is quirkily serious about LIFE, LOVE, LEARNING and entertainment.
email me at cheezmiss@gmail.com
Terms and Conditions
All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.
This policy is subject to change at anytime.
In this post, "John-Lloyd" will be used as a verb and/or adverb (grammar Nazis feel free to correct me please) to refer to how the actor John Lloyd Cruz referred to his public persona in the edition of People Asia Magazine (?). According to John Lloyd Cruz the actor, his public persona is something he values and takes care of as that is how he is `packaged.' Essentially, this `packaging' is something he treasures and consistently attends to.
John-Lloyd will then be synonymous to how one SHOWS / PRESENTS himself to whoever he deems important for his survival (be it emotional/financial, psychological etc.).
This `showing' and `presenting' trumps everything else - specially the truth - since what is important is how a person skillfully makes you believe what he wants you to believe.
Your positive perception of him (as according to what he wants you to perceive about him) is his end goal.
John-Lloyd is also synonymous to the process of convincing someone to believe what he wants you to believe. Similar to the way a credit card marketer is convincing you to acquire a card, the same way a promodizer wants you to buy chocolate-flavored milk, the same way a priest wants you to believe about God and/or the salvation of your soul.
Use John-Lloyd in a sentence.
e.g.
"Sabi mo walang bukas na imburnal dito, ba`t ako nahulog? Jina-John-lloyd mo bako?"
(Putting me on; Niloloko)
"Hoy Asiong, hinahanap ka ni Eva nung umaga, ni Lorna nung hapon, saka ni Fe kagabi. Nagpapaka-John-Lloyd ka na naman ba!?"
(Feeling too sexy for only 1 "love")
Him: Sorry na. Wala na talaga kami ni Foofa.
Her: Eh bat tumatawag pa sya sayo?
Him: (Smiles sheepishly while running his hand through his hair) Ang John-Lloyd ko daw kasi eh.
(Pogi, adorable, charming, charismatic)
Take note though that the term John-Lloyd need not be explicitly used in a sentence yet still denote John-Lloydiness.
One example is a line from the movie Unofficially Yours:
The scene is where Mackie is telling Ces all about Singapore and volunteers to get her a ticket after learning that she will be going to SGP without him. Her going away signals the end of their FWB-relationship.
Ces: Stop being so nice!
Mackie: Ganto lang naman ako kasi mahal kita.
As shown by Mackie's line, the process of convincing - in this case that he is being loving - uses tactics such as guilt and manipulation. The point is for the attention to be put on you so you will fail to see what he is doing to manipulate your feelings.
So what should you do if someone is doing a John-Lloyd on you?
1 STOP
My best suggestion is for you to not believe what he is saying.
But, we all know that when someone tells us "Don't!" we usually go the opposite route and "Do."
Admittedly, not believing what he is saying is is easier said than done specially when you so want to believe everything he is saying because you're invested in the relationship.
So simply accept the fact that you want to believe him.
Accept your desire of wanting to believe him.
Allow yourself to feel the desperation of wanting to believe all of what he is saying.
Doing this helps get your anxiety out of the way.
Once you put your anxiety aside, you have nothing else to do but
let the burden of proof come from him not you.
If you find yourself rationalizing the reasons of why you believe him, STOP!
Rationalization is your way of convincing yourself something which your body knows is untrue but your mind wants to believe as true. When you catch yourself rationalizing away anything, you are doing a John-Lloyd/you're putting the charm on/ you are deceiving You.
2 Look
Look carefully at what you're rationalizing about. What is it that you are telling yourself and want to accept as true?
e.g.
"He only did it because he's sad and lonely."
"He really didnt mean it, he was just at the lowest point in his life."
"He'll change. I know he will. I'll help him, I'll make him, I'll save him."
Honey, if you have to convince yourself of something, you highly likely do not believe it in the first place - though you want to. But you also know deep down that you dont have to.
3 Listen
Listen NOT to what he is saying.
For a change, listen to what your body is telling you. Doing this helps you to not be lured by his charm, his smile, his touch, his cuteness, his adorableness and everything-else-ness.
Act on your knowledge and awareness. Minus your beliefs, your desires, your illusions, what everybody else thinks, what everybody else says, what your mind is telling you,
you know what's best for you. This knowledge comes from clarity and simplicity. It does not come from your head or your heart alone. It comes from working out all the emotional muck, conditioned thought process, belief systems you have claimed and considered as your own but really isn't.
It comes from being honest with yourself. When you are honest with yourself, it is easy for you to detect falseness from others. This gives you the strength to see through and not be swayed by the powers any John-Lloyd does on you.
But the key is, you really have to intend to be true to you. Only then could others be true to you.
Unless, you really want someone to do a John-Lloyd on you, go ahead. But when you do, ask yourself, "Why?"
Remember no one, not even a thousand John-Lloyds, can exert power over you unless you let him.
When his powers of persuasion is trumping your good old common sense,
when you're tempted to give in,
when you're blinded by the treasures he is offering,
when your illusions are seemingly coming true right before your eyes, do not forget that that these are all smokes and mirrors;
say out loud, say out clear:
YOU HAVE NO POWER OVER ME,
own this. Heed this. Know this as true.
and feel his energy dissolve right before your eyes.
It's not only because of Angel Locsin's sultry bod
or John Lloyd Cruz's charisma and charm
though these helped.
It also helped that 5 of us trouped to the theater to watch it,
though technically it actually didnt because we didnt buy our tickets and instead availed of Star Cinema's free movie passes.
It also helped that the movie started with the action scenes first.
By action scenes in this day and age, because of Arnold Schwarzenegger's retirement as well as FPJ's death, actually means sex scenes.
