Have you ever been alone in a crowded room when I'm here with you?

Have you ever been alone in a crowded room; well I'm here with you...

I seriously need to put my reputedly excellent informal writing skills to good use. I don't mean to toot my own horn but that's what everyone says about me and I feel like if it's true, I would be wasting a good talent if I didn't put it to good use somehow.

Someone from my American Lit class, possibly Emily Dickinson, once stated that reading good poetry was like having the back of your head blown off. Well, the Stars concert felt the same way.

An entire semester of NOTHING and now, during the 22-hour quiet period in residence, they decide that it's a good time to start construction?! All I hear in residence are drills and hammering. Seriously, what the hell? So much for quiet hours.

Holy crap, I ate a lot of salt today...

Gah, I hate it when profs don't synchronize their essay lengths properly. Like my 356 term paper which is supposed to be about 2500 words or 9-12 pages...

2500 words comes to 8 pages... so what does she want?

Why can't my professors be like Dr. Morrison (obvious answer: if they were, I'd never leave school). But while Dr. Morrison always gave a rough estimate of his essay lengths, he always made it very clear that he never cared how long they were. As he always said, "Once you're done, you're done".

Dammit, I thought of something interesting to post about while I was daydreaming through my philosophy class but I returned my focus to the class before it was over and the philosophical mishmash has relegated that idea somewhere into my subconscious where it'll probably stay until it chooses to resurface of its own volition, probably during the most awkward time possible. "Jon, I failed my essay" - "Sorry, what? I was just wondering if our pain threshold would allow us to stay conscious if we got kicked in the gonads repeatedly"

Honestly.

But I can post about something else! Something possibly less interesting than whatever astounding conclusion I reached philosophizing over philosophically irrelevant things as they pertained to my first year philosophy course.

So for the most part, I would not consider myself racist... or at least, I would not consider myself someone who discriminates on the basis of race. But sometimes, I think about the demographics of people who are my friends vis-a-vis the demographics of people I encounter and there are certain trends that would appear to be tied into race. So what's the deal? Well, I guess perhaps there has to be a cultural link to race. This would make sense; that because certain cultural values tend to be linked to certain races and whether or not they can be generalized to entire races as a whole (I don't think so), they can, perhaps, be applicable to at least a fair majority. But this is all very vague. So let's say I look at my own life. I might be crucified for distinguishing between something as arbitrary as skin color but unless there have been some naturally massive coincidences in my life, something must be telling.

I do not have many black friends. But this, I think, has a lot to do with proportionality. I simply have not been in environments where there are many black people. TCMS had a small number of black students. Off the top of my head, I can think of Vusani and Brandon. Well, I was friends with them both. Queen's, I might just point out, literally has almost no black students. Anyone at Queen's will have noticed this. So I think much of my lack of black friends has to do with me simply not having a chance to be around any. And especially with my social retardation, I never SEEK friends. I only ever make them based on my social situation.

The same can partly be said of Indian people. I have, of course, been around a fair number of Indian people. Queen's, again, does not have many (are we noticing a trend here?) but I happened to be roommates with one of the few during first year and we got along famously. Also, when I think TCMS, I think Hisham and Abhijeet, and when I think farther back, Omair. All of whom I get along with famously as well. But we're still looking at a pretty small sample size. I mean, I've noticed that I have no Indian friends who are women. But that, likely, has much more to do with simple coincidence since I can't remember being around a great number of Indian women at all.

You see what I'm trying to get at. I'm trying to seperate "exposure" from "choice". You choose your social environments to some degree but I'm thinking more along the lines of whether or not race has to do with the people you naturally (or choose to) become friends with, granting exposure to be an equal playing field. So far, black and Indian people seem to be a matter of randomosity. Which, as I see it, is a good thing. It means that as far as I am aware, there is nothing about being black or Indian that makes you more or less likely that I would get along with you. It's a question of if I ever meet you, not a question of will we get along if we meet.

But this suddenly gets interesting when I think about Caucasians (who I will from this point onwards, refer to as "white" because I always thought "Caucasian" to be a loaded term) and Asian people. And I think it gets interesting because over my life, I have been exposed to so many of them so when a trend occurs, it appears to be something more than just random exposure or massive coincidence. I also would like to make it clear that for the most part I only know Canadian, American, and British white people. There are many cultures and nationality that are "Caucasian" by definition, but really now, I don't encounter them very often. It's a similar distinction I make to Asian people in reference to those who have been born in Canada because I find that I've frequently only encountered Canadian-born Asians (or at least, those who have been here since the age of 5 or something).

