Author Archives | Dustin Celestino

“Who’s Got Game?” Steven Pinker vs The Pickup Artist

In 2010, I wrote an article called, “In Defense of Sedouchers.” The initial assumption made in my last article was, “if you’re being yourself and it hasn’t been working, you should either change yourself or, at least, tone down qualities that scare people off.” “Insanity,” after all, as Einstein said, “is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

However, after I encountered Steven Pinker’s notion that romantic credibility is a necessary component in long-term commitments. I had to re-evaluate my position.

Transformation, or at least education is the rational course of action when one finds difficulty establishing romantic relations. Seeking out information that would allow an individual to develop and convey personal qualities that are universally accepted as attractive, or implement a method that would result in attraction, is a rational response.

A study done in Oxford called “The Dating Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Emerging Science of Human Courtship,” examined two texts written by the most prominent representatives of the practice of “game” and argued that many of these claims are in fact grounded in solid empirical findings from social, physiological and evolutionary psychology.

However, the idea of subscribing to a rational method, a scientific one even, in order to improve one’s chances of finding a suitable mate is frowned upon as being “manipulative,” the premise being that romance and love, in order to be authentic, has to come from an irrational place.

Cognitive Scientist Steven Pinker, in a conference in 1998 called Der Digitale Planet, implies that, “There’s actually a rational component to romantic attraction, basically, smart shopping. As anyone who’s been in the single scene recently will attest: Love is a kind of market place, where all of us, at some point in our lives has been in search of the richest, best-looking, nicest, smartest person who will settle for us.”

Now, if romantic attraction is actually a rational decision, wouldn’t a rational method of creating romantic attraction be a rational course of action? This is where Steven Pinker and the Pickup Artists would disagree. Pinker’s idea of romance applies the Theory of Paradoxical Tactics, a principle that suggests, “A sacrifice of freedom and rationality can paradoxically give and agent an advantage in promises, threats and bargains.”

He believes that, “it is almost always irrational to make a lasting commitment to another person (because based on the law of averages, you’ll eventually meet someone better), the sensation of love must be dramatically irrational in order for people to pair up at all.” And, in fact, it is the display of irrational behavior and decision-making that would legitimize the promises made when people commit.

Why Commitment is Problematic

Pinker suggests that romance is a kind of promise to spend eternity with someone, and sacrifice the opportunity to be “with someone else.” What will stop a rational person from breaking the romantic promise when he or she finds a better “option?” Therein lies the problem.

Pinker says:

“In the case of romance, since you have to set-up house with the best person you found up to a given time, by the law of averages, someone better is bound to show up in the future. The only question is, “when?”… At that point, a perfectly rational person would ‘drop you like a hot potato.’ On the other hand, since you are also a rational agent in this hypothetical scenario, you can anticipate that and you would never have agreed to the promise to begin with anticipating that it would be in the interest of the other party to break it sooner or later.”

However, if every person would approach a relationship from such a perspective, there wouldn’t be any commitment at all. So, what compels completely rational individuals to actually commit to each other? Here’s Pinker’s paradox:

“The solution is that if you don’t decide to fall in love for rational reasons, perhaps you’re less likely to decide to fall out of love for rational reasons. And the very involuntariness of romantic love serves as an implicit guarantor of the promise. It’s one of many examples in which a lack of freedom or rationality is paradoxically an advantage in situations of negotiation between two intelligent parties.”

The Problem of Romantic Authenticity

This is where PUA material, from my POV, should inspire suspicion. There is never, in the PUA, any desire to lose one’s freedom or rationality for the sake of making an implicit guarantee. In fact, one of the most counter-intuitive pieces of advice it regularly gives: “Do not pursue the girl you are in love with.”

It’s a concept called “Oneitis.”

Oneitis is considered “a ‘disease’ (hence the ‘itis) where a man is stuck on one girl and feels that she is ‘the one,’ usually to the detriment of having any romantic relationship with her.” Here’s a link for more information on oneitis. Also, If you have oneitis, here’s how to cure it.

A person with oneitis is not thinking rationally and currently has a distorted concept of who the object of attraction is. The assumption is that if a person yields to his current perception, the oneitis will fall short of his ideal.

However, if the intention was to reach a certain level of irrationality that would compel people to “pair up,” isn’t the oneitis exactly the person one should go after?

But the PUA has a more rational approach than what Pinker suggests:

The rational agent recognizes that the implicit romantic promise is an irrational impulse that causes irrational behavior. So, it is in the best interest of a rational agent to provoke the irrational impulse in his partner while maintaining rationality in himself, or to provoke “romance” without yielding to it himself. That sounds highly manipulative, but isn’t the point of reason, control?

If the rational agent was given this option, this power, to provoke irrational devotion, would it not be the best choice? Irrational people, after all, have little concern for guarantees. Irrational people are also willing to accept lopsided arrangements. The person who can maintain his rationality (the person who isn’t in love) can decide the parameters of the interaction.

And that is exactly why PUA material advocates for avoiding the oneitis.

That’s also why I think there are some things wrong with PUA culture. Many of these methods emphasize control, and do not approach the romantic interaction in good faith.

The Problem of the Modern Romantic Medium

Another concern Pinker raised was, “why the emotions tie up the body as well as the brain.”

He says:

“When we’re in the throes of passion, romantic or otherwise, we show it. We blush, we blanch, we tremble, we sweat, our voice croaks, we get expressions on our face and this has long been a puzzle in physiology. I think one explanation is that we are giving a credible signal that our current course of action is not under the control of the voluntary circuits of the cerebral cortex…”

In other words, when we are passionate, our body communicates our passion to add credibility to the romantic gesture.

However, the current mediums of communication, those in popular use today, social media & texting, are mediums where physical signs of romantic credibility are absent. To make matters worse, “the unique idiosyncratic properties of the individual,” in the age of blogging, is highly inauthentic and mostly synthetic.

Heather Sundell, in her article, “You’re Someone’s Manic Pixie Dream Girl, And You Have No Idea” shares her experience on being a creep magnet:

“I tweet, post status updates, and maintain a blog on a daily basis. It makes perfect sense that strangers could genuinely feel like they know me personally, but it’s still weird that these boys projected their manic pixie dream girl fantasies on me based on my social media persona.”

The problem of the current romantic medium is that romantic credibility and authenticity is not possible online or in text because the romantic medium of communication is both physical and irrational. However, the cultural habit of constructing an online identity actually accelerates the romantic process.

Heather Sundell writes:

“Broken down, it’s totally easy to see why guys would look at my silly photos, read my twenty-something blog posts, see my witty 140 character quips, and project that I am their quirky dream girl fantasy. They see this fun girl full of endearing imperfections, who isn’t particularly serious about life, because that’s who I’ve told them I am. I couldn’t have constructed a better character in an indie romantic screenwriting class.”

So, it’s not uncommon to have a person fall in love with an inauthentic identity, pursue her through a flawed medium, and sound completely inauthentic and creepy. The availability of alternative forms of communication (text, chat) might also contribute to people’s apprehension for face to face meetings, making romantic credibility almost an irrelevant aspect of seduction.

On the Necessity of a Rational Foundation & the Psychology of Courtship (Or why one should, in PUA terms, “Play it cool”)

The premise of the paradoxical advantage is that one could increase one’s influence over a person by displaying an irrational surrender to the romantic impulse. Pinker’s own words:

“If you were to whisper in your lover’s ear, ‘You’re the nicest, smartest, best-looking, richest person, I’ve been able to find so far.’ It would probably kill the romantic mood. The way to a person’s heart is to declare the exact opposite. To say that the emotions elicited by the unique idiosyncratic properties of the individual, ‘I can’t help falling in love with you’ and to emphasize how involuntary and irrational it is. ‘I want you so bad and it’s driving me mad, etcetera, etcetera.’”

However, I think this conclusion is flawed. If one were to approach an interaction with irrationality, one will be, as I was by a recent acquaintance, viewed as completely insane and scary (I’m so sorry I freaked you out!).

Pinker’s theory appealed to me because after not being in “the game” for a long, long time, the entire prospect of having to remember “the rules” and follow them seemed like a very tedious process. In other words, I wondered what would happen if I actually expressed what I felt for a girl without any concern for “the game,” or for reason.

In a sense, I also wanted to prove that the romantic pursuit is not dead, & that it’s okay to go “love at first sight” in 2013. I wanted to see if the theory of paradoxical tactics, which I like to refer to as “the anti-PUA,” worked in the real world. I decided to try and ignore the social and cultural conventions of the romantic pursuit.

The premise was simple. If I felt strongly for a particular person, I’d go for it. No fear. No method. No game. Just go.

However, I discovered the hard way that my irrational expression of interest inspired nothing but loathing and repulsion from the desired person. My irrational behavior also alienated some of my friends, primarily because my behavior was viewed as “crazy shit.”

I was, in Bon Jovian terms, “Shot down in a blaze of glory.”

The hypothesis I developed from this experience is that one must first establish a strong propensity for rationality (play it cool) before one demonstrates a compulsive surrender to an irrational romantic impulse. The transition from being cool & rational to being “romantic,” when exhibited by a rational agent (Keyword: Rational), is the very thing that yields a paradoxical advantage in that it would imply a romantic promise.

Conclusion

Irrationality, as Pinker implied, has a place in modern romantic interactions. But it is not something I would advise, especially at the beginning of an interaction.

I also doubt if the credibility implied by one’s compulsion for irrational romantic behavior is as valuable as the bargaining position achieved when one withholds romantic interest until the other reveals it first.

My conclusion: “If you have to be something, be rational.”

 

 

Follow me on Twitter: @dustincelestino

Posted in Personal, Philosophy, Science2 Comments

Arguing for the RH Bill with “Bishop Logic”

 

The Bishops of the Philippines have some really shitty logic and they have been using this logic to spew lies and misinformation regarding the RH Bill.

Just this morning I came across an article called, “Bishop compares President Aquino to Connecticut shooter because of the Reproductive Health bill.”

Here are some of the highlights of that article:

According to a report by Evelyn Macairan of the Philippine Star, “Batangas Archbishop Ramon Arguelles yesterday said that while a 20-year-old gunman killed 20 children in the US, President Aquino would be killing millions of children with a stroke of a pen if he signs the RH bill into law.” 

After Typhoon Pablo hit the southern Philippines, another Church leader, Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo said, “the typhoon that left more than a thousand dead, could be a message from God about the RH bill.”

These conclusions don’t make sense. They infuriate me. So, as a thought experiment I wondered what arguments for the RH Bill I could come up with if, like these bishops, I used non sequitur arguments (“RH Bill caused Typhoon Pablo”), false analogies (Pinoy is like the Connecticut shooter), and other illogical statements.

Let’s call this game the “Bishop Logic” game.

Argument #1:

1. Bishops and other members of the clergy like to sexually abuse children. In fact, the Catholic Church even has a Wikipage dedicated entirely to information about Catholic sex abuse cases. “The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of convictions, trials and investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse crimes committed by Catholic priests and members of Roman Catholic orders against children as young as 3 years old with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14.”

2. Children living in depressed conditions are often neglected or under-supervised. “A number of prevalence and incidence studies have highlighted the link between poverty and some forms of child maltreatment, especially neglect, emotional and physical abuse.”

3. Family planning will reduce the number of under-supervised and underprivileged children.

Therefore:

“Bishops don’t want the RH Bill to pass because there will be less underprivileged and under-supervised children they would be free to molest.”

Argument #2:

1. God often tests the faith of his “people.”

2. The Catholic Church are supposedly God’s “people.”

3. Typhoon Pablo hit the Southern Philippines.

4. The Catholic Church is rolling in money. In fact, they are able to afford over $2 billion worth of sex abuse settlements. This astronomical number is even expected to rise towards $5 billion in the near future.

