Friday, January 12, 2007


There we go again... Once we touch the untouchables - the raped, the handicapped, the terminally ill, the deformed, the whatevers - people start getting all riled up and angry, before they even hear properly what you have to say.

How about this? Just because someone is victimized, somehow, by society, someone else or by their own misfortune, it DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN DO NO WRONG.

A handicapped person can also be mean, unreasonable. Maybe yes, because he is shortchanged in life we try to give in to him, but meanness is meanness, and cannot be justified just because he is in a wheelchair.

In that case, if a healthy walking person is mean, you judge him - then isn't it very unfair to the physically abled person? What IF he has some sort of mental disability inside him that made him mean?

Meanness seems mild - I'm just using it because of my blog entry about handicapped toilets, but feel free to replace it with any other unpleasant word.

If you want to be a bloody moral saint, be FAIR, and do not judge ANYONE, and not just for those you can SEE are already victimized in life.

It just pisses me off when people behave that way, all because they want to appear morally righteous and act as if they care - but do they, really?

NOPE. They don't.

They are sympathetizers: useless, loud-mouthed fucks who do nothing. They go, "Aiyoh, so poor thing!" and leave it as that, yet because they feel more sympathy than they feel realism, they feel free to lecture others, claiming moral high ground.

You think Nicole cares if you defend her by writing a bloody comment online? SHE DOESN'T. If you really think you are so passionate about this issue, get your lardass off your swivelly computer chair, and go volunteer to befriend rape victims, ok?

TALK IS CHEAP. I can also say, "Wah, this Xiaxue so mean, see, I am insulting her, see, it means that I am a better person than her."

Doesn't mean anything until you prove yourself. For all we know, you could be a sick paedophillic necrophillic incestrous cannibal fuck.

Ok, whatever, it appears that it is not in good sense to write a serious issue in a lighthearted way, so let me do it again, maybe this time in a more serious tone.

I'd like to refute the accusations that thus far have been thrown at me:

1) that I think Rape is ok as long as it is by a good looking guy.

2) "Nicole", the rape victim (so called) deserved what she got because she was drunk and probably slutty


All these, perhaps largely misinterpreted, are not what I am trying to say. What my blog entry was trying to bring across was only four points:

1) I do not believe Nicole was being raped, but indeed, had consensual sex with Daniel Smith.

I quote myself, "I don't know whether it is just me, but it seems pretty ridiculous to me that the girl got raped."

There were evidence that she got raped, but as far as I am concerned, it is definitely not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Daniel Smith, in this case, is not a rapist in my mind.

So, to accuse me of saying rape is ok is not possible at all, simply because I don't even think rape occured in this instance!

I can understand how you guys start to get so upset all because you think this is a serious issue and should not be joked about.

Unfortunately for me, I am born with a slight deficiency and somehow cannot see when to stop joking. It is quite sad for me coz I keep pissing people off.

I am not apologizing. I can feel free to believe in what I want to believe in, and I believe rape did NOT occur. The only people who can take offense, are 1) the people who are certain that Nicole got raped and 2) Nicole herself. However, I don't give a shit about these people, because I believe that (1) people are stupid and naive and (2) is a liar.

Why do I believe that Nicole was not raped?

* Smith and Marine Buddies met "Nicole" in Zamboanga during training exercises

* Smith invited "Nicole" to Subic area and paid for her transportation

* November 1, 2005 around 10 pm., Smith and 3 US Marine friends went to the Neptune Bar in Subic and met "Nicole" and her step-sister

* After having a good time at the club, Smith, his 3 Marine friends, "Nicole" and a Filipino driver get in a van and head back to the nearby ship

* Once in the van, according to statements made by the Filipino driver and the 3 Marines, Smith and "Nicole" were in the back of the van, their conversations were normal and they were not arguing

* Smith claims consensual sex occurred in the van at the time, that "Nicole" helped him put on a condom and that "Nicole" was lucid enough to consent to sex

* Nicole files rape charges against Smith and 3 other Marines

* The Filipino driver initially claims to the police, no rape occurred

* 2 days later after intense interrogation and possibly being beaten and threatened by the police, the driver signs a statement claiming that rape did occur in the van

* A few days later the driver recants the written statement, is interviewed on national television by no less than the Vice-President of the Philippines and again claims no rape occurred

* The trial gets underway amid an emotionally charged media frenzy that almost demands a conviction

* Daniel Smith is convicted, 3 other Marines acquitted, the Filipino driver was never charged

* The argument of the judge in making his ruling is that "Nicole" was too drunk to give her consent

Without even being in the courtroom to hear all of the testimony it seems clear that there was an obvious error in logic on the part of the judge. If rape did occur within the small space of the van then it would be impossible for the 3 other Marines and the Filipino driver not to know it was happening, so they must be convicted of complicity. Also, if Nicole was too drunk to give her consent to have sex then how could her identification of Smith be deemed reliable?