By sex scenes in this day and age, because Seiko Films is virtually non-existent in our mainstream local movie world, actually means SPG-13 wholesomeness.
It also helped that John Lloyd and Angel look so good together.
It also helped that the film is a date movie targeted towards the youth, young couples as well as pseudo-couples - as the movie's creators assumes most are in this day and age
as evidenced by one of the lead star's pseudo-relationship with footballer Phil Younghusband;
and the Tumblr posts of those who watched Unofficially Yours all of whom swear by their lovelives that the movie is an audio- visual tribute to their love lives.
No wonder the long line of people we saw in Trinoma waiting to watch the movie were young couples.
Whether they were looking forward to be entertained or inspired I could only guess.
Unofficially Yours' aim, like all Star Cinema movies, is to be aspirational.
Who doesn't want to see 2 gorgeous people boinking on a large screen and hearing them spout lines we usually hear (or want to) in our real life.
As proof, seated at my right were 2 women reacting emphatically to the movie's lines:
““Aminin mo na Cess.” “Bakit ganun? Bakit parang hindi ka nag-sasawang masaktan?” “Hindi naman. Hindi lang ako napapagod magmahal.” “Hindi ka napapagod?” “Eh paminsan-minsan. Napapagod din, syempre.” “Oh bakit ayaw mong tumigil?” “Bakit ako titigil? Pwede naman akong huminto sandali.” “Kahit ilang besas ka ng umasa? Masaktan?” “Oo.” “Naniniwala ako na may nakalaan na tao para sa bawat isa sa atin.”
Anong masama sa sabaw? Masustansiya naman. - John Lloyd Akala mo kung sinong malaman, sabaw lang naman. - Angel Locsin
“Sa isang daang libong bagay na pinipilit, may isang bagay diyan na hindi mo kayang tanggihan.” -Mackie Galvez
Love? Lilimitahin ka lang niyan. Ang dami-daming magagawa kung hindi ka lilimitahan sa love na ‘yan. Higit sa lahat, paiiyakin ka lang niyan.
The reel lives of Angel and John Lloyd's characters cathartically fulfilled what the audience - and even Angel Locsin - could only hope for in their real lives,
with a song to match their current emotional state: "If You Asked Me To."
Is it just me or isnt Angel Locsin waiting to be asked too?
Because Unofficially Yours is a mainstream movie, it made it easy for Angel and John Lloyd to go beyond fuck-buddies.
The movie assumes that you do not want to see Angel or John Lloyd be dark, edgy and unromantic because life is already dark, edgy and real. The movie thinks you want and need to be lulled to believe and see the romance, illusion of a happy-forever-after after consistent casual sex.
Thus the (1st) reason why the movie is a box office hit.
Who doesn't want to see a friends-with-benefits dynamic evolve to real love?
I'm not the only one who thinks a FWB pseudo-relationship is unhealthy, right? Who in their healthy mind and heart wants to be someone's fuck buddy anyway? Not me. (At least, not anymore.) If you're a man, you do not have to answer this question.
Besides making the fuck-buddy idea romantic, the movie also made it appear as if it is Angel's character who wielded the most power, with John Lloyd giving the impression that he is the poor lad in waiting (for Angel to hand out sex and/or love in crumbs).
Minus the delusion, you can actually see that Angel's character is not in power in this dynamic. Though she thinks she is.
She thinks she is being liberal/progressively enlightened/strong/cool by fucking someone and then saying, "Kthanxbye" after.
What she is doing is acting like a dude. This is what dudes do. And she is pretending to be one. She is one-upping her ex by being better than him. Her decisions are reactions of anger at his betrayal.
Her relationship-decisions are filtered through this thought process: "I'll show him, no man could push me around. Not him, not anybody, not ever. I'll show him I'm tough. I'll play his game but by my rules. I'll be hypersexual, (which Angel doesnt know is always set up in favor of the dudes) and in the process deny my Self while I'm doing it."
What she doesnt know is she's doing it all to spite her ex. But she thinks she's doing it because she wants to.
She's drinking poison hoping that someone else will die (anger and resentment does that too) which is sort of equal to
not praying the rosary to the Virgin Mary because Mama Mary didnt fulfill your intentions. Not praying the rosary, `that'll show Mama Mary.' (Thanks to Martin Scorsese for this quote)
Angel / or any woman leaving after casual sex is every dude's dream. It saves him from cuddling, saves him from offering her drinks, meal, lunch, etc. Now he doesnt have to be pseudo-polite. She just exits just as she should. She has served/fulfilled his need. Dude says to his self: Thank God.
She also thinks she is protecting herself from hurt by merely exchanging bodily fluids and not emotions.
She also thinks having a release receptacle and being someone's release receptacle is a mutually beneficial thing to do.
She also thinks she's saving her self from pain by compartmentalizing her entirety and distributing little pieces of these to someone.
She also thinks she is in control of her life
when she has actually been set up to think and act this way. She has also set herself up to act this way. Sure she has been in a lousy relationship and is no longer in it but she acts as if she still is or that every relationship will be that way. Her fear and anger are clouding her good sense.
She also thinks that John Lloyd's character is being nice by being a boy scout and volunteering details about - and a ticket too! - to Singapore, what he is actually doing is provoking Angel's guilt. He is manipulating her emotions in order for Angel's character to not just re-consider the SG offer but for her to still feel connected to him while and if she's already in SG.
Thus Angel's response: "Pinapahirapan mo ko eh!"
Girl, that is his point.
And it worked! See Angel open up her life and history in one fell swoop (credit goes to the writer for pouring all details in one cringing Oscar-moment - the writer is saving him/herself time by wasting ours).
