The Nominations are now closed, and Voting can officially begin! We were as surprised as you when the nominations came up, but let’s just say that queer women and straight men have completely different tastes. Gone are the young stick-thin bikini girls, and in place, genuine women of substance dominate the list. We have playwrights, directors, actors, businesswomen, politicians, poets and more, and our list comprises a much wider age group.

And here, in order of no merit, are the nominees. Link to voting can be found after the list. Voting will be closed in two weeks.

Pamela Oei

Pam Oei’s sway over queer women is undefinable and impossible to express in words. The least we can come up with while drooling over her, is her amazing acting skills, her strong independent personality, her comedic genius, her beauty… oh just forget it and continue drooling already.

Vernetta Lopez

Why do we love V Lo? It is not just that she’s got a cute dykey haircut that she pulls off better than most dykes, or her mixed-ethnicity beauty… she’s a great comedic actress, a DJ, an independent businesswoman with multiple successful ventures (including a wedding planner), and to top it all off, she appeared as a lesbian in The Leap Years. We all hope to have our wedding planned by her, someday.

Janice Koh

Move over, Linda Liao… Janice Koh was the woman who caught the collective queer female eye when she played a (somewhat dykey looking) demanding Advertising Executive on Chase. And with her subsequent brilliant performance in Hitting on Women as the vulnerable lesbian recovering from an abusive relationship, cemented her status as a lesbian icon forever. Her toned arms (and legs, and abs and everything else) make us all want to sign up for Yoga classes too.

Yeo Yann Yann

Besides being a leading actress in Singapore Theatre, and also with movies like Singapore Dreaming and 881 under her belt, Yann Yann is also a certified cunninglinguist(not that kind, you perv) - in addition to being flawless in English and Mandarin, she can speak several dialects and Malay.

Glenda Chong

Glenda is perhaps one of the few reasons queer women would want to watch the depressing news on TV. Her smile, combined with her somewhat dykey vibes, takes the edge off the news about tsunamis and rising prices.

Ovidia Yu

Ovidia Yu is the living breathing proof that older women can be sexy too, and what’s even sexier than that, is being an out lesbian playwright, her latest contribution to the community being Hitting (on) Women. Did we mention she does Yoga to get that sexy body too?

Jasmine Seah

A hot poet - what more can you ask for? When Jasmine burst on to the queer female consciousness at Contradiction (an Indignation 2007 event) with her sweet, romantic poetry, what was louder than the applause was the sounds of the collective lesbian heart melting to the ground.

Sylvia Lim

Oh, where do we start with Sylvia Lim, who is not only one of the few women in politics, but also one of the few opposition politicians. Sylvia mesmerises us all with her guts to stand up to the ruling party, as well as her powerful performance in parliament as a NCMP. Did we mention she used to be a policewoman?

Suzanne Jung Ki Eng

Suzanne, the lovely Korean beauty in Primetime Morning lights up our mornings in more than one way, with her lovely smile and demeanour. We are pretty sure half our readers want to take her home and serve her tea - and we just heard a “Ramen” to that.

Jade Seah

Completely self-explanatory, really. Jade Seah simply rocks that somewhat dykey outfit, and makes us all want to head out to the beach for some sporty fun (preferably with her).

Eleanor Wong

Eleanor takes a special spot in the collective lesbian heart, being an out lesbian playwright and writing kick-ass plays like the lesbian lawyer trilogy and The Campaign to Confer the Public Star on JBJ. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg… when she’s not being a brilliant lawyer, she is coaching students in the ways to become a brilliant lawyer., and making wearing black top and blue jeans every single day look sexy. Oh go ahead and swoon over the sizzling combination of looks and brains already.

Tanya Chua

Singer. Acoustic Guitar. That outfit. Need we say more?

Michelle Chia

Michelle Chia is the hottest new thing on local TV, and just looking at her, there is not much doubt why she is the newest hot thing for us either. Smart, sexy, charming and a good actress to boot. What else can anyone ask for?

Catherine Lim

Dr Catherine Lim is perhaps one of the most awesome Singaporean women alive today. In addition to writing numerous provocative fiction books harshly illuminating the traditional Chinese culture, she is also one of the few people to go up against the Singapore government publicly and (metaphorically) live to tell the tale. We are pretty sure many of our readers want to be her Bondmaid forever.

Stefanie Sun

Stefanie Sun is one of the few people who put Singapore on the map, with her success in the music industry. And of course, her androgynous, spunky look just endears her to queer female fans.

Tan Pin Pin

Pin Pin is one of few female film-makers in the male-dominated industry, and of course, her handsome androgynous looks just endear themselves to queer female fans.

Olivia Lum

Olivia Lum is the founder, group chief executive officer, and president of the Singapore-based Hyflux Group, and ranked one of Singapore’s 40 Richest. Now, if achieving all that in a male-dominated world doesn’t attract our attention, we definitely believe that she brings out the sugar baby in all of us.

Rebecca Tan

It is not just that Rebecca is all girl. With her Pan-Asian heritage and perfect features, there is not much of a question why we all like to keep looking at Rebecca Tan. In fact, we expect the traffic on this page to stop right at this photograph.

