Someone did, however, whilst commenting on my blog, suggest that I made more posts with a positive spin; highlighting specifics in the ameliorative - that's fine, I can ameliorate with the best of them, it's why I'm considered a modern-day Casanova. The idea of people 'flocking to see' was basically coined by a person for me. I don't hold with the idea of wing-men when I go clubbing, mainly because I rarely go clubbing, but because anyone else near me is bound to cramp my sense of élan,and natural flair for conversation. I'm loquacious, and pleasing to talk to; people view me with a sort of ecclesiastical reverence; and I have considered preaching to my followers, but have never had the wherewithal to commit to anything long-term. Maybe I will in the future. Anyway, by the by, that's all a complete lie; I'm awful at first impressions, and even worse at second ones. The way I develop relationships is by growing on people - they like me, and how I look, after an extended period of time. Perhaps it's persistence that wins the day, or perhaps I'm just not engaging nor attractive enough for first-time wow factors; who knows, it's not something I particularly care about, nor consider. It does, however, link delightfully with something which I think is worth talking about.
Impressions du premières; show me someone who is good at them - please, find me someone who actually manages to pull-off the high-wire balancing of the first-impression. What a first-meet-and-greet is, in its simplest terms, is all the hardest things about being personable, crammed into a tiny time period: You need to be witty, debonair, engaging, talkative but introverted, interesting, attractive, keen to listening, and attentive to taste - I mean... come on, I struggle with those things on in a normal situation, where there are no pressures. I can manage witty, on occasion; debonair cannot be used to describe me; I can engage on literature, or theory, but not on the mundane; I am garrulous to the point of irritation; introversion is something I have in abundance, but it fails to dampen how much rubbish I spout; interesting... depends on the taste of the recipient; attractive - haha, erm, sure, I can pull that off once a year; keen to listening, yes, I can do this; attentive to taste, again, yes, I can mange this also. So, I'm hitting a few of the bases, but you need full, blanket coverage in order to make a perfect first-impression. That's the thing you see, that's what you never get taught: It's not OK to miss a few of those details, you need to be running round striking all of them with a bat, not just brushing them, crushing them into the floor - what you need to be, in essence, is an Al Pacino version of a James Bond PhD, holidaying in the bahamas with a private yacht, a copy of Sartre's 'reprieve' at your arm, and perfect teeth reflecting the sun that falls gently onto your well-groomed hair. Fuck off am I that.
Also, that reminds me, why is the impetus always, always, on the male. I'm incredibly, and irritatingly, stringent in my reviews of people I want to know and be friends, or more, with. I get bored easily, I find people insipid, their hobbies an egoistic ennui; I get tired of good looks, I prefer them to be interesting, I'm not a tits or ass man, I need something deep and that's impossible to gauge or garner from a first-impression. Regardless, however, I do feel that some effort on the part of the recipient male or female would be appreciated in not only lessening that horrendous burden of embarrassment and pain on the 'attractee', but also in helping the 'to court' figure out whether the superficial plastic-fantastic in front of them is actually residing in the world of the three dimensional. That's what I'm calling for here; let's do away with first-impressions, they're impossible. You're overbearing, you're not interesting enough, your nose is too big, you've got a horrible laugh, you're arrogant, you're a prude, you're too drunk, you're too sober, you're too good looking, you're boring, you're too smart, too dumb, too plain, too weird, too eccentric. Name a characteristic and you're it, and it's prefixed by 'too'. Fuck it.
Through years of longitudinal, empirical research, I have managed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, my hypothesis: "The defining trait of the successful male is arrogance." I've had it checked, and rechecked, by thousands of my associate scientists, scientologists, and scions, and they've all seen the truth of what I'm saying. It's there in the figures (available by private request); the cockiness of youth, transposed to arrogance in adulthood. And, yes, I went in-depth; it's not self-assurance, or confidence, it's arrogance. People are drawn to unpleasant egotists like moths to flames - we've not seen it coming, and we prayed it never would - but I'm sorry to have to inform you; if you have an ounce of humility within you, a trace of grounding or of self-awareness, a slither of reality or of self-value, you are destined to forever wander the lonely forest of crushed hearts, broken dreams, and despair: The valley of woe fills the endless days of pain, as you stroll longingly through waist-deep agony, peering, depressed, at a sky reserved solely for the intellectual vapid, and the pretentious. I'm sorry.
Welcome to the friend-zone. I hope you enjoy your stay; find yourself a seat in the corner, grab a magazine, coffee on the table; it's a long ride.
No comments:
Post a Comment