure about the holes left behind by piercings on the tongue, nose and other parts of the body. Do they heal?
I have no piercings or tattoos to worry about and so its not my area of expertise but I've wondered about this. If you're invited to dinner by your future parents-in-law, would you take off the chrome studs on your pierced eyebrows and tongue just for the occasion, even though the reason you have them in the first place is because they define 'you'?
Would you bother to cover up that tattoo on your arm or belly button? Or would you do the love-me-for-what-I-am thing?
Apparently many wall street executives and young mothers who once clamored to have tattoos done are now clamoring to get them off, permanently. Enter the laser tattoo removal peeps.
We asians are smarter. We've got tatts that wear off after 2 weeks. But I'm not sure about the holes left behind by piercings on the tongue, nose and other parts of the body. Do they heal?
I have no piercings or tattoos to worry about and so its not my area of expertise but I've wondered about this. If you're invited to dinner by your future parents-in-law, would you take off the chrome studs on your pierced eyebrows and tongue just for the occasion, even though the reason you have them in the first place is because they define 'you'?
Would you bother to cover up that tattoo on your arm or belly button? Or would you do the love-me-for-what-I-am thing?
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Celcom football ads
A couple of tv ads by Celcom lingers in my mind although not for the reasons the ad maker would have intended.
The first one is the weeping woman who sobs away as she watches a soccer match on telly. I dunno if she's crying because she lost a huge bet or her boyfriend left her but she's clearly distressed.
The second one, probably of the same series, is about a man who laughs uncontrollably to the match on tv. I'll call him Mr. Hyena. He acts like he escaped from a mental asylum.
I'm no ad guru but if I remember my advertising 101, a good ad has 2 things. First a call to action, second a dramatization of the uniqueness of the product.
These 2 football ads have a call to action alright. They prompt me to switch channels everytime they come on air. I don't fancy having extremely distraught women or someone like Mr. Hyena in my living room. Not even after a couple of beers.
Perhaps the ad maker assumes that the football-watching crowd's senses is so dull that they feel compelled to go waaay over the top to send a simple message. Its called overkill.
On dramatizing the uniqueness of a product, I think this one crashed & burned because the target group, young cellphone users like me, have no idea what its trying to dramatize. The only connection I've made is that if you watch a soccer match sponsored by Celcom, you will become a hyena or you'll cry your eyeballs out. Neither one makes exciting prospect.
The things companies do to their own brands...
The first one is the weeping woman who sobs away as she watches a soccer match on telly. I dunno if she's crying because she lost a huge bet or her boyfriend left her but she's clearly distressed.
The second one, probably of the same series, is about a man who laughs uncontrollably to the match on tv. I'll call him Mr. Hyena. He acts like he escaped from a mental asylum.
I'm no ad guru but if I remember my advertising 101, a good ad has 2 things. First a call to action, second a dramatization of the uniqueness of the product.
These 2 football ads have a call to action alright. They prompt me to switch channels everytime they come on air. I don't fancy having extremely distraught women or someone like Mr. Hyena in my living room. Not even after a couple of beers.
Perhaps the ad maker assumes that the football-watching crowd's senses is so dull that they feel compelled to go waaay over the top to send a simple message. Its called overkill.
On dramatizing the uniqueness of a product, I think this one crashed & burned because the target group, young cellphone users like me, have no idea what its trying to dramatize. The only connection I've made is that if you watch a soccer match sponsored by Celcom, you will become a hyena or you'll cry your eyeballs out. Neither one makes exciting prospect.
The things companies do to their own brands...
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Of gays and lesbians
Gallivanter asked an interesting question in his blog: Why is it both men and women accept lesbians as part of society, but not gays.
Here's the answer I posted:
I've been meaning to write about the gay & lesbian topic for a while and I think this is a good time.
I'm lucky in the sense that of the few friends that I have, none of them care whether their friends are gay or straight. They're smart enough to separate character (how people treat one another) from sexual orientation (what people do in bed), a feat not many people can do.
But I also know it doesn't come without limits. Despite their coolness about it, they don't want to be seen hanging out with 'lady boys,' heavily made-up men who dress up as women. So their acceptance is actually tolerance. Its not the same thing. Hence my conclusion that it boils down to the protection of self image.
But that's reality isn't it. If you have coffee at Starbucks with an old male classmate who has become an effeminate drama queen, you worry that someone you know might notice you. You worry that the whole town will snicker at you the next day. Most people like to avoid that.
So when people are fearful, they like to brand themselves according to what they're NOT rather than what they ARE. Afraid to be suspected as gay? Then dramatize certain behaviors to send a message that you're NOT gay. You can brag about how many chicks you've laid last weekend and make fun of gays if necessary even though deep down you know trashing people's a bad thing.
About why males happily accept lesbians. Boys will be boys. They are aroused with one set of female genitalia at the scene. They're doubly aroused with two sets. So lesbianism, why not? I doubt if they'll comprehend lesbianism to be anything more than two women sexually stimulating each other.
Another thing. Men are immune to the natural show of friendship among females, the hand holding and hugging thingy. They wouldn't have a clue if there's something deeper going on between the girls. So he *shrugs* because to him its not fathomable, not real, no big deal.
If it sounds like men treat people like sex objects, as a male myself I'll admit its mostly true. I won't generalize except to say that most guys my age only have 2 things on their mind: sex and $$$.
I'll leave you with one thought. If you woke up tomorrow and found that society is no longer homophobic, would you still treat gays and lesbians the same way?
Here's the answer I posted:
I'll answer the 2nd part first. Actually I found that many of my male friends have no problem with gays but due to peer pressure, they have to act as if its not ok. Its an image thing. When you're trying to be seen as an alpha male, you cannot afford to be seen as 'soft'. In fact you make fun of 'soft' people just to strengthen the perception that you are unlike them. Its quite self serving actually, to feel better about oneself by hating other that are not like you.
On the straight male's acceptance of gay females, that's a fantasy thing. What's a bed full of naked females? A harem. To the guy it doesn't matter what the ladies are doing to each other because his focus is on the number of female genitals available. So again it serves his purpose.
I've been meaning to write about the gay & lesbian topic for a while and I think this is a good time.
I'm lucky in the sense that of the few friends that I have, none of them care whether their friends are gay or straight. They're smart enough to separate character (how people treat one another) from sexual orientation (what people do in bed), a feat not many people can do.
But I also know it doesn't come without limits. Despite their coolness about it, they don't want to be seen hanging out with 'lady boys,' heavily made-up men who dress up as women. So their acceptance is actually tolerance. Its not the same thing. Hence my conclusion that it boils down to the protection of self image.
