Condoms proven to protect against virus

This is a wonderful proof. But then again, the religious wrongs will think of other ways to counteract this or use the same old tired 'proofs' that condom usage is not effective.

Condoms proven to protect against virus

By LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 21, 7:28 PM ET

For the first time, scientists have proof that condoms offer women impressive protection against the virus that causes cervical cancer.

A three-year study of female college students "all virgins at the start" found that women whose partners always wore a condom during sex were 70 percent less likely to become infected with the human papilloma virus, or HPV, than those whose partners used protection less than 5 percent of the time.

"That's pretty awesome. There aren't too many times when you can have an intervention that would offer so much protection," said Dr. Patricia Kloser, an infectious-disease specialist at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who was not part of the study.

Condoms have been shown convincingly to prevent pregnancy and AIDS. But conservatives who want to see abstinence
taught in schools have long argued that condoms do not protect well against diseases such as HPV, because men can spread the virus to women from sores on their genitals outside the area covered by a condom.

However, the researchers at the University of Washington found that the chances of HPV being spread that way appear to be small.

Human papilloma virus (which can cause cervical cancer, genital warts and vaginal, vulvar, anal and penile cancers) is the most common sexually transmitted disease, infecting about 80 percent of young women within five years of becoming sexually active. An estimated 630 million people worldwide are infected.

The virus is spread during sex from contact with the sores, or lesions, that develop around infected cells.

Often, the virus is killed by the immune system, but in some people HPV can take hold and cause lesions that can turn cancerous years later. Cervical cancer strikes about 10,520 American women and kills about 3,500 each year. Worldwide, about 500,000 women develop cervical cancer and nearly 300,000 die from it every year.

In the HPV study, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, none of the women who reported that their partners always used condoms developed lesions during the three-year period. Fourteen women whose partners used condoms less regularly got lesions.

Twelve of the 42 women who said their partners always used condoms became infected. Rachel Winer, a researcher in the university's epidemiology department, said it could be that the couples did not use the condoms correctly or had some sexual contact before putting on a condom.

Recent medical advances might someday render the condom debate moot: Earlier this month, the government approved the first vaccine against HPV, and public health officials are urging that girls be routinely vaccinated before they become sexually active.

The study comes as the Food and Drug Administration is revising rules for the claims that manufacturers can make on how well condoms prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

Packages now must state: "If used properly, latex condoms will help to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV infection (AIDS) and many other sexually transmitted diseases." But revisions were ordered by Congress in 2000 amid pressure from conservative groups demanding "medically accurate" claims as to condoms' effectiveness.

Safe-sex advocates warn that changing the wording would undermine public confidence in, and use of, condoms.

At the time, there was solid evidence only on how well condoms prevent pregnancy, HIV and, in men, gonorrhea. Recent research has produced strong evidence condoms protect well against gonorrhea, chlamydia and herpes in both men and women, said Dr. Ward Cates Jr., president of the Institute for Family Health at Family Health International. This study adds HPV to that list, he said.

"This will help clinicians to counsel their patients about the effectiveness of condoms to reduce another of the sexually transmitted infections if condoms are used consistently and correctly," Cates said.

The researchers invited 24,000 female students ages 18 to 22 at the Seattle university to be in the study.Starting in 2001, they followed 82 from before their first vaginal intercourse, testing the women for HPV with swabs of the cervix and other genital areas every four months. The women kept online diaries detailing each act of intercourse, including condom use and whether there was any genital contact without a condom.

Winer said previous HPV studies either showed no protection from condoms or were inconclusive. This one included only virgins and collected more details, and the computer diaries helped women be more honest about condom use than those in studies where people are interviewed about their sexual behavior, she said.

"This is about as ideal a study as you can get," said Dr. Tom Fitch, a San Antonio pediatrician and board chairman at the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which stresses abstinence and monogamy as the only sure ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections.

Nevertheless, Fitch noted that some consistent condom users still were infected with HPV. Fitch and Kloser also suggested that the results in the real world (say, among poor, inner-city women) might be different from those with college women.

Fitch said several studies have shown that at most, 50 percent of people reported using a condom every time they had sex.

Commitment

I was introduced to The Reader's Eye not long ago. I like his works. It was so inspiring that I thought I'd share one of my works too, the one that I'm most proud. It's amateur poetry, definitely not as good as Gilbert's.


It is a long winding road
Lots of steep slopes and drops
Hand in hand we looked
Towards the endless horizon
“A journey of a thousand miles
Begins with a single step”
We took the first step
And never looked back

Good grief!

Gosh, this statement by our PM is so full of arrogance that I really have no more respect for him and the party he represents. The way he puts it, it's as if the opposition wards pay taxes towards their ward only. Can the people in opposition wards have their tax dollars channelled to their wards? No and yet, our tax dollars is ONLY for the 'PAP'. This is so bad. So many Singaporeans are so unhappy with this policy since it is a common pool of money that we are drawing from. The gahmen just don't get it, do they?

Furthermore, talking about Australia not allowing Singapore Airlines to have flight routes to USA. Is it due to Australian's way of government or the fact that there are other 'national interest' factors? Has he thought of the fact that most countries do not look that economic benefits as the only way to run a country or create policies? A concept that seems to be lost in our gahmen, where economics is the only driving force in the creation of policies, anything to do with individual rights or freedoms or national interest (at the expense of economic gain) would be placed 'on hold' indefinitely.

Why is it the PAP think that they are the best thing for Singapore and the only party that can run it? Why is it they think that if they don't hold majority of the seats in parliament, Singapore is just going to fall from grace. They have this attitude that it is their divine right to govern.

*sigh*

When can Singapore politics mature? We can never be, until the PAP (or the gahmen in general) can accept constrictive criticisms without thinking it is a personal attack and that their word is not the end all and be all. Their attitude is that if you criticise, it means you think you can run the country better and thus, you should form your own party and stand for elections. But that is such an ill conceived notion and I don't know who started that thought. Criticising a policy doesn't mean that we think the gahmen is doing a bad job. It is our opinion and being Singaporean, it is our right to do that. So what is their problem? I really don't get it.

Other comments:
Lee Hsien Loong not impressed by democracy in Australia
Comical Ah Lee
More Comical Ah Lee
I am no Politician, just an Economist
Political Cyanide, Anyone?

------

Today
21 June 2006

'EXCITING' POLITICS NOT ALWAYS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE: PM LEE
----------------------------------------------------------
Loh Chee Kong in Auckland
cheekong@newstoday.com.sg

HIS visit to Australia and New Zealand has reinforced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's belief that the one-party system in Singapore must continue - and the same goes for the policy of placing Opposition-held wards at the end of the lift-upgrading queue.

Over the last nine days, Mr Lee met various leaders from the two countries, including Prime Ministers John Howard (Australia) and Helen Clark (New Zealand), as well as their respective opposition leaders, Mr Kim Beazley and Dr Don Brash.

And after having a more intimate look at their political systems, Mr Lee is convinced that while their no-holds barred arguments make for "more exciting" politics and "compulsively-viewable interviews", they do not necessarily result in more sound policies.

The end-product of rigorous parliamentary debates might not necessarily be for the good of the country, as such "endless debates are seldom about achieving a better grasp of the issue but to score political points", he commented.

Speaking to reporters as he wrapped up his visit, Mr Lee said: "I think when you look at Australia and New Zealand and other countries with two-party systems or parliamentary democracies like us and elections in our politics, you will understand how different and unique the Singapore experience is.

"You look at their politics in Australia between Howard and Beazley. All the time, Howard says something, Beazley says he got it wrong. Beazley says something, (Howard) says: 'You said something different last week or three years ago'.

"So ceaselessly, back and forth, whatever you do, I'll say you've done it wrong. If I can't find some (way) to be different from you, I will look for something else so as to establish my own brand name."

Mr Lee also said that such party politics might lead to policies that are detrimental to the nation. He pointed to the Australian government's decision to deny Singapore Airlines access to the trans-Pacific as an example.

"The National Party (Mr Howard's party's rural-based junior coalition partner) has certain interests - to look after the rural populations, to look after the towns and far-flung outbacks - and one of their interests is to have air services fly to all these places. It's not economical for airlines which provide those air services, (among which) includes Qantas.

"So, when you say you want to open the trans-Pacific route and run an open competition because it is good for Australia, Qantas then says: 'Well, if you do that, we are going to have to cut back on all these non-economic routes. We are doing you a favour, doing national service.'"

But while the system might work for Australia because it is a diverse country with many different interest groups, Singapore's society is more homogeneous, with the Government also having "made sure that all the constituencies are mixed and integrated".

"In Singapore, we have 84 constituencies, but basically they are all more or less the same. You don't have a rural area, a city area. You don't have a very working class area versus a very upmarket area. We have made sure you don't have a Malay area or Indian constituency or Chinese constituency."

Because the People's Action Party (PAP) sees the whole of Singapore as a "natural constituency", it fights for all 84 seats during every election.

But the party's dominance in the political landscape has caused Singaporeans to "lose the perspective that party politics is party politics" - that people vote for a party not just because of national reasons, but because "it benefits himself or his community", said the Prime Minister.

