This room is a 'window' of opportunity for me to discuss various issues. I will bring forward certain questions or issues that I find intriguing, and would write a little column on what I feel about that particular topic. Hopefully, you may find that topic just as interesting as I had, and would like to add something of your own or even suggest a new area/topic in the guest book. Initially, I had a dream that you would be allowed to post your views onto this web page itself but then, I had realized that this is impossible (unless you pay) at the moment. I would however, still encourage your comments and will incorporate them into a summary at the end. Confidentiality can be provided if desired. Constructive criticism is most welcome and hopefully, it will turn into an interesting discussion room, which may help us to be more observant and learn about differences existing between different cultures, with acceptance and understanding.

Topic 1 - Looks

Looks - Does it really matter? Is it true that people with better looks get a head start in life against others with less superior qualities? Men had and still has, always been criticized for making too many of their decisions based on looks. What about women? Don't they pay attention to looks as well. When women say, it is the character that counts, will they actually have the chance to really get to know someone less attractive if there is no physical attraction in the first place?

Firstly, as much as I would hate to admit, this is a superficial world. In this superficial world, attractive people tend to gain attention without much effort. That's the way it is. Less attractive people will probably have to 'work' twice as hard to get a quarter as much attention as an attractive person does. Most of us are all guilty of this behaviour. How many of you would not turn around and take a second look, when someone good-looking passes by? For example, I know that most men would prefer to be served by a better looking salesperson and I'm just wondering if women are not as guilty of that as men are.

Another example I had observed is from lectures I had where mobile phones ring. Now, we all know how irritating that is. But there are degrees of irritation .... When we try to notice who left their mobile phones on and discover that it is an average looking girl, the guys in the class frown. She actually switched her mobile phone off after two rings, looking extremely embarrassed. There was another occasion when the phone was left ringing and then a relatively attractive girl tried to search for it in her bag, exclaiming in a sweet voice as well, "Oh, I can't find it." and then finally finds it and switches it off. This took place in about 1 minute, many more rings than the first girl. When I looked in front and observed the reactions from the guy .... smiling. Now, this is really interesting, I thought .... Why the difference? Are our actions shaped on how the person looks? Women can again say that men are animals but are you sure if that person was as good looking as Brad Pitt, you wouldn't feel the same way too? Speaking of Brad Pitt, who has watched "Meet Joe Black"? The movie that was over long (if you rent this movie, watch the first hour, forward another hour and watch the last hour - you will find that you missed out on nothing at all.). There was a situation in the first half of the movie where Brad chats up the female lead in a cafe and the woman responds back. You might find nothing extraordinary to this situation. Think again. If it was say "Danny Devito" instead of Brad Pitt, do you think that he would have been able to chat her up? Or would it be more likely that he would get a "Get off my face, you jerk!!" reaction from her?

So, you may discover that there are not that many differences between men and women actually. But why do we do that? Do we pay more attention to someone just because they are blessed with looks? Doesn't this in many ways, give them a head start?

An interesting answer I would also like to know is whether people who perceive themselves with inferior looks, feel that they are 'robbed' in some way. Don't they desire some form of attention from everyone sometimes as well? Why then do we have this difference. If we are advocating equality, why restrict it only to a "Battle Of The Sexes"?

Topic 2 - Collectivism

I had a very interesting discussion with a friend's girlfriend a few weeks ago. She questioned me about my national service, which we both agreed was way too long, but she did agree on the points which I thought were good about 'collectivism'. Collectivism as in the fact that you learn to live and work together as a team, regardless of whether you like them as a human being or not. It also taught us about endurance, patience, teamwork, and cherishing what you own in life and most importantly .... maturity. She found the bit on 'collectivism' very intriguing because she felt that people were in general too 'individualistic nowadays. Not only is it predominant in the Australian culture, but also in the English culture, where she used to belong. She currently lives in a neighbourhood which is very Italian in 'nature' and they are a very close knitted community. They practice 'full collectivism' and a 'family' sort of relationship, where non Italians will be served last - for example, Brett and her. But she isn't angry, she envious of the relationship that they hold and wonder if there is any other way other than militarism that can help cultivate such collectivism.