But that's reality isn't it. If you have coffee at Starbucks with an old male classmate who has become an effeminate drama queen, you worry that someone you know might notice you. You worry that the whole town will snicker at you the next day. Most people like to avoid that.
So when people are fearful, they like to brand themselves according to what they're NOT rather than what they ARE. Afraid to be suspected as gay? Then dramatize certain behaviors to send a message that you're NOT gay. You can brag about how many chicks you've laid last weekend and make fun of gays if necessary even though deep down you know trashing people's a bad thing.
About why males happily accept lesbians. Boys will be boys. They are aroused with one set of female genitalia at the scene. They're doubly aroused with two sets. So lesbianism, why not? I doubt if they'll comprehend lesbianism to be anything more than two women sexually stimulating each other.
Another thing. Men are immune to the natural show of friendship among females, the hand holding and hugging thingy. They wouldn't have a clue if there's something deeper going on between the girls. So he *shrugs* because to him its not fathomable, not real, no big deal.
If it sounds like men treat people like sex objects, as a male myself I'll admit its mostly true. I won't generalize except to say that most guys my age only have 2 things on their mind: sex and $$$.
I'll leave you with one thought. If you woke up tomorrow and found that society is no longer homophobic, would you still treat gays and lesbians the same way?
We can fart
You've heard this one I'm sure.
A shopowner woke up one day to discover that a new business had moved in next door. At the front of the shop was a big bold sign that said "Wee Kean Fatt." Not to be outdone, he called up his signage supplier who promptly came and hoisted up the sign "Soh Kean Wee."
Ok, I stumbled on a shop that sounded like the first part of the joke. Well sort of.
Anybody know a shop whose name can stand in for the second part of the joke?
A shopowner woke up one day to discover that a new business had moved in next door. At the front of the shop was a big bold sign that said "Wee Kean Fatt." Not to be outdone, he called up his signage supplier who promptly came and hoisted up the sign "Soh Kean Wee."
Ok, I stumbled on a shop that sounded like the first part of the joke. Well sort of.
Anybody know a shop whose name can stand in for the second part of the joke?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Male talents
A bit of self criticism for today. I find its ironic when men associate certain jobs with the 'weaker' sex when it is them who are at the top of the category. Examples:
Culinary arts
Fashion designer
Interior designer
Botanist
Fine arts
Tailor
Hair stylist
Masseuse
Modeling (some men are more beautiful than women :D)
Aren't all these dominated by men?
But I must be fair and say that men also top other categories like serial killer.
Women are the same aren't they. They too want to define 'male' jobs and 'female' jobs. A breadwinner must be a male job even if its the woman who earns more than the man.
Gender-stereotyping at work is so last-generation. Women are getting into macho jobs like security guards despite saying that providing security is a man's job. And men have not moved out of restaurant kitchens despite saying that cooking is a woman's job.
Even underwear doesn't escape this state of affairs. A generation ago who would foresee bikinis for men and boxers for women. There's man-bags now which is a more feminine version of the 'uncle-bag', that rectangular palm-sized leather bag than old uncles love to use. I hear we'll be seeing man-bras next for people with man-boobs like Simon of American Idol. And women can now pee standing up just like their male counterparts, thanks to some new inventions.
But I bet some forms of gender seterotyping will never go away.
Sometimes we expect to see this:
and then we see this:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hahahahahaha....
Culinary arts
Fashion designer
Interior designer
Botanist
Fine arts
Tailor
Hair stylist
Masseuse
Modeling (some men are more beautiful than women :D)
Aren't all these dominated by men?
But I must be fair and say that men also top other categories like serial killer.
Women are the same aren't they. They too want to define 'male' jobs and 'female' jobs. A breadwinner must be a male job even if its the woman who earns more than the man.
Gender-stereotyping at work is so last-generation. Women are getting into macho jobs like security guards despite saying that providing security is a man's job. And men have not moved out of restaurant kitchens despite saying that cooking is a woman's job.
Even underwear doesn't escape this state of affairs. A generation ago who would foresee bikinis for men and boxers for women. There's man-bags now which is a more feminine version of the 'uncle-bag', that rectangular palm-sized leather bag than old uncles love to use. I hear we'll be seeing man-bras next for people with man-boobs like Simon of American Idol. And women can now pee standing up just like their male counterparts, thanks to some new inventions.
But I bet some forms of gender seterotyping will never go away.
Sometimes we expect to see this:
and then we see this:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hahahahahaha....
Getting your way by saying No
Some people develop a curious reflex action of starting every sentence with "No lah!!" even though there's nothing to disagree with. Example:
A: Yay!! Its Friday, thank god.
B: Nahh lah! Friday oso u want to jump up and down.
I've been wondering about the benefits of this style of vehement disagreement to nothing in particular and this is what I want to analyze today, because I think there's more to it than meets the eye.
Right. Ahermm.
Firstly whether something is true or not, saying "No" can put you in control. Its a note of disapproval that can be designed to put you on the offensive and the other on the defensive. Nobody likes no's. For some, its a natural inborn communication style to draw others into adverserial positions to elicit a response, sort of like a verbal ambush. They mostly have no clue why people feel offended. You might not see this as a benefit unless you appreciate that to stake a good ambush, you must be on high ground. High school debaters understand this very well.
Secondly by saying no you establish a master-servant relationship. A "no" from you forces the other person to come back with options until you say yes, especially when they want to please you. Its a great tool for making others do your work if you're a lazy-ass mofo.
I once had a gf who liked to say its up to me where to go for dinner but she'll always say no to any place I mention. Was I a servant at that moment. Yes and the job? Go find a restaurant and don't come back until you find something that suits my exotic whim of the moment. All she has to do is sit like a queen and bestow her approval and disapproval depending on her fancy. So one day I came prepared. When she did that, I whipped out the yellow pages and told her here's every restaurant in the city, you choose. We broke up a week later. Guess it wasn't about choice after all but about control.
Thirdly saying no puts you on a higher plane of intellect. It sends a message that your wisdom is so superior that you naturally must be right. You talk, they listen, end of discussion. Its a great band-aid if you feel your ego is under constant threat.
Ok, now let me talk about the other side of things.
Differences in opinion is normal and actually necessary in a healthy debate. However the excessive and indiscriminate use of "No" is a sign of manipulativeness. I don't have to tell you how that can destroy friendships and relationships.
