If the study done by Ngee Ann Poly’s School of Business accurately reflects the the opinions of Singapore males as a general whole:
The survey has classified them into four groups - the Chauvinistic, Liberal, Confident and Anxious man.
Veteran analyst lecturer Henry Koh says the Liberals form the biggest group - making up 40% of the population.
These men are more likely to be older, married and have liberal sex and marriage values.
But they are also thrifty, preferring to invest in stocks rather than be brand conscious, and are unlikely to purchase online.
Chauvinistic men constitute 37 percent.
Usually in their 30s and early 40s, they are likelier to spend on personal care for themselves, such as spas, and are social animals, going out more for drinks and meals.
Confident men form 18 percent of the population.
Usually under 30 and professionals, they are not trend followers. But they are the biggest spenders for entertainment, transport and online purchases.
Anxious Men make up the smallest group - at only 5%.
Today also has this table:
A common reason given by the powers that be for keeping a law that criminalises sex between gay men is that there is a conservative majority in Singapore that cannot accept the legalisation of gay sex. If the opinions of a sample size of 800 men in this survey do accurately reflect the opinions of Singaporean men as a general whole however, then this supposed conservative majority does not exist!
Those classified as “Liberal” make up 40%, and I doubt the “Confident” men are considered to fall within the homophobic category. This makes a grand total of 57%! My maths may not be very good, but I think 57% of men who have liberal views towards gay marriage/sex is an indication that the powers that be have greatly misread the actual feeling on the ground.
There is a very good reason for this. Quite simply, religious fundies make the most noise, which creates the perception that there are many of them, when in actual fact they are still not many (yet). I think this hypothesis makes sense, as I find it hard to believe that a majority of the population in Singapore would suddenly become insane.
5 Comments
I believe the survey is done on selected group instead of generally applies to all Singaporean, e.g only Christian or Catholic etc.-
In this sense, the survey may not be entirely correct.
Well planned and designed survey can sometimes use as tools to sway public opinion to ones agenda.
please tell me if I am wrong.
lostin:
it is true that surveys or reports may be used to sway public opinion. However, in the absence of evidence of such intention, the assumption I make is that the survey was conducted in good faith.
Furthermore, when you mentioned “well planned and designed”, it is actually the case that if a survey is really well planned and well-designed, and the make-up of the people in the sample have been tested to accurately reflect the Singaporean population generally, the survey should actually be quite accurate, with only a small margin of error.
men who are sexually liberal might not pander to the thought of non-heteronormative sexualities? i know of many virile young men who are horrified at the thought of anything to do with gay sex and this might well reflect the perceptions of many liberals/confidents.
d:
you mean to say “horrified at the thought of being involved with gay sex THEMSELVES but really couldn’t give a shit whether other people do it or not”.
Try asking around. Most straight guys will say “I don’t care about gay sex as long as it doesn’t happen to me”. Ironically those who make the most noise about it are usually self-loathing, self-denying closeted gays.
Actually, the garmen is trying to please religious fundamentalist. Actually, the ranking above does not tell much about their religious inclination. Someone who is liberal could be against use of condoms, abortion (instead of choice) and gay sex, simply because he belongs to the fundamentalist religion.
The most famous example is Ms Teo Su Min, who is well-known as a human-rights academics in Singapore. People would expect a human-rights academic to be pro-gay rights also? No, she is absolutely against gay rights due to her religious conviction.
Having said that, it seems like the garmen is also saying although the conservatives like to see gay men jailed, they seems to be very acceptable of anal/oral sex between male/female. Weird conservatives, uh? So woman penetrating a man with dildo for anal sex is okay with conservatives and religious fundamentalists?
Post a Comment