Monday, December 28, 2009


remember the primary school days when you thought the friends you had then, would be the only friends you would ever have? and the enemies you had, would hate you forever? funny how once you hit high school, you also get hit with the reality that the world is full of more people than you think. normally, a friend can be described as a companion, another person you share interests with or (according to sources) a person who is attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard. however, there are so many different kinds of friends one can have, a dictionary definition of the word barely applies anymore.
in high school, many people have the same system of classification, in regards to who their friends are.
firstly, most people have a best friend, or more commonly known as a BFF. you know, that one "main" friend who knows all the secrets and who would never betray you.
secondly, they have that circle of friends, commonly known as "the girls" or "the boys". these are the ones who you sit with at lunch, or party with on the weekends. they know a fair few of your secrets and the latest on who you are dating.
thirdly, there are the individual friends. those being the ones who you sit with in class, and go hang out with when your circle gets annoying.
fourthly, there are the acquaintances. those being the people you're not really friends with, but who you say hey to three or four times a day.
finally, there are those "other friends" that you aren't really a fan of, but talk to anyway.
these catergories are rarely declared, however they do exist. they exist right until the morning after graduation. it is at this moment, the fences between the different types of friends one has and the fences between the stereotyped groups seem to magically apparate (like harry potter characters), thus the meddling of everyone begins.
whether it takes six days or six months, you're friends from highschool will only be your friends for as long as you keep them in your life. of course it's hard when people move away for work, or uni, or to travel. but if you want that best friend to be the one you turn to once you've cheated on your husband of five years, then you have to push through and make it happen.
you wouldn't think it would be that hard to keep in touch with people, especially with the many ways of communication. calling. texting. email. myspace. twitter. facebook. you could even go vintage-style and write you're old goon-buddy a letter! either way, if two people want to keep a connection, they will.
some people however still struggle to keep certain friends in their lives. their excuse of "being busy", is quite pathetic really, and it is generally code for "since-i-don't-have-english,-maths-and-art-with-you-i-realise-you're-not-that-interesting". being on the receiving end of this situation, (that is, thinking you had a good connection with someone but then realising they never want to catch up) can be hard to adjust to as you are used to seeing them everyday. but really, if they don't want to be you're friend, clearly you deserve better than that. realistically, you can't go forcing something that is destined to end and if this happens to be the case, go mingle with new crowds when you hit the clubs. go on randoming adding sprees on facebook. and even with the friendship-group fences gone, (where the highschool rules don't apply) go be friends with that girl who hooked up with your acquaintances boyfriend if you want to. it shouldn't matter who you are friends with, as long as they make you happy.
high school traps people into believing your friends are based on, or can determine, your status. the real world teaches people that personal status means nothing compared to happiness. humans are social beings. so whether it be old friends, new friends, life-long friends or just temporary friends, we all need them. so just make it happen.

Friday, October 16, 2009

actions speak louder than words.

"actions speak louder than words." cliché? yes. true? more than ever before.

the most important feelings cannot be explained by words. it's possible that back in the day, they could have been. but the australian-english language is already disintegrating into cyber abbreviations that the true meaning of most words has seemed to vanish. ily, btw, atm, l8er, wot, wtf, omg, brb, lol, gtg and ttyl are just to name a few. when it all started, i agree it was "cool" and to be honest, a lot quicker to type/text, but it's actually sad that it has now become apart of our everyday face-to-face conversations. instead of hearing, i love you! between two friends, it's ily. instead of making that little chuckle (you know the one where you think it's funny, but just can't be bothered laughing properly) we now hear, lol. it's as if all the youth of today are apart of a secret service that has ordered us to talk in code, so we can merely confused each other and lower our intelligence levels. it has always been hard to understand people when they try and express their feelings. but now it's harder than ever when you have to waste so much time decoding everything.
what ever happened to people having real conversations, about real issues, about real feelings? why has it all be traded for "like w.t.f, she so totally stole my myspace song"?
taking these shortcuts may have seemed convenient at the time, but it's gone so beyond being appropriate, ir is now causing the level of depth in our verbal communication to decrease rapidly. people need to understand that just because a conversation is the easiest form of communication, doesn't mean it is the only one. think of how often you have touched, or have been touched, by someone in a caring way? a hug? a scruff of the hair? even a pat on the shoulder? how about, how often you find yourself sending or recieving messages like "ru ok? *hugs*"? it's shocking to realise that genuine human interaction has been replaced by technological advances. it's only a matter of time before people are having sex via their computers and mobiles. no wait, we have already gotten there. sexting and cybersex would be the disappointing substitute.
talking is great, texting is convenient, and instant messaging is quick. but no wonder people are saying romance and sentiment are dead. because when you think about it, they really are. what happened to passionate, desireable physical moments? were they not replaced with emails saying, "i miss u so much babi!!"? what happened to keeping the reciept from your first date together? has that not been replaced with saving a text message saying, "2nite waz so fun ;)"? it's not healthy that people strive for this virtual affection.
what everybody needs to do is instead of sitting on the couch and saying metaphorically, go out and smell the roses, they need to actually get off their arse, go outside and literally smell the roses. life isn't about telling people what you want, telling people what you think is right and explaining how you feel. it's about doing what you want, doing what you think is right and showing how you feel.