Like everything else, there is a time and place to assert your righteous "no", like in a work environment where there's a well-defined pecking order. Its fair to say that an army whose soldiers doesn't know who's boss is not a pretty sight.
Its not okay if you bring home that mode of thinking and start treating your friends and loved ones like privates in the army. They might not even subscribe to your shool of thought that being an asshole is being macho, sexy and therefore desirable. Well, when one can't connect the dots and the mouth moves faster than the brain, one can end up looking like an ass.
Then again, some people want to to be dominated. They want to be manipulated. And they look for a master to talk down to them. I'm not into S&M but if it floats their boat then who am I to say its bad, as long as I'm not at the receiving end.
For me personally, I have no special craving for approval (ok ok, I do want an approval code whenever they swipe my credit card) so I'd like to think I'm able to ditch friendships that are maniplative. Say no to me enough times for no good reason and I say bye bye to your phone number in my cell. It's not about being intolerant to diverse views but I am allergic to people who are clearly manipulative - you know, control freaks, pompous asses and the like.
But what if you want to say an honest no without pissing someone off?
How about replacing "no" with these words:
I have a different opinion.
There is another way. Listen to this.
Wouldn't that be a bad thing?
I see it differently.
Ok. What if .... (lay out your alternative view here)
The lesson I learnt is if you want to maintain a relationship that's harmonious, think before you say a big fat No to people in the face. Even if they're wrong. Its not whether you agree or disagree. Its how you disagree.
But then again not everyone is interested in maintaining a balanced relationship are they.
A: Yay!! Its Friday, thank god.
B: Nahh lah! Friday oso u want to jump up and down.
I've been wondering about the benefits of this style of vehement disagreement to nothing in particular and this is what I want to analyze today, because I think there's more to it than meets the eye.
Right. Ahermm.
Firstly whether something is true or not, saying "No" can put you in control. Its a note of disapproval that can be designed to put you on the offensive and the other on the defensive. Nobody likes no's. For some, its a natural inborn communication style to draw others into adverserial positions to elicit a response, sort of like a verbal ambush. They mostly have no clue why people feel offended. You might not see this as a benefit unless you appreciate that to stake a good ambush, you must be on high ground. High school debaters understand this very well.
Secondly by saying no you establish a master-servant relationship. A "no" from you forces the other person to come back with options until you say yes, especially when they want to please you. Its a great tool for making others do your work if you're a lazy-ass mofo.
I once had a gf who liked to say its up to me where to go for dinner but she'll always say no to any place I mention. Was I a servant at that moment. Yes and the job? Go find a restaurant and don't come back until you find something that suits my exotic whim of the moment. All she has to do is sit like a queen and bestow her approval and disapproval depending on her fancy. So one day I came prepared. When she did that, I whipped out the yellow pages and told her here's every restaurant in the city, you choose. We broke up a week later. Guess it wasn't about choice after all but about control.
Thirdly saying no puts you on a higher plane of intellect. It sends a message that your wisdom is so superior that you naturally must be right. You talk, they listen, end of discussion. Its a great band-aid if you feel your ego is under constant threat.
Ok, now let me talk about the other side of things.
Differences in opinion is normal and actually necessary in a healthy debate. However the excessive and indiscriminate use of "No" is a sign of manipulativeness. I don't have to tell you how that can destroy friendships and relationships.
Like everything else, there is a time and place to assert your righteous "no", like in a work environment where there's a well-defined pecking order. Its fair to say that an army whose soldiers doesn't know who's boss is not a pretty sight.
Its not okay if you bring home that mode of thinking and start treating your friends and loved ones like privates in the army. They might not even subscribe to your shool of thought that being an asshole is being macho, sexy and therefore desirable. Well, when one can't connect the dots and the mouth moves faster than the brain, one can end up looking like an ass.
Then again, some people want to to be dominated. They want to be manipulated. And they look for a master to talk down to them. I'm not into S&M but if it floats their boat then who am I to say its bad, as long as I'm not at the receiving end.
For me personally, I have no special craving for approval (ok ok, I do want an approval code whenever they swipe my credit card) so I'd like to think I'm able to ditch friendships that are maniplative. Say no to me enough times for no good reason and I say bye bye to your phone number in my cell. It's not about being intolerant to diverse views but I am allergic to people who are clearly manipulative - you know, control freaks, pompous asses and the like.
But what if you want to say an honest no without pissing someone off?
How about replacing "no" with these words:
I have a different opinion.
There is another way. Listen to this.
Wouldn't that be a bad thing?
I see it differently.
Ok. What if .... (lay out your alternative view here)
The lesson I learnt is if you want to maintain a relationship that's harmonious, think before you say a big fat No to people in the face. Even if they're wrong. Its not whether you agree or disagree. Its how you disagree.
But then again not everyone is interested in maintaining a balanced relationship are they.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Some random thoughts
At the midnight tai pai thong (big row of hawkers) the other night, a friend - one of the very few who knows I blog - asked me why do I continue blogging when hardly anyone bothers to leave comments. He also noticed that I have no ads. No adsense. No nuffnang. No paid reviews. So why waste my time?
This is probably a good place for me to say why I blog. I blog because I want to keep a diary. The main audience is me. I enjoy writing stuff down and revisiting it a few years later so I could laugh my head off. I'd keep a physical diary if I didn't always lose stuff like I do. A blog, now that's a lot harder to misplace.
But the biggest reason why I blog is a practical one. I blog because I think a lot better when I write. It started in school when I noticed that everytime I have a tough problem to crack, I would reach for a pen and paper and start drawing or scribbling away. Somehow, a solution will always find its way on that piece of paper. It only dawned on me much later that writing helps me break down a puzzle mentally into its smallest details. You could say its like meditation.
Do I blog for fame. On the contrary I place a high value in NOT being a celebrity. I wrote about why previously. Having visitors to this site is nice but having none is perfectly alright too since it was set out to be just a diary.
I place a link in PPS because I know that good ideas don't develop in isolation. It helps to know what other people think about what you write. But just as there's no such thing as perfect senses, there's no such thing as perfect perspectives, mine included. But that's cool. To live in a world where there's only one opinion would be a nightmare don't you think.
There is no right or wrong reason to blog. Oklah, maybe there's one. To blog as a means to settle scores with someone is where I draw the line. I believe in karma, online and offline.
People have their own reasons to blog and whether its for fame or personal image, hey go for it. Everyone should have a fair shot to be what they want to be, so long as no humans or animals are purposely hurt in the process.
That's my 2 cents worth about blogging.
