How much space do you need to have sex?

[Ahgong]

walao ... our M open mouth matching bolehland M standard?

 

trying to catch up lah

remember? we must be the first in everything and the best in all things!

buay sai soo seh! 

[Carbon82]

I ran through the ST article a few times, and without any prejudice, still cannot make any sense out of it. Yes, I know that her underlining statement is to get married first (when young), then think about a house. But on her point about the chicken and egg situation (Parenthood Priority Scheme), she get it all wrong and worst still, to have quoted "You do not need much space to have sex".

 

From a layman perspective, it is as good as asking couple to get pregnant first, so that they can get priority for flat application. Now, if the family has room to spare (do bear in mind our flat or even condo are getting smaller and smaller), this would not be an issue (in-laws matter aside). But for average people staying in 3 or 4 room flat, do they really have room for making baby?

 

And on practical consideration, would couple with wife into final stage of pregnancy willing to shift to their new flat at this very moment? If after the child was born, again, does the family have enough space for additional baby bed, pram, etc. etc. And let me remind you again, the original BTO scheme is to build, then sell, but now it will only be built when hit a pre-determine take up... Who is to be blamed?

 

Side track a little, I met this minister face to face on 2 occasions, and no offence, she did not leave me a good impression, just too high-handed imo.

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Carbon82

[Weez911]

Just noted 7 people voted they need 100,000 sqft of space to have sex. Knn   

[Acemundo]

jo got daughter or not if got 80%of her looks i dont mind piak first .

 

 

ever tried the hotel toilet ...sexciting times

[Picnic06-Biante15]

All I need is the space of  the back roll seat of a car.......

 

Inside Jazz back seat also can ...    

 

Inside a Alphard is heaven already ... 

[Celicar]

to me, it is offensive because this statement besides trying to confuse (the maker of the statement would have to assume daft readers to be able to pull off this act of confusing them) the issue being lobbied is about copulation and conveniently sidesteps the importance of a roof and shelter in building up a home and family.  for many like me, it didn't have to be a statement applicable to me for me to find it offensive.  i am sure many are also offended by calvin cheng's statement on terrorist kids and LKY's comments on daft aljunied grc voters even though they are not muslims (for former case) or not living in aljunied grc (in latter case).

 

i didn't ask other folks why they find the statement offensive but it is clear many other also find it offensive.  i would be able to hazard a few guesses as well and it is definitely not because people have an axe to grind against her.  otherwise, why would people still remember her comments about people having a choice of time to take the mrt to work?

She is not side-stepping the importance of a roof and shelter in building up a home and family.

 

The Parenthood Priority Scheme's position is have or expect a child first, then you get priority. Those who oppose this position say give couples priority to get a flat first, then they can have or expect a child.

 

Her response is not just that one comment about the space needed to have sex. She also responded by noting the practicalities of going the opposite way, if you give a couple priority to get a flat and they get that flat, then if they don't have a child do you take the flat back, how do you know if they are trying to start a family. These are very practical questions and you can bet that those who suffer because couples get priority without expecting/having a child will cry foul. Then what? So the government has to make a policy decision and it has. No priority to get a flat before you try for a kid. Then she said "You need a very small space to have sex".

 

Suddenly there is this huge focus on that one sentence, seemingly by people who feel offended. The broader message is lost because of the offence taken at the statement. For you, you take offence because you think it is trying to confuse "the issue being lobbied about is about copulation and sidesteps the importance of a roof and shelter in building up a home and family". How on earth did you come to that conclusion? She (on behalf of the government) is not saying that a roof and shelter in building up a home and family is not important. Not at all. She is saying have the wife conceive first, or have a child first, and you will get priority in getting a flat. She and the government is not saying that unless you expect or have a child, you can forget about getting a flat.

 

At the end of the day, any comment can offend. Even this post of mine may offend. People who want to take offence will, whatever is written or said.

