Girlspeak #141

She says: Fine.
She means: Not fine at all, and I hope you remember this later when I'm being a bitch to you for no apparent reason. When you go to kiss me, I pull away, you ask "what?" and I say "nothing," think in your head "not fine."

And if all else fails, just have me break up with him.

...Hey, it's worked before. But in the meantime, some words for one who's hurtiing:

I am not here to be what you want from me
Mama did not raise me to be judged
So I'm gonna have to ask you to step aside
Cuz baby I'm falling out of love.

Great things that happened over break

1) Got first actual internship offer
2) Bought bridesmaid dresses for Preeti's wedding
3) Stefani and Tom got married (congrats!!)
4) Sang LOTS of Karaoke
5) Realized that there are qualities I like better in men than "asshole"
6) Realized how special my friends are
7) Brother did nice and very big brother-ish thing of lending me his car
8) Developed a crush
9) Saw Crystle's first ultrasound pics
10) Saw an excellent play with my excellent mother

The Score

Corinne Wins. At life.

Do people really want what they can't have?

You hear it all the time. It's in the code, the rules, the tao. If you want to get someone hooked, date on defense. The thrill is in the chase; mystery is your currency; stop--put down that phone. Let him call you. The nature of desire, they say, is to endlessly pursue what we can never possess. so you wanna get with that girl? Ignore her. Think her friend's a ho? Hit on her. Got no place to be? Go anyway.

Yeah, well I say bullshit. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "Corinne? The homewrecker? Original miss thrill-of-the-chase?" So yeah, I'll admit it, the competitive part of me loves pursuit. But that's just it, it's about the competition. And what fun is competition without winning? So no, it's not about wanting what you can't have, that's stupid. Stay on that path and you're in for a lifetime of frustration. It's about desiring that which is difficult to attain. No one gets excited about winning a three block race against preschoolers and no one wants to spend their whole lives running a marathon that never ends.

So remember, people might want what they can't have...for a while. But sooner or later, they're going to drop down to a league that's more their speed and find a game they can win after a nice long nine-inning exercise in achieving the difficult, but not the impossible.

And if you're not sure where to draw the line, just remember: "It's a fool who plays it cool/by making his world a little colder" -Paul McCartney

A conversation that is so deliciously Corinne

Me: I think I might have a crush on Brian
Pete: Really?
Me: Yeah, either that or I'm just interested in him because he's not interested in me.
Pete: Why don't you think he's interested in you?
Me: Because he brought up that girl during dinner, with the kid. If you're interested in someone, you don't talk about other girls in front of them.
Pete: Hmm...
Me: And then I, of course, had to retaliate by talking about other guys, which I think was kinda self-defeating.
Pete: Yeah.
Me: Yeah, so anyway--
Pete: He didn't bring up that other girl.
Me: He didn't?
Pete: No, I did. I asked him about her.
Me: Oh. Woops.

On Morality

Writing a paper on the morality and generally struggling to come to terms with the actions of those around me, I can't help but feel that maybe all those men I admire didn't really have much going. What if there is no such thing as objective morality? How can we expect people to act in any way that is counter to their self-interest? And if they do so, who are we to call it immoral? A former Randian, I used to temper this position with the assertion that what is truly in one's self-interest is not selfishness, but rather respect for others, truthfulness, integrity, etc., things that we consider good moral traits. I would argue that self-interest does not preclude charity, for the satisfaction one derives from being charitable or seeing others thrive outweighs the loss of the donation. But what of those who feel no compunction to be charitable? Who derive no satisfaction from aiding others? Are they not "worse" people than those that do? Yet can we consider their actions immoral if both--the men that give and the men that do not--are acting out of their own self concern? If we do make a distinction between the two actions, are we not simply utilitarians? Or can we pass moral judgement on the character of the man who derives pleasure from helping others versus the character of the man that does not? I do not believe in altruism, and yet I see a moral distinction between the person who hoards and the person who shares. I would argue that it is impossible for someone to truly act against their own self-interest, and that any time they believe themselves to be doing so, they are choosing the pleasure of goodness to monetary gains or physical comfort or whatever they are sacrificing. Even the man who chooses death for himself in order to gain life for others is choosing the personal satisfaction of a noble death and kind memory over the years he's giving up. But then what is it that makes this action good, if not its intentions? If all men act out of the same intentions, who is good and who is evil and who is to distinguish between the two? This leads me to think perhaps that men are born good or evil, born with the conscience that gains pleasure from helpful acts and experiences pain from destructive acts...or without. If this is the case, it is not actions that are good or bad, but men. And morality is not a choice but a state. And he who feels no remorse is immoral.