Due to the article published on Monday, the gay debate continued on Tuesday and Wednesday.
A letter from the conservatives:
What’s next? Same sex marriages?
Anton Chan
Mr Ho Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs, social well-being and families.
As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore because it’s against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I care because I don’t want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle.
Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore. What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children for gays?
Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?
Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on the next generation of children and parents who wish that their children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal course of their being?
The only strong contention in Mr Ho’s proposal is the so-called gay leading edge in the “creative class”. Doesn’t our society have many other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.
I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In “None above the law” (Sept 8), he said: “If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota, she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended … But until Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations Act, they remain the law of Singapore.”
If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament, he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended … But until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it remains the law of Singapore.
What irks me most is when people start of their argument with "As a Christian, I oppose ...". How come they never say "As a thinking Christian" or "As a logical and rational adult"?
Because they don't think and they're not logical. If they do, they would realise how stupid and flawed their arguments are. It is as if being of a certain religion precludes the usage of the cerebrum.
When a person claims to be a Christian, it is implicitly saying that they are just taking the Bible word for word, no questions asked. More than 10 years of education down the drain.
If someone were to follow the Bible to the word, then why doesn't he ask for laws to make an offense for adultery? Why not push for and make it a punishable offense for anyone who works on Sunday?
Why not impose one's beliefs on everyone else? Because apparently, there is no such thing as live and let live in the minds of the narrow-minded religious. It is "I am right and they are wrong" kind of mentality.
Of course, I am only referring to those so called "educated" people who can't think for themselves. There are pastors and Christians who believed that everyone is God's creation and each of us deserves happiness, freedom and love. But unfortunately the latter number less than the former.
In addition, the writer totally went off tangent and did not rebut from the rule of law perspective.
I am not sure why I keep giving blogspace to these kind of letters. Sigh.
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Monday, September 15, 2008
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Exercise
Here I am back in KL for the weekend. It has been quite a slow week for me at work, thus allowing me to leave work on time. Though busier weeks are expected end of the month, due to third quarter closing.
With me being able to get off work on time, I managed to go to a commercial gym for group exercises. Yes I know, I am in the remaining 10% of the community who do not frequent the gym.
Anyway, I had a go at pilates on Tuesday, gym ball on Wednesday and Bodystep on Thursday. The pilates class was not too bad, though I felt the instructor was a bit too quick and the whole session felt rushed.
The gym ball class was very good. I was with Lloyd and at the end of the class, I was aching all over. The good kind of post-workout pains. We worked on the abs, arms and shoulders. Even though there were no exercises targetting the legs, there were some effects felt too. I suppose it was due to the gym ball used, where the leg muscles were engaged to stabilised my body.
Bodystep was quite fun too, though there were a lot of jumping, hopping andcomplex choreography stepping involved. I reckon I didn't too bad on my first try.
The pace was fast and I don't think I got the right movements, in terms of how to step. As in the knee-bending, up-stepping and ankle-lifting had to be done correctly or else it would be quite bad for the knees and ankles. And I have less than strong knees and ankles.
I also attended the Bodypump and RPM classes too.
So now I have had a taste of what all the hype is all about. Some of my gym-going friends have mentioned all those group exercises in conversations and I have no idea what they were talking about.
Overall, those classes are quite fun and it does look like an enjoyable way to be healthy and shed some pounds. Definitely beats running on the treadmill at my condo's gym.
All of the classes above were made possible thanks to Nick's and Lloyd's free 1 week pass. Thanks, guys!
With me being able to get off work on time, I managed to go to a commercial gym for group exercises. Yes I know, I am in the remaining 10% of the community who do not frequent the gym.
Anyway, I had a go at pilates on Tuesday, gym ball on Wednesday and Bodystep on Thursday. The pilates class was not too bad, though I felt the instructor was a bit too quick and the whole session felt rushed.
The gym ball class was very good. I was with Lloyd and at the end of the class, I was aching all over. The good kind of post-workout pains. We worked on the abs, arms and shoulders. Even though there were no exercises targetting the legs, there were some effects felt too. I suppose it was due to the gym ball used, where the leg muscles were engaged to stabilised my body.