Loretta Chen

If openly queer female playwrights are rare, even rarer are openly queer female directors. Not only does Loretta Chen pack a directorial punch, she is also a great actress, and to top it all off, is doing a PhD on lesbian theatre. Brains, talent and looks? Nom nom nom…

Denise Keller

Whether she is living it up with Dick Lee or breaking men’s hearts on TV, Denise Keller is definitely easy on the eyes, and more than charming.

Beatrice Chia

There are simply no words to describe the overpowering charm of Beatrice.  She is a force of nature in her own right, a trail blazer for women directors and producers, and a most accomplished and trained actress. We love not just her beauty, but her free and daring attitude towards everything, especially sex and sexuality. Beatrice is indeed a woman’s woman.

Click on the image below to vote for your favourite celebs now!

Thank you all who responded to the call to take the survey and spread the word about it. The data-collection period is now over, and the report will be published in due course.

Every year, mainstream, men’s magazines such as FHM and Maxim publish lists of Hot 100 Women. And every year, we choke on those lists because they feature typically boring, made-for-straight-men, never-over-35, and never-over-110-pounds women. We know, that as queer women, we have way better taste, and we are able to appreciate all kinds of beauty.

Hence, we are opening nominations for our very own Sayoni Hot 20 List! Nominate about 2-15 female celebrities based in Singapore, or of Singapore origin - actresses, musicians, writers, directors (and politicians?) and more, whom YOU think are attractive and/or sexy. Do not rank them, simply list them.

Nominations will be closed in two weeks, after which voting will be opened. You can either leave a comment or email us privately at admin@sayoni.com.

Coming at you a little late this week, we present to you, pain for love, and ultimate twists.

A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila II

This week, Tila challenges the contestants to prove their love for her through getting a tattoo, a piercing, walking on broken glass or sitting in the electric chair. And so they did…  All the contestants, very smartly, avoided getting Tila’s name tattooed on them, because in Kristy’s words, anytime that happens, it is a jinx (right on, Kristy). Kristy got a discreet star tattoo that matched Tila’s (once again, very smart), saving on thousands of dollars on tattoo-removal if she ever gets kicked off the show. Jay and Bo got (inadvertently) matching shot-glass tattoos, and George chose the fake broken-glass, which apparently hurt him in ways that did not hurt Tila’s feet. Lisa chose the electric chair - tip to the ladies… you’ve got to keep a woman who’d sit in the electric chair for you. Britney got a stomach piercing, despite supposedly being afraid of needles (er, so the piercing in your lower lip and eyebrow were made by something else?).

Lisa, however, messed up the date later with Tila by running off her mouth, and still keeping her guards up, and refusing to let herself fall. Realising she made a mistake, she kicked everyone’s ass later in the second challenge and won the bedroom date with Tila, where she told Tila that “love was a strong word”. Now, I don’t see anything unreasonable about that… if anything, Tila is too used to people falling in lust/love with her immediately, and 7 weeks on a TV show is not really the best recipe for true love. And of course, there is the fact that Lisa and her are, in her words, a rollercoaster ride. Quite frankly, their courtship is the most realistic one on the show, the preliminaries of a very passionate, intense relationship.

But it was not to be. Tila chose Britney, who was “slow and steady”, over Lisa, at elimination, getting rid of a very bitter George in the process. And she kept Jay, which, once again, makes me go “huh?!”. Whenever they kiss, I have to turn away from the screen and puke.

With Lisa gone, my bets are on Kristy and Bo making the final two - but we’ll know, when Tila visits their hometowns next week, and decides who is best for her!

This begins a new column on Sayoni Speak, Letters to Ling. Facing a problem with your life, your sexuality, relationship, family et cetera? Write in to our advice columnist, Ling, with your problem. All emails are confidential and your anonymity will be preserved.

Dear Ling,

I am living with my girlfriend of three years. We’re really in love, and we plan to spend the rest of our lives together… except for the fact that there is this really cute co-worker who I am really physically attracted to, and I really can’t help it. I don’t love my girlfriend any less, she’s still the love of my life, and everything is fine in our sex life. So I don’t understand why I am so attracted to her, and it is very distracting at work, and I feel really guilty about thinking of someone else at all. I am terrified my girlfriend will find out and it is going to ruin our relationship, even though I’ve done nothing with the other girl, who happens to be gay as well.

What do I do?”

“Feeling Guilty”

Dear Feeling Guilty,

It is normal to be attracted to other women, especially women whom you encounter frequently. When you interact with someone physically attractive on a daily basis, it is important to keep in mind that this is just a physical attraction.

Humans are naturally attracted to pretty things or people. That is the major driving factor behind many “crushes” that we have and why we spend a ton of money on buying that sleek SONY Vaio when the Acer Aspire costs half as much. Having established this fact, we need to be aware of the difference between a physical attraction and a real relationship.

It does not seem that you are facing a “down” time in your relationship as you still feel perfectly in love and your sex life is doing great. In fact, your girlfriend may not even be aware of the situation you are facing. However, if this drags on any longer, there is a possibility that you may become withdrawn from her as your fear of her finding out about your fascination with your co-worker becomes greater. That will eventually lead to arguments and fights as your girlfriend struggles to connect with you once more.