life wishlist.

remember the days when your birthday and christmas wishlist would be so long, it would have been easier to give your mum the whole toy section from the target catalogue, rather than write it down? the days that would relieve you of extreme anticipation which was caused by the mind thinking, am i going to ride my bike or play with tamagochi first? the days when you had both your parents and a jolly old fat man to give you everything your heart desired. the days that (we now realise) have flied past us, leaving our priorities, our wants and needs in our own hands.
at the age of eight, we had a perception of what was a 'hard life'. we thought the bullies would be in our lives 'til death. we thought getting a detention was the most horrific punishment one could experience. and we thought having nothing to do was almost as bad as that detention. we also had the perception of what was an easy life. we thought a band-aid could fix everything. we thought having three boyfriends at once was okay. we thought crying would let us get our way. and we thought absolutely anything was possible. but now, at the age of eighteen, we realise that in the real world - not the fantasy childhood we all once lived in - that everything we thought has now been interchanged. the reality is, bullies are no-hopers, detentions are pointless and having nothing to do is something we all crave on a regular basis. the reality is band-aids don't really fix anything at all, having three boyfriends at once is social suicide, all crying gets you is a headache and most things, are sometimes possible.
these realisations caused questions to emerge.
why is it that the unrealistic issues of a child's life is easily fixed by one man - santa claus - yet, when the realistic issues we face for the rest of our lives cannot be fixed by anyone but ourselves? why can't we have a st. nicholas lifecoach to hand us our wants and needs from his sleigh in late adolescence? and why is it that, even though we don't have that one person to grant us with our heart's desires, we still create that wishlist? of course there is the obvious answer - that being, we can't have one man handing out our wants and needs as we would like because then life would be easy. life would be pointless. but, when you look past that response and start to contemplate if there is a point to life even when you accomplish things on your own, then why can't we all have the best out of life from day one? it's a disappointing thought. yet, to keep our minds whats real and what's not, people everywhere are planning the rest of their lives, sometimes realistically, sometimes fantasy. now, there's an irony, inside an irony.
whether you call it life goals or aspirations for the future, once your real priorities set in and you have to fend for yourself, your wishlist has gone from a nintendo ds, a barbie doll, the new barney dvd and a bunch of lego, to, four key things. success. happiness. love. money. these wishful items seem so simple,when really the are extremely complex. i guess when reminding yourself of your wishlist, you have to realise that, even the magical santa claus can't give you all the toys you want in the one christmas day. thus, you shouldn't be too hard on your non-magical self when those four things aren't all in your life at once.