"If we only talk about national interest and put it above party politics, in theory, that is ideal - but in reality, that's impossible," he said. "And that's why you end up having HDB priority (for lift upgrading) and a difference between the PAP and Opposition wards. It's necessary. Without that, the system cannot work.

"Because if we treat everybody the same ... the first thing the Opposition will say and has been saying is: 'It doesn't matter. They'll have to take care of you anyway. Vote for us, you will still have a PAP government' - which was what (Workers' Party candidate) Sylvia Lim said during the elections.

"And that becomes a real problem because if everybody believes that, where are you going to produce that PAP government?"

But what about PAP supporters who stay in Opposition wards?

Said Mr Lee: "We have no choice but to respect the wishes of the majority of the voters. We know that there are PAP supporters in Opposition wards. In PAP wards, there are also Opposition supporters. If you voted for an Opposition MP, you have to depend on him to work for you."

T has gone/going overseas

Well, T should be at the airport now (Changi Airport that is). He's going overseas for a conference.

It is so weird, even though we are apart, I still feel a pinge of missing him if he's not in Sg.

Counter

This is fun, I've just added a counter to this blog. Not that it really matters, I think that nobody reads it, except T.

Aching butt

My personal trainer killed my yesterday. He made me do leg press with 100kg! And it was using this machine which was already 30kg (or more) before the weights went on, so I was doing 130kg leg presses, 3 sets too. I couldn't believe it. My legs, especially my butt, was aching after I finished 1 set. It is aching today, and knowing my body, it is REALLY going to be sore tomorrow.

But at least I'll have a great butt. :P

Marriage vs Civil Unions

I had a discussion with T the other day regarding marriage. He asked (via iChat) why I don't like the phrase gay marriage since I do believe that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I hate the word marriage. It has been hijacked by the religious wrong people and made it into a supernatural phenomenon. Instead of being a union between 2 loving people, it has become a religious word where only the church can use it. Furthermore, the word marriage has been used, in history, for power and wealth, never (or seldom) love. During that time, it was used to bring powerful or rich families together to make them more powerful or/and rich. It is a word so marred with baggage that I believe that we as a new community should never use it. The heterosexual community can keep it and use it all they want, since they just love baggage.

We should use another phrase and I think civil unions is good. We want the legal rights of heterosexual couples, who the hell cares about the ‘religious rights’ if there is should a thing. If unions are between God and the couple then who are the church leaders to dictate who can or cannot be unified? The Church of Christ is a loving Church, the church of the Vatican (notice Church and church) loves power and hate is a word that comes out from them time and time again. All through history, the church have used marriage as a tool to further its selfish cause with no regards for the individual. The good of the church outweighs the good of the individual. And to think that Jesus treated each individual equally and fairly and never once made any individual to conform. To Jesus, his love for the individual is the same as his love for the whole world. Each is loving and precious in his eyes.

We can understand that, too bad the church is so full of itself to realise it.

Tag: gay

Lesbian superhero

Wow! Found out that DC comics has brough back batwoman and she's a lesbian. This is wonderful, our first lesbian superhero! Yes, yes, yes.

Our first gay superhero was Northstar.


Batwoman returns. as a lesbian
AP
Monday, June 05, 2006

NEW YORK (AP) - Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.

The 5' 10" superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.
"We decided to give her a different point of view," explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC. "We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction."

The original Batwoman was started in 1956, and killed off in 1979. The new character will share the same name as her original alter ego, Kathy Kane. And the new Batwoman arrives with ties to others in the Gotham City world.

"She's a socialite from Gotham high society," DiDio said. "She has some past connection with Bruce Wayne. And she's also had a past love affair with one of our lead characters, Renee Montoya."

Montoya is a former police detective. Wayne, of course, is Batman's true identity - but he has disappeared, along with Superman and Wonder Woman, leaving Gotham a more dangerous place.

"This is not just about having a gay character," DiDio said. "We're trying for overall diversity in the DC universe. We have strong African-American, Hispanic and Asian characters. We're trying to get a better cross-section of our readership and the world."

The outing of Batwoman created a furore of opinions on websites devoted to DC Comics, ranging from outrage to approval. Others took a more tongue-in-cheek approach: "Wouldn't ugly people as heroes be more ground-breaking?" asked one poster. "You know, 200lb woman, man with horseshoe hair loss pattern, people with cold sores."

DiDio asked that people wait until the new Batwoman appears before they pass judgement. "Judge us by the story and character we create," he said. "We are confident that we are telling a great story with a strong, complex character."

DiDio spent most of the morning fielding phone calls from the media."It's kind of weird," he said. "We had a feeling it would attract some attention, but we're a little surprised it did this much."

Fog

It is so freezing cold today in Melbourne and it is foggy. You can’t see a thing at all. I’m looking out of my window at I can hardly see the beyond 200m. It wasn’t this bad this morning when I got out of the house. It was just misty.

This is rather cool, for this is the first time (since I’ve been here) that I’ve experience fog. I wonder how long it will last.

Not as fit as a fiddle

Work up today feeling very bad. Took a day off from work to recover. Hope I'll feel better tomorrow.

I really hate feelings like this, it is the type of not feeling of "about to get sick" and yet not falling sick.

金钟罩铁布衫

Now of these days whenever I heard the song 金钟罩铁布衫 by S.H.E., I get a feeling like a sense of lost. Odd it might seem but I get the feeling of missing T, which is a lot worse than my usual missing him. I find it really wonderful, that until this day, after being 'separated' for 9 months, I have such deep feelings for him.

When I came over here last July, T came with me (for a vacation) and that was the song he used for his ring tone. Of course it became rather tiring after a few days but it seemed that left an impression on me about him. I love that song too and even when I hum it to myself, I get transported back to when we were still in Singapore together and the great times we had. Thus, increases my wanting to back with him.

Well, this will come to an end, our being apart that is.

Singapore's general elections 2006

I can't say I'm surprised that no other oppositions won a seat in parliament. What I was surprised about was the fact that in Potong Pasir and Hougang, the number of people that voted opposition increased, even though the People Action Party (PAP) dangled a 'carrot' of upgrading in front of them. Good for them I say.

This really showed that Singaporeans have matured and are looking at politics, not in the same light as what the PAP is looking at it. The PAP has really not kept up with the times, as Singaporeans grew and have become more mature, they have are still stuck in the 1970s, thinking that Singaporeans are still the same bunch of people. And from what I could gather from this far away, was the fact that not only did the younger generation (my generation) voted more for the opposition but the older generation too. Many have stated (the older generation than is) that the PAP has lost touch with their roots and have become arrogant and aloft.

I don't have a political affiliation but I have realised that having a one party system is really not the way to go, no matter how good the current government is. Checks and balances are needed and I’m not naive enough to believe that the PAP will be good for the country (as a one party system) in the long run, contrary to what a number of people believe.

The other shocking thing was the fact that 1 in 3 Singaporeans from the Prime Minister’s ward actually voted for the opposition. This has never happened before in the history of Singapore and it is really surprising. It does show that Singaporeans do want a change.

Never expected it

Just discovered today (from another friend) that a University friend of mine in HIV+ and is currently under arrest pending an investigation. I have a feeling that he had in possession some party drugs.

It is very weird. It is so surreal. I can’t seem to comprehend it. Imagine a person that you have known and used to be close to, has now a disease that cannot be cured. It is very sad.

The only thing I can do is to pray for him and hope for the best.

Alone again

Well, T left and I'm left alone here in Australia. I promised myself that I'll not cry but it isn't easy. I realised that his coming here and leaving is more difficult than when I'm back in Singapore and have to return. Major reason that I can think off is the fact that I don't live with him when I'm in Singapore, so it is physcologically easier to 'leave Singapore' than to have him leave Australia.

But I know I'll survive and things will really work out in the end.

It was a magical 2 weeks and now it is over, back to reality and back to my normal boring life. :P

The Lion King, the musical

Went to watch Disney’s “The Lion King” the musical last night with T. It was so good. Even T really enjoyed it. The animation was great but the musical was really fantastic. I even bought a “The Lion King” cap, which had the head of the lion on it (“The Lion King” logo). Really love it. :)

Sydney and back

Went to Sydney over the Easter weekend (14 to 18 April), got back last night.

It was really fun because T came over and visited me. So we had nice time there. Well, our love for each other didn't diminish but from what I can gather, it actually increased. It is great.

Funny statement to make isn’t it but it actually isn’t. There is the reason. In Jan 2006, I had a discussion with a friend (here in Melbourne, L). I was telling him about T and my plans for the future that we have decided that I’ll return to Sg when my contract ends (which is in 2008).

That was when it started getting terrible, L started telling me that I shouldn’t make plans like that especially I don’t know what is going to happen. He said that love changes and by the time 2008 arrives T and I might have changed and that we might not work out. That since both of us have our own lives now, not really sharing it together, we are not changing together which means that we might change in 2 different directions thus drifting apart. He then went on to tell me a story about 2 of his friends from Perth. They were very close and decided to move over here to Melbourne and one of them came here first. The other arrived 6 months later and after which they broke up. L told me that even when the Perth one came over to visit after 3 months, they felt that something was different.

