absolutum dominium

just because this beats trying to crap stuff out of my ass for my paper, i'll do a discourse of what me and melissa were ranting about over msn last night.

basically, moral high grounds (i'm not covering the whold death penalty grounds anymore coz i think tt issue has been done to death; nothing we say will change anything - be it the government's policies or the aussies' so-called impression of us as babaric (like i give a flying fuck) -; and in any case considering the fact tt yes, i *do* support capital punishment, i'll probably get a whole bunch of fingers pointed my way for being some cold-hearted babaric inhuman bitch. but then again like i've said countless of times, i never professed to be nice in the first place).

she brought up the point about why the government was going so heavy into this whole 'anti-smoking' campaign. her point was: why smoking but why not drinking, seeing as it is tt alcoholism has a similar effect of ruining one's health, and having the same social ills of leading to broken families, domestic violence (more so than smoking) etc.

my answer was tt while excessive drinking leads to such problems, unfortunately drinking is a social activity per se. you cannot ban drinking from singapore because it is an inherent part of worldwide business culture. it's not so much going to the pub for a few beers with the guys over soccer; it's about the cocktails tt you enjoy with your business associates over pre-dinner arrangements at les amis or morton's of chicago; it's about the fine $1000 bottle reds or whites tt you order to show to your clientele tt you have class and are worthy of securing tt $2 million dollar contract.

basically, when it all comes down to it, it's all about the money.

we can't say "don't drink" per se coz drinking is inherently tied into the business culture, and when it comes to business and economics, will the government ever say no? hell. we're getting fucking CASINOS for the sake of business and economics, and this is when before the stand was tt gambling was illegal coz it's a social and moral ill. so now gambling is no longer a social or moral ill, huh?

so i told her tt the diff between smoking and drinking is tt smoking is not necessary for business and economics, whereas drinking is. smoking is not as socially-aceepted as drinking is. tt is why you can have anti-smoking campaigns, but it's difficult to construct an anti-drinking campaign tt is clear enough to draw the distinction between social drinking and excessive drinking. all the government can do is use measures like their "don't drink and drive" campaigns, education about the detrimental health effects of excessive drinking and alcohol on the liver and brain activity, strict licensing for pubs and clubs serving alcohol, and their usual strict regulations, heavy fines, jail terms and what not for alcohol-related consequences.

then i was like: "in any case babe. it's not like you would WANT another centrally-planned campaign right?" i mean, isn't it bad enough tt we have all these goddamn ridiculous courtesy campaigns, clean and green campaigns, the ridiculous romancing singapore campaign tt pretty much made us the laughing stock of the world, and now even the damn sexpo campaign?

i mean. the sexpo is apparently so tame and so heavily regulated (i did a whole entry on tt already so you can go read it for my comments on it) tt i bet i can find a wealth more information in my local sex shop here in vancity than at the sexpo itself!

singapore is confused. seriously confused. it wants to be a so-called "fun city". like new york and paris and london. but it cannot be. not when every single so-called event of liberation is equally matched with enough rules and regulations to stifle it. i mean, is it any wonder tt singapore is doing so badly in the global durex sex surveys? no matter what, we're at least 2nd last or 3rd last every single year. and according to this article, it has nothing to do with asian values or public asian morality. 'ít' being the reason why singapore is so restricted, such tt we are a homophobic society.

sure, singapore is gay-tolerant and under SM goh's time, you can be homosexual and still be a civil servant. but let's face it, s 377 of the penal code doesn't give tt much hope, seeing as it is tt anal and oral sex are both criminalised. ok. i don't swing tt way, but oral sex is supposed to be a part of foreplay even among heterosexuals, and if you read books like the kamasutra - which is an asian artifact written god knows how many thousands of years ago - oral sex is a part of sex itself. and sex is considered sacred and beautiful in the kamasutra.

and in the same article i mentioned, even asian places like china, japan and korea are more sexually-liberated than singapore. so what is this whole argument about asian moral values? and why is sex considered a dirty subject? i was reading the da vinci code while i was in toronto, and although i know the catholic church has a lot of issues with the book (i have been for an opus dei meeting in singapore and i feel tt the portrayal of opus dei, though close to the mark, is not entirely accurate, and i do not believe tt it is a cult tt practises self-flagellation even in the most extreme of its followers), i do believe tt the emphasis of bodily purity and the likening of sex to something base and dirty is imho, a misintepretation of morality. if sex is an expression of love and affection and has life-giving powers, then how is it tt it can be made to be taboo or dirty? why is it tt the 'sex' word has to be so consciously uttered in society?

