Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Tohoku Part Deux: Back to Onosaki

First times always leave indelible marks in your mind. Which is why after my first volunteering trip to Tohoku, I was eager to go back again.

Still, there's a nagging reservation in the back of my mind. I was aware that people comes and goes, and the dynamics changes constantly.

I knew there would be some people who have been there since early summer: Rob, Sheila, Quentin, but there would also be other people who had been staying while I was back in Kyoto.

Add that to the fact that my innate awkwardness was bound to get in the way, and that I had the right half of Sheila's boots in my possession. In my defense our boots were exactly identical save for the size: my soles are 2 cm longer than hers.

Saturday, February 4, 2012


What triggers attraction? What causes one to be besotted to another? What made you stop at your track and your heart skips a beat?

Was it her hair? Or was it his emerald eyes? Or the wagging tail?

If it was his eyes, would you react the same way if you see another identical pair of eyes in the face of a woman? If it was her hair, would it enchant you still when it crowns a man's head, instead of a woman*? If not, why? They were the same items after all.

The very same. save for the gender condition. But if it was ok as long as the appealing parts are attached to the correct type of desired genital equipments, isn't it a gross reductionism? From creatures of agency to mere sum of tumescent protuberance and orifices.

If you lost me, these objects are also referred to as penises and vaginas and breasts and anuses. Maybe still not quite your common parlance, but there's no need to go banal, is there?

Say you're also against objectifying man and women by this reductionist approach. And being romantic, you proposed to me than human are more than the sum of its parts. Stitched organs and limbs animated with electricity make not a man afterall. They only amount to one Frankenstein's monster.

But then it does not refute the gender requirement above. No matter how infectious a girl's personality is, she remains a girl and this fact probably would not entice other girls to propose an exclusive monogamous relationship with her. Rather, it often will spark seething hatred and jealousy, but that's a topic for another day.

The topic at hand is of course a product of a relatively-prosperous, cosmopolitan living. In 1670, I suppose it's just a matter of "Your daughter has bled, now when can I marry her?" and "We need an heir, find a woman already!"

Making babies. Screaming, crying babies. Poop machines.  

For reproductive purposes, or for grabbing wealth.

But wealth is often just a means. A trophy wife will spend that for food. Or bags and shoes and dresses. Let's also not forget the jewelries. And the often present relationship on the side with a younger one.

Which brings us back to the original question, what is the base of her attraction?

And we're just running in circles.
* Pardon the heteronormative construct.