To say the least after that I became very worried for I didn’t want to loose T at all and I thought that maybe what he said was true and that our love for each other would change. Couldn’t sleep much that night (yes, I’m a worry wart so sue me :P) and the next day, I chatted with my friends (in Sg via instant messenger) about it. I couldn’t talk to T about it because he was busy the night before and didn’t get home on time for us to chat and he’s usually very busy in the office. The time difference was terrible (3 hrs)!

My friends were a great help. At the end of it, I realised how stupid I was. L was talking about love and what talking to my friends allowed me to know that T and I were talking about commitment. Love is a feeling. It can also be nurtured. I have a number of friends who were apart from their partners for years and yet are still in a loving relationship. All of them are no longer living apart from their partners. Why was I so worried when I had so many positive examples about commitment about? Which of course gave me courage.

T was telling me how silly I was when I told him that night. :) I do so love him.

So now T is living with me and we are just loving it.

Post-65ers

Wow, I’m amazed that my generation actually make up more than 50% of the population. How can the gahman say that society is predominantly conservative? I have a feeling that Singapore is predominantly people who don’t really bother, conservative or otherwise (if the ‘post-65ers’ are anything like me and the people I know), this article also sites this fact too.



Taken from Today 07 April 2006.

UNDERSTANDING A PHANTOM GENERATION
----------------------------------
To post-65ers, a majority group in the electorate, material values and
lofty ideals may not be mutually exclusive News Comment: We set you
thinking

Terence Chong

EVER since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called on younger Singaporeans
to step forward to make a difference, the term "post-65ers" has never been
far from the limelight. With the general elections looming, post-65ers -
Singaporeans aged 41 and below - will be under greater scrutiny.

The Government has made concrete moves to engage younger Singaporeans. The
Ministry of Community Development and Sports, for example, was renamed the
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports in September 2004.
Later that year, it embarked on a youth consultation exercise, called
Youth: Creating Our Future, to discuss ideas and aspirations important to
younger generations, and the conclusions reached will shape the framework
for future programmes.

But why this attention to post-65ers? There are more than 1.64 million of
them, or 55 per cent of the population. More than 60 per cent have at
least secondary-school education while their parents had only
primary-school education. At the age of 30, two in three were already
living in four-room or larger HDB flats, or in private property.

One in two holds executive jobs as managers or professionals, while 44 per
cent have higher-skilled jobs than their parents. Those born after 1965
earned an average of $2,600 a month in 2000, higher than the national
average of $2,200.

Nonetheless, these quantitative characteristics of post-65ers would not
have garnered political attention were it not assumed that they are
accompanied by certain ideas and aspirations. The strong belief that
younger Singaporeans differ from their parents in terms of cultural,
social and political values has been a key factor in the People's Action
Party (PAP) Government's concerted effort to turn the post-65ers into a de
facto constituency.

Not only have ministries been reshaped to address their concerns, but
ministers and party candidates, too, have been handpicked to appeal to
this "constituency". Indeed, the need to reflect the interests of this
constituency feeds the PAP's entrenched principle of self-renewal and
sustained relevance.

The PAP's treatment of post-65ers as a coherent constituency may also have
been influenced by the broader scholarship on the shifting values of
"post-materialist" generations. According to Ronald Inglehart, a
post-materialist, the global equivalent of our post-65er is more
interested in citizenry consultation and the concept of a society based on
lofty ideals, rather than in material-based values such as economic
growth, a strong national defence, and law-and-order issues.

Inglehart's argument is that people value most what they were relatively
deprived of in their youth. Hence, those growing up after World War II are
generally more post-materialist than those growing up before the war, as
they did not experience material deprivation.

Inglehart has his critics, most of whom point out that many developed
societies show no clear sign of a post-materialist culture. Many argue
that material interests and post-material concerns are not mutually
exclusive. There is no contradiction between, say, desiring greater
personal wealth and fighting for improved human rights.

Perhaps this is why it has been so hard to identify and define the
interests of Singapore's post-65 constituency.

Are we concerned with liberal democracy or economic pragmatism? Are we
idealists or realists?

Like the three blind men touching different parts of an elephant, you'll
come up with different descriptions, depending on whom you ask. And it is
not sociologically sound to say that only Singaporeans aged 41 and below
are interested in censorship liberalisation, human rights and the
environment.

Other variables such as education, cultural capital and class have to be
considered - thus making the post-65er constituency a somewhat phantom
one.

Indeed, recent newspaper surveys indicate mixed signals from post-65-ers.

In a survey of Singaporeans aged between 21 and 34, 49 per cent said they
were "somewhat interested" in local politics, while 51 per cent were "not
interested". When asked for the issue "likely to influence their voting
decision", they cited cost of living (89 per cent), jobs/unemployment (73
per cent) and housing policy (68 per cent).

Does it surprise us that materialism ranks high for post-65ers?

Perhaps in defining this de facto constituency, the Government has also
been able to socialise it with a certain outlook and priorities. We are
constantly told to keep an eye on global and regional competition, and to
bear in mind that no one owes us a living. It is no wonder that
materialism continues to be the yardstick of both personal and national
success.

And perhaps it is no coincidence that such a yardstick is also an implicit
legitimisation of the Government, which has been so successful in
delivering economic growth.

Nonetheless, even if we accept that the post-65 constituency is an
amorphous one without any signature issue, one cannot escape the sense
that youth, in all its glory, comes with certain desires.

Speak to young Singaporeans about the country they want, and most will
talk about wanting more space to chase dreams and express their
individuality. These are desires our parents do not talk about.

But are these desires enough to influence voting patterns in the
elections? Probably not. They will most likely be diffused by
long-standing concerns such as the job market, employability and rising
living costs.



The writer is a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. This
is a personal comment.

The Singapore gahmen

The Singapore's general elections is just around the corner and I'm wondering how many votes the PAP will get.

For a country that doesn't have a good opposition and also where the PAP always wins with a landslide (65% and over votes), a drop in the number of people voting for the PAP will really send a clear message to them that the Singapore population is not happy about the oppression that we are still facing, even though we are suppose to be a 'first world' country.

Some can say that we are still a young nation (40 yrs) and have to slowly 'let go' but then again, if we can reach the status of 'first world' in that short time, why can’t we be more open about rights? There is so little that we really ask of and yet the way the PAP says it, it is as if we are asking for the world. They still don't trust the Singapore people, still believing that we are mere children who cannot think for ourselves.

The rights that I would like to see is

• No censorship, except for pornography (this I can understand even though I might not agree with it)


• True freedom of speech and the press, where the people of Singapore are also part of the checks and balances of the government


• Repel of section 377, as it really serves no purpose when we have other laws against sex crimes


• An open election system, NO GRCs (to keep the PAP in power) and no such strict criteria for a person to run for president (thrust Singaporeans, god damn it!)

The PAP is so worried about losing the votes of the 'conservatives' in the country but what about the votes of the people who don't fall under that definition. I'm not using liberal because a person who believes in the rights of the people might not consider himself/herself as a liberal.

As more and more Singaporeans become dissatisfied with the ‘oppression’ they are facing, I wonder how long it will take for the PAP to realise that they are loosing the trust and support of the people. Bread and butter issues are important but now we want more and isn’t it time for us to get the jam? I also wonder with more Singaporeans having studied and lived aboard, how many of them would want their rights taken away from them when they return?

Is the PAP really listening? Or are we still being ignored as insignificant (children are meant to be seen and not heard)? *sigh*

Remember Pope John Paul II?

There are a lot of people who have their death anniversaries daily, what makes this ass-hole so much more special than the others? Lots of people say that he has done good things for the world, that I wouldn't disagree but what about making Catholicism regress 50 years into the past? What about allowing his own prejudices supersede the Holy Spirit's prompting? What a wonderful leader we have.

Who do we need to remember anyone? Aren't we suppose to be Easter (Alleluia) people where death is a joyful occasion? The way the vatican is doing things, it is as if death is the end, what they are preaching is not what they really believe. Having a mass remembrance for anyone, especially the ex-head of the Catholic Church is NOT right!

HIS PHYSICAL BODY IS GONE! GET OVER IT!

After so many centuries, you would expect the vatican to learn from all its mistakes in the past. Nobody there seems to learn anything from history. They are still trying their best to get back the political power that they have lost. They haven’t learn that a separation of church and state is the only way to go. Even Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God” And if you looked at it, Jesus never came to overthrow a government or even to influence it and yet the vatican doesn’t think this way. Isn’t it wonderful to have a bunch of people who think they are doing God’s work when they don’t even follow Jesus’ teachings?

Talk about corruption!

Birthday Time!

My birthday today and only the people I'm close to remembered it. :) Which is enough. You tend to know which of your friends that think or care about you (when you are away from home). It would have been a different matter if I was back in Sg.

It is a very boring birthday, nothing much happened. What can happen? I'm here without close friends and loved ones. I'm not complaining as I made this move because it would be good for my career (which I really hope so).

Anyhow, happy birthday to me :).

