Why the marital rape exemption is senseless

I was prepared to leave this letter well alone until I read that the author is a philosophy tutor at NUS and this is an attempt to emulate the system of Aquinas in Summa Theologiae.

And better still I think this was one of the rare instances where everyone on the political spectrum in YoungRepublic condemned it, which is a remarkable show of unity and demonstrates how absurd his position is. But leaving aside the argument to popularity which might have been applied in the prior statement, here's why it's still fundamentally wrong in the first place.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_166104.html

I REFER to the article, 'Rape is rape, so husbands should not have immunity" by Dr Andy Ho (ST, Oct 2).

To remove bias, 'rape' here means only 'non-consensual sex', with no overtone.

With no overtone?! Sorry, the very fact that it is non-consensual makes it wrong. Unless you want to adopt the positions that facially a person's consent is not needed for acts done to him, this statement is latent non-sense (unsinn) in a Wittgenstein fashion i.e. it does not make sense insofar as one cannot imagine it to be falsifiable.

Dr Ho rebuts arguments for 'marital rape is not a crime'.

One: A woman's consent to marriage implies her lifelong consent to sex. Rebuttal: Lifelong consent becomes a 'legal fiction' when the husband turns into a violent stranger. Comment: The law makes no such exception, and no supporting argument is offered for this assertion.

One general comment. He presumes an A/Not A situation wherein rebuttal of Dr. Ho's positions means that his positions stands when in fact he bears the burden of demonstrating why the wife is not equally situated with non-married women with whom the rapist has sexual relations with and therefore the marital rape exemption might be justified despite an ostensible violation of the principle of the equal application of the law.

Two, maybe some believe that a woman's consent to marriage implies her lifelong consent to sex but I don't see a reason why this is the case. If so, then this entire comment is irrelevant. Why does marriage imply consent to sex anymore than it implies consent to say subjugation to the husband or the husband's dominion his hand in discipline? Marriage is a civil and legal institution (so if the Catholics allow for the annulment of marriage on the basis of non-consumation according to their religious beliefs, then so be it) and therefore all the wife consents to are the legal duties that are imposed by law. The common law has come a long way from saying that the wife has no legal personality (no standing before the law) because she is simply an extension of her husband. Since she is recognize to be her own legal person, it must be established why she somehow loses the right not to be raped by her husband as opposed to when she was not married to him.

Three, even if this was the basis of the law, Dr Ho's rebuttal stands.

Four, even if it did not, the interpretation of the letter writer is erroneous. One the matter of lifelong consent to sex, it would be more akin to the idea that the wife cannot withhold sex and still have the marriage stand NOT that the wife cannot withhold consent to sex.

Two: Marriage is a private intimacy, into which the law should thus not intrude. Rebuttal: Marriage as a private intimacy wrongly presumes the interests of husband and wife are aligned. Comment: Neither 'private' nor 'intimacy' presumes interests are aligned.

Nope, good try. The penal code (first drafted for India) is a very old piece of legislation and is a codification of the common law on criminal matters (with some exceptions like the right to self-defense where apparently the drafter's belief was that the natives were so submissive that there would not fight back even if attacked to death and therefore a right of private defense had to be added. Go figure). One of the ideas in the common law was that the wife was simply the extension of her husband and one of the rationales was that their interest were aligned.

Even if this were not true, it still misses the point of similarly situated for an equality of law analysis.

Three: Making marital rape a crime will poison reconciliation. Rebuttal: Marital rape already poisons reconciliation. Comment: Many marital rape victims do 'forgive and forget', and reconcile.

Battered Wife Syndrome. Go google it. They eventually crack and murder their husbands.

Also many don't, prosecution can still be done. Except that because we can't use the rape provision (which allows for sentences of up to 20 years), we have to get them on much lesser charges under use of force, causing hurt (max of a year unless grievous hurt is caused and the definition of grievous hurt is very exactly defined only to include stuff like emasculation, breaking of a limb, causing the person to be hospitalized for more than 30 days etc. which is not what rapes are about) or the stupid 377 provisions. The point to be emphasized is that the act of rape itself is the harm not the harm caused which tends not to be physical).

Four: Making marital rape a crime makes wives more likely to falsely accuse husbands. Rebuttal: England and Ireland have made marital rape a crime, without increasing false accusations. Comment: Dr Ho has a counter-example.

Actually, Dr Ho's point would have stood anyway since it would be the onus of those who advocate the marital rape exemption to prove that false accusations would be a serious problem or even a problem at all. The problem of prosecuting rape is not that of false convictions (although it might happen) but more so that of not being able to convict the rapist because of due process requirments in criminal law that (rightly in principle) make conviction hard. Should it boil down to a he-said-she-said situation, it is not going to be easy to convict on the basis of beyond a reasonable doubt. Add that to the situation of a marriage and in fact unless one puts in presumptions of non-consent, convictions are going to be very very difficult.

Dr Ho argues for 'marital rape should be a crime'.

One: Almost all aspects of women's legal subordination to men have been rejected. Comment: A traffic sign saying 'No entry - except ambulances' will insist on the exception.

There the exception can be justified. Here it cannot be. Therefore there are not analogous and the analogy does not stand.

Two: 'Rape is rape, so the marital rape exception should be completely erased.' Comment: The marital rape exception is built into the law. Insisting the exception be removed does not entail it should be.

The onus is on those wanting the marital rape exemption to justify why the woman once married is not similar situated to a woman who is not married when it comes to the application of rape laws.

Two, it is irrelevant that the exception is built into the law. Unless one commits the fallacy that the status quo is necessarily good, there is no merit to the point. Laws can be amended and repealled and that was the whole point of this exercise in the first place.

UNLESS he wants to argue that even the limited amendment to the marital rape exemption here was wrong? Good luck

Three: Marital rape harms the victim more than does stranger rape, which is a crime. Comment: First, harm may not be a sufficient reason here. Husbands also have duties to wives that strangers do not. Second, the alleged greater harms of betrayal, entrapment and isolation likely presume marital sex must be consensual, rendering the argument circular.

I will wrote the following brilliant response from a member of the YoungRepublic here
"He [the letter writer] also claimed to have found 'circular thinking':

1. Being raped by your husband is shittier than being raped by a stranger
2. But it is only shittier because there is some kind of meta-consent
insofar as he is your husband
3. But rape is a sexual act without consent therefore this is circular

When in fact it is:

1. Being raped by your husband is shittier than being raped by a stranger
because you trusted your husband to treat you with love and respect.

2. Being raped by your husband is therefore both a betrayal of the respect
he owes you as a woman AND as wife.

3. Therefore marital rape, far from being an exception to rape laws, should
be treated as a more heinous form of rape."

So yeah...whatever he said above.

Four: 'Why does the system then deny her what she considers to be in her best interest?' That is, if a wife considers it in her best interest that marital rape is a crime, then marital rape should be a crime. Comment: First, the law must consider the general interest, not that of just one party. Second, wives do not dictate the law.

The general interest is the protection of the individual from crimes, one of which is the protection of the individual from even simply being touched without consent, see here the tort of trespass to the person or what is in the vernacular called battery. Mind you this goes even further than people think it goes, even a simple touch is grounds for liability where there is no consent or implied consent to some de minimis touching when in public. So the consideration here is not that of one party.

Second, one can all too easily replace the word wife with victim to see how utterly fallacious the above is. We have a trial system for a reason.

In summary, we have a case for 'marital rape is not a crime', and none for 'marital rape should be a crime'.

In summary, what we have here is a perfect example of GIGO i.e. Garbage In Garbage Out. If your assumptions and premises are wrong, then you logical analysis will necessarily lead to garbage conclusions.

Peace

10 Best reasons Gay Marriage is wrong:
(I just couldn't resist this classic piece)

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.

I have no idea who originated this so if anyone knows, drop me a mail.

Vice Dean A/P Victor Ramraj responds to Asst/P Yvonne Lee

The freedom to disagree, respectfully
Victor V. Ramraj, For The Straits Times
9 May 2007
Straits Times
English
(c) 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

IT HAS been argued that the decriminalisation of sodomy is the first step on a slippery slope towards a 'homosexual agenda' that includes civil unions and same-sex marriages.

I disagree with this view and the arguments advanced in support of it. Still, the debate on this subject has provided us with a key lesson on the importance of public discussion on matters of deep moral significance - and the importance of respectful disagreement.

First, a few comments on some of the claims in the debate.

Even in societies abroad where legal structures such as same-sex civil unions have been introduced, this did not happen overnight, but only after significant shifts in social and political attitudes.

If the majority of Singaporeans find homosexuality offensive, then there is little reason for them to worry that the entire legal landscape will change in an instant.

If change eventually does come, it will follow only after open and respectful debate and a conscious choice on the part of Singaporeans to become a more tolerant and hospitable society.

Others, particularly in cyberspace this past week, have challenged the accuracy of empirical claims behind the argument to retain sodomy as a crime - and the debate will no doubt continue. I will not repeat these arguments here. As for constitutional law, formal constitutional doctrine on such matters is hardly conclusive. In 1930, Lord Sankey likened a Constitution to 'a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits'. Particularly in Singapore, where the methodology of constitutional law is still evolving, there is much to be said for this vision.