And more here...

Let me make it clear again. I do not find rape acceptable.

At no point in my blog entry will you find that I ever mentioned believing that this rape occurred.

You don't know for sure that she did get raped, and I don't know for sure that she didn't. But I am given the freedom to believe in what seems logical to me, and also, I think, the freedom to write my opinions about it. Just like you are free to write your comments about MY opinions, and after that (ain't this sentence long?) I have the freedom to choose whether to publish it on my blog.

Now we go on to the next point I made, which many of you have a problem with.

2) Rape by a good looking person is less traumatizing than rape by an ugly person.

Not totally not traumatizing, but significantly less traumatizing. How little trauma there must be to cross the line to consensual sex, that's the confusing part.

Don't tell me you don't agree with that; surely being raped by a fat smelly person is worse than being raped by Louis Koo.

What I did also mention was that Nicole was over-reacting. Note: I don't believe she got raped, but supposing she did, her reaction to Smith's being convicted to a life sentence in jail was "Thank God."

This is a woman who agreed to get travel alone with 4 foreign guys, danced with Smith, helped him put on a condom, and all while being totally drunk, claimed that she never gave consent.

EVEN IF she indeed did back out of having sex at the last minute, is it justified for her to thank heavens that Smith was jailed a lifetime for a mistake with was also partly her fault?

But I'm not talking about who is at fault here. I am just saying, Nicole's actions prove she was at least attracted to Smith, and perhaps she wasn't prepared to go the last step, but she did indeed willingly make out with him at least.

Being raped by a guy you agreed to making out with surely can't be as bad as being raped by a guy, well, ie Gollum, right? (Unless she actually made out with Gollum too, I'd never know since Gollum is white as well, you know, 500 years ago when he was still a hobbit)

Before you stupid girls start blowing up again, I am not saying date rape is not traumatizing. It is.

I am just saying I think in Nicole case it is not traumatizing enough for her to throw confetti into the air when someone's whole life gets ruined for 10 mins of your life you can't even remember.

3) Am I saying that a good looking person can never be a rapist?

NO. I never said that - only idiots give sweeping statements like that.

What I am saying is that it is just more incredible and unbelievable that a good-looking person is a rapist.

Yes, yes, Ted Bundy. Take note: He is not only a rapist, but more importantly, a grisly murderer. If you have compulsive urge to kill, may as well rape then kill right?

How many of these rapists are good looking like him?

Smith didn't show signs of violence or a history of it, so I think it's unfair to compare him to Bundy, whose looks are not relevant in his rapes and murders. (whereas for Smith's case if he manages to attract a girl enough, he doesn't need to risk getting sued)

Your "it's about the power" logic doesn't work. If Smith really craved this sort of "power", he would not have chosen a girl who knows his name and where he works at to rape. Moreover, he is from USA, a particularly litigious country, and I do not think he doesn't know what shit he can get into if he risks it.

It leaves us with the only option that Smith thought Nicole was being consensual.

4) In the unlikely scenario that Nicole indeed got raped (which I do not believe in, but hypothetically speaking), I think that Nicole asked for it. BUT I don't think she deserved it.

No difference in the two, are you kidding me?

If Mother Teresa went to poke a sleeping lion in the eye, she is ASKING FOR the lion to bite her, but she doesn't DESERVE getting bitten to death.

A lot of you were going on about having drinks is a lady's right, and so is wearing slutty dresses (which many of you are quick to point out that I do too).

Yes, I obviously agree we all can wear whatever we like and it's against the law for people to take advantage of us, but...

There is stupidity, and then there is stupidity.

While the law is working hard to protect us and the education system is trying to drum such values of respect for females into our hot-blooded males, in the meanwhile if you can stay safe, stay safe - instead of testing the boundaries with your own body.

I live in Singapore, where our crime rate is low, and I am always with my peers and sent back home to my doorstep in safety.