i know this will get me a lot of flak. but the bible was written by men. and although i believe in the new testament, i feel tt not everything in the old testament can be taken literally because it was written so long ago and there is nothign to verify its records. the church has been dominated by men for centuries and women have always been seen as inferior or 'wicked' creatures - the eve and adam's downfall, as compared to men. i stopped reading the old testament after i came across a passage in the book of sirach tt said tt women were more evil than men. tt even the most gracious of women was still more wicked than the wickedest of men. and i was so horrified by this passage tt i showed it to my mom and i asked her to explain it and she said tt it was true. and tt women were more wicked than men. and although i love my mom to death and she really is the most beautiful woman in the world to me, from tt day on i believed tt her faith had blinded her.

society irks me. it's not about religion or about immorality. throughout society, men can fuck around and be labeled 'virile'. women who do the same tend to get the words 'whore' and 'slut' affixed to their names. it doesn't matter what religion tt youré in. even if you're not christian and burned at the stake for being a witch, you can be stoned to death in islam for not covering up.

but my point is tt it is not God tt is behind all this. it is Men. Men who control the religions, who control the governments and societies, who twist the doctrines and the teachings to their own ends to enable to supremacy over women. this is why i can never fully believe. i cannot believe without some sort of reason or evidence as why i should. 'the mystery of faith' just isn't a good enough explanation to me, because i have no reason to have faith. especially not when i know enough history to know tt humans can be evil and manipulative, especially humans in power.

but tt is just me. and this is probably the most feminist tt you'll see me. i'm not a feminist per se. i don't believe tt women are better than men. i don't believe tt we deserve any rights over men or whatever. i don't believe tt men should give way to us, open our doors, pull out our chairs, or have an obligation to treat us with gentlemanliness. but i do believe in equality. i do believe tt we are equals. i do believe tt anything tt men can do, we can do just as well, or in some equivalent. i do believe tt we are to be treated with equal respect.

and if anyone ever tells me to suck him again, i am going to fucking rip out his balls.

but once again, i have digressed way off tangent.

back to my discussion with melissa. we were discussing government-imposed morality. basically i said tt a reason why the government is so strict, is because it is catering to its most ardent supporters - the older generation of conservative singaporeans and parents. those are the ones who believe tt us younger generation are all innocent and naive, tt exposing us to the word 'fuck' when we are 16 will completely sully our white-washed minds (right. like no one has learnt the word 'fuck' and 'motherfucker'in primary school). those who don't think tt just because their sons have gone through NS and handled guns when they're 18, they're man enough to watch R21 movies... until they're 21. Irregardless of what's available on the internet.

i was telling melissa tt i was reading this article on Fridae.com about how conservatives are undermining the fight against AIDS. basically, it's because of the "my way or the highway" syndrome. conservatives advocate only abstinence/post-marital sex as the way to prevent aids. obviously, not only does this mean a) you can't be gay in singapore, coz gays can't marry anyway; b) you can't do it any other way. but let's face it, according to scientific journals, sex is listed as a basic need, right next to food water and shelter. hey, they call it 'reproduction' in other animals, but you know what i mean don't you? if sex was supposed to be post-marriage, don't you think they should list the 4 basic needs as "food, water, shelter and marriage"? in any case, is it that important to get married?

i mean, the thing tt irritates me the most about society (okay, one of the things), is how people always ask if you're in a relationship or when you're going to get married or something. as if marriage is the pinnacle of a successful life. as if if you've never married, you'll never have truly LIVED. i find it sad, when i look at these 30/40 year old housewives who marry young - usually the first guy they meet, bear his kids, and spend the next 60 years just cleaning house and raising kids. not really having worked tt much, not really having travelled, not really having experienced other aspects of life.

