Deity's Blog

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

兩個半的微笑

某年夏天,我在日本 東京看到兩個難忘的笑容。

那是一個清爽的早上,大約六時,太陽剛昇起了不久,站在街道中往上望去,天空還是一片灰白色的。街道上散落著零星三三倆倆的人群,而我則悠閒地沿著記憶中的路線走回酒店。在行人專用區的路中心走著走著,看到在我前方不遠處的一個老婦人正迎面緩步而來,相形之下,顯得我只是心情悠閒地在疾走。但令我留意她的,並不是我倆之間速度的對比,而是她那幾乎優雅的神態。那婦人已經六十開外了吧?頭髮是銀白色的,白哲的面上沒有多少皺紋,衣飾不算時髦雍華,大概就是「得體」這種感覺吧!
從青少年求學時期起,除了考試成績的得失外,我有興趣的,就是對生死的哲學、科學探求,而其引伸出來的相關問題之一,就是人面對「衰老」時的態度。青少年的我經有限度的觀察和反思之後,最不喜歡的就是老人們整日在怨天發憎,不是在不滿社會對他們的不公,就是親友子弟對他們有疏關顧,又或對自然不過之身體機能衰退的呻吟。到後來人成熟了,見識廣了,逐漸明白到,無情的病痛是如何可以的叫人意志消沉,但我還是覺得,在身體狀況許可下,人還是應該以樂觀的心態去面對自然衰老,放下執著,「優雅」地老去。
於是在一少半是基於對老人的尊敬,大部份則是緣於欣賞她那近乎我理想中的「優雅」之心情下,我不由得對她多望了幾眼。雖然在她這個日本老婦,和我這個在香港長大、英國生活但又看了不少日本連續劇的青年人之間,還是確實的存在著文化隔膜,但我很有信心,那時候我的眼神,是絕對沒有不敬挑釁意味的。熟料當那老婦走近到我身前不及一米的近距離時,她竟然輕輕的對我吐了一個字。我一怔,一時還不敢相信自己的耳朵,便向她作出一個聽不清楚的表情。只見她悠然一定,露出微笑,然後不徐不急清晰地向我重覆了那個字。就是那一個字,使我的世界觀完全的改變過來。
這是她的錯嗎?不是的。這是我自己的錯吧!? 那時在街上的,都不是早起的東京上班族,而是「早歸」的夜遊青年。在他們之中混著一個老婦,我不是應該感到奇怪嗎?那兒附近就是東京著名的歌舞妓町區,任何女性向我走近時,我不是應該都要有所警惕嗎? 不錯,當這六十多歲的老婦向我說出了「性」這個英文單字時,她示意的,當然就是她自己這個「個體戶」在向我招攬生意!剎那間,我耳際彷彿在轟着旱天雷,心臟停止了跳動似的,血液都在瞬間凝冷了,汗毛直豎,我的世界觀則分崩離析……
我從來對那些社會名人中的老夫少妻,甚或老妻少夫之間的婚姻生活完全沒有想像的興趣,但那日本老婦的震撼性邀請,強迫我將腦子裏「老人與青年」和「性」這些本來完全沒有關聯的概念連在一起。我感到自青春期開始堆積磨練而來的性慾,在那一息間給嚇得無影無踪,全都歸於虛無。這狂野的新世界觀,實在叫我接受不了。於是我忘記了對老人應有的尊敬和謹慎,對性工作者該有的尊重與包容,在一片「揮手搖頭」的掩護下「棄甲而逃」,慌忙地向所住酒店的方向竄去……
在逃難途中,剛巧在一著名酒店的大門前,看到一清純的日本美少女,及一小攝影隊在拍攝。我想應該是在記錄藝能名人的生活點滴吧?但剛剛受到打擊的我,轉眼便在懷疑那外表陽光燦爛的可愛少女,其實是色情影業的女優。照說無論她的真正身份是什麼,以我遊客的身份,都應該駐足觀看一番。但心如灰燼的我那時實在完全沒有興緻,只想儘快的回到酒店房間抱頭大睡 ── 就讓我的性慾,伴著那老婦的微笑,永永遠遠的遺留在東京 歌舞妓町那街上吧!