The main reason why Star Cinema is currently the sole local film production company who can afford to punch out at least 1 movie per month is because it knows its target market --- females who drag their bf's/fb's; females who drag their female friends; females who want a John Lloyd in their life; females who want to be Angel Locsin, males who think they look like John Lloyd, males who want to ape John Lloyd's acting abilities and use it in real life to dupe a chick).
Do you want to know if you're like Angel Locsin? Marian Rivera? Kim Chiu? or KC Concepcion?
Take this test to find out: Which leading lady are you? Because even if you dont become a movie star, you can always pretend you're the star in the movie in your mind.
See how the friends and co-workers of Ces and Mackie seem to live their lives only for the betterment of Ces and Mackie's love lives?
Thus the (2nd) reason why the movie is a box office hit.
Ces and Mackie's friends are two-dimensional characters because they are mere props to propel the story of Ces and Mackie forward. They are not supposed to have lives of their own unless these relate to Ces' and Mackie's. They're only there because Ces and Mackie are there . They're not needed unless they fawn, flatter, play up to Ces and Mackie. What do they care whether Ces and Mackie fuck or not/love or not. What's in it for them?
What's in it for them is everything. Their characters are designed to live solely for the main characters of that movie. Their reel lives are invested on it.
In real life, when you are using/looking at others as props to serve your purpose, when you think you're the star of your own show and the rest are mere extras and supporting characters, it's narcissism. When this is done in the movies, it's mainstream entertainment. When this is done between two mutually consenting adults - you-stroke-me-i-stroke-you - it's called friends-with-benefits/no-strings-attached/fuck buddies/ you two are being ethical sluts.
The (3rd) reason why the movie is a box office hit:
To be fair, isnt John Lloyd a dream for waiting hand in foot for Angel's sweet YES? Or so he seems.
Its a dream because shit like that cant be real. Even John Lloyd - in real life - aint like that. Ask Ruffa and now Shaina.
John Lloyd's character is acting like a chick and/or the way chicks want their dudes to act.
Star Cinema knows dudes dont watch romantic movies, even if Angel Locsin is there. Sure they'll watch Angel Locsin but not in a rom-com. Are you crazy????
Why watch Angel act when they can simply watch Angel Locsin.
Do you know why most of the female audience members found John Lloyd's character sooooooooooo adorable?
Because Mackie can mold his life to his partner's life. Statistically, so do most women!
If men do this, they could only do so for a month or two, the longest they can pretend to act like they mean it is a year. The rest of the time, they rely on the women's denial of him "changing" when he has in fact have become what he actually is.
You could literally count in one hand the male species in this online population,
and would lose count at the self-sacrificial / ready-to-die-for-pseudo-love /ingrained codependence themes coded in the psychological vocabulary on these posts:
This last quote needs to be examined because it doesnt make sense. How can you not know your status? You only not know when you dont want to. Either both or one of you is afraid, one or both of you have a prior commitment, one or both of you is dysfunctional. Yes, dysfunctional. Now that you know, what are you going to do about it?
If you're in an unofficial relationship
and you're a female,
expect to be hurt,
be prepared for nothing and everything.
If you're in an unofficial relationship and your male, place your thoughts in the comments below, I'm interested to hear your side.
But I'm speaking to the females because I am one.
Ask yourself, if you're really that want-able, wonderful, fuck-able, love-able why isn't he with you?
Better question: Why are you with him?
If you think you're want-able, wonderful, fuck-able, love-able and he's not with you, why do you allow it?
Sure, you're afraid too. You cant risk having your heart hurt. But, being in a pseudo-relationship, isnt that a risk too?
You: It's a risk I can control. I know what Im getting into. Im in it for old time's sake. It's better than nothing while Im waiting for something.
Of course you can tell yourself that. But do know, even if youre in a pseudo-relationship, you're still waiting for nothing. The better risk is having nothing as you work on your self to be everything.
Be officially yourself first. After which, see if you'd want or even think about being someone's unofficial other.
Sincerely, it was straight from the mouth of a Monsignor of a Catholic School in Manila
while I was attending my nephew's Recognition Day - where he won 3 awards (they call it certificates but I call them awards because I just did).
During the event, Monsi made a speech in front of 6 - 16 year old students and highlighted to them three things which stood out to me, - and which brought me back to my own days as a kinder,elementary,highschool student in a PAASCU-accredited Catholic school run by nuns - these are the following:
1) "Be a good girl/boy"
2) "How does a good girl / good boy sit? A good girl / good boy sits with his / her hands on his lap and with his/her legs together."
3) "We take care of our identity"
4) "We form highschool students, we train elementary students."
Monsi also described a scene in the movie Captain America - to connect to his "Be a good boy/girl" speech - but I couldn't remember how he put those two together, he just did.
Did you just see how he doesn't give a shit about the minds and hearts of the students he's giving the speech to?
You didnt have to be physically present to know or understand what he said, just look at the four sentences above (note that the first two are actual quotes and the third and fourth are paraphrased ones) and you'll get his drift.
You: Wait a minute, I dont understand, what do you mean he doesnt give a shit?
I mean he doesnt care.
You: What do you mean he doesnt care?
I mean he doesnt really care about the students.
You: What do you mean he doesnt care about the students?
Okay, he cares about the students....
You: SIGH OF RELIEF.
....But he only cares about them when they are being "good girls" and "good boys" because that is how they were formed and trained to be. They were not formed and trained to think on their own or to think of themselves in any way other than the student of Catholic School X.
Have you ever wondered why schools even bother to label their students as "Maryans," "Theresians," "Thomasians," "Lasallians," etc. other than to maintain or develop, not the student's own character but the school's identity?
