Monday, October 15, 2007
I am wondering does the sexual orientation of a person really matter so much? Have been watching some YouTube clips of Elton John and Queen and it seems that people keep bashing them because they are gay. It seems a little ridiculous because it takes away the fact that Elton John and Freddie Mercury are ridiculously talented individuals (especially the former).
I also do not understand the whole crap about how people like to use gender to justify certain something. Remember a few weeks back when I was chatting with this guy about football. He was talking about betting on S-League and I mentioned that the Women's World Cup was on and if Singapore Pools took bets on those matches too. He replied that he did not take notice and did not follow it because he saw it as being played by the fairer sex and hence deduced that it was not going to be good.
I was pretty stunned and I seriously think that he was missing out on some pretty good football. Some of the goals scored are truly spectacular and will make any footballer (regardless of gender) proud. And not to mention some of the brilliant goalkeeping from US's Hope Solo (that was before all the furore).
The one that I find even funnier is the whole debate sometime back from "moralist Singaporeans" about why MOE should ban gay teachers. I mean how can one's sexual orientation hinder one's ability to teach? For all those who have attended school, have you ever recalled your teacher talking to you about heterosexual sex? That is of course apart from the supposed sex education which basically followed the syllabus. So did anyone have a teacher who digressed from the syllabus and talk about the benefits of heterosexual sex? If a heterosexual teacher does not talk about it, what make those "moralistic bastards" think that a homosexual teacher will do so.
The other thing that was so funny recently was this television segment (not sure if it was news) that talked about how Singapore's abortion rate, including teen abortion, is going up. But of course, being a "moralistic nation", with "moralistic citizens" (who do not give way to emergency vehicles because they do not have the right of way, never mind the fact that every second counts in an emergency), it is frown upon when people try to teach the youth about contraceptions.
The reason for that is because if we teach teens about contraception, more of them will have sex. Hmmm, I am wondering how bad it can be considering more teens are reportedly going for abortion. I am pretty sure that these were the result of sex and not immaculate conception. Is it not obvious enough that teens are having sex even without these talks on contraception? These "moralist" should understand like it or not, teens are having sex (though it may seem easier to win the top prize in the Singapore Sweep every month than for them to understand).
I really do not know why they keep talking about abstinence being the best option. Of course I know that abstinence is the best option but is it the most realistic option? So is it not better to teach teens about the importance of safe sex? Afterall, contraceptions not only reduces the chance of pregnancy but also the chance of STIs? Is that not even more important? Would we not be more responsible by arming them with the right knowledge and leave it up to them to make the choice? We cannot force teens not to have sex (those who choose to do so will do so), but we can of course hope that they do it safely.
he spoke at 9:22 pm
I am beginning to wonder whether I am normal as compared to the rest of the world, or should I say among my colleagues. I find it amazing and a little distressing that I seem to be on a fairly different frequency from them. I mean to a certain extend, this is a little deja vu, considering that I have felt this when I was in army. But than, the people in my unit, in particular, the NSFs had quite a vast difference in interest from me. Basically, I am not the kind of person who would queue up for hours just to see Jolin Tsai (if I even got the spelling right).
I think my interests are really a major difference from most Singaporeans (I really do not give much damn about how the "moralistic Singaporeans" quibble about how "immoral" the fucking media is and all that bullshit). I think one of the main things I enjoyed about the past few years is really the academic/intellectual discourse. I am not smart but I still enjoy such discourses because I find myself learning so much about the world. Realised that lately I have been going back and reading up about semiotics and philosophy and am really enjoying it. I would rate myself as a novice in those areas and maybe that is why I find it so fascinating.
I also enjoy reading up about the whole Palestine-Israel conflict but am seriously finding it hard to find anyone to discourse with on it. Come to think about it, I miss those exchange of ideas with this guy called Robert. It is absolutely brilliant that we could get along so well despite our fundamental differences on so many issues. I will never forget the discourse we had about the Middle East; it was amazing. I think it is really such exchanges that help us all grow into more socially aware people.
I really miss all those discourses and by discourse, I mean each other listening to each other's view and trying to understand it; and at the same time, rationalise it. I hate it when "discourses" end up in a name calling session and people launching personal attacks. But as I said, I think I am the vast minority so I shall just shut up on this topic and pretend to assimilate into the "mainstream".
he spoke at 8:51 pm