First of all, let me say that I am going to discuss sex without delving into all those moral and religious arguments. I mean, why should I care about the views of the Catholic Church (or that of any religious group, for that matter) on boinking? The Constitution, as we all know, makes it clear that we are free to worship in any way we please, and that the only restriction that the State will impose on religious practice is to prevent anyone from imposing their religious tenets on anyone else without their consent.
(To be blunt: proselytize all you want, bishops, but give to Caesar what is Caesar’s due. Isn’t that what Jesus the Christ taught?)
So here we are going to talk about sex — sinful sex (as far as the Roman Catholic Church and quite a number of other denominations are concerned); more precisely, we are going to talk about sinfully good sex and why we should support it.
First, let’s agree on something: those who believe that SEX IS YUMMEH, gimme a “hell, yeah!”
Dissenting voices? Is anyone going to say that they honestly hate boinking?
None? Oooh.
Since there isn’t anyone who honestly wouldn’t want to have hot, slick, tear-up-the-sheets, forget-one’s-name, “oh my God oh my God oh yes yess yesss” boinkfests with their partner of choice, let’s talk about sex.
Good sex, of course.
Good Sex Means Joining the Fight the AIDS Epidemic
There is yet no cure to the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). More insidiously, there is as yet no foolproof way to detect immediately whether one is infected or not.
Therefore, since despite all the exhortation of the celibates for people not to get it on with their partners of choice (which somehow ironically seems to be a case of “if we don’t get some, you don’t get some” hahaha), we’ve got to teach folks how to avoid getting HIV.
The bottomline is this: a prayer is 0% effective in preventing the transmission of the AIDS virus. Clinical trials have demonstrated that any number of prayers offered before, after, or during sex by either one or both partners will not prevent the transmission of the virus between an HIV-infected person and his partner.
In contrast, a condom is at least 95% effective. Clinical trials have demonstrated that a quality condom in good condition, worn correctly before vaginal or anal penetration, is almost 100% effective in preventing the transmission of AIDS.
Personally, I’m not sure how the math is interpreted by the Church, but to my engineering mode of thinking tells me that 95% effectivity is better than 0% effectivity.
There is, of course, a 100% effective method of not getting AIDS by sexual transmission: by not having penetrative sex. I’m sure that this method works for the celibates of the Church, but I doubt if it will work for the lay (pun intended), what with all the boinking going on that has resulted in our population growth.
Have sinfully good sex. Wear the rubber suit before diving.
Good Sex Means Managing our Households
If you have a pizza and there are four of you, you will get bigger-sized slices than if there are forty of you.
To take that analogy to a household, a household income of P250,000 will have more to go around with two kids, while the same household income will have less to spend per child if household had twelve kids, all other circumstances being equal.
To borrow an oft-used phrase here in this site — it’s simple, really.
Thus, how are we going to manage our population and ensure that a bigger fraction of our finite resources can be made available — the slice of the pizza, if you will?
The far end of the spectrum of choices would be the draconian methods employed previously by the People’s Republic of China: late-term abortions. I don’t want that; I expect that others don’t either.
Moving back towards the mainstream view would be the option to legalize abortion. Personally, I think that women have the right to choose, but let’s table that debate for later while we present other options. Plus, since the Constitution provides that life begins at conception, we can’t very well include this option among our laws.
Now, since abortion is not an option allowed by our Constitution, our options are limited to preventing conception from happening instead of destroying a zygote resulting from the union of an egg cell and a sperm cell. Thus, we are left with the constitutionally-acceptable methods of preventing conception even as we enjoy sex with our partners choice: the anatomical methods (vasectomies and tubal ligations), the mechanical methods (condoms and diaphragms; there is some debate on whether or not IUDs can be classified here, and so we won’t include them in our discussion), and the chemical methods (spermicidal jellies, injectables, and similar), and combinations of these methods.
Let me share an anecdote about a form of misinformation that I’ve encountered before, which happened at a medical supplies store in the CALABARZON:
Priest: Abortion is bad! All contraceptives cause abortion! This store should stop selling condoms!
Geek: Padre, a condom is a contraceptive, that causes abortion?
Priest: Yes! All contraceptives cause abortion!
Geek: Excuse me, padre, but what is abortion?
Priest: It is the killing of a fetus!
Geek: What is a fetus?
Priest: It is the union of an egg and a sperm cell! It is the beginning of life!
Geek: Don’t condoms prevent the union of sperm and egg cells?