Intolerant vs criminal

I WANT to turn, however, to a rather different point that arises from this controversy. Does branding opponents of decriminalisation 'intolerant' undermine or effectively censor free speech?

Surely, the answer to this question is no. Indeed, the reverse may be more likely; opponents of decriminalisation effectively silence others by continuing to regard the behaviour they oppose as criminal. To be branded intolerant is one thing; to be branded a criminal is quite another.

The publication of letters and commentary in this newspaper shows that those who disagree with decriminalisation are perfectly free to express their views. Perhaps, then, the deeper concern is not that these views will be censored (plainly, they haven't been), but that others will not find them convincing. If that is the true concern, then rigorous and respectful persuasion would be the answer.

If the discussion on Singapore blogs is any indication, recent exchanges about the decriminalisation of sodomy have provoked an important debate, one that demonstrates that Singaporeans, including many tertiary students, are far from apathetic when it comes to issues of great social significance. An issue of profound social importance is receiving the serious public attention, reflection and debate it deserves.

The sources of identity

FOR those who choose to engage in this debate, let us remind ourselves that our words have profound personal impact on those around us, on both sides of this controversy.

Those whose religious views are tolerant of homosexuality, and especially those of us with secular-humanist inclinations, must remain sensitive to the deeply personal and communal role that religious doctrine plays in the lives of many.

At the same time, we must have faith that those who oppose the decriminalisation of sodomy on religious grounds will acknowledge that personal identity need not be a matter of religion at all. It is possible, even common, to define one's identity outside of religion - in terms of one's intimate relationships, career goals, community service, life-long projects and deep personal convictions. A person's sense of identity is no less worthy of respect in the public square on account of its secular sources.

I can only imagine the deep personal anguish experienced by gays and lesbians in Singapore when confronted by the criminal law. Their voices should be heard in the spirit of an open, respectful and meaningful discussion.

Whatever is said in the course of this debate, it is clear that someone, somewhere, will take offence. But the ability for all to speak out should not be taken for granted. There are reasonable limits to be placed on hateful speech - a view that I have defended elsewhere. But in the present context, in a society that is increasingly more open, I find myself drawn to the pithy comment sometimes attributed to Voltaire: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

Just some background, A/P Ramraj runs the Criminal Law/Criminalization aspect of Introduction to Legal Theory for 1st year NUS Law Students and having read his book, I can assure you he is well aware of both sides of the debate but having come down strongly on one side for obvious reasons.

He's obviously a lot more polite and cordial than I would have been but this is still a very punchy article. Separately, he takes a much more accommodationist stance with regards to religion than I would (the difference between fairy tales/myths and religions is the number of adherents. Watch the rise of Scientology and I predict it will go the way of the Church of the Latter Day Saints in becoming mainstream).

This is probably the last I will say on this particular matter because the good Asst/P doesn't have much of a leg to stand on beyond whining about personal attacks (accurate insults much less insults don't detract from the substance of the argument) and playing the two-step by shifting the grounds of her argument.

Not impressed then, not impressed now.

Addendum: Link to my original response added above and here.

Equal Protection, Sexual Orientation and the Homosexual "Agenda"

Been busy but have found some free time now that I've got drafts out on my Philosophy of Law paper and International Merger & Acquisition.

Anyway, Asst/P Yvonne Lee wrote the following article articulating her viewpoint about why decriminalization of homosexuality in Singapore would be an error and I think her article is pretty much logically fallacious on a number of grounds. I had her as a lecturer and thought she was decent and fairly sensible unlike the other constitutional law profs who have made their (erroneous) feelings on this matter pretty clear. As such I must say I am sorely disappointed by her views (not that she would care of course)

A/P Victor Ramraj has a response here. He makes most of the major arguments that need to be made but unlike him, I don't have space constraints.

READERS of The Straits Times have written in to question the rationale for the criminalisation of homosexual acts. It is imperative that we understand the legal and broader social implications, and that Parliament, in the forthcoming debate on the Penal Code reform, carefully considers these implications.

The Home Affairs Ministry has indicated that Section 377A of the Penal Code (S377A) will be retained. S377A prohibits the commission of gross indecency by one male person with another male person. Opinions have been expressed that S377A may be unconstitutional because it discriminates against homosexuals by criminalising homosexual sex and not oral and anal sex committed by heterosexuals or lesbians.

This is an over-simplistic reading of the equality clause.

It should be worth noting that given she was US educated and cited a US Supreme Court case upholding Affirmative Action in University Admissions, she ought to have been aware of Lawrence v. Texas as well, which struck down Texas's anti-sodomy laws as violating the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause). I raise this because despite raising the constitutional issues, I believe it is her analysis that is the overly simplistic one, one governed primarily by parochial and a highly formalistic approach. As we shall come to see, she simply relies on a logical fallacy that the status quo is good in defending the legality of this homophobic piece of legislation.

Worse still, she never provides a substantiation for why we ought to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples. To reframe the issue, it isn't about the right to homosexual sodomy but rather the right for consenting adults (which takes out the fucking stupid pedophilia and bestiality argument out of the water) to engage in sexual acts in the privacy of their bedroom.

Context
FIRSTLY, the legal meaning of equality must be understood within its social context. Equality is not an absolute value. Extreme applications of equality impair community interests and violate the rights of others. Furthermore, the Constitution does not prohibit all forms of discrimination.

Like cases must be treated alike, but Parliament may enact measures which differentiate between different groups. The courts hold that such measures must satisfy two tests to be constitutionally valid: Firstly, the classification must have a rational basis. Secondly, the law must serve a legitimate purpose which is reasonably related to the basis for the classification.

Each differentiating legal measure serves a social objective. For example, a married individual with four children enjoys higher tax relief than one without children. The public good is to encourage married couples to have more babies.

True but primarily irrelevant because she never establishes how a) it is in fact in the public interest to criminalize sodomy, b) to criminalize it only for homosexuals and not heterosexuals and c) to criminalize it only for male homosexuals but not female homosexuals.

At this point, under US Equal Protection Doctrine, it fails not only the rational basis test of Lawrence v. Texas but also the anti-animus principle of Romer v. Evans.

To view the issue of S377A exclusively as a matter of equality omits the broader context - that rights can clash with other rights and community values.

Again irrelevant and begging the question.

When they do, Parliament may pass laws which reflect the public good in preference over the rights of the individual or groups.

I could make the same critique again but I want to do it on a deeper level this time. She's begging the question on a meta-systemic level in that she is asserting that the current judicial interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause is necessarily the right one and the only one at that.

I will proffer instead that the whole idea of individual freedoms is that they cannot be at the mercy of the majoritarian will. Yes, no right is absolute as she correctly points, but her balance is one that would sacrifice the individual's right on the altar of "the public good" when she has provided no grounds for doing so. Short of "because" this is currently the way the legal rational basis review test is structured.

I also want to point out what the rational basis test can stand for. It stands for discriminating on any basis the government wants to. Quotas for women in medicine? Easy, allocation of scare resources, we have statistics that show women don't stay in medicine long. Only families with more than a certain level of income may have 2 or more children. Why? Because only they would be able to afford it etc. I submit that the rational basis test simply is incapable of striking down discriminatory laws, law which would strike the majority of us as unjust.

Any argument to decriminalise homosexual sex must consider the harmful social consequences. For example, would affirming homosexual sexual practices serve the common good? It is a known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections. The law should not facilitate acts which threaten public health.

1) This should then apply to heterosexual sodomy as well
2) Preventive measures can be taken
3) It proves too much: on that highly paternalistic basis, we can ban any activity that is "harmful". Smoking, alcohol, skydiving, driving, eating fast food etc.
To claim that it threats public health is scare mongering and ultimately irrelevant to the consideration here. To iterate, if it's okay for heterosexual couples, why is it not for homosexual couples.

In fact, this is a good example of a measure being both "underinclusive" (why only gay men then?) and "overinclusive" where the ends-means nexus is not particular rational much less tight (preventive measure not bloody criminalization). Of course, our rational basis test is not going to strike it down.

Moreover, any reform to the Penal Code must preserve fundamental values which serve the public good, instead of abstract notions of equality or fashion.

Assertion, begging the question, non-sequitur. I find it utterly hysterical that a Constitutional Law professor is running this argument. Article 4 of the Singapore Constitution states that any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution, is to the extent of that inconsistency, void. So major premise, Constitution trumps any normal piece of law. minor premise, the notion of equality before the law is enshrine under our Constitution (yes one could make the argument that sexual orientation is not a protected class but I want to focus on the idea that the Penal Code trumps these individual freedoms). Therefore, the "abstract notion of equality' does in fact trump the Penal Code.

Oops.

Broader agenda
RECENT developments in foreign jurisdictions like Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States indicate that the move to decriminalise homosexual sex is the first step in a broader homosexual rights agenda to transform social morality:

It becomes clear at this stage, her arguments boils down to homosexual sodomy is icky and somehow morally wrong, despite never proving this particular point. I understand that in her exchange with Mr. Selby she takes offense to a great many things that he says. But not once does she actually demonstrate that she is not in fact myopic or homophobic etc.