Have you ever wondered why they make students memorize Mission Statements and mottos?
If you're a student of Catholic school X Y or Z, you are supposed to be a good girl, good boy, you're supposed to value service; value religio mores cultura; Veritas in Caritate; Caritas Veritas Scientia; etc.
To state what is blatantly obvious, Monsi and Catholic schools form and train its students to be extensions of the school's identity.
So any flaw, mistake, any bad boy, bad girl of Catholic School X is equal to a stain in the identity of that school.
Because Catholic Schools dont care about students as persons or individuals. They care about students as how they serve the school's image
the way they are properly "formed" and "trained" to do.
Philippine Catholic schools values its students for how they reflect back the image of that school - and that image is supposed to be "good," only "good."
So if students are in a beach wearing a bikini and they post pictures of themselves (on a social networking site which a LOT of people has access to) in a beach wearing a bikini, and school authorities see pictures of these students in a beach wearing a bikini, the students are
1) Not being good girls.
2) Obviously does not sit with their hands on their laps and with their legs together.
3) Is not taking care of the school's "virtuous" identity.
What's important is the school's feelings and how hurt and shamed the school was by these girls improper behavior. Whoever "school" is supposed to be.
Because the school doesnt really care about what the girls feel and think.
To others who did not know they were STC students, they were just girls wearing a bikini while on the beach.
Because -- and I bet you hear these a lot from Catholic school authorities, I know I did -- these students are supposed to be carrying the name of the school wherever they go.
That is why students who want to loiter around in the mall during or after school hours change their uniforms and wear casual clothes (also, mall guards turn away uniformed students during school hours/days) because no one wants to see a Maryan, Theresian, Whateverian watching Unofficially Yours in the middle of the day, right?
What would everybody think? That the school is so lax in its discipline!? That it couldnt even regulate / control the behavior of its virtuous students?!
So not allowing these students to attend the Commencement Exercises - despite court orders that the school should - is a very Christian thing to do a-la Matthew 5:29:
"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
Cutting them off from the school activity, denying them the opportunity to be part of the graduation rites is the school cleansing itself of the dirt and stain it perceives the students brought on the school via pics on their Facebook account because - and this is again a direct quote from STC - the students did not "live the values that the school stands for..”
If STC/Infant Jesus Academy allow these students to attend, they would in effect be publicly certifying that these children are their products. And if they do that, it would be identity/image-suicide.
Imagine Piolo acknowledging what everybody else is thinking. It would be career-suicide because that is not the "image" he wants you and advertisers to see, see?
Wait a minute. Change the word "school" and replace it with your last name / family name or your father's name / mother's name / grandfather's name / grandmother's name and Voila! See how these same words are so familiar you actually swear you heard someone say these from your family of origin.
"Wala akong anak na (fill in the blank here)."
"Akalain ng iba di ako marunong mag-disiplina; mag-palaki ng anak na maayos; mag-(fill in the blank here)."
You: Woah! Do you mean our family of origin cares much for their identity / image too?
Author: Cheez Miss
| Posted at: 9:08 PM |
Filed Under: magnum ice cream
You're not paying for this,
or this,
or this,
or this.
What you're actually paying for is this
this
this
this
this
all these freebies
and the cost of making all these people put this ice cream in their mouths while you drool in envy and wonder.
Your drool and wonder is exactly what Magnum hopes is enough to make you rush to your neighborhood supermarket and fork up P50 to temporarily feel you're worthy enough to deserve what they have.
To feel worthy and royal for P50? -- it's a fucking steal.
The phenomenon of how an issue morphs from one subject to another - with nothing being actually resolved (because it is more fun in the Philippines when we are talking about a topic we can all agree and agree to disagree on as well as violently disagree on) - is nothing new because we all do it in the comfort of our own homes. And since the Philippines is one big dysfunctional family anyway, it is unnatural if the discussion does not extend over for public consumption.
But first the facts:
everyone in their right minds digress.
For instance, you're scolding yaya for making an advance in her salary and though you do give in to her request, you also hate her for having a Bisaya accent and how you wish you hired that Ilokano househelp instead of this one from Iloilo. It has nothing to do with her request for a salary advance but you make the connection anyway because you think Bisayas are not as thrifty as Ilokanos. And you are Ilokano.
Our habit of digression usually happens when we take certain things personally or when we make something unrelated to us seemingly about ourself.
e.g.
Arnold Clavio talks about the sexual harassment case filed by Cristy Ramos against 2 Azkals members but generalizes the whole team and rebukes all of them for their good looks and arrogance. He makes the rational connection that because of their good looks, they have therefore become arrogant enough to think there is nothing wrong about insulting/offending a woman.
If he stopped right there, there would be no need for him to apologize because it is difficult to dispute that the Azkals are not good-looking, plus the detailed account of how someone from Azkals stood before a former Phil. Olympic Committee president while only wearing an underwear and how someone guessed her bra size strongly suggests male hubris.
These are certainties, albeit somewhat relative, which Clavio states spot-on.
Unfortunately, Clavio went further and blamed the Azkals' British accents, their non- fluency in any FIlipino dialect, their patrician noses and non-kayumanggi skin as grave misdemeanors as these to him suggests that they aren't really Filipinos - a detail which could be easily disputed in any local or international court of law. Also, not all Azkals are foreign-born and bred. Plus, these issues arent even relevant to sexual harassment. He also sarcastically makes a swipe at the team for being or feeling as if they are "God's gift to women."
These are therefore Clavio's opinion. Of course, Arnold Clavio is not...a foreigner/Azkal/feeling as if he is God's gift to women.
