Being essentially "santimantelle"

"When he said it , he never meant it.When he truly meant it , he couldn't say it. And finally when he could , it was profoundly irrelevant." This is perhaps the newly evolved characteristic of the modern metrosexual man, the santimantelle man , so to say. Callous , as some of us are, we do pretend to bother about things, things we're expected to be bothered about, but I guess , sooner or later , the inevitable yet camouflaged feeling of indifference shows out.

Have you ever seen a man cry ? I haven't. Having said this I'm quite sure , we all have seen unsuspecting women shedding tears as if they were contracted to fill the proverbial buckets. So, what does this imply, by the general sense of perception? Maybe, men are less exposed to such circumstances. And then I ask myself , are we? or are we not? May be calamity never struck us . Heavens never fell upon us. If at all they did, they were never too heavy. If at all they were hard to bear , not hard enough to make us cry, not in front of women at least.

It may be the inner secret for some, revelations for the others , but men do cry. And when they do , heavens fall apart , the helplessness of the crying man is as unfathomable as the depth of the ocean. One is thrown open to speculating , what in the world could be hard enough , to make a man, who is , quite ironically , the pretentious iconism of strength and apathy, sulk inconsolably. When they taught us " relative value " , never had I imagined I would use this to compare the worth of a man's tears to a woman's. It's commonplace to see women crying, and when you do see one , you think , something might be wrong. Quite on the contrary , you see a man crying , though I'm sure he won't cry publicly , we're not built that way you see , but if at all you do , you tell him , these tears are the investments you've made for your entire life , cry , cry your heart out , the more you cry now , the more apathetic you become , the more unperturbed you are by the world around you, the more satisfied you'd be with what you have , and finally , when you'll become almost indifferent to every wordly or other wordly emotion that tends to circumscribe your atmosphere, they'll start calling you the proverbial " man".

For the blabber mouth I am I have to add that personal comment. Well, I'd say , I'm yet to shed my fair share of tears. I'll rather save them for my post married life. I'm pretty sure, with the unanimously criticized traits I possess , I'm bound to give my wife company , as and when she cries cursing the very day she married me , and then, even though it may seem ironical , I'll cry with her , consoling her , and then perhaps telling her : you couldn't have managed anything better than me you see, we're both equally stuck and then in the midst of all the pandemonium happening , I'd say : khaane mein kya hai? , only to see a set of brows raising in wicked amazement.

The lovable loser vs The losable lover

More of a dilemma than a paradox. Perhaps, this is a choice one has to make inescapably, at least once in life. If ever there was a need to configure the pros and cons fo anything at all, I'm sure this contentious issue could be summoned to be the perfect food for thought. I have fellow beings talking about their ego, publicly that is. I'm just wondering if an egoist could actually be so blatantly blurteous about his/her ego. So, the very claim of being an egoist turns out to be all the more ironical. White Bear Phenomenon ? :P.

Having witnessed a considerable number of specimens of the so-called elite species of women, I'm somewhat intuitive of this dilemma prevailing in them( the losable lover or the lovable loser). Well, it's definitely not something to be critical about. But the whole idea of turning a simple choice into a gut wrenching dilemma is kinda thought provoking, nevertheless extremely entertaining to watch. A trade-off of sorts, the inherent qualities of being a good lover and being a genuine loser, are conflicting, but only peripherally (those who got the joke-> lol). It seems to be some kind of portfolio management. To be precise on the idea, you always intend to keep your options at hand. Now, that I've already framed the analogy, let me intrigue myself deeper and pour your brain into the bowl of abstraction , then, beat it unsympathetically into the proverbial yogurt.( this imagination by the way is indebted to the ever un-understandable idiom - Dimaag ka Dahi !). Investors, in particular, are a breed of gentlemen and not so gentle women, who in their incessant desire to get rich invest their already puffing bank balances into endeavors promulgated by others. The motives are comprehensively simple, to get rich. But somehow, by the virtues of common sense they do realise that the birth of every winner is an inevitable vindication of at least two losers, one being the loser himself and the other who made him realise that he really was one, and therefore winning as a proposition is not always equally likely. The standard panacea is to play low: Risk Averse Strategy. The so-called beta of such an investment is lower, guaranteeing the investor more safety than high returns. Nevertheless,on the flip side( risk lovers), there is always a collegium waiting to break free , longing to invest unscrupulously , carrying beneath their skin the fear of losing it all one day, the dramatically obvious Losable Lovers.

Somehow, I always try to conclude the paragraph with a personal take on the subject, but I guess, this time I just don't fit the context. If at all,though forcibly,I had to attach myself to a respectable category , I'll place myself in the section of losable losers , not that I'm particularly regretful of being one, quite on the contrary, I'm not regretful at all. Sometimes, having getting to see the fate of losable lovers and lovable losers and its effect on their respective counterparts is just too much fun. ;)