absolutum dominium

i was reading thru the papers this morning, and there was a small advert abt some new discussion they had set up in stomp, regarding public displays of affection. basically the picture in question involved a guy and a girl (oh come on... i was hoping for some guy-on-guy action here!) embraced and in a lip lock on an mrt train, and the question was: is a short peck enough and a long passionate kiss waaaay out of hand?

and of course, i happened to bring this up with the bf while we were driving around this afternoon - partly because we usually engage in kisses ranging from one to the other while in the car (or sometimes elsewhere), and i found it highly amusing tt somehow this topic on pda had to be raised again. and what he found so curious, is how the fuck this actually has to become a topic, at all.

see thing is, in almost any other country like the states, aussie, or our fave, canada, kissing is a normal thing. it's like walking your dog in the streets, taking a drink, etc. you can have a couple standing on a street corner kissing and no one bats an eye lash or looks back. you can have two guys passionately kissing each other on a bus, and no one says anything or looks at all. no one is bothered at all.

whereas in singapore, it becomes an issue of public decency and morality.

my only explanation: goddamn narrow-mindedness.

tell me, how the fuck does kissing fly in the face of public morality? does a boy kissing a girl result in other people feeling pain or physical discomfort? in fact, all tt you might feel uncomfortable, but this uncomfortablity does not stem from the fact tt a kiss is simple a display of love and affection, but rather from your own narrow-minded mindset.

your only excuse in your defence is tt pda flies in the face of "asian morality". the way i see it, asian conservatism is, and if it is not, should be, dead.

people need to be expressive. and i think tt society should come to accept and embrace difference, expression, etc. instead of being affronted and complaining all the time. couples need to be expressive. i think tt tt is how relationships should work. what is with all this need for clandestine affairs? i mean, i think i would draw the line at watching some guy fuck his gf up against some building wall by the main road in broad daylight (okay, admittedly, i would be quite fascinated. but i'm sure a lot of people would be quite uncomfortable), but seriously... what is it with the whole "take the pda into the bedroom or the hotel or the home?" type mindset? i mean, if there is nothing seedy or sleazy, if it's just an expression of love, then i don't see what the big issue is.

furthermore, i think tt we tend to be major hypocrites. yes we can all pretend to be prudish conservatives and slam this and protest tt and complain and air our narrow-minded views like we have all the god-given say in the world, but the fact is... from what i'm seeing so far lots of men go into secret relationships with women, sometimes outside of their marriage. more women are straying as well. and i'm not talking my generation or the teens or the unmarrieds; i'm talking middle-aged people. the so-called conservatives. who on one hand protest pdas, but on the other hand fuck like jackrabbits when they think no one knows. if tt isn't hypocrisy of the worst sort, tell me what is?

narrow-mindedness isn't just in relation to this pda thing. raise any issue and i can talk about it. smoking, for one. all the smoking bans tt have relegated smokers to 20% of outdoor eating areas. smokers aren't complaining. my bf isn't complaining. cigarette taxes keep increasing. they don't complain either. but yet you have all these goddamn non-smokers who cannot stop complaining. don't know what the 20% of the seats for the smokers are in the best areas of the eating places; they should be relegated to some dinghy corner somewhere else; there is no buffer zone between the smoking and non-smoking areas; smoking should just be banned completely; smokers still smoke at bustops and covered walkways... once, it was raining and we were standing under the only covered area which was the bustop. and my bf wanted to smoke. in order for him to smoke, he had to step out of the bustop and into the rain and stand there to smoke. it didn't and doesn't make any sense to me. and i don't think it makes any sense to the smokers who have to face ridiculous sub-human conditions such as these, in addition to all the fucking selfish complaints tt those goddamn narrow-minded non-smokers keep making. it's not like people don't engage in other vices like drinking either. no one bans drinking coz there is no such thing as second-hand drunkness, but alcoholism tends to be one of the leading immediate causes for domestic and spousal abuse at home, as well as a major cause for traffic accidents on the road. smokers in contrast, don't get violent.

so therefore they should put a wholesale ban on drinking too?

then let's talk about the no eating rules on the buses and trains. there have been so many complaints and letters to the forums about people complaining tt others eat on the trains, and they demand the authorities to come and regulate the situation. my god. in the new york and toronto and vancouver subways, although eating is technically not allowed on the trains, people still eat sometimes. but you see, the difference is tt there, they know tt the reason for the rules is tt they want to keep the trains clean. so when they eat they make sure tt they keep the trains clean. and no one, no other commuter complains or disapproves.

whereas here in singapore, no one seems to remember what the objective of the rule is. black is black and white is white. just like no smoking is no smoking. when someone eats, everyone starts complaining. why? because he's eating. and why are they upset tt he is eating? because he is breaking a rule tt says he should not be eating.

even if it is maybe one bite and he might have been really hungry, and even if he did his best not to spill or drop anything onto the floor and kept the place clean; no. he cannot eat. he is breaking the law. he is bad.

i think i just saw a forum thread tt classed smokers who smoked at bus stops in contravention of the rule with rapists and murderers. the similarity being tt they all broke 'the law'.

some people don't understand rules written for technical purposes and rules written to uphold social order.

unfortunately, these some people form a large part of our society. and they are all goddamn narrow-minded.

if you ask me why i would want to leave this country, i would say tt it is because it is far too restrictive. the mindset of the majority here is so inflexible and narrow-minded tt to stay here would be almost akin to putting a stranglehold on my life.