This is probably a good place for me to say why I blog. I blog because I want to keep a diary. The main audience is me. I enjoy writing stuff down and revisiting it a few years later so I could laugh my head off. I'd keep a physical diary if I didn't always lose stuff like I do. A blog, now that's a lot harder to misplace.
But the biggest reason why I blog is a practical one. I blog because I think a lot better when I write. It started in school when I noticed that everytime I have a tough problem to crack, I would reach for a pen and paper and start drawing or scribbling away. Somehow, a solution will always find its way on that piece of paper. It only dawned on me much later that writing helps me break down a puzzle mentally into its smallest details. You could say its like meditation.
Do I blog for fame. On the contrary I place a high value in NOT being a celebrity. I wrote about why previously. Having visitors to this site is nice but having none is perfectly alright too since it was set out to be just a diary.
I place a link in PPS because I know that good ideas don't develop in isolation. It helps to know what other people think about what you write. But just as there's no such thing as perfect senses, there's no such thing as perfect perspectives, mine included. But that's cool. To live in a world where there's only one opinion would be a nightmare don't you think.
There is no right or wrong reason to blog. Oklah, maybe there's one. To blog as a means to settle scores with someone is where I draw the line. I believe in karma, online and offline.
People have their own reasons to blog and whether its for fame or personal image, hey go for it. Everyone should have a fair shot to be what they want to be, so long as no humans or animals are purposely hurt in the process.
That's my 2 cents worth about blogging.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
How to win a race in a traffic jam
Some time ago I arrived at the conclusion that Malaysia actually sits in the Bermuda triangle, unknown to most people. If you don't know what the Bermuda triangle is, it's an infamous part of the world where things defy the laws of logic.
In no other part of the world can you see cars turning left when they signal right, driving slow in the fast lane and driving towards you on a one-way street. Heck, you don't even find this in Bermuda.
This morning's drive was a classic case. Me and my buddy Mark agreed to meet up at Starbucks for an early morning coffee. Although we live in the same neighborhood, we drove separately. He's a fast driver like me. We placed a small bet. We'll take off from my house at the same time and the last person that arrives pays for breakfast.
We realize that at 8.30am on a working day, the roads will be choked with crawling traffic. The result? I won by 15 minutes.
How did I do it? Simple. When the road is jammed up, drive at the leftmost lane.
Yes that's the slow lane where the traffic moves fastest (Hey we're in the Bermuda triangle remember?). Like today, on one small stretch alone I overtook 26 near-stationary cars in the 'fast' lane.
Try it out and see if it works for you.
Anyway, thanks Mark for breakfast. Lets do it again sometime.
Friday, May 18, 2007
What do you think of girls who go for younger guys?
When I was 16 I had my first date ever with a girl who was 2 years older than I was. I was a coward then and she was the one who asked me out. I never thought about the age difference but I do remember being awed at how she handled the waiters at the place we went: a cozy pizza parlor in the suburbs of Chicago where I went to school. I was wowed that she actually drove her mom's car like an expert.
In college when I was about 20 years old I remember going out with another older girl. I remember she said she was 23. I said cool and that was that. She had a job in real estate. Again there was nothing that caused me to think about the numbers gap and we had a great time.
But when I came back here I notice a distinct preference in men to go for younger women, or perhaps older women who looked young. Yesterday was the 2nd time this week that someone asked me why I'm going out with an older woman. Shirley my gf is in reality 2 years younger than I am. We are kinda like Spiderman and his girlfriend.
Ok, maybe Shirl dresses up more maturely but that's her own style whereas I'm less picky about my clothes. I'm used to being mistaken for someone in his late teens. I guess I should have seen it coming.
Anyway there seems to be this unwritten rule here that girls are supposed to go out with guys older than them. Why? What difference does a couple of years make or even 5 or 6 for that matter. I actually have a friend in New Jersey who dated a 25 year old woman when he was 16. He thought she was hot and she didn't mind and they dated for a while. They separated when he went on to college.
Personally age was never a criteria for me. I can understand why its not a good idea to be dating someone old enough to be your parent but not if they are just a few years apart. Or am I missing something here?
In college when I was about 20 years old I remember going out with another older girl. I remember she said she was 23. I said cool and that was that. She had a job in real estate. Again there was nothing that caused me to think about the numbers gap and we had a great time.
But when I came back here I notice a distinct preference in men to go for younger women, or perhaps older women who looked young. Yesterday was the 2nd time this week that someone asked me why I'm going out with an older woman. Shirley my gf is in reality 2 years younger than I am. We are kinda like Spiderman and his girlfriend.
Ok, maybe Shirl dresses up more maturely but that's her own style whereas I'm less picky about my clothes. I'm used to being mistaken for someone in his late teens. I guess I should have seen it coming.
Anyway there seems to be this unwritten rule here that girls are supposed to go out with guys older than them. Why? What difference does a couple of years make or even 5 or 6 for that matter. I actually have a friend in New Jersey who dated a 25 year old woman when he was 16. He thought she was hot and she didn't mind and they dated for a while. They separated when he went on to college.
Personally age was never a criteria for me. I can understand why its not a good idea to be dating someone old enough to be your parent but not if they are just a few years apart. Or am I missing something here?
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The trouble with being a salesman
Everyone's wary of a salesman. The funniest thing is that even a salesman would avoid meeting another salesman. Why?
I guess people generally hate the idea of being sold to, of being led down the path to spend on something they don't need. Just look at all the people trying to shove their wares to you at the department store, especially at the fragrance department.
I'm like everyone else. I'll choose what I buy and where I buy it thank you very much. And yet I know that in reality we're all salesmen whether we like it or not.
I say that because we're always trying to convince others that we are nice people, that we have good intentions, that our idea is the best. There's a term for it - its called selling. On the other side we hope somebody will 'buy' what we sell, to be convinced that we are as nice as we say, that our idea is as good as we claim, that our church is better than the other one, etc etc.
Ever interviewed for a job? Well, you were selling. If you're good, they'll buy. If not, hasta la vista baby. What we're selling is not the point. The point is that whether you're trying to convince someone to hire you or you're selling shampoo, the thought processes are virtually identical. Think about it.
So next time if someone says "Salesmen are scum," ask them if they've really thought things through.
(Janet, I hope you're reading this :D)
I guess people generally hate the idea of being sold to, of being led down the path to spend on something they don't need. Just look at all the people trying to shove their wares to you at the department store, especially at the fragrance department.
I'm like everyone else. I'll choose what I buy and where I buy it thank you very much. And yet I know that in reality we're all salesmen whether we like it or not.
