on sex, the penal code and society
On the penal code amendment:
It's now okay for heterosexual couples to engage in oral or anal sex, but homosexuals still can't do it legally, though 'it is still technically illegal for men to have sex with other men, the ministry reiterated that it will not be proactive in enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in action'.
I don't know. If you're not gonna enforce a law, why bother having it? What is the point of Law then? Additionally, why do we, hetero- or homo- sexual alike, need governmental consent for mutual sexual acts that occur in the sanctity and privacy of the home? Why are we even standing for and allowing the government to regulate private consensual acts? There seems to be a misplaced sense of legitimacy here. If we can stand for this, we can stand anything bah.
-
Having said that, I suggest charging for sex! Charge every Singaporean every time they have sex. Make it mandatory to have a cash-card reader installed on every bed [or home] that automatically deducts money whenever people have sex. We can solve so many problems at one go.
• On one hand, we're not compromising on any Singaporean value [if there is any in the first place]. Let the invisible and [seemingly always right] hand of the market regulate stuff.
• Sex, according to Maslov, is a necessary need, so there's no way people are going to not have it. In fact, everybody will be happy now because now everybody can have sex. You just need to pay for it. No need to fight for gay rights or whatever liao. Just pay for it.
• It's a good source of revenue too, even better than the increase in GST in fact. Some very conservative math:
- assuming arbitrarily 15 is the biologically minimum fuck-age.
- based on the 2000 census, that's almost 3 million people that can fuck, and therefore, will fuck.
- half of them needs to fuck the other half.
- assuming conservatively they fuck each other once a week, and stick to the same partner [yeah, right]
- and we charge $10 per fuck, or $5 per person per fuck
- that's $15 million per week, $60 million per month and $720 million a year. Of revenue. That's alot of money and that's just a conservative estimate.
- comparatively, based on the 2003 GDP, Singaporeans spent $25,811 million a year on goods and services so a 2% in GST will only bring in $500 million in revenue. That's a difference of $220 million a year. How many more ministers can we pay with that?
• We can also be flexible about the charges to not only reflect a moral stand-ground, but also to direct public behaviour. For example,
We could charge less
- for married couples because we want them to rightfully have sex and we don't want to discourage them from having children. In fact, we can waive the charges for a couple's first year of marriage, and/or throw in a fuck two times, the third fuck is free offer, and/or throw in a free month's worth of fucking for every child the couple produces [to be redeemed within a year with no rolling over].
- for using contraceptives for homosexual sex, or any other sex involving people who are not legally bonded.
We could charge more
- for homosexual sex.
- pre-maritial sex [which homosexual sex falls into also so the charges can lump together]
- for using contraceptives for sex between a married couple
- for sex between peoples classified as the lower income group, and those already on public assistance
- masturbation
• In any case, we can use the additional revenue to fund our social welfare programs, which we probably won't need after awhile because: poor people won't be able to afford to have sex [or not as frequent as they would like], so they won't have children or not as much, so they can focus their resources and climb out of the poverty cycle, or they'll all die out eventually.
-
If we can stand for the penal code, and the Government behind it, we can stand for anything.
It's now okay for heterosexual couples to engage in oral or anal sex, but homosexuals still can't do it legally, though 'it is still technically illegal for men to have sex with other men, the ministry reiterated that it will not be proactive in enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in action'.
I don't know. If you're not gonna enforce a law, why bother having it? What is the point of Law then? Additionally, why do we, hetero- or homo- sexual alike, need governmental consent for mutual sexual acts that occur in the sanctity and privacy of the home? Why are we even standing for and allowing the government to regulate private consensual acts? There seems to be a misplaced sense of legitimacy here. If we can stand for this, we can stand anything bah.
-
Having said that, I suggest charging for sex! Charge every Singaporean every time they have sex. Make it mandatory to have a cash-card reader installed on every bed [or home] that automatically deducts money whenever people have sex. We can solve so many problems at one go.
• On one hand, we're not compromising on any Singaporean value [if there is any in the first place]. Let the invisible and [seemingly always right] hand of the market regulate stuff.
• Sex, according to Maslov, is a necessary need, so there's no way people are going to not have it. In fact, everybody will be happy now because now everybody can have sex. You just need to pay for it. No need to fight for gay rights or whatever liao. Just pay for it.
• It's a good source of revenue too, even better than the increase in GST in fact. Some very conservative math:
- assuming arbitrarily 15 is the biologically minimum fuck-age.
- based on the 2000 census, that's almost 3 million people that can fuck, and therefore, will fuck.
- half of them needs to fuck the other half.
- assuming conservatively they fuck each other once a week, and stick to the same partner [yeah, right]
- and we charge $10 per fuck, or $5 per person per fuck
- that's $15 million per week, $60 million per month and $720 million a year. Of revenue. That's alot of money and that's just a conservative estimate.
- comparatively, based on the 2003 GDP, Singaporeans spent $25,811 million a year on goods and services so a 2% in GST will only bring in $500 million in revenue. That's a difference of $220 million a year. How many more ministers can we pay with that?
• We can also be flexible about the charges to not only reflect a moral stand-ground, but also to direct public behaviour. For example,
We could charge less
- for married couples because we want them to rightfully have sex and we don't want to discourage them from having children. In fact, we can waive the charges for a couple's first year of marriage, and/or throw in a fuck two times, the third fuck is free offer, and/or throw in a free month's worth of fucking for every child the couple produces [to be redeemed within a year with no rolling over].
- for using contraceptives for homosexual sex, or any other sex involving people who are not legally bonded.
We could charge more
- for homosexual sex.
- pre-maritial sex [which homosexual sex falls into also so the charges can lump together]
- for using contraceptives for sex between a married couple
- for sex between peoples classified as the lower income group, and those already on public assistance
- masturbation
• In any case, we can use the additional revenue to fund our social welfare programs, which we probably won't need after awhile because: poor people won't be able to afford to have sex [or not as frequent as they would like], so they won't have children or not as much, so they can focus their resources and climb out of the poverty cycle, or they'll all die out eventually.
-
If we can stand for the penal code, and the Government behind it, we can stand for anything.