What is interesting is this. I have realized in what must be the oddest thing to occur to me in a while, that all my friends are white!

Hah, actually, no not really. That should not shock anyone. That's because it's not true. And this is the oddest thing now. All my MALE friends, are white. My female friends, by contrast, have actually, historically, all been Asian.

Now THAT is food for thought. And I can't, for the life of me, figure this one out. That my male friends are predominantly white (despite almost the exact same exposure to both white and Asian males in my life) can perhaps (and I only say *perhaps*) be attributed to the fact that I find most Asian males to be quieter and a less social than their white counterparts. If that were true, then I think I can understand it in light of my social retardation. But dear lord, how has it occurred that I simply have NO Asian male friends? I'm sitting here, racking my brains, trying to think of the closest male friend who is Asian and Stephen pops to mind... and we're not even that close. We play badminton together twice a week. How on earth did this happen?

It might not be that strange if, by similarity, all my female friends were white. Then you can just call me white-washed and be done with it. But no, this is what makes it so damn weird. And I refuse to chalk it up to pure coincidence. Ok, I do have white friends who are women. In fact, I have many. But am I close with any of them? Well, closer than I am to the Asian guys that I know, yes. But I think about it. For the first 14 or so years of my life, Dulcinea was my close female friend. Then I met Denise. Then came Elaine. You could throw Rosanne in there for good measure because we were pretty close. My closest female friend now is probably Karen, followed by Lois. In three sessions of badminton, I become good enough friends with Pearl that she's been bugging me to visit her at Western.

So is it a cultural thing? A cultural gender thing? I'm pretty sure I'm equally friendly towards all people who are friendly towards me. Food for thought.

(At badminton)
"I came prepared to play but without the intention of playing" - Jon Wong
"Really? Why are you even here?" - Alvin
"I basically came to be around people" - Jon Wong

Says a lot about me doesn't it.

I need to stop agreeing to things I've not been given adequate time to think through properly. Like agreeing to partake in the floor-wide Secret Santa. I don't even KNOW the person I've been given. And by know I actually mean I have no idea who this person is. I assume she lives on my floor...

Damn first years and their limitless quantities of energy. I got back from the library at 10:30 and didn't manage to make it to my room before getting sucked into socializing. I was planning on being good and rested for my 8:30 class tomorrow too. Like what the hell?!

I joke... partially. I love the kids.

My sociology prof was talking about control and legitimacy in class today and said something about how the importance we attach to certain things plays a big factor. His first example was that if he told people they weren't allowed to sit in the back row of the class, it wouldn't make any difference to someone who always sat in the front row. But then he (jokingly) referred to a girl who was sitting in the front row typing away at her laptop and said if he changed the rule so that we weren't allowed to sit in the front row, she might have a problem with it. And I know he was joking but I couldn't help laughing because this was someone who legitimately can't exist without having her laptop plugged into an outlet at the front of the class; I've seen her fly into a panic on days when the outlets were taken (refer to my post on October 1st) and for the life of me, couldn't help thinking how seriously of a problem it *would* be for her if we weren't allowed to sit in the front.

Geez, I've been posting like a fiend lately. I need to find a way to channel all this writing into something constructive. Like a book or a poem or something.

I've been called an idealist before in regards to my teaching intentions and what I want students to take from my class. I mean, to some extent, it's true I guess. I do think that going to class has more to do with reading, writing, and answering questions about "English stuff". And I realize that I will probably be fighting with the "ministry expectations" and finding ways to get the "curriculum" into what might end up to be somewhat different teaching methods. But when I think about it, I don't think I'm really an idealist. People often associate idealism with lofty/noble goals that don't seem to be reachable because well, you know how the starting point for a better world is the belief that it's possible. And a lot of what seems unrealistic about "idealism" as it's commonly understood is how it commonly involves changing the world in some sense or another. Making the world a better place and such. And yeah, I guess part of my teaching mantra is "make the world a better place or fail my class". But I've been thinking about that lately. And I'm thinking that when I talk to people about what I want to teach in my class, it's not really about changing the world (that, I might add, is what Dr. Morrison does).