Sorry, an accurate insult is not an ad hominen attack, Asst/P.

• If S377A is repealed, homosexual sex is legitimised, transformed from a crime into an 'alternative lifestyle'.

So what? Unless the right of consenting adults to engage in sexual activity in the privacy of their bedrooms is somehow wrong?! That's why I don't buy any of her arguments that she is not perpetuating an anti-homosexual agenda (see how framing and tossing terms around work? Except in my case, it's probably true).

• The minimum age for sodomy must then be specified. This opens the door for homosexual lobbyists to pursue the next step of equalising the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals. The current age of consent for homosexual sex in countries which have decriminalised sodomy ranges from 13 to 18, covering Singapore males from Secondary 1 to junior college.

Again so what? I can legally have sexual intercourse with a secondary school girl. This is an appeal to emotions (another logical fallacy).

• The third step is re-conceptualising homosexuality as a civil right in the name of equality. As an 'alternative lifestyle', homosexual lobbyists will seek for this to be endorsed and 'mainstreamed' into society (for example, arts, education, entertainment and media), beyond the privacy of the bedroom. The current view that 'sexual orientation' should not be a basis for discrimination is problematic. 'Sexual orientation' is a vague term covering a range of sexual expressions, including paedophilia and bestiality. Also, the assertion that one is 'born gay' is scientifically unproven.

Poisoning the well. Non-sequitur. The interesting thing is that unlike anti-gay activist here in the US, she can't use the Teflon coated slippery slope of polygamy because our legal system already sanctions it! Oops.

So what's the basis for why decriminalizing homosexual sodomy (as oppose to homosexual cunnilingus or masturbation which is legal by the way under the new Penal Code) will lead to such horrors and not the legal ones? Hmmmm now... Inquiring legal minds want to know!

Separately, so what if sexual orientation is a vague term, consenting adults, privacy of bed room. Yup that settles the problem of pedophilia or bestiality.

Whether one is "born gay" to me is an irrelevant question. One isn't born Christian or Hindu or Buddhist of Marxist etc. etc. It's a false argument. But the evidence tends to lean towards a genetic basis.

• An active homosexual agenda has engendered clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech and religious liberty. Christian pastors have been criminally prosecuted for sermons declaring that homosexuality is a sin, a view also held by Muslims and many non-religious people who consider homosexuality unnatural and morally repugnant. Attempts have been made to extend 'hate speech' laws to the Bible and Quran.

So we smack them down if that happens. Big whoop. And besides, how is this even bad or worse than the current criminalization?

And gee, we do have something called the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act which places quite a few restrictions on what religious figures can say so that's a legitimate restriction on her so-called religious liberty there. If preaching hate from the pulpit against political figures is illegal, why not homosexuality? And if rights aren't absolute, why should the balance swing against them? So once again, begging the question.

People who oppose the homosexual agenda are branded as intolerant, bigoted, homophobes, or hateful towards homosexuals who are merely 'different'. This does not promote free speech but seeks to censor it. If this intolerance against religion is imported into multiracial and multireligious Singapore, this will breed social divisiveness.

So what? Begging the question. And because I haven't seen a rational argument against homosexuality yet, yes I will brand them as intolerant, bigoted, homophobes and hateful. Please, I readily await being proven wrong.

Besides, oh boo hoo... Being called a bad name is worse being branded a criminal, or deviant or abomination unto god or specifically immoral as her article has insinuated. And because of religious privilege, one can't strike back as effectively.

I say that beliefs should not get a free pass just because they are "religious" in nature. And separately, Muslims and Christians aren't a majority and even there are divisions as to their viewpoints on homosexuality. And last I check, Singapore was a secular state. Between hurt feelings and genuine deprivation of liberty, I think I'll pick the latter thank you.

Public good? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The claims is easier made that it is in the public good that valuable members of society ought not to subject to impermissible discrimination because of certain erroneous interpretations of some bronze age religions.

• The final step involves attempts to redefine 'marriage', the fundamental institution and bedrock of many civilisations. The redefinition is a radical reconstruction of 'marriage' - no longer a union between man and woman but includes 'same-sex marriage'. Homosexuals must then be allowed to marry someone of the same sex and be given the benefits of marriage such as tax benefits, adoption of children and/or state-funded access to alternative 'reproduction' methods.

So what? Assertions as to the nature of marriage. It so was not a bed rock in Roman Civilization. Under Roman Law, marriage (assuming it was not in manus which fell out of favour rapidly anyway) was purely consensual and divorce was simply a matter of deciding that one did not want to be in a marriage anymore. Changes to marriage and divorce occurred when Christianity became the state religion. As long as we're engaging in post hoc fallacies, we can also say that Christianity caused the downfall of the Roman Empire because its adoption preceded it.

And oh, the real fundamental basis of marriage and bedrock principle was that women were chattel and wives a extension of their husbands (under a Roman manus marriage, wives were consider children to their husband which explains their massive unpopularity and disuse). So what exactly is she arguing about here?

The argument that decriminalising homosexual sex will not cause a change in moral attitudes is erroneous. It has been suggested that even after adultery was decriminalised, it remained morally reprehensible. So too, decriminalising homosexual sex will not cause a shift in moral attitudes.

So what? Actually I would up the case of Plessy v. Furgeson where the US Supreme Court held that "separate but equal" did not harm the Blacks because any notions of inferiority was simply self-inflicted. The law does have normative force. The US Supreme Court eventually had to make a massive mea culpa in Brown v. Board of Education and reject this doctrine because they were proven wrong empirically and recognized that if the law says you're different or deviant, people actually buy that.

While the law embodies a moral judgment, it is not always prudent for the law to punish all immoral behaviour. However, to draw an analogy between adulterers and homosexuals is fallacious. Adulterers do not seek societal approval, but certain homosexual activists campaign to alter the public mindset and to gain legal and social endorsement of the gay lifestyle.

Non-sequitur. Firstly, presumes that the law should ban some and not all immoral behavior, I would love to see where she can logically draw that line. Second, begging the question that homosexuality is immoral. Third, my moral views on adultery can be grounded on non-religious grounds. I challenge anyone trying to do so for homosexuality on non-religious grounds.

The fact is, under the proposed Penal Code reform, homosexuals wishing to lead private lives may do so, provided they do not foist their homosexual acts on the public.

This very neatly exposes her real agenda. The only explanation left for her argument is that she opposes homosexuality.

Back to US Constitutional law, the Court should not (especially under Equal Protection Doctrine) give succour to private prejudices, Palmore v. Sidoti, where the Supreme Court reversed a decision to give custody of the child to the father because the mother had married outside of her race to a Black man.

So why have this special provision which signals out homosexuals and only male homosexuals at all?!! We already have public indecency laws. Sorry ma'am, you can't have you cake and try to eat it. Now the article is just incoherent.

S377A is a legitimate statement of the values of our society. In constitutional terms, equality claims operate within a broader social context.

Assertion. Begging the question. Legitimate in the eyes of the law perhaps. But hardly moral. In fact if you're a Natural Lawyer, Lex Injusta non Est Lex, An Unjust Law Is Not Law. So even if the Constitution does not prohibit it, Natural Law does.

Homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens. Allowing an aggressive homosexual rights agenda to dictate law reform ignores the nature of Singapore's multireligious, multiracial community. Such an agenda would be divisive. Therefore, the attention given to fundamental moral values of the majority of citizens by retaining S377A in its entirety strikes the right balance.

Assertion. Prove it.

So is adultery, so is the marital rape exemption which is finally going to be repealed. Using phrases like "aggressive homosexual rights agenda" just marks you out as a religious conservative right wing fundy using the same old repeatedly debunked talking points.

This has been a monumentally wrongheaded and badly written piece. I am always very happy to stand by what I say and always remain ready to defend them.

Addendum: Here is a philosopher's take (Editor of Royal Institute of Philosophy Journal Think) on the common arguments against homosexuality. It's a marvelous taking apart and a great read to boot.

Addendum 2: I realize that not all of us have such a distinct lack of life as to read up obsessively about logical fallacies and/or debaters. So I have included links that explain some of the terms I have used.

Reality check: 95 percent of Americans had premarital sex - CNN.com

And the rate has been fairly stable all the way back to the 1940s. So there really wasn't a golden age of chaste youngsters. Which makes perfect sense given that there is an evolutionary reason why puberty starts as a fairly young age i.e. much younger than what we would common accept as a statutory age of consent.

Nevertheless I read it with a raised eyebrow as the numbers are pretty high. And as a skeptic, anytime I see something that agrees with me so completely, I tend to be cautious in affirming it until more facts come to light.

So here's the report from the Guttmacher Institute.

But first a disclaimer. I am not a statistician nor do I have much training in them outside of my A Level C Math classes. Furthermore, I don't really have a good ground in such research methodology, or at least nothing formally learned.

