270102, 0901hr, central time.

crazy eh, i've not updated for ages. it's the weekend syndrome, i think - ah, i'll have plenty of time anyway, let me do that later. and later. and later. and then before you know it, it's already sunday. of course, whatever it is that you had wanted to do, would usually be homework, but this weekend. as i may proudly announce, the main victim of procrastination is no longer my homework. i actually did pretty much everything that i had intended to do. so there. i'm proud of myself. and having been neglected for a nobler cause, this journal should also be proud. haha.

apparently, this article caused quite some people to raise their eyebrows in our tiny little community here. in fact, even some other singaporean student community elsewhere, maybe, i don't know. [wink wink faith. ahem.] i don't usually like the guy who wrote the article, he's the one who screwed up my room over summer and was quite irresponsible about it. and that's the personal grudge i have against him. and i don't like the way he writes.

i do like his girlfriend though, i sometimes feel that the guy being so unpopular makes life difficult for her, being permanently branded as "stanley's girlfriend", rather than the individual she is. and really, it's quite hard not to think of her that way - they got together relatively quickly, and they apparently love each other so much they have no qualms displaying their love in public, touches here and there. eek. despite my weakened resolve to scowl at him at sight, these PDAs [public displays of affection] just irritate me so much.

anyway, what i think of him is not the issue here. his www declaration of his love for his girl, confronting critics of their cohabitation, is actually rather admirable to me. i was talking to shaun, and he disapproves of stanley's disregard for his own image [and inevitably the image of his scholarship and all other people associated with him.] me, i don't see that as an issue. the www. public image. ah. what the...considering i've been writing on this online journal thingamee for more than 3 years now, talking about even the most intimate stuff [like how i have a sweaty butt. haha.] the concept of the need to protect one's image isn't ingrained in me. the reason why the article ruffled so many feathers around here, isn't because it's on the www. or that it's stanley. it's because it's about cohabitation. oooo. the sensitive issue. which is why i'm giving stanley some [teeny weeny leetle bit] of credit here, for not keeping quiet about it. for standing up to say what he wants to say. that's entirely his freedom. is he infringing on other people? how to? unless you got so nauseous reading his article you would like to claim medical and emotional distress. like i said, in my disclaimer too, no one's pointed a gun at your head to read whatever it is that displeased you. censorship cannot function on the basis of discomfort, and personal perferences. the freedom of expression is both convenient, and irritating, i guess. to say he shouldn't be allow to do that, because it will tarnish the image of the other scholars, is as obscure as saying little boys exposed to pictures of the naked body will make them grow up to be geylang's MVP [most valued patron/player, whichever you prefer. heh.]

ah, the asian society wouldn't be able to accept that. we need to take into consideration everyone else in our lives. we must protect them from the ugly truth that many people of our generation are sexually active. okaaaay. right.

i'm not personally endorsing what stanley is doing of course. if i haven't made my stand before, let me say it now - i do not believe in the paper that defines a marriage [this probably has a lot to do with my non-religious beliefs] and i do not believe that marriage is the pre-requisite to having sex, and i definitely do not believe that the institution of marriage is damaged by practices of premarital sex. i am pro-premarital sex. i need to make that clear though, it's premarital. i'm only against anti-marital sex. as in sex without any concept of permanent attachment and love.

all practical evil thoughts aside about how people may be getting married to get a green card, money, blah blah, i think making such a strong link between sex and marriage undermines the value of both sex and marriage. marriage is about so much more, than sex. a friend said once, "eh, if you never get married, then you'll never get to have sex!" of course, this is completely taken out of context, but somehow it just popped into my head. given the conservative social norms, it's almost like whoever who got married is effectively given a license to have sex like bunnies. who remembers the parts about commitment to love and to trust? to me, marriage is about putting my life into another man's life, and to trust him not to ruin everything. i believe in marriage, in that i long to find a man to whom i entrust my future happiness and to whom i promise his future happiness. yes yes, sex will be important, as a component of one's healthy lifestyle as a mature adult. but it's not the most important the way people make it out to be.

though i believe in marriage as a pledge of commitment, i do not believe in marriage in the conventional sense of the word. i do not believe that signing a certificate at the ROM necessarily makes us more commited towards each other. divorce is relatively easy these days, as easy as signing another piece of paper at the lawyer's office. if i believed in god, and hence the idea that marriage is a confirmation and celebration of the union in god's eyes, maybe then getting married would be important to me. but nah. nope. even if there is a god, i still think marriage is a creation of mankind and credited wrongly to god's name. to me, marriage in the conventional sense is purely a legal document. and i definitely do not think sex can be, or should be, regulated by that.

so, in that sense, i'm pro-cohabitation. yes, living together, having sex, like husband and wife in all aspects. oops, didn't sign the papers? to me, it's not a big deal. if. if you really do love each other, and would like to spend the rest of your lives doing so. if you promise eternal love. ah, as it turns out, i'm still a romantic at heart. i still don't like to think of sex as just two people humping one another for procreation, pleasure, or whatever crap. still want to see it as an union, of the two, who wish to consummate their love in all ways possible. there has to be love! and not just any kind of love, but genuine sincere eternal love. seeing how 13-year-old kids these days can say "oh, i love you so much!" to their 12-year-old girlfriends, i don't want to be misinterpreted. even if eternal love seems like such an impossible promise, the intention must be there, to at least realistically try.

yeah, so what was my point? i believe in premarital sex. i believe there's no point in waiting for the green light from a piece of legal contract, as long as the man can be trusted, in an emotional contract. and seriously, if i can't trust him to honor his promise of love for me, what makes sex within a loveless marriage more honorable anyway? then in that sense, i think stanley is right. but only if he really loves his girlfriend the way he says he does. who knows.