E had a tarot reading.

Okay. More like I fired up the tarot app in my iPhone and did an impromptu reading.

But first, I guess I should mention how it came about to that.

I think it all goes back to this mutual friend my elder brother and I share, though more his friend than mine. She got married earlier this month, at the age of 25/26.

Now just to put things into context, she’s brilliant. She works in the army now because she is a Mindef/SAF scholar, went to school in UChic and Cambridge, was from S’s alma mater, a dancer, violinist, simply, put a driven, outstanding young woman for someone her age. And her husband, equally brilliant and awe-inspiring.

Needless to say, it came as a surprise when we learnt that she was getting married so soon.

And it got me thinking, would I do the same if I were in their position? If I had a stable job, someone I loved, would I take the next step, and say my vows at 25 years old?

I can’t say for certain what I’d do to be honest. It could be that I was always some sort of a marriage skeptic. Or that I think I’m way too much of a commitment-phobe. But these days, I’m not so sure anymore, I’m not so sure about one too many things.

It’s not that I’m longing to be a relationship or anything. I still do enjoy going out on my own, and doing my own thing at my own time. But increasingly, I’ve been experiencing this sense of meaninglessness to everything. That there’s really no point in life if there’s no one to share your joy with, or talk to when you’re down or upset.

But anyhow, that’s how I finally decided to do something about it, I took out my iPhone and the results are below (don’t judge).


So this is what the future holds for my relationship woes. What do you see?

After a quick search on google, apparently the ten of pentacles mean:

Interpretations for love and relationships

Ten of Pentacles shows a woman staring at a man in a satisfied manner. Meanwhile, both of them are surrounded with ten coins, two dogs, a child and an old man. All this can be taken as a very good omen for a relationship. Just take a look at the indirect terms associated with all that is described earlier.

· Man and woman staring at each other- Attraction
· Ten coins- Wealth
· Two Dogs- Strong guards
· Child- What every couple wants in the end
· Old man- Wisdom
For a relationship, such terms represent a wise investment because they are linked to love, happiness, security, vision about the future and thoughtfulness. In other words, they show that the two people are together because they just know that they are fit for each other. Another meaning associated with the card is growing bond. This can be used for a relationship which is reaching the maturity stage. But the good news is that although the honeymoon period is over the two lovers do not hesitate to dream about having a future together. Consider yourself lucky if you receive this tarot card for your relationship.
Unfortunately, that was not what I saw.
· Man and woman staring at each other- Attraction
· Ten coins- Wealth
· Two Dogs- Strong guards
· Child- What every couple wants in the end
· Old man- Me, old, lonely, looking at a young family in love with everything going for them.
Does it not look like that? Or is it just me?

The double sex standards

Sex equality still remains a concept that has not materialised in many areas.

More women are able to enjoy access to more rights in life now because of the foremothers who fought against sexual discrimination. There is not much dispute, at least in our society here in Singapore, that women are as deserving as men to receive education, work opportunities, etc.

History will not be erased simply because there is progress. Practical concerns are easier and neater to tackle. The mentality of the people, however, is not.

Coincidentally, after I read E’s previous post talking about love and sex and cheating and what it means to be married and having to accept the commitment of monogamy, I read this article written by one Silpa Kovvali about what sexual exclusivity means to her.

Imagine the rich, successful former outcast who’s now struck it big and is at the height of his career. Imagine the triumphant expression on his face; think of the descriptors onlookers might use. “Eligible bachelor” springs immediately to mind. Now imagine a woman in a comparable position, and think of the sympathetic looks she will no doubt have to undergo if she shows up without a ring on her finger. Or, worse still, the whispers of the feminist-minded, who might comment in hushed and rueful tones, “Wow. I guess women really can’t have it all.”

– Silpa Kovvali, Sexual Exclusivity Means We Overvalue Physical Beauty (Thought Catalog)

This is something that is literally manifested in real terms in language systems.

There is bias in some linguistic systems against women. (I don’t know about the other 6000 languages in this world that I have not heard of. I only know three.)

There are many gender-neutral words that have gender-specific associations and there are generally more derogatory terms for females than there are for males.

Take the term ‘bachelor’. It enjoys this shiny connotation of being some happily uninhibited carefree dude who can’t care less about being tied down by marriage. The term ‘bachelorette’, however, is more often used to describe the party for women who are about to get hitched than to conjure up the image of some happily uninhibited carefree lady who can’t care less about marriage. More people go straight for the ‘spinster’, a word that alludes to the sad stereotype of an older woman who is unmarried, childless, prissy, and repressed.

Somehow the male equivalent term for the term slut doesn’t sound as bad as slut does. Wait, what is the male equivalent term for slut? Womanizer? Philanderer? Casanova? Don Juan? They all sound so much sexier and romantic compared to the livid vehemence you can chant slut with. Or contemporary inventions like man-slut and man-whore that attempt to make up for the disparity but doesn’t take away the fact that there was no such term to express the same kind of sentiment?

