"How can you call it marriage when you cannot consummate it?" he asked, objecting to the way I referred to same-sex unions as marriage. I was a little surprised, although I shouldn't have been, how clear everything became in that instant.
Yet here, on the question of marriage, when gay people define it as a union of two persons on the basis of commitment and love, the other side, as represented by this person across the table, essentially reduced it to just sex. It isn't marriage, in his view, unless there is penile-vaginal penetration.
Who's obsessed with sex now? Who has perverted love?
But why is penile-vaginal penetration, and only penile-vaginal penetration, consummate sex? And why is this particular act trundled out as proof positive of what would make a marriage?
"Because from that act, comes new life." Ah, the procreation thing again.
Somehow, everybody seems to ignore the fact that procreation and marriage have always been, throughout history, a very poor fit. Surely, we know that babies can be produced out of wedlock. But more interestingly, we seem to readily ignore the fact that even penile-vaginal penetration within marriage almost never result in new life, and deliberately so.
Say a married heterosexual couple engaged in sex twice a week for 40 years of married life. They would be doing it 4000 times. An average couple in the modern world would produce just two children, which makes a conversion rate of 0.05 percent.
I think you'd have a better chance of going up in a hot-air balloon from Bangkok, drifting randomly with the wind and somehow reaching Singapore.
Using penile-vaginal penetration is such an irrational definition of marriage that the continued reliance on it cannot be described as anything other than an obsession.
No sex outside marriage
Another crazy thing is how a condom is treated almost as a token of the devil. Recently, a woman wrote to the Straits Times, Singapore's main daily newspaper, complaining that on Valentine's Day, her 17-year-old son was given a gift of a condom when he bought a cake from a bakery. It was "definitely inappropriate," she wrote.
In Singapore it is entirely legal for 17-year-olds to have sex - unless they are two males, in which case it is illegal at any age.
Adding to her displeasure, the cake came with a garnish of a "kamasutra chocolate," a small chocolate sculpture showing a couple in embrace. She probably felt that the bakery was trying to corrupt her son by such references to copulation.
The bakery later clarified that the cake, complete with its chocolate garnish, had been on display and that it was the boy who chose it. No doubt, even this explanation would not have mollified the mother since the whole idea of sex being planted in her son's mind must have been too much to bear.
Once again, this flies against all reason. It is impossible in the modern world to isolate teenagers from sexual references. To create a taboo around it and anything associated with it, especially something as life saving as a condom, is to psychologically handicap a young person in life. He becomes unable to deal with the subject and all its temptations with maturity and rationality. Not to mention the risk that he is kept away from quite basic information, lest it be seen as corrupting.
Ignorance is rife
At a recent HIV and AIDS exhibition recently organised by a Christian charity group, Worldvision, during which a survey was also conducted among 705 persons, about one in five didn't know that a condom could protect you against infection. As the exhibition was held at the Singapore Management University, one can assume that most of the people who were there were relatively young, which means this statistic is actually quite depressing.
Worse yet, "about a third of the respondents believed that HIV and AIDS could be transmitted through a mosquito bite or by kissing," the Straits Times report said.
Neither the reporter nor the survey design can escape criticism either. Look at this sentence in the same story: "When it came to protecting themselves from catching the viruses, more than 80 per cent of the respondents knew that they could do this by using a condom during sex or having an uninfected sex partner."
I almost choked on my coffee when I read it. There were three things wrong with it.
Top would be the depressing fact that about one in five still do not know that condoms can protect you, this after a quarter century of AIDS making the headlines.
Secondly, why the plural - "viruses"? Does this mean the reporter herself wasn't too sure about the subject of HIV?
Thirdly, why conflate condoms with "having an uninfected sex partner"? In so doing, the study reinforces the stigmatisation of HIV-positive people.
More likely, the design of the survey might have been intended to subtly promote the idea of abstinence, or at least to equate abstinence as an equally effective method of prevention as condoms. If so, it is misguided, for the more likely result of such messaging would be to fuel the unsavoury business of johns looking for ever younger girls and boys for paid sex, in the belief that they would be "clean."