It seems that you love your girlfriend very much and do not want to ruin your relationship with her. Therefore, do some self-reflection and ask yourself what else can be done to further enhance your relationship. Take some time out to sit down and review the relationship you enjoy with your girlfriend. What is it about her that makes you go “Mmmhmm” and ask yourself if you are prepared to give up this relationship, and everything good that comes with it, in order to explore the “possibilities” with your cute co-worker. Are there any hidden problems that you have not been communicating with your girlfriend? Is there a possibility that your sex life is not as interesting as it used to be? Do you and your girlfriend spend enough (or too much) time together?

Once you have completed your self-reflection, bring your girlfriend out on a date. Surprise her with some good food and wine. Use this time to communicate to her any problems you have unearthed during your self-reflection. You could even bring up the cute co-worker and let her know that although you find the co-worker cute, you find her cuter!

As for the cute co-worker, remember, she is your co-worker. Having a one night stand or fling with her would undoubtedly jeopardise everything you have worked for in your relationship. In addition, this is someone you have to work with everyday. Should things not turn out well, it would create an enormous amount of tension in your working environment. It would not be wise to do that. Keep in mind that while she may be a SONY Vaio, your Acer Aspire at home works just as well and you have already established a loving relationship with it.

Good Luck!

Ling

Please send your emails to letterstoling@sayoni.com, with your preferred pseudonym. Do note that all opinions and views expressed in this column are the author’s, and does not in any way reflect the views of Sayoni or its members. By writing to the author, you accept the terms on which this advice is offered, with the clear understanding that Ling is neither a professional therapist, therapist/psychologist, counselor, nor in the business of giving advice, and she does not accept a duty of care or a contractual obligation in responding to your email. Sayoni disclaims all liability for the consequences of following the advice of the author of this column, howsoever they might have been sustained.

Kanako Otsuji became Japan’s first openly lesbian politician when she was elected to the Osaka Prefectural Assembly in April 2003 at the age of 28 - making her the youngest person ever to be elected to the Assembly.

In 2007, Ms. Otsuji was an official Democratic Party of Japan candidate. She lost the Upper House election with 38,229 votes. If she had won, she would have been Japan’s first openly gay national politician.

Over breakfast, she talked to Sayoni about being an openly gay politician in Japan.

What motivated you to get involved in politics?

The biggest reason is that I’m a lesbian. I have been a minority in society and it took me quite a long time to accept myself. I questioned myself over my sexual orientation for 4 to 5 years.

After I had accepted myself, I started becoming involved in the community and became aware of its situation. I realized the reason why lesbians hide in the closet: it was not because of who they were, but because society forces them to hide themselves.

As I struggled to accept myself, I hoped to change society. During that period, I was a student and got an internship with a politician - that’s how I learnt that politics can change society.

During my interview with the politician to obtain the internship, I told them about my sexual orientation and I asked them what changes politics could bring.

While I was on internship, the office I was working for actually brought up questions to the assembly about gay people. I was very moved. Laws pertaining to LGBT had been underground until then (swept under the carpet).

Politicians were influential and I actually felt it. After seeing this, I realised I wanted to be a politician and make changes. Other than this, I was inspired by Harvey Milk (openly gay San Francisco politician). I had read about him in a book/documentary and watched a film on him.

What helped you to come out after 5 years of struggling?

First, the internet. Second, I was 18 when I started thinking about whether I was a lesbian. That was in 1993. At that time there was no internet. While I was questioning my identity, I had no idea who to talk to and where to go.

In 1995, female singer Michiru Sasano came out as a lesbian and that inspired me. The actual reason was that I started to become involved in the (LGBT) community in 1998. There were girls I liked, but their answer was always ‘no’, because of religion. I became involved in politics because of this - I had bitter feelings about this issue and I didn’t want it to happen anymore.

How has being a politician changed your life?

Everything! Being elected as a politician is making yourself public. I have more responsibilities. If I were politically inappropriate, word of it would become news. In that sense, it was not easy for a 28 year old lady. In the assembly, younger women often do not have a chance to speak. That’s why I had to obtain my own opportunity. So I studied the issues hard, because I would be picked on if I don’t know anything. I needed to educate myself to destroy the stereotypes.

When I came out to the party, my perspectives and position changed.

On hindsight, would you have done anything in your life differently?

In 1995, I experienced a great earthquake in the city-port Kobe and 6000 people died from it. I learnt from that episode that life is precious and understood that our lives could end at any time. Through that experience, I learnt that I did not want to regret not doing anything. I decided to be myself and not regret later.

What do you consider your greatest achievement and your greatest challenge?

First, to come out as a lesbian. Second, to run for election as a openly gay person. I am proud of myself, that I had actually done it in Japan. I believe many people were encouraged and inspired. What one politician can do is limited, but this is still a great thing to do.

I received 300 over emails from supporters. It was the greatest achievement and also the biggest challenge.

What do you see as your greatest challenge in the future?

To get elected again. When I run in another election and find a party from which to obtain endorsement, as I have done previously, I would like to be recognized as a politician that happens to be queer, not just known as a lesbian politician. I have not reached that level yet. In the election that I lost, I had mainly focused on identity politics. During that time, I was aware that it was important that a lesbian was in politics. Now that I have done that, I’d like to go to a higher level.