Therefore:

“Typhoon Pablo hit the southern Philippines because God wants to test the priorities of the Catholic Church. God wants to find out wherther the Church will use their wealth to help the victims of Typhoon Pablo OR to keep more child molesters unpunished.”

Argument #3:

1. “Higher levels of education lead to lower levels of religious participation later in life“.

2. “Early childbearing can interfere with education, so those with early or frequent childbearing are likely to be less educated.”

3. Sexual education will prevent a woman from having early or infrequent childbearing. “Teens who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report becoming pregnant or impregnating someone than those who received no sex education.”

Therefore:

“The Catholic clergy is against the RH Bill because it wants you to be pregnant and out-of-school. They don’t want you to be educated because the more education you get, the higher the chance that you would stop believing their bullshit and giving them money.”

In summary, using “Bishop Logic,” we have 3 explanations as to why the Catholic church is against the RH Bill:

1. “Bishops don’t want the RH Bill to pass because there will be less underprivileged and under-supervised children they would be free to molest.”

2. “Typhoon Pablo hit the southern Philippines because God wants to test the priorities of the Catholic Church. God wants to find out wherther the Church will use their wealth to help the victims of Typhoon Pablo OR to keep more child molesters unpunished.”

3. “The Catholic clergy wants you to be pregnant and out-of-school. They don’t want you to be educated because the more education you get, the higher the chance that you would stop believing their bullshit and giving them money.”

However, regardless of how much “sense” these arguments “seem” to make, being a freethinker, it is my responsibility to tell you that these arguments, for varied reasons, are not entirely logical. I simply wanted to show what kind of arguments the pro-RH side would come up with if they resorted to the same “Bishop Logic” that these clergymen use to make their arguments.

So don’t listen to the dumb shit stupid old men say, because “Bishop logic” is not logical.

Image from justinvacula.com

Posted in Advocacy, Personal, Politics, Religion, RH Bill, Secularism, Society2 Comments

Dustin Celestino: The Number One Authority on Anti-RH Arguments

I, Dustin Celestino, the number one authority on anti-RH arguments, have been mentioned in a recent article by Sun Star Baguio. In this article, my arguments against the RH Bill have been justly juxtaposed with the arguments of none other than the principal author of the RH Bill, congressman Edcel Lagman.

Here’s paragraph #4:

Dustin Celestino, a critic, said, “[The] RH bill is wrong because it then assumes that the Philippines is overpopulated; it assumes that contraceptives are good for mankind and women; the RH Bill will put Filipinos into extinction; it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of abortion; and assumes that parents don’t teach their children about sex.”

Here’s paragraph #5:

But Lagman fortified and added, “Reproductive Health Bill promotes information and access to both natural and modern family planning methods, which are medically safe and legally permissible. It assures an enabling environment where women and couples have the freedom of choice on the mode of family planning they want to adopt based on their needs, personal convictions and religious beliefs. He added “the bill does not have any bias for or against natural or modern family planning. Both modes are contraceptives methods and their purpose is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.”

Let me repeat, in this article, the Pro-RH side is represented by the principal author of the RH Bill, Edcel Lagman. The Anti-RH argument is represented by the number one authority on Anti-RH arguments, me.

It’s truly a clash of the titans because my opinions for why the RH bill is bad (dinosaurs are extinct because they used condoms, therefore people will become extinct if they used condoms) bear as much weight as any scientific study that proves how the RH Bill could be beneficial to our country.

I’m very proud of what I’ve accomplished as the number one authority on anti-RH arguments. I would like to thank my friends and family for their support. I would like to thank all the Catholics who quoted me, especially St. John the Baptist Parish of Taytay, Rizal for making a virtual poster based on my gospel:

But I have a confession to make: I’M NOT ANTI-RH.

I never thought I’d be quoted by Anti-RH people (and media!) to make arguments against the RH Bill, because the article I wrote (“Why the RH Bill is Bad”) was satire. It’s even categorized as humor. I thought this was obvious because:

1. No, you can’t live on the ocean floor.

2. No, dinosaurs didn’t use condoms.

3. No, women can’t have abortions if they’re not pregnant.

4. No, priests don’t have the most knowledge and experience with sex and reproduction… well, that point is debatable.

In any case, there is a reason why people thought that the article was serious. The formal term for the effect is called Poe’s Law.

The core of Poe’s law is that a parody of something extreme by nature becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. A corollary of Poe’s law is the reverse phenomenon: sincere fundamentalist beliefs being mistaken for a parody of that belief.

People can’t tell if the article I wrote was a parody or not because they’ve probably met people online and elsewhere that have made statements that are just as, if not more, absurd. As Red Tani has mentioned in his article “Satire and Straw Man,” “Some anti-RH arguments are so stupid that satirizing them is almost too easy.”

What’s interesting to me, however, is some people’s insistence on quoting me and pointing to my article as a credible source of Anti-RH arguments. Did they actually think that dinosaurs used condoms? It seems to me that a lot of Catholics read my article in the same way they read their Bible – they only quote and remember stuff they agree with while ignoring every other fallacy found in the same document.

Posted in Humor, RH Bill2 Comments

The Thrilla in NAIA: Tulfo, Santiago, & a Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of Truth

Mon Tulfo says that Raymart punched him first. Raymart says that he was retaliating from a previous kick… yada yada… I’m sure you all know about what happened because this incident was Inquirer’s headline last Monday. Currently, it’s the most important national issue (not the RH Bill, or the Freedom of Information Bill, or the hypocrisy the Roman Catholic hierarchy) and it affects all of us, Filipinos.

There is, however, divided opinion on who started the fight, since both parties have accused each other of instigating the brawl. It is in these crucial situations of National importance that each Filipino citizen must re-evaluate his or her notion of truth in order to ultimately determine which side of the story (Team Tulfo or Team Barreto/Santiago) he or she ultimately believes. In this essay we will examine several theories of truth and how they each apply to this incident:

1. The Correspondence Theory of Truth

 

According to Wikipedia, which is the most reliable source of information in the universe, this theory of truth “states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.”

This theory, of course, implies that there is an objective reality and that individuals have the ability to perceive that reality objectively.

Unfortunately, this theory of truth is proven useless by the NAIA incident, because, as statements from both parties clearly demonstrate, objective reality doesn’t exist. Mon Tulfo and Barreto/Santiago have perceived different versions of reality.

In Mon’s version of reality, Raymart tried to confiscate his phone and that Raymart punched him after he refused to surrender it. In Barreto/Santiago’s version of reality, Claudine was first karate-kicked by Mon and Raymart retaliated by punching him.

Given the discrepancy between their statements, the public might be tempted to conclude that at least one of the parties is lying. But doing so would be to oversimplify the nature of truth.

2. The Constructivist Theory of Truth

 

Another theory of truth suggests that truth is a synthetic or “man-made,” invented and established through social power struggles. As it says in the ultimate source of information, Wikipedia, “Social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community.”

There is an objective world that we come in contact with. However, we interpret information differently. Our modes of interpretation are influenced by different factors such as convention, human perception, and social experience.

Needless to say, when Claudine allegedly threw a bitch fit and cursed at the airport crew, she sincerely thought that she was within her rights to behave in such a manner. Her assumptions and expectations do not mirror those of regular people because she comes from a culture and an environment where such feelings of entitlement may be the convention.

3. Nietzsche’s Perspectivism

 

The constructivist view of truth is a little similar to Nietzsche’s concept of perspectivism. In “The Will to Power” Nietzsche says, “It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.”

To simplify, what this means is that truth is simply the reflection of the desires of those in power. Truth is a power struggle and those who win the struggle can decide what the truth is.

When I was teaching, the example I liked to use was how the concept of “late” was defined in my class. My class started at 9:00 am. I asked my students what it meant to be “late.” They said that coming to class after 9:00 am meant that they were late. Then, I asked them, “What if you arrived at 9:15 and I arrived at 9:20? Would you still be late?”

This example may be an extreme oversimplification of the idea, but it is a very clear example of the political nature of truth. Those who are in power make up the rules; they make up the truth.

 

The “The Thrilla in NAIA” presents an interesting example because the people involved (the Barettos, Santiagos, and Tulfos) have some level of influence and power that allows them to cleverly maneuver their perspectives of the truth and try to win the confidence of the public.

Paraphrasing Nietzsche’s quote, “Each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm”:

Each party, the Tulfos & the Santiago/Barretos, has its own version of the truth that it would like to compel the public to accept as the norm.

Here’s a question then: If these people are so influential, why is public opinion so important to them?

That brings us to the next theory, the consensus theory.

4. The Consensus Theory of Truth

 

According to the most plagiarized website by college students, Wikipedia, “Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Such a group might include all human beings, or a subset thereof consisting of more than one person.”

Just in case you missed the important bit, here it is:

“TRUTH IS WHATEVER IS AGREED UPON.”

To simplify, if the general consensus, the public opinion is that you have an ugly face, that is how you will be perceived and treated regardless of how much your face adheres to the principles of aesthetics.

 

Think of the “The Thrilla in NAIA” as a nationwide survey. Be careful how you cast your opinion though, because the resolution of this conflict has long-term consequences that will affect our progress as a nation for many years to come.

Our opinions have the power to compel other drives, create ideas that can shift social focus towards worthy agendas. It’s only fitting that we devote ample time and effort towards the propagation of celebrity gossip.

The consequences of celebrity behavior require more in-depth analysis, more study and more discussion, because it is through the deep reflection of these incidents that we learn and discover our cultural identity as Filipinos, and as human beings.

Credits:

The term “Thrilla in NAIA” as well as the fake poster photo was borrowed from here: http://tunaynalalake.blogspot.com/2012/05/tunay-na-lalake-royal-rumble.html

Posted in Personal, Politics, Society1 Comment

Fernando Poe Jesus: The Catholic Mythos and the Filipino Action Star

I remember wanting to be an action star. I also remember how sad I was when I realized that it’s not practical to be an action star in real life. But the myth of the action star did affect me as a person deeply. Because of the action star, my idea of masculinity has been distorted, as I often associate being a man with not crying, beating up bad guys, and growing sideburns.

Also, I was not very popular in high school (or ever) because I liked leather and denim jackets, even when the weather was warm. But this article is not about my personal issues. It’s about being psychologically messed-up by the greatest B-movie archetype in the world – the Action Star!

My dad is a big fan of Mr. Action Star himself, Fernando Poe Jr. In fact, he had VHS copies of most, if not all of his films. When he first established a video shop when I was a kid, I think he bought all the FPJ films and we watched one every night. One Christmas, inspired by all the action awesome, my dad bought every one of my brothers a pellet gun so we could all practice together, and he also taught us how to do a Chinese get-up (I don’t know what it had to do with FPJ. I’ve never seen FPJ do a Chinese get-up).

To us, FPJ was a mythical figure, a divine savior; he’s the hero who comes and provides salvation to a community at the brink of despair – because they believed in him. FPJ was like a cool Catholic Jesus.

I’m making this comparison because I think the action star has ties with the Catholic mythos. This myth of “the chosen one” has been a very popular concept in Catholicism (Jesus) and I think that that this “chosen one/savior” mythos is partly to be blamed for the Philippine’s political culture. In other words, I’m saying that we have some terrible government officials because we believe in action stars (among other things, of course).

Catholic faith is among the things many Filipinos are proud of. The fact that the Philippines is the only country left in the world without divorce is kind of primitive, but for some reason it is considered by many Filipinos as something to be proud of. In fact, the term devoutly Catholic is an adjective many Filipinos pretend to identify with.

