The Sex Ed Teacher Dilemma

A few months ago, the Singapore government announced that it was going to revamp the sex education course that's currently being taught in class. Instead of being solely focused on how sex works and the diseases caused by sex, it'll focus more on lessons teaching young kids to abstain from it until after marriage.

A thought came over me after hearing about that announcements in the news. When it comes to teaching sex education, which teacher would be more effective in teaching the topic to teenage boys and girls: a hot guy, a hot girl, an ugly guy, or an ugly girl?

I had short conversations with my girl friends and my guy friends regarding the topic. I was quite surprised with the answers they gave me. Let's start with the men.

Men's Answer: "I will learn a lot more about sex education and actually remember it if my teacher was a hot girl."

I actually thought that a hot guy will be able to teach sex education very effectively. It's because if the hot guy teacher is hot and cool looking, the guys will have respect for him and actually follow in his footsteps. While the guys agreed with this point, having a hot girl teacher is still better, or at least they claim to be.

1. It's because by having a hot girl teacher, guys pay more attention in general. I thought it would actually be detrimental to sex education because guys might just lust for her, but it appears not to be the case. The fact that the boys are only teenagers and the teacher is older makes them not lust for her like men of the teacher's age would probably do (or at least at less frequency). There's a respect factor involved.

2. In fact, for guys, it not only involves sex education, but a hot girl teacher is actually beneficial for guys in any subject, because of the fact that the hot girl teacher commands more attention.

So for young teenage boys, sex education lessons can be taught more effectively if the teacher was a hot girl (but probably not so much if she wears an outfit like the one in the picture above. :D)

However, at the end of the day, this still needs to be confirmed through actual observation. Claimed responses usually come from what guys want, and not really their answer to the question.

Women's Answer: "I will learn a lot more about sex education and actually remember it if my teacher was a hot girl."

For women, surprise surprise! They would also like a hot girl to be their sex education teacher. Although this is surprising, the reasons they give are more straight cut and more logical than the men's responses.

1. They will only fantasize about the hot guy if ever he becomes their sex education teacher, so the lessons won't really mean anything to them if the guy's too hot.

2. It'll serve as a role model for girls to have a hot girl teacher, a person who can have any guy she wants, preach about control, abstinence, and correct sexual values.

So for girls, and I believe in this case, their response to this question is more believable. The claimed behavior would most likely match the actually effectiveness of driving sex education lessons deep into the students' consciousness.


So at the end of the day, both genders have the same preference for a sex education teacher. I asked them to rank the types of teachers starting with the one they prefer the most, and this is what both groups told me...

Hot Girl --> Hot Guy --> Ugly Guy = Ugly Girl (No order of preference for the last 2)

So there you go. A tip to all governments or schools who want to prove their education systems. If you want to increase lesson effectiveness, ONE FACTOR (I'm not saying this is the ONLY ONE) that can affect this postively is to hire hot girls as teachers. Sad as it may seem, but we still live in a society that factors a lot of things based on appearance (though we all deny it).

layman

Got No Time To Pray? Let The Internet Do It For You!

We now live in the digital age. This fast paced lifestyle has transformed our lives dramatically in only a span of a few years. Our time is now divided into so many responsibilities that we barely have time for anything nowadays.

Good thing the internet provides for everything nowadays! No time to go to the grocery, we can order them online and have it delivered at our doorstep. Too lazy to cook or go out to eat? Order online and get it delivered in an hour's time! Too lazy to go to work? There are now zillions of work-at-home jobs where all we need is an internet connection.

And got no time to pray? The internet can now do it for you! :D Courtesy of http://www.informationageprayer.com/index.html

Whether you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or have an unaffiliated religion, this site can pray for you at an affordable fee! They even have special deals where you can get a prayer package only for less than 5 USD! Woohoo!

Not convinced? Here are the reasons why we should engage in their services!

So why wait for the price of prayers to increase? Subscribe now and use the power of the internet to help you go to Heaven (whichever Heaven you belong to)!

layman

PS. We live in a f*cked up world...*sigh* If I were God, I'd immediately send the person who had the audacity to make this website straight to hell.

