Friday, April 29, 2005

The Bonus Post

Hi,
Here is the bonus I was talking to you about. Something to ponder over:

We are brought up in a culture to treat materialistic things as "bad" or in a condescending manner.
What do you want in life?
Money.
What? Money? Shee. You are so materialistic...

So be it with appearances. To say that I want a good looking guy is considered so ... (I don't want to use that word here). If the girl said "I like someone understanding and caring..." Oh! She is so nice and mature and ... humbug. Is it wrong for a girl to want a good looking guy (nothing withstanding)? We hear so often that the matrimonial advt. are getting so "urgggh". Wanted a pretty homely fair girl. So cheap. Why? Should a guy say plain, dark "plumpish" girl? Why would they? Why would anyone say that? Some people can't stand fat. Some people can't stand a flat stubby nose. So what's wrong? Are we fostering an environment of lies in order to appear decent and civilised?

Is it wrong for a person to be clear in saying that "Money matters to me and I am going headlong into it" or "I want to get married only to US guys, because I get a free trip to US and don't have to exert myself too much for that"?

If your philosophy doesn't agree with it, does it become a bad philosophy if someone else follows it?

If a guy rejected a girl because she was plain, would you call him a cheapo?

7 comments:

  1. Like I always say-"Each one to his own"
    I dislike dogma of any kind.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Long time ... No long comments!

    Anyways, A girl wanting a cute guy, guy wanting a cute gal, some one wanting money ...

    NO - NOTHING WRONG in any of it. What actually is wrong is advertising what you want the way you want it. Well, you will rightly tell me off now - that unless you do advertise you are not gonna get what you want. Yup, agreed - but (as always the 'but') the point is when you do advertise - advertise what you want and dont advertise the choices you had either to the one you chose or to any one for that matter - That is where you show yourself to be either a man / woman or a cheapo. Certain things are better left unsaid ... ah ha :-)

    So, see you next week end.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i dont think there is anything wrong with it either. i guess some ppl think it is superficial, but if u are u are. i dont know. i am not wise. i am just me. and yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear W,
    I understand, but the post was more like an invite into pondering over the subject and then (maybe) sharing with us what would you do. No judgements passed.

    Dear Trou,
    Are you asking me why I haven't commented on your blog in a while or are you merely exclaiming that you haven't commented long ones on mine? Nobody advertises the "one that got away". They advertise what they want. So homely girl is what they want. Handsome boy is what they want. How else should they put that across? Someone go so far as saying "green card holder". Cool!!! :-))

    Dear N,
    :-) Glad that you are just yourself! Lot of people like Eroteme try to be wise and fall flat on their face! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Intellectual compatibility, physical beauty, wealth, good habits, horoscope match, blah, blah - what is the difference between each of these demands? They all sound the same to me. I think it is the mindset that forges the relationship.

    If one is called "cheap" for demanding physical beauty in his/her spouse, the same should be applied for one who demands "sensitivity."

    But ultimately, I agree with wookie. "To each his/her own."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear M, :-)
    What do I say? You couldn't help squeeze the "horoscope match" could you? ;-)
    Not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying demanding anything from life and its participants is unacceptable or silly? Have you tried or dreamt of a life and lifestyle where there were no demands?
    Not sure whether your comparison of physical beauty and sensitivity holds weight as an argument. Would we get into the realm of necessities and preferences? The wants and the essentials...
    Glad you agree with Wookie.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Parvati9:45 AM

    @Eroteme: There are levels levels all over the place, as I observe times without number - hierarchies, levels of depths, the outflowing ripples laterally of one's influence. And when stuck on the outermost levels of looks, money per se, without looking at the covert richer possibilities or realities of a human being, you are a cheapo, you are superficial, and you are the loser. Because you miss out on a wonderful world of infinite complications in that person, that you dont have an outer or an inner eye for.

    Externalities are brittle, howsoever pleasing to the ephemeral in us. If we live our whole lives on the surface of our natures, then maybe we will be happy with our priority accorded to looks and money. But god forbid, if we become slightly inner oriented, and higher developed our chosen life would be unbearable.

    And then our ads would read "Looks and money moot. Sensitivity, intelligence, deep thinking philosopher needed..."

    Ultimately, the bottomline is that, ideally all of us should be always extremely beautiful inside and outside period and have a lot of money.

    So that such requirements are naturally and automatically satisfied by nature herself. And beauty is such an omnipresent commodity in our ideal world that we dont have to speak about it at all.

    And that's a lot of drivel that I have written here...

    ReplyDelete