I may not be blogging as often as I used to, but I actually have a bunch of blog “drafts” that were never posted/published. Starting a post is easy enough – but finishing it is difficult. Most of my unpublished stuff are due to that: I feel strongly about something, then I start typing away. But more often than not, the issue had already passed, and I’m still not done with the post – so the post suddenly becomes out of context – and therefore, useless.

I revisited one of my “drafts” and sure enough, it suffered from the issue I just mentioned earlier. It was about my reaction of some article by some [anti] RH Bill proponent.

But you know what? I figured what the hell; I don’t see any other time where posting this would be appropriate again so might as well just put it out there anyways for anyone who’s interested. Besides, even if the “issue” per se isn’t as relevant today. It still passes as one of my typical “perspective posts”

There’s an article on Premarital Sex that was posted a few days ago ¹ And by the time you’re reading this, it’s probably MONTHS ago now hehehe – I felt I needed to contribute my 2 cents on the matter.

But the meat of the article is in this paragraph, which I’ll try to break-down in a minute.

Those in favor of the RH Bill claim that they are just being “realists.” To them chastity is an impossible ideal. Well, I claim that they are defeatists. They are assuming that the youth in the Philippines cannot rise above their purely animal instincts.

Then he goes on about a well-known celebrity who can “control” said “animal instinct.”

Calling a Spade a Spade

First, if I were Dr. Villegas, I would choose a different “example celebrity” to prove his point (if it can be proven, that is)

Without having to get into details, let’s just say that things are not what they seem ² It’s amazing the things you find out from common friends 😉 I’m not here to try to change whatever “image” Mr. Tiu seems to have in the eyes of the public. Because he is a genuinely nice guy. I’ve met him and I can attest to that fact. He’s one of few the Ateneans na walang yabang sa katawan – even if he has every reason to be [arrogant] (talented, handsome, rich, intelligent, etc.)

But if you’re going to stand there and tell me that he’s an angel when it comes to women, sorry to burst your bubble, but you’re sadly misinformed.

He’s a nice guy the same way Robin Padilla is – and that’s not sarcasm, nor is it a slam on his person. Try watching any interview of Mr. Padilla and you will discover that he’s actually a genuinely polite & sensible human being in spite of of his “reputation.”

Or if you want another analogy, then I’d submit Manny Pacquao – who’s also a genuinely kind soul (outside of the ring). He also speaks against the RH bill, but more likely because he doesn’t need it. ³ With that much money in your pocket, do you really have to worry about getting anyone pregnant? Certainly not because he believes in being “chaste”. 😉

So what exactly am I trying to say?

What I’m saying is that while I do acknowledge the “benefits” of chastity, I find it very annoying that people think the lack of it is some “irredeemable fault” that should drastically affect how one would view another human being. Being chaste works for some, but not for others – just as religion works for some and not for others.

Being a “good human” should not be decided by such factors. And IMHO, this fixation on the value of chastity – can be an unhealthy one.

I say it’s unhealthy not because it’s wrong. I’ll admit, if and when I have a beautiful daughter, ⁴ Which I’m pretty sure I might get – that, and a phyiscally/mentally challenged gay son (no offense to those who are such, btw) – cuz I’m pretty sure God is out to punish me for poking fun at stereotypes I’m sure I would want her to be “chaste” as well. But this preference isn’t because I think she should or shouldn’t be “chaste”, but simply because I acknowledge the difficulties a 3rd-world unmarried middle class woman with child would be facing. That and the fact that it’s the parents that end up paying for the bills of their children’s folly. If you’re a kid who doesn’t know what you’re getting yourself into, of course it’s easier to just stick to the simple “just don’t” mantra – which is what this article is trying to say.

But sadly, life doesn’t work that way. I wish it did, but it simply doesn’t.

The implications of assuming chastity’s “universality” is the main reason why we’re struggling so much in real-life. If we presume premarital sex to be wrong, there will be no initiative to educate beyond the push of “simply not having sex till your married” – because why educate people on something that they shouldn’t be in the first place right – and that’s exactly what’s wrong with this picture.

Because of that unrealistic bias, there’ll be no education on how to have sex responsibly should one prefer to be sexually active; no education on how to prepare for it if you can’t help yourself; no education on your options if you do end up having an unwanted pregnancy.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against being idealistic; I believe the good things that happen in the world are ultimately forms of altruism in varying degrees – so there’s nothing wrong with starting from what’s perceived to be the “best case”

But to operate under the assumption that the best case [in life] will happen, that’s when it stops being idealistic – and becomes plain naive. The lack of education based on these religious notions ⁵ Beause let’s face it, religion is really the culprit of the fixation of the “purity” of one’s body (or as they would like to call it: the temple of the soul) is a perfect example of why I say it’s unhealthy to be too idealistic.

Breaking it Down

So here are a few examples of out of touch with reality the article seems to be.

These concerned parents must do everything in their power to prevent the controversial RH Bill from being passed. The obsession with the promotion of artificial contraceptives among those pushing the so-called RH Bill is partly based on the assumption that we have to prevent unwanted pregnancies among adolescents who find it impossible to avoid premarital sex.