There is a fair deal of unequally derogatory terms to describe men and women. In some way, this linguistic imbalance seems to reflect that there seems to be greater moral imperative placed on women to stand by an all-or-nothing principle about sex. If you’re a woman and you have sex with different people, you’re a slut/whore/etc etc. If you’re a man and you have sex with different people, you’re just being a man.

Who took away women’s rights to have free rein over our sexuality without being judged unduly harshly as compared to men? Why does it seem as if there is some form of a double standard for women and men when it comes to expressing our sexuality?

When you marry you are, after all, consigned to sleep with one person and one person only for the rest of your life. Meanwhile, you can always join a book club. It’s outrageous to pretend that such rigid definitions don’t lend themselves to an outsize emphasis on sex appeal when we evaluate potential partners, and that such an emphasis wouldn’t have a subtle spillover when we evaluate people generally.

Still, it is women who bear the majority of this burden, for it is beauty which they, by and large, are perceived as bringing to the table. Exclusivity is the closest you can come to ownership these days, and monogamy is a means by which men can lay claim to the power a woman might otherwise be able to obtain via her beauty, and resultant sexuality. Simultaneously, men are left in complete control of their most valued commodities, and can deftly wield them to their advantage without fear of judgment or reprisal. It is a grand delusion, then, that men, and men alone, find this whole mess unsatisfying, when it is women who are so clearly getting the raw end of the deal.

– Silpa Kovvali, Sexual Exclusivity Means We Overvalue Physical Beauty (Thought Catalog)

The onus to undertaking the commitment of monogamy in a relationship or marriage lies on both parties, but sometimes I think that people tend to judge the woman more harshly than they do the man.

Is this just because of the difference in expectations that are founded on the persisting aged bias mentality of the past? Do love and sex really go together as mutually inclusive requisites for women or were women just taught and conditioned to think that since a long time ago?

In theory, it’s always going to be neat to think that that would be the case, because that’s what, in theory, people should go for expectedly – go for the love first then have the sex, not the other way around. But in reality things sometimes don’t happen neatly in sequence. There are factors of attraction, fortuity and circumstances that come into play that end up testing the strength of your composure, especially when you meet someone that induces the thought in your mind that (s)he is more The One than the one that you previously thought was The One.

And also, in non-theory, like E mentioned in the previous post,

You can be with someone who gives you all the attention and love that fills you up emotionally, yet he or she simply cannot satisfy you in bed. Where does that leave you? Deprived certainly. Is the problem with you, or with your other half? Is it love if there is no physical attraction?

So what if you got the love but the sex is horrible despite remedial efforts to rectify the deprivation? (Which might put you in a very susceptible position to being seduced by external temptations.)

Is the love worth chaining the person as your one partner by your side if there is no physical attraction? How is that different or more satisfying than just having a good platonic friend?

Will it make you a horribly shallow person if you decide that you want to seek out physical attraction first?

Who should THE ONE be?

Reading Anais Nin recently has got me thinking about the question. Even though she remains one of the most prolific (? I don’t know how to describe her precisely) lovers documented in literary history, she was very often confused and bewildered by the most perplexing question in the world of relationships – the grand question of Who Should The One Be?

I am Hugh’s refuge and he is mine. Is that the love that makes one less alone, the loyal secure one, or the passion that fuses bodies, or the tender love, devotion, desire, intellectual harmony? Which one am I closest to? Henry, yet not close in the trusting way. Closeness to the Father, to the lover, to the brother. So many kinds of closeness! What is it that annihilates loneliness?

– Anais Nin, Nearer the Moon (The Unexpurgated Diary of Anais Nin 1937-1939)

The huge question of Who Should The One Be is of course related to what kind of Relationship one is looking/searching/yearning for. Of course, I don’t think someone that is the loyal secure one cannot provide you with passion or intellectual harmony at the same time. They are not all mutually exclusive concepts. But they are characteristics and facets of relationships that have to be weighed according to one’s needs, wants and priorities in life. Some prioritise a sense of security above all else, some can’t care less about that intangible passion, while some would rather die than suffer with an intellectually uninspiring partner in life.

Somewhat like religion and philosophy, I feel that there are these three main principles of faith that people follow when it comes to deciding Who Should Be The One for them.

Some people believe that the most critical factor in making things work is realistic compatibility. This is the Keep It Real school of thought. They’re well aware that the thing that happens in romantic comedies – where the good looking guy and the good looking girl meets, go through dramatic life-changing events and then go on to live happily ever after – is a reality that will never work in reality. They believe that life is about managing realistic expectations. They are just looking for a good honest companionship to offer them security in going through life humbly and be offered with the possibility of not having to die alone. They look for partners with sensible expectations, similar life goals and the probable capacity of being contented to live life that way till the end. That certainly sounds like a good way to live life.

On the other side of the mating pool, some people believe that the most crucial factor when choosing romantic partners is that they need to be people whom they feel attracted to – physically, aesthetically, sexually, psychologically, chemically, pheromonally, whatever etc. This is the Attraction Is Most Important school of thought. Because to them, the sparks are what sparks off the throes of romantic passion, which is the point of having a special someone, right? And also because they think, well, the difference between a friend and a boy/girlfriend is the additional act of interest, which makes sense.