Bodystep was quite fun too, though there were a lot of jumping, hopping and
The pace was fast and I don't think I got the right movements, in terms of how to step. As in the knee-bending, up-stepping and ankle-lifting had to be done correctly or else it would be quite bad for the knees and ankles. And I have less than strong knees and ankles.
I also attended the Bodypump and RPM classes too.
So now I have had a taste of what all the hype is all about. Some of my gym-going friends have mentioned all those group exercises in conversations and I have no idea what they were talking about.
Overall, those classes are quite fun and it does look like an enjoyable way to be healthy and shed some pounds. Definitely beats running on the treadmill at my condo's gym.
All of the classes above were made possible thanks to Nick's and Lloyd's free 1 week pass. Thanks, guys!
Sunday, August 24, 2008
AIDS in Asia
The article below appeared in a Singapore free newspaper about 3 weeks ago.
1 in 5 Asian Homosexuals Has HIV
UNITED NATIONS — HIV infection rates among gay men in many parts of Asia are as severe as those which devastated homosexual communities in the United States in the late ’80s, said top officials of the United Nations Aids agency UNAIDS.
Launching his agency’s 2008 report on the global Aids epidemic, Mr Peter Piot, executive director of UNAIDS, urged more action to prevent the spread of the disease among gay men who have unsafe sex. He also stressed the importance of working with affected communities.
Mr Piot said: “All over Asia there are now epidemics of HIV in men who have sex with men, at the same magnitude that we saw in this country 25 years ago. That is something that has been detected fairly recently. There is not enough action yet but we are now starting programs,” he added.
Paul De Lay, director of Evidence, Monitoring and Policy at UNAIDS, said the HIV epidemic among gay communities in Asia was not new, but that it had recently reached the levels seen in cities such as San Francisco at the end of the 1980s when HIV infections reached their peak.
He said it could be due to a number of factors, including less funding for programs that target men who have sex with men and the fact that there were new groups who were less aware of the risks of unprotected sex.
“Asia has recognized populations of men who have sex with men for quite some time,” he told AFP. “The epidemic in these populations started in the mid-1990s. What we see now is a resurgence.”
“There are countries where the percentage of people infected are similar to what we were seeing in San Francisco or in Berlin or in London where up to 15 to 20 percent of men who have sex with men are HIV positive,” he added.
The report meanwhile noted that unprotected sex between men was a “potentially significant but under-researched aspect of the HIV epidemics in Asia,” citing countries such as Thailand and Vietnam.
“Recent study data from several major cities in the region, from Bangkok to Ho Chi Minh City, show increasing HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men,” the report said.
In China, unsafe sex between men could account for up to seven per cent of HIV infections, it noted.
De Lay said there were also high infection rates among gay populations in cities such as Chennai and Mumbai in India and in Indonesia’s capital Jakarta.
He added that these communities often faced homophobia from the wider population, as well as discrimination from health care providers, which discouraged them from seeking information and getting tested.
“Even without blatant national laws that criminalize homosexual behavior, you can still have a gradation of policies and practices that can be almost as bad,” he said.
De Lay pointed to a similar resurgence of HIV infections among gay populations in the US and western Europe, which he said showed the need for constant vigilance.
The report said higher risk unprotected sex among gay men in several countries in western Europe, such as Germany, appeared to be linked to the increasing numbers of new HIV diagnoses among that group.
“It’s disturbing because it’s this sense that we can never let our guard down as far as prevention, that the epidemic will come creeping back if there isn’t this constant attention being paid to it,” De Lay said. -AFP
I believe the same report appeared in quite a few other news publications as well.
But there was something that didn't seem quite right. Could you guess what it was?
Read the title again.
It wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article that 1 in 5 or 20% of gay Asian men is gay. It only said that up to 15 to 20% of gay men are HIV-positive.
I am not trying to nitpick here, but there is a difference. And a huge difference at that.
It's like a sale which says up to 20% discount, which could be only 5%, 10% or whatever amount below 20%, as compared to a sale of 20% discount, which means ALL items are 20% cheaper.
If someone were to read the title of the report only without reading further, he or she would have the wrong idea that one-fifth of gay men are HIV-positive.
