I had a dream — a nightmare, perhaps — where I was lying beside one of them.
A third party, a casual talker who seemed to lack self-awareness, shared the bed with us. Staring at his back, turned away from us and at a respectful distance, I found myself grateful rather than annoyed by his intrusion.
Either way, I remained pensive, a feeling of discomfort bubbling in my chest until I mentioned that maybe I should go home instead. I said it was the morning, but I just didn’t want to be around him.
Curled up beside me, close enough but never making contact, he muttered something to pacify me. But his body language did not match his words — he seemed to want to get closer and closer the more I squirmed to get further.
He wasn’t the only one, I realise. In every moment I was with them, the abject terror of being jumped pervaded our waltzes; the only real choice I had was whether to lean into the joy of being hunted. I allowed them to decentre me — for that was what I was willing to give — and all of them seemed to revel in taking without reciprocating.
And then they would eventually tell me, sometimes not even directly, as if I wasn’t worth their while — that I was too much for them.
we are going to cross paths with many, many people in our lifetime. we cannot hold on to all of them, much as we want to. letting go of people and the longing for more with them is an unavoidable fact of being alive that we must reconcile ourselves with eventually. some people, including ourselves from others’ perspective, are meant to only be with us temporarily. that is by design, whether willed by the Creator or the nihilistic cosmos that toys with us.
yet this does not mean you are an interregnum — an intermission or a short distraction from normalcy. you are an experience, a lesson, a force of nature: you are the universe’s manifestation of love. everyone is, even those who hurt us. the only thing we can do is make the best of the present because that’s all we’ll ever have in the end — you imprint their shadow onto your soul so that even when they fade away in time, they’ll always be a part of you. their memory belongs to you now; keep what you like, discard what you don’t.
so when you meet other travellers like yourself who want to stay and grow with you, hold onto them — not enough to lose yourself, but enough so that in the rare chance they want to be bound to you too, both of you will share a bond — a bond that defines what it means to be human.
were you under the impression that my love letters were addressed to you? the man i write to does not exist — he is a feeling, an inseparable part of me.
and the men i’ve loved most in my life — i don’t write aboutthem because i don’t have to; they already know everything.
so when we finally meet, when he fully reciprocates, i promise him, now and forever —
recently i’ve been playing, i’ve been played; i’ve been trapped in a prisoner’s dilemma. i confessed, i waited, they stayed quiet: i was punished for my faith, and then twice. i persisted until i was a willing party no longer: i had to, i have to, i need to act in my best interest.
but love isn’t a game; if it must be one, then the optimal outcome is not to play.
it doesn’t matter if you crawl back begging for forgiveness; there is nothing to repent for, because there was nothing between us in the first place.
and what about regret? again, i don’t regret anything — except what we could not have.
i want you to take all the time you need to find yourself — you deserve that much.
but neither will i be waiting for you at the world’s end. with, or without me: you take everything now or you go; it’s a hard yes or a no. we don’t have enough time for anything else.
in the end, it seems to be all about timing, doesn’t it? it is, and it isn’t. we are now locked in each other’s orbit forever, regardless of whether we are bound to meet again in this lifetime.
and so be it, paths crossed or not — i would rather die than settle for you.
my friends often tell me that i attract a “problematic” type of man but maybe that is because that is exactly what i want.
(highlight at own risk) can a decent conservative man really look straight at me with a hunter’s eyes, choke me, and then call me his good girl? in the end, he has to be a bit crazy, just like me.
and even if he does not want me — how will he ever settle for vanilla?
you told me you met the greatest love of your life, yet your voice cracked ever so slightly, and your smile was a little twisted.
you didn’t have to tell me; i know it was merely a matter of time. i hope you hold onto her tight and give her all the love she deserves, and her to you.
why were we standing facing each other again?
of all things, i remember the embrace of your arms in the quiet dark — it’s not been the same since. my cheek nestled in the nook of your neck, the steady whisper of your breath on my forehead. you would always fall asleep first — softly, calmly, the rise and fall of your chest signalling the transition to an altered state of consciousness.
one, two, three, four.
i would catch up to you later, lingering in that liminal space where nothing else mattered; it was just you and me. even when we had to wake up eventually, even when you would unconsciously turn your back to me in time.
i love you, i love you.
indeed, in an altered state, you will always be mine.
Humans commit to one another based on considerations of potential. They assess a prospect’s suitability and commit if they decide the arrangement is satisfactory.
Assortative mating comes into play here.
You date people you think are “in your league”, or if you’re lucky, you think are out of your league. Despite this, objectively speaking, if they like you back in the long run, they’re in your league (because they feel the same way about you — they think you’re good enough for them). So don’t be insecure about yourself, okay, babygirl? And watch out for lovers who regularly put you down — it’s not you, it’s them.
