What I Want In A Mate...

I'm going to bare my soul. I mean it! I really am! And don't you dare laugh! 'Cos if you do, I... I... I... I won't friend you anymore! Nyah Nyah Nyah! So there!

Geez... I rue the day I ever decided to write on this topic. But having thought about the topic, I really couldn't get it out of my mind... couldn't get it off my chest. So, die die must write lah! Tamade.

Why this all started is because within the space of 96 hours (4 days, for the mathematically-challenged people out there), I had 6 people say that the prime reason why I'm as near to getting married now as the day I was born is because *gasp* I'm picky. No, I'm not! Not picky at all! Well, ok... maybe just a little. But hey, better to be picky now than to regret for the rest of my life right? And that of course got me thinking, what am I picky about? So, *gulp* here goes. The wish list for my (Edwin Seah Ek Chuan's) ideal mate...

1. Must be a female. (duh!). I am not gay, never was, never will be. I revel in my heterosexuality. So there!

2. Must not have been a male before being a female. Not as funny as it sounds ok?. While I am totally not prejudiced against transexuals, I DO want to have kids in future. If for no other reason than to ruin their future.

Ok... Now that I got the above two points out of the way, guess I've gotta go to slightly more serious stuff about what I'd like in my future mate... *very deep breath* Well, here goes...

3. I must be able to wake up every day beside her, and not tire of seeing her. She doesn't need to be some great beauty. In mandarin, kan de shun yan can already.

4. Since we're on the subject of an ideal mate though, I'm a sucker for straight hair, round eyes, heart-shaped faces, and dimples. Just thought you'd like to know...

5. Caveat, this point is about what I don't mind. I don't mind anyone of any height. Really. I also don't mind her being underweight or in the healthy BMI. I don't even mind if her BMI is between 25-28. But anything more than that is a no-no. I do maintain my weight. So should she.

'Nuff about looks then... Let's get to the inside stuff...

6. She must be all woman. And by that I mean she ought not to be a tomboy. Of course I don't want a lady who screams and leaps for the nearest chair at the sight of a spider, but I'd like a lady who is totally in touch with her femininity.

7. Comfortable with herself. She must be able to look straight in the mirror and like what she sees, both on the inside and the outside. This translates to confidence in herself, in her abilities, in her future. No wallflowers for me please.

8. Intelligent and erudite. She must be able to express herself well, and not be afraid of telling me what she wants out of me and out of life. I do not want to be married to a cave-woman. If I just wanted a rut in the hay, I might as well pay for it. I don't care if she is more highly-educated than I am. I think I can keep up. *puffs chest up*

9. Sense of humour. Need I say more? This I think is on the wish list of practically every unattached person, male or female. But most importantly, the sense of humour ought to gel with mine. No jokes which fall flatter than yesterday's bubble-gum please...

10. Courtesy and consideration. If a person is naturally courteous, it says a lot about her consideration for others. I will not stop treating her like the lady she is, and I hope she will not stop treating me like the gent I hope to be.

11. Open and liberal. I have my own views on how the world works, and quite a fair bit can be a little at odds with society at large. I don't expect her to pander to my every opinion, but she ought to be open-minded enough to accept things which are unfamiliar to her.

12. Self-control. Don't get me wrong. I like being whimsical at times. And I like it in a lady too. But this ought not detract that as individuals and as a couple, we should comport ourselves as the situation demands. And that boils down to self-control: comporting ourselves suitably at the right time for the right occasion.

And on to the final segment... How we will treat each other...

13. She'll be my partner. I can't stand being led, and I don't intend to marry a groupie. I want a life partner... Someone who will stand by my side through thick and thin.

14. We'll share. We'll both take responsibility of our household. I don't want to spend my life quibbling about money or parents or other responsibilities. Both of us must be able to step up to the base in good times and in bad.

15. We will grow together. I don't want to be caught in a stagnant relationship. We can go for courses together, renew our vows every 5 years, whatever. Just don't let us be stagnant.

16. Don't try to change me. Because I won't try to change her. Check the sidebar on the right. I drink and smoke. I may give both up for the woman I love, but I will never do so if she is going to nag me to death about it.

Yeah I know 16 is a very funny number to stop at, but I think I've just about covered everything. Reading back, I guess I am a little picky hor? But... yeah... oh well... Sheesh, load of my chest! *silly grinz* Oh and if you are going to leave a comment about my criteria being a tad too unrealistic (ok ok, out-of-this-world unrealistic), well, I did say "ideal" right? Haha. Maybe my next entry will be on what I am willing to compromise on... Hmmm...