I am not trying to underestimate readers intelligence, but stereotypes and discrimination abound. The human brain is programmed to categorise and pigeon-hole things neatly into little boxes. As such, reading the misleading title would likely lead readers to think that only gay men contract AIDS or that it is a predominantly a gay disease or straight people are less likely to contract the disease.
All of the above are not desirable or positive outcomes. It probably would have done some damage to the hard work and effort of HIV education programs to change public perception about the virus.
In my opinion, there are two concerns regarding such inappropriate headline:
1) it reinforces the misconception that it is a homosexual disease and only homosexuals get it. This would make other segments of society believe they are not at risk and thus may erroneously think that they do not need to take precautions like practicing safer sex
2) it paints a picture of doom and gloom for homosexuals, that one in five gays are likely to become infected. Being gay doesn't doom a person to a life of suffering and HIV. It is about being true to yourself and loving yourself for it. There is hope, optimism and happiness and those are not in the domain of heterosexuals only.
Actually, I had written in an email to the newspaper stating my concerns and the reasons, but it was not published. I have also sent it to Straits Times and it was also declined.
Just for readers information, the original headline reads "AIDS hitting Asian gays at high rates: UN".
So is it a case of deliberate anti-gay propaganda or just plain sensational reporting?
1 in 5 Asian Homosexuals Has HIV
UNITED NATIONS — HIV infection rates among gay men in many parts of Asia are as severe as those which devastated homosexual communities in the United States in the late ’80s, said top officials of the United Nations Aids agency UNAIDS.
Launching his agency’s 2008 report on the global Aids epidemic, Mr Peter Piot, executive director of UNAIDS, urged more action to prevent the spread of the disease among gay men who have unsafe sex. He also stressed the importance of working with affected communities.
Mr Piot said: “All over Asia there are now epidemics of HIV in men who have sex with men, at the same magnitude that we saw in this country 25 years ago. That is something that has been detected fairly recently. There is not enough action yet but we are now starting programs,” he added.
Paul De Lay, director of Evidence, Monitoring and Policy at UNAIDS, said the HIV epidemic among gay communities in Asia was not new, but that it had recently reached the levels seen in cities such as San Francisco at the end of the 1980s when HIV infections reached their peak.
He said it could be due to a number of factors, including less funding for programs that target men who have sex with men and the fact that there were new groups who were less aware of the risks of unprotected sex.
“Asia has recognized populations of men who have sex with men for quite some time,” he told AFP. “The epidemic in these populations started in the mid-1990s. What we see now is a resurgence.”
“There are countries where the percentage of people infected are similar to what we were seeing in San Francisco or in Berlin or in London where up to 15 to 20 percent of men who have sex with men are HIV positive,” he added.
The report meanwhile noted that unprotected sex between men was a “potentially significant but under-researched aspect of the HIV epidemics in Asia,” citing countries such as Thailand and Vietnam.
“Recent study data from several major cities in the region, from Bangkok to Ho Chi Minh City, show increasing HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men,” the report said.
In China, unsafe sex between men could account for up to seven per cent of HIV infections, it noted.
De Lay said there were also high infection rates among gay populations in cities such as Chennai and Mumbai in India and in Indonesia’s capital Jakarta.
He added that these communities often faced homophobia from the wider population, as well as discrimination from health care providers, which discouraged them from seeking information and getting tested.
“Even without blatant national laws that criminalize homosexual behavior, you can still have a gradation of policies and practices that can be almost as bad,” he said.
De Lay pointed to a similar resurgence of HIV infections among gay populations in the US and western Europe, which he said showed the need for constant vigilance.
The report said higher risk unprotected sex among gay men in several countries in western Europe, such as Germany, appeared to be linked to the increasing numbers of new HIV diagnoses among that group.
“It’s disturbing because it’s this sense that we can never let our guard down as far as prevention, that the epidemic will come creeping back if there isn’t this constant attention being paid to it,” De Lay said. -AFP
I believe the same report appeared in quite a few other news publications as well.
But there was something that didn't seem quite right. Could you guess what it was?
Read the title again.
It wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article that 1 in 5 or 20% of gay Asian men is gay. It only said that up to 15 to 20% of gay men are HIV-positive.
I am not trying to nitpick here, but there is a difference. And a huge difference at that.
It's like a sale which says up to 20% discount, which could be only 5%, 10% or whatever amount below 20%, as compared to a sale of 20% discount, which means ALL items are 20% cheaper.