The “chosen one/savior” myth inspired by Jesus fiction is permanently installed in the Filipino collective unconscious. This myth is often manifested in local fantasy movies and television shows like “Captain Barbell,” “Sugo,” “Mulawin,” and “Panday.” Such shows have one thing in common: a savior comes and saves the day.

The popularity and constant resurrection of the savior archetype is a manifestation of the Filipino’s Catholic desire to be saved. Unfortunately, what often comes with the desire to be saved is an attitude of fatalism – an acceptance of helplessness and powerlessness. An eagerness for “the next life.” Instead of fighting to gain control of their own situations, these people pray for a hero. If the hero doesn’t happen to come, it’s okay because everyone’s going to heaven, especially the poor, because according to the local priest, the poorer you are on Earth, the bigger your castle is in heaven.

The savior’s modern equivalent, of course, is the action star. If you’ve ever seen a single Filipino action movie, you’ve probably noticed a few things:

1) The hero never dies.
2) The hero never runs out of bullets.
3) The hero can kill an entire army all by himself.
4) The hero always saves the day.
5) The hero only gets hit on the shoulder.

Such reinforcement in media constructs the archetype of a savior who doesn’t need anyone’s help, who can save the world by himself. Again, this culture of hero-worship is not unique to the Filipino. The Westerners have their Chuck Norrises and Tim Tebows.

The Philippine context, however, is unique in that it seems as if the average Filipino has no capacity to distinguish between fantasy and reality:

1. Antagonists of popular telenovelas suffer much verbal abuse (in real life) from fans of the show they star in.
2. Fans of love teams such as “Kimerald” (Kim Chiu + Gerald Anderson) rage when they realize that these kids are no longer dating in real life.
3. Many of our action stars are voted into important government positions.

I think one of the reasons why action stars are voted into these positions is because they symbolize the solo-savior-Jesus archetype ingrained in the subconscious of many Filipinos. When voters fall in line to vote, what they recall are the roles these people play and the superhuman deeds these actors achieved in the movies.

The shows Filipinos have made to entertain themselves, unfortunately, have convinced majority of their population that a savior would come to save them from poverty.

Even worse is that Filipinos assume that this savior – whoever he is, whatever his qualifications are – can save the country all by himself, without their help, because that is how saviors are; they single-handedly save communities. What we might have, in the end, is a voting population who votes for their favorite superheroes and expects their heroes to save them, without their help.

As long as the messiah myth persists, people will continue to wait for one, and vote for one. They will continue to wait and expect to be saved, rather than work to save themselves. In order for people to start saving themselves, they must realize that the savior, whether his name is Jesus or whatever, is a myth and that he’s not coming.

Posted in Entertainment, Humor, Personal, Politics, Religion, Society0 Comments

The Artistic Merits of 90′s Sexy Cinema (and/or Why “Warat” is Art and Why Art is “Warat”)

Disclaimer: Apologies to all the women in the world for the potentially misogynistic contexts that may emerge from my usage of the loaded term “warat” in this article.

Warat is a common Filipino expression often interchanged with “wasak.” It means “broken” or “destroyed” in English, but is also a slang word for “drunk and high on an assortment of drugs” or a devirginized girl.

“Warat” is also the title of a 90′s bold movie starring Joyce Jimenez.

"Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba? (1999)"

Introduction

My years of exposure to the devious underworld of 90′s bold movies — my exposure to videos of naked women — has supposedly corrupted my soul and turned me into a depressed adult who compulsively cries at night when recalling scenes from “Balahibong Pusa” and “Sutla.” These transient images carve themselves into memory, haunting men like naked sirens, beckoning them towards madness. 90’s soft-porn cinema: a truly great evil.

At least, that was what my values teacher told me about bold movies. Thankfully, although many hours of my youth were spent in isolation and many VHS and Betamax devices have malfunctioned after much fast-forwarding and rewinding, I still don’t have a corrupted soul.

The absence of the “artistic factor” was a common criticism tossed around by regulatory boards and “purists” alike to condemn the bold cinema trend of the 90’s. However, I’m not entirely sure what these people meant by “artistic.”

One of the most debated topics in aesthetics and censorship legislation is the nature of art. What is art? While a fair number of people are aware of the principles of art (balance, contrast, proportion), not many are aware of the standard “approaches” used to define what is artistic. Is a 90’s bold movie artistic? Is porn artistic?

"Ligaya ang Itawag Mo Sa Akin (1997)" is another artistic movie from the 90’s which had realistic intercourse-ing.

Why “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” is Art Reason #1: The Plot is Absurd but the Sex Looks Real (and/or Art as Imitation: Plato and Mimesis)

“All artistic creation is a form of imitation.” – Plato

One of the earliest approaches to art was by Plato. Plato believed that the primary element in determining artistic quality is mimesis or an artist’s ability to mimic or re-produce reality. In other words, an artwork’s realism is what defines its artistic quality.

By this standard then, the bold movies of the 90’s are definitely inferior to “Jersey Shore,” Hayden Kho, and contemporary amateur porn. But via the same standard, in terms of realism, “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” is actually more artistic than any movie that implies that Carla Abellana could actually be attracted to Jorge Estregan Jr.

“Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba? (1999)” had several scenes that allowed the audience to feel an approximation of the emotions felt by an individual who was intercourse-ing.

Why “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” is Art Reason #2: The Audience Gets Aroused (and/or Art as Expression: Tolstoy and Authenticity)

“Works of art so often arise from some deep personal feeling or crisis in the lives of their creators that emotion itself is commonly taken as the defining characteristic of art.” – Leo Tolstoy

Art is not art unless it is able to transfer raw emotions. According to Leo Tolstoy, an artist’s ability to make the audience feel what he feels should be the standard of art. This premise, however, postulates that artistic intention and audience reaction is the highest standard of artistic quality.

If a poem about something sad was written in a way that makes a reader sad too, then by this standard, it is art. If a scene exhibiting sexually aroused individuals makes the audience aroused too, it is artistic. With regard to “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?,” when Joyce Jimenez was moaning and writhing to express her sexual arousal while she was having make-believe intercourse with an actor, many viewers were also sexually aroused. Needless to say, the scene was successful because it seemed authentic enough to generate an authentic response.

"Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba? (1999)" had a few faults, like this scene, which seemed to have no artistic function other than to make the audience feel slightly confused.

Why “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” is Art Reason #3: It Serves a Specific Function That Was Intended by Its Creator (and/or Art as Instrument: Shelley Esaak and Intention)

“Art is something that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing.” – Shelley Esaak

As the quote clearly explains, another measure of artistic value is how efficiently an artwork functions as a tool. If a creator’s intention in making an artwork like “Poleteismo” is to bring attention to certain religious issues, then it was successful because it got people talking about religious issues.

Let’s be honest and say that “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” had no intention to create a paradigm shift in cinematic art. In fact, the plot was mostly an excuse to get naked and start intercourse-ing. But that was precisely what the intended function was – to cause sexual arousal and, in some situations, sexual satisfaction. “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” can be considered as something that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing.

"Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?" (1999) and "Spoliarium" (1884) have little in common, but both are considered artworks.

Why Art is Warat

If one can make an argument that can somehow imply that the movie “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” is art, then there is something seriously odd about the nature of art.

But that, for me, is what makes art both interesting and relevant. Art evolves and changes. This state of transience that exists in all forms of art is what encourages experimentation, discourse, criticism and creation. Even in conservative and restrictive societies, art continues to exist as a venue and as a channel for human freedom.

That is why I believe that art should be free from rigid definitions – and definitely from morality-based regulation. Unfortunately, a common standard many regulatory boards measure art by is via a distorted, outdated, dogmatic and biased moral standard.

Ironically, the  most common reference material for morality – the Bible – is itself full of incest, infanticide, torture, and genocide; things that are definitely far worse than even the most indulgent fucking scene in 90′s bold cinema.

But I digress.

Many of you may disagree about the artistic qualities of “Warat” mentioned here. Feel free to state your opinion on the following issues:

Is “Warat” art? By what artistic standard should we measure “Warat?” Should movies and music be regulated? Is “Warat” even a good movie? If “Warat” is not a good movie, can it still be art? Does art have to be good to be art? Should “Warat” have a sequel, how a bout a re-make? Which would you rather see, “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” or “Spoliarium?”

Posted in Entertainment, Humor, Philosophy, Society4 Comments

God Goes to a Freedom of Expression Rally

To the protesters of the artwork “Poleteismo,”

The universe is composed of millions and millions of galaxies. Inside a single galaxy are millions and millions of solar systems. In one solar system, among millions, there is a star Earthlings call the sun. Around that sun are several planets. One of those planets is called Earth. The planet Earth has around 6.94 billion people.

The planet Earth has several continents. One of those continents is called Asia. Somewhere in Southeast Asia you can find a country called the Philippines. The Philippines has 7,107 islands. Sometimes it has 7,108, depending on the tide or depending on my mood. Those islands are divided into three areas – Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.

In Luzon, there is a city called Manila. In that city, there was an exhibit. In that exhibit, one artist displayed an artwork that was blasphemous.

So fucking what?

Gentlemen, I run the universe. Do you really think I’d give a fuck about one artwork, by one artist, in one exhibit, in one city, in one country, in one continent, in one planet, in one solar system, when I have billions of galaxies to worry about?

I’m God, dude. Like I told you in my last letter to mankind, I don’t sweat the small stuff because I have important things to do: plagues, diseases, earthquakes, epic, shock-and-awe, apocalyptic, God stuff.

Imagine a droplet of pee hanging at the edge of the rim of a random toilet bowl. Now, imagine that in that droplet of pee are millions of tiny little germs. Now, imagine that one germ from those million germs makes an artwork you do not appreciate. Are you going to go there and punish that germ?

You wouldn’t, right? Because the germ is so amazingly irrelevant, inconsequential, insignificant and unimportant to your existence that you would be embarrassed to even think of considering feeling even slightly bothered about some germ.

You know how you feel about the germ’s art? That’s how I feel about the “blasphemous” exhibit.

I am not offended.

In fact, I don’t care at all.

So, stop praying about how I should send fireballs from the sky and blow up some art because some dude put my image in vain. I told you, praying doesn’t work. I have a divine plan and my plan is divine so it’s better than your plan, so shut up.

I mean, seriously, do you think that the creator of the universe and a million galaxies would be “offended” by an artwork?

Just to show you how annoyed I am at these assumptions, I went out of my way and descended from heaven to attend the “free speech” rally myself.

I was there.

When I first got there, I was told that the march might not push through because of the rain. So, I was like, “Nah! I’ll handle that.” So, that’s me stopping the rain:

I was also introduced to Mideo Cruz. He was like, “I’m sorry if you were offended Jesus, there was a statement I wanted to make so I had to use your image in vain.” I was like, “Don’t worry about it, dude. Blasphemy is a human right.” So, that’s me forgiving Mideo Cruz:

That’s me NOT being offended:

That’s me being handsome:

That’s me having a little chat with Kenneth Keng. He’s like, “Hey Jesus, I’m a Christian.” I’m like, “Awesome, man. We’ll hang out later.” That guy on my left is Red Tani. He doesn’t talk to me. We will not “hang out” later:

I’m just kidding, people. I’m not really God.

I’m just some dude dressed up like this guy:

I seriously wanted to dress up like God, unfortunately, I didn’t know what God looked like. I’ve never seen Him before. Have you? See, when you accuse someone of using God’s image in vain, the premise has to be that you know what God’s image looks like, right?

So, tell me, what does God look like?

