Orchard Road

Well ladies and gents, I come to you today from Orchard Road, where I find myself using wireless from the new Far Coast coffee shop, even though i'm across the street at Starbucks haha. I don't quite get Singapore's Starbucks locations, as every Starbucks in Malaysia had free wireless, whereas here you have to be a SingTel or Starhub subscriber. I did read good news, however, that as of January most of the CBD will be covered by free wireless, so no more worries.

Anyways, whilst enjoying my decaf, skim milk cappucino and daily dose of Nicotine, I find myself people watching, and, being the ever so robust heterosexual male that I am, my gaze undoubtedly turns to individuals of the fairer sex. Singapore is interesting compared to America, in so much as it seems many women here take more time to make themselves up and what not. Makeup, stilettos, skirts and branded bags are the norm, as opposed to the ubiquitous Sanitary t-shirts, Rainbow slippers and jean skirts which permeated my experience as an undergrad. The reason i'm mentioning all this is that I find the attitude towards sex and gender roles here to be a study of contrasts, but perhaps a bit more honest than the one back in the part of the Bible Belt from which I come.

First and foremost, I think feminism has caught on a bit less in this part of the world. My views of that whole issue are a bit mixed, as I come from a hyper-feminist mother who would respond to any opposition towards feminist ideals with a threat to sever certain areas of the male anatomy. Nonetheless, I am more of an "equal rights for all" kind of guy, in that if women want to be treated equally then they should, but shouldn't expect preferential treatment. Nonetheless, women here get all doled up and pretty, and I can't say that I mind at all, but maybe it's because they put more of their self-esteem in a linkage to acceptance and appeal from men.

Conversely, though, I think women here are too shy. As an ang moh, I always get accused of having some sort of edge with women here. I would say that's not necessarily true, but maybe i'm just a schmuck and in fact it is. I am extraordinarily picky in my choice of women, and that includes inside and out. I often lament to myself that my standards may be too high, but I really don't know what to do in that department. Over the years, though, my social ineptitude has lessened, and I find myself in a better position in attracting women. I think that also has to do with age; the older you get, the more money matters. Whether or not you boyfriend is the star quarterback matters less than what he's bringing home every month.

I'm looking forward to getting older, though, as I must say I find a lot of women in the 25-30 range extremely sexy. I conjecture it's because they have more oof the confidence and maturity that I find attractive, plus are not constrained so much by the puritanical rants of parents which lead them to self-loathing and denial of one's sexuality.

This aspect leads me to the next thing I wanted to talk about, which is this whole religion and sex crap. I grew up in what amounted to (contrary to my family's denial) a relatively authoritarian and fundamentalist upbringing. James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and all that jazz were part of my life until I went to University, and are still definitely inclusive of my vocabulary. While my parents have become increasingly liberal, the black-and-white nature of it all has definitely led me to many crises of opinion, particularly on the issue of sex. For those of you who don't know this, in the bible belt from which I originate, the whole bullcrap "wait until you're married thing" still applies. I could write a thesis on this point, but since it's not my overall topic, I will just say that the reason so many little fundies divorce is that they marry to have sex, which is a load of bollocks if you ask me.

The main point I want to bring up is organised religion, particularly the virulent, fundamentalist kind, generally points towards denying one's inner nature and framing it within some sort of structure which was, frankly, likely developed by some senile old man and not God in whose name such stringent and idiotic regulations are formulated. I get the feeling that, when looking down at the world, the almighty probably finds the situation in Darfur, people dying of AIDS, and poverty slightly more striking issues than whether or not someone is attracted to another of the same gender. It's even more idiotic that, particularly in America, people are easily manipulated by such idiotic issues when focus should be elsewhere.

This corresponds with some recent news from the Vatican, that says that their official policy will shift from no condoms in any relations to allowing condoms between married couples in which one partner is HIV positive. Now don't get me wrong, I love the Pope, being a German and what not, but perhaps in the Vatican they just don't realise that not using condoms is probably the single largest cause of AIDS and unwanted pregnancy in the developing world, and hence parlays into poverty and food shortages (at least from a Malthusian perspective). Perhaps the Church should get its own business about pedophile priests cleaned up before dictating to others the gist of sexual morality, particularly as its own skewed policies, such as celibate clergy, have probably caused more harm than good.

In the end, I think the moral of the story is, do what makes you happy, and don't let some idiotic, hypocritical man who speaks in the name of God make you feel guilty about it. Because, in the end, Jesus hung out with very unholy people, didn't he?