Priest: Uh. Yessss…
Geek: So there is no fetus formed when one uses a condom?
Priest: No, no, there is no fetus formed…
Geek: So how can you abort a fetus that does not exist?
Priest: …
Geek: …
Priest: …
Geek: …
Priest: Abortion is bad! All contraceptives cause abortion! This store should stop selling condoms!
Now, forget the lack of logic. There do exist contraceptives that are not abortifacient — condoms, diaphragms, injectables, spermicidal lubricants, and gazillions of other variants — and the Constitution will not look askance at these.
(There is, of course, the abstinence method of preventing pregnancy, but since abstinence is not having sex, it is the height of illogic to consider it a contraceptive method. Seriously, not having sex as a means of preventing conception, an act that involves sex?)
Have sinfully good sex… just make sure you don’t add to the reduction of our pizza-slice sizes. We all get hungry, after all.
Good Sex Is A Protected Constitutional Right
Now, lest I be accused of making moral and religious arguments, let me point out that this next discussion is about our right to good sex.
Nowhere in the Constitution will anyone find any reference to whether or not a couple must be married to have sex. Heck, nowhere in the Constitution will anyone find anything saying that two people of the same gender cannot have sex, nor is there anything in the Constitution that says sex is limited to two people, period (if you want to get into a a twelve-some, that’s your business).
Instead, any such limitation can be found in religious teachings and whatnot. Their force in the legal realm may be persuasive, but they are in no way controlling. For instance, the decisions of the Roman Catholic Church’s marriage tribunals can only influence the courts with regard to annullments; these religious bodies cannot compel the courts to take cognizance of their decisions.
The Constitution likewise tells us that the Church cannot impose on us if we choose to believe otherwise. No matter what canon law says about sex, if I choose to go on a boinking rampage, the Constitution will in fact tell canon lawyers (if there are such) to go screw themselves and leave me and my consensual partner or partners alone. Article III, Section 5 says very clearly “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed,” and by implication, the refusal to follow the tenets of a religion — by engaging in premarital sex, or by the wearing of a condom, for instance — is a right protected by the Constitution.
Thus, what is good sex for a good citizen of the Republic? Good sex is consensual (otherwise it’s rape); good sex involves avoiding AIDS (something there is as yet no cure for), and; good sex is also about being a good citizen and making sure that we help conserve our finite resources.
With Article III, Section 5, it is clear that good sex is a constitutional right. Who cares if good sex is sinful? Not the Constitution.
The Right to Good Sex Means We Should Exercise Good Citizenship
We all want good sex, don’t we? We all want to enjoy the right to boink, unencumbered by restrictions that are not lawful, do we not?
To be able to enjoy good sex, we must have two things:
- correct and complete information on what are our options to protect ourselves from AIDS and avoid unplanned pregnancies
- access to clinically-proven and effective methods of these options
These two items are included in An Act Creating a Reproductive Health and Population Management Council for the Implementation of an Integrated Policy on Reproductive Health Relative to Sustainable Human Development and Population Management, and for Other Purposes, and if we want to enjoy good sex, this is something we must support.
Read. Learn. Be a good citizen. Support the proposed Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008.
Fight for our right to good sex.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Hell yeah!
On this matter, we have no disagreements.
Jester for President!
haha, jen and jon!
jon, think about this — motels and other boinkfest venues should bear “unmarried catholics not allowed inside, by order of [insert local parish priest's name]“, and condom labels to include: “archbishop’s warning: using condoms will be dangerous to your spiritual health” hahahaha
(on another note, do we know who are those who voted for FV in the 2008 Philippine Blog Awards’ Bloggers’ Choice Award?)
jester, so you are a law student. you may do well to remember that while the constitution does not prohibit “good sex” (seemingly defined by you as sex that is not expressly prohibited by the constitution), nothing also in the same constitution prohibits the state from regulating what it deems contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy. thus, consent or no consent, sex with another person’s spouse, with a minor or mentally-impaired person, with an animal, with your close relatives (parents or siblings), or a person of the same sex are sanctioned under the revised penal code.
btw, under art. 201(1) of the rpc, even those who “publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals” are criminally responsible.
oh, bencard, i had all those in mind. note that i did not in any way propose nor support any of those activities you pointed out.