For those of your fans out there who are wondering, do you have a girlfriend?

I have no comment on this. The election has brought a lot of sacrifice to my personal life.

Finally, do you have a message for your supporters outside of Japan?

The changes that have been brought to Japan, which is often considered conservative, were achieved by making our voices heard, so I believe you can make your voices heard too. Believe in yourself.

Kanako Otsuji’s official website is http://www.otsuji-k.com

High-profile lesbian scandals and wrestling… that is what we have for you this week.

Hollywood Lesbian Scandal

Jodie and and new lover Cindi

Taken from New York Daily.

Oscar-winning actress Jodie Foster, 45, has a new woman in her life.

According to various sources, including England’s Daily Mail, Foster dumped her long-time girlfriend Cydney Bernard for screenwriter Cindy Mort. The two apparently met on the set of Foster’s 2007 movie “The Brave One.”

Foster, 45, and Bernard, 55, had been together for 14 years and had been raising Foster’s two children. Foster, who won Best Actress Oscars for her roles in “The Accused” and “The Silence of the Lambs” has never revealed the identity of the father of her two sons, Kit (9) and Charles (6).

According to the Daily Mail, Mort, 41, was in a relationship with former “Thirtysomething” actress Melanie Mayron. The two had been raising ten-year-old twins Olivia and Miles.

The source quoted by the Daily Mail said: “Cydney had no idea their relationship was in trouble until Jodie came home one day and told her she’d fallen in love with Cindy and was moving out. Cydney is devastated.”

As for the other side of this scandal, the source says Mayron is also taking the split very hard.

“It’s not easy to be dumped for the most famous lesbian in Hollywood. It is the biggest lesbian love scandal to grip this town in years.”

While I sympathise with the women who have been dumped, I have to simultaneously marvel at how lesbians can create drama anywhere, even in Hollywood. The last time something like this happened, Ellen DeGeneres dumped Alexandra Henderson and Portia de Rossi dumped Francesca Gregorini, and as we all know, Ellen and Portia are getting married, something usually not expected out of a scandalous union like that.

Jodie and Cydney

Yeah, for those people who have been living under a rock for the past 15 years… Surprise! Jodie Foster is gay. As if you could have missed it when she thanked her “beautiful Cydney” at an award show. At the next award show, she can just swap around two letters, and thank her “beautiful Cyndey” instead, and no one will even spot the difference!

All the same… we wish Jodie Foster and Cindi Mort good luck in their new relationship, and offer a listening ear and tissues to Cydney and Melanie.

A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila II

Gelatin, stay or go, and cockroaches. That would be a good tagline for this episode of Tila Tequila, which would have been run of the mill had it not been for the Stay or Go “game”.

Of course, you know Lisa is going to win the Challenge du Jour, because in Tila’s words, “she is a beast”. In a good way, of course. Ahem. [I rest assured in the knowledge that the local authorities cannot possibly prosecute Tila for bestiality after reading this entry and taking it literally]. The real surprising thing about this challenge was that Britney was beaten by Samantha aka Glitter, who displayed a new-found beastly vengeance that is scarier than her glitter eyeshadow. Yeah, you know she’s never going to live down losing to a stripper. After winning the wrestling challenge, Lisa’s team went on a trip to Tila’s candy-store [a real one, what were you thinking?] and er… got themselves some sugar. Really, I am not making innuendoes here.

Honestly, I wonder about you guys sometimes.

In the Stay or Go game, where the contestants were asked to decide who was compatible and who was not, Glitter decided to take the moral high road and “not judge people” - which is understandable, because, you know, she’s a stripper and she must be so sick of being judged herself. Everyone voted Lisa to stay, knowing the “beast” she is, and how much of a connection she had with Tila. Almost everyone voted Bo to go home, citing a personality clash. So Lisa got immunity from elimination (oh, hi there Survivor) and Bo got a one-on-one date, during which Tila affirmed her feelings towards Bo and decided the rest of them were wrong.

At elimination, Scotty and Glitter got the boot. Scotty aka Mr Pastry-Puff-in-need-of-a-shave was told their relationship could not go beyond friendship (which I could have told her from the beginning), and Glitter was told she was too emotional to handle Tila. Oh gee, you think? She has cried at least 15 times on the show so far, often over nothing. The girl is worse than Amanda of the yesterseason - at least when Amanda talked, she did not burst into bouts of inappropriate laughter or cry over spilled glitter.

Of course, I have absolutely no idea why Jay aka Jersey is still in the running. He is loud, obnoxious, immature and idiotic. He acts like a frat boy, and if it were up to me, I’d have sent him home on the first day. I predicted Kristy to get the boot last week, because I thought the way she was not really spending any time with Tila, there was not much hope for her, but this week, she did. Anyway I like her because she looks like a blonde version of Brandi.

Predictions for next week: Jay and George. George is hanging on by a slim thread, as he is not fighting enough and showing that he is more than just a nice guy with no spice. I definitely like Lisa, and I think she is going all the way to the top 3.