If I am going to a crime-infested place, I am not going to be prancing around in a damn bra, am I now?

So yeah, I don't see what's wrong with wearing slutty clothes in Singapore.

In KL and during Xmas eve I got molested, but I didn't know the situation at these places, so I can't be blamed for dressing inappropriately.


Don't tell me Nicole DOESN'T KNOW that travelling alone with 4 guys you barely know is unsafe.

Don't tell me Nicole DOESN'T KNOW that getting very drunk around 4 guys you barely know is tempting them to have sex with you.

Does she know all those? She probably does, and yet she still does it.

This sort of foolhardiness, is what I call ASKING FOR IT.

In Singaporeans terms, ORH BI LOR.

I am not saying that these guys who took advantage of girls are right. Smith is definitely at fault if she was unwilling to have sex. Yet, she most certainly had it coming.


I've been called ignorant, racist, and stupid. I've done more research into this case than your apathetic self have chosen to ignore when it was on the news, so I am surely not ignorant, not of the case. Ignorance by age, by experience, maybe - but until you prove you are more worthy, don't call me ignorant -you are nobody.

Racist? I believe everyone is racist to a certain degree, so no, I don't take offense in that. Peiying once said she is a Class person rather than Race person, and I told her, but you can't see class on someone's forehead, can you? and she got all angry.

It remains true that we judge races and appearances simply because to form our first impressions we have no other choices, and despite how you moralistic fucks go on about how "But that's just a generalisation!", stereotypes DO exist for a reason.

We judge age, gender, height and how good looking people are - all these are things people cannot help being too - just as race - so what's the obsession with the latter?

There are precious lessons to be learnt from the racial wars, and I believe we should not inflict harm on other races. We should not deny people a chance to prove that they are different from what is stereotypical of people of their colour.

But to completely be non-judgemental when you first see a person is impossible because our views are skewed by that of our own experiences, that of the media.

I am racist. Everyone is.

If you ask me if I would rather be locked up in a room with a Bangladeshi or a British guy I'd take my chances with the British, because of my EXPERIENCES. I don't care how you guys start defending and saying the Bangladeshi might be a gentle, nice guy, but FACT REMAINS I GOT MOLESTED BY A LOT OF THEM AS A YOUNG TEEN.

How do you expect me not to feel wary when I see them?

I can almost hear PY arguing that a lot of foreign workers molest because they are of a lower caste and are mostly uneducated, and whatever race it is, they are likely to molest as long as they are uneducated.

True, but I am saying, if I only knew a guy's race? In my brains, British = Harry Potter and Bangladeshi = well-you-know-what-I-think, then who should I choose? Natural instincts will prevail over the urge to think fair, think logical, think un-racist.

I show you two pictures of couples - one is a Thai girl with a White male, and the other, a White girl with a White male.

Assuming both of the girls look equally unpromiscious and are off the same age and wearing the same clothes, I tell you, one of these girls is with the guy for money... which will you guess?

Don't give me half-fucked answers like "I won't choose either because it is not fair." *roll eyes* I am saying IF you have your fingers beneath my hacksaw, and if you choose the wrong couple, I am going to chop off those fingers.

Which couple are you going to put your money on?

Are you racist too?

It is UNPREVENTABLE to have views and opinions on the various races, simply because humans have a brain and can't help but judge.

Racist? I am sorry, but the fact that so many Filipino girls I see around Liat Towers are tittering like bees around white men, and that Nicole already has a white boyfriend yet fraternized so closely with other white men (traveling with them, getting so drunk till she loses consciousness, dancing, etc), gave her case even less credibility. She may not be one of these cheap angmoh-loving sluts, but I'm sorry, she does sound and behave exactly like one of them.

As for stupid... Nah, I don't if stupid people call me stupid. :)

You guys keep asking me how I can write an entry so cruel.

I can, because I believe Smith is innocent. It is crazy that you guys are all pitying Nicole for her rape traumas - what about Smith, supposing he didn't rape her? Life sentence (40 years), undeserving of sympathy?

p/s: It also appears I was wrong on two counts in the previous post. Judge ruled against Smith - reason was that Nicole was too drunk to give consent and Smith took advantage of her (though Smith was also drunk, but hey, always the men at fault). Nicole was also not dragged forcefully out of the bar but agreeably went out with Smith and the 3 other marines to go back to their ship.