She also particularly feel that women are robbed of such chances (like national service) to develop such skills (most men perceive that women bitch more about each other than help each other).

No longer are there the days where women would help each other out, like giving tips after childbirth and helping out each other. I wonder if this is a culturally based issue because it may still be evident in the Asian culture. If it is so, can it be transferred cross culturally?  She also wonders if there are any activities that can help to cultivate such behaviour in women (other than just feminist movements - I feel)? But of course, it is a individual based issue because not everyone wants to be part of a larger family.

Like I mentioned before, my views on national service is that it helps to develop a sense of responsibility and thus maturity in most guys. You will learn that you are not the only person affected by whatever decisions you make. It also allows you to have a taste of what it is like to have no choice and still have to accept what is being ordered down, regardless of how absurd that command might be. Tolerance, I would call that .... You will also learn that when you live in a group for a period of time, you tend to develop some form of bondage with them, and them with you. You tend to look for and look after each other .... just like how movies depict friendship and buddy-hood in wars, and how grown men can actually cry when their buddies die. You might think that it is all "bull-shit" but let me tell you that it is true. Separation hurts and men are human beings with emotions as well. We just choose to let go of them in different ways from women.

It has been said more than once as well, that a woman's best weapon is her tears as well. So, would military service actually suit them and would they benefit from it? I personally think it would, though it would have to be toned down quite a bit. I do remember my sister having such an experience where she went for a one week camp stay in some army barracks. Now, my sister is rather feminine, but she had nothing but glowing reviews for her experience. Of course, the time period is too short and the sample, way too small to make any concrete inferences. There are many team building courses and exercises developed for management nowadays to try to create team building skills, but how useful are they really? Does superiority still reign?  Can they be modified in some way so that we can incorporate it onto real world basis to cultivate collectivism in people nowadays?

Topic 3 - Monogamy

What is monogamy? Was there monogamy in the ancient days where bigamy and polygamy were pronounced? Or is it usually just restricted itself to the poor? Has current issues and the uprise of feminism issues and equality shaped the world in such a way that monogamy is now finally "possible"?  Is there such a thing then as monogamy? If yes, then what does it constitute and where do the boundaries lie?

This issue popped up this morning when I was watching a video that I had rented over the weekend. It was a relatively new but unknown movie but it was surprisingly good. It questioned the notion of monogamy. Jason Alexander (George from "Seinfeld") plays an author who raises this issue in the minds of three seemingly happy couple. Two of them are married and the third are expecting their first child and planning to get married soon. There was a slight furor at the dinner party when Jason brought the issue up and claimed that there was no such thing as monogamy because, men, as women would like to admit more than often, are animals. Well, in many ways, men and women are no real different. We are all animals and there is the animal instinct in us that works almost the same way. We all get drawn to good looking things and beings and all of us have little fantasies, whatever they may be. Maybe it is just that men tend to boast more about it amongst their friends, but after watching "Sex and The City", I do believe that women are not too different as well. Men don't want the details that women do. Maybe I'm just stereotyping, but I do believe that this exists in the Western culture, and with the globalization forces bringing us closer to each other and the intertwining of our value systems, I wouldn't be surprised that this behaviour would catch on in the less "open" Asian culture.

In the movie, the couples object vehemently to the notion that "monogamy does not exist". They all swear to loyalty for their mates but then it is all just a facade. A little mask that they put on, so that life continues in the sweet and normal way it is. So, another issue pops up : Is ignorance bliss? There are certainly times when I wished I was just a simpleton. Not to want to be so curious sometimes, and allow things to be what they are. In many ways, I had succeeded. I give people the benefit of doubt and try my very best not to judge others, but I still can't reduce my sensitivity towards people. There are many days when I just want to say, "I really don't care" but I can't. I know I can't. Anyway, there are many good things being sensitive and observant as well. There are always two sides of the coin. In many ways, I feel fortunate to be able to put myself into others' shoes and think from their perspective. I feel that I truly live, and it's an experience I would not want to give up at all.