I say that because we're always trying to convince others that we are nice people, that we have good intentions, that our idea is the best. There's a term for it - its called selling. On the other side we hope somebody will 'buy' what we sell, to be convinced that we are as nice as we say, that our idea is as good as we claim, that our church is better than the other one, etc etc.
Ever interviewed for a job? Well, you were selling. If you're good, they'll buy. If not, hasta la vista baby. What we're selling is not the point. The point is that whether you're trying to convince someone to hire you or you're selling shampoo, the thought processes are virtually identical. Think about it.
So next time if someone says "Salesmen are scum," ask them if they've really thought things through.
(Janet, I hope you're reading this :D)
Monday, May 14, 2007
Hard choices
I bet everyone can name examples where money is power but not everyone can quote when money is NOT power. I mean the power to zap away problems. So let me quote a few.
When a kidnapper takes your loved ones. When you're robbed. When you're ripped off into paying more just because you look rich. When people say unkind words to you because they wanted more. When your gf or bf leaves you because of money. When the tax department comes after you.
Poor people have poor people problems and rich people have rich people problems. In reality the size of your wallet has nothing to do with your ability to attract problems. Its funny how we're conditioned to believe that money can make our problems disappear 'cause it doesn't.
I'm not pro or anti money. I don't dispute its necessity. I just want to recognize money for what it is - as merely the means to an end but not an end in itself. Yes I need it to survive but I won't sacrifice my sanity for it.
Why am I rambling about money? Because the day will soon come when I have to choose between managing a family fortune (or misfortune depending on how you look at it) and letting it go to my brother.
Yeah its always nice to have a business that gives you more money than you can use but when it comes to money I am cautious. I've seen how relatives flock to my father and seen the pain in his eyes when he deals with the insincere. I've seen the bitterness between associates, the anxious periods during tax audits, bodyguards, fear of extortionists, frivolous legal claims, things that latch themselves to money. These things don't give me the freedoms that I want
I'm no monk either and Shirley my gf might disagree with me on this but my ideal is to live as an average guy, drive an average car and wear average clothes but having enough in the bank to not have to worry about bills. I like being down to earth and being with down to earth people. Country club memberships and the stuffy folk that come with it's not my cup of tea. Neither are my BMW-driving cousins who's always competing against each other on who's got the most platinum cards.
Hmmm... the power to make people run at my beck and call or the power to be free from pretentiousness and groveling. Tough choice.
I dunno know about you but its kinda nice to not have to worry about such things.
When a kidnapper takes your loved ones. When you're robbed. When you're ripped off into paying more just because you look rich. When people say unkind words to you because they wanted more. When your gf or bf leaves you because of money. When the tax department comes after you.
Poor people have poor people problems and rich people have rich people problems. In reality the size of your wallet has nothing to do with your ability to attract problems. Its funny how we're conditioned to believe that money can make our problems disappear 'cause it doesn't.
I'm not pro or anti money. I don't dispute its necessity. I just want to recognize money for what it is - as merely the means to an end but not an end in itself. Yes I need it to survive but I won't sacrifice my sanity for it.
Why am I rambling about money? Because the day will soon come when I have to choose between managing a family fortune (or misfortune depending on how you look at it) and letting it go to my brother.
Yeah its always nice to have a business that gives you more money than you can use but when it comes to money I am cautious. I've seen how relatives flock to my father and seen the pain in his eyes when he deals with the insincere. I've seen the bitterness between associates, the anxious periods during tax audits, bodyguards, fear of extortionists, frivolous legal claims, things that latch themselves to money. These things don't give me the freedoms that I want
I'm no monk either and Shirley my gf might disagree with me on this but my ideal is to live as an average guy, drive an average car and wear average clothes but having enough in the bank to not have to worry about bills. I like being down to earth and being with down to earth people. Country club memberships and the stuffy folk that come with it's not my cup of tea. Neither are my BMW-driving cousins who's always competing against each other on who's got the most platinum cards.
Hmmm... the power to make people run at my beck and call or the power to be free from pretentiousness and groveling. Tough choice.
I dunno know about you but its kinda nice to not have to worry about such things.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Kimi's jinx and the Singapore GP
Poor "Ice man" Kimi Raikonnen. Last year's championship eluded him because his Mclaren car had reliability problems big time, so much so that it became predictable. Whenever he's this close to clinching a race, you'll know there's bound to be a suspension problem here, a tire problem there to force him into early retirement. You could even set up a betting counter to accept bets on what part of his car will go bust this time and you'd make money. The gods weren't smiling on him.
He must have heaved a sigh of relief to join Ferrari whose cars' resilience is legendary. Never a breakdown in years. But alas it was not to be. Kimi was forced out of the race yesterday due to an electrical failure that killed the engine as his teammate Massa roared on to win the race. I don't recall Ferrari ever having a problem like it. Did the unsmiling gods pack up and move over to Ferrari with him? I'm beginning to think so.
Man, what does Kimi need to do to win a race. He's got the grit. He's got the experience. And he's fast. But his luck is like crap.
On to other news. I'm elated that Singapore's officially on the 2008 F1 calendar, the year when Sepang's contract with FIA expires I believe. There's talk about night races in the street circuit, an idea promoted by Sepang at one time. And even more interesting is the fact that the private party behind Singapore GP Pte Ltd that'll tie up with the FIA, tycoon Ong Beng Seng, is Malaysian born. Very interesting.
So will F1 continue in Sepang after 2008? I hope so but I have some doubts. Only time will tell.
He must have heaved a sigh of relief to join Ferrari whose cars' resilience is legendary. Never a breakdown in years. But alas it was not to be. Kimi was forced out of the race yesterday due to an electrical failure that killed the engine as his teammate Massa roared on to win the race. I don't recall Ferrari ever having a problem like it. Did the unsmiling gods pack up and move over to Ferrari with him? I'm beginning to think so.
Man, what does Kimi need to do to win a race. He's got the grit. He's got the experience. And he's fast. But his luck is like crap.
On to other news. I'm elated that Singapore's officially on the 2008 F1 calendar, the year when Sepang's contract with FIA expires I believe. There's talk about night races in the street circuit, an idea promoted by Sepang at one time. And even more interesting is the fact that the private party behind Singapore GP Pte Ltd that'll tie up with the FIA, tycoon Ong Beng Seng, is Malaysian born. Very interesting.
So will F1 continue in Sepang after 2008? I hope so but I have some doubts. Only time will tell.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Don't mix business and friendship
I hate member get member schemes.