Mom's Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons

By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 24 February 2006
09:22 am ET

The arrangement of a mother's genes could affect the sexual orientation of her son, according to a new study.

The finding, detailed in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics, adds fuel to the decade-long debate about whether so-called "gay genes" might exist.

The researchers examined a phenomenon called "X chromosome inactivation" in 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers whose sons were not gay.

X and Y

Chromosomes are large thread-like molecules that contain an organism's genetic instructions. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. The X chromosome is one of two sex chromosomes in mammals; the other is the Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes and no Y's, while males have one X and one Y.

Even though women have two X chromosomes, only one is functional because the other is inactivated through a process called "methylation."

"It gets wrapped up in a ball and is not used with the exception of a few genes," explained study leader Sven Bocklandt of the University of California, Los Angeles.

If one of the females' X chromosomes is not turned off, then there is too much genetic material, which can lead to a harmful overabundance of proteins. Down syndrome, for example, results from the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21.

Big difference

Normally, X chromosome inactivation occurs at random: half of the cells in a woman's body will have one X chromosome inactivated, while the other half inactivates the other chromosome.

However, when the researchers in the current study examined cells from the 42 mothers who had at least two gay sons, they found that about a quarter of the women in this group showed something different.

"Every single cell that we looked at in these women inactivated the same X chromosome," Bocklandt told LiveScience. "That's highly unusual."

In contrast, only 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons and 13 percent of those with just one gay son showed this type of extreme skewing.

Bocklandt thinks this suggest that a mother's X chromosomes partly influences whether her son is gay or not.

"We think that there are one or more genes on the X chromosome that have an effect on the sexual orientation of the sons of these mothers, as well as an effect on the cells we were looking at," Bocklandt said.

Other chromosomes implicated

Bocklandt was also involved in an earlier study that looked at the entire human genome of men who had two or more gay brothers. The researchers found identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes—7, 8 and 10—that were shared by about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study.

That study also found mothers to have an unusually large role in their son's sexual orientation: the region on chromosome 10 correlated with homosexuality only if it was inherited from the mother.

The results from these two studies suggest that there are multiple genetic factors involved in determining a person's sexual orientation and that it might vary depending on the person.

"We think that there are going to be some gay men who are X chromosome gay men and some who are chromosome 7 gay men or chromosome 10 gay men or some combination," Bocklandt said in a telephone interview.

Most researchers now think that there is no single gay gene that controls whether a person is homosexual or not. Rather, it's the influence of multiple genes, combined with environmental influences, which ultimately determine whether a person is gay.

A touchy subject

Research into the genetics of sexual orientation is controversial. Religious leaders who believe that sexual orientation is a choice argue that such research is an attempt to legitimize homosexuality; others worry that a detailed knowledge of the genetics underlying homosexuality will open the door to genetic engineering that prevents it.

But Bocklandt doesn't think these concerns should prevent scientists from asking the basic question of whether homosexuality has an underlying genetic component to it or not.

"I have no doubt that at some point we'll be able to manipulate all sorts of aspects of our personality and physical appearance," Bocklandt said. "I think if there's ever a time when we can make these changes for sexual orientation, then we will also be able to do it for intelligence or musical skills or certain physical characteristics—but whether or not these things are allowed to happen is something that society as a whole has to decide. It's not a scientific question."

First Major Fight in 2006

The other day T and I had a fight. Yea, it was over AIM but we did fight. This would be our third major fight in 2 years.

It happened like this, we were discussing about his pending vacation over here and it went from that to his saying that I'm don't seem very enthusiastic about his coming over, to my rebuttal to his statement, etc. It was a rather drawn out affair which most couples (gay or otherwise) would have encountered before. There were a lot of back and forth for 20min before we calmed down and talked about what happened.

It was rather good in a way, I have realised that with every disagreement that we have, we become closer and understand each other better. We have never walked away from a disagreement without understanding each other's “logic”. So instead of being angry with each other and thinking about the worse, we would talk about it, trying to stay calm and collected and I have realised that our fights are always due to miscommunication. Thinking that the other thinks of it this way when it wasn’t so.

It is amazing, coming from my first relationship, where my ex-bf used to do the “lets break up” everytime we have a fight to by previous relationship where we try to understand each other without talking about our displeasure (i.e. keeping everything in), to this, where all unhappiness is aired and talked through. I would like to say that I’ve matured in this aspect but I do think it depends on your partner too. T has been nothing by a calm and patient bf ever since we’ve become serious, and of which I have learnt that from him. Understanding him to a point where I would need to clarify things.

Return to Melbourne

Sad day today. I'm leaving T and Singapore and returning to Melbourne. I'll be strong and God will bless me with strength.

Child sex tours

Channel news asia had a special report stating that Singaporeans are going to Batam, Indonesia to have sex with underage girls. It seems that some of them have wives who actually accompany them on these trips.

Is this part of our asian values? What about heterosexual marriages being the pillar of society?

Isn’t it amazing that all people talk about when they talk about gay men and their ‘lifestyles’ they talk about us being immoral promiscuous, etc. So what is this married men having sex with underaged girls about? Isn’t that more immoral? At least gay men have sex with consenting adults (majority anyway). It is amazing the cries of foul play that would be resounded onto the Singapore sphere if this was about gay men. Discrimination is amazing, religious fanatical discrimination against GLBT is even more amazing.

Happy New Year!

Another great new year. T and I spend the New Year together (as per tradition). We had a hotel room and had a great time together, both sexual and non-sexual. :P

Checked into the hotel about noon and went to Red Star for lunch. It was nice, especially the chicken leg or as T said, "phoenix leg". Red Star has good tim sum, considering the price. Good and cheap. After that, we went to Orchard to shop. And had dinner at Ding Tai Fong, I found that it is not really that special, the taste was more or less like Crystal Jade (their xiao long pau shops), and Ding Tai Fong was more expensive.

That night, we brought food and wine in the room and didn't get to sleep until 3am or so, imagine what time we woke the next day. Breakfast was almost over when we went down so we had to rush through it. T was saying that it is so stupid and that they are so rigid. There were still people arriving after us for breakfast. The management should know that most people would not woke up early this first day of the new year, so why didn't they make provisions and extend the breakfast time.

Christmas Ball and Christmas

Merry Christmas one and all.

Today's blog is more for what happened last night. It is a yearly event which my dancing friends and I go for. But it seems, we didn't go for one last year. I keep thinking we did. This year's ball was less dancing and more entertainment, as T said, they should call it a "Dinner and Dance" since it wasn't really a ball. We were rather pissed about it. Imagine paying so much and yet didn't get a chance to dance much.

We went to a cafe after that. It was fun, but I was really dead tired and just wanted to go home and sleep.

Got home about 3am...

First Dance

Tonight will be the first night I have danced since leaving Singapore. O (my best friend) is rather excited about it. We have been dancing (ballroom and Latin) for the past 3 years and ever since I left, she hasn't found anyone else to dance with. So she is (as I am) so looking forward to tonight.

We will be the only ones practicing tonight as the rest of my dancing friends are busy. We have to familiarise ourselves before tomorrow's ball. Can't make too much of a fool of ourselves. :P

Sick!

I can't believe it. I'm sick, some stomach flu or something. Ever since taking the vitamins and fish oil yesterday, I have been having a bad case of diarrhea. Even taking Imodium didn't help.

In the end, I had to go to a doctor (last night) because I was burning up too. T was so sad because we couldn't meet, so was I, but I didn't plan on falling sick at all.

I'm so pissed with myself. Having studied biology, I should have known better than to take vitamins and fish oil that has been opened for months! Yup, this was the vitamins and fish oil which I forgot to bring over to Melbourne and it was opened and left in Singapore for this whole period, nobody touched it. I believe that it has expired and that is what caused my diarrhea. Little do people realise that the expire date is for unopened bottles. Opened ones should be consumed within 3 months. *sigh*

Spent the whole of today sleeping, just started feeling much better this evening. Even had some porriage. I should be right as rain by tomorrow. I'm so excited about see T again.

Home bound

I'm going home today. I'm so excited :). T said he'll be picking me up from the airport as he had a car this week. Singapore here I return.

The Front Door's Open, The Backyard's Locked

A lot of people would agree with this but the vocal 'conservative' people would start crying foul. They would say, what is wrong with staying the same, that the 'western' style democracy/freedom of speech is not for us and that we would have to develop our own. What I don't get is why should democracy or freedom of speech be 'western' style or 'Singapore' style? This is the same way they talk about the 'gay liftstyle', which until now, I'm still trying to figure out what it is.


Today
12 December 2005

THE FRONT DOOR'S OPEN, THE BACKYARD'S LOCKED
--------------------------------------------
To be global, must we rethink our conservative outlook at home? News Comment We set you thinking

Terence Chong

IF Singapore's policy-making style had to be summed up in a phrase, it would be selective globalisation: The conscious effort to encourage certain forms of globalisation and discourage others.

The Government, on one hand, encourages economic globalisation through the synchronisation of local financial regulations and policies with international standards and, on the other, it energetically protects an Asian "conservative" society from the ills of satellite dishes, pornographic magazines and other unwholesome global commodities.