Okay, back to monogamy. It turns out that both married couples in the movie actually cheat in various ways. There's a couple who has what one could call "an open relationship". It is actually rather common, which is a "No questions asked, just enjoy each others' company whenever they're together." I personally find it revolting but it's their choice and I don't want to judge. It's a kind of a relationship where the two partners sleep around with various partners (they just say it's sex with no love involved) and it's bliss for them, because they get the excitement when they are together. They stay married, you don't ask each other intimate questions like this, don't have to share secrets and stay emotionally just as detached because of their hectic lifestyles. "You get variety and still yet have someone to come back to every night.", that's what one would say and it's definitely not monogamy.  The next married couple revolves around the issue in a different way. The husband desperately wants to stay loyal to his wife who he dearly loves, but yet, he still wants a little side dish, though he feels deeply bugged by his guilt. He doesn't go all the way with his partners, there is no sex involved, just a hand job from the masseuse or a girl that he picks up from the ice hockey game. One might call him "chicken shit" because men would say he doesn't have the guts to do it but would those men, if they are in his situation, have the courage to do it as well. He feels so guilt ridden that he wants to tell his wife about it, but his brother advises him not to. He finally does it. His wife flies into a rage, which is common, but the strangest thing is that his wife herself was unfaithful to him as well. She actually had sex with her professor and did not tell her husband, and still had the cheek to get angry. Are these the perks of being a woman? A woman has better judgment and if she decides that not telling would save her marriage and be healthy for the entire situation, she should not tell. She felt that since it was just a fling and no love was involved, it was all right. It is easier for a woman to forgive than for a man to forget. Is that true? A woman can have secrets but a man can't. She forgives him, saves the marriage and ends up being a heroine. Bitch!! I would say.

The last couple poses one of the most interesting questions on "Is ignorance bliss?" The fiancé is pregnant and the fiancée works as a chef, with a waiter loitering beside him all day telling him about his sexual conquests. They are unable to have sex because a man usually have some qualms about having sex with the pregnant mother of their child. Men feel that their penis is going to poke into their child's head, which is ridiculous but it's true. I don't think that it is that men find pregnant women unattractive. It is just the notion of having sex when a baby's in there that makes the whole idea of sex off-putting with a pregnant woman. Anyway, he is still a man , and like most men, has sexual desires to fulfill (Note the word "most"). He stays faithful to his fiancé who he dearly loves and decides that the only thing he will do is to "jack off" with his porno magazines and video tapes. He even goes back to his favorite haunt "The XXX cinemas" during his breaks at work. He feels guilty and makes sure that his fiancé knows nothing about it. His fiancé loves him dearly but has a sister, who's a single mom (bad experience with men leading to a non trust for all men). They leave the two child with a video tape and when they realize that the two children were way to good and quiet, they enter the room and were horrified to see that it was a porno tape and not the cartoon they thought the two babies were watching. The wife is disgusted and the sister advises her to seek the help of a private investigator. She is in a dilemma but after catching her husband to be red handed at night (without the intrusion, just watching in silence), with the porno mags in the bathroom, she employs the service of one. She is flabbergasted when she sees the photos of her fiancee exiting the XXX theaters and the investigator suggests that they proceed with Plan B - the trap. I learnt from a friend that such cases are typical in real life but I really feel that it is unfair. You're getting a gorgeous woman to seduce your lover, say the most wonderful things about them and observing if they will fall for the trap. This is an artificial setting because the world does not work like that. Anyway, they proceed with it and the man seems to be falling for the trap until the last minute, when he proclaims that he is in love with the most wonderful woman and he will never do anything to hurt her. His fiancé is elated and screams that he can watch all the porno he wants.

Well, so where does monogamy lie? Does the last situation constitute the notion of monogamy. As long as they stay as fantasies, it is still monogamy. Or is it just restricted to pictures and photos and not someone they really know and is in flesh and blood. Is ignorance really bliss? Is it really better to keep some secrets as secrets so that life is less painful? I do believe in monogamy but really where do the boundaries lie. Is it only possible through true love? How many people actually find it because true love lasts forever? With these many temptations around the world, can we ever find true love? And how do we know, if that's the person? Questions and more questions ... some probably best left unanswered ...

