Welcome to Physically Insane

Snippet Below:

I made a point at Coming Home and well, it was a bit in a rush and we were veering off-topic so I didn't pursue it. But I woke up all of a sudden, thinking of it.  I said, Singaporeans generally have no guts; gay people are safe on the streets. There will be no gay bashing. I've seen at least 4 or 5 gay (male) couples holding hands in public so far, and a lesbian couple heavy-petting and fondling breasts on a train. Roy Tan gave two examples of moments he was nearly-gay-bashed. Once, 30 years ago, when he was in a toilet, notorious for cruising, a man suddenly came up to him and held Roy's neck with one hand. With maniac eyes, he shouted, "ARE YOU CRUISING ME? ARE YOU CRUISING ME?" The second one happened in the toilet again. An illegal immigrant slept in the park of the said toilet, and shouted at Roy (I forgot what). Roy said, "But he's not a Singaporean." I said jokingly, "The moral of the story here is STOP HANGING OUT AT TOILETS. There are ten saunas in Singapore!"  Roy joked back, "Toilets have sentimental values!" On a serious note, I should have corrected myself that no sane Singaporeans would gay-bash. It seems to me that Roy meets psychopaths. And with insane people, they attack everyone! Just give them a reason. Eileena, who looks masculine, also gave an example that she was attacked on the bus. Taking the mental state of the assailant aside--no one in the right mind would attack someone else in such a public space!--why would the attacker single out Eileena? Why would he know she is gay? Does she have the word "G-A-Y" tattooed on her forehead? He wouldn't know. His attack on her is because she looks like a man, not because she is gay. This is not gay bashing; it is misogyny. If in Eileena's place, there were a straight woman who has short hair and wears pants, the man would have attacked the straight woman too.  Gay-bashing, by definition, is an organized activity, well-thought-out. That is, bashers would band together and wait outside gay bars to pick on someone. But this seems very unlikely in Singapore, given how cowardly Singaporeans are. Yang-fa said that just because it hasn't happened yet in Singapore doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. But this is such slippery slope argument. It is an argument the opponents of 377a (the anti-sodomy law) use: if 377a is abolished, then we will gay marriages, and gay people running rampant on the streets, all our children will turn gay and there will be no morals anymore. Gay Singaporeans internalize fear so much that they don't know they are fearful.  Why let fear deter us from doing what we want? from expressing what we feel for our partners? On my part, I rather lose my life in a gay-bashing than to live in the dark, always hiding, always repressing my feelings, afraid to be myself. What sort of life is that? Is such a life worth living? On the other hand, we should respect other people's values. nicky_bitchy was on the bus with emerican_life  and emerican_life  asked what kind of fruit he would like to stuff up his ass. A woman turned around and scolded them. nicky_bitchy  calls this verbal abuse homophobia. Yes it is homophobia but I don't know if they should be talking in public such sordid details. It is like smoking. I certainly don't like to take in second-hand smoke but I don't go around telling my friends to stop smoking. However if we were in an enclosed area and a stranger smokes,  I would tell that person to stop. Personal space needs to be respected.  I don't know what Singapore these people are hanging out in but it is not the Singapore I experience. I don't deny that there is discrimination but it happens everywhere in the world! In Singapore, at most, Singaporeans usually show a stern face. They won't bash you up. (See: my two great experiences at bodyshop and post-museum.) YOU ARE SAFE TO COME OUT.  What if your boss is homophobic or you work in a homophobic environment? CHANGE YOUR FUCKING JOB. You think it's worth selling your soul, your inner being, your happiness, your true self for a paltry sum of money? YOU ARE SAFE TO COME OUT. YS wrote an essay dissecting the homosexulity in the novel Dr Jekyll and Hyde and the homophobic and fundamentalist professor not only gave him an F for the paper but F for the module, making him stay behind a semester just to re-do the module. That is SIX MONTHS of his life gone. The same professor gave a C to a CHRISTIAN girl who never handed in her work. This professor also didn't even grant me an interview for a scholarship when Eve Sedgwick, one of the two most important queer and gender theorists in the world, wrote my recommendation letter. I say, FUCK IT. Better to suffer Physically than to suffer emotionally. You know that the professor is morally wrong and you're right - isn't that all that matters? YOU ARE SAFE TO COME OUT.  