This constant oscillation between being globally open and locally particular has given rise to the Singapore paradox.

The city-state enjoys its status as one of the most globalised countries in terms of migration, global finance and telecommunications. Yet it regularly garners criticism from international human rights institutions for its insistence on its own brand of politics, whereby certain civil liberties are curtailed in view of local multi-ethnic and multi-religious realities.

The practice of selective globalisation expresses the need to remain globally connected for the sake of nothing less than national survival and the desire to retain certain notions of tradition and conservatism that protect specific interests.

For the most part, the Government has succeeded in juggling the often conflicting demands of the local and the global. Nonetheless, three events this year suggest that this may have ramifications for its global city ambitions.

In June, the Government denied fridae.com, a gay portal, the entertainment licence to hold its annual Nation Party. fridae.com responded by moving its annual bash to Phuket. Ordinarily, this would not have been an issue but for the fact that the Government acknowledges there are homosexuals in the civil service, thus making the licence withdrawal look like a step
backwards.

fridae.com's pullout may have mollified the majority of conservative Singaporeans, which was the objective, but it does little to show the international community that the city-state is culturally exciting.

In the words of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, if we are only contented with being the cleanest and safest city, then the "with-it" world will pass Singapore by.

There was also an unexpected poke in the eye. In his farewell speech on Oct 11, the out-bound United States Ambassador Frank Lavin mildly criticised the Singapore Government for its repression of political expression. He also recounted his embarrassment at being asked by local police if he wanted to press charges against the demonstrators protesting outside the US embassy over the Iraq war. These remarks were surprising in a post-Clinton era, and are significant in light of the Singapore Government's strong support for the Bush administration's "war on terror" campaign and the Iraq war.

Lastly, but no less surprising, was Warwick University's decision not to set up a campus in Singapore. After months of deliberation and feasibility studies, the British university, renowned for its research excellence, declined the Economic Development Board's invitation, citing its concern over both financial costs and the lack of academic freedom in Singapore.

This marks the first time a potential investor has publicly cited Singapore's famed out-of-bounds markers, its emphasis on
non-confrontational academic analysis and the Government's intolerance for dissent, as reasons for not coming.

These three incidents suggest an important lesson: A nation-state and a global city require a different management ethos. Conventional arguments for cultural and ideological protectionism may sit well with the character of nation-states, but they are increasingly incongruent with the functions of global cities.

And since a global city becomes one only when others recognise it as such, all global cities require cultural legitimacy from the international community of transnational professionals, creative class and international opinion-shapers who have the power to confer it recognition.

The competition to distinguish one's self as a global city is, in reality, the competition to win legitimacy and recognition from this international community.

The fact that Singapore's survival as a nation-state depends on its status as a global city means the Government has little choice but to constantly shift gears between the national and the global when it comes to policy-making, thus compelling it to send mixed signals to this international community.

Casinos are allowed but satellite dishes are not; topless cabaret shows are permitted but civil disobedience is not; and the list goes on. These discrepancies are at the heart of the dilemma facing Singapore at the dawn of the 21st century.

Globalising at one's own pace and terms may be prudent for a small nation-state but how much of this prudence can an aspiring global city afford?

The writer is a Fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies.

Hypocrites!

In regards to the hanging of Nguyen Tuong Van;

Australia take the speck out of your eye before you take the log out of Singapore's eye.

As stated in my previous posts I'm not for capital punishment (I signed the petition for him) but I think the way the media and gahmen of Australia making Singapore the villain is revolting!

Documents reveal that Australia urged Indonesia to invade East Timor in 1975
East Timor and Australia's oily politics
Australia bullies East Timor over oil and gas

Let's talk about human rights and being barbaric now!

N Korea compares Bush to Hitler

I so agree with this. What makes George W. Bush (II) so different from Hitler?


Today
23 November 2005

N KOREA COMPARES BUSH TO HITLER
-------------------------------
SEOUL - North Korea's foreign ministry has threatened to multiply its defences a "thousand times" in an angry response to a United Nations vote which expressed serious concern about Pyongyang's human rights record.

The ministry dismissed the UN General Assembly vote as an "absurd attempt" by Washington to topple the Stalinist regime, and compared US President George W Bush to dictator Adolf Hitler.

The UN resolution expressed concern about reports on torture, public executions and the imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, as well as the extensive use of forced labour in communist North Korea.

The ministry statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said the UN move was "no more than the barking of a dog at the moon."

The state-run KCNA also lashed out at the United States, which prepared the UN report, and called Mr Bush "a wicked man whom the world compares to fascist fanatic Hitler."

The news agency said Mr Bush's advocacy of democracy was a pretext for invading other countries.

"The US admonition for 'freedom' and 'democracy' is to invent pretexts for violating sovereignty of other countries ... and establishing its unchallenged domination over the world," it said.

KCNA also called Mr Bush a "warlike president" who "took the lead in advocating state-sponsored terrorism" and "openly defended murderous torture in prisons" - which it claimed were reminiscent of the Auschwitz concentration camp.

It was referring to the scandal that broke after the Washington Post reported that the US had secret prisons in various parts of the world, including Thailand and Europe. - AGENCIES

Conservative?

This article really shows that sex education for teenagers is really a must for us. Why is it the 'conservative' and the gahmen believes that just because we teach teenagers sex, they will immediately go out and have sex? Research has shown that with the correct information (both celibacy and also safe sex) teenages do make the right decisions. This would allow them to be informed of STDs and pregnancy.

Why is it the gahmen believe that they don't need sex education for teenages? They should stand firm on this issue instead of trying to please the conservatives.


SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE: 46% OF TEENS SAY YES
------------------------------------------
SEX before marriage is fine with us, say 56 per cent of the young Singaporeans in a recent survey.

And with this paper's readers recently debating whether students are getting adequate sex education, a more disturbing fact is that 46 per cent of those aged 15 to 19 said they would agree to pre-marital sex.

The percent of those who would say yes is highest among those aged 20 to 24, at 73 per cent.

Another surprising thing: More female respondents than males seem to be in favour of it. Out of 100 young people aged between 15 and 29 years old surveyed, 51 per cent of the males would agree to pre-marital sex, while 61 per cent of the females would give their consent.

The survey project is a collaboration between MediaCorp News and Singapore Polytechnic's School of Business, in support of a new news programme, the Channel U Weekend News Club.

Quotations

Some quotes from famous people in history, which still applies to today's political climate.

For the religious fanatics, fundamentalist Christians (or religious wrongs as I call them) :
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal
French mathematician, physicist (1623 - 1662)

For all good people in the world who are silent :
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

For all who discrimiate, whether by sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc :
Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

Sad to say, the world will never learn from its mistakes.

Remembrance Day

Yesterday (11 Nov) was remembrance day in Australia and, it seems, a number of countries in the world. It was the day they (we) remembered the people who died in the world wars. At 11am, a moment of silence was given to these great heroes.

It is wonderful that as a Singaporean male, who has to go to war and die for my country when and if the time arrives, I'm still considered a 2nd class citizen and a criminal in the eyes of the law. Nice to know that I'm good enough to die of our "beliefs" but is a criminal when not.

Oppression?

I was having a chat with my Australian colleague and she asked me, "Isn't Singapore oppressive?". Now I was taken aback by that question because she has never been to Singapore before. So I wondered where she got her information from. It seems that the reports by the paper and even the net doesn't place Singapore in a good light. Her impression was formed by what she has been reading over the years. And she wasn’t the only one, my German colleague also echoed the sentiments.

I wouldn't say much about what I said to them but I did tell them that Singapore wasn't as oppressive as what they think and that it wasn't a "police state" (in fact we get away with quite a lot :P). Even though Singapore doesn't have the ‘freedom of responsible speech’ as Australia, German or even Korea, things have changed in the past 10 years and Singaporeans have started to voice their opinions about policies and even started questioning the gahmen. Not only did the gahmen not clamp down on these people, the actually encouraged it but there are still limits... for now. I told her that things would change and in time to come Singapore would have Australia's responsible speech too.

They were very satisfied with my answer but it did get me thinking. The gahmen wants Singapore to become a city like New York and London but with impressions like this about Singapore hanging around, it cannot. What makes a city cosmopolitan like New York and London is not the gahmen but the people, locals and foreigners. People flock to these cities because they have been know to be open minded, non-discriminatory and accepting of all people (including the dreaded GLBT community). People go there knowing that they are safe and whatever they do or say wouldn’t get them thrown into prison or deported from the country. This isn’t the impression foreigners have about Singapore. I’m talking about the citizens of these countries, the ones that make a city cosmopolitan not the gahmens. If we don’t change our image as a “oppressive” and “police state”, becoming like London or New York will not be possible.

I sometimes wonder if the Singapore gahmen knows this.

Have I said too much?

After ranting for the past few days, I wonder if the gahmen is going to come down on me for writing things like that, "unpatriotic" things. I wonder if I have crossed their line or are these comments allowed now? Maybe the gahmen just going to ignore me because this blog (and maybe me) is insignificant. Yup, Singaporeans are still worried that the gahmen will come down on them when they speak their minds.