So "make the world a better place or fail my class" seems to be a little too much. Not because I don't think it's a good idea, but because it's not really what my teaching philosophies are. Instead of "make the world a better place or fail my class," I think a considerably more accurate teaching statement is "make yourself a better person or fail my class". Because if you really want to change the world, you generally have to start by changing yourself. And really now, that doesn't seem to be quite so idealistic does it? It's not something that cynical people can roll their eyes at. It's not something you can scoff at and say "oh, what a dreamer this guy is". Becoming a better person is something that everyone can do and something I think is perfectly reasonable to expect from my students. And you'd be surprised at how much more likely you are to change the world and believe that a better world is possible when you yourself have changed for the better and are rooted in principles that form the foundation for a better future.

Learn...

To trust
To forgive
To love
To apologize
To take chances and give chances
To take responsibility for what you've done and the people you've affected
To be considerate of other people's feelings
To think critically and intelligently
To be interesting
To adapt
To be compassionate
To be tolerant
To be open-minded

That you're not the center of the universe
That just because you're not the center of the universe doesn't mean you're not important
That what you say and what you do affects other people
That when people act with good intentions, you shouldn't be too hard on them if they screw up
That sometimes, the act of taking a chance is more important than the outcome
That the hardest and most important job in our society is being a parent
That you don't have to change friends if you understand that friends change
That in the end, the only way we can truly measure our own lives is by measuring the lives of others

Come on, nothing up there is unreasonable. Nothing up there is idealistic. These aren't even things I should realistically have to teach. But I guess I'm teaching them anyway. And hopefully, what they will do after my class is attend Queen's and go to Dr. Morrison's 250 class where he'll ways of encouraging you to change the world and make it a better place.

What is with me these days? I seem to be running into life's incongruous angles left, right, and center everywhere I turn. I had another conversation with Goddard today (another correlation... though there is possible causality here) and it brought to a front something else I've noticed recently that I have actual personal experience with. Finally, for once, not a theoretical post. Or at least, least theoretical than the recent trend.

About a month ago, I told a girl a liked her. That did not go so well but that's life sometimes. It's not a big deal. Or at least, I didn't think it was a big deal. But the after effects are really annoying me now and I'm being exposed to a facet of social interaction I've never really truly been on a wrong end of before. Hence my posting about it in an attempt to figure it out.

But anyway. So that happened awhile ago. And from my understanding of our "social rules" (as I have learned them), there is supposed to be a period of awkwardness after this happens. I don't fully feel this way myself but we all know I'm weird like that. But I will accept that part of our society is to be awkward around each other after a failed attempt at asking out. Fair enough I guess. So I gave her... I don't know, a week or something, and I went and asked her if things were ok between us. She said yes. I'm pretty sure she was lying to my face at the time but how was I supposed to know this. But that's not the point.

The point is this. Social ineptness yes. But while my SQ (Social Quotient) is practically non-existent, my EQ (Emotional Quotient) is pretty high. I guess this stuff is supposed to balance itself out somehow (I think I do pretty well in the IQ department too. 2 out of 3 ain't bad I guess). I've talked about this before and how as unaware as I am of social cues, I am equally sensitive to emotions, moods, vibes, and energies. And what disturbs me is this. I have since that time, been getting very cold and very negative vibes from this girl. And I know this especially since I have a point of comparison; they are completely opposite from the type of energy she was putting off before that fateful asking-out incident about a month back. Now, awkwardness be damned, what in the HELL did I do to warrent this?! And I'm not so much indignant (though I may sound it) as I am puzzled and annoyed. You would think that I had offended or insulted her from the cold shoulder I'm getting. Seriously, all I did was tell her I liked her. Even if she did not reciprocate, it should at least be taken as a compliment! We are way beyond "awkwardness" at this point. And for the life of me, I can't figure it out.

I know I'm weird. But I'm going to compare this to my own experience anyway (see, practical... not theoretical). Whenever a girl has told me she liked me in the past, my first thought (after my initial "shit, how do I reject her nicely?" moment of panic) is almost always one of admiration. Because it takes guts to ask someone out. Good looking people tend to forget this from time to time. Or at least, people who get asked out a lot tend to forget this (so as to not generalize and lump the good looking people who don't get asked out a lot with those who do). But yeah, it takes moral fiber. And it should be respected. And I find (and this is why I'm so puzzled at my own situation) that after I tell someone I don't reciprocate their feelings... and I guess after that initial period of obligatory social awkwardness, I tend to become nicer to them than I did before. That's right. I tend to try to be more attentive to them and I tend to... do everything in my power to make them feel like things really are ok between us and that I still like their company and I still want them to be a part of my life, even if not in the way they had hoped for. Because while asking someone out naturally includes the possibility that you will get rejected, you don't deserve to be rejected AND cast out of that person's life. Can you imagine how daunting the asking out process would be if, instead of the question being "will he/she say yes or no," it was a question of "will he/she say yes or no and I don't want you in my life anymore now that you've brought it to my attention that you harbor romantic feelings towards me". I mean, I feel guilty enough rejecting a girl. I certainly don't want to be in any way responsible for making her feel like it's not worth asking a guy out because he'll cast you out of his life once he finds out you like him. Like I said, it takes guts to ask someone out. The least you can do is respect that.