whether it is treating someone the way you would like to be treated, knowing the boundries and never pushing someone over the edge, or even simple qualities such as honesty, loyalty, considertion - respect is one of the things that keeps the little amount of peace we have left in the world. it is a word with a complex meaning; a word which is hard to define. yet, we all seem to have the knowledge - of what respect is - programmed into our brains.
when you first meet someone, the respect you have for them is on a neutral level. you aren't positively respectful of them, nor are you disrespectful. it is simply, civility. once their first and second impressions subside, you are able to form an amount of respect you have for them. and this conclusion is generally drawn from what society perceives acceptable respectful behaviour. according to society, a person who is respectful to others (and their property) is someone who is not rude, but polite. someone who is not a compulsive liar, but honest. and someone who is both genuine and sincere. as the world changes though, respect is something that can get a little lost.
there are many negative feelings we can experience towards other people, the worst of all being hatred. and this is a feeling that cannot occur unless there is an absence of respect. you can dislike someone very much, but still hold an ounce of respect for them. however, then in a spilt second moment - a split second choice of words or actions made by them - the respect can be flushed down the toilet. and you're left feeling betrayed. utterly repulsed. so once you're left with disliking someone and no respect for them, what are you meant to do apart from have hatred towards them?
no one is better than anyone else. we are all equal. but showing disrespect is treating someone not as an equal but as something you would throw in with the rubbish. disrespect is as low as one can go and is an action that cannot be reversed. disrespect is as low as one can go and for that, i don't value you at all.

valentine's day.

for decades, the fourteenth of february has been a day of exchanging flowers, chocolates and teddy bears between two people who are romantically involved. this is known to everyone all over the world as st. valentine's day. generally speaking - based on the on-going tradition - females in relationships enjoy this day as it is another chance for them to be spoiled by the ones they care about, and then it is the men who sigh at the costly experience. you would think with it being the twenty-first century, and all the changes we are going through as a society, the obligation of celebrating this day would slowly disminish. however, every year it seems that valentine's day has taken more steroids than it's consumption the year before. i mean, even youtube has been shot by cupid and shows society's annual "love" day some recognition by having a rose on their homepage.
recently, a person of anonymity explained the reason behind the satisfaction they and others get from valentine's day. they believe, that it is simply a celebration of love. a day that they can allocate to expressing their true, romantically feelings. many of us non-believers would have much to say about this comment. that being, when you love someone, you should show it everyday. not all day everyday (because that eventually transforms into an unnecessary obsession), but at some point, you should show it everyday. showing someone you love them should not be an organised experience. if it's real, it should not need to be shown on a designated day in which the whole world acts in a cliche form. our society suffers from conformity enough as it is. we really don't need the one feeling we all long for - love - to turn into another action, just because we feel we have to.


at least once in your life, you are going to make a mistake. it's simply the truth about all of us, we all make mistakes. whether it be spelling a word incorrectly in your english essay, or writing the wrong number when doing a maths equation, or giving someone the incorrect change at work, or falling for the wrong person. no matter what we do wrong though, we have all been brought up with the same phrase embedded into our minds. that being, "you can learn from your mistakes". it is believed that this phrase is true. and that no matter what mistake you make, huge or tiny, a lesson can come out of it. but, what happens if the lesson is there, and you don't make use of it? what happens if you continue to make the same mistake over and over and over again, because you simply choose not to learn that lesson?
unlike writing something down on a piece of paper, when it comes to making a mistake in a relationship, there is no such thing as an eraser, or whiteout. you can't scribble something out and oh so simply start again. once the mistake is made, you have to deal with it. work around it. by theory, this should be a pro, rather than a con. not being able to completely terminate the mistakes you have made, allows you to revisit the past, and then quickly process what you should and shouldn't do in the present. realistically however, it is found that being able to find a mistake in your brain's memory file is something that brings down your spirits, rather than lift them.
deciding whether or not to learn from your mistake, is entirely up. to. you. no one else's choice, but your own. what is intriguing about this, is the reason behind why people choose to not, take advantage of the help sitting on a silver platter right in front of them. maybe, it simply comes down to believing in yourself. we are all aware that a lot of people suffer from the i-can't-do-that disease. i am one of those people. therefore i believe - and no doubt my fellow sufferers do as well - that this disease is the sole reason people choose to over look the lessons they can use to prevent further mistakes. they do this because they do not think they can do better. they do this because they feel like they aren't good enough.
i do it because i feel like i'm not good enough.
with every mistake that is made, there is someone to blame. if a cat walks onto the road and gets hit by a car, who is to blame? was it the cat for putting itself in danger? was it the driver, who didn't stop the car quick enough? was it the owner of the cat, who didn't keep their cat inside? either way, a conclusion is made. for screwing things up with a guy you were seeing, for having meaningless sex with a friend's ex, for breaking up with someone you realised you really liked, who is to blame? are we to blame because they have we have no confidence in the situation. or because we fall for the "wrong" people? are the people we fall for to blame, because they possibly disguise their own mistakes into a mistake made by us? are our friends to blame because they let us make the mistakes over again? or is it god to blame for not giving us life-crisis whiteout?
coping with the same mistakes you have made time and time and time again is hard enough, let alone having people rub your nose in it.