[Carbon82]

Just noted 7 people voted they need 100,000 sqft of space to have sex. Knn   

Bro Enye must be one of them    

 

sometimes in the bedroom

 

sometimes living room sofa

 

sometimes dining table

 

sometimes kitchen countertop

 

sometimes shower

 

sometimes bathtub

 

sometimes pool

 

sometimes exercise bench

 

sometimes balcony

 

sometimes garden

 

sometimes children rooms

 

sometimes maid's room

 

etc

 

you say need how much space?

 

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Carbon82

[Ahgong]

Is the comment "You need a very small space to have sex" really that offensive? I don't get it.

 

its not the sentence itself.

it is the mentality behind it that says it all.

 

who doesn't know you do not need a lot of space to have sex?

the question is, whether due consideration was put in to encourage people to have kids.

 

having sex is a few minutes to an hour commitment.

having kids is a 21 year commitment!

 

chui kong lam par song! anyone can say that.

 

and dun you dare start the "but-there-is-already-subsidies-in-place-to-offset-the-cost-of-raising-kids what" argument!

i will come over and slap you silly!

them subsidies are not even enough to cover the doctor's fees to deliver the child!

 

the only main reason why a lot of people look at getting a roof over their head first before considering kids is mainly financial!

if you are not financially strong enough to get a house, how are you going to be financially strong enough to bring a child to this world, let a lone 21 years (or at least minimally 16 years) of bringing up the child so that they can be independent AND economically viable?

 

it is a clear case of mis-matched expectations on the ground level and the million-dollar$ club!

[Celicar]

can u rear a child with very small space too?? if your answer is no.. 

 

her reply was stupid..

She did not talk about rearing a child.

[Carbon82]

All I need is the space of  the back roll seat of a car.......

 

Inside Jazz back seat also can ...    

 

Inside a Alphard is heaven already ... 

This space enough for you boh?

 

[Jamesc]

I fully support priority for flats for couples

 

who suffered cos the condom broke.

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Jamesc

[Picnic06-Biante15]

I am in here only

B'cos of For the sex

 

There...... help you made some minor alterations ....

[Ahgong]

She is not side-stepping the importance of a roof and shelter in building up a home and family.

 

The Parenthood Priority Scheme's position is have or expect a child first, then you get priority. Those who oppose this position say give couples priority to get a flat first, then they can have or expect a child.

 

Her response is not just that one comment about the space needed to have sex. She also responded by noting the practicalities of going the opposite way, if you give a couple priority to get a flat and they get that flat, then if they don't have a child do you take the flat back, how do you know if they are trying to start a family. These are very practical questions and you can bet that those who suffer because couples get priority without expecting/having a child will cry foul. Then what? So the government has to make a policy decision and it has. No priority to get a flat before you try for a kid. Then she said "You need a very small space to have sex".

 

Suddenly there is this huge focus on that one sentence, seemingly by people who feel offended. The broader message is lost because of the offence taken at the statement. For you, you take offence because you think it is trying to confuse "the issue being lobbied about is about copulation and sidesteps the importance of a roof and shelter in building up a home and family". How on earth did you come to that conclusion? She (on behalf of the government) is not saying that a roof and shelter in building up a home and family is not important. Not at all. She is saying have the wife conceive first, or have a child first, and you will get priority in getting a flat. She and the government is not saying that unless you expect or have a child, you can forget about getting a flat.

 

At the end of the day, any comment can offend. Even this post of mine may offend. People who want to take offence will, whatever is written or said.

 

yes. she is pragmatic about the suggestions given. then dun implement them.

no one is forcing her to change the current priority allocation for flats.

but to tell people to copulate first, then plan for a flat?!?

 

that statement just makes no sense. that is why i am questioning her rational behind those statements? (about the chicken and egg, the small space to have sex... etc. the whole damn chunk!)

don't forget, you get priority to be bumped higher up the queue. it doesn't guarantee that you will get a flat!

[Yewheng]

I think she could have rephrased into a question to be more sensitive. Or give some examples / stats of people who have had a decent experience with smaller spaces.