This all brings me back to how puzzled I am now at my current situation. If you asked me "would you still have asked her out if you knew she was going to say no," my answer would probably be yes. But if you asked me "would you still have asked her out if you knew she was never going to speak to you ever again after saying no," I feel like my answer would likely be different. You're telling me that before this, I liked her, she didn't know this, and things were great between us but suddenly, now that she knows I like(d) her, she suddenly wants nothing to do with me? Like what the hell? Apparently, she couldn't just take it as a bloody compliment and move on. Even Katie, who I had MUCH less reason for asking out, who had a much better reason for giving me a cold shoulder, made every attempt when I saw her to at least talk to me and to diffuse awkwardness. I will never figure out this human nature business.

If I committed a cardinal sin somewhere and am doing this girl a huge injustice, someone please point this out to me. I would hate to slander her...

I hope I have not bitten off more than I can chew by promising to have an essay edited by tomorrow when I have an assignment due Tuesday I have yet to start (all this done in anticipation of receiving another paper to edit tomorrow).

Editing has become my most common procrastination pastime (after booking face of course).

To save someone or to be saved by someone?

For some reason, every time I think about that question in an "if I had a choice" scenario, I always come to an impasse. That might be a hint that something as complex as this shouldn't be reduced to a dichotomy. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to really work that way. But let's say I'm an idiot and I choose to insist on separating the two anyway.

In a sense, it's roughly the same thing as asking, would you rather sweep someone off their feet or would you rather be swept off your own? In a sense, there's something beautiful about both. There must be something to be said about sweeping someone off their feet. To meet someone who needs you; who gives you a sense of real fulfillment because you've done something good for them; who makes you feel like you've made a difference; who convinces you, through actions or words, that you have changed their life for the better. It's important to feel needed right? I mean, it feels good to know that someone's life would not have been the same without you. I had a friend who once said that he loved Girl A more than he could ever love Girl B because Girl A was chock full of problems while Girl B led a generally pretty happy life. And he loved Girl A because she needed him opposed to Girl B, whose life he imagined would be admittedly different, but probably not altogether worse had she not dated him.

Well, that seems to me to make a lot of sense. I mean, I've spoken before about how there was once a girl who I liked a lot, but could never date/ask out because I always got the impression that she was so capable at everything in life that she didn't need me and I felt like I could never really affect her life either way.

On the other hand though, there is also something to be said about meeting someone who takes your life by a storm. Someone who comes out of nowhere and makes you a better person; who does you a world of good; who makes you think, laugh, and see the world in a different way; someone who basically puts you on the receiving end of everything I just outlined above. I remember watching Desperate Housewives with Courtney in first year (in defense of my masculinity, this was due less to my desire to watch the show than it was to hang out with Courtney - who is awesome) and being struck by this quotation:

"We all honor heroes for different reasons; sometimes for their bravery, sometimes for their daring, sometimes for their goodness. But mostly, we honor heroes because at some point or another, we all dream of being rescued"

And don't we all? I think of Zach Braff in Garden State or Emile Hirsch in The Girl Next Door or Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge. People who live their lives day in, day out, never really experiencing anything out of the ordinary and then bam, their lives get turned upside down by someone different, dynamic, and completely unlike anyone else they've ever met. I mean, I know it's film and all but I've seen it happen in real life. I mean, it arguably happens to whoever is on the receiving end of the sweeping. Basic math right? If you're sweeping someone off their feet, they must be in turn getting swept off.

So that makes a lot of sense to me too. Like when I'm being antisocial amongst a crowd of people and someone insane, uplifting, talkative, and friendly decides that social retardation be damned, she's going to make sure I have a good time whether I want to or not. It's easy to fall in love with those people too, just as it's easy to love people who respond to your attentions, even though they seem like they're on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Of course, like I said, I don't think these two ideas are really supposed to be separated. I guess ideally, you want to meet someone who you need as much as they need you. But seriously, how often are these things as perfectly balanced as that? It's just something I think about from time to time.