“Unasked by night; I am true Love, I fill
The hearts of boy and girl with mutual flame.”
Then sighing, said the other, “Have thy will,
I am the love that dare not speak its name.”

– True Love, Lord Alfred Douglas

It was a historical moment. Wilde, a movie made in 1997 was banned in Singapore for ‘homosexual content’, and it has been passed without cut with a R21 rating this year.

It is not without its merits with good acting and reminding people that Wilde was persecuted under laws against homosexual acts. It is just that it is a rather straightforward story of how a legendary man was persecuted for his forbidden love. If you are looking for something delicate and touches the heart, it is likely that you would be disappointed.

I have always liked Oscar Wilde and his works – perhaps not so much of his works, but rather his wit and sarcasm. I like Stephen Fry’s acting, depicting Oscar Wilde as the talented and flamboyant playwright which we all know him to be. Unfortunately, depicting such a legendary character is always too much of a burden for any seasoned actor, as everyone will have an image of Oscar Wilde in his or her mind. Stephen Fry made a notable effort to merge with the genius he is playing, but he isn’t the Oscar Wilde I have in my mind, and I don’t blame him for it.

However, Stephen Fry’s chemistry with the men left much to be desired. The intimate scenes were awkward and I felt like cringing whenever they start to get undressed. Jude Law is yummy and totally to die for (no, the author isn’t a gay man) but that is hardly salvation for the lack of on-screen chemistry.

Wilde’s relationship with Bison (Lord Alfred Douglas, played by Jude Law) was the most well developed subplot in the entire movie, and that speaks volume about how lackluster the emotions are being played out on screen. One moment, you see him with Bobbie – clothes off and onto the bed. The next moment, you see him meeting the next guy and proceeding to have sex with him. Next up, you see him with his wife Constance and their baby. The director failed to capture the intricacy of their relationships, and chose to jump from one incident to another, leaving audience with no time to feel for the characters. That was the most disappointing aspect of this movie, in my opinion.

Oscar Wilde was portrayed as a man of flesh and blood – his struggles between his loves, being arrogant and foolhardy at times and how he was slowly driven to the brink of desperation. Too silly to be Oscar Wilde, some might say, but I would not mind granting some artistic license to a movie, given it is not a documentary.

In short, it is above-average entertainment, and worth watching if you like Jude Law, enjoy witty dialogues, or want to see a movie about Oscar Wilde and his less well-known story of being a victim of laws against homosexual acts. However, the lack of emotional engagement, tabloid-like angle and slight dramatic sensationalism has prevented it from being truly moving.

Drama drama drama. That’s what we have for you, this week. What’s new, right?

Grey’s Anatomy

Wooh, what a season finale. Not only did all our favourite couples end up together, we got a hot lesbian kiss between Callie and Erica at the end.

So, continuing on the thread of the clinical trial by Merder, this week, we had a couple who was going in for the experimental-surgery-that-has-not-worked-yet. Meredith continues seeing her therapist, and finally figures out her issues, and of course after that, you know, that she and Derek are going to end up back together eventually, especially after they managed to save one of the patients. The Disease du Jour was a boy trapped in a cement block, and eventually gets the girl of his dreams, Han Solo style. Bailey sees the bigger picture, and gives the clinic to Izzie, who in turn has learned to be assertive with Alex who is sheltering a crazy Rebecca/Ava. The Chief, who is The Villain in Meredith’s story, decides to give George a retest, and come home to his wife.

Now that we have all the other subplots straightened out, no pun intended, we can focus on our favourite couple. Callie and Erica have some sexual tension going on in surgery, but Callie still thinks it is Mark’s dirty talk which turns her on, not the subject of the dirty talk, though Mark realises it and tells her so. Of course, there is the anvil of subtlety plot-point that also urges Callie to finally make the move, which is that the girl that cement-boy likes, does not dare to tell anyone, including her friends, that she likes cement-boy too, for fear of ridicule. At the end of the day, Mark tells Callie to finish what she started… she walks up to Erica, and tells her she has something to say. Erica is not paying attention, she is looking for her keys… Callie demands Erica to pay attention, and when she straightens up and looks at her, Callie goes for the kiss.

After the whole montage of kissing scenes with all the characters, we finally come back to the couple who are still making out, and Mark is seen in the background, admiring his handiwork. Apparently, turning over a new leaf can also include urging your sex-buddy to be herself and kiss the woman she likes.

A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila

This week was a continuation of drama madness of yesterweek. The previous show left us hanging as to the fate of Bo - it turns out Chad headbutted and punched him. Bo, very wisely, did not fight back, and had to be taken to the hospital and have surgery for his jaw that split with the force of the punch. He fought through the surgery, and still managed to make it back on time to the show, which touched Tila. I have changed my mind…. the Bobby of this season is clearly Bo, not Kyle. They even have the same first two letters in the name, and have gotten into fights over Tila (remember Ashley punching out Bobby last season?). Tila clearly seems to be a sucker for that.