 

Much like how mothers coax children to have grandchildren. It cannot be so direct.

 

Can get married first and plan for children before flat. Don't think she meant premarital.

 

Still quite possible I think.

Ya, she so direct, of Coz will kanna public left right centre. She should be more tactful on this topic. Maybe like u said, instead of saying you do not need to have big space to have sex. Perhaps could say that it is up to both party willingness, even if one of the both party not willing, then have big house also the same. This one sound nicer right? It also indirectly saying want to have babies not necessary need to have big house, if both party are willing, maybe do in toilet also can.. Haha

[grandis123]

I agree. I don't see what the fuss is about.

 

She's saying it as it is.

A lot of people are taking her comments out of context.

 

Me too, i dont know what is the big hoo har.. but I find it interesting that the newer minister are bit more open and candid to speak about real issues.

[Evillusion]

Those words speaks a lot of her character. I will pity her hubby for what she said as most prob they have never experimented beyond the bedroom and most probably beyond the bed....!

This space enough for you boh?

 

wooh....that must be a very tight space to fit!

[Acemundo]

 

Suddenly there is this huge focus on that one sentence, seemingly by people who feel offended. The broader message is lost because of the offence taken at the statement. For you, you take offence because you think it is trying to confuse "the issue being lobbied about is about copulation and sidesteps the importance of a roof and shelter in building up a home and family". How on earth did you come to that conclusion? She (on behalf of the government) is not saying that a roof and shelter in building up a home and family is not important. Not at all. She is saying have the wife conceive first, or have a child first, and you will get priority in getting a flat. She and the government is not saying that unless you expect or have a child, you can forget about getting a flat.

 

At the end of the day, any comment can offend. Even this post of mine may offend. People who want to take offence will, whatever is written or said.

 

you seem to be swinging towards the notion that readers are being difficult.  you must not forget she is a politician and a minister.  as a minister she need to get the message across to get the buy-in from the constituents.  once she makes such a stupid statement,the message would have failed in getting across and she has failed in her objective and duties.  as a politician, she could have done much better not saying that to get into the bad books of people.

 

i dont think i miss the message (i already told you i can agree with you and her comments at 90% of them) nor is being difficult.  she directly equated people's concern about starting a family as a an act of sex which is mostly spontaneous and enjoyable.  it demeans the effort and sacrifice of setting up a home and the family as equivalent to sex which we hardly can call a sacrifice.  or as another forumer put it, you only need a small space to have sexual flings but you need much bigger one to procreate and set up a family.  by so saying, she had missed the gist of the argument and offended the people who are pro family.  

 

whether she is frivolous (in thinking she can get away with such lowly and misguided sidestep and act of trying to confuse) or she is stupid enough to think the requests came about as a need for sex than setting up a family, both doesn't reflect well on her as a minister and a politician.

 

if she is making the speech as a academic lecturer or non-partisan speaker, whereby she gotten 90% of her speech contents correct, she would have my endorsement and support instead.  this is clearly not a case of readers being difficult or missing the woods for the trees.  

[Celicar]

yes. she is pragmatic about the suggestions given. then dun implement them.

no one is forcing her to change the current priority allocation for flats.

but to tell people to copulate first, then plan for a flat?!?

 

that statement just makes no sense. that is why i am questioning her rational behind those statements? (about the chicken and egg, the small space to have sex... etc. the whole damn chunk!)

don't forget, you get priority to be bumped higher up the queue. it doesn't guarantee that you will get a flat!

She is not telling people to copulate first then plan for a flat.

 

She is telling people that if you are expecting/have a child, you will have priority when applying for a flat. Otherwise as a couple who are not expecting/do not have a child, then you don't get priority. And you are right, the difference is priority and even with priority you are not assured of getting a flat, it is possible (at least I understand it to be possible) that someone who does not have priority (eg. a couple with no kid yet) will still secure a flat over another couple with/expecting a child in the same flat cluster.

 

It is not the statement that does not make sense. It is all the shadows seen in it that do not.