If I do get clamped down, it would show that the gahmen has read this blog and I have touched on topics that are too sensitive. Which would be sad. Meaning that be are back to the dark ages. What would be nice (a dream I know) that they would take the comments of all of us GLBT into consideration and maybe decriminalise us. It would be one of the steps for Singapore to be a cosmopolitan city.

Just a dream.

Battered husbands

There have been a report and number of letters about battered husbands in Singapore in Today. So I was right in my accessment that 'equality and justice' is NOT for all. Mr Aidan is a battered husband in Singapore.

BULLIED BY 42KG WIFE
--------------------
Women's Charter abused to 'punish' man; time to enshrine protection and
uphold equality

Letter from Aidan L*

--- snap ---

The outmoded Women's Charter, promulgated in the 1960s to protect housewives left high and dry by their spouses in the event of a divorce, should be changed.

Many modern women are educated and their income may equal or even surpass their husbands', but the Act opens a loophole for abuse where a women just has to make a police complaint and the latter will have to act - even if the complaint is frivolous and unsubstantiated.

The men are made to support their spouses even when their wives' earnings exceed theirs. The Women's Charter has been increasingly used to "punish" the man for the marriage breakup - even though, in most cases, both parties are responsible.

We have in recent years witnessed more men seeking PPOs. But are men really protected? Probably, women know that they are unlikely to be punished, or at least punished heavily - hence they continue to launch their verbal or physical assaults.

The Women's Charter should be pro-family instead of skewed in favour of the female gender. It should be viewed as the Family Charter, to take into account changing modern values, and to uphold equity and equality for both sexes. It's time that men's protection be enshrined too.


Why is the Women's Charter not amended? It would seem that our ministers don't believe that this can happen to men. It is a rather chauvinistic point of view but sad to say it seems that is the point of view of a number of our gahmen.

Check out this post which shows up the ministers.

With discriminating attitudes there are in parliment, would we ever see real equality and justice for all Singaporeans?

I don't understand the Singapore pledge

We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation


What democracy? What justice and equality?

I don't see it for the GLBT community. If it really is based on justice and equality then things should be done and laws to be changed so that everyone is equal. Not where one sexuality is not more superior than another or women having more advantages than men in a marriage (women's charter).

I can understand that being a small country, we have to be pro-family but if the family breaks up and throws a gay son or lesbian daughter out of the house, is that very pro-family? This is not something that hasn't happen, it is something that is continually happening, families disowning their children because of this. Misconceptions breeds mistrust and hate, wonderful elements for a family.

I can understand we need more babies but the number of couples getting married AND having babies has no relation to the GLBT community.

Just because gay men/lesbians are more visible doesn't mean that there will be more gay men/lesbians in Singapore. It has been shown (in all countries that citizens have equal status) that about 5% or less of the population is gay/lesbian. So regardless of how you try to hide it there will be gay and lesbians around. When a GLBT community is visible, young GLBT people will realise that they are not sick (normal) and are not the only one. Nobody, should have to go through what all I and all of my gay/lesbian friends had to go though in coming to terms with our homosexuality.

I'm don't think that we will get equal status as heterosexuals but knowing that at least we will not be criminalised or considered unwell or deviant would be nice. I’m talking about repelling section 377, is that too much to ask? From the looks of it, yes it is because fundamentalism and homophobia rules Singapore. The truth of being gay/lesbian has always been obscured (by censorship, anything showing homosexuality in a favourable or 'normal' light is not allowed) and because there is no avenue for Singaporeans to know the truth about being gay/lesbian, most Singaporeans will always have a misconception that we are "sick", we "choose" to be homosexual and we "recruit" young people into our "filthy" lifestyle to "increase our numbers" and thus be against us.

As much as I love my country, I'm really unhappy/angry that the gahmen is making me feel like an outcast and a 2nd class citizen. So if every citizen matters, isn’t it time to repel penal code 377? Who are we protecting with 377? Don't we have enough sex laws to protect all people without having 377?

Reference: My musings

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning



2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall



3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract



4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal



5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed



6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children



7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children



8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America



9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children



10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

Replace America with Singapore. Is there a difference? Aren't we suppose to be secular? Why would religion come into play for our laws? Isn't the religious beliefs against us against the law (in some way?), where one group's views are forced upon the population and minor group?

But then again, with the GLBT community are not people. We just pay tax and are 2nd class citizens because heterosexuality is more superior.

Hypocrites at work

I read with disbelief the article on Today (2 Nov 2005) stating that President George Bush is 'concerned' about 'human rights violations in Myanmar'. Gosh, has he looked at his own country. Let me also quote the bible Mr. Bush, "Take the log out of your eye before you take the speck out of your neighbour's eye". America is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to human rights. What rights do the GLBT community? Their rights have been denied them again and again because of religious reasons. If you are so concerned about human rights, then let the GLBT community marry or just grant them equal rights and status as a heterosexual marriage, then I'll say you can talk about human rights.


Today
2 November 2005

COURAGEOUS MS CHARM MEETS BUSH
------------------------------
WASHINGTON - United States President George W Bush, saying he was concerned over human rights violations in Myanmar, met 23-year-old Ms Charm Tong, who is campaigning for the rights of minority groups in the military-ruled state.

Ms Charm Tong, a founding member of the widely respected Shan Women's Action Network, is a "courageous and compassionate" critic of Myanmar's military rulers, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, adding that she "has dedicated her life to helping those who suffer under the military rule in Rangoon and to exposing the regime's abuses, particularly against women."

Ms Charm Tong was named among "Asia's heroes of 2005" by Time magazine this month. Her Swan group has documented the reported rape of hundreds of women and girls by Myanmar's soldiers.

A refugee from Myanmar's central Shan state, home to the country's biggest ethnic minority, Ms Charm Tong is based along the Thailand-Myanmar border where she runs a school for young Shan.

"I raised with the president our concerns on the human rights violations, especially the military's use of systematic rape of innocent girls and women as a weapon of war," told AFP after the White House meeting, which she said lasted about 50 minutes. "The president said he was very concerned and wanted to know what more can be done to help the people." - AFP

Forget the Bad

What's the key to a rewarding and lasting relationship?

Some people may tell you that it is to find out each other's weaknesses, understand them, and work through them together as a couple. Although this is feasible to a certain extent, it can become frustrating and exhausting, because there will be problem spots that you won't be able to resolve together.

A woman discovered what loving someone truly involved, when she asked her husband to try out a relationship-building exercise she came across in a magazine.

She approached him and said, "I read in a magazine a while ago, about how we can strengthen our marriage. Each of us will write a list of the things we find a bit annoying about the other person. Then we can talk about how we can fix them together and make our lives happier together."

Her husband agreed, so each of them went into a separate room and thought of all the things that annoyed them about each other. They thought about this for the rest of the day and wrote down what they came up with.

The following morning, at the breakfast table, they decided that they would go over their lists.

"I'll start," offered the wife and took out her list. It had many items on it. Enough to fill three pages in fact. As she started reading the list of little annoyances, she noticed that tears were starting to appear in her husband's eyes.

"What's wrong?" she asked.

"Nothing," her husband replied, "Keep reading your list."

The wife continued to read until she had read all three pages to her husband. She neatly placed her list on the table and folded her hands over it.

"Now, you read your list and then we'll talk about the things on both of our lists," she said happily.

Softly, her husband started, "I don't have anything on my list. I love you the way you are. And I wouldn't want to try and change anything about you." Very often, raising the negative aspects of a relationship can erode its strength rather than reinforce it. When you love someone, it should be in spite of his or her flaws. There will always be things to disappoint, depress and annoy us about our partners. But why dwell on these when there is so much beauty, promise and light as well?

Two simple tips for couples
To make full your loving cup
If you're wrong, admit it
If you're right, shut up


Good advice for couples but you also shouldn't bottle up things that you can't stand about your partner, talking about things that irritate you is good too but it shouldn't be a 'you did this, you did that' it should be a 'I'm not happy when you do this' because the first approach is more of a personal attack and the second is a 'there are things about your behaviour that I don't like'. I learnt that the hard way, not with T but with A, my first boyfriend and D (my second) help me to understand this.

Singapore Clamps Down On Gay Web Sites

by Peter Hacker 365Gay.com Asia Bureau Chief

Posted: October 28, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Singapore) Singapore dealt another blow to the city-state's LGBT community on Friday banning one gay Web site and fining another.

The government controls the internet through its Media Development Authority. The MDA said that both sites - one based in Singapore, the other overseas - contained offensive material.

It said that it acted after receiving complaints about the two companies. An MDA investigation found what the agency called content "promoting a promiscuous homosexual lifestyle".

Both sites contained information on dating and hookups and had nude photographs. The offshore site, which was not publicly named, was also accused of trying to recruit underage boys for sex - a charge often leveled by the government against gays.

Homosexuality is illegal in Singapore. In addition it bans nude images on the internet.

The government cannot prosecute the offshore company, but the local Web site, identified as "Meet Gay Singapore Friends", was fined $3,000 (US) and warned it would be closed down if it did not remove the offensive material. The company said on Friday it would comply.

