Friday, October 14, 2011

Whose childhood is it anyway?

There is something more special about a wedding when the actors are childhood sweethearts. To me it suggests a serious lack of imagination. But to the papers, it seems to suggest something warm, something fuzzy, beside the crap in the nappies.  Where a boy meets girl, and the boy is not a middle-aged superstar hooked to sex and whiskey, and the pristine innocence we imagine on the big screen, behind all the blings and the blitz, still remains.

So I assume from all the coverage on the coverage of the wedding of boy-toyking of Bhutan. Which leaves me all confused when I read that the king is 31 and the "commoner" (another fairy-tale element overemphasazied by the media) bride 21. It makes me ask -- whose childhood? I would say that anyone below 6 is still an infant and seriously too young to commit to a sweetheart. Anyone above 16 has already been pleasuring him/herself for over a couple of years and been sprouting fur on his/her groins for even longer, and can be said to safely having moved from the  childhood to the teenaged adulthood state.
How can a couple with ten years separating them have a choldhood romance together then?


Tangled up in blue... said...

The last line of the news article, "As he joined the new queen and the entire audience in a dance at the end of the ceremony, it was quite clear that the bonds of the love affair that started when she was seven and he 17, go far beyond that." is so much more eww than aww.

Bland Spice said...

More like adolescent pedophilic fantasy consummated then...