A friend of mine tried to soft sell me something the other day. I was partly amused and partly annoyed. Amused because being a normally shy and quiet guy, he's a disaster at selling. Annoyed because I hate to see a good relationship commercialized.
Ok, maybe its just me but I always have this thing against profiting from friends and loved ones. Money has a way of changing relationships, not always for the better. I don't like to wonder about my freinds' intentions everytime they call. It's not cool.
I agree there's nothing wrong with making a buck from a friend IF he is a willing party. The trouble is I was not a willing party. I didn't need the thing he was selling and I didn't enjoy telling him to zip it after he went on and on about it all evening. For me to buy it out of pity or to make him shut up is to be insincere. Either way it puts me in an awkward position. I hope he didn't take my rejection too personally.
I know many people have customers who eventually become their good friends but there's a big difference - the part about willing parties. Not everyone's willing to let their friendship be transformed into a platform to promote products and make profits.
Anyway it was a rude reminder to me that even reputable companies are not beneath the tactics of dodgy MLM companies in turning their customers into direct salesmen. I've seen credit card, insurance and telecomms companies do it and in the process contaminating the trustworthiness factor of their brands. So damn stupid.
Are the companies to blame? I don't think so. A tiger cannot change its stripes. If there's one thing they understand, its the power of money and people's hunger for it. In the end its up to us whether to take the bait or not.
A friend of mine tried to soft sell me something the other day. I was partly amused and partly annoyed. Amused because being a normally shy and quiet guy, he's a disaster at selling. Annoyed because I hate to see a good relationship commercialized.
Ok, maybe its just me but I always have this thing against profiting from friends and loved ones. Money has a way of changing relationships, not always for the better. I don't like to wonder about my freinds' intentions everytime they call. It's not cool.
I agree there's nothing wrong with making a buck from a friend IF he is a willing party. The trouble is I was not a willing party. I didn't need the thing he was selling and I didn't enjoy telling him to zip it after he went on and on about it all evening. For me to buy it out of pity or to make him shut up is to be insincere. Either way it puts me in an awkward position. I hope he didn't take my rejection too personally.
I know many people have customers who eventually become their good friends but there's a big difference - the part about willing parties. Not everyone's willing to let their friendship be transformed into a platform to promote products and make profits.
Anyway it was a rude reminder to me that even reputable companies are not beneath the tactics of dodgy MLM companies in turning their customers into direct salesmen. I've seen credit card, insurance and telecomms companies do it and in the process contaminating the trustworthiness factor of their brands. So damn stupid.
Are the companies to blame? I don't think so. A tiger cannot change its stripes. If there's one thing they understand, its the power of money and people's hunger for it. In the end its up to us whether to take the bait or not.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Child disciplining: Are there limits?
This post is a little awkward for me as I'm not a parent but I recently saw a couple of sights that nauseated me.
First, a mother of 3 who makes it an almost daily affair to simultaneously beat all her children aged 1-5. The weapon is a plastic clothes hanger. The whippings can be heard a couple of houses away and if you could turn off the screams, the sound of the hanger's impact with the body is enough to tell you she's using all her strength to inflict pain. And not only that. Every episode is accompanied by a series of loud thuds. I imagine either the kids would fall or worse, they may be purposely flung against the wall as part of the punishment. I'll say again, the kids are 1-5 years old and the episodes occur almost daily.
The second one was at a chinese restaurant. A female kid, also about 5 years, was having a tense moment with her mother. Crying loudly, the kid sat at the far end of the table to sulk. Suddenly the mother chased her around the table whacking her with a plate with all her might. This was right in the middle of a packed restaurant. The child screamed trying to ward off the blow with her tiny hands but the mother continued to beat her face with the plate. I swear when the mum paused to lean on a chair, I thought she was going to pick it up and smash it (the chair) against her child. She looked mad enough. Fortunately one of the patrons, a mid-aged father of two, stepped in using kind and calm words to separate the two.
All I can ask about the violence is, why?
I say violence because its not the same as disciplining. As a kid I've received my share of spanking which I'm sure I deserved but never to this degree.
What drives a mother to hurt the people she's supposed to love the most? What do you suppose the kids will grow up into?
First, a mother of 3 who makes it an almost daily affair to simultaneously beat all her children aged 1-5. The weapon is a plastic clothes hanger. The whippings can be heard a couple of houses away and if you could turn off the screams, the sound of the hanger's impact with the body is enough to tell you she's using all her strength to inflict pain. And not only that. Every episode is accompanied by a series of loud thuds. I imagine either the kids would fall or worse, they may be purposely flung against the wall as part of the punishment. I'll say again, the kids are 1-5 years old and the episodes occur almost daily.
The second one was at a chinese restaurant. A female kid, also about 5 years, was having a tense moment with her mother. Crying loudly, the kid sat at the far end of the table to sulk. Suddenly the mother chased her around the table whacking her with a plate with all her might. This was right in the middle of a packed restaurant. The child screamed trying to ward off the blow with her tiny hands but the mother continued to beat her face with the plate. I swear when the mum paused to lean on a chair, I thought she was going to pick it up and smash it (the chair) against her child. She looked mad enough. Fortunately one of the patrons, a mid-aged father of two, stepped in using kind and calm words to separate the two.
All I can ask about the violence is, why?
I say violence because its not the same as disciplining. As a kid I've received my share of spanking which I'm sure I deserved but never to this degree.
What drives a mother to hurt the people she's supposed to love the most? What do you suppose the kids will grow up into?
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Spiderman 3: My Review
[Don't worry no spoliers ahead]
Cross Spiderman 1 & 2, Mask and the Powerpuff Girls and what do you get? Yep, Spiderman 3.
For a Saturday night, the GSC at 1 Utama wasn't packed as it normally would be and I had no trouble smuggling something into the cinema. Not a video camera obviously but a can of Pringles potato chips since there was nothing at the popcorn stand that could last me through the 2.5 hr show. Shirley carried the drinks.
The movie started with a few flashbacks to serve as useful reminders as to why the story developed the way it did. As far as the action scenes went, there was nothing new. Its the same old swinging around and bashing people up.
But if you can see beyond simply action, you'll find where the gem truly is. I only realized about an hour into the show that a message slowly was sinking in - that while its easy to get mad and destroy the things we hate, forgiving ourselves and our enemies is a tougher yet more noble way of solving conflict. For me the story unravelled itself as one about friendship, betrayal, anger and forgiveness and ultimately about how to get peace.
The fact that a movie like this had a message at all made it superior to the 1st and 2nd installation of Spiderman. And for that I give it an enthusiastic thumbs up.
