Tuesday, March 28, 2006
the paralysis by having to standardize the characteristics of a perfect boyfriend material is out of the question. the most basic thing about this is that the ideal bf's features may include but are not limited to being attractive, trustworthy, understanding, humorous, sensitive, companionable, chivalrous, and so on and so forth short of assigning the guy the traits of a schizophrenic. why not, when not only perceived good attributes are looked for in the man in question, but also perceived bad ones like pa-macho can oddly figure. blame human craziness.
speaking for myself, my perfect boyfriend material is someone virtuous, brainy, beauteous. now, why should an ideological mutant wish for a guy as grand as that? i could retort, "kanya-kanyang trip lang," but i never want to be known for antipathy, so i'd tell that i hope to have someone i'm not. then again, the word perfect is forever associated for anything that's always farther away. therefore, i have to learn to contend with the optimum manifestation of virtues, brains and beauty in the prospects that happen along.
as a matter of fact, twice in the very recent past did i get to call two different gay men as perfect boyfriend materials. both friends (with benefits) are so fabulous that they landed modeling stints. on one hand, boyish-looking dreamboy has appeared in telecommunication and fast food television advertisements. on the other hand, the more gym-built hotqt models for an underwear line. here comes the problem: while dreamboy is admirably smart, he often displays hotheadedness whenever i refuse to fulfill his fetish for homoerotic real stories that i cannibalize my sex life for. meanwhile, the more gentle-natured hotqt has disappointed me when once i praised him for being a perfect boyfriend material over a midnight snack of double cheeseburger and hot chocolate. "boyfriend material?" hotqt munched on his sandwich before adding, "i am not materialistic." end of conversation.
of the two boyfriends i had, preyoverknight has the upper hand over his fellow bacolodnon hansam. while tisoy hansam (notice the pun on handsome?) is as gentle-natured, carinoso and soft-spoken (aren't all ilonggos?) but admittedly more physically attractive than preyoverknight, the latter is far more brilliant and is in no way ideologically ugly, what with a gym-built body and manly facial features. financial status should not come in the picture, but for everyone's information, hansam is my fellow struggling relation of production while preyoverknight is a legitimate part of the elite (and a capitalist at that). why on earth i eventually broke up with both, and what specialty does their regional affiliation play in my preference, i have to discuss in length in some other blogs. what's important is that both bacolod lads (or ladlads, if you want, regardless of their paminta mode of outedness) are somewhat material manifestations of a perfect boyfriend.
for the curious who yearn to know whether my crush gorgeous is a perfect boyfriend material himself, the guy indeed possesses my three standards. first, he has looks that even unsuspecting women can fall for. second, he is so good to me, i could fly for joy whenever we engage in a chat, in which case i grow oblivious of the universe swirling around my feet. third, he has brains--have you ever heard of a dumb accountant working for an international company? plus the guy has a singing talent to boot--i hope that his artistry complements my literary inclinations. however, houston, we have a problem: he seems unattracted not only to me but also to anyone else (save for...?). maybe he's a perfect boyfriend material for me or any other smitten moth, yet boy, i'm sorry, he appears unavailable. you may forever lust after him, but will he oblige to your long-term desire?