……

那次「艷遇」之後過了兩天,我獨自乘搭東京的地下鐵,坐在車廂的一排座位中。而我的注意力,則讓對排座位斜對面的一個女子牽引著。自兩天前的驚嚇之後,我已失去了欣賞美貌女子的先天本能,但這日本女子叫我留意,是因為她的相貌長得很像台灣女星李心潔。那女子雙目明亮,漆黑的秀髮大約長及下顎;臉龐大致是圓圓的,自嘴角以下則往下巴收窄,突顯出其皓齒紅唇; 她大概二十來歲的年紀,身上的服裝是那種在辦工室裏不嫌浮華,上街時則不會流於樸素的打扮。
我素來對女星李心潔頗為欣賞,覺得她明媚可人,歌聲動聽,且演技不錯,無論活潑還是悲情的歌曲或角色,都能演繹自如。在那一刻,我的視線實在無法移離眼前這酷似李心潔的女子。只見她在我的「注目禮」下,面上突然綻出一個微笑!她這笑容,就如在仲夏夜,野郊寂靜無人處的上空忽然顯現燦爛的煙花般震撼;她笑容之感染力,穿透了所有的文化隔膜;她的笑容…… 其實,她並沒有對着我在笑,恐怕她根本就沒有察覺到我的存在。她注視着的,是拿在手中的流動電話之屏幕和鍵盤。
但見她面帶微笑,拿着電話的手在微微抖動,不到一會,她面上的微笑再作變化,多添了「滿意」和一點點「頑皮」的神態。觀乎她的舉止,並不像是在透過高科技使用手中的電話來觀看影片或進行視像電話通訊,而只是簡簡單單的藉電話和別人作文字短訊交談。果然不出一會,她手中的電話一震,她收到對方新的短訊,面上的微笑再作變化,更是明麗動人。
然而在這地下鐵車廂裏溫暖著我心靈的,並不是她的容貌姿色,卻是她那充溢着幸福的微笑。雖然她不是向着我而發笑,也不是為了我而笑;我只是一個局外人、旁觀者,但仍然能感受到她等待情人的短訊時之期盼、每一個短訊為她帶來之喜悅和她回覆時的俏皮愜意。旁觀着她和情人的通訊交流,就像隔着牆壁聆聽隣室的演奏般,雖然只能聽到傳來片段的樂聲,但仍然能感受到演奏者投入的情感 ── 這是一首滿瀉著幸福的交響樂!
看着沐在愛河中她那甜美的笑容,不由得在想,在電話另一方的情人,無論身在何處、是如何的忙碌、周遭有多少煩人擾心的事,也是幸福的 ── 因為這情人的言行,能夠令我眼前這女子發出如此甜美幸福的笑容,連我這毫不相干的陌生人,也可透過旁觀而分享到點滴的溫暖!我在想着,作為一個人,如果能令自己心愛的人流露出這麼甜蜜喜樂的笑容,無論身處的環境際遇是如何的不堪惱人,也是絕對的幸福吧!想着、看着,我察覺到我在歌舞妓町街上遺失了的東西,已經回到我的身上,但它對我的意義和重要性已有所不同,因為我在這東京地下鐵車廂中的情侶身上,窺見了一種幸福。

……

那次東京之旅後,光陰流逝,雖然有好幾回想執筆寫下這篇文章,但總因各樣的緣故而耽誤下來。直到這刻我和妳分隔兩地,看不到妳的踪影、聽不到妳的聲音;翻看妳的照片,見到照片上妳的笑容雖然燦爛,但不禁令我回想起那在日本遇上的情侶。在將來我們再次碰面時,我有這種福氣,令妳的臉上因我而掛上像那對情侶般的幸福笑容嗎?

銀凡
2009年1月

Sunday, December 10, 2006

爛詩 - 人,多是失去了才會珍惜的吧!

