Halfway during the party, a girl asked me, "Why aren't you sitting with your friends?"
She had gestured towards the row of 'nerds' from my class. Now, I hardly knew this girl though she apparently knew my name (I generally don't remember girl's faces well - no interest). The 'nerds' were pleasant fellows who I got on with fairly well, and I then realized they were hardly moving from their spot.
"Why sit when I can walk around to talk to everyone? I'm not stuck to a certain group of friends you know."
She looked skeptical. I vaguely remember being annoyed, since it was obvious she had classified me as "nerd" material hence I belonged in the "nerd" clique.
"I'm a floater. Not attached to any cliques. Floats between them. Got it?"
Not to say I went out all that often those days. But whatever.
I doubt the girl was convinced with my explanation. I don't really wonder how she came to her conclusions that I belonged with the "nerds"(I'm quiet, wear specs, good at studies and almost never talk to girls). What did bother me was the fact that she seemed to think that I was being disloyal to my clique - not admitting they were my clique in front of a girl because they were "nerds".
Which begs a point about her concept of cliques. According to her logic, I should be loyally sitting in one spot with my own clique of friends. As if it was an unwritten rule that you must stay in your own clique, since being "nerds" all they had was each other. For this to be true, the different cliques apparently have impenetrable barriers between them which must never be crossed. No intermingling between cliques should take place, especially if you're a nerd.
As if friendships are exclusive! Sheesh. Just as well I'm not interested in girls.
--------
Not long ago, a friend lamented that someone isn't hanging out with us anymore and spends more time with another group of friends.
"That's okay. It's not like we're not still friends with him."
He felt as if we had been abandoned.
"No lah. Sometimes he spends time with us also. Maybe he's more comfortable with them or has reasons why he wants to spend more time with them. I can see plenty of reasons why, and none of the reasons are anything personal. He doesn't owe us anything, so he's free to find the most happiness in life."
Some reasons why some friends may be nicer to hang out with; same 'wavelength', same preferred language, same interests, same beliefs, same culture... the list is endless. And most of the reasons are nothing personal.
----
Let me propose a theoretical situation. (No, it's not real)
Let's say John and Harry are Christian PLUs. They go to church together, and talk about faith issues together as gay men.
John and another friend, Mike, enjoy watching Anime. Their favourite activity together is to go to animecons and talk about their favourite shows, especially the shonen-ai. (Mike is also gay)
Mike and Harry however, do not get along. Let's say it's because the two just broke up. And now they're starting to get annoyed with John that he also chooses to hang out with their ex as well.
Should John have to choose between his two friends? Do Mike and Harry have a right to ask him to choose one friend or the other?
I hope I'll never need to be in such a situation as John.
12 Hoppity Hop(s):
Friends are friends no matter what cliques they drift into.
Yo nerdy, lol. why limit oneself to a single group when you can and should embrace diversity!
agreed with nase on this!!
let's embrace diversity~
That party situation is so "high-school" ... the nerds and the cool groups... LOL! She's just too blunt and insensitive.
In the second situation, when somebody laments about a friend drifting apart, it's ok, cos he probably misses that person's company or simply being sentimental about it ... which is a good thing because it means the friendship (or whatever that's left of it) meant something. Unless of course that person who lamented about it tried to sabotage the other person or badmouth the other person-lah.
In Harry and Mike's case, John shouldn't be made to choose friends or take sides, cos whatever Harry and Mike's issues were, they have nothing to do with John.
OMG! this is like a mini-post! :p
How can she say that to the party host? Maybe she is intimidated by intelligence. I agree with your views on friendship. We are free to 'float' between cliques as long as we feel comfortable.
p/s: That is one complicated theoretical scenario!
Cliques are dynamic.
no relationship is entered into unselfishly, conscious or not. when we look for friends, we are seeking some sort of benefit offered that the common person by definition will not provide. when we are "selfless" when dealing with friends, it's because we do not want to lose this benefit, whatever it may be.
so, if your friends very mou liu, probably should know when the ship's going down lah.
Clique dynamicity is the word. Mix with more groups of friends and life is full of varieties and diversity. Wouldn't that be nice? And getting to know more new friends would even be more interesting and fun. Don't you think so?
Some people are just too comfortable with their own group, they refuse or scared to meet new ones.
You know what?
I actually agreed to what you said!
i think a clique is a circle of good friends which with whom we share the same interests and laughs and fun and nothing will ever go wrong.
but friendship is another thing, we can be friends with whomever we want, whenever we want and wherever we want.
paul: Friends are friends til they become enemies. :P
nase: Yea yea, I'm nerdy. lol
JD Cole: Diversity it is!
deeper & little dove: She really needed a lesson in manners. Sheesh.
william: Yes. Yes they are.
qsl: Maybe we want some sort of benefit, but an honest and sincere partnership of friendship is the most lasting.
Manpride: Yes, can't have too many friends. :)
Jason: That or getting tired of getting to know new people.
JC: You make it sound like it's such a surprise that I said something agreeable. >.<
musang: Yeah, the two are pretty different.
Post a Comment