this is what i sent in an email to the humanz yahoogroups a minute ago - we're having a fascinating email debate about the entire hooha with HIV and the Nation parties and homosexuality and all that. might as well put it here, might elicit more varied responses.


i have to begin by saying that it makes my blood boil that the problem of
rising HIV infections (which is serious cause for concern) has degenerated
into a nationwide debate about the rights and wrongs of the gay lifestyle
(which in my opinion is not a cause for concern).

like ms linda kwek said right before contradicting herself in the same
breath, "Homosexuals, like anyone else, have a right to whatever lifestyle
they fancy." i understand what benuel was saying that her logic is 'I’m
prepared to accept your way of life, but you can’t pose significant
detriment to mine'. however, like i say below, most parties with young
people of any sexual orientation are raunchy and hormonal. also, i think the
unmarried men contracting aids outside singapore do pose a threat, in that
they might get married to women and spread the infection right down to their
children (and babies with aids is the worst part). and who's to say that
these men don't indulge in casual sex even in singapore?

i think it is highly plausible that the media is to blame for the
sensationalisation of the issue, but it merits discussion anyway.

my response to the entire issue of homosexuality/HIV/Nation parties in
singapore - basically what i said on the 13a blog, but edited for language
and coherence --


About this issue in general:
it was really in very bad taste for sadasivan to not only blame the gay
community, but pinpoint an event and degrade the whole issue to "seeding
infection" -- an obviously explosive comment, with no conclusive data
whatsoever. while it's true in many parts of the world that AIDs spreads
faster in the gay community, gays are still a minority in the AIDs victims
here. and the general Asian AIDs situation seems to be more with hets than
gays, because it's been more among the unaware than the promiscuous. (who
says all gays are promiscuous anyway. gross generalisation.)

granted, he himself says that it's only a hypothesis and all, but being a
public figure he should know that by quoting such a theory, he's validating
it to some extent. shouldn't politicians etc have a responsibility NOT to
give controversial opinions about very controversial issues if they don't
have strong evidence? As the Fridae chief says, “until research is done,
it's premature to forward any hypothesis, as it taints the public's
perception of HIV. His statements were very damaging.'

on fridae.com it says that an AfA booth handing out condoms etc at Nation.04
was closed down because the authorities felt it was promoting gay sex. this
is just despicable and irresponsible. if the point is to curb the AIDs
epidemic, then any group that is willing to acknowledge that gay sex WILL
happen and that any sex does bring with it the risk of AIDs and is willing
to try and promote SAFE sex is doing something good. I do believe it was
wrong of the authorities to mess that up.

they can't be deluding themselves that NOT handing out condoms will reduce
the number of sexual acts going on that night, can they? or do they think
that just because gay sex is illegal - which defies sense in itself - that
people should not try to make it safer? it makes absolutely zero sense to
me. in my opinion, anything that promotes safe sex among everyone - not just
gays - should be authorised. especially as fridae also says that blaming
gays for introducing AIDs may make people complacent about heterosexual sex.

like the website says, putting the spotlight on the gays is just
counterproductive because increased stigma will just lead to increased
reluctance to get tested etc, when the very root could have been that more
people are getting tested and therefore there's been an increase in
IDENTIFIED AIDs victims.

another article on fridae says:
"[balaji] said Singapore was fortunate that HIV had not entered the general
population in a big way, with the disease generally limited to two distinct
groups of men that needed attention: "MSM i.e. the gays, and heterosexual
men having casual sex in other countries."

He added, "Of the two, the gays are the bigger concern.""

1. people in singapore have casual sex. 2. since when is a rise of 23 cases
in a gay community of thousands big statistical evidence that they should be
a bigger problem? 3. perhaps it's just people are getting more comfortable
with coming out with their homosexuality and with getting tested, thus the
rise in gay AIDs cases. 4. gay AIDs victims are still only a third of all
cases, and yet they find any excuse to pintpoint the gay community for
causing the problem?

you know i don't think I’m completely denying that gays might very well be
the problem, or that gay men might be more promiscuous – though I think mr
sowden’s probably right that it’s the young in general who are fascinated by
sex and actively sexual, and how many of the young are gay anyway? it's just
that how can a minister go around making accusations with no concrete
evidence? because making baseless accusations just shows that they seem to
care less about countering an AIDs epidemic than about making evident their
distaste for homosexuality.

and conspiracy theory no. 2: maybe they're just trying to shut down the
Nation parties because they morally disapprove of public gay fraternisation.
if they can straightfacedly keep a law that puts restrictions on the very
private act of sex, then i can easily see the government secretly having
such an objective as well.