強勁的音樂節拍,
混亂的舞池人海。
靜靜的妳坐在一角,
就像天上的北極星,
替航海者帶來平安。
無論如何的迷失,
也可因妳而找到歸途。

暮然間地轉星移,
摘星勇者不再是傳說。
天上失去了一顆寶石,
海上航者失去了魂魄。
船帆還在疾風中飄揚,
船槳仍有力地被橕著,
但旋渦中的迷航孤魂,
只能無助地往下沉,
沉至冰冷沁骨傷心處,
耳畔仍傳來勇者的凱旋高歌。


註:詩爛,所以要詮譯。
摘星勇者 <- 一個奪取了北極星的男人


Saturday, August 19, 2006

Good Judge, Bad Judge

I read this story from my friend's blog (I have to translate it from Chinese to English):

A long time ago there was a farmer. One day when he was heading home after a long day of hard work, he found a bag of 10 gold coins. He originally wanted to keep the coins for himself, but then he thought of the despair of the owner of the gold if he came back to look for it and found nothing. The farmer sat on the side of the road and waited.

It did not take long before a merchant came looking for the gold. The merchant was extremely happy when the farmer handed the bag of gold back to him, but then his smile froze, and he said angrily, "there were 20 gold coins in the bag! Where are the rest of the 10 coins?"

Being wrongfully accused, the farmer reacted, "you were making this up! That's all the coins there were in the bag when I found it. If I had taken the coins, why the hell would I stay here and wait for you to come back?"

Indeed the merchant was lying. There were only 10 coins in the bag when he lost it, but he saw that the honest farmer was so gullible that he could not resist the temptation to push for more.

While they were arguing, an officer passed by, heard the incident and then took them to the local court.

The magistrate asked the farmer, "did you really pick up the bag of gold coins on the road?"
The farmer replied, "yes, your honour, I wouldn't dare to lie to you, I really found the bag on the road."
The magistrate then asked, "and there were really just 10 coins in there? You didn't take the other 10 coins?"
The farmer then said, "I am telling the truth, your honour. If I had taken his gold, why would I wait for his return? In fact, 10 gold coins would be really useful for my poor family, but I couldn't bear the thought of how much despair the owner of the gold would be in if he couldn't find his lost gold. So I waited by the side of the road and if no one came back to look for it, I was going to take it to Lost Property".
"So have you told anyone that you found a bag of gold coins? Did you show them to anyone?" asked the magistrate.
"No, your honour, I was the only person there until he came" said the farmer while pointing to the merchant.

"OK, I have no further questions for you", said the magistrate to the farmer, then looking at the merchant, "Are you absolutely sure that there were 20 gold coins in the bag, not 10 coins?"
"Yes, absolutely sure, your honour, because I need the 20 coins for my business dealing, and 10 coins are certainly not enough for that.

Finally, the magistrate announced, "I now have my judgement "...


Then my friend's blog asked the readers to guess what kind of verdict the magistrate would give. If you haven't heard this story before, then do take a moment to think about a verdict; however, this article/blog is really about my analysis of the replies my friend got on her blog.

Apparently, most people's replies agree with the "official" answer:
if I were the judge, I would tell the merchant that the bag is probably not his, because his bag should have 20 coins. As for the farmer, he would get the bag of 10 gold coins, because it was on the road, and no one came back to claim it!!

However, I myself have a different answer:
The judge would say the merchant needs to provide evidence that the bag contains 20 gold coins to start with, and because he can't, there is no claim against the farmer for the "missing" 10 coins. He would just award the 10 coins to the merchant since no one else was claiming gold.

Before analysing the difference of the two "answers", we should first look at the "question". The story tells you the truth of the events and then asks you what kind of verdict the magistrate would give. If its aim is to test how good a judge the reader would be, then it is badly worded. For if one sees the event from the eyes of the magistrate, all he had were the words of the merchant against those from the farmer - he would not have know who was lying.

Telling the reader the "truth" that the merchant was the lying one would in fact lead the reader to a biased judgement. I think my own answer is the judgement the magistrate would have given if he did not know who was lying. If there is no obvious fault in their statements, even if they are contradicting each other (i.e.one of them must be lying), the best he could/should do is not to disadvantage either side, and not use his "intuition" to "judge" one to be lying. Especially in this case, it would be unfair to conclude that the bag of gold does not belong to the merchant, because he might be telling the truth and someone else might have come along before the farmer and stolen 10 gold coins from the bag. However, in order for the merchant to ask for "compensation" from the farmer, he must be able to prove that not only the bag had 20 gold coins to start with, but also that the farmer had stolen it. On the other hand, the farmer did not claim that he owned the bag of golds, so the judge should only award the gold to the farmer if no one else comes forward to claim the gold. The magistrate should therefore award the 10 coins to the merchant because he was the only one claiming the gold.