And then there are the people who believe that above everything else, the most important factor to consider is the soul connection. This is the Soulmate school of thought. The one that posit that your mate for life should be your mate of soul as well. The people who marry their best friends to be their spouses. The other half that will complete them, make up for what they lack in and compliment each other in ways mutually beneficial and awesome. The people whom they claim understand them extremely well, which makes sense that they would want to connect them in their lives for good.

And of course, last but not least, there is the Wishful school of thought with people who want all three.

However, putting the joking aside, sometimes I really wonder whether relationships have got more to do with the people in them or the love.

The dreadful truth is that you don’t just end up with a love that is passionate and mutual at the same time. You’re never lead straight to the ones who could love you back, the ones with no buts, and the ones with whom you can actually be happy.

…Life would be so much easier if we were all capable of finding that mad, mind-blowing, all-consuming, extraordinary, lasting, and reciprocated love in a sea of about seven billion people on the first try. …Sometimes the external factors are just too exhausting that a love independent of space and time would be nice to imagine.

– Hazel Venida, We’re Not Supposed to Understand Love (Thought Catalog)

Many people would claim that the Soulmate school of thought is the least shallow one of them all. I disagree. I would love to claim some moral high ground and say that I am all for defending all shades of singlehood before I can find that one Soulmate that will complete my somehow purportedly lacking life as an independent single human being. Unfortunately, I think all schools of thought are equally valid and respectable as life choices that one may make.

Because maybe like religion and philosophy, there is the leeway to make wrong choices in relationships as well. Some people grow up and realise that the religion that they were born into were not the right fitting faith for them and they converted. Some people grow older and realise that YOLO is really not the philosophy that is beneficial for their aging hearts and they make some lifestyle changes.

Maybe this is why people have been going on and on about the pains of having met the right one at the wrong time or the wrong one at the right time.

Maybe it is all about meeting the ones who will never be before meeting The One.

And that for some people we might only get to meet the ones who will never be because we end up dying before getting to meet The One.

But that’s okay, because life would still be lived out anyway.

Life is what should always matter the most.

The Annual Splendid Snow

It’s the time of the year again, when WordPress seizes my blogging soul with the scattering of snow down my laptop screen in the realm of virtual logs.

I hope that made sense.

Watching the snow drift down the image of the cityscape that is the background of Sky Singularity now, I feel a profound sense of peace – and saying that makes me feel incredibly aged, but I have to go with it anyhow, because it is the closest I can get to expressing how I feel.

I sometimes think of people as balls of snow. After being borne out of the clouds high, high in the sky, sky, it’s just all the way down, till you hit the ground and rest on the cold, cold streets, until you melt and evaporate.

People are born, they grow, fall, fly, and then die.

I think the contemporary notion of urban solitude is overly romanticized.

To me, genuine solitude of the most enriching and peaceful kind is in one’s heart.

You can lie in the most densely populated city or in an unknown tiny, tiny village in a remote corner of the world, and it’s no guarantee that either could offer you genuine solitude more easily than the other.

What matters the most is the nature of your human spirit.

I find it incredibly difficult to express the solitary spirit of living that I think, believe and have faith in, because most people do not subscribe to such a school of thought. In fact, most of them find it unfathomable that such a school of thought exists. They think life is either as majority of the population lives it or it is not the life to have at all.

I have no problems with people and their socially conventional template lives. I think it’s great if they do good, find a life partner that they’re happy with and whom makes them happy, have 2.1 kids, raise them to be able beings, wrinkle and shrivel up in old age together and then grow old till they die happy campers of this planet. I think that’s great and I absolutely agree that it could be a fulfilling and meaningful way to live life.

But just because I think that’s a good thing doesn’t mean I want it for myself.

It is inexplicable to a person other than myself, the wealth of contentment with my own life that I feel to be my own ball of snow, able to drift wherever I want to fall and melt wherever and whenever I want to be gone.

Grey is a nice colour, black’s too intense, white’s too plain.

So E is back for an update.

And… well, there’s nothing new and exciting to report on.  (sorry to disappoint S)

E is still single and available! At the same time, he still hangs out with X.

E doesn’t know how he would describe his relationship with X. E and X are not exactly dating, yet there is a fair bit of flirting – on X’s part that is.

E is especially cautious when it comes to sending the wrong signals, because the last thing he wants to do is mislead X (In retrospect, perhaps this means he doesn’t like X that much). Then again, X often accuses E of using his head too much, and that E allows his brain to lead the way instead of his heart. E doesn’t know what to think or what to feel.

E has been reading 40daysofdating, and E can sorta identify with the male lead. E too doesn’t like things to be in black and white, and likes things to be ambiguous. He is also mindful of hurting X, because he wants to remain good friends with X.

E doesn’t see what X sees in him. X says that E is very endearing, and that X can’t seem to get enough of E.

Does E feel the same way? Does E want to feel the same way?

E doesn’t know what will happen, and he doesn’t want to think about it.

Like the old adage, perhaps the best thing for E to do now is to well,

Let nature take its course.