And since the door has been opened to free-wheeling opinions, everyone added on theirs.
e.g.
Us: Arnold Clavio is speaking the truth, hooray for Arn-Arn!
Them: Arnold Clavio, as based on his remark that the Azkals are non-Filipinos, is a racist.
Cheezmiss: Arnold Clavio is a brown supremacist.
Angel Locsin: Arnold Clavio is insensitive.
Cheezmiss: Why is Angel Locsin fighting / defending Phil Younghusband? Phil Younghusband isn't even involved in the sexual harassment case. She doesnt even know what Phil Younghusband thinks of Clavio's statement. They dont even talk about this. Therefore, does he even care? If he doesnt care, why should she? Even if he does care, why should she also?
"Magulo nga, e. Kapag tinanong na kasi ako... pero... gano'n na rin 'yon." Paliwanag ni Angel, hindi kasi nila napag-uusapan ni Phil ang tungkol sa estado ng relasyon nila ngayon. "At least, walang away, walang mga expectations, walang mga demands. Mas nagwo-work siya sa amin, di ba?"
Why are you taking responsibility for something your pseudo-boyfriend is not even responsible for?
Girl, stop lifting your man. He is heavy, it is unnecessary and he has teammates to lift him up so you dont have to.
This isnt even your fight. Your "man" isnt even fighting, why are you the one with the gloves?
Are you doing an Ate Shawie?
You know, the one where Sharon Cuneta takes on the role as Kiko Sen's extension
and dislikes the person her husband dislikes,
hates the person her husband hates,
loathes the stuff her husband loathes, etc.
You do know this is not love. This is simply juvenile.
Or is this Angel Locin's and Sharon Cuneta's way of getting their man's attention onto them?
The way Ate Shawie says on her Twitter account she has her laptop by her bed because her husband is holding and pressing the keys of his phone instead of her.
The way we kiss or find the reasons to have changed since the early 80's up until 2010 as according to Close-Up toothpaste.
The early 80's Close-up Kiss
The 80's Close-up kiss is quick and to the point. It is also - at its best - not supposed to be malicious or else, they wouldn't have gotten cherub-faced Gabby Concepcion to be in it.
Take note though that this advertisement is circa B.G. and B.C. (Before Grace Ibuna) and (Before Cuneta, Sharon) and before everyone discovered that Gabby Concepcion had the capacity to be a very prolific "sperm donor" (note that this is the actual term used by Grace Ibuna).
Look at the ad! He didn't even give anyone a kiss but it was the girl who did the kissing - on the cheek! - and perfunctorily too, while a young Gabby pretends nothing happened (just like in real life?). Also, the commercial is playing it safe by making the girl do the kissing and not the guy. A guy, after all, is not supposed to take advantage of a girl. Or at least that is what Close-up wants us to think.
(It made me remember a conversation I overheard between two male young adult tambays outside our house.
Male young adult: Pare ba't walang lalakeng nagrereklamong ni-rape sya ng babae? Pag pumunta ka pa sa pulis sinabi mo "Ni-rape ako ng babae" pagtatawanan ka lang ng pulis. Iisipin bakla ka pa. Di ba? Bat lagi na lang babae?)
In another early 80's Close-Up commercial - and again with cherub-faced Gabby Concepcion - there is no kissing shown,
just the possibility that it would definitely occur as seen by - again - the guy's excitement upon seeing a new gorgeous ingenue. See how close they are and how both are liking it?
Still, they do not kiss. They are not supposed to. It is too early. This is the early 80's. This was highly likely before Madonna, before P.S. I Love You and before Boy George. So if being covered up in the neck while doing aerobics is the in-thing amidst Manila's 37 degrees C tropical climate, so be it. And notice the ingenue's skirt length. Is that below the knee or above the Achilees heel?
Close-Up Kissing in the mid-80's
Though this commercial was officially shown during the Madonna (post-Like-a-Virgin) era and probably during the height of noontime show Lunch Date's popularity, mainstream commercials seem to be stuck in the paper roses romance of the 1960's.
This now classic commercial - and song - is considered by many as the quintessential Close-Up commercial. It is so well-liked it was remade in 2008.
Compare the original ad with its remake and see how the mid-80's commercial is more sweet, sentimental and - in today's worldview - prude compared to its later version.
In the original, observe how the man and the woman took their sweet time getting to know each other:
first thing they did was bump at each other accidentally and show their pearly white smile,
then they called each other up (and shared the news to their ecstatic friends),
then went out on a date,
then gave each other gifts
and then horsed around - literally - as normal daters usually do at that time.
The point of all these was to show that they are giving each other tons of "time (AND MORE THAN) just a little more time" before they would get close and closer.
But flash forward to its 2009 remake and voila!
The man (Gerald Anderson) and woman (Kim Chiu) meet and then smile at each other.
There is more drama inserted in the ad as the man struggles to introduce himself to the woman. But all eventually fail.
Even when both become physically close, they couldnt seem to find the right words to say to each other except a curt "Hi" and "Bye." Apparently, the Facebook era has made it easier for them to end up together by making the man climb on desks and sing in public to which his would-be girlfriend would then catch his drift and allow herself to be kissed - because in this PinoyBigBrother culture of watching and being watched, it is more embarrassing to not return his public display of affection than to call his over-the-top efforts weird.
Did you notice that the first time they actually meet is the first time they also kiss? - it is not explicitly shown but we are left to put the pieces together and we know they do smooch. There was no lengthy getting-to-know phase required, no dating necessary, no gift-giving.
They all skipped those rituals and went straight to kissing (or probably clicking each other's like button on Facebook).