Of course, right after the fight, Chad was sent home by security, so thank goodness about that. Seeing his face on screen was making ME want to punch something. Tila made a surprising decision, and decided to invite George back into the house, clearly aware she had made a huge mistake in choosing Chad. (So why the hell did you not allow Brandi back in the last season? Arrghhh)

Though everyone was happy to see George back in the house, they did not quite feel it was fair in some ways, and Lisa questioned it, and started saying it was all fake under her breath, which Tila caught. It would have been bye-bye for Lisa, except that Lisa and Brittany won the challenge later, and the date with her. As usual, Lisa wins everything, and then, as Brittany puts it, jinxes whoever who goes on the double-date with her. Lisa and Tila started fighting about the misunderstanding earlier. And this was the true surprising part - Lisa just walked out, and Tila actually followed her, trying to talk to her. Given how princessy and choosy Tila is, her actually trying to make it with someone is out of the ordinary, and may show how much she might have fallen for Lisa. Lisa tried to explain that she needs some time, and is afraid of her feelings, and ended the fight by kissing Tila.

At elimination, Tila got rid of Sirbrina and Michelle. Sirbrina was just not making the effort to get to know Tila, though Tila was very physically attracted to her. Michelle, well, is rather forgettable. Lisa did not get the boot, as expected, but Tila decided that them fighting meant there was something worth fighting for, and there was a connection and feelings - probably evidenced by the passionate kissing they had at elimination. So, I think we all know who this season’s Dani is, except Lisa is not nearly as sweet and nice. Brittany broke the Lisa jinx, and was kept on the show, and George was told to step it up and not get too comfortable. Scotty, Mr Pastry-puff-in-need-of-a-shave, is probably there just because he has not done anything wrong yet.

Predictions: Jay and Kristy are getting the boot next week. Or at least, I hope Jay is, because I have to see his coloured-contact lens eyes one more time, I may want to gouge them out.

And this column ends the updates for Grey’s Anatomy until season 5 (if there will be one) starts again, but the updates for A Shot at Love will continue. As usual, if you have any entertainment updates, send it to pleinelune@sayoni.com, and you may see it published!

Image taken from aboutleap.com

The world is so much easily understood if we saw and believed in everything in binary opposites, and ideally, both ends/poles function in tandem, in contrast, interdependently, symbiotically, and eventually contribute to a whole, a stable system, a status quo.

Where does the woman stand in the world of binary opposites? For millennia, literature, rhetoric and discourses have by default refer to “humanity” as “man”, “humankind” as “mankind”, most random persons as “he” (Freudian slip any one?). This whole, stable system and status quo privileges a dominant kind – the male-oriented. It is gendered and sexed accordingly to toe the line of the androcentric, patriarchal and heterosexist establishment.

What I find puzzling is that women are often described in terms of their functions. A woman is a mother, a wife, a daughter, a child-bearer, a housewife, a slave, an asset, a tradable commodity. These identities are roles, spokes in the wheel of a dominant worldview, almost implying that women are functional to men.

The main problem here is: how do we actually define a woman? Is the woman an onion, with many layers of (male) meanings piled and ascribed upon her? Is the woman a jigsaw puzzle, with each piece equally as meaningful (to the man) put together (by the man)? Is the woman a paint mix of all the colours, eventually acquiring a shade of black, leaving no clue as to colours of which she was comprised?

I am a sucker for structure. Defining a woman is problematic. It’s like using a stick to draw a figure in a trough of sand. The stick and trough are already tools and apparatuses of dominant male ideology. Even the sand in the trough is limited in quantity because it is provided for you by the very ideology you are striving to confront. You could resist by drawing a different picture, but you are still limited by the materials bestowed upon you.

In essence, the lens through which you attempt to see the woman, and the language with which you use to describe the woman, all are crafted by a society and system which already subjugates women. What if the concept of the woman is beyond the description enabled by the stick, the trough, and the amount and even quality of sand?

It is the very same sandbox of heterocentric patriarchy that we come to make sense of sexuality. We are often bombarded with norms and values of the dominant group, “Be a man! Behave like a lady!” and after much socialisation/indoctrination/brainwashing, most of us, when encountering a gay male or female couple, will come to ask, “Who’s the man? Who’s the woman? Who’s on top?”

On the first level, it is obvious this form of curiosity informs of a subscription to binary opposites, and along with it, a certain set of expectations. On the second level, upon closer scrutiny, it seems that the curious is rather quick to sexualise the ‘other’. In asking who’s the man/woman and who’s on top, the curious exposes his/her internalisation of binary oppositions in the domain of sexuality.

Lesbian. I learnt that word when I was 11. It was probably the third word in my queer vocabulary after “Ah Kwa” and “Gay”. I’m not sure if “sissy” counted. Imagine that, the first form of language in which we are socialised when encountering queer folk is abusive and derogatory language. Even in the early moments of learning the word “lesbian” from my playful peers, it was used and spoken in an insulting manner. Now I just call queer people “gay” (as an adjective) or “sexual minorities”, but some persons in the legal profession may have differing opinions about the usage of the latter.

I take great issue, even as a straight person (note that “straight” is originally a gay lingo for heterosexual persons), in the usage of “gay” and “lesbian” as nouns, i.e. you’re a gay/lesbian. It may be mere trivial grammar, but it reduces the person to the functions of sexuality that the word so defines, displacing other identifiable characteristics and traits, a view shared by Alex Au in my last conversation with him. There is more to a person than just an adjective, and all the more should this adjective not be converted into a noun. Society is lazy, and always tempted to simplify and generalise, so in this case, the adjective becomes a noun.