By the way, the subject of this post actually popped into my head (I don't know how the causality works) because I found out earlier tonight that APPARENTLY, when you blow out your birthday candles, the number of candles that remain after your first try is the number of girl/boyfriends you're going to have for the next year. Well, if random correlation has any bearing on the credibility of this report, I have always blown out all my candles every year with one breath.

"Seriously Goddard, if I KNEW for a fact that I would be single for the rest of my life - something which fortunately, is an absolute impossibility - but hypothetically speaking, if there was some way I could know this beyond a doubt, I would very likely kill myself"

This is what we call an emo rant. But there's an actual reason why I'm posting this excerpt from a conversation I had (while drinking of course) last week. It's actually become part of an existential strain I've been running along for the past few weeks. I don't remember if I've ever written about this before but there has always been 1 predominant reason why I've never in my life had an existential crisis. That might seem odd to people who know stuff about me and know how often I engage in self-reflection/intellectual thoughts. Having an existential crisis seems to be something that I would experience over and over again. But I never have them. And I would like to think that I'm not having one now; I think I've just become more aware of existentialism - and this is not just because I'm taking a first year philosophy course.

Much of it has to do with the nature of an existential crisis. I don't fully understand it myself but I am led to believe to having an existential crisis runs along the lines of asking, more or less, "is this it?" or "is this all there is in this world?" People who have existential crises tend to run along those lines anyway. Well, the simple response I generally give to people when they ask me if I've ever had an existential crisis is "Well, no I haven't. I'm rather too busy worried about dying single to have an existential crisis". Because you see, so long as I'm single, I will never question if this is all there is in life. I know it isn't; there is the wonderful experience of loving someone and being loved in return that I have yet to experience.

So that seems rather convenient. Well, this is where drinking/being emo becomes dangerous. Because when I indulge, as I am prone to do, in such depressing thoughts, the very scary thought occurs to me that I may very well be single for the rest of my life. Of course, my sober self (as I am now) retains a more optimistic view of this dilemma and I do consider it rather fortunate that I can't know the answer to that question. But keep in mind, I operate on a very different level of consciousness when I drink. Because I tend to reach to reach the conclusion quoted above at some point in my meditations and the reality of it really strikes me very poignantly.

Goddard, so far, has made the best retaliation to that thought by bringing out 2 things that he supposed I would find the most reason to live for. He asked me if I didn't find a point in living in a. teaching, and b. just being around my friends. Well, to the question of teaching, I told him that I teach largely on the basis of principles. But when I really think about it, as important as principles are, they're still just ideas. Ideas that govern this world, yes. Ideas that hopefully make them better people. But as Natalie Portman once quoted in V for Vendetta,

"You cannot kiss an idea; cannot touch it, or hold it... ideas do not bleed; they do not feel pain; they do not love...

And it seems to me that merely teaching these ideas doesn't really do justice what it means to learn. Because to quote the famous line from Moulin Rouge,

"The greatest thing you could ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return"

So that's teaching. A good and rewarding profession by all accounts, but not really enough to give me a purpose in life. And when I think about it, that might just be the one thing the prevents me from being a truly great teacher. It's not what I live for. I cannot sustain myself on teaching alone. Some teachers can. For some, it's why they're here on earth. It's not why I'm here.

Goddard's second question merits thought though (I speak as if the entire thing has not given me furious to think). I think when it comes down to it, being around people I care about might legitimately stand on its own as a reason to stick around. It might be the only reason I am still around now. For all the importance I attach to loving and being loved, living for friends might arguably be just as important. I hope it is. That would be a comforting thought.

So to my friends; my real friends, I do hope you stick around no matter what happens in life. I hope that no matter how much we may offend each other from time to time, that we recognize that it happens in life and that we forgive each other, even if it means swallowing our pride. I hope that no matter what jobs we take, what lives we choose, we never forget to call each other and arrange to go out for drinks or food. I hope that no matter where we are geographically, where we choose to live, we never forget to visit or call each other when we're in the area. I hope that no matter who we meet or how we change, we never forget to care about each other. And I hope that no matter what people say about the power of love, that the power of friendship trumps it... because honestly, it might just be the one thing in this world that's keeping me alive.