A Man Named Dhariwal

While waiting for a cab I can flag down from my place, I saw an old Indian man appearing a few meters away, apparently waiting for one as well. Since the cars were going through him first, I was resigned to the fact that he'll get to flag a cab first, even though I was already waiting before he arrived.

He eventually got one, and I shrugged. Typical Singapore, I thought. People going about their own business, not giving a damn about other people...

...until the cab he rode on suddenly stopped in front of me, and I had the shock of my life.

He asked where I was going. I told him I'm going at the City Hall area, and he offered to share the cab with me since it was on the way to where he was going. And suddenly, I found myself inside a cab that I've surprisingly shared with an old Indian man from down the street.

His name was Dhariwal (I hope I spelled it correctly). He was an old man, about 50-60 years old. He works as an IT specialist, and he has a son in law who worked at market research before moving over to consumer business. He told me about his work before in manufacturing, then moving into IT when Singapore started focusing on business management.

He felt bad because I was waiting for a cab first, which was why he offered me a ride. And from the moment he told me that, a lot of thoughts flashed before me.

For me, it was a wake up call, as well as a sudden realization of how selfish our society has become. We're just focused inward, mostly only on ourselves, that we forget that we have to have the presence of mind to respect other people's rights and privileges.

It's partly not our fault. Our social structures make it hard for us to care about other people. Most of the time, if we're not careful, we wouldn't even be able to take care of ourselves. There are lots of things to pay for in order to live a decent living (house, car, insurance, taxes, etc.). We need to give our time and effort to acquire them by working hard. And if we thought that was all, we have all these external pressures forcing us to buy more, borrow more money, or else we'll be left out of the community we live in.

Life is very tough, and for many of us, because it's too tough to care for ourselves, why be bothered about other people?! If I can grab an opportunity presented to me at the expense of others, who cares right? The person was stupid, not qualified or not lucky enough, so to bad right?

As difficult as it is, we can't be contented with caring just for ourselves. Other people are people too. We need everyone to be happy and contented in order for all of us to be happy.

Even though life is difficult, it doesn't take a lot to be nice to other people, to make them feel better. It's a simple matter of giving your seat to someone who needs it when riding a bus or train. It's about following a queue in an orderly fashion, and to settle agreements with compromise instead of by force.

Dariwal's case was the perfect example. Just being concerned about me waiting for a cab by asking me where I was going and exploring the possibility of sharing the cab made me feel good the entire day. Imagine if each of us would do a simple nice gesture like that everyday, then the world will be a better place.

So to Dariwal, my regards and compliments to you. I hope you live a good and happy life, and I hope you continue to show other people how life is supposed to be lived; by caring for both ourselves and for other people.

layman

PS. the picture above is not him. It's the only picture I can find that best represents him. :)

I'm Back!

I'm back!

Apologies to the few who follow me in this blog (You know who you are. :) Due to the nature of the articles here, I don't expect a huge following. :D ). I have been gone for quite a while.

There were various reasons, but the main one was due to a lack of inspiration to write for a while. I had a lot of things I wanted to talk about, but didn't have the will to write them. 

So, during the time I wasn't writing, I've kept a log of topics that I wanted to talk about. 

So here we go.

layman

When Laws Miss The Point: Female Teacher Jailed 10 Months For Teen Sex

************************************************

SINGAPORE: A female teacher in Singapore who had sex with a 15-year-old student was jailed for 10 months Monday, a court spokesman said.

The woman's identity has been withheld to protect the victim, said the spokesman, who confirmed that District Judge Sarjit Singh handed down the sentence, but gave no further details.

Now unemployed, the 32-year-old woman earlier pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor under the age of 16. 

The friendship between the teacher and boy began when he was a 14-year-old Grade Six pupil and joined an overseas school trip which she led, a report said. 

They later had sex, when he was 15, after the boy said he loved the woman who had declared him her godson, it said. By then, the boy had moved on to a secondary school. 

