i wish i could eat your cancer when you turn black.
written: 9:37 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 09, 2005

The way some people say 'penal code' will never fail to amuse me. People with weird-sounding English somehow have this uncanny ability to turn 'penal' into something quite sexual, bordering slightly on obscene, something along the lines of the meaning of the word 'penile'. They don't say 'penile' of course, since more likely than not, they don't have the slightest clue what that word means; rather, they pronounce 'penal' such that it sounds like a derivative from (of?) the word 'penis'. It's hilarious.

Today's lecture was fucking hilarious for the most part, although I have to say that it got a bit offensive towards the end. The subject: homosexuality, homosexual acts, "unnatural" sex (ie. oral sex, beastiality), and whether these acts should be criminalised.

Of course my answer would be 'no' for everything except beastiality, in which case I plead animal rights - duh. That aside, it was funny because the lecturer was trying to get people to define "against the order of nature" and "gross indecency" and people were coming up with all sorts of weird answers that had me going, "Huh?" And then the lecturer went on to talk about sexual intercouse and what it entails, what makes it biological, what makes sex between a man and a woman "natural" and not "against the order of nature" as opposed to sex between two (consenting) males or females, whatever.

You know, I think we'd find ourselves facing a lot less problems if we do away with the useless euphemisms and simply call a spade a spade. It's obvious what the law considers sex that does not go against the order of nature: vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman. Why? Because the majority of the population is straight and this is how most people have sex. If we want to talk about gay sex, just call it gay sex or anal sex between males; and why use the word 'fellatio' at all when nobody normal uses it in day to day speech? Just say, "Oral sex." It's not that difficult, you know.

Anyway, this guy in my LAWR tutorial group made this strange argument for retaining Sections 377 and 377A, something along the lines of how Singapore is surrounded by Islamic nations that disapprove of homosexuality and how we'd risk being marginalised by those nations if we repealed those two sections - which I don't think made much sense at all. I also don't think it makes sense, either, to cite Islamic objections to homosexuality as a real reason to criminalise it. After all, we're supposedly a secular nation country, and that, by definition, means that our politics are not influenced by religion.

But hey, life is essentially contradictory; so why shouldn't its myriad subsets be any different? Just look at this hilarious sentence from one of the oral sex cases that were included in the reading package:

"Approaching the question as we have done, consent becomes a material element for when couples engaged in consensual sexual intercourse willingly indulge in fellatio and cunnilingus as a stimulant to their respective sexual urges, neither act can be considered to be against the order of nature and punishable under s 377 of the Penal Code. In every other instance the act of fellatio between a man and a woman will be carnal intercourse against the order of nature and punishable under s 377."

Okay, so a couple can engage in oral sex as a prelude to sexual intercourse, but they can't engage in oral sex for the sake of engaging in oral sex?! I don't understand the logic behind this...oh wait, that's precisely 'cause there is absolutely no real, discernible logic behind this dribble that I was forced to read which only made me laugh my head off. And this whole 'nature' argument severely turns me off. If we really want to harp on and on about it then I can easily tell pompous naturalists that everything that we live for, that sustains us, are unnatural. Electricity, computers, even clothing (isn't it agreed upon by both religion and science that human beings are essentially naked apes?), handphones, air travel, refridgerators, every single hallmark of the modern life, how are these "natural" when the world didn't start off this way?

It's called 'progress', isn't it? If our way of life and standard of living can evolve, why can't values evolve too? You can argue that we should have s377 and 377A to protect the liberties of those who do not agree with it...but we're talking about consenting individuals here. Repealing those sections doesn't logically translate to straight individuals or people who're offended by oral sex being forced into such sexual activities.

In short, in my very humble opinion, the law nearly always tramples upon the rights of the minority. It's also hilarious how it tries to dictate what adults can or cannot do within the private confinements of their own home.

What was even more hilarious was this thing this guy said in reply to the thing that the guy in my LAWR TG said. He was saying something about Thailand and how Phuket has a bustling gay scene while the Thai south is a predominantly Muslim area, blah blah, some girl went, "Maybe the Thai south is in such trouble now because of what's going on in Phuket" (which made me think, where did you get your newspapers from?), the guy replied, "My dad's Thai and I have family there, something something something, but I'm straight."

Hahahahahaha. The second he said that everyone burst out laughing. Now you see why I said the lecture was hilarious?

What offended me towards the end was this crap about "right-thinking" members of the public. I quote:

"What amounts to a grossly indecent act must depend on whether in the circumstances, and the customs and morals of our times, it would be considered grossly indecent by any right-thinking member of the public..."

At first I was thinking that the offending phrase may have meant right-wing as opposed to left-wing, which would make some iota of sense; but then, on second thoughts, that couldn't possibly be the case, for this is Singapore and we don't use language like that. So, then, it has to mean "right" as opposed to "wrong" - which offended the shit out of me, because I don't think oral sex is "grossly indecent" and since s377 says it is, by logical extension s377 is saying that I'm wrong and that people who think oral sex is indecent are right. But then again, how do you qualify such grey areas of morality and attempt to carve out a cookie-cutter standard to enforce on everyone in this little country? Why can't we be honest and just state plainly, "We don't condone oral sex because the majority of the public doesn't condone it and we have to adhere to their opinion because they are the ones casting the votes."