But that's not what most people think the aim of the story is. They either interpret the story as implicitly asking them to invent a creative way to "bend" the laws so that they can award the gold to the "honest" farmer and punish the "greedy" merchant, in a FAIRY TALE kind of way; and/or they do not actually assume the magistrate knows the truth, but they are just trying to make up an ending for the story that would satisfy their moral/ethic, which is: being good/honest should be awarded and dishonest/greedy men need to be punished.

Firstly, I think it is interesting to see whether people do realise that they have given their "verdict" base on that aforementioned moral/ethic rule (and how many of them could defend this rule as the right rule to follow). This could be a subject of another blog entry (which I am not going to write): whether this rule should still be applicable in this world of capitalism (should greed for more money be a bad deed that needs to be punished?), and/or why people are still believing in it.

I also found it very interesting that most people choose that interpretation. Why interesting? If we think about it carefully, they "instinctively" interpret the question as asking them how BAD a judge they could be. Why a BAD judge? Because their judgements were not based only on the evidence presented to them, but the judge's own subjective "knowledge" of who was right or wrong.

"If the judge knows the truth, but is just lacking the evidence, why shouldn't he bend the laws to serve justice?" I think this type of thought merits caution (if not alarm!), because this is exactly how people/places cross over from being "under the rule of law (法治)" to "under the rule of people(人治)". To put it in perspective, if you were a merchant who need to travel around carrying bags of gold and occasionally dropping them on the floor as careless mistake, would you rather live/visit a place where the judges bend the laws to fit their "intuition" of who is right or wrong without evidence (you dropped 20 coins, someone stole 10 coins and returned you 10 coins only, and the judge awards those 10 coins to the theft instead, because he thinks you are a liar), or be in place where laws are executed base on evidence only?

Friday, July 14, 2006

他的餐廳和他的海傍

先看看這個 小故事
再回到這裡看看這篇:

他的餐廳和他的海傍

一九七七年夏天的一個晚上,郭明夫婦拖著他們的兩個孩子來到花園餐廳吃晚飯,孩子們一坐下來便嚷著要點他們最愛吃的牛扒餐,郭明夫婦則要了一客情侶套餐。

侍應剛遞上了郭明和他孩子的三杯可樂,孩子們便急不及待的要用飲管把杯中的可樂吸過清光,郭明的妻子謝芳見狀連忙喝止。郭明看著孩子們興奮的樣子,對他們說道:「知道嗎?爸爸當年便是在這兒向媽媽求婚的!」

「真的嗎!」

「不信的話,你們問問媽媽吧!」隨著郭明的說話,孩子們四隻眼睛都期待地望著謝芳。謝芳沒料到會在頃刻間成為席上對話的重點,一時有點不知所措,兼之給丈夫鉤起了被求婚時的靦腆情懷,雙頰不由得微微發燙。

看著妻子帶著只有他這個枕邊人才能察覺得到的羞澀,在精靈的孩子們熱切好奇的眼光下屈服,娓娓向他們述說當年他求婚經過的一個「兒童適宜」之版本,郭明拿起枱上那杯可樂,呷了冰涼的一口,這刻與嬌妻愛兒坐在花園餐廳中的他,心中充溢著無盡的幸福喜樂。

郭明是一個「長情」的人:他第一次與謝芳吃飯便是在這間花園餐廳,他在這兒向她求婚,往後的結婚週年紀念、孩子生日等都是來這兒慶祝;雖然這些年來郭明已有能力去光顧一些比這花園餐廳更「高級」,更有「格調」的地方,但他還是鐘情這處。

其實在遇上謝芳前,郭明已常到這花園餐廳。此時他看著在不喜歡可樂那股「怪味道」的謝芳跟前的一杯凍檸檬茶,在這熟悉的花園餐廳環抱下,在他實實在在感受到幸福恩典的這一刻,再加上舌上還殘留著的可樂味道,他不其然地想起了那個非常愛喝可樂的女孩。