The first thing that struck me was their narrow definition of pre-martital sex which they defined as "either having had vaginal intercourse before first marrying or ever having had intercourse and never having married". The reason I say this is that there have been a couple of studies showing that teens (and adults) who while proclaiming never to have had sex, have engaged in what is called "anything-but" behavior i.e. having had engaged in what would be considered sexual activities such as mutual masturbation, oral and anal sexual intercourse. So either the figures would be way higher if such activities were included or possibly that sexual activity comes in a complete package.

Here are the results they drew:

Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age 44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, 96% of men, and 97% of those who had ever had sex) had had premarital sex. Even among those who abstained until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. Among cohorts of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital sex by age 30. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.

Well, so much for "expected standard" of behavior among society at large.

Note the last sentence because I want to point out a recent absurdity by the Bush "faith based" Administration which is now advocating abstinence until 30. That's right people, you can by now drink, drive, smoke, get killed and kill and you can't have sex. This is the question I've always wanted to ask one of those abstinence only people during those talks i.e. even if we were to take at face value everything you said thus far, would you include adults under the category of not having pre-marital sex and on what basis would you justify it.

Anyway, the rest of the research paper reads well and basically just repeatedly kicks the "conventional" wisdom in the face and then some more.

Some points to note. Median age of first premarital sex has been dropping since 1954 to 1993 (20.4 to 17.3) before creeping up for the period of 1994-2003 (17.6). Percentage who had had premarital sex by 15 has indeed shot up from 4% in the period of 1954-63 to 14 percent in 1984-93. Although the biggest percentage rise (50%) was between the periods of 1954-63 and 1964-73. While the percentage rise between 1984-93 and 1994-2003 was 7.69% (to 2 sf). Same goes for fall in median age.

Otherwise, the figures across the board since 1964 have been really really stable i.e. definitely not outside of the bounds of statistical significant i.e. noise.

So what would be the "moral" choice now? To basically ignore reality and the wider stable historical and future trends it presents, or continue with what is really a screwed up policy and in turn screwing up the lives of countless teenagers along the way? Sorry, irrational religious beliefs can no respect from me, particularly in this circumstance.

Peace.

Local incoherent homophobe

Just read it and the comments. At last he's thrown off the pretense that he's not a homophobe and gone into full blown rightwing, bigoted lying that homosexuality promotes pedophilia.

Read the post and in particular the comments. His arguments have been shredded repeatedly, but like a boxing trainer, he just keeps coming back by ignoring the points asserting he's right and generally going "la-la-la I can't hear you".

As CL says, his argument is more against casual sex than homosexuality per se. Or as I put it, his arguments (and I use the term loosely) apply equally against heterosexuals.

So I suggested that he change the name of his blog to "Why Be Sexual?".

Well, let's see what he comes up with next.

Update: Well boo hoo. For the third time, he has called me stupid and refused to engage in debate.

TODAYonline: Talking Sex with Mom and Dad
by Frances Ong Hock Lin

This should be fun....heh heh. But evil malicious thoughts aside, I'm going to use this as a launching pad to discuss one of the oddities of some discussions I've had with social and religious conservatives and the somewhat contradictory stance taken with regards to the Naturalist argument a.k.a. the Naturalist fallacy i.e. if it is natural it must be right.

An example would be a discussion on homosexual rights where I exercised my right to free speach and basically ripped into a truly horrid post arguing against homosexuals having rights (on the basis that their act was unnatural and therefore their act should not be condoned etc.). But in another post on the same thread, I (amongst) some others) was challenged to provide a defence to rape on the argument that since it is natural i.e. baboons amongst other primates and some other species use rape as a form of assertion of dominance, keeping control of the pack and ensuring their genes can passed on.

Well the obvious answer is that some animals mate for life. A better argument is that it causes harm to 3rd parties and hence flouts the Harm Principle or some varient of the Golden Rule can be used here.

But more intrinsically, the argument is quite a bit of bunk because just as something happens that way, does not necessarily mean it ought to happen that way. Dawkin, author of the Selfish Gene, called by others a militant atheist and a believer in determinism and reductionism, nevertheless argues that as humans and bestowed (or at least having the appearance) of rationality and logic can and should transcend such naturalist tendancies. And I think that is right.

Anyway, I make no apologies for ripping into such posts. I simply get annoyed when our Sedition Act protects the supposed vulnerability of our fragile social, cultural and religious peace while denying equivalent protection to a much more vulnerable class i.e. sexual minorities. But that's a post for another time.

And now, back to the post....

The other day, my seven-year-old son told me he can only have "baby sex" when he is married, while it is perfectly okay to have "talking sex" all the time. I was caught off-guard and wondered what he meant.

But I soon recalled that in one of our many talks with our children, we had made a distinction between social intercourse (talking sex) and sexual intercourse (baby sex). We just hope that when our son announces to the whole world that he is having "sex" with his parents, we will not be arrested!

I don't see anything particularly wrong with pre-marital sex, not considering the day and age in which we live in, mostly the ready availability of multiple forms of contraception. The other stuff can be handled by education.

We have this long-standing tradition that when our children reach the age of eight, we would answer any question they have about sex — a mere three-letter word, yet much misunderstood

In Singapore, there is an interesting dichotomy. Teenagers and young unmarried adults are actively having sex and going for abortions, while married Singaporeans are too tired to even reproduce enough to replace themselves.

Um...why is this even a dichotomy? It's basically a false one for a number of reasons.
1. Pareto's Law. For most issues, it tends to be a disproportionately small number that account of a disproportionately large number of that incidences. Which is why, the old stat that one in three marriages in America end is divorce is very misleading. Similarly, five programmes make up 80% of the US Budget, which has led Paul Krugman to describe it as a huge pension fund (Social Security is the second largest programme) with an army.

2. Who has and get abortions? Her argument only works if it is indeed true that "teenagers and young unmarried adults are actively having sex and going for abortions" WHEREAS "married Singaporeans are too tired to even reproduce enough to replace themselves". And in fact, for this comment to be even not misleading, the first category has got to be more or even substantially more than the second.

Why are we parents so afraid to admit that we enjoy the art of making babies? Like many, at first I felt shy letting my children know we have an active sex life. It was also difficult to see my children as potentially active sexual beings; like my parents before me, it is more comforting to think of one's children as asexual.

Sex is not merely for procreation. And the sooner we can around to admitting that, the sooner we can have proper comprehensive sexual education, one in particular that does not simply involve the sort that believes that sex equals tab A inserting into slot b.

At this point, I'm honestly wondering whether she really "talks sex" with her kids or whether her notion of sex equals simply vaginal intercourse. That's a very dangerous stance to take. We pretty much know of the dangers of the transmission of STDs through unprotected vaginal intercourse, but the risk is still there with unprotected oral sex.

Studying in a convent in the 1970s, our only sources of information about sex were our friends, magazines and, for some of us, our boyfriends.

Fortunately, the convent had a good sex education programme. The irony of it was that it was the nun and priest — having taken vows of celibacy — who were the most open adults we knew on this issue.

I'll take her word on this but yes, that's truly truly ironic. I've also always wondered about RC priest giving marriage advice given that they are not allowed to marry either.

From them, we learnt to understand our own sexuality, that being masculine or feminine was not a crime, and being interested in the opposite sex was part of growing up. When my husband and I were courting, we were sorely tempted like any hot-blooded teenagers. However, we choose not to engage in pre-marital sex because we were not sure that we would be marrying each other.

The first sentence must be understood in a very particular context. Google her name and look at some of her previous articles. When she says feminine, she means the subservient sort (submissive wife anyone?). I'm not sure what she means by masculinity but I fear for the worst.

And I think it's rather cute that pre-marital sex is alright if you know you're going to marry your partner. Kinda sweet actually. But still, fully misguided. In fact, I'm still waiting for a moral argument against pre-marital sex that does not involve either an appeal to some religious authority or text or based upon some truly fallacious logic like the "meaning" of marriage.

Now we are married, we are glad we had waited. We need not live with the fact that we had a shotgun marriage or that we were pressured to get married because we'd had sex.

Hmmmm...ho hum. See above.

Sex education is more than the process of acquiring information. The education system is doing its part in systematically providing our students with relevant information.

Oh really now. *Snort* If sending in a Catholic group to give a lecture on sexual education is actually providing people with relevant information, I'll eat my socks. Unless one considers lying to students a good thing to scare them away from a misconception of sex. Click here for my take on what happened at AJC.

But, sex education should also be about developing attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, relationships and intimacy. It is equipping our children with a set of skills so that they can make educated choices about their sexual behaviour. Moreover, they have to feel confident about acting on these choices, and not be tricked or pressed into doing something they might regret later.

I absolutely agree. But see the next paragraph on how we diverge.

That's why sex education must begin at home. Sex between two happily married people is so seldom portrayed on TV shows or other mass media; instead, teenage or pre-marital sex is glorified.

And the problem with that is? The problem is that the premise on which she makes this assertion is never substantiated. I would love to see a post on why pre-marital sex is necessarily bad. Heck even Asst Prof Tan Seow Hon couldn't do that in her last article in the ST.

