Tuesday, November 20, 2007

No way

In other news, the NY Times claims that denial is good for relationships.

See, this is where I've been going wrong all along. When someone asks "Do you love me?" I tend to say something simple and faithless like "Yes, of course", when what I should really be saying is "Love? Who said anything about love?".

Actually, I find this kind of upsetting. I've always blamed my constant state of being in denial for the fact that I'm not in a relationship. Now it seems that can't be it. Maybe I'm not in denial at all. Maybe I'm just in denial about not being in denial. It's all so confusing.

P.S. Not that I have a problem with not being in a relationship, of course. Oh no. Absolutely not.

20 comments:

Space Bar said...

Yeah, right

PS: you'd have to scroll down to the very end to see what I mean.

scout said...

being single is awesome for the ego. i firmly believe in that. and yes, sex is totally over-rated. buy discounted christmas chocolates and get done with it, already, people!

Anonymous said...

[P.S. Not that I have a problem with not being in a relationship, of course. Oh no. Absolutely not.]

And as one finishes reading the post script, a word in big bold typeface catches ones eyes: "Faking it". ;)

~N.

Preeti said...

wait .. you're not in a relationship?

Falstaff said...

space bar: Ah, old joke that.

scout: Agree. Though not sure about discounted christmas chocolates. Chocolate is too important to be subjected to bargain hunting. Now if they had discounted christmas sex, that would be a whole other story.

N: Ah, a coincidence that.

preeti: No darling. I know you drag me to strip malls to help you shop for clothes, but that doesn't mean we're in a relationship.

scout said...

so you agree? that sex is over-rated?

and then you wonder if there's discounted christmas sex?

well, yes, virginia. it's usually the result of "holiday blues" and too much rum cake. not necessarily in that order.

Falstaff said...

scout: Okay, discount or not, I refuse to have sex with fat, jolly, white-bearded men. Have vision of condoms hanging over the fire place while a naked Santa runs around calling 'Ho! Ho! Ho!'. Not pretty.

scout said...

dammit, and here i thought you would've made the perfect, obliging little elf.

denial THAT, boy.

Falstaff said...

scout: Nah! Now elves, especially the Tolkien variety, I could totally go for. Meanwhile, I suppose I could always find out if his nose is the only part of Rudolph that's red and bulging.

scout said...

oh god, muzzent say stuff like this. you have sound, wholesome reputation. leave such innuendos to useless professors and chick-lit bloggers.

on the other hand, i just had bizarre image of orlando bloom doing a bespectacled indian PhD candidate.

ah, seasons greetings and all that.

Falstaff said...

scout: Ah, same to you, same to you. But aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself? It's only Thanksgiving you know. Time to be stuffing turkeys , or, at the very least, finding solace in a piece of liver. No elves called for yet.

scout said...

we-ell, i, erm, like to be on top of things, you see.

and thanksgiving. phshaw. how american of you. ma kya kahengi?

equivocal said...

Don't you think that psychologists are in utter, utter denial about the colossal flakiness of their entire "scientific" discipline? It's a denial that funds a gravy train of millions of dollars of experiments and salaries, not to mention column inches in the New York Times, so I can well understand why people are looking the other way.

tangled said...

I was introduced to this blog by two people who both said, "If I knew who he was, I'd marry him."
Don't give up hope yet. :)

Falstaff said...

scout: Ah, does this mean you're a member of the society for putting things on top of other things?

equivocal: Yes, but why pick on psychologists alone? As opposed to what - sociologists? political scientists? Historical Anthropologists?

tangled: Ah, but the whole point is that if they DID know me, they wouldn't marry me. It's only people who don't know me who think I'm interesting.

Anonymous said...

Well I am not sure about that. I dont "know" you in person ofcourse but think you would be quite interesting. ( I know I know you were most likely kididng in your response to tangled but still.. )

And Oh finally managed to see a snap of yours. You do look as I had imagined you to be.
Ok almost :)

rs said...

ah, as if this guy was not pompous enough already :)

Anonymous said...

[I was introduced to this blog by two people who both said, "If I knew who he was, I'd marry him."]

[Well I am not sure about that. I dont "know" you in person ofcourse but think you would be quite interesting. And Oh finally managed to see a snap of yours. You do look as I had imagined you to be.:)]

ooh, things are getting very interesting! ;)

~N.

equivocal said...

Well, unlike out friends the American psychologists (for this has to do specifically with how that discipline developed in postwar America), historical anthropologists aren't (and don't claim to be) true scientists who furnish proofs and controlled experiments. They don't even make "discoveries" any more. They just gather materials like magpies and make narratives, like the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Equivocal: Am curious - what's your beef with psychologists and experiments? Why do you think their science is "flaky?" And how else would you suggest one systematically studies human behavior in order to make predictions about it?

And to the best of my limited knowledge (and I cheerfully admit I could be completely wrong about this) experimental psychologists don't claim to furnish any proofs whatsoever.

n!