Close-up kissing in the 1990's
Now this Close-up commercial I distinctly remember because - back then - I was old enough to comprehend the idea of kissing and also knowledgeable enough to vaguely have an idea of what love is supposed to be.
Also, this commercial is a fairly successful attempt to repeat the success of the Closer You and I commercial. This 90's ad showed that a kiss is merely Just a Smile Away.
This ad is uncannily spot-on with what a woman goes through when she - unbeknownst to her - has a gay boyfriend.
Seriously.
You don't believe me?
Look,
First off, who's the dude in this picture?
Or in this?
Or this?
Is it a coincidence that the girl they chose for the ad who has the most adorable Close-Up smile is short-haired? and from afar, looks like a dude?
Still, that's not the point. When I re-watched this commercial - now with more knowledgeable eyes - I can't help but be intrigued with this dude's expression in the first few seconds of the ad.
Watching the rest of it, my mind suddenly paralleled the expressions the dude on this ad made to the ones I saw from a male friend who later outed himself as gay.
and why he was more excited when the Tempura came.
Watch the height of those eyebrows, I couldnt understand how Tempura could be that exciting.
That would also explain the girl's antsy look. You would get antsy too if your "boyfriend" finds Tempura more exciting than you.
And why he would rather hold your hand, hug and make your foreheads kiss, not your lips.
That would also explain why he's not in a hurry to kiss you and would rather give you a "smile (THAT) blows a kiss into (YOUR) heart" because he knows something you don't.
When they do kiss in the end - he's even talking (to delay the inevitable) - we're not shown their actual kiss but we know they do.
Close-up kissing in 1992
Kissing up-close in 1992 is relatively still the same. But because their target market is younger, the makers of the ad had to hold off raging hormones and make the event sort of like a play-date.
After the accidental meet, the getting to know stage is laid out in full color. They blow bubbles, bike around, clown around, hold hands. But they don't kiss though since the characters are still in their teens - and the target market is too.
Still, the "getting to know stage" is obviously evident you could actually spell the words backwards
Close-up kissing in 2010
But in 2010, all it takes is 30 seconds, 30 seconds! to establish rapport with someone he or she has just met. A would-be relationship blossoms in real-time. It is quick, inexpensive and happens in one place.
There is no date.
There is no calling.
No sharing with friends or Facebook or singing.
There is no talking even. Just a furtive glance at first, then a very brief pursuit and finally a mutual understanding both agree on.
Close-up says, why prolong it anyway?
Close-up can only make what the public is ready to accept, doing so makes it easy for the public to buy their toothpaste.
Do not do these at home or while out on a date, unless you want to paint yourself into a corner:
If you want to be someone's "Perfect Date,"
do not complain,
love what your date loves,
make your date feel good about himself,
be giddily excited about commuting,
look beyond your date's flaws and compensate for his lack of preparedness by accepting anything and everything he gives / or does not give,
show him that you're willing to put up with anything because you think you're perfect like that sans your real feelings about walking out in the wet muddy street wearing white pants.
There's a fine line between being "game" and being "always game."
Being game is accepting what IS and going with it. You roll with the punches, you take anything as it comes along, you're a "koboy," you're not "maselan," you're not "ma-ewwww," you're not "maarte."
But if you're "always game for anything" even if there is no need to be, even if the moment doesn't call for it,
you could end up saying 'yes' when you mean 'no,'
you could end up doing something you didn't want to,
you could also end up getting Hepa-B from eating too much peddled kwek-kwek.
If you're always game while you are young, you could - as you "mature" - morph into this mother in this Bear Brand commercial who is "Always Present, Never Absent" - maybe until she gets chronic-fatigue syndrome or osteoporosis from doing anything and everything all at once.
Who said she should be "Always Game" or "Always Present, Never Absent" anyway?
Maybe KFC's bucket meal did?
Yes, it is never too early to condition your child to be a dutiful superwoman like mommy. Notice that both parents came home from work but it is still mommy's job to make dinner.
1) Sexual harassment occurs everywhere -- it's in schools, government offices, private corporations, streets.
Why would sexual harassment in the locker room be any different then? Why can't it be treated as it is? Why are some quarters dismissing / minimizing it as normal simply because it happened in a male locker room, is it because it happened in a male turf?
2) If someone was offended, there has clearly been a boundary violated. But just because someone wasn't offended doesn't necessarily mean a violation did not occur,
a) one is used to it that it's almost an unspoken, tried & tested mathematical equation (man in locker room + woman doing her job = liberty to butt-cheek-grab booyah)
b) expects it (thanks to cultural, societal conditioning a-la Pavlov's dogs)
c) learned helplessness has become the norm
3) Why is James Younghusband harping about people bringing "football down?" Sexual harassment has nothing to do with football.
4) Did it help that we all noticed this news (and judged the complainant less) because we were all informed that the alleged victim is "FVR's daughter" and not `some' "Glamour Model?"
5) Did it help that we all paid attention to her because she has a father that was a former president? Was her identity as a female former Philippine Olympic Committee president not ("hot") or attention-grabbing enough for the news headline and/ or our attention?
6) See how the alleged perpetrator of the harassment mentioned purportedly something about a specific detail "maybe a B-cup" but now vaguely describes the incident a mere "misunderstanding" - and yes he is heartbroken too about being misunderstood NOT because someone found his statement offensive.
Fortunately, he has apologized for it to the public - with the faint hope that the PERSON who was personally offended by the "misunderstanding" will read, overhear his abstract apology and find it in her heart to accept his humble sorry - despite it being directed TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, his apology is so inSINCERE it hurts.