Despite the criminalization of homosexuality Singapore's government has made continued statements that it does not discriminate against gays

High-ranking Singapore officials have blamed gay events for rising HIV infections. The country also has banned Asia's largest gay-themed party, Nation '05, from its shores. The event has been moved to Thailand.

In August the The government issued a warning to gays traveling to Singapore that they could face imprisonment if they are caught having gay sex.

©365Gay.com 2005

I'm okay with the gahmen banning pornographic sites, even though it is rather against free will.

This is another example of our non-homophobic gahmen because there is another Singapore website (sammyboy.com) that has porn and such and yet it is still up and running and it seems gahmen is doing nothing. So heterosexual porn is okay but not homosexual porn.

Birthday apart

Today is T's birthday and for the first time we have been together that I'm not celebrating it with him. :( I really, really hate this. I knew that this will happen when I came over but I didn't know it would make me feel this bad and sad. *sigh*

It didn't really help with me watching the last season of "Sex and the city" again, the one where everything worked out. Charlotte York (Kristin Davis)'s husband Harry Goldenblatt (Evan Handler) is so nice and sweet, reminded me so much of T (character wise). The whole of the last season made me want to be with him even more, to be living with him ASAP.

At last someone she wouldn't kill

I was so happy to learn that my best friend (O) has found a boyfriend. She even sms'ed me from Singapore to tell me about it. Gosh, never seen her so excited before and it is the first time she has used the b word on a guy. :) Don't know much about him though, she is rather illusive about telling me stuff but then I'll interrogate her when she comes for a visit in December.

I have known O for more than 10 years and this is the first time that she knows a guy whom she can chat with without feeling like she wants to kill him. The other guys she dated (she said went out with but no boyfriend) have all gotten on her nerves after a while, too clingy, too boring, too full of himself... so it is a thrill she can actually find a guy who meets her criteria of being a boyfriend.

Another earthquake

Gosh, another one, an earthquake yesterday (8 Oct 2005). Let us all remember the people who have died and the ones who have been left behind, who have to pick up the pieces.

God bless them. Amen.

My musings

Except taken from Todayonline.com
7 Oct 2005

PM confident of strong poll showing, though it won't be 2001 again

--- snip ---

While he reiterated the Government's disapproval of the liberal "Western model" for Singapore's purposes, Mr Lee listed the sort of changes he expects to see.

"I think in 20 years, our society will change. I think the politics of it will change. The issues probably will change, although the fundamentals of living in this small red dot will remain the same," he said.

Will one of those changes include a gay Cabinet minister, or is the Government homophobic? "I don't think we are homophobic," he replied, asserting his agreement with the views of then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong that gays are "people like you and me", in Mr Lee's words.

"But there are some segments of Singaporeans who may even disagree with that, and we have to be aware of that," he said.
These are factors the Government must take into account, he said, when gay groups want to "flaunt (their) gayness" through parades and parties like the Nation.05.

"I'm not sure I want to do that in Singapore because I think it will be offensive to a large number of Singaporeans and will be very divisive," he added.

In a brief 10-minute speech before the Q&A, he highlighted the need to encourage diversity but not division, especially when it comes to nurturing the next generation, one of four main tasks he identified as needed in the next 20 years.

--- snip ---

Not homophobic? Let us now see:

1. Section 377 crimilising gay sex is still around


2. The internet penal code states "whether the material advocates homosexuality or lesbianism, or depicts or promotes incest, paedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia" is prohibited on 'moral' grounds


3. Anything (print, movies, TV shows) that shows homosexuality as normal or in a good light is considered advocating homosexuality and is NOT allowed (the reverse is allowed)


4. Gay support groups like "People Like Us" are not allowed to form officially


5. 2 gay parties (Snowball 2004 and Nation 2005) were banned because they 'promoted' homosexuality and risky behaviour i.e. increase the number of gays who will contract HIV


6. Los Angeles-based Christian gay pop musicians Jason and deMarco were the planned feature performers for the April 3 Action for AIDS event organised by Christian group Safehaven was banned because they 'promoted homosexuality'

Nice to know that I'm a law breaker (section 377) and immoral (internet penal code, censorship).

Then read this article.

The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister says

Let's say together "4 legs good, 2 legs better".

First PT in AU

Tonight was the first night of my personal training (PT) at my gym.

It was really terrible. I couldn't believe that after 2.5 months of stopping my PT in Sg my endurance and stamina had dropped to my pre-PT level!

It was only half and hour long but I was dizzy and out of breath and was about to puke at the end of it, all the symptoms of an unfit person doing exercise and to think that I'm going to the gym regularly. I was so embrassed. Apparently, lifting weights is different from doing cardio. Strange.

Anyhow, I just hope that my next one would be better.

Happy (belated) Anniversary

Hahahaha... was talking to T today and realised that I've had my blog for a 13 months now. Wow, that is a long time and I also have realised after reading this blog again, that I've started becoming more 'talkative' than I was when I started.

It is nice to be able to have my thoughts out there (hopfully I wouldn't get into any trouble :) ). At least I have an outlet for my opinions.

Bombings

Let us take a moment to remember the ones who have died in yesterday's Bali bombing and also pray that these terrorist will see the error of their ways soon. So help us God.

Tulips

It was a wonderful day today. Went out with a gay group to the Tulip festival.

The people were nice and somehow I fit right in. :)

I'm very tired now (walking almost the whole day).

Racism

I had a view about the gahmen using the hard hand of the law to punish the 2 racist bloggers in Sg and I think this article is exactly what I think.


Today
20 Sep 2005

EDUCATION IS THE KEY, NOT A GAG AND FINES
-----------------------------------------
Recently, a Muslim friend made a remark about the 17-year-old boy who was charged for racist remarks on his blog.

He said that blogger had to be taught a lesson because "this is Singapore. Like it or not, people should be taught to respect other races".

In the last few weeks, two others have been charged for similar offences. Some people are calling for the arrest of a Government scholar who made racist remarks on his blog months ago.

While many feel it is right for the Government to send out a zero-tolerance message, it is, however, worrying when they agree that the judiciary should apply the full force of the Sedition Act to individuals who make racially-insensitive remarks.

They also find appealing the suggestion that, like in some other Commonwealth jurisdictions, the penalty for crimes with a racial element should automatically be increased.

But in the many commentaries and views expressed so far in the media, few have paused to ask: "Why did the youth write such things?"

The root of the problem may run deeper.

Some of my peers went through school and never had the opportunity to get to know an ethnic minority friend. I have met some people in their late 30s who have never visited Little India, Geylang or Arab Street.

From the time we get our birth certificate to our death, one word persists: Race.

Race matters when we seek partners, get married or search for housing.

Race is also an issue when you are in the workforce. Your race decides which self-help group your monthly donations go to and how others perceive you.

For example, I recently decided to stop the monthly contributions to my self-help group for several reasons.

I do not believe in having to be a member of a particular race to make a difference for that group. As a Singaporean, I prefer to make an annual donation and divide it among all the self-help groups.

When I stop-ped contributing, I was blamed by some of my friends from ethnic minorities for "selling out my own kind".

As long as race matters, we will have racists. We will also have individuals who find others racially insensitive or those who sell out "their own kind".

The solution lies not in penalising such persons, but rather in understanding their way of thinking and engaging these thoughts constructively.

By punishing racists, we risk aggravating racism. For fear of sanction, people may stop sharing their real thoughts on the issue of race. And these thoughts could gestate in such a way that they become ideologies with a cult following.

It cannot be denied that there are benefits in a zero-tolerance-to-racism policy. The legislature and modern Singapore's brief history have provided some very strong grounds to do so.

However, we cannot rule out alternative ways to deal with the issue. We should make the punishment fit the crime in more ways than one.

For example, why not empower our judiciary to get these youth to serve in the communities they make fun of. Such youth may then be in a better position to understand that community.

Perhaps, the current review of the laws will pave the way for such measures.

The show of brute force through the long arm of the law and the heavy hammer of the judiciary may provide a quick fix. But education and a culture of allowing people to learn from their mistakes can take us to greater heights.

The writer, a corporate counsel, contributes this in a personal capacity.


It seems odd that when the Prime Minister is trying to make Sg more open, things like this shows that it is not so. Another incident concerning bloggers was caustic.soda who was sued by a gahmen agency because of his remakes made on his blog, which I think the are very mild compared with the things people say about him in their private conversations. And if people are people, this 'sayings' can be more damaging to a person's reputation than a blog can. Simple reason being that people read blogs and webpages with a pinch of salt (like reading the newspaper) whereas they tend to believe (sometimes like gospel truth) what others say, especially when that person is a close friend or family member. The phrase "word of mouth" wasn’t coined for no reason.

All people that I know believed that it akin to an elephant crushing an ant. Who in the right mind would want to go against a gahmen agency with millions?

These 2 incidents are so now etched into the minds of Sg. So is the gahmen going back on its word to have a more open society and the law going to be used on everyone that doesn't agree with the gahmen's paradigm? I hope not. I believe that Sg is starting to become a mature society and it would be a shame if the gahmen is moving back to treating the Sg people like kids. I sometimes wonder if the Sg gahmen thinks that they are the only mature people around who are the only ones that can make the right decisions for Sg.

