Thursday, August 9, 2012

On Delubyo, Discourse, and the RH Bill



I worked very long, bloody hours last Monday– 8AM-9PM. When I left the office it was hell and high water, the latter literally. I seriously thought it was Ondoy all over again. Turns out, I was half right. Although I was able to go home this time, I still got stuck at a convenience store just outside our subdivision because the flood water was already way too deep. I finally got home by removing my shoes and walking through three feet of water. Could have been worse though, but these are the times I wish I were a water-bender, or better yet, a ninja.

Despite this, I was quite happy yesterday. Finally, after years of being dragged in Congress, the reps have voted to get the controversial RH Bill off the debates and into amendments. This is a very big progress since the bill was proposed about 14 years ago, and thus part of the battle of RH advocates has finally been won. I was teary. I was emotional. When I saw the Facebook post, I thought that, for a moment, I was going to bawl like a kid. I wanted to throw a freaking Purple Party with condom balloons as decoration and give out kisses as party favors. I was THAT ecstatic.


I still am, despite my bare-foot journey through flood waters that might have given me leptospirosis or something equally horrible.

Of course, like all victorious battles, it isn’t all fun and games after. There is still ensuring that the bill does not get watered down and the essential provisions wiped out. There is still the continuous lobbying for progress and RH advocates are sure that the opposing party will enthusiastically go against this. And of course, there will always be the ongoing battle on the importance (or immorality, depending on which side you are on) of the bill.
I’ve always been a fan of debates, and to make this more fun, here are a bunch of tips for both sides of the RH battle.

     1.       Before engaging in debates, read the bill. It’s pretty damn useless to be for or against something you don’t completely understand. It’s like saying you like Twilight series story because Rob Pattinson is hot. The connection is pretty difficult to see.

     2.       Get facts straight, such as this one: condom prevents the meeting of the egg and the sperm, thus, the use of condom prevents fertilization. It does not, however, cause abortion. If you’re still against condom use, fine. But spreading wrong information just to derail your opponent’s argument will eventually bite you back in the behind. Painfully.

     3.       Don’t drag your god into a debate. Religion is always a very bad basis for argument. Debate means arguing to persuade. It will probably be effective if you’re speaking to someone with the same religion as you have, because basically you speak of the same beliefs. But what if you’re using, for example, Catholic tenets but you’re speaking to a Muslim? Or a neo-pagan/Wiccan? Or even an atheist/agnostic. Result: your argument is invalid.

     4.       As stated before, in a debate, your aim is to persuade people. Calling me an “anti-Christ” is not persuasion. I won't agree to you just because you called me fat. That's just plain stupid. Once you start throwing names around, you’ve lost. In law, they call it ad hominem. You trash talk the person because you’re not smart enough to go against the ideas toe-to-toe. I’m still hoping all of us can be better than that.

     5.       We think we’re right. You think you’re right. Let’s not be idiots, and let’s keep our minds open.

     6.       I actually went to certain anti-RH Facebook pages, because I was seriously and sincerely trying to understand their point of view. When I started to clarify what they mean when they said certain things, such as “disoriented sa (about) reproductive process”, what I got were scathing replies that made me feel I was being insulted for being ignorant. If you truly want to persuade, you win people over not by making them feel stupid, but by clarifying and explaining your stand. This has exceptions, though…
The admin of the page actually banned me from this one. I was trying to clarify the phrase he/she used to describe a friend:"disoriented sa (about) reproductive health". I was about to say that definitions can be operative and words have nuances, after all. But I got banned before I could post my reply. My posts have also been deleted, thus the lack of screenshots. I have edited this to delete replies that do not concern my queries, but I can post the whole screenshot if needed.

     7.       …and the exception is that if the person asking for an explanation is a troll. In discussions and debates, idiotic questions are appalling. One such question I got was “may budget allocation ba ang masturbation?” (Is there a budget allocation for masturbation?). Seriously, you can’t be seriously asking me that. Feigned idiocy does not persuade; it makes people more wary to join your cause. Idiocy, even if faked, is rarely ever attractive, after all.

     8.       Persuasion is continuous. If you tell me that you’ve gotten tired of sincere questions about your beliefs, then it shows that you’re either prejudiced (because I am an enemy and thus there is no way in hell or heaven that I want to understand you) or you’re a lost case because you haven’t got enough arguments to back up your stand.