Great. First year psych marks are up and my floor is freaking out. Either with joy or sorrow but really now, I'm having a hard time getting them to see that it's only worth 10% of their final grade. Apparently, it's hard to put that in perspective when you're freaking out.

All of a sudden, I fly into a panic about finding a summer job in Markham this summer. Yeah that's right. On November 4th, I am concerned about employment. Because I seriously want to stay at home this year (which hasn't happened since high school) and I want to be able to work somewhere that doesn't involve me leaving home for a lengthy period of time.

Ok, so it doesn't have to be in Markham. I don't really care where I work as long as I can go home everyday. That's not so unreasonable is it?!

Kale Boehmer posted this as a note on facebook:

POST

(stolen while creeping)

One chance.
One answer.
100% honest.
That's all you get.

You get to ask me 1 question.
(TO MY INBOX)
Any one question, no matter how crazy it is!

Conditions: I won't tell ANYONE what you asked me and I'll answer it...and you WON'T tell anyone the answer

/POST

I actually don't think this is a bad idea for everyone to do. The world could use a little more honesty.

This is a direct response to The English Clergyman. Thinking Grounds is his blog (on the right). This likely might not make sense unless you read his post about mainstream-ism (not a word) first.

My first instinct when encountering something like this is to think of it in 2 ways. The first is my question of what you're trying to achieve. I mean, are you dressed differently for the sake of dressing differently? As silly as this seems to me, if that is, indeed, the point behind the way you dress, i.e. to be different from the mainstream, then really, shouldn't you reasonably be flexible enough to simply CHANGE STYLES if you find that your current one is becoming mainstream? The second way of thinking though, is that if you dress the way you are because you like the way it looks, then it shouldn't matter to you whether or not the way you dress becomes a cultural phenomenon right?

Of course, upon further reflection, I think the truth generally lies somewhere in between these 2 points. You want to dress a certain way because you like how it looks; but you like how it looks because it is unique in defining who you are. So arguably, if you feel like your "style" is fading in mainstream, you may no longer feel unique. Alright, I think that's a reasonable fear. I also think it's only a reasonable fear if you're so uninteresting and so un-unique (not a word) that you can only have one "look" that you wear 24 hours a day and of course, would, by extension, feel threatened if this one "look" fades into mainstream since apparently, NOTHING else defines you as a person. Seriously, how unifaceted (again, not a word) are you that wearing gothic clothing 24 hours a day is the ONLY way you can express who you are through what you wear? Do you want to know a little secret about the things you wear? They're only affective (and effective) if people have something to contrast you against.

You know why girls look so beautiful when they dress up for a semi-formal? It's because you're used to seeing them in other clothes. It's because a girl can wear jeans and t-shirt that she looks good when she wears a skirt and a blouse. And she is unique because wearing jeans a t-shirt expresses one facet of her interesting and complex personality while wearing a skirt and a blouse expresses a completely different facet of the same person. It's the combination of clothes that we wear that makes our individual attires unique because they express us a certain way. Girl A who wears jeans and a t-shirt looks completely different and completely unique from Girl B who might also wear the same jeans and a similar t-shirt because Girl A normally wears sweatpants while Girl B normally wears a skirt.

And this is not just confined with clothes. I've ranted about this before but I can't stand it when people insist that they only like 1 genre of music. Seriously, how close minded and uncultured are you that you can't enjoy anything that isn't rap, or something that isn't rock, or indie, or folk, or jazz, or hip-hop? You are NEVER unique if you aren't complex and diverse. This, I think, is why (in response to T.E.C.), the girl was called a poser when she was the only one who wore Gothic clothing and then again, when it became mainstream. It's a lose-lose situation because it always will be if you only identify with one look. 1 trait does not make you unique by itself. It makes you unique because it contrasts with all your other weird and wonderful traits. If you have no other weird and wonderful traits to speak of... then of course, you'll feel enroached upon no matter what you do.

Wow... I become a raving emo when I drink. I don't know why being at a bar, having a pint and eating deep fried foods exacerbates everything that is depressing about my life but it always causes me to talk about the most emo-related facets of my life to whoever will listen.

On the other hand though, I always find a way to reconcile these aforementioned depressing thoughts while drinking. Everything really falls into perspective... in the immortal words of Natalie Portman, "but that's life you know... and it's pretty much all we've got". I always seem to reach that conclusion after indulging in depressing thoughts at a bar. I just dip my feet into a pool of emotions for the duration of my bar-going experience (which now happens like every other week) and pull out by the end of it.

Weird.