FVR's daughter accuses 2 Azkals of sex harassment | ABS-CBN News www.abs-cbnnews.com/.../fvrs-daughter-accuses-2-azkals-sex-harass...2 Mar 2012 – MANILA, Philippines (UPDATE) – Former Philippine Olympic Committee (POC) President Cristy Ramos lodged a sexual harassment complaint ...
FVR's daughter pursues case vs 2 Azkals | ABS-CBN News www.abs-cbnnews.com/.../fvrs-daughter-pursues-case-vs-2-azkals5 days ago – Asian Football Confederation (AFC) match commissioner Cristy Ramos hinted on Monday that only the punishment of 2 Philippine national ...
Palace hands off in FVR daughter's sexual harassment complaints ... www.journal.com.ph/.../25517-palace-hands-off-in-fvr-daughters-se...3 days ago – MALACAÑANG is not about to lift its finger in connection with the complaint of Cristy Ramos, daughter of former President Fidel V. Ramos, ...
FVR daughter Cristy describes in detail 'harassment' from Azkals ... www.gmanetwork.com › GMA News Online › Sports › Football6 days ago – In an interview with GMA News' Arnold Clavio on Monday, former Philippine Olympic Committee president Cristina Ramos, daughter of former ...
'Must be a B cup': FVR's daughter files sex rap vs Azkals www.philippinenews.com/.../6080-must-be-a-b-cup-fvrs-daughter-fil...4 Mar 2012 – Ramos, daughter of former President Fidel V. Ramos, claimed that the two Azkals players displayed improper conduct while she was ...
FVR's Daughter Accuses 2 Azkals Of Sex Harassment ... www.watchpinoytube.com/.../fvrs-daughter-accuses-2-azkals-of-sex- ...3 Mar 2012 – Read about Fvrs Daughter Accuses 2 Azkals Of Sex Harassment articles at WatchPinoyTube's magazine corner. We are your most reliable ...
FVR's daughter accuses 2 Azkals of sex harassment – ABS CBN ... www.philippine-azkals.com/fvrs-daughter-accuses-2-azkals-of-sex- ...2 Mar 2012 – Philippine Azkals - Latest News about the Philippine Azkals Football Team.
Philippine Daily Inquirer - FVR'S daughter raps 2 Azkals with sexual ... philippinedailyinquirer.newspaperdirect.com/.../viewer.aspx?...FVR'S daughter raps 2 Azkals with sexual harassment. FRONT PAGE Read latest Philippine Daily Inquirer online. Online newspapers at PressDisplay.
FreshNewsBuzz: FVR daughter harassed by 2 Azkals? freshnewsbuzz.blogspot.com/.../fvr-daughter-harassed-by-2-azkals.ht...3 Mar 2012 – FVR daughter harassed by 2 Azkals? Cristy Ramos, daughter of former President Fidel V. Ramos and former Philippine Olympic Committee ...
It's for low to middle income families who can afford a phoneline and internet connection in their homes (and who idealize living in a detached 3-bedroom house in an exclusive village) but cannot afford a Yaya or maid of their own
- probably because the salary meant for Yaya went to the phone company instead. If Yaya were there, Mommy could have elicited her help and included in the househelp's job description:
"create YouTube account, click to play Anna Banana video every 5 minutes."
Or at least: "do the groceries and turn the faucet off while I click on Anna Banana video every 5 minutes."
Or "call relatives and ask them to click on Anna Banana video every 5 minutes."
If the family in this ad is living in a Western country or have Western sensibilities, it is believable if they're not asking relatives for help in watching the vid. But clearly, they are in the PH, despite them living in a very 1st-world looking suburb, because - LOOK! - they're using PLDT.
Could you imagine anyone in the PH living in a house that big with no househelp? Could you? I'll give you three seconds.
Now, do you see that it is definitely unreal?
Of course ads aren't supposed to be "real," they only have to be believable or at least culturally correct / relatable.
If you could relate to this ad, If you find nothing off or odd or OA about this ad, then it is definitely for you. Surprise! you're PLDT myDSL's target market.
Second Surprise! The ad is for parents who are not grounded in their own reality. If ever the parents insist they're "grounded," they are only so in a way that fits with what they want/imagine that reality to be - they refuse to see what, who or where they are NOW.
Do you know those kind of parents?
You know -- - those parents who buy all the raffle tickets in the barangay kiddie beauty pageant contest their daughter is in so that their daughter will emerge as a winner (because they can't stand it if their daughter loses)
or the parents who do their kid's project because they couldnt stand seeing their child submit to the school a bad-looking one / or they couldnt stand seeing their child huff and puff and be challenged enough to actually make one,
Do you know those kind of parents? Or is it you?
Another surprise! We've all been there because it's easy. Us as a caregiver, helping - more than its necessary to do so - oddly calms us. Giving - more than we should - gives us a sense of (false) pride. "I helped, Im a good person, bow."
As the receiver of too much care from a giver, us as children - at one point in our lives - were then given permission to be complacent and to look up at ourselves not with truth but with warm-flattering-studio lights - the kind that conceals what we cannot yet admit/face/want to see.
Do you know a child like that? Or was it - is it still - you?
I found it disturbing how the mother in the ad is obsessed with getting her son's video to reach 100 views - and she's doing it all on her own - unnatural in our cultural context.
Because you SEE, it isn't about her son, really.
It's about her.
The 100 views is more for the mother than it is for her son. She thinks that by doing everything, she is therefore doing good - and by whose standards?