Posted in Humor, Religion, Society6 Comments

Hey, Look! There’s a Big, Disgusting Bias on My Dick! (Part 2)

Disclaimer: I am writing not as a representative of the Filipino Freethinkers but as an individual with an opinion. My views are my own and should, in no way, be viewed as an indication of what beliefs or values members of our organization hold. Throughout this article, I might use hetero-centric language in that, more often than not, when I refer to “men,” I’m actually referring to heterosexual men. Though I am aware of its importance, I decided, for the sake of brevity to omit the heterosexual part in the assumption that through this disclaimer I have clarified the context of the erasure.

“So How Funny is a Mutilated Penis?”
The last article I wrote was about how there’s a bias on my dick with regard to how much violence on men is tolerated by society. In that article I also mentioned how a group of women laughed about a man’s castration. This article is going to be about that, SlutWalks, ElevatorGate, and Feminism, among other things.

Reuters reports that a California woman was charged with torture on July 13, 2011 after authorities said she cut off her husband’s penis with a kitchen knife and ground it up in a garbage disposal. Catherine Kieu, 48, is accused of tying her sleeping husband to a bed with nylon ropes, pulling down his pants and slicing off his penis, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office said in a written statement.

A few days later, the event was featured on a show called “The Talk,” which aired on a major US television network. In the show, Sharon Osbourne made fun of the castrated man, while her co-hosts and majority of the female audience laughed with her.

It wasn’t a soft, cute laugh either. They openly mocked the man for several minutes. Sharon Osborne even called the event “delightful” as she proceeded to demonstrate, with a finger, what a mutilated penis might look like while it’s being torn to shreds, to the delight of the crowd. Footage of the event could be found in this video here. The “funny & delightful” part happens at 4 minutes 45 seconds.

Terroja Kincaid, a.k.a. The Amazing Atheist also has a take on this event. You can watch his video by following this link.

In his article “Women, you have surely earned it,” Manuel Dexter writes:

In a July episode of a daytime woman’s television show called “The Talk,” the 5 female hosts discussed this premeditated mutilation, and treated the issue as the ultimate in slapstick comedy.

There were utterances of “you go girl,” the mutilation was described as “delightful,” and all 5 hosts laughed openly at a human who had been sexually mutilated. The individual earned this brutal and grisly retribution because he apparently wanted a divorce. “That’ll teach him,” one of the hosts suggested.

The show is filmed in front of a live studio audience –who happen to be all women, and the open celebration of a human’s grisly dismemberment was met with a horrified, shocked silence.

Actually, no. The audience, almost all women, laughed their heads off, because when a human is permanently and viciously mutilated, then it’s funny as hell, provided the victim is male.

The woman who performed this grisly mutilation is now a celebrity of sorts. She has inspired FaceBook campaigns and letter writing campaigns to free her, to afford her the protected status of a victim, to gift her with education funding, housing, therapy and an expenses-paid-cruise to the Cayman islands.

When asked whether a mutilated breast or vagina would be just as “delightful,” Sharon Osborne says, “It’s not the same.” The implication, of course, is that a mutilated penis is funny; a mutilated vagina is not funny.

“Vic-tim! Bla-ming! Vic-tim! Bla-ming!”
One very popular, on-going movement today, the SlutWalks, began as a response to what one man said. BBC News reports:

Police Constable Michael Sanguinetti had been giving a talk on health and safety to a group of students at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto when he made the now infamous remarks.

“You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here,” he reportedly told them. “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”

When a male police officer implies that a woman’s clothing may increase the risk of her being raped, there is outrage among feminists and marches are mobilized to inspire further discourse on the issue. But when a woman explicitly mentions how a man was tortured and had his penis severed because he “deserved” it, and how this event was “delightful,” guess what happens?

Nothing.

I’m pointing out this disparity because the general idea behind most feminist movements is gender equality. But it just seems to me that feminist movements are not so gender equal with regard to the issues that they choose to embark upon. Although feminism is a great engine for the promotion and the protection of women’s rights, in my opinion, it’s not as great for men and men’s rights and is not entirely “gender equal.”

I have no evidence I can cite, but as far as I know the SlutWalks and Rebecca Watson a.k.a. the girl from ElevatorGate got more attention than this issue.

In his article, “How Funny is a Mutilated Vagina?” Paul Elam expresses concern with regard to how the women in “The Talk” responded to the crime. He writes:

This can only be the result of a Society that has so dehumanized men, so demonized male sexuality, that men can be literally tied up and tortured, have their lives permanently altered (by removing the ability to fulfill the most basic of drives)… and these women LAUGH.

Every last one of them represent the truly disgusting in human nature. No, none of it is ‘innocent’, and no, it is not ‘just a joke’. Anyone taking pleasure in this shocking crime should be ashamed of themselves, and take a serious look at how they perceive men, and how that looks from THIS side of the fence. And the women ‘hosting’ this show? Every last one of them should lose their jobs.

Will they? Of course not. Because they obviously know what appeals to their audience. Which is comprised of women. The audience certainly seemed pleased with the show, and enthusiastically joined in, as a matter of fact. Truthfully, the only time the audience gave pause, was when Sara, near the end of the segment, mentioned that ‘it’s kinda weird’ to be taking so much glee in something they would be horrified at the reverse of.

But then the show quickly moved on, much to the audience’s relief.

If this isn’t proof of widespread, generalized female hatred of men, I don’t know what is.

Because I could NEVER see a man taking so much pleasure in the removal of a woman’s ability to have sex. Not even one.”

Hey, Look! There’s a Big, Disgusting Bias on My Dick!

There’s a big, disgusting bias on my dick and I think I should have it removed. Wait, you too? Really? You have a big, disgusting bias on your dick too? There’s a big, disgusting bias on everyone’s dick in that if it was kicked, or bitten, or mutilated by a woman, for whatever reason, it’s supposed to be kind-of funny.

To put this disparity into proper context, let’s compare torture and castration to another example of “victimization.”

A few months ago, there was a woman who was “victimized” in an elevator. A guy approached her and propositioned her politely (her own words) to go to his room and have coffee with him. The woman was made uncomfortable because, despite the fact that the elevator had a camera installed, and that it was a highly populated hotel where an event just ended, the guy could have been a potential rapist because, if you haven’t heard yet, every man in the universe has a propensity for rape. If you have a dick, you’re probably a rapist too.

Feminists rallied to her side and created a discourse about the injustice of a patriarchal culture that finds nothing wrong with ElevatorGate. The atheist community talked about this for weeks and it was so big that even Richard Dawkins, Richard fucking Dawkins, was compelled to comment (and was also summarily dismissed as a misogynist, for thinking that ElevatorGate is trivial as compared to other incidents that affect gender issues like, I don’t know, women publicly laughing about castration on television).

Let’s think about this for a moment:

When a woman is “victimized” by a man who politely propositions her in an elevator, the whole world hears about it and talks about it for weeks, and the man, the “victimizer” is repeatedly humiliated. Now, when a man is victimized by a woman who cuts off his penis and turns it into ground beef, the woman, the “victimizer,” gets a Free Catherine Kieu Becker FaceBook Campaign, while the man is ridiculed and mocked on television.

How’s that for a double standard?

To Be, or Not to Be? Feminism is Just Not for Me.
There are some types of feminism I disagree with more than others. Personally, although I feel apprehensive about feminism in general, I like the idea of equity feminism as Christina Hoff Sommers has defined it as “an ideology rooted in classical liberalism, and that aims for full civil and legal equality for women.”

There is, however, a specific type of feminism that I really, really disagree with: gender feminism a.k.a., in Sommmer’s terms, “Victim Feminism.” In an interview, Christina Hoff Summers expresses her opinion of gender feminists:

“These are women who believe in what they call the sex-gender system, that women are trapped in a sex-gender system, that gender roles are arbitrarily defined, and the purpose is to convince women that they are victims, that they are put upon by men in every aspect, that language has to be liberated, and textbooks and great works of art are all compromised by sexism. You have feminists — Susan McClary, for example — who teach students to identify rape themes in Beethoven symphonies. You know, when I see things like that I think it’s gotten so ridiculous that you can’t tell the difference between a parody and the real thing. There are feminists out there who are trying to get scientists to change the name of the Big Bang Theory because, they say, that is sexist and frightening to young women.”

In my opinion, “victim feminism” has empowered the woman’s position in society, so much so, that it allows her to cry “victim” and inspire a backlash over a man’s polite proposition on account of her being “made uncomfortable,” and at the same time, allows her the privilege to openly mock a man’s castration with barely any repercussions.

My point in writing this is not to inspire hatred or resentment towards women, or to disparage feminists and feminist movements, but to promote discourse on a matter that I believe requires attention.

There is a need to call attention to how much tolerance society has on violence inflicted on men by women. In my humble opinion, there is a need for men to persist against the ever growing trend of common and casual misandry.

I’m putting emphasis on the word, men, not because I’m being sexist or making hetero-normative assumptions, but because I would like to emphasize the fact that straight men need to do such things for themselves. Why? Because there is a general assumption that they hold a privileged position, therefore men’s issues are not a high priority for feminist or other gender equality movements.

In other words, gender equality movements and feminist movements don’t care as much about straight men as they do about women or gay men. They’re not going to prioritize the promotion and protection of men’s rights, and, in my opinion, they shouldn’t have to.

Maybe it’s time for men, like the women who were smart enough to do it before they did, to seek proper representation and organization to allow them, as a class, to negotiate with the powerful feminist monolith and its many, fragmented forms.

Maybe it’s time for men to examine for themselves the different facets of feminism and whether or not its proliferation really does promote gender equality. As Pelle Billing writes in his article, “Where Did Feminism Go Wrong?”:

“There was a lack of clarity from the start of the feminist movement. Was it a movement for gender equality, or was it a movement that promoted women’s rights? This is a huge distinction, and the assumption that these two struggles are always compatible is far from true.

“This lack of clarity is also apparent in the name chosen for the movement. If it had been called equalism, then the end goal would have been clear. However, the name feminism implies that the end goal is female supremacy or something along those lines.”

Maybe it’s time for men to expand the thin red line, the false dilemma, that the current discourse has placed between feminism and misogyny, to redefine the borders so that men who are neither feminists nor misogynists have a space to inhabit that is exclusive from or indifferent to both.

 

All pictures taken from:

http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/through-a-mirror-bleakly/

Posted in Personal, Politics, Society4 Comments

Hey, Look! There’s a Big, Disgusting Bias on My Dick! (Part 1)

Disclaimer: I am writing not as a representative of the Filipino Freethinkers but as an individual with an opinion. My views are my own and should, in no way, be viewed as an indication of what beliefs or values members of our organization hold. Throughout this article, I might use hetero-centric language in that, more often than not, when I refer to “men,” I’m actually referring to heterosexual men. Though I am aware of its importance, I decided, for the sake of brevity to omit the heterosexual part in the assumption that through this disclaimer I have clarified the context of the erasure.

“Shut-up and Man-up!”
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a double standard is a “set of principles establishing different provisions for one group than another; also, specifically, allowing men more sexual freedom than women.”

According to Dictionary.com, a double standard is “any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, especially an unwritten code of sexual behavior permitting men more freedom than women.”

In many instances the word double standard is commonly defined and commonly accepted as a belief or view that discriminates against women and provides men with unfair advantages and privileges. The most common example of this is the Stud/Slut double standard that goes something like, “If a man sleeps around, he’s a stud. If a woman sleeps around, she’s a slut?”

It is implied, even in most dictionaries, that when double standards occur, women are on the losing end of it. We always hear about female side about their problems with the double standard because women were actually smart enough to come up with a movement, feminism, that dealt with issues like this and that fought for policies that could educate and assist women in dealing with these matters.