As parents, the best gift we can give our children is to help them understand that sex is best enjoyed within a marriage. Hopefully, this will plant in them a value system that does not include sex as a tool to gain approval or acceptance.

Bah humbug, more unsubstantiated assertions.

At the age of five or six, we teach our children to respect their bodies and that no one should be allowed to touch them. We introduce the subject so that they do not find it difficult, shameful or mysterious. When they reach their eighth birthday, they are allowed to ask us any questions about sex, and we answer them as best we can — factually, truthfully and sincerely.

This information is better coming from us than from friends or strangers.

With our three teenagers, we acknowledge that if they want to engage in pre-marital sex, we won't be there to stop them. This in no way implies that we encourage them to have sex. But if they choose not to heed our advice against it, we want them to protect themselves against Aids and sexually transmitted diseases.

We hope that having cultivated the value that sex is the deepest form of communication between two people in love, our children will not be seduced by the heat of the moment and regret for the rest of their life the choice they make.

Okay, getting repetitive now. So let me end here.

Peace

Online Story: Not enough babies? Change the liberal abortion law to solve problem
by Mark Chen Chih-chuan

*Wince*...not again. Alright, time to bring on some logic enforcement.

I listened to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally speech and understood the needs of our nation.

Among the repeated calls to have sufficient and competent talent and a self-replacing labour force, I find the call to have more babies most reasonable.

Um....yeah...okay. Babies good! More babies better! Especially for the economy in terms of labour?

I believe that the notion of nationality and statehood have weaved such a stranglehold that when it comes to various factors of production, while we accept the free movement of trade, goods and service, we refuse to similarly do so for people.

I don't see any necessary reason for why of all the factors listed, having more babies is necessarily the most "reasonable". I mean, how about explaining and providing a definition of reasonable.

In debate (or for that matter in law), we would by now be either screaming for a yardstick or criteria by which we could measure this "soft term". Well that, or gleefully rubbing our palms at the thought of our ability to impose our own definition on it. And then to bill our clients good money for it.

The need is very real and it can be met by all Singaporeans. There is a need to review the Termination of Pregnancy Act. There are three reasons: Demographics, eugenics, and ethics.

Brief answer: No, ewww no and no.

The 1974 Termination of Pregnancy Act states that a registered doctor can perform an abortion on receiving written consent from a pregnant woman.

Those above 14 and below 21 years can have an abortion without the consent of a parent/guardian. In fact, it is the only procedure in Singapore that does not require such a consent.

And I say thank goodness for that. Teenage pregnancies are already horrible enough without having to drag the parents in. Especially if they are not understanding and supportive. It stands to reason as, if they were indeed as such, requirement of consent would be superfluous as they would be notified and consulted. It is in those cases where they are not that the lack of parental consent is important.

Of course there's also the argument based upon the distasteful notion that the parents had something to do with the teen being pregnant in the first place.

On 23 May 2005, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) quoted a study conducted by Singapore National University Hospital which showed that about 14,000 pregnancies are terminated every year, accounting for one-fourth of the total.

According to Mr Lee, there were 36,000 births last year - 14,000 shy of the needed 50,000. This is simple demographics and economics - no supply = no product = no self-replacing labour force.

That's what a) immigration, b) a shift to a knowledge based economy so that c) people can work to an older age are for.

The CNA report quoted the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Society as saying that over 1,000 tertiary-educated married women went for abortions in 2004, tripling the number of 300 in 1988, while those who were not as educated tended to use contraceptives.

If we have more than trippled the number of tertiary educated married women since 1988, then the rate has actually fallen.

In fact, thanks to the internet here's something all too relevant and destructive of his entire chain of argument. From Today we learn that they checked with the Department of Statistics and discovered that the number of university-educated women has increased from 17,300 in 1990 to 68,900 in 2000.

So this was close to a 4 (3.98 to 2 s.f.) fold increase (and by now would be much higher) and thus we can conclude that the rate of tertiary educated married women using birth control as a form of abortion has fallen.

But furthermore, our letter writter conceeds the existance of something that's prevents more births than abortion at any rate - contraception. I note that he doesn't advocate their ban.

A 2001 MCDS survey on social attitudes of Singaporeans entitled 'Attitudes on Family' found that the "pattern of educational differences in attitudes towards having children [was] similar to the national population statistics (Census 2000) that showed a strong negative correlation between family size and the educational level of females, with university graduates having the fewest children on average."

Well, we could prevent women from getting too smart and wanting fewer children (which presumes causation even though that's not a necessity). But let's give Mark the benefit of the doubt and elevate this argument to that of abortion being the least worse policy alternative.

The problem with the argument is that it would in fact conceed that it is probably the least efficacious of all possible policies, given that the low birth rate is multi-causal.

This may be one of the reasons why policies of longer maternity leave and infant care subsidies are not sufficient incentives, in particular, on abortion.

This seriously doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He's effectively trying to tie two correlations (note, the above numbers are not necessarily causal i.e. women who do not want children may be more likely to get a teritiary degree for example) and then pull a massive non-sequitor.

Unless you can establish that tertiary educated women are in fact more likely now than ever (and presumably getting worse) to resort to abortion as a form of birth control (which we learn is plain wrong) AND that they would not simply switch to using contraception when abortions are banned (or simply pop across the causeway for an abortion) makes this an exercise in fruitity anyway.

The implication of this, no matter how distasteful, is clear and it echoes a similar fear in the past that led to eugenic policies.

Argh!!!! HOW HOW HOW?!!!! Show the effing link!

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in his memoirs "Our brightest women were not marrying and would not be represented in the next generation. The implications were grave."

Definately not one of his best statements ever. I take quite a bit of offence at this because my parents were blue collared workers (who became white collar ones by dint of effort and constant learning) and who nevertheless managed to bring whatever intellectual genetic potential to fruit.

Assuming the truth of and accepting the eugenics argument, there would be a lack of sufficient and competent talent with a liberal abortion policy. In a Straits Times report on 12 November 2005, Ministry of Health figures showed that in five years, an average of over 1,500 teenagers had abortions annually, about 10% of the national figure.

*Sigh* no there won't be.

According to a 31 July 2006 Straits Times report, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim cited 2004 figures showing that 434 Malay girls had abortions, forming about one-third of all teen abortions.

This caused the Muslim community to act to curb teenage sex. There was an ethical consideration.

Or perhaps we could adopt a comprehensive sex education policy instead (demonstrated to be more effective anyway) of pussy footing around on the basis of religion and "morality".

In his third National Day Rally speech, Mr Lee called on Singaporeans to "hold firm to our cultural and moral values." None of the ethnic groups, based on their traditional, cultural and ethical values, nor religious groups, have ever permitted an abortion policy as liberal as that of the 1974 Termination of Pregnancy Act.

I sense bull here. The Jews for example don't hold that the fetus is a person until it's born and Islam believes that ensoulment occurs in the 3rd trimester.

It would be incongruent to hold firmly to ethical mores without the moral courage to stand upon the cultural and moral foundations of the people.

Handwaving here. Piety is not substitute for reality and sound policy.

Although the Act may not be done away with, it is not inconceivable that it be reviewed seriously. There has been a lot of hype about the future economy, foreign ability, basic courtesy, overseas family, new-fangled technology, and political civility. But a solution staring the nation in its face is to preserve local fertility.

Note: all of the reasons above actually makes local fertility a moot issue.

Review the Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Review your entire argument please!

Peace.

SSRN-Porn Up, Rape Down by Anthony D'Amato

Disclaimer: I haven't read it yet.

Oh this is simply delicious! If nothing else, it at least destroys the assumption that pornography leads to (causatively or correlatively) an increase in rape.

The abstract reads:

The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence.

Anyway, offhand I can think of a few ways to poke theoretical holes in it e.g. whether the measurements include other lesser forms of sex crimes and whether various forms of pornography have a mutually cancelling effect. So I'm going to read it before any further comments.

Online Story: Education works better than moralising to prevent spread of Aids

Well, my letter was published albeit online but it's been edited to such an extent that the bite and sting of my original letter is dimished quite drastically.

Take a look for yourself to decide. The letter is blockquotes is the one published. The one after that in plain text was what I sent.

I read the letter "Don't fan flames of lust. There's a link between Aids and 'Crazy Horse' show" by Ho Ting Fei with dismay at his assertions (ST Online Forum, Aug 22).

Despite acknowledging that it is nothing more than a "bad coincidence", how does it follow that lowering the age limit to allow adults to watch a cabaret show leads to an increase in Aids? The lack of substantiation in the "link" between Aids and the 'Crazy Horse' show is telling.

There are many reasons for the rise in the number of Aids infection and its detection: an increase in the population, globalisation, travel, access to doctors and healthcare, better diagnostic equipment.

Can we really attribute the increase in Aids cases to the "decline in moral standards"?

I am glad I live in a country which takes a pragmatic stance and does not deny the HIV-Aids link. I hope that science will be the basis of our approach to public policy.

Educate our youths on this basis without restricting the right of adults to entertain themselves. Education is always better than moralising.

In short, be less prudish with less moralising, and more education. That's the key to keeping HIV Aids in check.