Um, was that a tad incendiary? Ha ha ha. It was what was said in lecture anyway. Colour me cynical.

This entry is quite long.

Anyway, Ruishan made me laugh again! She always makes me laugh duing SLS lectures which is extremely detrimental considering the fact that we sit right under the lecturer's nose! Guess what she wrote to me on MSN? Behold:

��csa the freckles in our eyes says:
its as stupid as bring all my 1A and 1B books to sch
��csa the freckles in our eyes says:
on the 1st day of sch

I shan't divulge what she was comparing her bringing all her textbooks to school on the first day of school with, because I am kind and nice. Ha ha ha ha ha.

But seriously: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's like so fucking hilarious! It's so cute. Like who does that?! Hahahahahaha. Rui was trying hard not to laugh, or to mask it so that it's not totally obvious that we're talking about something not SLS-related, but I didn't give a shit. I just laughed and laughed and laughed, and the fact that it was the end of lecture anyway probably saved my ass.

So, yes, SLS was fun.

Then it went downhill from there.

What can I say? Torts tutorial at 3 in the afternoon in an ice-cold classroom after I sat in the sauna that was the Business canteen only minutes before did nothing for me but made me want to just fall asleep and forget everything else. Medical negligence. Do we hold a doctor responsible for botched sterilisation procedures that were performed negligently. ARGH I JUST WANTED TO DIE. If it didn't end anytime soon I was so gonna sue...something for giving me a bloody headache.

Oh, and I had to present my group's thingy and I had no idea what I was going off about. Yay. Major joy and happiness. It was damn obvious too: I was making all these confused faces when Mr. K was asking me questions to counter my points. And when I said that I didn't read that local case involving this woman who sued her doctor for not telling her that her child was deformed or something along those lines, who also brought a cause of action against the doctor on the child's behalf, he made this face that clearly stated his disapproval.

Oh god Yelen why do you do these crap to yourself, for crying out loud? I spent ten minutes typing my answer last night on my bed; hence it was a crap answer; hence I resorted to using my group member's answers, which turned out to be too brief for an oral presentation. So yeah, it sucked major ass.

And I didn't really follow what was going on in class. It was the headache.

**

In other news, I saw a very, very, very, very, very, very good-looking PRC guy in the Business canteen today.

He had the palest skin ever. Have I ever mentioned how much I adore guys with skin white as snow? Especially Chinese guys with such fair/pale/sickly-looking skin? I must be mad, for most girls I know like tanned, sporty-looking guys, but I like guys who look like they're half-dead and may be an actual vampire when the lights are out.

(Okay, maybe not, but.)

For a split second I was gonna talk to him. He was behind me getting food at the Western food stall (which sucks by the way). But then, I thought of my lousy Chinese and how it'd be weird, period, and just took my plate and walked away.

I was thinking today: my last two relationships have been extremely dysfunctional. The first one was all physical closeness and intimacy and minimal mental connection, while the second one was the other way round altogether. What does it say about me? Or does it merely reflect upon the guys I went out with? Or is it me and them, me because I was too easy, them because they were too reluctant or too conservative or on too separate wavelengths?

Why do we grow up more disillusioned than fulfilled? Why are childhood conceptions of love as a strictly and purely beautiful thing exposed as nothing more than an ugly lie along with the increasing number of candles you're forced to stick on your birthday cake? Why can't things be simple, uncomplicated, real? Does it work out for everyone else but me? I don't think I'm as much of a cynic as a "disappointed idealist" (England, England, Julian Barnes), and it's a realisation that makes me sadder than all my claims to cynicism combined.

Because if you're purely cynical you never had any hope; if you're a disappointed idealist you're forced to think back on all these hopes that you harboured of falling in love, of falling in love and staying in love, of loving someone else the way you love yourself, of being unselfish, of being desired and wanted and desirable; and now you realise, you never really had any basis for any of those things, or you had some basis but that basis was sustained by unrealistic fairy tales that are essentially lies. Why give a child hope if that hope will only serve to disappoint in the future?

I want things told as they are. I am tired of useless euphemisms, sugar-coating of the cold, hard truth.

So here's my truth: Seeing my beloved Mel so blissfully in love with her boyfriend, with all their problems which they always manage to overcome, makes me wonder, with a significant amount of bitterness, why can't that be me? Sometimes you need someone you can run to, someone to unload all your problems on, because you get all these instances in which you really have to talk but there's no one because you don't want to burden your friends and because you're not sure if your parents will understand. At times like these you want someone to be there, who won't mind listening to your rubbish woes, who'd know exactly what to say, someone to whom you'd expose your vulnerability and still like you as much as he did before.

Because I have this theory that if I show a person my deepest, darkest secrets and insecurities, he'd run for the opposite direction faster than he can say, "Oh my god you're a fucking weirdo and I can't handle your crap." Because the guys that I've been with never really knew me; they saw one side of me which they liked, or thought they liked; and if they'd truly known me they wouldn't have been that ready to put me on a pedestal to adore.

Honestly.

Maybe that's why I am doomed to feelings that start out as a spark and end as a spark. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sigh.

before sunrise // before sunset

Previously:
- - Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2017
I'm moving. - Sunday, Jul. 11, 2010
In all honesty - Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010
What I want for my birthday... - Sunday, Jul. 04, 2010
On Roger's behalf. - Friday, Jul. 02, 2010