I am, against my better judgement and time-management issues, hooked on a reality TV show [yes, I know, don’t say it] called “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila“. If that sounds vaguely like a porn movie title to you, don’t worry it is not. Or maybe it is – Tila Tequila is as porny a name as you can get. The girl, Vietnamese and Singapore-born, is OMFG hot, and… bisexual.
The show plays on this, and pits 16 guys against 16 girls in a reality TV dating show, in a bid to win Tila’s heart. I am not sure what to think of it – on one hand, there is the obvious sensationalism, and the reinforcement of the stereotypes that bisexuals play with both genders, cannot choose between men and women, etc. And I am sensing that people are going to make too much of whether Tila chooses a boy or a girl. On the other hand, it is great bisexual visibility, and lesbian visibility – besides The L Word, there is no other show where you get to see so many gorgeous, normal lesbian women [emphasis on gorgeous – these girls could have walked off the catwalk of America’s Next Top Model].
Overriding all the obvious political concerns, there is the simple fact that the show is entertaining, and has more drama than all the seasons of the Bachelor and Bachelorette combined. And did I mention that the girls are hot? Even the butch/andro firefighter, I find cute. I like all the bitching going on, and the attitudes of the girls towards the guys, though reproachable, is funny. The guys, especially the Italian dude, are just entertaining.
FYI, I dont usually watch MTV trash, much less reality TV trash. And even less of reality TV dating show trash. But this show is so unique, I just gotta.
Quotable quotes from the show so far: “Homophobia, I don’t know, is kinda like when you are scared of other guys. Homophobia, it is like a disease!” [Now say that with an Italian accent and you’ll see why I love this show]
Right now, I hate Law. I wish I could spend at least one day not thinking about Law, or more accurately, LAWR. Have been coming back to school almost every day of the week, like some kind of loser – and I am not the only one. Doesn’t help that my TG doesn’t have a clear cause of action, and the presentation is less than a week away.
Damn en-bloc sales. Why couldn’t I have gotten the pregnant woman case instead?
Inspired by the likes of Thio Li-Ann and a commentor only known as Seowteochew.
I’m going to let you guys in on a secret: all the rumours about the Gay Agenda are absolutely true. Every last word. In my hands I have the Masterplan of the Gay Community, otherwise known as Gaytopia 2050, hardcopy edition. I’ve obtained these plans from the headquarters of Homopolis, located somewhere in between the end of the rainbow and the pot of gold. It wasn’t easy sneaking it out, as I had to get past a couple of flamboyant queens who insisted on giving me makeup tips, and a whole army of dancing gay men who wouldn’t let me pass until I Flaunted it. And then there was the perilous trip across the oily and slippery room of diesel dykes, and the final barrier: walking through the Hall of Decadence.
Before the queens in high heels descend on me with their featherboas, I am going to give you all a sneakpeak in to the Masterplan, planned to the second, till 2050.
Top Five Goals to be achieved by 2050
- Outlaw straight marriage and straight sex – heterosexuality is an affront to our morals and repugnant to a small minority of society who insists on stripping other people of their rights in order to feel good about themselves, even though their rights are not affected.
- Anyone who admits he or she is straight will be discharged from the army, and made ineligible to donate blood. Even though, really, orientation has nothing do with either of these things, but who cares?
- Encourage a culture of intolerance, where parents disown straight children if they ever come out to you. It is always shameful when your child grows up to be a healthy productive individual in society but isn’t fucking whom you want him to fuck. If technology is advanced enough, find the straight gene and abort straight foetuses before birth. Better yet, manipulate their genes in-utero.
- Make it compulsory to dismiss straight individuals in high-ranking positions in the government and MNCs, because apparently the thought of them fucking someone of the opposite sex is too much to bear for the people who interact with them or work under them. Oh, and straight teachers too.
- Make life hell for straight activists. Monitor their activities, and ban their events, especially if they involve picnics, a run, or an exhibition.
Top Five Ways to Impose our “Culture” on everyone else
- Outlaw croc shoes – no one should be wearing that horrible excuse for footwear, which look more like pieces of Hannibal’s mask cut and dyed.