郭明和鄭芬,當年在他們的朋友眼中,早已是一對,只要有郭明和鄭芬在的場合,朋友們都會有意無意的給他們製造獨處的機會;郭明自己也不避嫌的,不時邀鄭芬倆人結伴看影畫、吃飯和逛街等等。他總是這樣的在朋友面前替自己辯護:「我們這個新時代的人,即使孤男寡女在一起,只要是光明正大,沒有什麼違規越軌的行為,也不是什麼大不了的一回事!」口上雖然是這樣說,但他心底下也知道,他和鄭芬這樣的「約會」,實在是會叫人有遐想,更會加深鄭芬對他的誤會,但最重要的問題,卻是郭明他本人對鄭芬實在沒有半點「遐想」。

無論郭明怎樣努力的去考慮細想,他也說不出鄭芬有什麼缺點:他和鄭芬家庭背景相近,性格相似,亦有不少共同嗜好,唯一可以挑剔的,就是她身形略胖。但在這個時代,如郭明母親一輩的人只會視下圍豐滿的女子為「好生養」的證據,而確實郭明也不覺得鄭芬的身形有什麼問題。用理性分柝的結果,就只有正如他的朋友也曾向他說過的,他和鄭芬是「門當戶對,天造地設」的一對。

但郭明和鄭芬一起相處,就只有舒服寫意的感覺;郭明對著她,總是不能昇起情愛的感覺和衝動。當年郭明也是一個血氣正盛的青年,他在和鄭芬共有的朋友群社交圈子外,也曾向不少女生追求約會過的。可惜總是約會數次之後便開始給女生們藉故推搪掉約會,最後不了了之。只有鄭芬 ── 只有鄭芬,每次郭明約她,她也會應邀赴會。和鄭芬在朋友注目下的出雙入對,讓郭明有點飄飄然的滿足感;鄭芬對他的有求必應,慰藉了他的心靈和他那飽受其他女性摧殘的自專;鄭芬就像他的一張安全網、他的加油站,讓他可以再上征途,在情場上屢敗屢戰。

練習走綱線的人,每次失足跌下來,總是理所當然地被安全網承托著。可惜走綱線的人眼光總是放在高高在上的那條幼絲上,對在他身底下那寛大的安全網全完沒有興趣 ── 即是那安全網是用血淚編織而成的,他也不會留意到,只曉得去思量如何用最快的速度回到綱線上去。直到有一天,有一天走綱線的他感到累了,在考慮著在這舒坦的安全網上遏息‧‧‧‧‧‧

那是一個聖誕夜,郭明和鄭芬在花園餐廳吃過聖誕餐,來到海傍慢步。寒風呼呼吹來,連一向自負壯健的郭明也後悔沒有多帶一件外衣,看著冷得在輕輕發顫的鄭芬,頓顯得她的楚楚可憐。耳聽著海浪泊岸聲,和從海上各式船艇傳來的雜聲,郭明無意的叫了一句:「鄭芬。」

「嗯。」鄭芬竟然停步,轉過身來面向著他!郭明有點措手不及,只好也跟著停步轉身。當郭明看著在昏暗的燈光下鄭芬那朦朧的面,正在思量著應如何應對的時候,海上一艇家的火水照明燈剛照到岸上倆人的位置,把鄭芬那一臉的期待完完全全的呈現在郭明眼前。郭明仿佛感受到從鄭芬眼眸裏傳來自從初相識直到那一刻為止的所有期待,這份無以為報的恩情,對比著那些郭明在情場上遇到的無情女子,令他湧起「營營役役,何苦由來」的慨嘆。

照射在他們處的火水燈光因著船身的搖曳而明暗不定,看著鄭芬在火水燈光下懇切的臉兒,郭明覺得鄭芬是漂亮的。「罷了!可能鄭芬就是我所能追求得到的女子中最好的吧!」郭明看著鄭芬的嘴唇,努力地勸服自己那是一個誘人的柔唇,緩緩的側起身子,正要吻下去時,驚覺自己唇上有兩點冰冷的水滴,心中暗叫不妙,連忙轉頭,口中已不停的在打噴嚏,鼻水四濺。

好不容易用手帕把鼻水解決掉,回過身來再尋找鄭芬的嘴唇時,只聽得鄭芬滿帶關懷但又失望異常地說:「時候不早了,天氣這麼冷,還是早些回家吧,免得冷壞了身子。」郭明心想難道要鄭芬和他初吻的回憶充斥著噴嚏鼻水嗎?還是留待下一次吧!