Straight men didn’t bother (I’m making that distinction because gay men have the gay rights movement available to them), partly because they were expected, pardon the sexist idiom, to “shut-up and man-up.” Majority of straight men do not have a proper venue for productive discourse with regard to men’s issues because, in the dominant paradigm of gender politics, straight men are considered to be the privileged oppressors in patriarchal cultures and are, therefore, in no position to voice out grievances, especially grievances about the opposite sex. However, this postulation of dominance by males does not exempt them from bias, harmful double standards and oppression.

“I Want to Make Boys Feel Bad Because It’s Fun.”
The illustrations I used for this article are T-Shirt prints marketed and sold by David & Goliath Inc. Radio host Glenn Sacks started a campaign calling for the boycott of what is perceived by many as the widespread marketing of misandry, disguised and often justified as female empowerment.

In fairness to Goldman, he made no mention of how his products were meant to be sold under the pretense of empowerment. In fact, in a news article by from National Post, Goldman explicitly denies that his T-shirts have anything to do with the girl-power movement. “I’m a guy. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about girl empowerment. Our market is teenage girls. I know what sells.”

He’s right. I haven’t found a single feminist movement that officially promotes these shirts as “empowering.” And, in my opinion, although these products reinforce false masculine archetypes that suggest that men are stupid liars, Goldman has a right to express his opinion and to take advantage of a trend to make a profit.

However,  the fact that these products sell to such a degree, the fact that shirts printed with these slogans have mainstream acceptance, in my opinion, points towards a cultural trend of tolerance for violence towards men, especially, once we consider the target market for this merchandise – quoting Goldman, “Our market is teenage girls.”

Let’s Go, Girls! It’s Beat Up Your Boyfriend Night!
Joan Arehart-Treichel wrote an article, “Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence”, to address the issue of violence towards men and to present surprising statistics about the nature of partner violence.

In that article she writes:

“Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women.”

Nonreciprocal violence, by the way, is when a woman hits a man and the man doesn’t hit back. When he does hit back, it’s called reciprocal violence a.k.a. criminal violence; a violation of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in the States and a violation of Republic Act. 9262 Anti-violence Against Women and Their Children act of 2004 in the Philippines.

Some people would argue that violence by women can’t be as serious as violence by men because women are, most of the time, physically smaller and weaker than the men they fight with. Unfortunately, research proves that women also have a tendency to compensate for their smaller size through their greater use of weapons and the element of surprise, and that only a small percentage of female domestic violence is committed in self-defense.

An annotated bibliography of around 300 “References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners” compiled by Martin S. Feibert points to the same conclusion  - within heterosexual intimate partnerships, women have a higher propensity for violence than men:

Doroszewicz, K., & Forbes, G. B. (2008).  Experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion among Polish college students.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 58-73.  (The CTS-2 was used to study dating aggression in a sample <men=100, women=100> of unmarried Polish college students.  Results reveal that women were overall significantly more aggressive than men <48% vs 35.6%>).

Straus, M. A. (2008).  Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations.  Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.  (A convenience sample of 13,601 students <71.5% women, 28.5% men> at 68 universities in 32 countries completed the CTS2.  Findings reveal that almost a third of students assaulted their dating partners in a 12 month period.  In terms of initiation, mutual aggression accounted for 68.6% of physical violence, while women initiated violence 21.4% of the time and men initiated violence 9.9% of the time.)

Leung, P. & Cheung, M.  (2008).  A prevalence study on partner abuse in six Asian American ethnic groups in the USA.  International Social Work, 51, 635-649.  (A large sample of Asian Americans were surveyed with the original CTS in the greater Houston area of Texas.  Sample consisted of 1577 respondents: 610 Chinese, 517 Vietnamese, 154 Indians, 123 Koreans, 101 Filipinos and 72 Japanese.  In terms of partner abuse high rates were reported for Vietnamese (22.4%) and Filipinos (21.8%)and low rates for Japanese and Chinese (9.7%).  Overall women were more abusive than men (17.6% vs 15.3%).

If, according to science, women are more violent than men in their domestic relationships, how come our laws on domestic violence protect only women?

My idea of gender equality is legal equality. Anything beyond that is, in my opinion, gender biased. Violence should be criminalized regardless of who’s doing it. Apart from criminalizing male violence on females, you know what else I think could help reduce domestic violence?

Criminalizing female violence on males.

Unfortunately, misandry is not only tolerated in contemporary culture, sometimes it is even encouraged. Some radical feminist groups not only condone misandry and violence against men, they advocate it and laugh about it.

A popular feminist blog, Jezebel.com, published an article entitled, “Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend, Uh, We Have.” Guess what it’s about! Right! How fun it is to hit boys who don’t hit back. Ironically, this article was what led me to the statistics on partner violence. Joan Arehart-Treichel’s article, “Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence,” was cited as a source.

Tracie Egan Morrisey writes (bold emphasis, mine):

“According to a study of relationships that engage in nonreciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girls are beating up their BFs and husbands and the dudes aren’t fighting back. With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who’s gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let’s just say that it’d be wise to never ever fuck with us.

“One Jezebel got into it with a dude while they were breaking up, while another Jez went nuts on her guy and began violently shoving him. One of your editors heard her boyfriend flirting on the phone with another girl, so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck… “partially open handed.” Another editor slapped a guy when “he told me he thought he had breast cancer.”(Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.) And lastly, one Jez punched a steady in the face and broke his glasses. He had discovered a sex story she was writing about another dude on her laptop, so he picked it up and threw it. And that’s when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it.”

Articles such as this one encourage women to beat up their boyfriends, postulating this behavior, violence against men, as a humorous, laughable norm and going as far as to cite a popular celebrity, Amy Winehouse as an “endorser” for nonreciprocal violence.

“On a Scale of 1 to 10, How Funny is a Mutilated Vagina?”
It is precisely because of this rising trend of misandry that a group of men have decided to fight back and make fun of violence perpetrated on a female, particularly a woman whose vagina was mutilated.

On July of 2011 an Orange County man drugged his wife, tied her up while she was unconscious, waited for her to wake up, then sliced pieces off her vagina and destroyed the severed organs by throwing them in a garbage disposal. Hosts from the show laughed at the idea of little vagina bits bouncing around in the garbage disposal. The all-male audience laughed with them!

I’m just kidding. That didn’t really happen. That will never happen. No man would dare laugh about violence done to a woman on television because such a display of barbarity would end his career and maybe even his life. If a group of men publicly laughs at the idea of torturing women via vaginal mutilation, the public would call for their heads. People would claim that these men deserved to die, or at the very least, they would clamor that all the men involved in the incident lose their jobs. These men might even be attacked by random strangers who would feel justified in beating the shit out of these assholes out of principle. There might be rallies, demonstrations and women’s rights activists all over television.

“On a Scale of 1 to 10, How Funny is a Mutilated Penis?”

But what if was the other way around? What if a bunch of women laughed about a man’s mutilated penis on television? I’m not kidding about that one. That really happened and will be discussed further in part 2.

 

(to be continued…)

 

All pictures taken from:

http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/through-a-mirror-bleakly/

Posted in Personal, Politics, Society5 Comments

Why I Don’t Like SlutWalks as Much as I Like Sluts or Walks

Why I Don’t Like SlutWalks as Much as I Like Sluts or Walks

In the lecture “What’s Wrong and What’s Right with Contemporary Feminism?” Philosophy Professor Christina Hoff Sommers makes a distinction between equity feminism and “gender feminism” calling the latter, “victim feminism.” She describes Equity Feminism as the classical liberalism that inspired the First Wave of feminism in the 19th century. What she refers to as “victim feminism” is, according to her, the type of feminism that adheres to the sex/gender system and defines it as a “complex process whereby bi-sexual infants are transformed into male and female gender personalities, the one destined to command, the other to obey.”

She does not agree with the latter view and even complains that, “The dominant philosophy of today’s women’s movement is not equity feminism–but “victim feminism.”

According to her, “Victim feminists don’t want to hear about the ways in which women have succeeded.  They want to focus on and often invent new ways and perspectives in which women can be regarded as oppressed and subordinated to men.”

Ms. Sommers connects the “gender feminist” perspective with how Eve Ensler’s Vagina Monologues was written. She says, “What I want to point out to you is the play’s deeper gender feminist message. It is all about exposing the ravages of patriarchy and the evils of all things masculine. The play is poisonously anti-male.  There are no admirable males in the Monologues–-the play presents a rogues’ gallery of male brutes, sadists, child-molesters, genital mutilators, gang rapists and hateful little boys.”

She criticizes both the play and gender feminism saying, “Here is the problem with the play and with the gender feminist philosophy that informs it: Most men are not brutes. They are not oppressors.  Yes, there are some contemptible Neanderthals among us, and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. But to confuse them with the ethical majority of men is blatantly sexist. Yet again and again, we find that contemporary feminists take the worst case example of pathological masculinity and treat it as the male norm.”

 

"They want to focus on and often invent new ways and perspectives in which women can be regarded as oppressed and subordinated to men."

Equal Rights or Special Rights?

The SlutWalk movement, in my opinion, is an extension of what Ms. Sommers called “victim feminism.” I’m sure, by now, you’ve heard about SlutWalks since a few articles on it have been written by several of my colleagues. It’s this movement which is supposed to deconstruct patriarchy’s negative caricature stereotype of sexually liberal, sex-positive women (since patriarchy, allegedly, implies that only prostitutes can enjoy sex with multiple-partners) but ends up reinforcing it by walking the streets dressed up like, well, prostitutes – thereby inadvertently isolating the idea of “a woman who enjoys sexual freedom” with the image of – provocative clothing.

Some would argue that these provocative clothes are worn as costumes to make fun of the patriarchal stereotype. But at the end of the day it’s called a SlutWalk; it’s a pride march for a sexually liberated lifestyle and a sexually liberated identity and even in jest, the association between sexualized images and sexual liberty might imply that only women who have the audacity to dress like this enjoy sex.

Personally, I have nothing against women who dress provocatively. Ultimately, women are supposed to be able to wear what they want. In fact, it is completely legal for women to wear what they want. There is no law which prevents women from wearing revealing clothing. My problem with the SlutWalk is that these women want a privilege or an assurance that extends beyond legal permission.

There’s a claim that women should not be judged for what they wear, and that people should not respond negatively (by calling them sluts) or respond positively (by approaching them, or staring at them at length [I think the exact term was “to ogle”], or by whistling) to what they wear. In other words, they want to be able to wear what they want, without you being able to say what you want about what they wear. They are, in my opinion, asking for “special” rights, not equal rights.

According to Brendan O’Neill, in his article, “These are the most anti-social sluts on earth,” “The SlutWalk organiser says that one of the ‘main messages’ of her campaign is that ‘a woman’s appearance is not a sexual invitation’. But it is. When women wear revealing gear in a pub or a nightclub, they are definitely issuing a sexual invitation. And why shouldn’t they? They want to pull, get off, cop off or whatever the crazy kids call it these days. It is part and parcel of the perfectly normal, perfectly healthy interaction of the sexes that women dress attractively and men respond in kind, by making a comment, offering to buy a drink, attempting one of those apparently criminal come-ons.”

 

"A 1991 study by the Council for Prostitution Alternatives, in Portland, Oregon, documented that 78 percent of 55 prostituted women reported being raped an average of 16 times annually by their pimps and 33 times a year by johns."

Prostitution and Rape

SlutWalks claim that there is no correlation between sexy clothing and rape. Research proves that there isn’t, so I have to agree. There is no proven correlation between sexy clothing and rape, but how about sexy clothing and cat calls? How about plunging necklines and ogles? How about promiscuity and rape?