- Make gym membership compulsory for all men upon reaching the age of 18. National Service just doesn’t cut it, in keeping our men fit! Plus there is no danger of mosquito bites in a gym.
- Make it compulsory for all kids to learn Madonna songs by heart from primary 3 onwards.
- Force employers to give emergency paid leave based on “my-girlfriend’s-ex-threw-a-drink-in-her-face-at-a-bar-its-all-lesbian-drama-gotta-go”.
- Make U-hauls compulsory – no couples shall date for more than 3 days before getting into a relationship and moving in.
Oh no the queens are knocking on the door…
Seriously, I do. Right now, I want to have his kids because I want them to inherit his wits and brains [and my good looks… okay, okay, you can stop throwing the rotten tomatoes now].
My father, of all people, pointed out an article he wrote in Insight in today’s Straits Times. He presents a far better rebuttal of Thio than anything I or the other bloggers have written, and way funnier. I don’t agree with him on the gun bit, but the rest of the article is pure gold, in my opinion.
Please send him love-mail.
And guys, I know Thio Li-Ann is everyone’s favourite strawman… er…. strawwoman, but please don’t send her hate-mail. She’s not worth it. It is rather funny, though, how everything Thio does kinda backfires on her, or doesn’t quite have the effect she is hoping for. She complained about the banned pink picnic, and just to spite her, 150 people turned up for the non-existent picnic which would otherwise be attended by a measly 20-30 people. Her hysterical anti-gay stand in parliament, while gaining support among the die-hard conservatives, is alienating the moderate middle [which is the real majority, despite her assertions to the contrary].
I am actually kind of happy she made that speech. Long Live Thio! Please continue doing what you do.
Tangentially related to my earlier post about marital rape immunity, this is a cool movement I came across while tag-surfing: Alternative Energy for Reclaim the Night March, which erm, happens today. Reclaim the Night, or otherwise known as Take Back the Night, is an internationally held march protesting sexual violence, particularly against women.
This movement encourages those who do not want to march in the streets to light a match or a candle and take a photo of it to post on your blog. [Especially useful in Singapore I would think, since we can’t march.] Link to at least one other light-marcher, so that it becomes a virtual march.
Let’s work towards a world without sexual violence.
600 plus hits in one day, without even being tomorrowed, thanks to Ms Thio. I had expected maybe a slightly bigger pool than usual, due to the controversial nature. But not this.
The internet surprises me, once in a while.
By the way, there are many other commentaries on this issue out there:
Guys, go ahead and tear Ms Thio’s argument into pieces all you want, or even those of other MPs. But do so in a respectful manner – if you are to resort to name-calling and ad hominem, we are simply affirming what she says.
I was so incensed about the section 377A issue that I forgot to speak on this other issue – the immunity of husbands from marital rape. Many MPs touched on this issue [all videos can be viewed here], coming down on either side. I am not going to bother rebutting the arguments of those who argued for the retention of immunity, as NMP Siew Kum Hong has offered an excellent argument. And I have just one thing to offer all those people who maintain that marital rape immunity protects family values: wait till you get raped by the man you vowed to love and cherish.
What I wish to speak about, is Ellen Lee’s speech. You can watch it here.
Ellen Lee, from the start, made a cogent, persuasive argument about why marital rape immunity was not acceptable. She even cited a 1998 rape case there can be rape in a marital situation. She made very good arguments about why the women who are the most likely to be victims are also least likely to be able to protect themselves under the exceptions.
And then, in a sleight of hand, she took it all back, and said that married women shouldn’t be allowed to cry rape for vindictive reasons, and hence the new law was valid. She fears a sudden change in society’s views to marriage, and for the victims, the courts are supposed to be there to judge whether the claim is valid.
She makes so many leaps of logic in the last statement that I thought she was playing hopscotch. All the way, she has argued for why marital rape immunity does not make sense, and how the proposed amendments do not protect the women who need it the most – so how does she come to the sudden conclusion that the amendments are just fine? Also, her statement about “sudden change” is rather laughable – laws do not shape society’s views overnight. They mould each other in the fullness of time, in a complex interplay of public policy and populist moves. If we repeal marital immunity, wives are not going to wake up tomorrow morning and suddenly decide to cry rape because he forgot to pick up the drycleaning.