the word, spontaneous, describes acts of which are premeditated, natural tendencies or are without effort. and they say that this quality - being spontaneous - is the key to a healthy relationship. we all know that after the first month or two of being in a new relationship, the novelty of it simply wears off, and you find yourself sitting in that place of, "now what do we do?". once you reach this point, and you and your partner don't do anything to alter your positions, then your relationship easily falls into routine. you know, after a while you are seeing each on the same days, for the same length of time. you are having sex at the same place, the same amount of times a week. you are going to the movies or out for tea on the same days, to the same places. it all becomes a tad, boring. for some, this is the breaking point of the relationship. whereas others, seem to make what they have a lot healthier, due to the acts of spontaneity.
for example, the night you tend to go out for tea, your partner spontaneously comes over to your house and cooks it. this action gives you something new to talk about, and simply gives you a fresh, different feel to eating a meal with each other. or say instead of being sexual every friday night when he stays at your house, you stay at his house one weekend and have some fun the next morning. acting spontaneously, gives you a sense of change within a relationship without taking you away from each other.
this success to your love's health got me thinking though. do you already have to be in the relationship for spontaneous actions to lead to something better for you? or can you simply jump straight into a healthy relationship - no novelty - from the single-life, via the acts of spontaneity? in the majority of cases, two people enter into a relationship based on mutual romantic feelings for one another. they want to share stories together, laugh together, watch life go by together. then after the novelty phase, they decide whether or not to play their 'spontaneous card'. i couldn't help but wonder though, is it possible for two people to play their 'spontaneous card' first, and enter into a healthy relationship even though there are no mutual romantic feelings? even if they just have a mutual attraction, and simply just want to get it on, with each other?
i know of a person who entered into a relationship, not based on the fact she had feelings for him, but because she was attracted to qualities in him so she just thought, what the hell. there was no warning she was going to move from the single-life anytime soon, therefore her choice was spontaneous. i recently asked her how things were going and and she said they hardly ever have problems. they never run out of things to say, they miss each other without being obsessive and they can go from serious to having fun in a matter of milli-seconds. these i might add are all obvious signs of a healthy relationship.
after her response i though that maybe no matter where you stand, being spontaneous is the key-factor to happiness. hence, spontaneity + any kind of mutual feelings - novelty = healthy relationship.
if only our maths teacher taught us those kind of equations.


whether it be set by our parents, our employers, our peers, or even ourselves, expectations are something we are faced by everyday. all who set these expectations say that it is to simply bring out the best in us - or out of the situation. but when do expectations reach that point of being too high? or when do some expectations backfire, and end up bringing out the worst in us - or the situation?
when you fall in love with someone, they (without realising) set certain standards for you. which means, when you fall out of love you have lots of little expectations running around in your mind of what you want in another man. to begin with, these expectations are great. they are a positive thing, as they allow you to find someone who is just as nice, if not nicer. or just as funny, if not funnier. therefore you are giving yourself to the kind of people you know you will like; know you will get along with. however, what if these expectations are too specific? i mean, it would be very rare to find someone exactly the same as the one you first loved, if not better. so why should we follow these particular expectations when all they are going to do is gradually beat-up your spirits of hope in finding someone else to love?
do we now not see expectations as a friend, but more, as a foe?
expectation of performance is definitely a huge issue everyone faces. once again, positive things can, and sometimes do, come out of situations suchs as, parents who expect you to do well in school, or coaches who expect you to win at your talent's competition. but the one thing that is so disheartening about these expectations is when they are taken too far. when the expectations are so high and so demanding that the one holding it all, gives in. and crumbles. do we blame the breakdown on the actual expectation, rather than the one who sets it? or is it simply the one who fails, that is to blame? maybe it's their emotional stability. maybe it's just, not up to scratch. having said that though, is that not just an expectation within itself? i mean, who is to say what is expected from one, emotionally?
when it starts to rain, and the little drops of water hit the ground, we all expect them to stay there until the earth beneath us is covered in a thin layer of water. however, what if the heat of the sun still remains in the air, and then the droplets just fade away? our expectations are then, not met. i began to wonder, why is it that we don't blame the rain for not meeting the expectation as it's the suns fault, yet when another person does not meet our expectations, we lay the fault completely and utterly in their hands, regardless of the fact a third party is to blame. so why are the expections we set upon people, more important than the ones we set upon everything else? the constant pressure of society to be the best could be an explaination.