Ever heard of the ELO score on Tinder? That’s what’s operating here, except that Tinder is the World Wide Web (Offline).
Your ELO score comprises different dimensions: physical attractiveness/sex appeal, intelligence, wealth, health, humour, “personality”, etc. People differ in their preferences on those dimensions, although universal trends exist. Example:
but note many people don’t know what they really want, or lie to themselves. You and me included.
Naturally, idiosyncratic preferences exist. For example, I like simps. (Wait — who doesn’t?) Random disclosure from me because I love to overshare, and I want to remind everyone to know your worth: I permanently disqualified someone recently because he acted like he had no time for me. Huge landmine he stepped on. Well, so be it. You can play games with me… if you’re ready to lose. (Like, I said I would be okay if my partner had little time for me, but you can read my blog but not text me? Then you can stay a blog reader, thank yew.)
The preferences are gendered. Universal example: men prioritise physically attractive women; women prioritise high-status men. So, you are more likely to see a rich older man with a hot younger lady than the opposite.
The preferences are culturally influenced. Anecdotal example: sexual prowess does not rank highly for a lot of people in Singapore versus some other Western nation where hookup culture is more prevalent (I don’t even need to be specific; that’s how little sex we have. I must go.)
A relationship between two people who differ significantly on one dimension can still work out if that dimension is less important to the party who is higher on it. Hence, the “ugly funny guy gets the boring pretty girl” because looks > humour for him, humour > looks for her. You get the idea. On average, their ELO scores even out.
Lay theory prediction: the longer a relationship lasts, the more objectively similar the couple’s ELO scores are. A relationship with partners with discrepant scores is less likely to last, and the one with the higher score (delusional or not) tends to withdraw first. But even the delusional one will eventually be knocked back to reality through trial and error feedback — the only constant in life is the law of large numbers.
The best way to get an idea of your ELO score is to look at your long-term partner (or the kind of people you attract). If it still doesn’t add up… one of you has a self-esteem issue.
People commit based on potential. They stay committed for different reasons.
The investment model of relationships (Rusbult, 1980) predicts that commitment is determined by three factors. The more satisfied you are with the relationship and the more invested in it, the more likely you are to stay committed. The better you perceive your potential alternatives (other people in “your league”), the less likely you are to stay committed.
Some relevant concepts:
Sunk cost fallacy. An economist’s favourite. You’re unhappy in a relationship — but because you’ve invested so much into it, you might as well stay. Consider prospective and opportunity costs instead, which is what you lose by staying. Then again, I still can’t let go of my Sea Ltd stocks. So don’t let me tell you what to do.
People who claim they’re “dating down” are lying (and to themselves, too, if they lack self-awareness). You’re staying because you think you couldn’t get a superior alternative if you tried. If you genuinely believed you were dating down, your staying is irrational, meaning there is more to unpack there. Note that these evaluations are inherently subjective — just because you think you’re dating up or down doesn’t mean others will agree.
The lesson here (for me) is that if you want to assess your compatibility with your partner, don’t ask yourself. Ask your friends. Ask your parents. They might be biased, but they’re less biased than you.
The higher your ELO score, the better your quality of alternatives. That’s why hot guys can afford to play around. I’m just waiting for it to be acceptable for hot girls (joking — I don’t care).
Personal exposition (love and naïveté)
Men in Singapore are looking for stability. At least, an overwhelming number of men I’ve met are like this (same for women, where there is even less variation). My observation is definitely age-contingent, though. Guys are looking for girlfriends at 20 but wives at 30.
I was baffled for years about the preoccupation with stability, but I might be starting to see the light. Love’s great in itself, of course, but it is not enough in the great Pragmatic Nation of Singapore. People want love to lead to concrete outcomes, such as marriage, a BTO, and, most importantly, in the grand scheme of things (driven by a force beyond our control), children: the continuation of our species.
And why not, indeed?
Objectively speaking, the above are not inevitable outcomes of love. A counterpoint, however: maybe love — romantic love in particular — evolved to perfection precisely as an instrument to ensure these outcomes happen, over and over again, across humanity, and beyond time. That is, love was designed to lead to stability. Rather than being choices, as I hypothesised in post #1, they are merely two points on the same line headed in one direction. You either realise that love is to settle or stay naïve.
So, love is not enough.
Maybe I am naïve. I don’t really care. I’ll panic when I’m 30, I guess. Even if singlehood and living in a henhouse with my girls is my destiny, it’s not as if I’ll be loved any less. Put that on the record: it is what it is. Do what’s good for you.
baby g’s diary 