And this was what I originally sent in...

I read the letter, "Don't fan flames of lust. There's a link between AIDS and 'Crazy Horse' show" by Ho Ting Fei (Dr) with quite some dismay at the assertions made to demonstrate a non-sequitor, all this despite acknowledging that it is nothing more than a "bad coincidence". For how does it necessarily follow that lowering the age limit to allow legal adults to watch a cabaret show lead to an increase in AIDS?

The lack of substantiation is particularly telling when all we have seen to demonstrate a "link" between AIDS and "Crazy Horse" is the sentence, "If we are honest and truthful to ourselves, we cannot fail to see why AIDS and the "Crazy Horse" show are not so distant and unconnected" i.e. an assertion and a fallacious appeal to emotions couched as a rhetorical question.

The rise in the number of infections is due to a lot of reasons. Strip away things like an increase in the population, globalisation and easy travel making sure the virus spreads, more ready access to doctors and healthcare, better diagnostic equipment and thus more and earlier diagnosis. And can we really be certain that there is any statistically signicant increase left to deal with, much less attribute to this nebulous "decline in moral standards"?

I am glad I live in a country which takes a pragmatic stance and does not deny the HIV-AIDS link much less the efficacy of Antiretroviral drugs. And I hope that science will be the basis of our approach to public policy.

And hopefully, on that basis educate our youth and at the same time extend the scope of permissible action that legally recognised adults can carry out. Education is invariably always better than moralising and piety.

In short, less prudishness, less moralising, more reality and more education. That's the key to keeping HIV in check.

So what can we conclude? Well just possibly, they hate latin terms and logic enforcement. Heh.

Peace.

Online Story: Don't fan flames of lust. There's a link between AIDS and 'Crazy Horse' show
by Ho Ting Fei (Dr)

And I thought medical doctors were supposed to be better educated and trained than this? I mean, even granting the constrains of an ST letter, surely this could have been better argued?

In The Straits Times' reports on August 17, there were simultaneous reports of "sex infections on the rise among teenagers" and "R18 rating for cabarets".

This is a bad coincidence but a good opportunity for us to examine the reasons behind why HIV AIDS is on the increase in Singapore.

*Snort* first he acknowledges it is a bad coincidence and then he uses that purported link to demonstrate a non-sequitor. See below.

More disturbingly, it is on the rise in young people. There are various reasons for this phenomenon and some are obvious. The public has, at various times, expressed its opinion and cautioned about the decline of moral standards in society.

There are indeed various reasons for this, but what is this nebulous "decline of moral standards" that he claims and more importantly, how is it necessarily true that it (whatever it is) can be shown to be the major causal link for a rise in AIDS. Especially when there are much better arguments and fingers to point at.

The rise in the number of infections is due to a lot of reasons. Strip away things like an increase in the population, globalisation and easy travel making sure the virus spreads, more ready access to doctors and healthcare, better diagnostic equipment and thus more and earlier diagnosis. And can we really be certain that there is any statistically signicant increase left to deal with, much less attribute to a "decline in moral standards"?

Minister Dr Balaji Sadasivan has revealed the statistics and voiced his concerns about HIV infection in Singapore.

I am sure he and other healthcare personnel realise that if HIV infection is allowed to break through the barriers to affect the people, it will be out of control one day.

Which is why I'm so glad I don't live in a country like South Africa where the the President denies the HIV-AIDS link and the Minister for Health thinks prefers traditional and natural cures (that do nothing by the way) to the "poisons" of Antiretroviral drugs (that by the way really do work wonders i.e. from bedridden to climbing mountains).

The race to develop medical treatment may not catch up with the wild spread of HIV. Even if there is a cure for AIDS, prevention will generally remain a more efficient and cost-effective means of controlling the disease.

HIV AIDS is a social problem as much as it is a medical problem. If we are honest and truthful to ourselves, we cannot fail to see why AIDS and the "Crazy Horse" show are not so distant and unconnected, and why by giving more Singaporeans, especially youths, the chance to see the "Crazy Horse" revue is not as innocuous as it seems to be.

This is a terribly disappointing line of argumentation. It's full of insinuation and massively light on substantiation. An appeal to common sense tends to fail because common sense often isn't. Sometimes a counter-intuitive approach is necessary. And besides, it's been demonstrated that abstinence and pro-abstinence education policies don't work even if and especially if one looks at cross-State data in the USA with regards to STD and unwanted pregnancy rates.

Anyway. Hello?! Age of consent is 16 and prostitution is legal in Singapore! And you've picked Crazy Horse?! Only if you have a preexisting mindset that tries to deny reality and believes that the way to prevention is abstinence (much easier to believe in peace in the Middle East)

To me the introduction of the new R18 (Cabaret) rating is not just an act of bad taste but more a case of irresponsibility towards the youths and our population in general.

Let us not fan the flames of lust and temptation, particularly in our youths, and yet watch in desperation and despair at the raging fires of HIV infection.

Then teach them to handle it?! Education is always better than moralising and piety. Mind you, you're an adult at 18 and can be sentenced to death as an adult for a capital crime. You serve NS and can kill on orders, get killed on orders. You can smoke, drink, drive and skydive and do a lot of other things that could get you horribly killed or injured.

This last two paragraphs show exactly where the prudish, moralising doctor stands. I simply say this. Less prudishness, less moralising, more reality and more education. That's the key to keeping HIV in check.

Peace

Or is it all a matter of closed religiousity?

(ed: Reposting blog post because of spelling and formatting errors)

ST Article: "Is it all a question of openness?"
by Asst/P Tan Seow Hon

Reading the article, one cannot help but feel that this is a question still in search for an answer. Despite all that she wrote, nevertheless we are not left with an alternative with what it might boil down to.

Unless one reads between the lines of course. The only plausible alternative is that pre-martial sex is not good (I'm not even entirely sure she could even make the point that it was bad) because well "Someone" (nudge nudge wink wink) says so.

But let us focus on the substance of the article and in particular the claims made by the good Assistant Professor.

1. That a new orthodoxy about pre-martial sex seems to be emerging amongst the youths.

I'm not entirely certain about this assertion given that she extrapolates it from a single example (now 3 I hear, probably loads more) of a couple phonecaming themselves having sex.

Mind you, just less than a century ago, they would already have had kids and would be out working in the factories or managing the manor but nevermind that. The more important point is whether one can extrapolate a new <i>orthodoxy</i>, note the word, from a single example. The plural of anecdote is not data. But even if we concede that such a thing is possible, given the furor over premarital sex since the injunctions about virginity in most religious texts centuries past and present, are we necessarily seeing a new orthodoxy or more of the same old same old?

Aside: Maybe the new orthodoxy is exhibitionism. That should be personally interesting.

2. Some youths view those who believe pre-marital sex as a no no to be immature, prejudiced and judgmental.

Why Yes! Wow, brilliant observation, arguably with the intention of prejudicing the reader. But I don't give a flying fox about that. The real issue is which holder of views is more likely to be correct in their views.

I'm still waiting for a reason why pre-marital sex is INTRINSICALLY bad without recourse to either a) societal viewpoint (which as we know as the greaters arbiter of all that is good and pure....like pure racial lines =P) or b) some text asserting so.

Still waiting really.

3. That this is due to us no longer having a language of right and wrong. BUT that we poor poor liberals and post-modernists are just confused because we believe in individualism and autonomy but those notions still resides within the language of right or wrong.

What post-modernists more accurately say is that every viewpoint is a social construct and thus is subjectively valid. So the real question becomes, how do we arbitrate between them? I'm all for the use of an objective standard of Harm, the mainstay of Liberalism or even Utilitarianism as a consequentialist form of morality. Either way, by no stretch of the imagination or the facts (without outright lying or destroying the notion of Science) is pre-marital sex intrinsically bad.

This could be the start of a very long essay about the basis upon which we order society and how one determines Good but let's leave that for another day. Although if you search around on this blog, I've probably made some mention about that.

BTW, I very strongly recommend reading Bertrand Russell, he's at the very least funny and incisive.

4. We do not live by our instincts and that's what separates us from animals.

According to vegans (and this cute little article stuck to the drinks machine along the walkway to the Central Library), by the same argument, just because we need to eat and are omnivourous does not justify eating animal protein and the general exploitation of animals. Good enough argument? You decide.

And anyway how do we determine what is Natural (issues of self-evidentness abound)? Furthermore, my reason tells me that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with pre-marital sex, nor nothing particularly prized about virginity. Whereas my instinct (reason more likely) tells me that admonishments about pre-marital sex and keeping of virginity is the hallmark of a patriachical society premised upon the subjugation of women and based upon an erroneous mode of superstition.

5. No connection between marital and pre-marital sex.
6. The use of the word marital in order to "confer some of the same moral connotation upon a non-martial relationship that would otherwise be questionable".

Why do and should we hold in esteem something that is nothing more than an error of history and language?

Other than for its ironic and fallacious value of course.