and now, sex is an issue.
we all go through that milestone in our lives when our peers start "doing it". this is then followed by that nasty feeling of obligation which is set upon you to do the same. some of us give in to that feeling, whether it's to be classified as "cool" or if, you know, it just feels "right". yet some of us, set up a wall that just keeps us cruising on the v's. once you passed the petty, little comments of being "fridgid", not having sex was often saluted. it was rare for someone who was still a virgin, to be faced with problems from others around them. however, thinking back over that period of time though, it never occured to us as kids, that an issue would emerge from the choice you made to build that certain wall infront of you.
to everyone else, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be on the countdown to the end of your education, and still being a virgin. but for those who are actually living it, it's not only increasingly embarrassing, but it's a bit of a nuisance when it comes to meeting men. as we get older, we are attracted to older guys. and it's highly doubtful you will come across one who lacks the experience you do. not to mention, it's highly doubtful you will come across one who doesn't see virginity as a flaw. having said this, the minority of men who don't mind the i've-never-had-sex-before thing, still subconsciously makes us feel uncomfortable. these men would not pressure the inexperienced into anything, however, the virgin would simply feel not good enough to fulfil both the wants and needs of that man. so does this mean, that eighteen-year-old virgins simply built that wall to big? does this mean they waited a little too long?
it's funny to think back to when we were barely teenagers, and the common statement was, i'm going to wait til im sixteen. it's funny to think back to when it seemed like we all had the same thing programmed into our mind. that being, once we turn sixteen, we are given a line-up, we pick the ideal boyfriend, then have sex with him after two months. but the funniest thing is, it hardly ever turned out like that. for some, yes. they got boyfriends, and had sex. for others, they got drunk at parties and had sex with a guy who was four years older. for a few, sex wasn't even a thought that crossed their mind. however for the rest - the unfortunate - we got boyfriends, but broke up after three weeks. therefore, no sex. we got drunk, and got into a bed with a seventeen-year-old, before realising what an idiot you were and then got out. therefore, no sex.
for us sex was not an option, but that wasn't by choice. so, was it merely just sprinkle of bad luck? if that is the case, was building a wall against sex just a factor of being in denial?
whatever the reason, those who have not had sex are still left in a state of know, they say your first time should be when you're ready and feel comfortable. but it's not possible to be ready or comfortable with those who accidently make you feel strange about it.
is it?

emotional protection?

as we go through life, there are people there to tell us what we can and cannot do, based on our age. our parents say we aren't old enough to eat solids as a baby. the law says we aren't old enough to have sex at the age of fifteen. or drink and smoke before eighteen. friends may even express the opinion that you aren't old enough to start at family at the age of twenty. as we pass through these temporary obstacles, we realise the 'rules' were simply there for our physical well-being and to protect us. but what about our emotional well-being? who is protecting us from the unknown range of feelings? we have our family, our friends and members of parliament setting out minimum ages for physical activities, but who is setting out minimum ages, or even approximate ages for the breakthrough of all feelings and emotions?
when two parents allow their teenaged child to their first party, the poor kid is suffocated in stories. the parents talk of drinks being spiked, guys being rapists, and brawls ending in serious injuries. they do this because they have heard or seen these things happen, and they want us to be safe and protected, physically. why can't they have the same approach to our emotional state? it wouldn't be that hard to sit us down at certain ages, and prepare for both the good and bad feelings we may experience? no doubt, when our parents were our age, they found it hard to differentiate between lust and love. no doubt they suffered from a broken heart. no doubt they felt rejected by their friends. and no doubt they felt alone at times. i couldn't help but wonder, why can't parents use those previous experiences to hand out advice, just like they did with the parties? why can't they protect us from physical and emotional pain?
it isn't as if parents are solely to blame though. it's not as if we are educated at school about how to love someone, or how to push through a feeling of not belonging. it just made me think as to why everyone pushes to protect everyone else in the obvious way, yet not in the way that could possibly be the most harmful. has no one else realised that most those who take their own life, do it because of their emotional struggles, not so much their physical ones? has it not dawned on anyone else that emotional protection is the one thing that we lack as a society?