The Oxford English Dictionary even states that “lesbian”, for example, is originally an adjective, referring to someone who came from the island Lesbos, North of the Grecian Archipelago. Arthur J Munby, through Derek Rommel Hudson (Munby: Man of Two Worlds. The life and Diaries of Arthur J. Munby), first mentioned “lesbian” to refer to female homosexuality in 1870. Aldous Leonard Huxley, in Letters (edited by Grover Smith in 1969), then used “lesbian” as a noun in 1925:

“After a third-rate provincial town, colonized by English sodomites and middle-aged Lesbians, which is, after all, what Florence is, a genuine metropolis will be lively.”

The politics of sexual diversity are very complicated, and mainstream dominant values systems do not help their integration. Sexual diversity scares most of us. Some straight people do not understand homosexuality. Some self-identified homosexual people do not understand bisexuality. And some bisexual people, along with the rest of us, do not understand pansexuality. Queer-ness is the symbolic “other” of straight-ness, and both form again a dichotomy! What on earth is going on?

On the planes of heteronormality, the fluidity of sexuality (I am very sorry I haven’t read Foucault on that, shame on me) appears to only exist among queer sexualities, as heterosexuality has walled itself with socio-religious and moral boundaries and control mechanisms. Those who have the privilege to live in and view from the heteronormative vantage point will subscribe to the notion that all other sexualities are deviant and ridiculous.

Of course! Deviant sexualities are ridiculous. That is because our system and structures do not support them. Lesbian mothers cannot be mothers because the law does not allow them to be mothers, and instead slap sanctions and disincentives on them. Janadas Devan wrote twice about lesbian marriage and mothering in Nov 28, 2003 (Straits Times: Brain magnets) and Jul 7, 2007 (Straits Times: Can mum, mum and kids make a family?), with the former adopting a rather economic globalisationist rhetoric created by Richard Florida’s Creative Index thesis, and the latter attracting a moral outcry from conservative members of the public, continuing the debate on homosexuality in Singapore following the St. James Power Station incident.

I take no position on what makes a good family, but I believe that bad parenting and broken families are ‘colour-blind’. Bad parenting and broken families know no boundaries, irrespective of age, gender, race, class, sexuality. You could have a straight couple fighting, straight parents divorcing, and so on; you could also have gay and queer couples in the same position. The response to this is one that evokes the rhetoric of nation-building, “How then are they supposed to have babies?” We do not have to answer that question, because it is derived from the very same mentality that oppresses women, i.e. defining them according to their roles and functions to the dominant status quo. When you attempt to answer that question, you are grabbing the very stick and trough of sand provided by the questioner, and trying to craft an answer, rearranging, reconstructing, and eventually reproducing the dominant ideology that the questioner so internalises. We are not obliged to dignify the questions posed to us by the privileged, but we have the right to pose questions about the privileged and their positions of privilege.

We have seen the revival of Victorian morality, a stowaway in the ship that is Westernisation and globalisation, the prevalence of the English language, the accompanying easy access to some branches of Christianity, culminating in a rather neo-puritanical and ascetic perspective on sexuality and sexual deviance in Singapore. Women, in Victorian era morality, are seen as asexual. Sex is meant for procreation. In a sense, the sexuality of women is a function, and women are thus a function. Moreover, while we should not only point the finger at religion, we should also be ready to look at the patriarchal values and accompanying gender norms we have so blindly embraced, and these come from the many cultures that make up Singapore.

I think lesbian women have it worse in the domains of media representation, especially in Singapore. In my research, almost mirroring Leong Wai-Teng’s research:

“Leong (2005) observes that lesbian women are often represented as being engaged in stormy relationships, and are depicted as “catty, vengeful and treacherous” lovers. Arson and suicides have reportedly been the culmination of such stormy relationships.

A handful of (Straits Times, 2001-2007) articles have discussed lesbian mothering and marriage, while some have regarded lesbianism as an unnatural, breast-binding subculture. Lesbian sex and sexuality are invisible in the ST – a stark contrast to the visibility of gay male sex and sexuality. Lesbian sex continues to be not just a taboo topic for film censors but also an alien and mysterious entity in Singaporean society – an accurate reflection of the androcentric Penal Code which criminalises sex between two men and not two women.”

The mainstream media portrayal of lesbian women, save for Janadas Devan’s articles, is often less than favourable. Stable and loving lesbian relationships are underrepresented. What is worse is that most people, ignorant of lesbian relationships (me included), will have no conception whatsoever of a stable and loving lesbian relationships, and the questions they ask are merely reflective of the patriarchal heterocentrism that so permeates society. What these people understand of gay relationships is mainly centred on the domain of sex (also viewed through a rather heterocentric masculinist lens), because these people have come to exclusivise all the niceties of relationships to a heterosexual one.