They had sex five more times but when she tried to end the affair the boy threatened to kill her, leading her to contact police, the report continued. 

The report added that Judge Singh said the case involved a serious breach of trust.

The woman could have been jailed for up to 10 years and fined.

She wept as she was led away to serve her sentence, 938Live radio reported.

***********************************************

Source: Yahoo Singapore

Now, before I say anything, I'd like to clarify that both of them were a bit koo koo (bonkers) for even having a relationship like this. I know single adults in Singapore have a serious problem finding loved ones nowadays (I'll write about this some other time), but this is a bit extreme.

However, wasn't the sentence passed by the judge flawed in this context? Doesn't it seem unjust for the woman? Here are my viewpoints on the matter.

1. I know the woman had sexual relations with the boy. But is that "Rape" in Statutory Rape? The boy gave his consent. He told her he loved her. And don't give me the argument that the boy didn't know what he was doing. Please, at that time, he was 14, not 5 years old. Hormones may be influencing him, but he was already rational at that time.  

The woman must have been sick, but to punish her for "rape" seems off. She didn't force him to have sex. It just happened that the person she had sex with was not of "legal age". If she was below legal age, she wouldn't be charged with this "crime". 

It seems like the law was enacted for the sake of ONLY following the law, and not to uphold the values it's trying to protect. She gets jailed because of a legality, and not really a corruption of moral values they've put in place. 

2. Why wasn't the boy punished? He threatened to kill the woman! That was the reason why she went to the authorities in the first place. The boy was the one who had evil thoughts and had the intention of committing a crime. Why he gets to roam free I will never know. 

Laws are made to uphold the values that we've all agreed that we should live by to have peace and order in society. Laws are made by the people for the people, and so the law has to be always put into context in any given situation. Otherwise, it becomes too rigid and won't make sense, like the case of the woman.

In the end, I end with a learning I've heard long ago. Laws are made by the people, for the people. We should live by the laws we've put in place, but we also have to be ready to change / mold them when they deem not applicable anymore.

layman

Social Insensitivity: Waiter Returns $45,000 Ring, is Rewarded

***************************************************************************************************************

Waiter returns $45,000 ring, is rewarded.

His salary may be less than minimum wage, but it doesn't stop him from turning over a diamond ring worth P2 million ($45,000). 

For his good deed, resort worker Rodolfo Niere yesterday received a cash reward of P10,000 ($216) and a citation from Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia "for exemplary character of honesty".

Niere, 20, was recognized for returning a diamond ring worth $45,000 (P2,070,000 at an exchange rate of P46 to a dollar) that a balikbayan (overseas Filipino) left in their resort during the Suroy Suroy sa Sugbu southern heritage last week...

...Although he was only receiving P2000 a month, he always makes sure that he will not make a mistake before he needed the job...

***************************************************************************************************************

From the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Full article can be read here.

As "feel-good" as this article's supposed to be, this article just pissed the hell out of me for a number of reasons. Just to clarify why I'm very angry, it's not because of the waiter who returned the ring. I am very proud of him for doing such a feat. I'm pissed at whoever wrote this, as well as the person who lost the $45,000 ring.

1. The author of this article assumes that JUST BECAUSE THE GUY WAS POOR, HIS FEAT WAS MORE REMARKABLE. He may not be aware of it, but what he just did was look down on those who have low income, assuming that the moment there are opportunities for them to have easy money, they take the easy way out by committing crimes. 

For one, being poor does NOT mean a person would easily succumb to crime or evil acts! It's is not the social status or income levels that define whether or not a person will commit crimes, but the values they grow up in! There are countries that have high levels of poverty but relatively low crime rates (source). True, I do agree that there are positive correlations between the two in most places (perhaps even causal), but it's NOT because of JUST BEING POOR! It's due to the social pressures being forced upon them (unjust laws, abuse by the rich, cycles of poverty created by unjust political and social systems, etc.).

The author may not have explicitly discriminated the poor, but that actually makes it worse because he sends a subtle message to those who read this. He's planted a seed of misguided awe into his readers' minds, thinking that the man was a good man for being honest IN SPITE of being poor, and that the rest of them are lying, cheating scumbags. 