So why do I compare it to the movie Mask? Well, when Peter Parker was under the control of the alien black thing, his persona took on dark side. He then got aggressive and started kacau-ing the girls, danced on countertops and generally made an ass of himself on the streets of NYC. That was a mirror of Jim Carey's trademark character in the Mask.
And the Powerpuff Girls? Well, look at how Spiderman and Green Goblin Jr tried to take on the gigantic Sandman, then look at how Blossom & Buttercup try to take out a monster attacking Townsville. Then you'll see what I mean.
But that doesn't change my view that this is one of the better Spiderman installments so far. My recommendation: go watch it.
Cross Spiderman 1 & 2, Mask and the Powerpuff Girls and what do you get? Yep, Spiderman 3.
For a Saturday night, the GSC at 1 Utama wasn't packed as it normally would be and I had no trouble smuggling something into the cinema. Not a video camera obviously but a can of Pringles potato chips since there was nothing at the popcorn stand that could last me through the 2.5 hr show. Shirley carried the drinks.
The movie started with a few flashbacks to serve as useful reminders as to why the story developed the way it did. As far as the action scenes went, there was nothing new. Its the same old swinging around and bashing people up.
But if you can see beyond simply action, you'll find where the gem truly is. I only realized about an hour into the show that a message slowly was sinking in - that while its easy to get mad and destroy the things we hate, forgiving ourselves and our enemies is a tougher yet more noble way of solving conflict. For me the story unravelled itself as one about friendship, betrayal, anger and forgiveness and ultimately about how to get peace.
The fact that a movie like this had a message at all made it superior to the 1st and 2nd installation of Spiderman. And for that I give it an enthusiastic thumbs up.
So why do I compare it to the movie Mask? Well, when Peter Parker was under the control of the alien black thing, his persona took on dark side. He then got aggressive and started kacau-ing the girls, danced on countertops and generally made an ass of himself on the streets of NYC. That was a mirror of Jim Carey's trademark character in the Mask.
And the Powerpuff Girls? Well, look at how Spiderman and Green Goblin Jr tried to take on the gigantic Sandman, then look at how Blossom & Buttercup try to take out a monster attacking Townsville. Then you'll see what I mean.
But that doesn't change my view that this is one of the better Spiderman installments so far. My recommendation: go watch it.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Noisy mamaks
What is it with Malaysians and loud noise.
I was at a 24-hour mamak stall last night with some friends, one of those corner shop affairs that would set up its chairs and tables al fresco (under the open sky) after dusk. Nowadays its becoming fashionable for mamak shops to show soccer matches on a large screens placed outdoors, with sound system cranked up loud. Except this wasn't the only source of entertainment for this shop.
Inside the shop, they were showing a movie on two large screen tvs. The sound was pumped though a home theater system which you can hear from half a block away. On top of that they had Hindi music playing from a cheap cassette player sitting behind the cashier, the volume pushed up to pierce the mighty home theater with its shrill tinny sound. And all the speakers were strategically aimed ar the crowd of 15-odd tables outside.
So there we were sitting in the middle of the crowd. I was struggling to hear the conversation above the din bombarding us from different directions. I could not hear myself think. For much of the night I just sat there paralyzed, having one teh tarik after another.
Surprisingly nobody was bothered by this very loud assault on their auditory senses. Everyone was happily shouting and laughing at the top of their voices.
This noise cocktail reminds me of hot drink mixes popular here like cham (tea plus coffee) and Neslo (instant coffee plus milo) except that this is closer to strong tea, coffee, milo, coca cola and fanta grape mixed together with condensed milk and a spoonful of salt.
Or maybe its just me. I am unlucky enough to be born hypersensitive to sound. In school I could never understand how people could study with Bon Jovi turned up at full blast. Nor could I figure out how my old roommate could play mp3s on winamp, play a noisy computer game and watch tv across the room all at the same time. My brain just jams up when it tries to process too many sound inputs all at once.
Back to Malaysians. Has anyone noticed that tv sets have become mandatory fixtures at tom yum stalls. To stand out in the crowd the stall operator would try to drown out the neighbour's tv volume, usually with the help of a powerful home theater system and strategically placed speakers. To double the attraction of his stall, he turns on a CD player and cranks it up to compete with his own tv set. To triple the attraction, he sets up a third sound source, maybe local talk radio, to compete with the first two. To quadruple the effect... well you get the picture. All this emanating from a stall no larger than 3mx3m. And from the looks of it the patrons seem to love not being able to tell when one song ends and another begins.
And its not just food establishments. I took a 5-hour ride in a bas ekspres once. In his infinite wisdom the bus attendant decided to turn on the "in-flight" entertainment so that the passengers can enjoy two Hindi movies back to back on a high mounted tv. The volume was cranked up until the speaker crackled. It didn't matter to him that it was 11pm and that some passengers might actually be desperately trying to catch some sleep. I think the expectation is for you to just sit down and take whatever's dished out to you.
If you think this only happens in hawkers and cheap express buses, you're dead wrong. How about the flying mamak express. On a couple of international MAS flights, I got so annoyed with the overly loud (and cheesy) music they played during descent that I flagged the steward and asked him, "Excuse me, isn't the volume a bit loud? I didn't know we're a flying disco." He just smiled and guess what. He disappeared to the galley and did nothing. Only after I called him a second time, took down his name and told him exactly what I would do if he didn't lower the volume did he lower it.
Trust me, when you're thrown about by turbulence and your eardrums are struggling with cabin depressurization, the last thing you want to be is drowned in loud music.
This obsession with shoving loud sounds down people's ears permeates in every level of society here - from village warungs to taxis to 5-star hotels. Why? I haven't the faintest idea. I suppose its one of those things that makes Malaysia uniquely Malaysia.
I was at a 24-hour mamak stall last night with some friends, one of those corner shop affairs that would set up its chairs and tables al fresco (under the open sky) after dusk. Nowadays its becoming fashionable for mamak shops to show soccer matches on a large screens placed outdoors, with sound system cranked up loud. Except this wasn't the only source of entertainment for this shop.
Inside the shop, they were showing a movie on two large screen tvs. The sound was pumped though a home theater system which you can hear from half a block away. On top of that they had Hindi music playing from a cheap cassette player sitting behind the cashier, the volume pushed up to pierce the mighty home theater with its shrill tinny sound. And all the speakers were strategically aimed ar the crowd of 15-odd tables outside.
So there we were sitting in the middle of the crowd. I was struggling to hear the conversation above the din bombarding us from different directions. I could not hear myself think. For much of the night I just sat there paralyzed, having one teh tarik after another.