7. Sex in a relationship with marriage in view makes marriage conditional.

So what? The same goes for the whole idea of dating, meeting his family, registering at ROM and a whole host of other things when it comes to marriage as a <i>choice</i>. When marriage isn't a choice than the list of things the marriage is contingent on becomes longer.

Family astrologer meet other family astrologer.

8. Marriage as more than a mere ceremony.

And therefore? Then the argument needs to be that somehow sex and marriage are inextricably linked and not simply by social convention. And even if it were, it would be logically fallacious to argue that Not A therefore B. No, that would only be true if A and B were mutually exclusive and in this instance they are not.

Adding insult to injury was a rather fallacious use of the hypothetical and caricaturedd post-modernist. And even if one accepts her basic assertion that post-modernist (all?) view it as a monumental affair, a life changing experience if you will, again the question is raised, so what? The more important question then becomes what is marriage and why does it 'sanctify sex'.

Any reductionist argument on the side of the marital sex bunch tends to cluster around arguments based upon sex as a means and not an end in and of itself. While I agree that this might be a notionally valid veiwpoint, nevertheless, its weakness lies in its mistaken assessment of its a priori assumptions necessarily being true much less still valid even today.

People have sex for pleasure. Get over it already.

9. Tries to sweep away notion of changing nature of marriage by simply saying that the increase frequency of divorce does not change the nature of the MOMENT of marriage.

So what happens after the moment of marriage? If one logically extends her last line about how one would not like to have sex in a 'partial and conditional love', the implication must be then that marriage is about 'total and unconditional love'.

I pause to savour the absurdity of that statement.

Moving along and on a substantive ground let us examine the nature of marriage. In some countries the groom purchases the bride, in others the bride purchases the groom. In ancient Greece, the negotiations were handled entirely by the groom and the bride's father (who would give mead which was made from honey for an entire moon, hence the origins of the word honeymoon). Arranged marriages have persisted all the way till now and it beggers the belief that this is about total and unconditional love unless one buys into some Orwellian notion of doublethink like slavery is freedom and lack of choice is love.

So where does this notion of a love marriage come in? Even in Chaucer's time, the notion of romantic love was that of romantic courtship where the female held the 'reins' of power in the relationship. The notion, like the stories, were entirely fictitious and were created as a partial salve against the reality that women were often nothing more than chattel. In Singapore, the MCYS census were rather interesting revealing that many felt pressured into marriage either by their family/friends or by society. Companionship? About 30%.

I leave this last point to the sociologists to dissect, but for now ta!

Peace.

*A Sociological Exercise on Homosexuality*

If you were in NUS today and were wondering of the sudden proliferation of homosexual public displays of affection (PDA), the 'reason' is because of a sociological class on Human Relations, which decided to do an experiment today to see its effect on the student populace.

The following was related to me by Chew Lin.

It takes a lot more intimacy and explicitness to elicit a response to a female-female couple than a male-male couple.

For a male-male couple, simply holding hands was more than sufficient to get people to look. Some went as far as to stop and stare or to stop and gossip (apparently this was a phenonmena exclusive to female groups).

However, for a female-female couple, holding hands was thought to be insufficient and they decided to hold each other round the waist instead. No big deal it seems.

Feeding each other ice cream? Again no big deal (contrast to a guy pair doing this in the canteen).

Commenting that the other person's hair smelt nice? Again no response.

Finally Chew Lin pulled out the stops and decided to be really explicit in the co-op in the following 2 scenarios.
a) Standing in front of the condom selection with her 'lover' and commenting that the close fit condoms were designed for small penises, but that they (referring to her 'lover' and her) didn't have that problem did they? THAT got a big response from the people round them.

b) Standing in front of a table loaded with aromatheraphy stuff (which included chocolate, tea and other assorted things like massage oils) and talking about licking it off her 'lover's' toes or something to that effect. Again a similar response to the guys feeding each other or holding hands was elicited.

Yes, apparently she was the only one who could say all of that with a straight face.

Now, observant readers would realise that there was a potential flaw in the methodology used. There is no control couple. Therefore, one could very legitimately ask whether to what extent the shock or curiosity or both was due to the rather explicit nature of what she said or because they were a 'homosexual' couple.

So we decided to carry out a similar experiment using ourselves as 'bait'. With two friends who will remain anonymous, they followed us to observe reactions.

The condom reenactment was a bust because there were insufficient people around to hear us. One of the supposed observers struck up a conversation with a friend in the queue, the only person mind you, such that there were literary no members of the public.

So off to the aromatherapy section. One female lady, who looked to be your average NUS female undergraduate. All observations from here on are mine and solely mine and not the observeres.

So we started chatting with each other casually before ratcheting up the explicitness. First was the use of chocolate body sauce instead of melting chocolate because it took too much time. A glance to the side at us.

Then came the dangers of flamable stuff in the bedroom. And my further suggestion of the use of whipped cream. Slight pause and looking up (though not at us). From here on, it's quite apparent she's listening in without trying to appear too obvious.

Complaining about how chocolate hardens too soon to be of any use. Looks at us.

Chew Lin suggests the use of cream in the chocolate to slow down the hardening process. Again, side glance at us.

So there we have it. Assuming that she could be considered representative of the populace, it's not just the homosexuality bit but the idea that a couple is taking about events in the bedroom that would get similar reaction for according to Chew Lin that was about the level of attention she got in her earlier experiment.

Now I had thought the lady was a little non-pulsed and perhaps shocked. But according to the two observers, she was actually interested in listening to our conversation. So there's something to be said about 'confirmation bias' and perception being screened through our prejudices.

Peace!

Sex education in schools will remain secular - Feb 14, 2006

MOE: Guidance Branch - Sexuality Education

Shianux(Han) does a thorough fisking of an ST letter. It's so deverstating that I don't really think I can add anything to it. But the writer of the letter comes out looking either like a very sloppy research or a very incredulous one.

The top two links and their contents seems alright on a first reading, sort of like an all things to all person's kind of policy one would run when trying to find a compromise between the very real health issues that a comprehensive sex education is meant to address and on the other hand "to understand and respect the attitudes, values and beliefs regarding sexuality propagated by other communities."

Whatever that means.

I haven't had the opportunity to review the new curriculum and I don't think I had any sexual education back when I was in secondary school (beyond the very clinical one in my biology textbook) and warnings not to get distracted by members of the opposite sex (it seems that our seniors were tying up with their opposite counterpart from RGS).

The same went for junior college, this despite being what could be one of the most liberal and 'western' programme that one could be in JC. So it's very fortunate (and probably amazing) that none of my classmates got involved in the very real problems that comes with sex in whatever form.

Here's the interesting thing...

Complementing the curricular programme is the co-curricular package called the Growing Years series. It is developmental in nature, spanning the upper primary, lower secondary, upper secondary to post-secondary levels. Feedback from key stakeholders were gathered and incorporated in the development of the materials at every stage. The stakeholders, who represent the different religious and racial groups, include parents, community representatives, medical practitioners, social workers, youth workers, psychologists, legal professionals, students and teachers.

The Growing Years series addresses the subject of human sexuality from a holistic perspective, involving the intellectual, emotional, social, physical and ethical aspects of sexuality. These are covered under four main themes: Human Development, Interpersonal Relationships, Sexual Health and Behaviour, and, Society and Culture. Topics covered include the understanding gender identity, building rewarding and responsible relationships, consequences of teenage sexual activity and pregnancies (including abortion), masturbation, pornography, homosexuality, dating and going steady, cohabitation and marriage, and influence of the media. Abstinence is presented and promoted as it provides teenagers with the highest level of protection, being 100% safe against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. As the Growing Years series is value-based, parents are given the choice to opt their children out of the programme if they so desire. The opt-out rate by parents has been very low, at less than 1%.

One wonders whose values are being presented here. A quick glance at the list of stakeholders indicates that there is likely to be some form of conflict as to which of the policies are best likely to work.

Furthermore, it looks to me that some stakeholders are more equal than others if I read this paragraph right. The notion of value-based I think must be taken in contrast to the Framework for Sexuality Education which presumably focuses more on the basic science(?) in "provid(ing) accurate knowledge about human sexuality and the consequences of sexual activity so that pupils would be able to make carefully considered and informed decisions on sexuality matters". In which case, I think the narrow moralistic stance are more likely to win out in a simple situation of the most conservative denominator winning. I cannot see these groups willing to accept the notion that homosexuality may not be unnatural or a choice or that masturbation is a good alternative to sex.

The other worrying thing is that of the rise of "everything but" we see in America in response to pro-abstinence/abstinence only policies in schools. Since the focus is on vaginal intercourse, students end up staying within the letter but not the spirit of the law as they engage in other sexual activity that carries with it a similar if not higher risk of STDs (if not pregnancy). So while it may be technically accurate to say that abstinence is 100% effective, one needs to ask abstinent from what?

My posts on this topic may seem repetitious but what is worth mentioning is worth repeating.

Peace.

Sexuality workshop an eye-opener for teens - Feb 7, 2006

*Once more unto the Breach!*
Just a quick response today because the majority of the letter is anecdotal.