People take everyone as a de facto heterosexual, that's why coming out is so difficult because you have to come out over and over again to people you newly meet. And each time, it takes courage and more courage. But the other alternative is to suffer in silence, not showing your true self to anyone. SILENCE = DEATH. SILENCE=YOU BECOMING A ZOMBIE, NO SOUL. And if you don't come out to people, how will they ever know that gay people are NORMAL too? YOU ARE SAFE TO COME OUT AND COME OUT AND COME OUT ALL THE TIME. What infuriates and saddens me most is that Roy, Eilenna and Yang-fa are gay activists, and yet they have no courage, advocating coming out only in safety. If people think that way, there will be no Sun Yat Sens in the world, no Billy Elliots, no Mary Wollstonecrafts, the blacks would still be slaves, women in their crinolines with bound feet and gay men will still be sucking dicks at back alleys without love, love, love! If gay activists behave like tortoises, then what happens to the closeted 14 year-old faggot unsure of himself, thinking "oh these gay activists are hiding which means being gay is something dirty, shameful and furtive"? Then one day, that little faggot kills himself (because--you must know this--a gay teenager is 4 to 5 times more likely to kill him- or herself.) I want to hold your hand in public. In broad daylight, on the streets, not secretly, in cinemas when the lights are darkened. That is all I ask. Is it so difficult? Have a bit of courage. You'll find that people can surprise you. Edit: emerican_life 's account of the bus incident:I think I’ll take this opportunity to clarify what happened, and give my point of view of the matter. The incident: There was a large group of us on the bus. YF is vegetarian, and the topic of conversation was on healthy eating. Someone asked what N’s favourite vegetables were. N responded. I then said, “Well, the first one fits there quite well, tomatoes on the other hand…” and I made a stuffing action with my thumb and forefinger. I did not, as implied, ask directly, “What fruit would you like stuffed up your ass?” We then went on about the squishiness of tomatoes before being interrupted by the lady, who said, “Could you continue this conversation in your bedroom? It’s an affront to my ears.” I looked at her – an elderly lady, not well-kempt. It seemed clear to me that all of us in the group came from more privileged backgrounds than she did – as far as appearances go. So I decided engaging her wasn’t a tack I would take, and kept silent for the rest of the bus ride. N. did not say much either. The others had a field day picking at her, and I am sad to say things degenerated into name-calling on both sides. My take: I felt sorry for the lady. I did not like it that things degenerated into name-calling. Here are a few points I’d like to make: 1. As none of us were explicit in saying, “What fruit would you like stuffed up your ass?”, the conversation calls for a certain ability to infer what we meant and to infer it correctly. That is, it needed an adult’s ability to infer. In being able to infer, the lady is clearly aware of what she probably terms “deviant practices”. In other words, the “dirt” is already inside her mind. 2. What I intended as off-colour humour (and indeed was so perceived by N and the rest of the group), the lady took as an “affront”. I did not address the remark to her, did not intend to insult anyone with the remark, did not use any expletive, did not make the remark in the presence of children (as far as I remember, there were none on the bus), did not make the remark inside her home nor in a place of worship. We were on board a public bus. Not long ago, you’d also get the likes of TV Mobile blaring away. She was simply within earshot. 3. It was her choice to take offense and voice it. 4. My response would therefore have been, “Please mind your own business, just as we are minding ours.” 5. The second matter is that of being given an unsolicited value judgement. This links with the assumption that there exists a definite level of morality to which we all need to adhere to publicly / socially. 6. I would have responded, “Who are you to take it upon yourself to judge us?” Was she vested with the authority to do so? I think not. The offense she took stems from her own values and sensibilities, which clearly jar with ours in this matter. Does she have a right to impose her judgement upon us? I think not. 7. At the end of the day, public spaces are shared spaces. All parties involved would have had a much better time if they could just live and let live. 8. “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can’t ever get me.” Ultimately, no one’s physical safety or health was compromised or put at any greater risk by the overhearing of our conversation. Why couldn’t the lady have let things be instead of being meddlesome? __________________________________________________ There are three flaws in your argument. 1. "we should respect other people's values" - I feel the incident more accurately shows that mutual respect works best. The lady was certainly not respecting my values when she voiced her judgement. I think I actually accorded her more respect by opting to remain silent. 2. The smoking analogy doesn't hold water. It is proven that smoking IS hazardous to one's health; second-hand smoke even more so. The lady's health was at no point compromised by overhearing what we said. 3. "Personal space needs to be respected." This incident took place on a public bus. Singapore's public servants have expended so much energy on showing, by persons per square metre, that our public transport is hardly overloaded compared to the likes of those in other cities. The lady ought to be thankful that we are not packed cheek to jowl, unlike our commuting counterparts elsewhere. She had more than enough personal space, as she was the sole occupant of a double seat while we were standing in the aisle.Edit: seenicky_bitchy's response. Mood: braveMusic:Beatles - I Wanna Hold Your HandTags:politics