While it would seem obvious that many gay men have anal intercourse, MANY heteroseuxal folks engage in anal intercourse as well, the world over – quite commonly in places where virginity is especially prized and/or contraception is not readily accessible. Anywhere between 10 to 40% of women have had/have anal intercourse – and when it is unprotected (and most heterosexual anal intercourse is) – it is more likely than unprotected vaginal intercourse to result in an HIV transmission.
Currently in development, a microbicide is a cream or gel, or maybe a douche or an enema, that could be used to reduce a person’s risk of HIV infection vaginally or rectally. Rectal microbicides could offer both primary protection in the absence of condoms and back-up protection if a condom breaks or slips off during anal intercourse. For those unable or unwilling to use condoms, rectal microbicides could be a safe and effective alternative means of reducing risk, especially if they were unobtrusive and/or enhanced sexual pleasure enough to motivate consistent use. Such alternatives are essential if we are to address the full spectrum of prevalent sexual practices and the basic human need for accessible, user-controlled HIV and STD prevention tools.
To learn more, visit the website of IRMA (International Rectal Microbicide Advocates) here
http://www.rectalmicrobicides.org
friends, this is interesting Iglesia backs population bill but rejects ‘rhythm’ way
at the risk of being tongue-in-cheek, perhaps this is one way for the INC to convince more RCC members to switch? :D
Jester, I’m not Incheek, I’m Filipino.
Seriously, I think INC’s declaration that rhythm method should be banned as it is against the natural flow is ingenious. Why deprive yourself of the pleasure at the time it is most pleasurable? More religious leaders should make the stand like INC did and make that fuzzy border that separates abortion from contraception into a more distinct and clear one.
I’m hopeful that my church, the Romantic Catholic Church would allow its scientist-priests do the talking and rewrite the official policy on contraception. That should be a balanced perpective covering both faith and science angles.
With the INC’s definition, could OFW contracts henceforth be considered contraceptives?
Jester & Tongue,
We don’t have to switch to the INC to mate but not multiply. Was born a Catholic, but I don’t practice the Philippine sin-less prescription.
I follow what Nike says: ‘Just do it.’
What is sex for you? and what is good? Those are two different words. Sex is not always synonymous with good just as good is not always synonymous with sex. Good is something objective. What makes an act good? Is it the act itself, the intention, the intention or the circumstances? GOOD is what conforms to the truth and to reason. What makes a good sex then? If you talk of goodness as something relative and subjective, then we are in for trouble because everybody will claim that what they are doing is what is good. Good is not always about feeling good. Good will always be good even without feeling it. Just as the truth will always be the truth even if the majority rejects it. What makes sex good then is not because it makes you feel you good but because it fulfills the very purpose for which it was created or intended. It is conformity with the truth and reason. Feeling good or having pleasure is not the ultimate purpose for sex but it is simply incidental in the sexual act. yes, SEX IS good, no question about that, but what makes it good is not only the pleasure that it gives but the love that it expresses…a love that is responsible and open to life, not the kind which is selfish and simply pleasure seeking.
Good intention is not enough…the very act itself must be good. The very nature of the sexual act is meant to unite the man and woman completely and to make it possible for them to establish a family. Deliberate intention and action to avoid pregnancy and procreation is therefore contrary to the very purpose of sex. The human body was designed therefore by God to have specific days or period only where procreation is possible. The keyword here is DISCIPLINE. Discipline involves sacrifice and it is also an expression of love. If you really want to regulate your number of children, then discipline yourself. wait for the right time. Wait for your wife….you love her, don’t you?
In fact, studies show that the most fulfilling sexual relationships can be found in married life because it provides the most conducive environment for making love…love, trust, commitment, security, intimacy, openness and faith in God. These are the ingredients necessary for a good sex. It does not only provide temporary pleasure but it gives the couples fulfillment and joy that simple body pleasure cannot give that makes them stick together… for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for poorer or richer…till death makes them part. That is WHAT GOOD SEX is all about!
GOOD SEX is NOT only experience in bed, it is what keeps the couple together for the rest of their life.
This topic would not exist if only Our Creator made sex un-pleasurable one :P
If only we don’t gain pleasure in such act. It wouldn’t be a big thing …
From my limited understanding of what the jester has put forth, I think what he means by “good sex” is sex whose effects go beyond the couple.
Take note that what King defines as good sex (that intimate perfect union of two loving souls) and what the Jester defines as good sex (that which does not add to the economic and health burden) are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
“”Feeling good or having pleasure is not the ultimate purpose for sex but it is simply incidental in the sexual act. yes, SEX IS good, no question about that, but what makes it good is not only the pleasure that it gives but the love that it expresses…a love that is responsible and open to life”"
gad, what a load of B.S. who wrote this?