Monday, August 24, 2009


when we face a dilemma in our everyday lives, it's common for us to ask the supernatural side of the world for a sign. we ask for any kind of symbolism that can help us reach a decision, whether or not we even believe in the supernatural.
although, the strange thing about asking for a sign, is that we only ever follow through with it's direction if it puts a positive light on the matter.
see, when you have feelings for someone, yet you are unsure if making a move is appropriate, then you would look out for any form of guidance. now, if there were signs saying it was not a good idea to persue anything, we would be more inclined to ignore the direction, and we would simply say, "it doesn't matter, i like him!". whereas if they were signs were positive, we would immediately push for something serious to happen. is this simply because we see what we 'want' was more important than the things that are better or 'healthier' for us and our feelings?
having said this, maybe bad signs are just our minds making little tests for our hearts, to discover how we honestly feel. and maybe bad signs only exist based on the interpretation. for example, if the way we feel about a particular situation is a mystery, then maybe our mind sets up a number of signs both for and against the issue. then, depending on our perception of these signs, is is made obvious as to what our heart truly wants. does this mean that rather than helping us come to a final conclusion, signs discover our initial feelings? if that is the case, then without realising, are signs that we see just helping us in reverse to actually understand what we want, or don't want? so instead of percieving signs as a form of mediation, maybe we should percieve them as a form of arbitration.


they say, practise makes perfect. so in other words, repeating the same thing over and over again will cause something good to happen. with playing the piano, or hitting a tennis ball, yes this may be the case. with relationships, not so much.
when it comes to men and you're relationships with them, repetition is not your friend. think about it. if you repetitively act in a way which results in a break-up, obviously it will keep happening. unless you break the pattern. break the repetition. if you repetitively choose the same kind of hurtful men, then you will never be happy. unless you break the pattern. break the repetition.
think back to all your ex's, all your lovers, all your f**k buddies. do they have anything in common? hair colour? height? weight? sense of humour? there's bound to be something. apart from the fact of course, none of them ever worked out. now, think of that one that did. your current relationship. why is that one working? and the others didn't?
i asked a close friend of mine, why her current relationship was going so well, when her previous relationships had failed quite intensly. she simply answered, "he is nothing like the rest." i wasn't happy with her response, so i argued back that they had to have something in common. she persisted however, with the fact that this one man really was different. that's when i wondered, maybe this is why its working. maybe because she broke her reptitive ways, she is finally able to have a successful and happy relationship.
even so, i still wasn't completely convinced that he was entirely unlike her past lovers. so i asked, "if you were to put them both in the same room, what would they talk about?" immediately she replied with, "me." two thoughts came to mind when she said that. one: there's the similarity. the two boys have her in common. and two: that settles it. the key to a successful relationship is to break the pattern. the key to happiness is to break the repetition.


aside from trust, when it comes to relationships, or even a romantic mutual connection, the one thing that stands out are the differences between the levels you and you're partner sit at. i'm talking about the levels of where you both are sexually, emotionally, even socially, intellectually or physically.
we can't choose whom we develop feelings for, and we can't choose the levels we are on, but can we choose whether or not the differences in levels become an issue?
if you liked someone, who liked you in return, you would want someting more, like a relationship, to come out of it, right? then what happens if you learnt that he was emotionally on a lower level than you. would you be able to work through it? or does it become too much of an issue, that eventually causes you two to never speak again? or what if, two people were on completely different levels sexually. would the one on the lower level get cold feet and start feeling guilty because they would not be able to measure up to what their partner would ideally like? would they turn their back on the one they have feelings for, because they can't deal with the difference?
or is it simply a matter of how much you feel for that person? if the connection was so strong, the difference in levels, no matter how great or small, shouldn't be an issue, right? you wouldn't even have to work through it, because neither of you would see a problem. so, does this mean that if you see an issue with the difference of levels between you both, then maybe you aren't right for each other?
having said this, what defines being right for each other, though? what is the criteria for it? maybe there isn't even a criteria, because maybe two people being right for each other doesn't even exist. maybe it really is just a matter of how strong, or weak, you're feelings are for that person. maybe that decision is a level within itself; the level of acceptance.