Quoting Paul Elam, in his article “SlutWalks: Stupidity in a Tube Top”, “Here is the basic, undeniable truth: Dressing like a slut doesn’t lead to rape; being a slut most certainly does. Like it or not, PC or not, slut friendly or not, promiscuity does lead to the enhanced likelihood of rape.  As even the most obtuse rape advocate will acknowledge, most rapes of women happen from known assailants, often potential or previous sexual partners.”

But that is not entirely why I don’t like SlutWalks. Men and women can live as promiscuously or as prudishly as they want as long as they are aware of the risks they are taking.

I’m not saying that a person is at fault for being raped. What I’m saying is that certain lifestyles have certain risks. A prostitute definitely has a higher chance of being raped than a housewife, because the environment of a sex worker constantly exposes them to the possibility of sexual assault. Here are a few statistics about prostitution and rape.

 

"Pokpok Pride Shirts"

Proud to be a Pokpok?

Speaking of professional sluts, one thing  don’t understand about SlutWalks is their use of the term slut. Why do they want to re-claim the word slut?

Quoting Jill Psmith, in her blog post “Toronto Activists Take Back the Slut”“This notion of re-appropriating ’slut’ suggests that women, possibly in some happier time, had previously a-ppropriated it for our own benefit. But in no wise was there ever a culture in which women’s solidarity compelled us to define ourselves by the number of men we’ve pronged and how closely we conformed to pornographic dress codes when we did it. When you’re standing up against your own oppression as a member of the sex class, it is problematic and of questionable revolutionary efficacy to stamp yourself and your comrades-in-arms with the mark of the oppressor. In other words, calling yourself a slut, in the middle of a flippin’ patriarchy, can only have the effect, as Germaine Greer noted, of reinforcing men’s sense of their own superiority.”

Megan Murphy, in her article “We’re sluts, not feminists. Wherein my relationship with Slutwalk gets rocky” has another take on the word slut. She says, “I also ‘grapple with the word slut.’ This word, as I have mentioned, has been used in a myriad of ways to hurt me. I have been called a slut for having sex, for not having sex, and for being coerced into sex. I have been called a slut by partners, by friends, and by acquaintances. I wish that this word did not hold the power it does. I wish that it had not been used to hurt and abuse me. But it has. There is no erasing that. Regardless of whether or not I decide to redefine the word. It continues to be used in this way. And so I still “grapple” with the word, “slut.” While some may have decided to reclaim it or redefine it for their own personal empowerment, I’m afraid that this does not change my experiences.”

In my opinion, we should remember that “slut” is a Western word. It is not as loaded or offensive to the fe/male Filipino consciousness as, say, the word, “pokpok.” The word “slut,” when contextualized in local culture, already has a positive implication. The word “slut” implies a higher economic class. The promiscuous elite are called “sluts,” but promiscuous women from a lower class are called “popoks” and “putas.” “Slut” for Filipina women is not as offensive as it is for Western women. It is easy for non-native English speakers to think how reclaiming the word “slut” is a good idea because the trauma and pain associated with the word is dissociated and detached from them.

How about trying to reclaim local slurs? The word “pokpok” is an accurate translation of the word “slut.” But would you support a movement called the “PokpokWalk?” How about the “Puta Pride March?” Would you be able to say, “Pokpok ako!” or “I support puta pride!” with the same enthusiasm as “I’m proud to be a slut?”

But that’s not my main problem with SlutWalks. As far as I’m concerned, women can call themselves whatever term they want if they find these terms empowering. The main problem I have with SlutWalks is the SlutWalk’s problem with me.

 

"That coffee cup icon is actually a secret symbol for rape."

Rape Myths and Misandry

See, I am not a rapist. But misandry is inherent in many of their arguments. One argument suggests that, “Instead of teaching women how to dress, maybe we should teach men how not to rape women.” The name Dr. Kathleen Young is mentioned from time to time and her very insightful article about how rape could be prevented is making its rounds. Here’s an excerpt from her article, “How to Prevent Rape”:

Instead of further curtailing women’s freedom, how about:

If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don’t rape her. 

If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don’t rape her. 

If your step-daughter is watching tv, don’t rape her. 

If you break into a house and find a woman there, don’t rape her. 

If your friend thinks it’s okay to rape someone, tell him it’s not, and that he’s not your friend.

If your “friend” tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.

If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there’s an unconscious woman upstairs and

It’s your turn, don’t rape her, call the police and tell the guy he’s a rapist.

Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it’s not okay to rape someone.

Brilliant! Did you notice how there was no mention of women? It was as if all forms of rape and victimization are exclusively committed by men. 

As what Ms. Sommers mentioned in her lecture, “Yet again and again, we find that contemporary feminists take the worst case example of pathological masculinity and treat it as the male norm.” The suggestion that men should be taught how NOT to rape women and how NOT to victimize women is sexist. It implies that rape and victimization is normative behavior in men, and that rape is an exclusively male activity.

Well, according to the article, “When the Rapist is a She”, it’s not just a guy thing. 

Male and female rapists are bad people. They know that rape is wrong and they don’t give a shit that it’s wrong. Blaming incidents of sexual victimization on male ignorance is sexist and wrong. 

SlutWalkers suggest that men should be taught how NOT to victimize and rape women. Maybe we should include mandatory academic lectures, for boys, in all private and public schools about the merits of NOT raping women, because telling a rapist not to rape a person will definitely stop him or her from doing so.

Once again, quoting Paul Elam, “Their world is one of fantasy, where we can prevent female rape simply by telling men not to rape women. Imagine that, all along we have been dealing with an education problem. Men don’t know that it is bad to commit rape, so we just need to tell them.”

Yes, SlutWalks are also, and primarily, a celebration and an affirmation of a woman’s freedom to dress as she wants, but it is also a big “Fuck You” to men. The Slut-Walks are not exclusively pro-woman (an articulation of a woman’s place in society), but are also somewhat anti-man, in that it postulates a man’s tendency to gaze or approach a woman on account of what she’s wearing as an intentionally malicious and inherently intrusive act. SlutWalks call male sexual bravado (and by bravado I mean gazing at and approaching women, not rape) sexual victimization while they themselves are wearing sexually audacious clothing. This is not about gender equality. There is an attempt to empower female sexuality, while weakening male sexuality. This is about a sexual power reversal.

The SlutWalk is a march by women, for women. Men can participate in these events as “supporters,” but it has been established that this is for women. Ultimately, this is a protest about women being abused, women being restricted, and women being shamed as sluts. It is female-centric and it ignores masculine issues when men are just as easily abused, restricted, and shamed in patriarchal societies.

 

A study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "the belief that it is impossible for males to respond sexually when subjected to sexual molestation by women is contradicted" and it also corroborated "previous research indicating that male sex response can occur in a variety of emotional states, including anger and terror."

Rape, Abuse and Suppression in Men

The article “The Rape of Men” discusses the serious issue of male rape victims. According to a rape survivor, “There are certain things you just don’t believe can happen to a man, you get me? But I know now that sexual violence against men is a huge problem. Everybody has heard the women’s stories. But nobody has heard the men’s.”

Here are some surprising statistics I got from Paul Elam’s article, “SlutWalks: Stupidity in a Tube Top”:

* 2.1% of men reported forced vaginal sex compared to 1.6% of women in a relationship in the previous year. From: Predictors of Sexual Coersion.

*94% of sexually abused youth in correctional facilities reported being abused by female staff. From: Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities, 2008-09.

* Among inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct, ~ 65% reported a female aggressor. From: Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008 – 09.

* 50% of homeless youth reported being sexually abused by a female. From: It’s Not What You Think: Sexually Exploited Youth in British Columbia.

It is extremely hard for men to come out and say that they’ve been victimized or raped because a patriarchal society implies that it is a rarity and highly unlikely for men to get raped by other men or by women. Movements such as the SlutWalk reinforce a false premise that only women get raped and only men do the raping. It makes it harder for men to say that they were raped because no one would believe them. Men can be raped, abused, and restricted. Patriarchy claims male victims too.

 

Images taken from:

Equal Rights or Special Rights?: http://www.google.com.ph/imgres?q=feminism+parody&um=1&hl=tl&rlz=1C1CHMC_enPH399PH399&biw=1024&bih=462&tbm=isch&tbnid=buNZmBGvzJzrSM:&imgrefurl=http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/postfeminism/Theorizing-Feminism-and-Postmodernity.html&docid=Wlp-TqS6Bj-HkM&w=394&h=400&ei=EhhBToSKO-edmQXq_523CQ&zoom=1

Prostitution and Rape: http://www.google.com.ph/imgres?q=prostitution+philippines&um=1&hl=tl&rlz=1C1CHMC_enPH399PH399&biw=1024&bih=462&tbm=isch&tbnid=E-mi0N35zVWglM:&imgrefurl=http://www.worldmission.ph/FEBRUARY06/Women%252520battle.htm&docid=mw5BtkFNUl_IqM&w=360&h=310&ei=HxJBToX2B4GYmQWfwI20CQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=258&vpy=157&dur=784&hovh=208&hovw=242&tx=195&ty=130&page=1&tbnh=163&tbnw=188&start=0&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0

Proud to be a Pokpok?: http://www.google.com.ph/imgres?q=pokpok+shirt&um=1&hl=tl&sa=N&rlz=1C1CHMC_enPH399PH399&biw=1024&bih=462&tbm=isch&tbnid=q1x5B2QsB5Ww4M:&imgrefurl=http://www.zazzle.com/pinay_pokpok_womens_shirt-235293338868380487&docid=CNaVyJVNkv2brM&w=400&h=400&ei=nRVBTtW9G4H-mAXTyeHNCQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=180&page=1&tbnh=163&tbnw=180&start=0&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=79&ty=56

Rape Myths and Misandry: http://www.google.com.ph/imgres?q=radical+feminism+parody&um=1&hl=tl&sa=N&rlz=1C1CHMC_enPH399PH399&biw=1024&bih=462&tbm=isch&tbnid=IVofjBTBwDfrIM:&imgrefurl=http://masculineheart.blogspot.com/2010/06/robert-cribb-case-for-mens-studies.html&docid=Kd7YZP0c4TTskM&w=500&h=404&ei=9RVBTsr7JZD5mAXAwOi9CQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=381&vpy=107&dur=444&hovh=135&hovw=172&tx=76&ty=64&page=4&tbnh=135&tbnw=172&start=25&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:25

Rape, Abuse, and Suppression in Men: http://www.google.com.ph/imgres?q=rape+of+men&um=1&hl=tl&rlz=1C1CHMC_enPH399PH399&biw=1024&bih=462&tbm=isch&tbnid=NdJMYYmfUiajCM:&imgrefurl=http://www.afghanforums.com/showthread.php%253F23064-The-Rape-of-Men-a-Must-read!!!!/page2&docid=ow2u8MOGQ82MtM&w=455&h=256&ei=MhlBTtXBHsjXmAXO5d2xCQ&zoom=1

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Society3 Comments

My Dear Catholic, Stop Being Catholic

My Dear Catholic, Stop Being Catholic

My Dear Catholic,

When an adult male has an overwhelming need to put his penis into the mouth, anus or vagina of a child, there is clearly something wrong with his being and he must be considered a danger to society.

Unfortunately, the leaders of your beloved religion — including the Pope — have decided that instead of seeking punishment for people who use children as sex toys, they should instead protect them. In fact, since 2004 the Roman Catholic Church has spent over $2,700,000,000 or P108,000,000,000 to address clergy sex abuse.

That money came from believers like you, dear Catholic. So, in essence, you are actually funding operations that keep people who like playing with little boys’ penises out of jail.