Topic 4 - Sex and The City

If you ever had a chance to watch this very controversial series, you will be shocked with the content and issues mentioned in it. Some women thinks that it places women in a derogatory position while others truly think that it's a revelation, because it is indeed what unmarried women over 30's talk about. There are four leading characters in the series and three of them are in some ways more prepared to give up their fast lives for the Mr. Right while the last is just exactly, like how the men are portrayed in the series ... pure sex animals. Of course, it will not be easy for them to look for the right one and in the process, they discuss and compare, which in many ways gives men an insight into the deep uncharted brain waves of a woman and the mystery behind them.

I personally find this series very interesting though the issues can be too provocative for the more conservative audience. I did wonder if we could ever do something like that involving men instead of women, but then of course, I don't really think it is possible. Men are more reserved when it comes to the strict details. It's just sex and it's the act that intrigues, not what that goes on in the mind that fascinates them. Of course, the women in this series can be no different as well but they don't just go boasting like men do. Men probably use more simple expressions and would describe the act or what the partner did. Women would do that and add in what joy they felt as well. It's more intrinsic, and it usually involves a lot more emotion. Of course, it again applies to most women. There is a character as mentioned earlier that just treats sex as pure sex.

One of the most interesting episodes (for me as a man) is one where this prosmicuous woman (I think her name is Amanda - one of the lead characters who dump men after having sex with them on the first date - no strings attached) finally thinks she finds true love. She gushes like a little girl who discovers the joys of love for the first time and did not have sex with the man ... yet. Her friends are astonished because it is very unusual for her to say "I'm in love" but they are all elated for her. However, the next time when they see her, it is a very different story. It happened like this ...

She finally decides to have sex with the guy that she loves one day. They start ripping off each other's clothes but she is just too impatient. She jumps onto the bed and beckons him to come. She puts herself in a more comfortable position with the man already on the bed and exclaims, "I'm ready. Put it in me", to which the man says "I'm already in." She shows a face of astonishment. It turns out that the man has a small dick ... 3 inches. Her friends are bewildered but try to keep a straight face, because she's sobbing. They do that "It's all right. Size doesn't matter" - usual crap that women preach but this woman cries the reverse. She says that she doesn't feel a single thing at all. Later on, whenever they make love, she would cry and when asked, she would only say "That's because I'm too happy."

"Size" - does it matter? Or should I say "Does it not matter?" Women have been disgusted with men's obsession about size but when they see a huge anatomy, wouldn't they gasp as well. My female friend is "blessed" with huge assets (which she thinks is more of a liability at most times) but she did say that whenever, she appeared once unrobed, most women dropped their jaws. So, aren't women in some ways, just as bothered about size as well. If not, why have breast enlargement surgeries? I do find the "size" issue a little tiring because it is such a relative term. How would you judge "big" or "small". It's all relative.

So what if it's big? Does it make you a better person? You may believe "in sex, it does" but can you save the world with it? What would you want people to say in your eulogy when you're dead. "He's such a nice person because he did this and this for all his friends and people around the world" or "Oh. What can I say, man. He's got a giant dick. That's all I remember of my mate. What else can I say? Shall we have a look? Woooooo ... " I did notice something funny last night at a dinner party as well. All those myths about how one can know the size of their anatomy without looking or measuring the actual thing and drawing inferences from sizes of palms and fingers. Well, someone brought that conversation up and you start observing how the men start measuring it and some would exclaim "Hey, it's true" while others would say "No, it's not this way, it's the other.". All I can think of is "Hey guys, stop offering too much information that I don't want to know." I believe that there are better things to talk about than size. Women have their idiosyncrasies as well. I do remember many years ago at another dinner party. One girl at the table started taking out some pieces of cosmetic paper (just like the ones used to clean the eye glasses) and started wiping their faces with it, and then showing her friends and the men, how much oil that paper collected. And then, the other girls started doing the same thing as well, and in the process, helping their boyfriends clear the oil on their faces. It was just a funny sight. My friend and I just looked in bewilderment and shook our heads. One of the greatest inventions on Earth, they probably exclaim.  Just imagine how many interesting things can develop from dinner parties.

Little idiosyncrasies ... but in some ways, as shallow as they may seem, appear to invoke more interest and discussion than many of the more important issues to be discussed. Isn't is ironic ...