The Practicality of Altruism

I went to watch a play a couple of weeks ago. It was a play in Mandarin entitled Trash. Yeah. Mandarin. Haha. For all of you who think I only eat potatoes (I happen to like rice and noodles too), nyah nyah nyah. Ahem. Sorry. Anyway, the play (like most locally written plays) is a parody making a statement about the three sociological circles of Singapore society vis-a-vis: the civic circle, the civil circle and the commercial circle (how's that for alliteration!). The play talks about a fictitious country (they always are fictitious aren't they?) in the future, where the country aims to be the first in everything, and where everything is so regulated you'd need a permit to get pregnant (I kid you not!).

The play of course makes a very strong statement against over-regulation. And yes, I do have to agree with its basic premise. However, within the play, there was also a superhero character, who wanted to bring utopia to earth, where everyone was considered equal and everyone would receive his fair share.

Which begs the question: how fair is fair?

Is the amount Bill Gates earns every hour fair? Or must Bill, despite his absolute genius in computers, share his immense wealth with everyone around the world? Should our ministers, whose salaries are currently pegged at the top 5% of the CEOs in the country, tithe 95% of their pay to us poor church mice? Should the archbishop of Singapore, who earns almost as much as our ministers, do the same? I guess the answer, tempting as it may be to say the opposite, is no.

No matter how much we say we are all equal, there is and always will exist inequality amongst humans. We used to be differentiated by race. Now we are differentiated by religion. My ideal is when we are differentiated by ability, and only ability. It is the ability to adapt, to survive and to rise to the top of the heap that will garner us our rewards. If we were to be socialist or communist in nature, have equal distribution, steal from the justly rich to give to the justly poor, then a spirit of disillusionment and listlessness will set in.

It is for that reason that discrimination and elitism must survive. Not in terms of race, or religion, or nationality or accident of birth, or language or region or any other surface characteristic. Discrimination and elitism must arise from one's abilities, and the desire and wherewithal to rise to the top of the heap in as honourable and as honest a manner as possible. We must rise on the shoulders of talent which we recognise and bring with us. And yes, we must discriminate and be biased against those who refuse to stand on their own two feet.

When you see a beggar, before giving him your twenty cents, observe him. Is he able? Is he willing and has a desire to improve his lot? If he is, then let him be part of your enterprise. But if he begs as a choice, because he believes in free handouts, then deride him; for society has no place for garbage such as he.

Such is the practicality of altrusim. Help only those who are willing to rise above their lot.

Is Marriage Necessary?

I have a couple of friends on the verge of getting a divorce. Mutual friends are horrified. They say, shouldn't marriage be forever? If you find that you aren't suitable for each other, why get married in the first place? Isn't marriage a commitment to each other? To stay by each other's side, through thick and thin, the bad and the good, and love each other, till death do they part?

My reply to those friends have always been: yes and no.

Blame it on the sociological training I've had. But I firmly stand by the opinion that marriage is an institution. It is a social construct. In other words, it was invented by mankind and is now so intrinsically embedded in almost every society in the world, it becomes a necessity to many people. Sort of like the concept of money.

When I say this, people who are listening look at me in pure horror as if I were a square egg or The Rock wearing a tutu. I tell them they have mixed up the concept of marriage with the concept of love. They tell me the two ought to go hand in hand. I tell them two things which go hand in hand means they are inter-dependent. However, for love and marriage, they are NOT inter-dependent, no matter how much we idealists wish it to be.

Let me explain.

Love between two people is a wonderful thing. You care for each other, show concern for each other, look out for one another, think about the future with each other... Basically both lives are intertwined. In the immortal words from Moulin Rouge, love is a many-splendoured thing, love lifts us up where we belong, all we need is love. Romantic that I am, I agree! Marriage on the other hand... People have many reasons for getting married: to get permanent residency, to get money, to get a flat, and of course sometimes, because they are actually in love.

When two people stand at the altar and recite their vows of marriage, it can sometimes be difficult to tell if they are meaning what they say. For society, marriage as a social construct serves many functions, not the least of which pertains to individual social responsibility. Should you marry, and then divorce, (both of which coincidentally has to do with signing reams and reams of paper), the richer party is legally held responsible for the upkeep of the poor ex-partner. When two people get married and have offspring, the parents are legally held responsible for the upkeep and upbringing of their scions. In Singapore, you cannot buy a flat for yourself before the age of 35 unless you're married (one of my favourite grouses).

But look at all the above: do any of those social and legal restrictions have got to do with two individual's heartfelt commitment to spend the rest of their lives together? I think not. Some of my friends view marriage as the commitment to spending their lives together. I say that the true commitment is in the heart, and there is no need for marriage to be the affirmation of that commitment. Some of my friends say that two people cannot be seen as truly together unless they are married. I say this only shows too much faith in the symbolism of a piece of paper. My friends who are thinking of getting a divorce say that the marriage has broken down. I say it is the love between the couple which has broken down.

I am willing to fall in love and be with a woman who can do the same to me. If she is marriage-phobic, then so be it; as long as there is the heartfelt and sincere commitment to make a relationship work, marriage is superfluous.

Then again... It'll be nice to have a flat...