question: what defines beauty?
everyone uses the term, beauty, regularly, but how do we actually know what it is when everyones has a different perception about it? i decided to turn to my dictionary, to see how they put it into words. and it said, "the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind ... arising from sensory manifestations (shape, colour etc.)."
the thing that bugs me about that definition is, what exactly are those qualities that cause this deep satisfaction? is it just programmed in us, as to what the qualities may be? you walk down the street and see two people of completely different size, hair colour and fashion sense. now, what makes one of those people more beautiful than the other? our obvious answer would be the skinner girl, with blonde hair who dresses in designer clothes. rather than the large girl, with red hair who wears skants (skirt and pants in one) with runners. why? why is the blonde girl better than the girl in runners? who decided this and why doesn everyone believe it? was there simply a person in ancient times who one day said, ok this is more beautiful than this, for the sake of it?
some say that what beauty is, is our own personal perception. our own opinion. but, don't we base all other opinions on what we have been taught from people while growing? how is the perception of beauty any different? growing up in a catholic household, you would base you're opinion that god was real, because of what you were taught. so, growing up with people who thought blonde hair and big boobs were beautiful, would influnece what you saw as beauty, right?
i went back to my dictionary again, and noticed synonyms to the word, beauty. and the one word that caught my eye was, perfection. i could not help but laugh. there is not one person i know that does not believe in 'perfect'. we all know that there is no such thing as a perfect relationship, or a perfect person, or a perfect day. so why is there even a word for something that isn't even real?
in maths, when a = b, but b = 0, it means that a = 0. right? so does that mean, if beauty = perfection, and perfection doesn't equal anything, then beauty also does not exist? if that is the case, then why do we bother to fret over the beauty of ourselves, if it doesn't even matter? if it does not even exist?

a real change in romeo?

we all the know the famous shakespearian story of romeo and juliet. the story of two people who fall into a forbidden love, and then find themselves as nothing without the other. the end result being death. personally, i think it's a beautiful story filled with romance, and pure happiness. even though it's a complete tradgedy at the same aspect of the story though, got me thinking. that was, the personality transformation that occurs in romeo and how men in reality can relate to it. if, they can relate to it.
you see, romeo is described as an extremely, promiscuous, man. all those who know him, describe him as someone who falls in and out of love too quickly. so in other words, he is not falling in and out of love, but rather falling in and out of lust. he is a charming, attention-seeking player.and as everyone knows, reality is full of those kind of men too. but what caused this game playing personality trait to simply, disappear? when he met his juliet, he fell into an unconditional love with her. and it never even crossed his mind that there would be anyone else for him in the world. he had literally changed from what we know as a typical man, to an ideal one. so this made me wonder, is there hope for our men in reality, to perfom such a genuine swap-over from playing the game, to having actual feelings?
as exciting as this thought may be, i had to force myself to remember that after all, romeo and juliet is just a fictional story. it's not based on real live events. it's not as if shakespear saw a man go from a womanizer to a prince charming, just because of one young lady. the story was just a brainwave for shakespear. just another crowd pleaser. and as nice as it would be for us women to experience these kind of events, we have to realise that shakespear's romeo and juliet is just the same as disney's fairytales. they both send out false hopes to the world. disney sends them to children, shakespear sent them to us; to me.