If someone were to read the title of the report only without reading further, he or she would have the wrong idea that one-fifth of gay men are HIV-positive.
I am not trying to underestimate readers intelligence, but stereotypes and discrimination abound. The human brain is programmed to categorise and pigeon-hole things neatly into little boxes. As such, reading the misleading title would likely lead readers to think that only gay men contract AIDS or that it is a predominantly a gay disease or straight people are less likely to contract the disease.
All of the above are not desirable or positive outcomes. It probably would have done some damage to the hard work and effort of HIV education programs to change public perception about the virus.
In my opinion, there are two concerns regarding such inappropriate headline:
1) it reinforces the misconception that it is a homosexual disease and only homosexuals get it. This would make other segments of society believe they are not at risk and thus may erroneously think that they do not need to take precautions like practicing safer sex
2) it paints a picture of doom and gloom for homosexuals, that one in five gays are likely to become infected. Being gay doesn't doom a person to a life of suffering and HIV. It is about being true to yourself and loving yourself for it. There is hope, optimism and happiness and those are not in the domain of heterosexuals only.
Actually, I had written in an email to the newspaper stating my concerns and the reasons, but it was not published. I have also sent it to Straits Times and it was also declined.
Just for readers information, the original headline reads "AIDS hitting Asian gays at high rates: UN".
So is it a case of deliberate anti-gay propaganda or just plain sensational reporting?
Monday, December 11, 2006
Ménage à trois II
A ménage à trois is the French term describing a relationship or domestic arrangement in which three people, often a married couple and another lover, share a sexual relationship, although the relationship might or might not involve all three persons having sexual relations with each other. The French phrase literally translates as "household of three".
Two weeks ago, a member of the Yahoogroup that I am subscribed to, posted a message regarding three persons in a relationship.
"Can a person fall in love with 2 different people at the same time? If he chooses both and gives both his very best, will that make him unfaithful to either one? :-("
The next reply to the post was someone admitting to having two boyfriends and both of them know the existence of the other.
Almost immediately, the replies came fast and furious. The type of responses given were not unexpected, like:
How can one love more than one person? If you say you love one for different needs, different personalities, thats a bit bias, isn't it? If you can do that, would you like it do be done onto you?
A sign of being "in love" with someone is that you are able to be 100% monogamous and faithful to that person and do not even give a second thought to bringing a third (or fourth or fifth) party into the equation or worse still looking outside the relationship for SO CALLED "specific needs" to be fulfilled. If the above is not the case then just please face the fact that you are not really "in love" with the person.
If you can't decide who you are most in love with, or you think you are equally in love with two persons, then, you are most in love with YOURSELF!
After that, there were views which state said that it was OK to them, as long as the people involved are fair to each other but still they cannot really accept it. There were more opposing than agreeing on this kind of arrangement.
Personally, I understand that most initial reactions would be what a selfish bastard that person is. How greedy! What a jerk!
Could it be because of our exposure to things such as a husband having a mistress with the long-suffering wife ignored or husbands taking in more than one wife? Of the latter, there are numerous Chinese serials depicting how the wives are unhappy and compete with each other for the husband's attention.
In both instances, we usually pity the wives and blame the husband. Very seldom that the household are in harmony and both wives get along well with each other with the husband showering equal care and love.
In a gay threesome, wouldn't you expect it to be different? All and each of the three persons are capable of loving the other two, unlike a one-man-two-woman arrangement. It is quite unlikely and almost unfathomable, though not impossible, that the two women would have a lesbian affair.
True, it would be difficult to maintain such an arrangement. There are TWO persons feelings and needs to take care off, thus more difficult to manage.
Though from another point of view, one could also say that one person has two other people taking care of his needs and who wouldn't like that?
Ultimately, the giving and taking would amount be the same.
Of course, there is also the concern of what if two of the three like each other more and start to ignore or worse still, ditch the third? What if the other two are spending more time with each other and the third feels neglected and even a little jealous?
But really, how is this any different from a two person relationship? Even in such a relationship, one person might still feel slighted by the other like not spending enough time together, for whatever reason such as work or hanging out with his other friends? There is also the common occurrence of one's partner cheating with another person.