This is how perverted a sex-phobic approach can become.
Other times, our tongue-tied condition can be quite comic, as can be seen in the case of David Hernandez. This young man was one of the 12 finalists in the current season of American Idol. In the first week of March, it was reported on many blogs that he had once been a stripper in a "mostly male" bar called Dick's Cabaret. For three years, he had been lap dancing, sometimes fully nude.
Then on the March 11th show - as it would turn out, his last - he, like the other contestants, had to say something about his past in a prepared videoclip. Ryan Seacrest, the presenter, alluded to the online talk by saying what a "stressful week" it must have been for him, but in the videoclip, all Hernandez could talk about was how he was once fired from his job at a pizza bistro.
Why is it so hard to talk about sex?
Reader's Comments
see how these super valuable social values bring the consequences...
It is not the christians, but the short-sighted, non existing sexual education by the governments and, in fact, by most of the Singaporean families to blame for this ignorance for facts.
well sex is here and we are all born out of sex .
nothing wrong , same with nudity we are al born naked , what is the problem showing nude bodys .
dangerous that so many do not know clearly the way the HIV virus gets transmitted , that is blood to blood or unsafe anal or vaginal sex ( avtive or passive )protected means condom and gel .all other things are safe sucking, kissing, touching,smiling . I am HIV for 20 years now and i tell all my partners my status before sex . i face lots of discrimonation but fortunatly for me i am still cute and lots of intelligent guys still like me . but i would get many more if i lied , how can lie pay !
john sharp
Talk about maintaining the balance of the positive and the negative in this universe. Hahaha~!
I don't know, but then I personally feel that during talks with others guys over msn, and when the subject about sex is brought up, and the response comes as, "you are so naughty", I personally feel that the response is alright....in the sense that when the other party says that "u nauti boi" for example...I take it in the manner that he is teasing me and that he wants to continue on the conversation, talking about sex. (I guess that you could say that, different pplz would take a simple sentence such as that differently.)
But on the other hand, I do also agree with you that if words such as dirty or disgusting or bad for health would be used, that I think that they are quite wrong there. Sex can be clean, depending on the cleanliness of the pplz involved....and I don't think that is bad for health....in fact, I think that NON-OBSESSIVE sex is healthy....in terms on relationships and helping to relieve stress....but of course that comes with responsibility, like not having multiple sex partners and practicing monogamy....
I too feel that one should be more open-minded when the topic of sex is raised....we should be cool about it and we can use it as a topic to open up conversations and joke/laugh about it!!! I guess Singaporeans on the whole, esp. the older generations (but not all!!!), are quite conservative.....
''Youre so naughty'', 'when are u free', 'wanna fuck me', 'im miss ur sucking', 'i like the way u kiss me', 'i wanna meet you', 'i wanna suck you', 'HORNY?', 'please fxxk me DEEP', 'LONG SESSION', 'DRUGS', 'we go to ford road and see'...
What the HELL... wanna fuck just go ahead, for me PLAY SAFE its more priority.
I believe the problem really lies in the choice of the word "marriage". What is it that we gay people really want? Among other things, we want a stable relationship accompanied by some kind of formal commitment, and the legal rights that such a relationship offers to straight couples, such as tax benefits and inheritance rights.
What if we could have a gay relationship similar to a straight marriage, but one that went by another name? Is it so important to call it a marriage? Why not give it a new name that better defines what it really is? A marriage by any another name should be just as good, or even better, shouldn't it? Then we don't need to go into things like wife, husband, and so on.
What's so special about this word "marriage" anyway? I personally think it is a hand-me-down that we can do without. It's got too much ugly baggage associated with it. Let the straight ones keep their precious little marriage all to themselves. Let's create a new term that means something to us, something that we can work to get legalised without all the bad blood that is normally generated from trying to call it a "marriage".
And once that's done, I wouldn't want to be either a wife or a husband. Do we really need these two other associated hand-me-downs? Let's come up with one suitable term; decide what we would really like to call ourselves in such a relationship, rather than clumsily working around currently existing anachronisms.