Surprisingly nobody was bothered by this very loud assault on their auditory senses. Everyone was happily shouting and laughing at the top of their voices.
This noise cocktail reminds me of hot drink mixes popular here like cham (tea plus coffee) and Neslo (instant coffee plus milo) except that this is closer to strong tea, coffee, milo, coca cola and fanta grape mixed together with condensed milk and a spoonful of salt.
Or maybe its just me. I am unlucky enough to be born hypersensitive to sound. In school I could never understand how people could study with Bon Jovi turned up at full blast. Nor could I figure out how my old roommate could play mp3s on winamp, play a noisy computer game and watch tv across the room all at the same time. My brain just jams up when it tries to process too many sound inputs all at once.
Back to Malaysians. Has anyone noticed that tv sets have become mandatory fixtures at tom yum stalls. To stand out in the crowd the stall operator would try to drown out the neighbour's tv volume, usually with the help of a powerful home theater system and strategically placed speakers. To double the attraction of his stall, he turns on a CD player and cranks it up to compete with his own tv set. To triple the attraction, he sets up a third sound source, maybe local talk radio, to compete with the first two. To quadruple the effect... well you get the picture. All this emanating from a stall no larger than 3mx3m. And from the looks of it the patrons seem to love not being able to tell when one song ends and another begins.
And its not just food establishments. I took a 5-hour ride in a bas ekspres once. In his infinite wisdom the bus attendant decided to turn on the "in-flight" entertainment so that the passengers can enjoy two Hindi movies back to back on a high mounted tv. The volume was cranked up until the speaker crackled. It didn't matter to him that it was 11pm and that some passengers might actually be desperately trying to catch some sleep. I think the expectation is for you to just sit down and take whatever's dished out to you.
If you think this only happens in hawkers and cheap express buses, you're dead wrong. How about the flying mamak express. On a couple of international MAS flights, I got so annoyed with the overly loud (and cheesy) music they played during descent that I flagged the steward and asked him, "Excuse me, isn't the volume a bit loud? I didn't know we're a flying disco." He just smiled and guess what. He disappeared to the galley and did nothing. Only after I called him a second time, took down his name and told him exactly what I would do if he didn't lower the volume did he lower it.
Trust me, when you're thrown about by turbulence and your eardrums are struggling with cabin depressurization, the last thing you want to be is drowned in loud music.
This obsession with shoving loud sounds down people's ears permeates in every level of society here - from village warungs to taxis to 5-star hotels. Why? I haven't the faintest idea. I suppose its one of those things that makes Malaysia uniquely Malaysia.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
What do girls really look for in a guy?
I thought I had the answer to this but somewhow I found myself stumped when someone asked me the question yesterday.
Well actually the first thing that came to my mind was the old Singaporean "5C" answer a.k.a. Cash, car, credit card, condo, cock.
Now the last item has to be mentioned because out of 100 people walking down Orchard Road that looks like a guy, some are not really guys if you know what I mean.
But I wonder is the 5C answer still true today?
Before you say something I have a better question: Is that all that girls want?
I mean what if the guy is 80 years old and raves like a crazy lunatic but endowed with the 5C's? What if he's fat and lazy and full of shit but rich?
I think the 5C answer is presumptous. It assumes that all girls leech off their guys for material comfort (girls, doesn't that just piss you off?), you know, the insistence that the boy must always pick up the tab at the restaurant and for just about everything that costs money. It may be normal in my grandfather's time but women didn't demand equality then.
But wait, who am I kidding. Have you ever met a girl who offers to pick up the tab at the restaurant? I haven't. Note to self: Next time I spot the waiter coming with the check, I should try excusing myself to the bathroom and see if she ponies up the money or hovers over the unpaid check with a saccharin-sweet smile until I come back.
Ok, so maybe the first 4C's are still valid and whether the girl believes in chivalry or just is a plain simple freeloader, the outcome is all the same - the guy pays.
Conclusion: a girl looks for someone to "take care" of her financially, never mind if she's more "loaded" than the guy.
Now on to the 5th C. There was a time when I actually believed that girls didn't really like sex but treated it as the price to pay for love. Nowadays if you don't give any sexual innuendos on the first date she'll think you're gay.
Conclusion then: a girl uses sex as a tool to tie up a guy into a long term commitment so she can freeload a little longer so you definitely must have a cock.
Conclusion now: Uhhh.... (is sex still an effective tool to reign a guy in nowadays? I thot have cock will travel.)
Now despite this carefully structured analysis that I've laid out, I know girls will bash my head with their purse if I tell them this is what they really want. So anyone know the answer?
Well actually the first thing that came to my mind was the old Singaporean "5C" answer a.k.a. Cash, car, credit card, condo, cock.
Now the last item has to be mentioned because out of 100 people walking down Orchard Road that looks like a guy, some are not really guys if you know what I mean.
But I wonder is the 5C answer still true today?
Before you say something I have a better question: Is that all that girls want?
I mean what if the guy is 80 years old and raves like a crazy lunatic but endowed with the 5C's? What if he's fat and lazy and full of shit but rich?
I think the 5C answer is presumptous. It assumes that all girls leech off their guys for material comfort (girls, doesn't that just piss you off?), you know, the insistence that the boy must always pick up the tab at the restaurant and for just about everything that costs money. It may be normal in my grandfather's time but women didn't demand equality then.
But wait, who am I kidding. Have you ever met a girl who offers to pick up the tab at the restaurant? I haven't. Note to self: Next time I spot the waiter coming with the check, I should try excusing myself to the bathroom and see if she ponies up the money or hovers over the unpaid check with a saccharin-sweet smile until I come back.
Ok, so maybe the first 4C's are still valid and whether the girl believes in chivalry or just is a plain simple freeloader, the outcome is all the same - the guy pays.
Conclusion: a girl looks for someone to "take care" of her financially, never mind if she's more "loaded" than the guy.
Now on to the 5th C. There was a time when I actually believed that girls didn't really like sex but treated it as the price to pay for love. Nowadays if you don't give any sexual innuendos on the first date she'll think you're gay.
Conclusion then: a girl uses sex as a tool to tie up a guy into a long term commitment so she can freeload a little longer so you definitely must have a cock.
Conclusion now: Uhhh.... (is sex still an effective tool to reign a guy in nowadays? I thot have cock will travel.)
Now despite this carefully structured analysis that I've laid out, I know girls will bash my head with their purse if I tell them this is what they really want. So anyone know the answer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)