Category: Personal

The okcupid Dating Persona Test

4 comments

My friend sent this test from okcupid.com to me. This is the result of the test on the first try. You can always take it again and again to get the tailored result or find out how many ‘species’ there are, if you want. 😛

The Boy Next Door

The Boy Next Door

Random Gentle Love Dreamer (RGLD)

Kind, yearning, playful, you are The Boy Next Door. You’re looking for real Love, a lot like girls do. It might not be manly, but it’s sweet.

We think the next three years will be very exciting and fruitful ones for you. Your spontaneous, creative side makes you a charming date, and we think you have a horny side just waiting to shine. Or glisten, rather. You enter new relationships unusually hopeful, and the first moments are especially glorious. If you’ve had some things not work out before, so what.

On paper, most girls would name the Boy Next Door as their ideal mate. In the real world, however, you’re often passed over for more dangerous or masculine men. You’re the typical “nice guy:” without just a touch of cockiness, you’re doomed with girls. A shoulder to cry on? Okay, sure. But never a penis to hold.

More than any other type, Boys Next Door evolve as they get older. As we said, many find true love, but some fail miserably in the search. These tarnished few grow up to be The Men Next Door, who are creepy as hell, offering backrubs to kids and what not.
ALWAYS AVOID: The Nymph (DBSD)

CONSIDER: The Maid of Honor (DGLM), The Peach (RGLM)

 Your exact male opposite:

The 5-Night Stand

The 5-Night Stand

Deliberate Brutal Sex Master

PS: The site gave a set of codes to display the results which for some odd reasons fouls up my formatting. I tried modifying it to make it good but my limited understanding in DHTML leaves me baffled by their coding wizardry. So I reverse engineered it… and if the format is appearing strange, blame it on my lousy HTML skills.

Pulau Ubin Trip

3 comments

Went with my church friends to Pulau Ubin today. It rained pretty heavily for about 30 minutes or so before the weather clears up. But that was good because it kept the entire morning cool as we broke up in groups to go around exploring the island on our own.

It is sad I have never been to Ubin for all my life until now. There are some quiet places away from the noisy and packed city which I liked, and it is a good escape from the city, though one of my church friends mentioned that today is a little quiet maybe because of the early morning rain causing some people to put off their plans to visit.

Here are some photos I took with my beloved FZ8…. and of course, modified with Picasa. 😛


NMP Siew Kum Hong

One comment

I have said I will not write anymore about 377A, but unfortunately, it seems I do not have the luxury. I was just confronted by Priss over my support of 377A.

Priss was reasonably upset that I had stood for it, and she showed me what the comments some of the other supporters had written. I won’t repeat those bigoted and homophobic comments since I do not stand for any of those arguments myself. I was reasonably appalled and I am quite sure quite a number of those who signed for it would be reasonably upset as well if they had gone through them.

I was further confronted by the fact that some has attacked Mr Siew Kum Hong and called for his removal or resignation.

I do not know Mr Siew personally, but it was many years ago that we had exchanged views on soc.culture.singapore. Then a university undergrad at NUS, Mr Siew gives me the impression as a reasonable, calm, and knowledgeable person. I enjoyed writing in response to Mr Siew, and to read his well thought of comments.

While I don’t have a single clue why Mr Siew stood for repealing 377A, from my old impression of him, I believed he has looked at all the angles and decided that this is a good cause he should champion in his capacity as a NMP. (I would prefer he does things out of his own motivation than just sing endless praises of the Tali-PAP, or play devils advocate or act as a fake opposition. It was certainly better than people talking about people who eats and plays loud music on MRT, for starters.)

If I meet Mr Siew in person, I would give him a pat on the back even though I disagree with what he is championing. Not for the reason I had a good impression of the man, but for what he put at stake for his cause. I wondered if he had seen the reaction coming at him for doing this, would he persevere?

The sacrifice he is making I can definitely respect, though I cannot say the same for the endless chatters of a lot of pro-repeal bloggers whom in my opinion has got zilch to lose for championing for the repeal. (In other words, no matter how articulate you are or how well you are presenting your points, you are just a trend follower because it is my opinion you have nothing to lose to just follow it. You have made no sacrifices and have no clue what you will pay to champion the cause.)