i recently kicked up a fuss when someone i am quite, keen on, was juggling myself and another girl. as i disapproved of this matter, there was a lot of confrontation. this constant bickering eventually caused me to subconsciously convince this person to change their ways. when i realised what i had caused to happen, i intially thought it was fantastic. soon enough though, i began to feel extremely hypocritical. you see, here i was asking one person to have only me, when all the while i was meeting someone new who would treat me like a princess, as well as reconnecting with an old "friend" of mine. i couldn't help but wonder, why is it that we as women expect to be treated a certain way, yet when roles are reveresed, we think nothing of the sort? and why is it when these double standards are played by us, it's okay, yet when played by men, it's the biggest issue woman can face? is that not just another double standard within itself?
a million thoughts continued to run through my mind as what i should do to clear this slightly selfish feeling of guilt . do i admit that i was wrong when i convinced him to do what he did? or do i continue this irrational behaviour? or i am just blowing everything out of proportion and simply making up excuses not to be with him? the answers to these questions never chose to show their face. so contemplating everything was suddenly number one on my to do list.
one thing that kept arising in my almost fizzled brain, was the statement, "you're an attention junkie, that's all it is." the reality of this thought, then hit me. i was simply just compensating for attention i may not get from this one person, with the idea of being someone's princess and the reminicsing with a previous crush. so in the end, it clicked. i became aware of all the in-depth deliberation i went through, was unnecessary and i was merely just being insecure about the part-monogamy he had implied.

the real beginning.

they say that the way you start your new year and how enjoyable you find it, reflects how the rest of your year will be. for example. if you start your new year on bad terms with someone, it will be that way for the majority of that year. or if you had the best night of your life, you will enjoy the year so much more. due to my previous new years celebrations, i agree with this statement.
one year i started the new year with a stomach bug. for the rest of the year i was a very unhealthy person. another year my mother and father weren't speaking and the rest of that year resulted in being the worst year of my life to date. on my first new years, out at a party, i drank too much, i kissed more than one person, i had numerous fights with one man, yet i had a really good time. you ask, was the rest of my year that literal? my answer, yes. i constantly fought with that same man, i continued to kiss way too many people and i drank basically every weekend. even so, i enjoyed it. so my question is, can we choose to break this new years curse, or do we just have to go along with it?
after contemplating this question for a while, i discovered an answer that was slightly inconclusive. i came to the conclusion that it is possible for you to break the new years curse, giving that you can believe in yourself enough to do it. the ones who dont believe they can, however, just have to go with it. i then, made two decisions. one: i was going to break it. and two: i was going to do this by starting my real new year today. the second day of the year.
i call this, the real beginning.
starting the new year on the second day, allows for opportunity. that being, you can reconsider anything you may have done to welcome the new year. that being, on new years day you can apply what you have learnt from the night before to how you are going to be for the next 364 days. that being, a new and fresh year really can begin, even after the calendar says so.


every year, new years resolutions are made for the year to come. yet, every year, new years resolutions are broken within the first week. we all do it. say, we are going to loose weight, eat healthier, become more helpful, supportive. some of us choose to say we are going to quit a bad habit, or even pick up a new and good one. whatever it is, when making a resolution you need to differentiate between an ideal resolution and a realistic one.
everyone has an ideal picture in their mind of how they wish their life was or how they wish things could be. and sometimes this ideal image can be so dominant over your thoughts, feelings and behaviour that you forget what is a realistic for you.
for as long i can remember, i have been a member of the i-dont-make-new-years-resolutions club. we consist of about, 60% of the population, and we believe that there is no point in making new years resolutions, as they are just going to be broken in the shortest amount of time possible. we think that we are smart for not bothering with something that will just make us be more disappointed in ourselves, but could it be that we actually don't have the inner strength to change our way of life, or to step out of our comfort zone? the more i thought about it, the more it made sense. resolutions reflect how you are as a person, depending on the type you make, and whether or not you keep it. so does being a member of the i-dont-make-new-years-resolutions club mean that i have little belief in myself and that i think i can't actually accomplish anything? this may or may not be true of me.
either way, i realised that i didn't want to take that risk if having no belief in myself, so i have decided to leave my comfort zone and make a resolution. ideally, it is to give everyone** i know, including myself, a second chance. as in, i am going to clear the slate and start over. i really dont think that you should live a life full of hatred, or continue to hold grudges against people. however, the realistic thing is that i am going to simply attempt this.
starting over with people, isn't about forgetting things that i have done to them, or what they have done to me, but it is about accepting the wrongful act and being able to just, get over it.

**there is only one person who is an exception to this.