Some have commented that such arrangements are acceptable as why be bounded by traditional norms, either through centuries of practice, religion or simply because it is "not done" and "frowned upon".
To me, it seems to imply that it is as if anything goes in the gay community; as if whatever the heterosexuals are doing and we're doing it differently, we should be accepting of it. Afterall, we are all for diversity, aren't we?
I am rather uncomfortable with such a train of thought. It is as if we're accepting something for the sake of diversity, as long as it not too overboard. Heck, even if it's too overboard, it's OK coz we're gay!
Personally, I believe it is something acceptable because hey, it works for them! If three people really love amongst themselves and can managed comfortably in a ménage à trois, well, good for them! Why not do it just because no one else you know is in a similar position?
As someone correctly pointed out, monogamous relationship aren't that great either. It is fraught with problems and issues. With three persons, the disagreements may tripled or quadrupled exponentially, by with three heads, who knows, it may be solvable.
In addition, is our capacity to love so limited and only to one person at any one time? That we can't love two different people at one time?
Someone else pointed out that we do love different people at different times in our lives i.e. from one relationship to another.
What if we love two at one time? Must the option be always choose one or the other?
Of course, not everyone can manage such a complex arrangement. I don't even know how do you start one!
Would it be like, "X, this is Z. Z, this is X. I love the both of you equally and I don't think I can choose one over the other, let's see whether the both of you can work something out."
Many are readily to admit that coping with one other half is already difficult, but with two, no thanks man!
Fair enough. I would concur too.
It is already taking up a lot of time to date, placate, support, watch movies, withstand the mood swings, understand, listen, care for, make decisions together, compromise with, etc our partner, what more partners.
But somehow, a lot of people still think of it as "main kayu tiga" (unfaithful or affair). How can something be unfaithful which implies dishonesty and cheating, when all three know about each other and everything is in the open?
The variables are more, certainly. Hence, it would take three very committed, open-minded, wonderful listeners and communicators and whatever other characters that are possibly more in supply than the rest of us, to make such an arrangement doable, feasable and manageable.
Or maybe it's simply loads and loads of luck!
As for myself, I would say that it is not something suitable for me. One person is enough, unless I have the hands of fate serve me another person who loves me a lot and who happens to love my current partner too.
That would be something to be decided if and when it happens, as it is rather unlikely and remote.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with love at all.
Perhaps the formula that makes it work is simpler and it's just three persons enjoying each other's company so much and they can have romantic feelings for each other.
Two weeks ago, a member of the Yahoogroup that I am subscribed to, posted a message regarding three persons in a relationship.
"Can a person fall in love with 2 different people at the same time? If he chooses both and gives both his very best, will that make him unfaithful to either one? :-("
The next reply to the post was someone admitting to having two boyfriends and both of them know the existence of the other.
Almost immediately, the replies came fast and furious. The type of responses given were not unexpected, like:
How can one love more than one person? If you say you love one for different needs, different personalities, thats a bit bias, isn't it? If you can do that, would you like it do be done onto you?
A sign of being "in love" with someone is that you are able to be 100% monogamous and faithful to that person and do not even give a second thought to bringing a third (or fourth or fifth) party into the equation or worse still looking outside the relationship for SO CALLED "specific needs" to be fulfilled. If the above is not the case then just please face the fact that you are not really "in love" with the person.
If you can't decide who you are most in love with, or you think you are equally in love with two persons, then, you are most in love with YOURSELF!
After that, there were views which state said that it was OK to them, as long as the people involved are fair to each other but still they cannot really accept it. There were more opposing than agreeing on this kind of arrangement.
Personally, I understand that most initial reactions would be what a selfish bastard that person is. How greedy! What a jerk!
Could it be because of our exposure to things such as a husband having a mistress with the long-suffering wife ignored or husbands taking in more than one wife? Of the latter, there are numerous Chinese serials depicting how the wives are unhappy and compete with each other for the husband's attention.
In both instances, we usually pity the wives and blame the husband. Very seldom that the household are in harmony and both wives get along well with each other with the husband showering equal care and love.
In a gay threesome, wouldn't you expect it to be different? All and each of the three persons are capable of loving the other two, unlike a one-man-two-woman arrangement. It is quite unlikely and almost unfathomable, though not impossible, that the two women would have a lesbian affair.