So I say, to those who are almost literally crying for Mr Siew’s blood, leave Mr Siew alone. The call for his resignation or removal is completely uncalled for. Is that the only way we know how to deal with those who champions an opposing cause – to completely tear him down and destroy him regardless of what kind of person he may truly be? Is this the kind of politics you want for this country?

Your reaction can set an example of the kind of political participation you want, Singapore. Can’t we calmly just listen to what other people have to say, and politely disagree, no matter how we loathe what they are saying?

The choice is yours, Singapore.

Keep377a.com (IV)

2 comments

This is getting tiresome.

lbandit wrote a blog post in rebuttal to some of my earlier postings so I’ll address some of it. (This will be my final post on this subject since I have already stopped wasting my time commenting in any blogs with this topic anyway and there’s no point for me to rave on and on like a broken record. After all, several of my friends told me, you can’t have everyone be aware of what you are aware of.)

I just need to point out several things (I’ll make it quick since I would really prefer to be able to arrive for on time for lunch with a friend):

  1. “The idea that religious beliefs should be privileged and exempted from criticisms is fallacious.”

    I never said “religious beliefs should be privileged and exempted from criticisms”. If you have problem with my stand, fine, you are free to object. But who are you to attack the basis I come to my conclusion? It is almost as good as, if you surname is WTF, and I said “All you WTF loonies are incapable of reason.”

    Perhaps you would stand for that.

  2. Bereft of any religious beliefs, why should homosexuals be denied the right of marriage?”

    Because even when bereft of any religious beliefs, one needs no further prompting to understand that the duty of population replacement is on heterosexuals. And Singapore already have a low population growth itself. Would that be a good reason enough to justify the argument that such a lifestyle is not against the well being of this country, and by extension same sex marriages and adoption as well? The babies are not going to fall out of the sky from a bird.

    Go ahead and argue for all these “freedoms” but I would prefer you also take up the responsibility of procreation and also, with the decline of population, the tax burden which everyone else would have to take up as well.

    Call me selfish, but before that, please make yourself the most selfless person on this planet.

  3. “You might not have explicitly said that homosexuals are bad eggs or perverts, but you’ve most certainly made the association (and by inference, made the suggestion) in that one paragraph.”

    Blast! Damned if I do. Damned if I don’t.

    I can’t really imagine if I didn’t say that, would it have been better. The next time I’ll just not make any disclaimers and let you jokers assail me before I make them. It might just save me the trouble of doing so anyway. After all, it doesn’t seem to matter that I already said so and I am still accused of it.

    But suddenly, Sigmund Freud’s ‘Moral Projection’ theory, comes to mind. I wonder, whether the people who never believe disclaimers do so because they never meant what they say on their disclaimers?

  4. “If you believe that 377A should be kept in place to curb prostitution, then by the same line of argument, you should propose for the criminalization of all heterosexual sex to help curb prostitution.”.

    I hear this preposterous argument (and variations of it) so often I can only shake my head and laugh. After all, I didn’t say 377A should be kept in place to curb prostitution. I am simply saying 377A should be kept to prevent the introduction of new forms of prostitution. Maybe I should write this in Chinese:

    刑事法第377A章因该留下来防止新类型的卖淫出现，但它本身并不是用来对付卖淫活动。

    If you don’t understand Chinese, sorry lah.

  5. “The same laws that allow the court to charge heterosexual sex in public will allow the court to charge homosexual sex in public. There is no need to keep 377A which criminalize consenting homosexual sex in private.”

    I have no doubt there are laws charging heterosexuals for gross indecency in public. Will you be so kind to show to us those sections which will ensure that, so I can be assured no loophole in the wording will allow some people to get away with it? Thank you.

Yaaaay!! I am done. Now let me go and do my 10 minutes shit + shower so I’ll be in time for the lunch!

Keep377a.com (III)

2 comments


I used to consider yawningbread a respectable political activist site but today, this piece has completely changed my view entirely. It has opened my eyes to see deeper beneath the surface of things.