This kind of story is one of the reasons why the country is so divided, and it pisses the hell out of me because it's very insensitive to the real plights of those who need our help.  

2. Another reason why I'm pissed is because of the balikbayan (an Overseas Filipino Worker who came back to the Philippines for a holiday / etc.) and her insensitivity to the plights of the people she used to live with. What a very hedonistic purchase! $45,000 for a fucking diamond ring! That amount of money may have helped A LOT of people, the vast majority living on less than $1 A DAY! And the worst part is, she almost lost it, meaning she didn't pay too much attention to it because she was taking the luxury for granted. 

It makes me very angry because here I am, struggling to work alone in a foreign land to put myself in a position in the future where I'll have power or influence to help a lot of people, and the people who are already in those positions I desperately want to be in are just wasting away their power and influence indulging in very selfish acts such as buying expensive rocks that hardly mean anything to them.

I'm not saying we shouldn't indulge in a bit of luxury. But for someone who has grown up seeing poor people beg on the streets everyday, that purchase was just too selfish of her. 

So for all of those who're able to read this, please to do not be like these 2. Be careful of what you write, because you never know the subtle messages you bring about by what you say. And please do not overindulge in luxuries that you don't necessarily need. There are more people in need of any extra blessings you have, and it's more fulfilling to share them in hopes of uplifting the lives of those who need it most. 

layman

Cultural Evolution: The Singapore Use of Chopsticks

In my 2 year stay here in Singapore, there are a few things that are always viable topics of discussion when I'm with different groups of Singaporean Chinese. Among all of these, my personal favorite involves a very "weird" practice unique to Singaporeans. Somehow, the way they use chopsticks is completely different to how their racial counterparts use it. 

This is basically the "normal" way of holding chopsticks; how the Chinese from China, as well as the Chinese in other countries in South East Asia (except for SIngapore and possibly Malaysia) eat using this utensil. It's how we were taught as well in the Philippines. Heck, that's even my hand in that picture! :D

The sticks are apart, with one resting between the thumb and the forefinger while the other is being held by the tips of the other 3 fingers (see picture). The stick nested between the thumb and the forefinger does not move. It serves as the anchor, while the other stick being held by the three fingers pushes the food to that stick and locking it in place. 

Here's how a typical Singaporean would hold would hold chopsticks. There's a fundamental difference in how it's held. The sticks are together, nested between the thumb and the forefinger. One stick is also supported by the forefinger and middle finger in order for the sticks to cross each other. This forms an "X", compared to the traditional way that forms a "V" shape. 

(And no, that's not my hand because I don't even know how to do it. :D)

Movement of the sticks is limited due to both being nested between the thumb and forefinger. How they actually get the food involves a complex movement of 3-4 fingers and a twist of the wrist. 

From what I remember, the hand actually does a "scooping" motion, mimicking that of using a spoon to get soup. Then, it's as if the whole hand cringes in order to make the chopsticks cross each other while in this scooping motion, grabbing the food. However, unlike the traditional way where people can eat directly from the chopsticks because the form allows them to do so, Singaporeans have to put the food they grabbed using their chopsticks on their Chinese spoons (what do you call those things?), then use the spoon to eat the food.

I've always been fascinated with this evolution of a once thought universal culture. Whenever I would eat in public places, I try to think about how this culture change came about. Even the very old Singaporeans hold it using their way, meaning this habit could have spawned generations ago, when a particular group of Chinese living in Malaysia and Singapore suddenly opted using this method.

What's also strange about this is that it's a topic of discussion among foreigners and Singaporeans, but no one has really written anything about it. It's definitely something worth investigating, because this rift in chopstick handling is very insightful and interesting in the study of cultural evolution. What was once thought of to be a one-way-only method of using turns out having a surprising counterpart. 

It's amazing how cultures seem so similar yet so different. 

I'm still grasping how to actually do it the SIngaporean way. It's a very difficult thing to do. :)

layman