    9.       Last but not the least: Please remember that a debate can just be an exchange of ideas, a mental stimulation exercise (and a rather braingasmic one, if I do say so myself). It IS possible that you leave without convincing the opposite party. It is possible to walk away without changes of hearts, only (hopefully) a more open-minded perspective of your stand and theirs.  It is also possible for debates to end without us being barbaric, and keeping our respects.

    Enjoy the discourse.#

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Epiphanies and Visualizations


If you’re looking for some deep, artistic conglomeration of words that would inspire you and make you remember all the hauntingly beautiful things in life, this is probably not it. This is actually just an attempt to digest and get rid of crazy thoughts running in my head and trying to beat each other to bloody pulp.

Tonight’s rant is about this photo:



This came from CBCP’s organized Anti-RH Bill protest earlier, in EDSA. The bill, which has been lobbied by many groups for more than 15 years now, is on critical waters. August 7 marks the day the House of Representatives will vote if the controversial law-to-be gets passed the debating process or not. Thus, the rising clamor from both pro and anti RH groups. In social media sites, other debates are on going.

Saved Sex: the banner phrase that sparked a Facebook brouhaha. What does this one mean? Everyone has their own interpretation. At first, I assumed this was merely a poor attempt on alliteration (because it is seriously a confusing, trying-hard combo), but due to my drug-addled brain (I'm sick), I have come into various epiphanies of the possible meaning of this much-debated lines.

    1.       So you can’t have sex now coz your girl’s on her red flag days? You tick this one of as a “saved sex” and file it into your “to claim” folder. Next time she accuses you of being an insensitive prick, you haul savedsex.doc from the baul and hit her in the face with it.

    2.       Maybe it’s a grammatical error and they were really trying to type, “Saved’s sex”. Like, once you are deemed as “saved”, you go to a heaven where you can get all the sex you want? Doesn’t sound bad at all.

    3.       OR maybe I was right in the beginning and it really IS a poor attempt at alliteration to just to have something that rhymes with “safe sex”.  Can’t blame them. Alliteration is an incredibly good literary technique. They just forgot to make it sensible.

They probably mean abstinence, and I don’t have a problem with that. The only problem is the confusing message it sends out. Makes me wonder if the people who stormed EDSA today actually know what they’re fighting for.

So, ok I lied: I actually don’t know WHAT saved sex is about. If you have explanations/theories, please feel free to hit the comment button and share your own epiphanies. They might help me sleep… or throw me into fits of laughter.

Safe sex, though, this is a term I’m familiar with. Merriam-Webster online defined this term assexual activity and especially sexual intercourse in which various measures (as the use of latex condoms or the practice of monogamy) are taken to avoid disease (as AIDS) transmitted by sexual contact—called also safer sex”.

Which got me thinking if, again, I misunderstood the meaning of “no safe sex”. Do they mean that they would want to purge condom use, monogamy, hand jobs, and other practices in making love and having sex that keep people STI-free?  

Unlucky to have been cursed with a vivid imagination, I saw the following scenarios unfold in my head:

    1.       A Philippines where men and women and children are screwing each other like rabbits in heat, passing HIV, Chlamydia and gonorrhea back and forth, like a sick game of pass the ball.

    2.       HIV rising exponentially. 2012 stats leaving 2011’s in the dust. Thousands of new cases each month, and thousands of new deaths too.

    3.       The laws preventing bigamy and adultery would be abolished. If there is no more safe sex, then married couples can sleep with whoever they want to sleep with, right?

    4.       Condom companies will go broke (certain groups would totally love this).

    5.       Teenage pregnancies will shoot off the charts. Reality check, many of these kids are not getting pregnant because of two things: either they aren’t getting laid, or they decide to put on condom. Hello population explosion! As if we don't have enough people.

     6.       Seriously: the Philippines will sink into economic catastrophe. This is because people’s health is still the responsibility of the government, and treating people with STIs and HIV/AIDS is far from cheap. Anti-retroviral drugs for PLHIV  cost a fortune. Thus, massive allocations to health must be made, dying up fund allocation for other needs. Thus, further depleting the monetary fund of our poor country, and her equally poor people.

     7.       The Philippines will die a slow, painful, discharge-filled death due to an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease. Or maybe not. Without safe sex, STIs will become as common as the flu, and people might actually start talking about it in rational manners so it is easier to help them. But STIs being much more common is just sad, don’t you agree?

     8.       Sex will be less exciting. Because a hand job is part of foreplay, which is, incidentally, safe sex practice. Poor, deprived men and women and cringe-worthy wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am!

Oh my. Give me zombie apocalypse any day.#