there's something wrong there. well, you might say tt it sounds perfectly logical to you and i suppose it could be, but tt isn't the life tt i want. i don't want to SETTLE. i don't want to throw my life away for some man. not yet anyway. not any time soon. i want to LIVE first, experience first, see first. and do whatever fits into my schedule and into my lifestyle. selfish? definitely. but it's my life. it's how i want to live it. it's my search for my own happiness, and therefore i am the one solely responsible for how i intend to look.

even if i don't get married early, or not at all. it doesn't matter to me. life isn't about a man. if it was, excuse me while i go jump out my window. women don't need me. i don't need a man to validate my existence. and maybe the reason why me and him couldn't last, is because as much as i loved him, i wasn't ready to change this mindset or to give up all my ideals and dreams for him. i refused to accept and i refused to settle.

ok. second digression over. back on topic. anyway referring back to the article, the conservatives are against contreceptives and the use of protection. in singapore, it's pretty obvious tt you can't get birth control pills without a prior doctor's prescription. and in certain faiths like... well, mine, you're not supposed to use contraceptives coz it's against the whole right to life and natural order of things blah blah blah. well. let's just say even my DAD doesn't agree with this doctrine. 'nuff said. besides, the people who came up with this intepretation of God's law are a group of old celibate men halfway around the world.

ok. so let's assume tt you decide to follow the whole conservative ritual and not use protection. at the same time, you try to but you cannot control your sexual urges and then you lose it (maybe through one night of drunken stupor). and hey presto! suddenly someone's pregnant, or better yet, someone has an STD. whoopie.

okay. for better more rational and less biased arguments, please read the article i linked. it sounds a lot better than this anyway. and yes, i am straight but it is interesting to visit Fridae.com once in a while cos they have news on developments of homosexuality in Asia, primarily Singapore. So it's useful to keep in touch.

so yeah. me and melissa were just discussing all this stuff. and i know tt she's irritated at the fact tt singapore is just so homophobic and unaccepting of homosexuality. but you have to admit lah babe, homophobia is deeply engrained in the minds of many singaporeans here, mainly coz homosexuals are different.

we went on to discuss how this whole culture of conformity was ruining us. how were we expected to be diverse and to think 'outside of the box' if we were always conditioned by the education system and by society to conform conform conform? well. the good news is tt the education has just undergone an overhaul. right now it's too soon to tell what effect that will have because we'll need to wait at least 10 years to see the new graduates and find out how they think. but right now, the consistently-perpetuated 'top-down' method of trying to regulate 'creative thinking'
and 'fun' is obviously not working. i mean, singaporeans don't even care much anymore.

it's like, so many people around us can never be bothered about the government or their policies or whatever current affairs goes on. esp as compared to other countries like the US, or UK, or even here in canada. but can you blame social apathy? what can we say? not like anything we say can change things? it's a climate of bo-chupness. freedom of expression has eluded this country for so long. even blogs aren't safe any more. there isn't anything you cannot say tt might not come under the sedition act or get you sued for defamation. or a lot of public scrutiny and singaporean's favourite hobby of complaining.

MM lee kuan yew has said tt the government is allowing for more open debate now. tt channels are being opened up for feedback. like the feedback unit, meet the MP sessions etc. and i do believe tt this is in some way happening. but change is VERY slow. it will be VERY slow because in the usual singapore fashion, the government is afraid of opening the floodgates. i.e. if you allow for demonstrations and protests and for chee soon juan to actually be taken seriously (ok. i don't take him seriously personally, so this point doesn't apply to me), things could be seriously difficult for them to control (i.e. canada - parliament has to be dissolved because of the 'no confidence' vote. and all the strikes and demonstrations tt just disrupt the services and stuff).

so right now, the usual peaceful protests stuff won't work. and everytime you want to publish an opinion, be it in the papers or even in your blog, everything you right has to be qualified and backed up by evidence. i guess tt makes sense legally speaking, but how many people can be bothered to do tt? isn't it so much simpler to just not publish any opinion at all? which is why so many singaporeans don't bother anymore. i mean, you compare us with US blogs. yes, those blogs are rich with political and social commentary. but tt's because it's a free nation. they aren't regulated. unlike singapore, the US authorities don't trawl the web looking for blogs to hunt down. there is no such law against them, or such rules period. no such mechanism either. and tt is the difference.

ok. enough of this post. i've digressed too much once again. back to my paper.