She is obsessed with the idea that her son might think of himself as pathetic - and that she is the mother of a pathetic son no one wants to watch - so she might as well control his perception which trumps everything else reality is telling her:
that her son's vid - though cute - really doesn't deserve 100 views,
that she is not really helping her son by helping him,
that giving everything is not loving (giving is giving, loving is simply just loving);
that she cannot see her son the way he is and so prefer to look at him the way she wants to see him - the fact that she is idealizing him means she is disrespecting him and so cannot see him as anything else other than what she wants him to be;
She thinks less of herself if people don't like her son or
she think more of herself if people like him - (SHE CAN'T SEEM TO SEE THE FACT THAT: "PEOPLE ONLY CARE IF YOU DO" is more real than her delusion);
Can she actually look at her son NOW and see him for what he is right at this MOMENT and not what she wants him to be?
Clearly, she wants to do anything and everything to make her child happy because she thinks that that's what would make her happy.
She carries all that weight to make her child's life easy, to make her child live the life the way he wants, the way she imagine his life should be - struggle-free and pain-free - even if sometimes it is best to allow him to learn how to do, think, be on his own.
See the fear in her eyes? Can she admit that she is afraid more for herself - and what people will think of how much control she has over her child's false self - than it is to raise an emotionally healthy person?
Her child is only taking his cue from her.
So it is no wonder that he's singing a self-made song about a girl who he says is his crush but compares her instead to a fried fruit is not really for the girl, it's for himself.
He really doesn't care about the girl, he only cares for what everybody thinks (how cool) he is in that vid by making it supposedly for the girl.
He only cares that people care. After all, he has the 100 views to prove it.
As long as he doesn't find out the numbers were manipulated by his own mother in the same way she manipulates his pseudo-self-esteem, trust in the fact that he'll grow up a brat, a Mama's Boy, a narcissist or a jerk.
--- I suddenly remember one Christmas years ago at the World Trade Center Xmas Bazaar where people were packed like sardines in the venue while looking at and buying Christmas-related wares/products/gifts. The place was so packed people were shoving each other for space. I saw a young boy - probably 11 or 12 loose his footing for some reason - as it was natural to do at an overcrowded venue - but suddenly blames his "shameful" "ego-"trip" (pun intended) on his Yaya.
"Oy! Wala akong ginagawa sayo ah!" the yaya blurted out as if she has done so - and is so used to do - for the nth time.
"Ikaw eh!" the brat insisted.
To which his mother handled the situation by embracing the boy, patting his back and healing his bruised identity - as one incapable of falling over - by condoning his un-called for blame and pacifying his temper. And suddenly, in my mind's eye, I see him years after playing the same game but this time addressing the blame to his mom.
Oh, and this post really is not about the ad, it is about YOU.
The ad was made for you anyway and the fact that you like it or find nothing wrong with it means the makers of the ad know YOU.
That's a signal for you to ask: "Do I know me?"
Actual Youtube comments about the ad:
Nobody but his mom would watch his video. His mom had to feed his ego to boost his self-esteem. I feel for the mom. EJBronteable 2 days ago 9
from what country did this take place? Philippines? TheMegaCommentkid 15 hours ago
yan ang tunay na magulang !! gagawin ang lahat mapasaya lang ang anak !! hindi naman lahat pero na touch ako sa effort ng mama nya para maka 100views !! hahaha VerseSeventeen17 4 days ago 14
my kudos to whoever conceptualized wrote and directed this commercial....GENIUS!! katef4 8 hours ago
it is you caring for the self which the world helped create,
it is appreciating the self from the standards of others, from the judgments and opinion of others,
it is you loving yourself through the eyes of others,
it is you finding your worth only by being deemed worthy by people/places/things/events outside you.
It is you looking at yourself from the eyes of others.
You know you're in pseudo-love when you're saving all your love for someone whom your friends believe is in love with someone else.
You know you do not love your self when you'd rather be home feeling blue when you have an option not to.
You know you're in pseudo-love when you feel the need to run to someone and feel safe in his or her arms, and if you don't, you literally feel like you're going to die.
You know you do not love your self when you feel unfulfilled, empty when there's no one caring for you, no one wiping away your tears or kissing away all your fears.
You're in pseudo-love when you expect someone to fill you up, to give you love - more love than you've ever seen.
You're in pseudo-love when you think he or she is all you've got in this world or that he or she is all the man or woman you'll ever need.
You do not love your self when you allow yourself to belong to someone.
You're in pseudo-love when you live to make him/her happy.
What is authentic love?
Authentic love is knowing your Self,
it is going inside your Self,
it is experiencing all the feelings your Self has gone through - not repressing them, not NOT acknowledging them, not dismissing them, not judging them. It is You just allowing your feelings to surface, you just allow them to be felt by you.
Ultimately, by doing so, you get to know You. The You that is safe, that is still. The You that knows that the You -
as you are - is more than enough.
The You that is left untouched by any pain, attachment, sadness, happiness, pride, etc.
The You that is just is.
The You that is still.
The You that is simply Love.
You're in authentic love when you know no one can take away your soul and dignity.
You're in authentic love when you know that the greatest love of all is inside you.
You're in authentic love when you know love will save the day,
You're in authentic love when you respect and honor your self,
when you feel like doing your hair for you,
when you call your friends and love being and enjoying their company,
when your heart decides to stop riding the emotional roller coaster
and when you feel strong enough to start moving mountains, swimming seas and climbing over walls.
You are secure in Love and in your Self when you realize you can only love someone authentically
when you learn to love your Self first - and you act on this fact.
"If you do not know your inner center, love will become an attachment.
If you know your inner center,
love will become devotion.
But you must first be there to love.
When you re rooted in your self, when you know who you are,
then you will not cling to anyone.
Only then can you love because sharing is possible and with no conditions, no expectations.
You simply share because you have an abundance. You have so much it is overflowing.