I respect king’s opinion (and the church’s opinion) on SEX but These are PERSONAL preferences that should NOT shape PUBLIC policy.
Remember, promiscuity (especially if you are single) is NOT a sin (outside of the church) and NOT illegal.
“If you have a pizza and there are four of you, you will get bigger-sized slices than if there are forty of you.”
here’s my version (quoting my economist best friend): if you have a small shirt, and your child is inevitable growing, do you cut off his extremities to fit the shirt?
economically speaking, i think it should be the resources that should be made fit to the people and not the other way around.
im all for good sex but i think the bill should be seen not only in light of good sex but in light of the policies that it will imply.
cheers jester! i always enjoy your arguments.
oops. is that the same as HB4110? i was referring to that…heheh
resources (livable space, food, etcetera) are finite, X. are we to wait for the point where we have to ration out the little we have when our population finally reaches several hundred million?
such is why i support population management. any argument based on “the philippines has X land area and therefore has no problem with population” should find out how easy it is to live on, well, i don’t know, Apo Reef? :D
i dont remember economics being defined as “the allocation of people to the scarce resources.” di ba baligtad? i truly believe in the genius of the human mind to find a humanist solution. and it is our imperative, for us to master these resources to fit us and not the other way around. this is the motor of art, literature, and i even daresay, science fiction, which becomes the engine of human ingenuity, creativity and invention.
i could not imagine a mother amputating her child just to fit the shirt. she should just be imaginative enough to find a larger one.
ayuz! :D
right. see, with that POV i’m reminded of soylent green. :D
@ king – with respect to your own views, quantum science, without in any way demeaning the miraculous nature of existence will point to “God” as not being in any way moralistic – and certainly not as a didactic concept.
Those are purely limitiations superimposed by the constructs of the human mind.
There are as many versions of “God” as there are imaginations on this planet – even atheists in some way define and allude to what it is they do not believe.
The doctrinal teachings of religion contain distilations of mankind’s general moral attitudes with regard to sustaining a beneficent civilisation, but the lumbering mechanics of any institution is blunt and unwieldly in many respects compared to the enlightenment of a free thinking individual – using all his innate wit and perception – unhindered by the authoritative precepts of any organised religion.
Sometimes those attitudes, born of man, have been adopted by religions as a mask of law – from behind which they wield the authority of fear.
“Good” & “sinful” – by definition must be understood in their broadest, most universal definitions – as pertaining to the future of civilisation, the future of life – not in association with perceptions of pleasure that have automatically inherited distortional “hauntings of guilt” – as encouraged by many religious institutions.
Pleasure is a principal of life – it is there to ensure that life, in it’s most primitive form, survives – propagates – continues.
With survival comes evolution – evolution is not confined to physicality – our consciousness evolves – our minds broaden. Gradually it is expected that the laws we make reflect an evolutionary trend towards a more beneficent civilisation.
The biological function of sex is therefore inseparable from the pleasure. So who are we to determine that psychological and emotional aspects of that pleasure – as perceived by us humans – should outwiegh the biological – let alone imbue that opinion with a so-called “divine authority” that is purely derived from a limited human perspective?
Eating is pleasurable.
The pleasure is intrinsic to the act.
Is it immoral to eat between meals?
As human beings we have learned to express our sociability through eating, as we have learned to express our higher ideals of love – through the intimacy of sex.
Only the severely hungry and impoverished will steal food.
Surely the same applies to sex?
Making the sexual act more beneficent to civilisation by restricting population growth is a choice we should all be free to make – it will not automatically engender a race of rapists.
Believe it or not – we have free-will.
Denying people their innate right to excercise their free-will, develop their own enlightened opinions, free from authorative moralistic threat or encumberance is of far more consequence
than attempts at clawing back an oppresive and often abused power – by semantic manipulation.
Please liberate those people, and yourself, from the clutches of an imagined guilt – let them use all their human talents for judgement, perception.
Educate – yes – to the true and absolute unconditionality of “God’s” love.
No favours granted – saint and sinner alike – believer and disbeliever – we all are enclosed by the same rules of the universe – no escape.
We must learn to use those rules to our advantage.
Offer guidance – yes – but never force.
Is there no place for liberated thought in the church?
Surely, that is a blasphemy?