At this point in time, we don’t have ‘freedom of speech’ in Sg but I’m hoping that with PM Lee S L’s leadership, we would be able to see some real changes to becoming a real open society where different opinions and views are not taken as unlawful but as a mature society showing its concern for the country. I mean if I don’t care about a country, why would I bother to say things about it, good or bad. Criticisms, constructive ones, are bore out of concern but we also have to acknowledge that there are people who will criticise for the sake of criticising. We shouldn’t concern ourselves with those black sheep as they are usually few.

Sexualism / sexualist

Discovered something very interesting in wikipedia today. I realised that my use of heterosexist is wrong/flawed. Below is a snippet of heterosexism.

Heterosexism has been suggested as alternative to homophobia, in part because it uses a parallel structure to sexism or racism. This parallel approach, however, is logically flawed, as the literal meaning of the word would therefore be "a belief that one type of heterosexuality is inherently 'better' than another type of heterosexuality" (see the dictionary definition of, for example, racism). A true parallel construction can be found in the word sexualism.

So the word that can really replace homophobia is sexualism, which I presume would be the right word to used. I've always figured that homophobia is like a fear of GLTB people, which doesn't really mean the person hates us (personal view). So sexualist would be the word from now.

Aches and pains

My back doesn't hurt so much now but my arm gets tired rather easily and at this point in time, my right shoulder feels like it has been lifting heavy weights the whole day, like when I do a workout at the gym where my trainer is too enthusiastic. Well, comes with compensation. When a muscle is healing, the others around it try to compensate and because it is not its usually ‘job’ it gets tired quickly.

Can’t do much work now. My shoulder aches too much to type/use the mouse for long. So reading a lot now. Really can’t wait to go home and rest it.

So ridiculous

When to see the doctor at 1PM. Went early so that I can register (since it was my first time). Didn't get to see the doctor until 1:30PM (even though I had an appointment, so much like Sg where an appointment doesn't mean shit). Then got to see the doctor for 2 mins. What a bloody waste if my time! He didn't do anything but tell me what I already knew ("this happened because some of your muscle fibres... blah, blah") and told me to go the chemist (Sg's equivalent of pharmacist) and get some pain killers that had muscle relaxant in it, an on the shelf drug! If I know that was all, I would have just to the chemist in the morning and not suffer until 1:30PM with the pain. So ridiculous.

I found out from one of my colleague that the medical here in Au is not totally free. Their 'medi-care' thingy is free only for certain things. First off, medical here is NOT free. If you visit the doctor and want it to be free, you'll have to visit a gahmen one and if my visit to the doctor is anything to go by, it would be a long wait. If you go private, you'll be able to 'claim' a percentage of what you paid. Hospitalisation is also 'claimable'. Ambulance service is expensive unless you take up an insurance. If you go to the A&E, you have to pay for it, in full. No claiming.

Gosh, you pay so much in taxes and realise in the end, the medical is not free or even well subsidised. You have to pay for all drugs that you get even if the doctor prescribed it. So even (like me) you can get the doctor's consultation for free, you'll still have to pay for the medication. You'll still have to go to the chemist to get it. From what I can tell the only people that benefit from the high taxes, through welfare, are the young, able bodied people who are too lazy to work.

I really pray that nothing will happen to me during my stay here. I really don't fancy having to pay for my medical bills.

Bad bad bad

Gosh, woke up today with a sprained upper back (somewhere in my right shoulder blade area). It really hurt like hell when I sat up from bed. Have no idea how it came about. Going to see the doctor later at 1PM. Will write more after. Ouch!

Turning to a couch potato

Gosh, realised today that I'm really turning into a couch potato. I'm watching more TV now than I've ever watched in Sg. In Sg I hardly watch much TV, maybe 2 hours a week. Yup, a week. I was that active. Going to the gym, dancing, yoga, dinner with friends, going out with T, etc. so much so that I hardly have time for myself. Now, I have so much time on my hands and I don't know what to do with it except to watch TV. So pathetic!

At least in the coming week I'm going to make things change. I'm starting my personal training at my gym this week. After such a long break (of not doing weights seriously) I don't even know if I'd be able to lift the weights I used to lift. Anyway, it is the least of my worries since I'm paying someone else to do it. I hope to take up a package with this trainer of mine, will talk to him about it after and see how much it would cost me.

Told T about this cute guy (Chinese or at least Asian) that was at class today (gym class). He was really cute and had the type of body that I drool over. :P He was doing the class in front of me (his side was facing me), so I kept stealing glances at him. Can't help but feel that I know him from somewhere, just can't seem to place it.

The 2-Variable Intuition Test

I found this test and did it for fun. :)

Very Well-Rounded You have: 70% SCIENTIFIC INTUITION and 62% EMOTIONAL INTUITION

The graph on the right represents your place in Intuition 2-Space. As you can see, you scored above average on emotional intuition and above average on scientific intuition. (Weirdly, your emotional and scientific intuitions are equally strong.) Your Emotional Intuition score is a measure of how well you understand people, especially their unspoken needs and sympathies. A high score score usually indicates social grace and persuasiveness. A low score usually means you're good at Quake. Your Scientific Intuition score tells you how in tune you are with the world around you; how well you understand your physical and intellectual environment. People with high scores here are apt to succeed in business and, of course, the sciences. Try my other test! The 3 Variable Funny Test It rules.

My test tracked 2 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 56% on Scientific You scored higher than 38% on Interpersonal

Link: The 2-Variable Intuition Test written by jason_bateman on Ok Cupid

First month

Wow, I have been working here for a month already! So cool. I have been in Australia for 7 weeks already. Wow rather fast, almost 2 months already.

Still haven't got used to the erratic weather, doubt I ever will. Have been living in USA (San Francisco and Portland) and the weather has NOT been as erratic as this. It can be very cold and then very hot all in a span of 1 hour. And the clouds, gosh, it can be bright and sunny with no clouds in the sky and then in 5 min the dark clouds can appear and then it will rain.

Stupid weather.

Next generation iPod mini, the iPod nano

Gosh, the new iPod nano (just unveiled today) is just so small and beautiful! I'm so tempted to get one but then I don't even use my iPod now since I don't have long journeys anymore.

My current iPod is the 2nd iPod that own. I had the 1st gen iPod, the original :), then T bought me my current one (3rd gen) the year before (2003) for my birthday.

Trust in God

This hymn is playing in my head again.

God will make a way
Where there seems to be no way
He works in ways we cannot see
He will make a way for me
He will be my guide
Hold me closely to His side
With love and strength for each new day
He will make a way He will make a way

By a roadway in the wilderness
He'll lead me
And rivers in the desert will I see
Heaven and earth will fade
But His word will still remain
He will do something new today

This usually happens when I have a lot of things on my mind about the future (should I, would I what if...) and realised that I'm stressing myself out for no reason whatsoever. This hymn makes me rethink my position and realise that God will bless me in whatever the future holds. God will not make send me anything I cannot handle. So I should just give God my life and let God be the driver and hope that I'll not be a back seat driver.

T is back in Singapore at last :). He returned very late (3AM Melbourne time). So tonight can chat with him. Hooray. :)

So excited

I'm so excited, T is returning to Singapore today. He was no vacation since Saturday, so we haven't 'spoken' since Sat. Wow, 3 days. It is really funny, we are not living together and furthermore, not living in the same country and yet our daily (or almost daily) 'chatting' on the net and webcaming makes it tolerable to being apart. During these 3 days, it was really difficult. It was amazing.

During these 3 days, I realise how much I truly love him. How much I really cherish him. We do have our differences but we seem to work them out all the time, our communication is really wonderful. He has a 'we can work everything out' attitude.

So here I am waiting patiently for him to return and come online. :)

I miss my life

As much as I said that I've settled down in Australia (since it has been 6 weeks), somehow it doesn't feel like home. I miss T a lot and I think that is the major reason why I'm not really settling down. The other is the fact that I'm all alone here. No friends except for my roommate. I think that if T was here, it would feel more like home but then again it might not.

I've written to HDB to see if I'd be able to buy a HDB flat while still working here in Australia. If that is possible, I'll ask my parents to have a look around (in Holland V) and see if there are any good buys. And maybe get them to legally buy it. I hope that it is possible. It would be in 3 years (or actually 2.5 years) but no harm it finding out things earlier.

I really do miss my life in Singapore. My being so busy and having loads of friends. I think I do miss my Singapore routine.

I'm so bored

Gosh, I really need to find friends. Friends of my own. After a month here, I'm starting to get bored with my routine. I was so active in Singapore, not only because of going to the gym but also my other activities like ballroom dancing. But now, I only go to the gym and it is not as fun as in Singapore because I have no friends in the gym. So I don't know how long I can keep this up before I get bored out of my mind.

It will be difficult to make friends here and now, especially when I'm not studying. I wonder where can I make friends from? Well, if God willing, I should move out of my routine and start going out with social gay groups. That is provided I can take the first step. Well, it will happen, just have to venture out of my comfort zone (again). :)