Another project that you might have unintentionally helped fund is a bogus research report that makes up excuses as to why certain members of the clergy were sexually involved with little boys and girls. That report cost $1,200,000. That report claims that certain members of the clergy put their penises in the mouths, anuses, or vaginas of little children because it was common practice in the seventies.

Now, I have often asked myself — what kind of logic would propel a person to protect grown-ups who put their penises into the mouths of children? Better yet, what kind of person would help fund organizations which allow for such practices?

So, my dear Catholic, why do you give money to an organization which uses its resources to keep people who force-fuck children in the mouth out of jail, and funds bogus reports to justify and rationalize force-fucking children in the mouth?

To make things worse, my dear Catholic, the influence of your church is more pronounced in countries like the Philippines, whose majority is composed of Catholics. There, politicians are often manipulated and coerced into making dumb nation-sabotaging decisions because they’re afraid that if they cross your “Mother Church,” they would lose Catholic support.

My dear Catholic, I’m not saying that all of you are stupid or immoral. Some of you are not stupid at all. In fact, many of you, Catholics, are personal friends and family members of mine. Some of you have told me that you, like me, are disgusted about the child-fucking propagated and tolerated by the highest officials of the Roman Catholic clergy.

Because some of your religious leaders seem to have no problem with grown-ups having sex with children, several of you, my dear Catholic, have suggested that maybe it’s time for a new brand of Catholicism to emerge; a type of Catholicism that does not acknowledge the infallibility of the Pope; one that condemns the Vatican’s attempt to cover-up sex scandals; one that doesn’t hate homosexuals; one that respects the secular conditions of our constitution; and one that relies on common sense and not a primitive book to determine proper human conduct.

Fortunately, my dear Catholic, such a belief system no longer needs to be created because it already exists. It already has a name. It’s called common human decency, also known, in academic circles, as basic human ethics.

The wonderful thing about basic human ethics is that you don’t have to do rituals, or go to a church, or give money to a church, or pray. You just have to use your brain to evaluate which behaviors should and should not be done.

Here’s an example of how ethics work. Below is a list of several human behaviors. Together let us select which ones should be done, and which ones should not:

a) Requesting expensive luxury cars from a government organization when 70% of your fellow Filipinos live below the poverty line.
b) Hampering progressive policies that may benefit your nation.
c) Promoting intolerance towards the LGBT community.
d) Raping young children.
e) Protecting people who rape young children.

Regardless of what religion you subscribe to, regardless of the gender you identify with, and regardless of which country you were born in, if you have been using your brain well, you might have realized that the behaviors mentioned above fall into the category of “Things You Should Not Do.” You don’t have to be Catholic to know that. You don’t have to be Catholic to be a good person.

The truth is, you don’t have to be Catholic at all.

No, seriously. You don’t.

Think of it this way, many of the things you are doing right now, as a Catholic, can still be accomplished without being Catholic. If you’re a person who benefits from religious beliefs, there are hundreds of other Christian and non-Christian religions and belief systems that you can adhere to that are far more ethical and progressive than Catholicism.

You can still pray. You can still give to charity. You can still believe in Jesus, if you want to. The only difference is, if you are not Catholic, you are not contributing to the protection of child molesters all over the world. Sounds good, right?

The thing about Catholicism is that its premise, by itself, exists as a false dilemma: “Either you listen to the Pope, or you burn in hell forever.” That’s Catholicism in a nutshell. The premise of that religion is that you have to agree with a man who prioritizes the image of his organization over the safety and well-being of innocent children by protecting child molesters instead of bringing them to justice. Or you will go to hell.

That is one of the main foundations of your Catholic religion — the belief that regardless of how wrong the Pope is, he is right, because he can’t be wrong. Now, if you can’t accept that premise, then why call yourself Catholic at all? That’s like calling yourself a Nazi while saying that you don’t agree with “the Hitler part.”

My dear Catholic, I’m not asking you to be an atheist. Neither am I prescribing a particular religion that you should adopt. All I’m saying is that Catholicism is unethical and that it causes more harm to society than good. So at the very least, I implore you my dear Catholic, to stop being Catholic.

Sincerely,
A Formerly Catholic Non-Catholic

(Image taken from innocentvoicesuk)

Posted in Personal, Religion, Society3 Comments

Why Priests should run the Philippines: A Proposal for a Priest-Governed Philippine Theocracy

Why Priests should run the Philippines: A Proposal for a Priest-Governed Philippine Theocracy

The Catholic clergy has great influence on local government policy decision-making due to the fact that majority of Filipinos are believed to be Catholic. The CBCP has, for years, successfully protected our culture from debauched Western ideas such as divorce, gay marriage, and feminism. We truly are a huge, united, Catholic family despite the fact that there are over 20 denominations of Catholicism in the Philippines with contradicting beliefs.

Unfortunately, the Catholic clergy, specifically, the CBCP still does not have enough influence as evidenced by the fact that their position on immoral bills like the RH Bill is constantly challenged, despite the infallible arguments they gave in support of the Anti-RH position. In my opinion, the Catholic clergy should have more power. In fact, I believe that we, as a nation, should let priests run our country.

In this article I will attempt to prove why the appointment of priests in all government positions would lead to:

1. The end of the poverty problem.

2. Budget cuts in prisons.

3. An added emphasis on education.

4. The implementation of laws against the enemies of the Church.

5. A refocusing of government resources towards the country’s real problem.

 

Here goes:

 

1. The End of the Poverty Problem

If we appoint priests to all government positions, the problem of poverty will end. No, poverty will not be solved. There will still be poverty. In fact, there might even be more poverty for every Filipino citizen. But is poverty really a problem? The real problem here is not poverty. Poverty is a blessing that humbles us and brings us closer to God:

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. – Luke 6:20-21”

An emergence of clergy leaders can cause a paradigm shift in the hearts and minds of Filipinos who don’t realize where the real problem lies. People don’t realize that the poor are not disadvantaged. The real people who are in trouble and who need a lot of help are the extremely wealthy:

“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Matthew 19:24

We must all help the extremely wealthy become poor. Otherwise, their souls might not be allowed entry into heaven. One advantage we have over first-world nations is that our country is poor. Poverty makes it easier for every Filipino to enter heaven. Unfortunately, the government is trying to change that.

As a Catholic nation, we must all work together to compromise the economic integrity of the Philippine economy. If priests were in charge, we’ll finally be able to implement poverty sustaining programs that will not only allow Filipinos easy access to heaven, but will also allow them to go there sooner.

 

2. Budget Cuts in Prisons

One problem the country is facing is that our prisons are overcrowded. Furthermore, the country is spending so much money and resources sustaining criminals. These resources could be used for other purposes, like schools, hospitals, and, most importantly, churches.

If we were truly a Catholic country, if we truly believed that God punished the wicked, then why do we have a government that is trying to do God’s job? Instead of trying to capture and punish these criminals ourselves, what we should do as a real Catholic nation is to practice forgiveness and mercy:

“For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” Matthew 6:14-15

If priests were running the country, we would not have this prison population problem. Instead of wasting the government budget on huge prison complexes that costs millions of pesos to sustain, priests would build several confession rooms in areas with high criminal activity, where criminals could confess their sins to a priest. This confession room priest could act as both jury and judge, and sentence the criminal to pray a certain number of “Our Fathers” and “Hail Marys,” depending on the gravity of his crime. And then the criminal is forgiven and set free.

 

3. An Added Emphasis on Education

The resources saved from prisons and courtrooms could be used towards the development of educational programs for the youth instead. There is no doubt that these programs will be implemented because priests have a deep appreciation for knowledge, wisdom, and especially, children.

 

4. The Implementation of Laws against the True Enemies of the Church

For so long, the Catholic community has been assaulted by their enemies. Instruments of the Devil have tempted and tested the Catholic faith for centuries. But once the priests are in power, these enemies can finally be vanquished. If we allow priests to run our country, they will be able to implement laws that would encourage the aggressive pursuit of the Church’s true enemies, namely – Homosexuality, Science, and Women.

Some of the laws could include a) the banning of Women from employment and voting; b) state-imposed lifestyle conversions for all homosexuals; c) the banning of Science Education, Scientific Inquiry, and all Science in general.

So long have the lies of Science polluted young minds. In one of its lies, Science has declared that plants grew because of a complicated chemical process that involved some made-up term called photosynthesis. That is absurd. This, so called, “Scientific Fact” is completely false as evidenced by this study: http://www.poetry-archive.com/k/trees.html. If we allow priests to run our country, our children will finally be properly educated with real Catholic facts.

The truth of the matter is that Filipino children are overeducated. So much time is wasted on English, Mathematics, and Science when all the knowledge Filipinos need is already found in the Bible. It is faith and not the scientific and technological developments of the modern world that will one day lead our nation towards a state of peace, humility, and blessed poverty.

The asinine goals of a democratic government (the alleviation of poverty, science-based education, and social equality) directly contradict the goals of the Catholic Church (a public endorsement in favor of poverty, faith-based knowledge, and the propagation patriarchal institutions). The priorities of the democratic government are geared towards the needs of a living majority, whereas the Catholic Church’s priorities are concerned about the souls of a given population and the afterlife that awaits them.

Currently, our educational system’s priorities mirror those of a democratic government. When priests are in charge, the priorities of our educational system will be made to mirror those of the church. Instead of courses on Biology (which is absolutely useless because there are no living creatures in the afterlife), there will be courses on Angelology (http://www.steliart.com/angelology.html).

 

5. A Refocusing of Government Resources towards the Country’s Real Problem

Misleaders, deceivers, and liars who were influenced and manipulated by the Prince of Lies himself might have led Filipinos to believe that the main problems of our country are corruption, poverty, and a lack of education. This is simply not true. Too many of our government officials waste their time on trivial matters while the true enemy of our good nation destroys our nation from within the core – from our Filipino homes.

The truth is that the real threat to our nation, our most devastating problem, is masturbation.

The research data is absolutely staggering. Studies reveal that:

—            100% of violent criminals masturbate

—            100% of sex offenders masturbate

—            100% of college dropouts masturbate

—            100% of drug addicts masturbate

—            100% of non-Catholics masturbate

Numbers don’t lie. The data speaks for itself. Masturbation causes violence, crime, stupidity, drug addiction, and doubt. Masturbation causes evil.

Furthermore, masturbation, like contraception, is murder. Every time a man masturbates, he’s ending the life of 20 – 100 million sperm cells, or in Catholic terms, 20 – 100 million, innocent and defenseless potential babies. To put things into perspective, Adolf Hitler killed only 6,000,000 people. People who masturbate kill 10 times that number every time they masturbate. People that masturbate are surely worse people than Hitler.

When priests are finally given full government authority, they will focus all the country’s resources on this problem. Once we overcome this national crisis of masturbation, we can finally be among the world’s most progressive countries. But we have to let priests run our country first, because the war on masturbation will begin with priests.

Posted in Humor, Politics, Religion32 Comments

Why the RH Bill is bad: The Real Truth behind the Supposed Truth about the RH Bill

I used to support the RH Bill. I no longer do. By the end of this document, neither would you. I have not supported the RH Bill since I attended a lecture in Megamall about the truth behind it. That lecture truly enlightened me. My only hope is that this holy light of enlightenment passes through your monitor screen, into your optical nerves, and into your heart so it can touch your soul (because the soul is in the heart). My intent here is not to antagonize Pro-RH people, but to enlighten – so listen up, you narrow-minded morons. Open your minds to the real truth…

The RH Bill will put Filipinos at risk of extinction, because, at its very core, the RH Bill is an extension of a secret, global conspiracy – a western attempt – to implement principles of eugenics on unsuspecting, inferior populations in order to exclude them from the human evolutionary process, at the end of which would, at the apex, summon forth THE MASTER RACE. Anyone who failed to see this after the lecture is ignorant. I advise him or her to do his or her research, better yet, do some soul-searching to discover the real truth, because the truth is in our hearts, we just have to listen to it.