但是郭明和鄭芬並沒有下一次。隔天郭明在足球場上和隊友練球時扭傷了左腳,只好獨個兒坐在觀衆席上休息,適逢隊友的妹妹謝芳有事路經球場附近,便乘機來看看她哥哥的練習。郭明和謝芳只是在觀衆席上談了半句鐘,但已叫郭明體會到「如浴春風」的意義,明白到「異性相吸」那無可抗拒的力量。郭明和鄭芬過去交往的總和,也比不上和初次見面的謝芳這半句鐘的傾談。

之後郭明和謝芳發展迅速,他也沒有餘暇去和鄭芬見面。直到他和謝芳結婚時發了帖給鄭芬,但她沒有出席,只聽說她已和公司同事在拍拖,婚後便和她失去了聯絡。多年後傳來關於鄭芬的事,就只有她已成了一個「肥師奶」的謔笑話,郭明只有希望鄭芬之所以能夠「發福」,是因為找到了一個疼愛她的夫婿。

郭明和謝芳這麼多年來遊歷了不少地方,但只有那個海傍 ── 那個海傍,是郭明不會帶謝芳去的,因為那個海傍,會讓他想起自己曾企圖去勉強愛情,在面對著命運的不可知下差點兒向愛情作出妥協‧‧‧‧‧‧

銀凡

Thursday, June 15, 2006

愛情金句 (1)

「世上最遙遠的距離,不是生與死的距離,不是天各一方,而是我就站在你面前,你卻不知道我愛你。」 - 張小嫻

無論你再聰明、再有學問,有一件事卻是他不能解答的,因為包羅萬有的「聖經」上也沒有答案: 落花有意,流水無情,有甚麼法子? - 金庸/Deity

最遙遠的距離,是他心裡沒有你。 - 張小嫻

已上是一些我曾留在朋友的 Blog 上的 comments, 後來朋友因為怕羞一度將其原文連同我的 comments 也都刪掉。現再奉勸我的朋友多一句:

水過留痕,情過成事,既屬真情發自內心,當是天然,何必拘泥要去作掩飾? - 黃易 /Deity

Friday, May 19, 2006

在劍橋放火

因為徐志摩一首《再別康橋》的新詩,七十年來中國人言劍橋必徐志摩。然而,正如專欄作家陶傑所言:「別以為徐志摩把劍橋寫活了,把劍橋寫得很美。徐志摩只是在劍橋胡亂『遊學』旁聽了一年,也沒上過幾天課,劍橋不因為徐志摩而存在,劍橋沒有了徐志摩這個人,本來就很活很美」
陶傑或許說得有點偏激,在七十多年前能遠渡到劍橋,已不是易事。但事實是,雖然劍橋對徐志摩個人影晌深遠,但就徐志摩對劍橋的影晌而言,就只是替其作了七十多年的義務「中國代言人」吧了。

上世紀詩人徐志摩來去輕輕,不帶走一片雲彩,但願在新世紀的中國劍橋人,在來去之間,不要只會遠觀,而要不吝為自己留下點點足印。

輕輕的我來了,正如我將輕輕的去;
在康河的柔波裏,在彩虹似的夢中,就讓我在此放歌;
願以傾刻的螢火,替星輝斑爛的康橋,掃瞄出一片雲彩。

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

風度與侮辱

人世間悲歡離合,每天也有不少情侶在各種原因下單方面和平地 提出分手。不少提出分手者,都會希望能與對方保持朋友關係。不知提出分手的一方(以下略稱分手者),如果相信他們是曾經相愛過的話,可有想過自己的要求是 否合理合情?分手者即使不是不再愛對方(以下略稱被分手者),自己的理性亦已壓過了自己的情感,才可提出分手。而被分手者,對分手者的愛意仍然是蓋過著理 性的,分手者的一言一行、舉手投足、一顰一笑或一顧一盼、一聲嬌嗔或一聲悶哼、說話的語氣聲調甚或沉默不作聲,也會挑起被分手者各種各樣的情感,或會想將 分手者擁入懷內輕憐細吻,或會想撲入分手者懷內哭泣細訴…… 分手的事實卻要被分手者強抑著這些各式各樣的情感,但分手者還要求維持著「朋友」的關係,不時在被分手者面前幌來盪去,提醒著被分手者有什麼美好的事物已 不會再與對方分享,而被分手者還要強顏顴笑,裝作若無其事的樣子 ── 能處之泰然,這是為之「風度」……

