Anyway, my post isn't about Idol, and isn't entirely about Kris. It's about another realisation I made when I was watching Kris last night and comparing him to someone I know whom Kris reminds me a lot of.
See, the thing is, while I find Kris absolutely adorable and cute, and while I think he's super pretty, the thing is, to me, he has no sex appeal. He's just not sexy. Maybe if he were taller he'd have the sex bomb heart-throb thing down pat, maybe if he weren't married...but most likely, maybe if he weren't so nice. Maybe if he were edgier, less Mr. Nice Guy, perhaps a little bit bastard - perhaps then he'd be sexy.
The point is, I think I find it chronically difficult to date nice guys because I just don't find them sexually attractive. The nicest people I know have no sex appeal, and it's precisely because of how genuinely nice they are, such that they give meaning to that cliche and over-used word, that takes all the sexiness out of them. On the other hand, the typical bastard type that EVERYONE should stay away from if they know what's good for them is the kind of guy I'd find sexually appealing and highly attractive (this is on the assumption that he's hot, obviously, and can actually, like, speak English).
Is this important, though? I suppose it's not - at least, not in the long run. Everyone gets old, everyone loses their looks, and when you're old and wrinkly and your looks have faded, it doesn't matter what your partner looks like, only who he is as a person. I know that, rationally; and yet, it's also true that the first impression, feral attraction, inexplicable need to see someone, is fueled by a person's sex appeal.
Why can't I have both? It's a sad world we live in. Or maybe, as usual, I'm just asking for way too much.
On another note, I'd like to announce to the whole world that I deeply - DEEPLY - regret taking Nation-Building.
On the one hand, I couldn't stop laughing when I saw that I got a B+ for a test for which I did not study, like, at all. I read maybe 5 pages of one of the articles before I got bored, and the day before the test I was sick and didn't feel like doing anything and so I did nothing.
On the other hand, I didn't sign up for this stupid module to get a B+. Which means I actually have to study for the bloody exam. Which I tried doing today - read some article on Singapore's education policies through the years...or rather, TRIED to read some article on some insignificant shit which I don't care about, like, at all. But oh my god, I can't even begin to describe how torturous it was. If you think reading long-ass cases in which judges say the same thing over and over again is bad, try reading some badly-written article FULL of cliches and empty assertions and claims about Singapore's education policies in which the author/s seem to be implicitly exalting the ruling party, and THEN you'll find out what 'torturous' really means. Even worse is when these articles reproduce government policies and what appear to be their catchphrases which offend you on two levels: first, the horrible use of language that only makes you roll your eyes at how typically Government it is; and second, the insufferable philosophy, or pseudo-philosophy, that underlines these policies that goes against everything you believe in. At times like these, you wonder why you call yourself Singaporean, if there's anything that conflate at all between yourself, your own values, and the supposed values of the country.
Here are a few examples of the offensive phrases that got me so annoyed, I didn't even want to read the damn thing anymore:
1. "The multi-faceted reform measures succeeded not only in muting protests fromt he Chinese, Malay and Tamil communities, but also paved the way for the development of a national system of education which was to evolve in the ensuing decade." (emphasis added)
There is nothing wrong with the sentence per se, but when you consider the context in which it arose, it has to raise at least a few eyebrows. The section the sentence was taken from talked about Singapore's education from 1959 to 1965. There was a chunk of stuff about the Malayan Communist Party and the communist threat and how the Chinese-language schools were marginalised by the British colonial power and how the Chinese community was pissed off that the ang mohs were diluting their culture and language. There was a paragraph or two about housing shortage, high birth rates, how English was preferred in the public sector.
There was NOTHING about the Malays and Tamils. NOTHING. The only "protests" that were mentioned or alluded to came solely from the Chinese community. Tell me, then, where the hell did "Malays and Tamils" come from? It's just fucking shoddy and lazy writing, a clear instance of irresponsibly bringing the Malays and Tamils into the picture, at random, for purposes which I can't even begin to fathom. Maybe the writer/s were just lazy; maybe they didn't proof-read; maybe the editors fell asleep; maybe they're so Singaporean that they're used to chanting Chinese Malay Tamil (eh what happened to "others/Eurasians"?) without even thinking about it. Whatever it is, it PISSED ME OFF because it's a clear example of an assertion without the backing of any evidence.
2. "To the PAP leadership, all these emphasised the need for education to continue in its very crucial twin-role o facilitating the nation's economic transformation and of building a socially-disciplined cohesive Singaporean society." (emphasis mine)
"Very crucial twin-role"? Cliches and deeply unimaginative and uninspiring writing. More offensively, what the fuck is up with the italicised phrase? SOCIALLY-DISCIPLINED? Am I the only one who had flashes of 1984 and Brave New World when reading that phrase?
To cut a long rant short because it's not worth the trouble and the time, I hate this module. I'd rather have taken another law course. Nothing is worse than trying to force yourself to read articles about things that you simply DON'T CARE ABOUT. And don't even give me that bullshit about how it's about Singapore and therefore I should care; I think there are more important things in the world to worry about than whether the PAP manufactured a Singapore nation. WHATEVER.