That's precisely the compromise we have in the UK, called Civil Partnership. It's exactly the same as civil marriage, has all the same legal effects and trappings, it just has a different official name out of respect for the beliefs of certain minority religious groups (we had a pro-gay but religious prime minister at the time which may have had something to do with it). For the same reason we are not allowed to have any religious element in the ceremony, but I think that's true for straight civil marriage too. (Gays, however, can't get married in church). In some other countries CP has fewer rights than heterosexual marriage, hence they are still lobbying for marriage or full equal rights. The people disadvantaged by our compromise I guess are the religious gays who would want to get married in church or have a religious reading at the ceremony.
But generally in the UK it's popular and it's no big deal and everyone, gay and straight refers to CP it as "getting married" as there is no other verb for it anyway. My legal status is "married"; again there is no other verb for it. Everyone understands CP to be marriage, except possibly a tiny number of traditionalists.
It would have been better, simpler, cheaper and more politically correct for our government just to extend the existing marriage laws to people of the same sex, as they subsequently did in Spain, and in the long run I hope that will happen, but I for one am pretty ecstatic with what we've got, which seemed an impossible dream only a few years ago.
I still don't know what to call my partner/husband though; for official type things "spouse" is at least gender neutral, otherwise I guess Sweetie will do...
I like to use the term 'civilised' as a past tense for 'civil partnership' ('civil partnershiped' is too much of a mouthful).
Post #15 CharlieHuang says (Posted : 23 March 2008 19:17) :
"I like to use the term 'civilised' as a past tense for 'civil partnership' ('civil partnershiped' is too much of a mouthful)."
Oh dear, does it mean that those of us who have not entered into a civil partnership - or are unable to do so legally - are 'uncivilised' or 'yet to be civilised'?! ;)
anyway, anyone can get married! its no big deal, go to Spain dear, the Sagra Familia Church will make such a more interesting wedding backdrop than that Singapore Flyer anyway!
everyone talks about gay marriage, but what about gay divorce! yikes, its all the rage in the USA these days and a lot of my friends are financially hurting because of it! so let's talk about pre-nuptial agreements and give good legal advice so people can make good choices!
when you marry someone you also marry their financial habits!
Hypocrisy, judgement and offensive minorities are well alive and kicking in good ole Sin Galore. These are signs of a socially rotting society where truth is often pushed aside for illusions of power, control and self importance.
Guess wat...and this is just the beginning..so enjoy the ride..the wheels are turning.
Great piece again Alex..:)
"Charlie, what makes you think that only Christians hijack the word, marriage? Muslims, Hindus and other religions don't use the word? Even secular cultures use the word too."
That's the point I was making. They don't own the word so I am puzzled as to why they act like they do and thus say 'marriage is x and y but not z' regardless of what others think. The term is subjective. I only example the Christians as they seem to be the only ones who have put considerable attention to the 'Rectification of Names' and use it to justify their opposition to term 'gay marriage'.
First I loved that post of Linkguy number eleven.I dont know what was making him so annoyed,maybe just having his period but he certainly came up with some good slogans for fortune cookies and little cupcakes.
Perhaps George can open a special branch of Bread Talk on the site of Mox where we can buy these items to amuse our friends and shock heartland housewives.
That condom boy's mother sounds a scream. I can see her in a Jack Neo film One Cake Not Enough with Dragon Lady spectacles checking and sniffing his bedsheets and underwear and trying to get her electronic surveillance technician cousin to rig up a monitor to see if the poor boy is masturbating in the dark.
She deserves a gay son as First Prize.
Last please people can we be a bit more grammatical here. Angst is not anger Lagunabro, it is fear. Is that what you meant to say , fear?
And please do not play into the hands of American English by turning every noun into a verb. That is very lazy. To have made a civil partnership is the correct way to say it, not civilpartnershipped or civilised, Good God what did you learn at school?
Gay people need good grammar as much as condoms and cakeshops.
Happy Easter all of you.
Please log in to use this feature.