Also, just because I am a good listener to a particular person may not mean that I am a good listener to everyone. I cannot empathise with everything, and not everybody may favour my approach when it comes to listening. Furthermore, only people whom I'm relatively close to can say something like this. They might not be saying it as an objective fact, more like an emotional burst of gratitude after I've listen to their tirades. These factors make for pretty skewed judging.
However, I must say that so far it does seem like there's a pretty standard cookie-cutter way of being regarded as a good listener, and that is to be interested. The problem with this cookie-cutter is that the boundaries are clear, but the middles are uncertain. You know what shape to take, but you need to know the inner mechanisms before you can be certain exactly what you are producing. Are you making a star-shaped sugar cookie or a star-shaped butter cookie? Oops, over-indulged the baking metaphor, heh.
When you are interested, everything will just fall into place. There's no need to fake sincerity. If you are genuine on the inside, you will know exactly what mould, what personality to assume when it comes to dealing with specific individuals.
I was asked a few interesting questions, and I thought I might share my responses here.
Q: "How do you get to know guys?"
A: "Random guys on Friendster see my photo very pretty, then they talk to me lor."
That's the most bullshit answer ever, but it's more or less true. I don't partake in any guy-related hobbies, like DotA or indie rock music or whatever, so my chances of meeting like-minded men through activities like these are pretty low already. I can't say for sure whether my affinity for decidedly domestic activities work towards my advantage or not; one doesn't get to meet a lot of men through cooking/sewing/shopping/reading, yet it could be attractive, in a rustic, fifties housewife sort of way, though no one has been clamouring at my skirt hems since I took up baking. The most male hobby that I engage in is probably running, and even that is a rather gender-neutral activity. Furthermore, running is not a hobby for me: it is merely a means to an end.
I was asked to take part in a soccer game with a group of guys, because, well, it's supposed to be impressive or something. Like, whoa, a girl who plays soccer! I self-deprecatingly retorted: 1. I'm quite crappy at soccer; 2. I don't actually like playing it that much; 3. I will probably ruin the game for the guys, since empirical evidence has shown that guys are less aggressive if they play sports with girls. Therefore, I should not ruin their game and just watch like a sweet demure thing, afraid to break out into a sweat. Anyway, I've decided that soccer or not, baking or not, it hasn't bumped me up the attractive scale, not visibly through statistical evidence, anyhow.
Q: "How do you attract guys?"
A: "Er, be more sociable, more lively... Wait, I'm really not the best person to ask. I can't really tell you how to attract guys."
Her response:
"Ya, because it comes so naturally to you that you don't know how to explain right."
"Nonono, I'm not your typically attractive girl, so I can't tell you how to attract guys."
Which is true. I would say that the typically attractive girl is high-spirited and chirpy, who has a gaggle of girlfriends, but doesn't stick exclusively to them. She flirts lightheartedly with almost every guy: it wouldn't seem like flirting to most, but insistent girlish denials, playful whacks and a tendency to erupt into giggles at the blandest jokes have disastrous effects on the male species. I may know how it works, but I don't know how to work it. So really, I'm not the best person to ask. Furthermore, there's also the variable factor of who you wish to attract. If you wish to attract the typically attracted guy, then do the above, I suppose.
Q: "How to be less emotionally dependent?"
A: Whatever I said made me cringe because it sounds like a load of self-help claptrap, but it's true. You need to appreciate yourself, so you don't need others to appreciate you. That's just the way it is, I guess. Self-loving!
Q: "How to get over guys?"
A: This is a toughie. You want to get over him, yet you don't want to simply substitute one emotion for another, i.e. hate for love. I'd say that it definitely helps to hate him with a burning vengeance first, then eventually just let it morph into disgust and "what the hell what I thinking?!" It should also help to think more logically, like considering that there is no point moping over a relationship that is beyond salvation. Even if a patch-up does occur, there is probably already a fundamental flaw that instigated the initial dissolution. No point doing nonsense like taking a break, or dating other guys, or whatever. Want to break up then break up, nice and clean.
A painfully obvious way of getting over people is to quit talking to them, but a lot of people aren't able to do that. Of course, it's hard, but it accelerates the process tremendously. The problem is that sometimes, even the dumper himself will have residual emotional attachment to his ex. Therefore, this will confuse the dumpee even further. She will think that maybe he still has feelings for her.
Chances are that her gut feelings are probably right. But it would be supremely wiser to take a step back and review the situation with wisdom. He too, is losing a partner, and even if feelings are gone, old habits die hard. So yes, if you have trouble getting over your dumper, don't fuss too much about his seemingly contradictory behaviour. He's just as screwed up as you are, so really, don't worsen the situation by "staying friends" or whatever. It benefits neither of you, especially when you're trying to recover.
That's it, my two cents worth on dealing with break ups. Not like I'm amazing at dealing with them either.
********
Random updates on boring life:
Went boutique-hopping with Leung Yan. It was my virgin experience entering couture houses without a care. A pretty refreshing experience, I must say. I am now fairly motivated to achieve that kind of decadent lifestyle where I get invited to galas so often that I need a new outfit every time. Okay, I just want a pair of Marc Jacobs or Chloe shoes in the near future.
I am quite lusting for a pair of leather pants I tried on at Zara. Initially, I was skeptical about them, being quite certain that they will only make my growing thighs look like gothic sausages, but when layered with a tunic, I look almost waif-like. That's a good start. I contemplated getting the oversized tunic with sleeves past my fingers, but I realised that it would look rather nondescript without leather pants. I don't own a pair of leggings, and I'm not intending to, so yea, my options are pretty much closed. And I'm not getting the leather pants because it'll just be like a portable sauna walking in Singapore. Entirely silly. Am also lusting after this pair of Nine West shoes.
I prefer them in black, though. Charles and Keith actually has a version that's half the price; however, it doesn't fit so well, and it's rather badly made, so there's an unsightly crease that runs across the side of the ankle.
Argh I also want a blazer like now. Shit I'm lusting after all these annoyingly impractical things.
I borrowed the cool book that doesn't use the letter 'E' in it. A Void by Georges Perec. What's even more cool is that it's translated from French. Wicked. I also borrowed Dracula: as you can see, I am trying very hard to avoid my old favourite Jill Mansell, who produces light-hearted, frothy chick lit every time.
Tried macarons at the Almond Shop thingy at Toa Payoh; not half as good as Bakerzin's nor Canele's, but cheap enough. Also tried the Turkish kebab which Erica mentioned. Four bucks, and not spectacular. While chewing on it, I contemplated how I could use price elasticity concepts to help the quiet stall develop a better business. All in all, I concluded that she needs to lower her price to raise total revenue. That's all.
No comments:
Post a Comment