ok so shoojee directs me to this here blog with these words:
i am entirely appalled
universally appalled
distressed and appalled
and amazed and appalled

and that's perfect. because i am APPALLED.

and i just went to read the article in the newspaper and i have Things to Say.

the article's completely stupid. anything that begins like some second-grade trying-to-be-thriller, "they come to party, but many end up pairing up and going off to hotel rooms" should be trashed. damn melodrama. the entire article is melodrama. how is it even relevant to the issue (besides to juice up the action) to describe what the men at the parties were wearing? just perpetuates the images of homosexuals - "fairies and sailors" which is apt indeed right?

"desensitises and normalises a behaviour which would be construed intuitively as unnatural." first, her english needs work. secondly, what does she mean by "a behaviour"? because if she's referring to the fact of homosexuality, well, tough. it happens. and it's goddamned bigoted to try and denounce it because while singapore obviously entertains the anti-gay sentiment pretty well, i think society in general has sort of progressed beyond calling gays unnatural and evil. i think. privately held views obviously differ, but to make such comments in a public forum is fucked up. if she's referring to a lifestyle of casual sex: a) not all homosexuals indulge in a bacchanalian lifestyle of drunkenness and sexsexsex. b) casual sex is a fact, even in the heterosexual side of the world. even in singapore. and the very repressed nature that causes you to believe in the purity and chastity of your straight (pun intended) little world is half the reason there is a rather strong subculture of casual sex even among HETEROSEXUAL TEENAGERS. face up, little lady.

"couples, both same sex and otherwise, lock lips and grope each other discreetly on the crowded dance floor". correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this the general eventage on any dance floor at any party? i mean, parties with young people, not fancy Ferrari Club parties.

so sam and his hongkong guy? it could easily have been sally and her hongkong guy whom she met one night in some crowded smokey club and ended up in his room fucking like little rabbits. they would've used a condom too, and her behaviour would have just been as much cause for concern as sam's. so why does the gay community have to be blamed? so the Nation parties end in sex for a lot of people. but how about the thousands of other parties at clubs etc, which also end in sex for a lot of people? i don't know if i'm even making sense anymore, but i'm disgusted at the evident prejudice.

and, really "it undermines the basic family value of committed love, the importance of marriage". you know if singapore were a little more accepting of homosexuals there would actually be couples who wanted to be married here? and i can't believe she's cheeky enough to insinuate that a 'gay lifestyle' - and generalising the whole thing into a single Type of Lifestyle in itself is so wrong - is fundamentally opposed to committed love. homosexuals here can't even have families, they can't adopt kids as a legal couple, they can't be a legal couple. so how does this nonsense even apply? if kids are going to be homosexuals, underexposure to the fact that a community exists in singapore is just going to make it worse? atleast based on the assumption that you can't change your sexuality. and underexposure leads to repression, which just strengthens an underground culture of so-called depravity. a little openness would be good, you know?

why can't people accept that homosexuals are Human? and realise that removing a party from the social scene isn't going to do a whole lot to remove either homosexuality or casual sex? IF at all homosexuality and casual sex ought to be removed. in my opinon: homosexuality exists, it's as good or bad as anything else about human behaviour. and because homosexuals are human beings, they deserve human rights and human compassion just like any other humans. casual sex: not so good, but it happens so the only thing to do is to encourage safe sex, and NOT target one group of society for apparently promoting casual sex, and maybe create a society that's more open about sex so that sex doesn't become such a repressed desire and doesn't breed rebellion.

god my blood just boils. i know that homosexuals are more into the pleasure principle and all, and to some extent casual sex bothers them less, but i just hate when people make gross generalisations and say mean things in newspapers, knowing full well that gay men and women will be reading them. i don't think i'm coherent anymore. i think i shall stop blogging about this.

ohmygod. did anybody realise that the page that the article on is dominated by a large purple advertisement for Marriage Convention 2005? All "family matters" and stuff. How fucking ironic.