True, it would be difficult to maintain such an arrangement. There are TWO persons feelings and needs to take care off, thus more difficult to manage.
Though from another point of view, one could also say that one person has two other people taking care of his needs and who wouldn't like that?
Ultimately, the giving and taking would amount be the same.
Of course, there is also the concern of what if two of the three like each other more and start to ignore or worse still, ditch the third? What if the other two are spending more time with each other and the third feels neglected and even a little jealous?
But really, how is this any different from a two person relationship? Even in such a relationship, one person might still feel slighted by the other like not spending enough time together, for whatever reason such as work or hanging out with his other friends? There is also the common occurrence of one's partner cheating with another person.
Some have commented that such arrangements are acceptable as why be bounded by traditional norms, either through centuries of practice, religion or simply because it is "not done" and "frowned upon".
To me, it seems to imply that it is as if anything goes in the gay community; as if whatever the heterosexuals are doing and we're doing it differently, we should be accepting of it. Afterall, we are all for diversity, aren't we?
I am rather uncomfortable with such a train of thought. It is as if we're accepting something for the sake of diversity, as long as it not too overboard. Heck, even if it's too overboard, it's OK coz we're gay!
Personally, I believe it is something acceptable because hey, it works for them! If three people really love amongst themselves and can managed comfortably in a ménage à trois, well, good for them! Why not do it just because no one else you know is in a similar position?
As someone correctly pointed out, monogamous relationship aren't that great either. It is fraught with problems and issues. With three persons, the disagreements may tripled or quadrupled exponentially, by with three heads, who knows, it may be solvable.
In addition, is our capacity to love so limited and only to one person at any one time? That we can't love two different people at one time?
Someone else pointed out that we do love different people at different times in our lives i.e. from one relationship to another.
What if we love two at one time? Must the option be always choose one or the other?
Of course, not everyone can manage such a complex arrangement. I don't even know how do you start one!
Would it be like, "X, this is Z. Z, this is X. I love the both of you equally and I don't think I can choose one over the other, let's see whether the both of you can work something out."
Many are readily to admit that coping with one other half is already difficult, but with two, no thanks man!
Fair enough. I would concur too.
It is already taking up a lot of time to date, placate, support, watch movies, withstand the mood swings, understand, listen, care for, make decisions together, compromise with, etc our partner, what more partners.
But somehow, a lot of people still think of it as "main kayu tiga" (unfaithful or affair). How can something be unfaithful which implies dishonesty and cheating, when all three know about each other and everything is in the open?
The variables are more, certainly. Hence, it would take three very committed, open-minded, wonderful listeners and communicators and whatever other characters that are possibly more in supply than the rest of us, to make such an arrangement doable, feasable and manageable.
Or maybe it's simply loads and loads of luck!
As for myself, I would say that it is not something suitable for me. One person is enough, unless I have the hands of fate serve me another person who loves me a lot and who happens to love my current partner too.
That would be something to be decided if and when it happens, as it is rather unlikely and remote.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with love at all.
Perhaps the formula that makes it work is simpler and it's just three persons enjoying each other's company so much and they can have romantic feelings for each other.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Hard love
Someone asked how come I am writing a lot of emo stuff now.
But if you look properly, it was only the last two posts!
I was going through some of the blogs on my links and found two which have a common theme - gay relationships and how it is different from straight ones and how they more often than not fail.
First of all, I understand where they are coming from. Either from their own experiences or observation of their gay friends, gay couples seems to be breaking quite often.
Or maybe, when one is unsure or insecure about their current relationships, they start to wonder. It is a very normal reaction and even I have it sometimes.
Questions like, will this last? Would he continue to love me ten years from now? Would his heart and mind start to wander?
What I personally disagree is the emphasis on differences of gay and straight relationships.
I don't see how the both are different, besides the obvious fact of the sexes. Just like a straight guy and a gay guy is only different in what turns them on sexually, the former being breasts and pussies and the latter penises.
A romantic relationship is a romantic relationship - a foundation and connection between two people to build and nurture. No two people are alike - two guys or one guy and one girl. Thus, no two relationships are alike.