About the article in the Sunday Times 13/3/05:
the article really bothers me. anything that begins like some B-grade
trying-to-be-thriller, "they come to party, but many end up pairing up and
going off to hotel rooms" should be trashed. the entire article screams
melodrama. how is it even relevant to the issue (besides to juice up the
action) to describe what the men at the parties were wearing? just
perpetuates the images of homosexuals - "fairies and sailors" which is apt
indeed right?

"desensitises and normalises a behaviour which would be construed
intuitively as unnatural." first, her english needs work. secondly, what
does she mean by "a behaviour"? because if she's referring to the fact of
homosexuality she ought to realise by now how bigoted it is to try and
denounce it because while singapore obviously entertains the anti-gay
sentiment pretty well, i think society in general has sort of progressed
beyond calling gays unnatural and evil. i think. (or maybe Shoojee’s email
about the homophobic J2s proves me wrong). privately held views obviously
differ, but to make such comments in a newspaper is awful. Or rather, for
the newspaper to have published them is. if she's referring to a lifestyle
of casual sex: a) not all homosexuals indulge in a bacchanalian lifestyle of
drunkenness and sexsexsex. b) casual sex is a fact, even in the heterosexual
side of the world. even in singapore. and the very repressed nature that
causes you to believe in the purity and chastity of your straight (pun
intended) little world is half the reason there is a rather strong
subculture of casual sex even among heterosexual teenagers. face up, little
lady.

"couples, both same sex and otherwise, lock lips and grope each other
discreetly on the crowded dance floor". correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't
this the general eventage on any dance floor at any party? i mean, parties
with young people, not fancy Ferrari Club parties.

so sam and his hongkong guy? it could easily have been sally and her own
random hongkong guy whom she met one night in some crowded smokey club and
ended up in his room. they would've used a condom too, and her casual
behaviour, in some sense, would have just been as much cause for concern as
sam's. so why does the gay community have to be blamed? so the Nation
parties end in sex for a lot of people. but how about the thousands of other
parties at clubs etc, which also end in sex for a lot of people? i know that
homosexuals are more into the pleasure principle and all, and to some extent
casual sex doesn’t bother them, but I’m nonetheless disgusted at the
unabashed prejudice.

and, really "it undermines the basic family value of committed love, the
importance of marriage". you know if singapore were a little more accepting
of homosexuals there would actually be couples who wanted to be married
here? and i can't believe she's cheeky enough to insinuate that a 'gay
lifestyle' - and generalising the whole thing into a single Type of
lifestyle in itself is so wrong - is fundamentally opposed to committed
love. homosexuals here can't even have families, they can't adopt kids
together, they can't be a legal couple. so how does this even apply? if
young people are going to be homosexuals, underexposure to the fact that a
community exists in singapore is just going to make it worse - atleast based
on the assumption that you can't change your sexuality. and underexposure
leads to repression, which just strengthens an underground culture of
so-called depravity. a little openness would be good, you know?

why can't people accept that homosexuals are human? and realise that
removing a party from the social scene isn't going to do a whole lot to
remove either homosexuality or casual sex? IF at all homosexuality and
casual sex ought to be removed. in my opinon: homosexuality exists, it's as
good or bad as anything else about human behaviour. and because homosexuals
are human beings, they deserve human rights and human compassion just like
any other humans. casual sex: not so good, but it happens inevitably so the
only thing to do is to encourage safe sex, and NOT target one group of
society for apparently promoting casual sex, and maybe create a society
that's more open about sex so that sex doesn't become such a repressed
desire and doesn't breed rebellion.

and the page that that article was on was dominated by a large purple
advertisement for Marriage Convention 2005? All "family matters" and stuff.
How ironic. It just screams FAMILY VALUES doesn’t it?