Did it occur to the author of yawningbread that his very piece showed the very narrow-mindedness that Christians are accused of? Is he even aware that that the moment he starts attacking people’s religious beliefs, he is the one who is slamming shut the door to detente and dialogue? But I know, it is already a pre-conceived notion that there can be no dialogue on this matter with the Christian community or even individual Christians because of their religious stand. Where did the view that Christians have not given more serious thoughts on the matter beyond those their beliefs come from? A few losers professing to be Christians who keeps babbling Bible verses and can’t keep their cool when they can’t hold their own ground in a discussion?

I have always asked myself if atheists or non Christians had put up keep377a.com and equivalents, would it have garnered as much negative reaction? Time and again, when one stands for keeping 377A, the very first thing that is attacked, would be the person’s religious beliefs. They are labeled with terms like * put your ‘favorite’ religion here * loonies, homophobes, conservatives (or ultra-conservatives), narrow-minded, backwards, not up to the times, reactive, counter-progressive, uneducated, under-informed, discriminating, self-righteous moralist and perhaps even ignorant or unreasonable! Are those who stand for keeping 377A expected to stand back and not make a decision on what a future they want to have for their children? Is the future the pro-repeal community offers the only one everyone else can choose? Did I not hear that there should be freedom of choice? Or is anyone who chooses because of his religious conviction not free to do so now?

Talking about children and the future… it amazes (or amuses me) that some even resort to arguments – or curses – like “Wait until you have kids like them then you know!” Duh!

When I looked back on how I come to my decision to sign on keep377a, I realised that even when discussing this among my own Christian friends, none of us had ever started Bible-thumping to convince one another on ‘just how right’ our stand is. It has never occurred to any of us that our beliefs is all we will ever need for our decisions. After all, even God said in the Bible, “Let us reason together.” And in fact, I suspect some of us might find it hard to reconcile Old Testament views on homosexuality against the teachings of love by Jesus Christ Himself.

Anyway, we also have non-Christian friends we share our opinions with. Among most of the friends I have spoken with, they are other fence-sitters or supporters of keeping 377A. Anyway, are we all loonies when we stand for keeping 377A because of some of the following concerns?

  1. Will repealing of 377A be the last of it? What’s next? Same sex marriage and adoption? Who will give society the assurance that this will be last that society will have to give? You might ask what is there to fear from that, but before that, what assurance is there for them not to fear?

  2. Will repealing of 377A see an increase in a form of ‘prostitution’ that caters to this need? (I know it’s mere conjecture to bring up this point and it might not necessarily happen, but if – big if – it does happen, who will bear responsibility for the problem? Even before that, who can assure those who are for keeping 377A that it won’t happen?)

  3. Related to pt. 2, not everyone who have male-male sexual relations are homosexuals. There are also bi-sexuals involved. And there are also those who are into perverted forms of sexual pleasures. Was this taken into consideration? Unless this is addressed, no one can fault those who felt repulsed by this to stand for keeping 377A, right? After all, aren’t laws in place just to prevent bad eggs from running rampant? (And I am in no way suggesting homosexuals are bad eggs or perverts!!)

  4. Most Singaporeans do not really care what goes on behind close doors. But the complete repeal of 377A would mean repealing also the part that criminalises the act in public. How can anyone be expected to stand for that when they wouldn’t even stand for public acts of sexual intercourse in public by heterosexuals? In fact, while I suspect there are sections on the Penal Code that addresses points 2 and 3, the pro-repeal community has failed dismally to provide that information to the anti-repeal community to assuage their concerns.

  5. Some people choose to keep the status quo are concerned that they do not have complete picture of the matter to make a decision. They are concerned that if they have made a decision now, that decision may not be revocable in the future if their decision is later proven to be made on incomplete or erroneous information. You might want to tell these people to sit on the fence instead but they choose not to do so for fear their non-participation may create the same result as with deciding for the wrong side. After all, we have to be responsible for the future we leave for our future generations.

All I have to say is, if yawningbread is a representation of the pro-repeal group, then I am utterly disappointed on how they are reacting to their detractors both as a Christian, and as a citizen of this country who would like to see an alternate political future for this country other than that of the Tale-PAP.


1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 27