In fact, a guy and a girl are waaaay more different in thinking. So logically, if a relationship were to work it should be two guys since well ... both of them are guys and should theoretically think more alike.
Okay-lar, unless you want to argue about how opposites attract, one soft and one hard, yin and yang, etc.
Or how two gays but very straight and Neantherdal-thinking guys who can't express their emotions properly and tend to pent up type cannot possibly together ....
Admittedly there are differences.
The breeders tend have a common goal - to propagate the human race by having children. If they don't have such a goal, rest assured that they will when they reach age thirty, thanks to busybody relatives or gossiping colleagues or friends.
We don't have a common goal, at least not one defined by marriage or children. We want someone for companionship, to be there when we are in need, to bitch and whine to, etc.
Of course, the society's support is important too. Notice how even people that the couple don't know, like their aunt's brother's son's cousin's friend, would suddenly turn up at their weddings and wish them congratulations.
It's likesome people who are too free and only goal in life society's only role is to get every single men and women attached to someone and to attend weddings.
If one were to look at statistics, more than half of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce. And the divorce rate is increasing in Asian countries too.
So yeah, the straights don't have it better. They just break up much later.
I am sure you have heard of cheating husbands who walked out on their wives after twenty years of marriage and two children.
Which goes to show that straight relationships are just as bad. And children doesn't necessarily can make a marriage last.
The things that will make a relationship work are deeper and harder to work at. Like a common goal, shared dreams and similar interests.
I can't remember where I have read this, but an article says that for guys, doing things together (not just sex!) is important. They are better off and able keep the relationship alive longer. Guys bond by doing things, not just by communication and talking about emotional or personal stuff.
Which is very true. It doesn't matter if one likes to paint while the other likes to go clubbing, as long as there are a few things which both like to do and spend quality time together, like cooking or watching movies.
It's undeniable that gay relationships are harder to work at, simply because there is not much societal support and when many gay men and women are still in the closet.
It's very rare that one can bring the boyfriend home and say, "Mom and Dad, meet my boyfriend/husband/significant other, Channing Tatum."
No one to give you advice, no one to turn to, no one to ask how things should be done besides your other gay friends or close girl friends.
So basically, it is simply harder because the relationship has to be made stronger from within and from the both of them, rather than from the outside or from parents / friends / relatives / society.
It takes more work also harder simply because both are guys.
I am not saying men cannot be monogamous; it's a matter of willpower and discipline.
Furthermore, as there is a lack of external forces to bind a gay relationship together and usually it is only the internal parties that do most of the work, the ropes that bind two people together may break more easily.
Which goes back to the point of making the rope stronger and this needs lots of commitment and discipline from both parties.
This is not helped by the phenomenon of so-called popular gay culture - clubbing, youth-worshipping, easy sex, etc.
Not many supportive people + Temptations of instant gratification = Easier break-ups
Okay, I think I have veered off my point.
But essentially, a gay relationship needs more work. A gay relationship is not doomed just because it's a gay relationship.
Or maybe I am just an idealistic fool and refuse to face the truth. ;P
From my speaking with other people, they say that one cannot party and club and have dark-room sex forever. The time would come when they would want to settle down and desire the stability of a relationship.
So the question is, when is that time?
Also, long-lasting relationships tend to form when one is closer to thirties. Perhaps at that stage, one is more stable financially and emotionally and has a clearer idea of his needs and wants.
Obviously, there are exceptions. There are people who want to settle down and not fool around when they are only twenty.
In fact, I think many of us grew up with fairy tales of happily ever after and movies and serials on TV that we might prefer to find someone for a long term and stable relationship and forgo the sleeping around and easy sex.
There are many people who think like that. You just have to find them.
When they are found, it doesn't mean the search is over. You haven't arrive at the destination yet.
It's only the beginning. The journey to happiness and contentment is a long and hard one.
But if you look properly, it was only the last two posts!
I was going through some of the blogs on my links and found two which have a common theme - gay relationships and how it is different from straight ones and how they more often than not fail.
First of all, I understand where they are coming from. Either from their own experiences or observation of their gay friends, gay couples seems to be breaking quite often.
Or maybe, when one is unsure or insecure about their current relationships, they start to wonder. It is a very normal reaction and even I have it sometimes.