Our understanding of gender is sexed. Our understanding of sexuality is gendered. Male, one function; female, another function. The roles of the active penetrator and passive penetrated. Who’s on top and who’s below? At the same time, our understanding of homosexuality, or queerness for that matter, is gendered and sexed. Who is the ‘male’/‘female’? In the process, we forget about the wide ranging definitions of (sexual) attraction and notions of love (and of course, such a rhetoric is acknowledged to discriminate against the asexual, very sorry).

The best we can do is to point out that diversity does exist in many forms. There may be institutionalised celebrations of diversity, sanctioned by the state, the elites and the dominant moral systems. These agencies have unshakable and unbreakable notions of right and wrong, and natural and unnatural, taken to be universal gospel truths. That doesn’t mean your non-institutional beliefs and values have to be shakable and breakable. Their micro-narratives have to be applied to the macrocosmos that is society at large and onus is on them to reconcile with their own rhetoric of diversity.

Diversity should not be celebrated in a way where minority groups become obliged to internalise the very same patriarchal and heterosexist norms, expectations and anxieties that the majority of people do. It should not fall into the same trap that is the politics of instiutionalised multiculturalism/racialism, which has been critically observed to be initiated and perpetuated by one dominant culture/race.

Lesbian women suffer double-marginalisation, for being a woman and being gay. Gay men have the “privilege” of the attention and condemnation, while lesbian women are relatively invisibilised and often unspoken of. I am one of the many people out there who are exposed to the stereotypes and folklore that have taken over the representation and understanding of queer women in general. “She turned lesbian because of a bad relationship with a man.” or “All lesbians bind” or “It’s just a phase.” – all popular explanations that turn into conventional wisdom, sucking away from us the responsibility and initiative to understanding and respecting queer and questioning persons.

Lesbian women as couples are so taboo in society, because this irritates the societal expectations of the roles and behaviours of women. Serious relationships are brushed aside as mere “trends-bian”, lesbian by trend, and taken for granted that these misguided girls will eventually (and are expected to) snap out of this homosexual ludicrousness and be what society wants them to be. Procreation and reproduction, factors of the dominant mode of production, are what society needs.

Society will tell you who and how to love. If you love “correctly”, you will be protected by the state and the many institutions that serve its interest. If you love the “wrong one”, you will be punished, formally and informally. Society will not protect you from abuse, but sometimes legitimise it.

I also feel the open acceptance and inclusion of sexual minorities in Singaporean society should not be buttressed by the rhetoric of the economic imperative. If we are going to talk about queer and questioning sexualities and their integration, it would help a lot if we ditched the whole “liberalist economic globalisation” narrative which insinuates that gay people are a side-effect or a necessary evil for economic progress and sustenance. Women in Singapore have been at the receiving end of such rhetoric: In the 1960s, Singapore “needed to survive”, so women were granted equal education and employment opportunities; in the early 1980s, in view of declining birthrates, women were encouraged to reprioritise their roles (read Michelle Lazar’s (2001) “For the good of the nation: ‘Strategic egalitarianism’ in the Singapore context”). We should by now at least learn something from that.

My lecturer once told me that every democracy should have some republicanism in them, in the sense, the 51% cannot vote to kill the other 49%. In Singapore, we swing to and fro when it comes to leveraging on the rhetoric of democracy, spicing it up with the ideology that is meritocracy, yet mixing it all up with some welfarism and socialist policies to redistribute resources to help the needy. This shows that while you cannot make everyone happy, you can at least make the attempt to listen to, tend to, and represent them – a humble effort in my opinion to stay true to the slogan “No Singaporean gets left behind.”

We should make the effort to allow GLBTQ people to be represented fairly, and rethink the censorship that regularly impedes that. We should also let various role models from the community have the opportunity to be visible and change mindsets and lives. If you wanted to use the rhetoric of democracy, be sure to be consistent with the fact that everyone in this democracy of yours deserves to be visible and represented. If everyone is equal before this construct that is the constitution and law, be sure to be consistent with the fact that everyone in this country has a right to participate in the democratic process. Women can participate, and by women, I mean all.

The funny thing is, on another note, another lecturer said, “Lawyers practise the law, but don’t question it.”

I feel everyone has the right to question the law, without any fear, because everyone has the right to make sense of things for himself/herself. The laws of mainstream society, as they call themselves, should be questioned. All the leveraging and leanings on European authoritative notions of what is natural and unnatural, right and wrong, are creating many divisions in our society. There are many Singaporeans who are experiencing some kind of dissonance everyday because they cannot make sense of the realities and contradictions that confront them, and it is not their fault.

The problem is that we do not question. We accept what is given because it seems so normal for us. We accept the existing divisions and segmentations that define society. Change is difficult. MDA fined SCV $10,000 for showing lesbian intimacy as reported in early April. This is the symbolic denial of lesbianism as part of reality. When you deny it, you would not even have the initiative to discuss it. As mentioned, stereotypical and populist ideas of lesbianism will take over and you get the reality we’re living in now. By denying someone recognition, you deny him/her respect, representation and rights. Janadas Devan has recognised lesbian women. And I do the same, and for all queer and questioning women.

It all starts with some tacit acceptance and I believe it will inspire others to do the same. That is actually pretty easy, and I don’t see why we should complicate things.