IN THE article 'Students cry foul over sexuality workshop that pushed these messages' (Sunday Times, Jan 29), reporter Jeremy Au Yong said a four-hour workshop of the Family Life Society irked some students.

It was held under the Education Ministry's guidelines to provide sexuality education for upper secondary and tertiary students. He said the teachings were 'too strong' because it discouraged contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilization and human embryonic stem cell research and allegedly infringed on other freedoms of thought.

As a parent of two adult sons, a practising doctor, and a volunteer helper in orphanages locally and overseas, I am grateful to see that the Family Life Society is bringing traditional values on sexuality to the sexually active young here.

As a young medical student, I learned about infectious diseases such as gonorrhoea and syphilis. We saw men and women in venereal disease clinics with fear in their eyes as they passed pus from their genitalia in pain. We also saw the tears of women who had repeated strictures of the fallopian tubes because of venereal-transmitted disease. These women remained sterile.

Later, I would be one of the first to see the early cases of HIV and Aids in the United States. There was fear in the partner, knowing that to contact Aids was a death sentence and ostracism from their sexual partners.

At an orphanage overseas, we find that without the exceptional love of the care-givers, these orphaned children would be dead.

Some children were dumped on the streets by the single mums. If they were lucky and got picked up, they were saved. In other instances, abandoned babies could be eaten by hungry dogs.

Locally, in one of the new homes for 'battered children, and teenaged mums in crises', we try to provide them a shelter until the mum can complete her studies and learn her trade. I wondered. Was this a price of the freedom of sexual expression?

Yada yada yada. Nice anecdote but ultimately irrelevant and ending with a non-sequitur. The freedom of sexual expression may be mutually exclusive with a pro-abstinence approach, but it is not mutually exclusive with an abstinence plus or a comprehensive sexual education approach.

Therefore the real issue should not simply be whether the freedom of sexual expression is bad, for it's pretty much a moot question, but rather which policy advocated best prevents all these horrible things from happening. Pro-abstinence policies do NOT work. And definitely do not work as well as comprehensive sexual education. For links, statistics, citations, please refer to the previous post.

In fact, one has to wonder how much sexual education those 'battered women' (what the hell does this got to do with freedom of sexual expression anyway?) and teenage mothers got. Are you thinking what I'm thinking B1? Yes I think I am B2...

When my teenaged sons were growing up, my wife and I would reflect on the question 'what if both of us died suddenly, who would look after them? What if they picked up bad moral values and would not listen to our counseling?' My experiences in a public school helped me to guide my sons but like in my time, masturbation and homosexual behavior were not rare in the schools, though dating with the opposite sex was not frequent. We were free and unrestrained in what we wanted to do as long as we did not breach school discipline.

A little incoherent this. I really don't understand what his point his. Is he trying to associate freedom of sexual expression with bad values and morals?

Family Life Society has its opponents. While it champions responsible parenthood, the sanctity of marriage, the sexual act within marriage, and the precious value of all human life (regardless of how weak that life is), it also actively discourages euthanasia in all forms, such as contraception (where sperms are killed), abortion (where life is intentionally terminated), and embryonic stem cell research (where the hapless human life is destroyed).

If he's a medical doctor as is claimed above, then he's being disingenuous with regards to the human life bit. The scientific definition of human life is anything with human DNA, thus hair is human life and does not answer the broader issue of abortion and its morality. As for contraception, I think it's reflective that he only looks at male type contraception and besides nocturnal emissions kill sperm as well.

My sons are now responsible professionals. While we disagree from time to time, my wife and I still keep our traditional values.

The teenage sexually active school children here have been given an eye opener. It is now their choice.

Tradition good? *Shrugg* it all depends. I would seriously like to know what choice these school children were given, being lied to does not allow for an informed rational choice to be made. Not having access to the opposing viewpoint does not allow for any possible choice. At best it is a choice made out of ignorance, at worst, duress.

Peace.

*ST Article: Spike in number of teens with sex infections....but is there and so what?*

Hmmm, the title is not as punchy as I somewhat hoped it might have been. Here's a partial fisk for your edification. Personal comments are prefaced by a >.

Para 1.
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of young people hit by sexually-transmitted infections

> Okay, catchy paragraph, let's see if it's properly substantiated with a longitudinal study preferably over a period of 5-10 years.

Para 2 - 3
Figures from the government-run DSC Clinic show that those aged 10 to 19 now form 6 per cent of all sexually transmitted infections (STIs) - double the 3 percent in 2002.

They accounted for only 206 cases in 2002, 490 in 2003 and about 600 cases last year.

> It's only 3 years but alright, that could still constitute a trend. I just wonder a number of things. 1. What's the repeat infection rate? 2. What sort of counselling if any does the clinic do? Is it only abstinence? In which case it's going to be less effective than the alternative of teaching safer sex.

If we're talking about a majority of people who repeatedly return for treatment, then the number of new patients admitted every year works out to be about 200 i.e. constant and given the birth rate of Singapore working out to be around 1.6-1.7, it means that the rate of new infections is actually dropping. Of course such a figure would mean that there were no infections in 2001, so a more reasonable figure would be what? 100-150? Anyway, the data wasn't on the DSC Clinic website, so anyone who has data would be greatly appreciated if you could send it over.

But fine, let's say there's this alarming trend in the number of teens having STI, then what's the cause behind it and we come to...

Paragraph 8 and 9
Counsellors at the clinic attribute this disturbing spike in sex diseases among the young to a cavalier attitude towards sex.

"Their more immediate concern is unplanned pregnancy and, ironically, they try to prevent this by the unrealiable withdrawal method," said Ms Theresa Soon, DSC's senior executive.

> URGH!!!! Nope they're not so much cavaliar as willfully and awfully misinformed. Sorry but when you have pro-abstinence groups peddling junk science like condoms don't work and can't prevent STIs and you should be all good boys and girls and not have sex before marriage (where you will suddenly and miraculously have all the knowledge you need to have sex and prevent unwanted STIs and pregnancy), what the hell do we expect?

1. Preaching and I use the word preaching, abstinence doesn't work. It's terribly alienating and people will tend to want to have sex regardless of what you say and not equiping them with the knowledge and skill to know what they're going is gross negligence. Even if you manage to convert all the people on the margins to believe in abstinence, there's still going to be a core who will have sex regardless of what you say and they are the ones you need to reach out to.

2. An abstinence only policy (as opposed to the Abstinence plus policy that I adovcate) is mutually exclusive to teaching about safer sex and this has severe repecussions on STIs. It's not simply, as Ms Theresa Soon knows and implies through her statement, about preventing unwanted pregnancies. It is also about preventing STIs. Hands up all those of you who know that STIs can be transmitted through unprotected oral sex. In fact any form of penetrative sex can lead to the transmission of STIs.

More than that though, condoms if properly used work, tremendously well. Not as well as ABSOLUTE abstinence perhaps (see oral sex comment above and an impossible pipe dream) but way better than what Focus on the Family claims. Click here for a meta-study on condom effectiveness by NZ MOH or hell, just use a google search on "effectiveness of condoms in preventing STIs". The organisations that promulgate the who ineffectiveness of condoms bit tend to be right wing christian fundamentalist groups.

3. The link in the above two. Given that condoms are made out to be about as effective as the withdrawal method or condoms, guess which one a young teenage male will prefer. Gee. We have a duty to our young female citizens as well, and perhaps it's time to get over some outmoded moral quesiness and perhaps think about allowing teenage girls to obtain oral contraceptives. IT'S THEIR BODY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. Why the hell we regulate some parts of it while not allow them to take control of their own bodies? But more importantly, expecting females to be able to control their sexual partners to such an extent that they can effectively make them wear condoms is a little too much to expect. Why haven't we started bringing in female condoms yet?

Which brings me very nicely to paragraph 10 and the incident from the 16 year old Normal Stream student who has had sex with 4 partners and was forced to have sex with her first boyfriend but began to enjoy it 6 months later when she dated a 28 yo man.

> Before I begin with the serious discussion bit, let me indulge in a little juvenile humour. I don't get the bit about the 28 yo man except that it probably proves the point that good sex requires experience and practice. So in the absence of actual practicals, theory might help. Perhaps we should provide 'fornication manuals' in schools then. If we believe that reading stuff makes them more knowledgable or better people (moral and civics education for example) then I don't see the real problem with erotica being made available at a younger age. Before you start lighting torches and picketing my place, please note the following: to purchase a Playboy in Australia requires you to be 15. In the Scandenavian countries, it's 14.

But the more serious issue is this. This paragraph is utterly irrelevant in the sense that having sex does not NECESSARILY equate to a higher risk of STIs. She was forced to have sex so I really don't see the bearing on any part of the earlier paragraphs. But more importantly it fails again to distinguish between the 'morality' of pre-martital sex and the necessity of equiping teens to know how to have safer sex.

Which allows me to end with the final quote Madam Halimah Yacob who says, "We need to strengthen the value system of our young, so that they understand the virtues of keeping chaste and shun pre-marital sex and promiscuity." Let's just hope that their husbands and wifes don't fool around then. And that after years of keeping them in ignorance, they will suddenly know everything.

Peace.