Questions like, will this last? Would he continue to love me ten years from now? Would his heart and mind start to wander?
What I personally disagree is the emphasis on differences of gay and straight relationships.
I don't see how the both are different, besides the obvious fact of the sexes. Just like a straight guy and a gay guy is only different in what turns them on sexually, the former being breasts and pussies and the latter penises.
A romantic relationship is a romantic relationship - a foundation and connection between two people to build and nurture. No two people are alike - two guys or one guy and one girl. Thus, no two relationships are alike.
In fact, a guy and a girl are waaaay more different in thinking. So logically, if a relationship were to work it should be two guys since well ... both of them are guys and should theoretically think more alike.
Okay-lar, unless you want to argue about how opposites attract, one soft and one hard, yin and yang, etc.
Or how two gays but very straight and Neantherdal-thinking guys who can't express their emotions properly and tend to pent up type cannot possibly together ....
Admittedly there are differences.
The breeders tend have a common goal - to propagate the human race by having children. If they don't have such a goal, rest assured that they will when they reach age thirty, thanks to busybody relatives or gossiping colleagues or friends.
We don't have a common goal, at least not one defined by marriage or children. We want someone for companionship, to be there when we are in need, to bitch and whine to, etc.
Of course, the society's support is important too. Notice how even people that the couple don't know, like their aunt's brother's son's cousin's friend, would suddenly turn up at their weddings and wish them congratulations.
It's like
If one were to look at statistics, more than half of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce. And the divorce rate is increasing in Asian countries too.
So yeah, the straights don't have it better. They just break up much later.
I am sure you have heard of cheating husbands who walked out on their wives after twenty years of marriage and two children.
Which goes to show that straight relationships are just as bad. And children doesn't necessarily can make a marriage last.
The things that will make a relationship work are deeper and harder to work at. Like a common goal, shared dreams and similar interests.
I can't remember where I have read this, but an article says that for guys, doing things together (not just sex!) is important. They are better off and able keep the relationship alive longer. Guys bond by doing things, not just by communication and talking about emotional or personal stuff.
Which is very true. It doesn't matter if one likes to paint while the other likes to go clubbing, as long as there are a few things which both like to do and spend quality time together, like cooking or watching movies.
It's undeniable that gay relationships are harder to work at, simply because there is not much societal support and when many gay men and women are still in the closet.
It's very rare that one can bring the boyfriend home and say, "Mom and Dad, meet my boyfriend/husband/significant other, Channing Tatum."
No one to give you advice, no one to turn to, no one to ask how things should be done besides your other gay friends or close girl friends.
So basically, it is simply harder because the relationship has to be made stronger from within and from the both of them, rather than from the outside or from parents / friends / relatives / society.
It takes more work also harder simply because both are guys.
I am not saying men cannot be monogamous; it's a matter of willpower and discipline.
Furthermore, as there is a lack of external forces to bind a gay relationship together and usually it is only the internal parties that do most of the work, the ropes that bind two people together may break more easily.
Which goes back to the point of making the rope stronger and this needs lots of commitment and discipline from both parties.
This is not helped by the phenomenon of so-called popular gay culture - clubbing, youth-worshipping, easy sex, etc.
Not many supportive people + Temptations of instant gratification = Easier break-ups
Okay, I think I have veered off my point.
But essentially, a gay relationship needs more work. A gay relationship is not doomed just because it's a gay relationship.
Or maybe I am just an idealistic fool and refuse to face the truth. ;P
From my speaking with other people, they say that one cannot party and club and have dark-room sex forever. The time would come when they would want to settle down and desire the stability of a relationship.
So the question is, when is that time?
Also, long-lasting relationships tend to form when one is closer to thirties. Perhaps at that stage, one is more stable financially and emotionally and has a clearer idea of his needs and wants.
Obviously, there are exceptions. There are people who want to settle down and not fool around when they are only twenty.
In fact, I think many of us grew up with fairy tales of happily ever after and movies and serials on TV that we might prefer to find someone for a long term and stable relationship and forgo the sleeping around and easy sex.
There are many people who think like that. You just have to find them.
When they are found, it doesn't mean the search is over. You haven't arrive at the destination yet.
It's only the beginning. The journey to happiness and contentment is a long and hard one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)