在一般坦誠相待的朋友面前,也不必埋藏自己心中的憂傷,為什麼在曾經比朋友還要親密的愛人面前,反而還要虛偽?
時間或可沖淡一切,但當時候未到時,請不要出現在跟前往傷口灑鹽,或給與不切實際的復合希望。當分手者以能與以往的「愛侶」維持朋友關係為榮的同時,可有想到那些前度愛侶只是一群仍然被你付予復合幻象的可憐蟲,又或者,能夠維持朋友關係,只是代表你倆其實未曾深愛過呢?

與情侶分手相比,示愛不遂,或提出約會要求被拒,要保持「風度」便應該容易些。如果只是初相識,有好感而爾而被拒的話,傷害不大,大可瀟灑飄然抽身。但如果到了單戀階段的話,單戀時日越久,越難保持「風度」「全身而退」。這或多或少也取決於「拒絕者」的技巧。
拒絕者有兩句話最不應該說:「你對我的感覺並不是愛」及「你應找一個比我更好的。」
拒絕者高高在上,絕對有權對追求仰慕者不屑一顧,棄之如敝屣。但請不要侮辱仰慕者對你的情感。你有權不愛你的仰慕者,你有權討厭他對你的情感,你亦有權討厭他本人,但他對你的情感,只有他自己最有資格去判斷。「你對我的感覺並不是愛」這一句話是對你的仰慕者最大之侮辱。
同理地,建議仰慕者去找一個更好的對象,並不是拒絕者所想的藉自扁身價去使對方心裏舒服一些的偉大婉拒方法。這並不只是嘲笑對方的眼光,也表現出你對仰慕者之心意的輕蔑,認為只要有一個「更好的」出現,他便會轉移目標……
「我暫時不想發展親密的異性關係」--這一句則可圈可點,大多數情況下,這是一句非常明顯的謊話,但也不失為給仰慕者的一個好下台楷。但請使用這句說話的人稍作圓謊的功夫,不要讓聽到這句話的被拒絕者在一星期後看到你與別人作「親密」的約會。
另一深傷被拒絕者的行為,乃是拒絕者在拒絕對方後,反而會約對方單獨約會。剛被拒絕者,心神恍惚,混混沌沌的茫然赴約,任由拒絕者的擺佈。這「約會」的目 的,大多只是拒絕者想達成一種共識,維持朋友關係,消除尷尬,使得下回在其他場合見面時不會感到別扭,讓別人看破箇中玄虛。這本來無可厚非,但拒絕者可有 想過,這也可能是你對仰慕者情感之輕視和侮辱。你輕視的是他對你的情感之份量,侮辱的是他對你的誠意、他的情感,你認為他對你的情感只是兒戲如電燈制開 關,只要一撥便能關閉,歸於虛無,彷如沒事人般。當你倆下回在同一場合相遇時,你可體會到無論被拒絕者是靜靜的躲在一角,還是在人群中強充著在談笑風生, 當你的身影在他的眼角掠過時、你的笑聲傳到他的耳畔時、你與他面對面交換了幾句寒喧客氣說話時,都觸動著他心中被拒絕的傷痛嗎?你可知道他內心是如何的心 酸,是如何的失落嗎?你為什麼不讓他像一隻受傷的動物般,躲回到自己的洞穴裏,靜靜的舐著自己的傷口慢慢療傷,而是硬要將他拖出來,要求他有「風度」地裝 作沒事人般,對他再作傷害羞辱一番呢?

被分手者或被拒絕者雖然不能自拔,甘願被別一方作再傷害,你情我願,但站在人道立場上,還是請各分手者及拒絕者高抬貴手罷!

2005年4月16日