To say that this law should be retained in order to prevent wolf-crying, is to completely ignore what rape is, and the criminal proceedings of rape. Rape is a deeply shameful secret for many women, something they carry around their entire lives in silence. Even if the said abuser is not a loved one, it takes a lot of courage to report him. What more, if it is a loved one? There is much she has to go through – she said it herself, many women are raped a second time on the stand, by the cross-examination, by the media attention, by the people around her who gossip. It has to be proven beyond a shadow of doubt she did not “ask” for it. In the first place, the police will interrogate her to make sure she is not crying rape – they will try to make her admit she “asked for it”, or that she consented to it. After getting through this humiliating hurdle, there are the lawyers, the courts, the media. Many rape victims drop their cases mid-way.
With all these restrictions in the way, imagine how much more difficult it is to report and prove the rape by a long-term consensual sexual partner? Firstly, there is the emotional barrier – they might be in love, unable to identify themselves as victims, not wanting their partners to go to jail. They might be hoping he’ll change, love them better. People who talk about crying foul, have no conception what it is like to be an abusive relationship – and how deeply the victim can be in the abuse. After reporting him, there is the hurdle of having to prove that you did not consent to this particular instance of sexual contact, after having consented for so long. You yourself said this – it is almost impossible. And by your own arguments, we know how marital rape can occur before the wife has a chance to take legal proceedings – so why are you arguing that the proposed changes are valid?
Even if a woman manages to get past all this, and cries foul… is it not the same as a woman crying foul about a non-marital partner? Should we then, take out rape altogether? So that no woman can ever cry foul about a man? It is up to the courts and judges to decide whether a particular case is valid.
Ellen Lee [and other MPs] also speaks about family values: on what basis is it good family values to encourage our men to rape their wives, to treat their wives as chattel until she takes legal proceedings? Marriage should be based on equality and consent, not archaic ideals of sexual entitlement. No one is entitled, even if it is a long-term sexual relationship.
Ellen Lee, your logic astounds me – at least the other MPs were consistent in their stand, being for or against marital rape. How do you argue for repeal of immunity all the way, and then suddenly switch to the other foot?
Oh, I forgot, you were playing hopscotch.
Dear Ms Thio
I am not as learned as you in law. I am but a first-year law student. A law student who happens to identify as queer, and has spent the last two years working in the queer activism scene, who now loves a woman, who now wishes to rid this country of the blight known as section 377A.
Ms Thio, I am sure you know this section very well… in fact, you dedicated an entire speech to the impassioned defence of it, not even touching on things like marital rape immunity. I am surprised… I thought an educated, feminist woman like yourself would have some feelings on this section which effectively takes away the right of married women to their bodies…. but I digress. You expounded in detail upon the merits of retaining this law. You showed us all how much you hate us gay people – like we couldn’t tell from the letters to ST. When I read your speech, my first impulse was to laugh. Then as I read on, cringing at the leaps of logic, and wincing at the palpable hatred pouring out of the paper.
I will now proceed to rebutt you: point by point.
I wrote this post on Sayoni a long time ago, rebutting the arguments of the other side one by one. I’ve been reading through the IQ-leeching comments on the keep377a website, and I don’t understand how these people can rationally believe family values can be eroded by two men having sex. Is it a zero-sum game? Everytime two people of the same gender have sex, The Great Cosmic Scorekeeper strike off one point for the family value column, and award one point to the gay column, resulting a slow “erosion of values”.
You want to know what does destroy families and tear them apart? Homophobia. Every time a parent rejects his gay child, every time a parent turns his face away when she holds her partner’s hand, every time a gay child emigrates to escape the family’s disapproval and find a better life away from this country. That tears families apart.
I worry about what will happen to my family too, when they eventually find out. I worry that I will have to go to a country far away to avoid hurting my parents, to escape their disapproval. I worry that I will get married without their blessings, or even their knowledge. I worry that no matter how successful I am in later life, whether I fulfill the dreams my father has for me, they will never be able to be proud of me. I worry that my future children will never play at the feet of their grandparents, listen to the grandmother stories, taste my mother’s amazing cooking. I worry they will not let me take care of them later in life, when they are retired.
Because I am their child too, gay or straight.