Initially, my layman’s interpretation of the RH Bill led me to think that it was just a bill meant to help educate the uninformed about ways to prevent them from fornicating their way to a very bad financial situation. My ignorant mind devised 10 simple points as to why the RH Bill was right.

I thought:

1. The minimum wage – the lowest an employer can pay an employee – of a non-agricultural Filipino worker is P404.

2. If there were 20 working days in a month (because most people don’t work on the weekend), the average minimum-wage-earning Filipino would earn around P8,000 a month.

3. Let’s call that person, Joey. If Joey, like other human beings, ate food on a regular basis, he will spend around P70/day on food (and that’s a very, very conservative assumption). There are 30 days in a month, so I guess, that would amount to P2,100 a month.

4. But if Joey had a wife that he loved, he might want to feed her too. Feeding her would cost another P2,100 a month.

5. P8,000 – P4,200 = P3,800

6. If Joey and his wife rented a home, or used electricity and bathed from time to time, the amount left from Joey’s salary would be significantly reduced. Let’s say their utility bills and rent amounted to P1800.

7. P3,800 – P1800 = P2,000

8. P2,000 is a lot of money, but I don’t think Joey and his wife should have more than 3 children, right? I mean, I don’t have children, but just by looking at one, I can safely assume that they cost more than P1,000/month. Babies need milk, diapers, toys, immunity injections, baby medicine…

9. From this I deduced that babies cost money. If babies cost money, I theorized that having more babies would cost more money. And from this data, I observed that a person who spent a lot of money on children, but didn’t earn a lot of money, would soon be broke and unable to provide for both himself and his children. Another word for this broke situation is poverty.

10. I theorized that a person can avoid being poor by making less babies. So, I thought that steps should be taken to inform people about this very little known fact. I also thought that the government should make contraceptives accessible so that people who don’t earn a lot can properly manage the little resources that they have. That’s why I supported the RH Bill.

But now I know that I was wrong. And here are some of the reasons why I know that. By the way, before I continue, I must say that this is the truth, guys. In fact, it’s more than the truth. It’s the Catholic truth, which means that it’s truer and more true than the regular truth.

I know that the issue of the RH Bill is not a religious issue, but make sure you pay attention if you want your soul to be saved. Here are some of the things I learned from the lecture I learned:

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that the Philippines is overpopulated.”

I agree. I, myself, have observed that the Philippine is NOT overpopulated. In fact, if you use your common sense and think about it, you will realize a few things:

1. We are not overpopulated! Look at the mountains, the jungles, the caves and the ocean floor. There are no people there!

2. If we were really overpopulated, we would have trouble travelling. But if you go to EDSA, there’s no traffic. When you ride the MRT, it’s not packed with people.

3. Students in public schools are well educated because the teacher to student ratio is very low. In fact, because of our low population the government can basically guarantee that all public school students are provided books, notebooks and other school supplies.

 

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that contraceptives are good for mankind and women.”

1. I agree, the RH Bill is not good for women because it might draw a woman away from her one, true, universal purpose – the uninterrupted production of healthy babies.

2. Furthermore, the role of women in society and the universe is to make babies. That’s why God made women. That’s their sole purpose in life. They’re not good for anything else. Ever wonder why there are no women in the clergy? Because they’re not good enough.

3. Contraceptives would allow women to enjoy the benefits of physical intimacy while maintaining a successful and productive career, if she so chooses. That is so wrong. Only men should be able to enjoy that privilege.

4. Women should get pregnant every single time they have sex and only immoral women enjoy sex without the possibility of conception. In fact, a better alternative would be for women, in general, to follow the example made by Mother Mary – to learn how to conceive without having sex.

 

 

“The RH bill will put Filipinos at risk of extinction!”

1. I agree. If we pass the RH bill, we will become extinct, like dinosaurs. The dinosaurs are all dead. If we don’t want to be extinct, we should not pass the RH Bill. I mean, do you really want to be a dinosaur?

2. In my opinion, it wouldn’t even be far-fetched to speculate that the most probable reason the dinosaurs became extinct was because they used contraceptives.

3. Population decline is just bad for nations. Just look at the countries which have a declining population – Italy, Japan and Singapore. They’re in such a bad shape. The Philippines obviously has a better economy and has a higher literacy rate than these countries. In fact, many Italians, Japanese, and Singaporeans go to the Philippines for work. That only goes to show that a decline in population is bad for the economy.

 

 

“Our population is our biggest asset!”

1.  In my opinion, people should make as many babies as they can because the population is not a problem. In fact, the more babies a person has, the more assets he has. Forget real estate properties, stock investments, or Jollibee franchises. The real secret to increased wealth is babies.

2. If you have 15 babies, you’re practically wealthy because babies are assets:

2.1 If you need money, you can sell them.

2.2 If you can keep them alive until they can walk, they can one day beg for money in the streets – they’re going to have to anyway because there’s no way in hell you’ll be able to provide for all of them on your own.

3. If ever a person is not able to feed the 15 babies he made, it’s the governments fault, because it’s the governments sole responsibility to make sure that every Filipino baby is fed.

4. The best way a person can contribute to his country is to contribute to its population.

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of abortion.”

1. Reproductive/contraceptive education will have no effect on the number of abortion cases. In my opinion, these abortion cases will not lessen because women will continue to have abortions regardless of whether they are pregnant or not.

2. Abortions cannot be prevented. It’s just something that women naturally do. Like shopping, for example.

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because it will make people participate in extra-marital and pre-marital sex.

1. By approving the RH Bill, we as a nation, are practically encouraging our people to engage in immoral activities.

2. We must protect our moral values and reject the RH Bill. Because, currently, not a single Filipino engages in pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex. As soon as this bill is approved, Filipino people will run the streets naked and start a national orgy!

3. The root cause of extra-marital and pre-marital sex is one’s exposure to contraceptives. There is just something in contraceptives that people find very arousing.

4. In Western countries, men lure strange women into bed by showing them condoms.

5. If we ban condoms, absolutely no one would engage in pre-marital or extra-marital sex.

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that parents don’t teach their children about sex.”

1. The truth is that parents talk to their children about sex all the time. It’s so not awkward. The dad usually tells his children how he takes off all his clothes, does a sexy Tiger growl and makes sweet, sweet music with their mother’s body.

2. Also, a father usually advises his daughter that if she’s going to have sex with her boyfriend, she should use a condom. Sometimes the father even drives the daughter to the boyfriend’s house and waits for the couple to finish.

3. Filipino daughters don’t have sex without the father’s permission. Unwanted pregnancies or teen pregnancies never happen to Filipino girls. That’s why we do not need the RH Bill.

 

“The RH Bill is a conspiracy.”

1. It’s lies, all lies!

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because the priest said so, and priests are never wrong.”

The biggest reason why we should not pass the RH Bill is because the priests told us that we shouldn’t. As anyone should know, priests, men of the clergy, should be the authority on sexual and reproductive matters because they have the most knowledge and experience with sex and reproduction. They are true sexperts – legendary masters of erotic affairs. If you are a real Catholic, you would do everything they say, because they’re always right.

Posted in Humor2,864 Comments

Career Day at St. Iguana Elementary School

Career Day at St. Iguana Elementary School

What do I do? You’re asking me what I do? Seriously? It’s funny you should ask, because honestly, if you have any intention of entering the kingdom of heaven, you should know. Anyway, supposedly, we’re like mediators between you and God. You could talk directly to God, of course, but he would pay more attention if we talked for you.

Some of us help you seek forgiveness. If you’re a sinner, which I’m guessing you are because you don’t know what I do, you have to sit in an isolated cubicle that sort of looks like a phone booth and tell me your sins. You have to tell me about the lustful thoughts you’re having for your teacher and how many times you touch yourself while thinking of her. You have to describe in detail what you do. You have to do all this so I can ask God to forgive you.

You can ask God to forgive you yourself, but like I said earlier, it won’t work as well.

Anyway, that’s not exactly what I do. I’m not exactly a “forgiverer.”

Some of us are Bible translators. No, we don’t translate the bible from one language to another. We translate from English to, well, English. For example, according to Psalm 137:9, Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock. You can read the Bible on your own but if you did, you might translate this verse as, “You will be happy if you slam babies against rocks.”

A Bible translator would tell you that what it really means is that slamming babies against rocks is wrong and it is a sin precisely because it will make you happy. See, if something makes you happy – having sex, drinking alcohol, eating chocolate – then, it’s a sin and you shouldn’t do it.

Why they didn’t just say, “Don’t slam babies against rocks?”

I’m not entirely sure. English/English Bible translation is not my real area of expertise. I’m not really a “translator.” Honestly, I haven’t even read the Bible in its entirety. But it doesn’t matter because I believe everything written there anyway.

As for my specialty, I’m more of a “blesser.”

I make people, places, and things holy. If it’s a “noun,” I can make it holy. Pretty cool, huh? Take this lunch box, for example. Right now, it’s not holy. But watch as I lay my hands over it… Wait a moment… hmm…

Now it’s holy.

Is that cool or what?

I bless people too. I can bless anyone, anytime, anywhere. Just give me a time and place and I’ll be there blessing the soul out of everyone. It doesn’t matter to me who I bless. I’ll bless everyone. Girls, boys, children – I’ll bless them all. I’ll bless them all day and all night. What can I say? I like blessing people and, sometimes, animals too.

I was just born to bless, you know? I don’t want to sound arrogant and all, but I’m just a really good “blesser.” Last night I was blessing Sister Grace and she was like, “Oh yes, father! Bless me! Bless me!” I blessed her alright. I blessed her good. She was breathless long after I was done blessing her. She kept telling me, “That’s was so good, father. I love it when you bless me!”

The night before that I was blessing John and his young wife, Jenny… at the same time. See, I had to bless them before they got married. I could have blessed John first and Jenny later, but I blessed them at the same time.

Why?

Because I can.

I blessed them so good that they were screaming, “Jesus! Jesus! Bless us, father! Oh, bless us!” Afterwards, we sat on the couch exhausted from all the blessing that happened. Jenny was like, “Oh my God, I feel so blessed.” John was like, “I haven’t been blessed like that since I was an altar boy.”

There are a lot of perks to being a good “blesser,” of course. People invite you to parties, events, and congregations. I mean, everyone needs a good bless now and then, right?

But kids, there are dangers in blessing too. Sometimes the people you bless enjoy the blessing so much that they get a little clingy. They start thinking about exclusivity and all that. I’m like, “I’m sorry Mrs. Santiago, but I don’t want to be your campus minister. I’m not ready for that type of commitment. What we have is good. Let’s keep it that way.” Some of them even want me to stop blessing others. I’m like, “Coach, God does not discriminate. If I blessed your team, I have to bless their team too.” When I’m older, maybe I’ll settle, but for now, I want to weigh my options – play the field a bit.

Now kids, if you want to be a professional “blesser,” you have to start early. You have to really, really want it. It has to be in you, you know? It might be difficult at first, but the more you do it, the easier it becomes. Just keep practicing. It’s not so hard. In fact, we can try it right now!

Pick a partner, and just start blessing. Bless your classmate! Bless the soul out of that boy! Don’t be shy. Go ahead, pick a partner kids. Pick anyone! Go ahead! No, Julie. Not him. Pick someone else. Pick anyone except Mark. Mark is going to be my blessing partner.

Posted in Entertainment, Humor, Religion, Society, Stories1 Comment

Facebook.com/Freethinkers