Not an assumption, buddy, it’s FACT. Some people indeed cannot control their urges. Call it whatever you wan’t: “weak-willed,” or “liberal” – doesn’t change the fact that there are people like that. I’d even submit myself as part of that statistic.

And yet, again, we see the point I’m trying to make: the naive thinking that just because something “should be the case,” ⁶ and I’m being generous for the sake of argument. I, in fact, don’t believe it “should be the case” he’s starting to act as if it is the case – and therefore disregard the fact that there are people out there that actually need the RH bill.

Those in favor of the RH Bill claim that they are just being “realists.” To them chastity is an impossible ideal. Well, I claim that they are defeatists.

So if “realists” are really just “defeatists,” then I guess that obviously makes you an optimist, right? Given the reality of your chosen example already contradicts the message you’re trying to convey, then I don’t think it’s a stretch to claim otherwise: The “realists” are in fact, realists more than they are defeatists; conversely the “optimists” tend to be more naive than they are optimists – just as you are, kind sir.

Think of it this way. He invited us to think of our future wife who may be dating another guy right now. How far do we want that guy to go with her? It is like Stephen Covey’s ‘thinking with the end in mind,’ the end here being marriage.

The most important thing (end) for me is spending the rest of my life with a person I love – not necessarily being the first person to pop their cherry. The latter, at best, is a[n overrated] bonus. I have no respect for a person’s capacity to love if they claim a person’s virginity should be a/the determining factor whether or not you’ll marry [or even love] someone.

To me, it doesn’t matter who a person slept with, what’s important is that they’re with me now – and hopefully for the rest of our days.

Then he said, ‘Girls, do not allow a guy to lift the veil of your body before he lifts the veil on your head—in marriage.’

You’re certainly free to have that preference. But other’s should also be free to have other preferences.

Assuming we are in agreement that sex – beyond the purpose of reproduction is just as important in a marriage, then try thinking about this:

All thanks to Religion, you will be bound to the person you’re going to marry based on the vows of the sacrament. “Till death do you part” – as it were. I don’t know about you guys, but if I’m going to spend my life with someone, then I think it’s pretty reasonable to find out if we’re sexually compatible to begin with. Because I wouldn’t want to have a(nother) reason to resent them when we are married – especially if it was about something that could’ve been confirmed easily enough.

They are assuming that the youth in the Philippines cannot rise above their purely animal instincts. Before they even try, these lawmakers have given up on values and character education of the youth and the spiritual formation that can come from religious faith, whatever the creed.

What a naive statement to make! Without belaboring the argument i’ll just say this:

In life it’s always more prudent to prepare for the worst, instead of hoping for the best. Because if you prepare for the worst, and the best happens, then everyone’s happy. If your preparations, on the other hand, are based on “best-case” scenarios, and the worst happens – then you’re fucked (no pun intended)

The fact of the matter is, this is what reality is showing us. No matter what reverse psychology you try to do on the youth, you will not control the urges of the majority – especially now when the Church is losing relevance (its own fault, IMHO) as the world continues to modernize and “pluralize.”

That’s fact, and not some figment of a “defeatist’s” imagination.

If you ask me, assuming that the “worst”; ⁷ which in our case is even statistically proven that it’s impossible to avoid premarital sex – is probably the smartest stance a person could take… and having an RH bill is a good thing because it can address precisely that [worst case scenario].

Get Over Yourself

It’s high time we started realizing what kind of people we mostly are; that we’re not exactly how we would like to picture ourselves to be. And to me, there’s nothing wrong with that. Acknowledge what you are, know your strengths and weaknesses. Recognize the things that can change – and try to change them. but accept the things that can’t and work-around them.

Unfortunately, when it comes to sex, I don’t think we can change – no matter what dogma you throw at us. Not valuing chastity as much may not be something to be proud of, but neither is it something to be ashamed of – it just is. And the sooner we accept that about ourselves, the better off we’ll be.

Consider Japan. Have you seen what type of pornography they’ve got? They get off with “rape videos” ⁸ Or basically porn where women are utterly degraded and they even got Hentai (animated porn) – the themes of which can be extremely absurd And lets not forget that Japan is the home of Bukkakke. And yet, they still manage to be one of the most “honorable” societies in the world, and their perverse sexual preferences doesn’t make me respect them any less as a people. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from that fact.

Conclusion

I think the article should’ve made a distinction between premarital sex for the sake of sex, and premarital sex with the person you love or have loved (how many they may be).

In short, I would’ve found it more reasonable/acceptable if he was more concerned on the abuse of our ability to have sex outside of love ⁹ Which I have no problems with, btw – instead of the hasty generalization that a ring should be the only way to get it.

I believe in sex for pleasure – with or without love. So obviously I still would disagree with him, but at least I would be able to respect his preference as something legitimate. Because sex just for the sake of sex, if done irresponsibly can have grave practical consequences.

But premarital sex with someone you care about – even if it seems its “just” for pleasure – is not as “worthless” as the author may be implying. Because you’re sharing something with someone you care about… and if you truly cared for them, then I see no reason why you should be made to feel ashamed by sharing that part of you with them – and vise-versa.