DOES 'SEXUAL MORALITY' STILL EXIST?

As today is Christmas Day, I beg a gift from my viewers:  allow me this one "last hirit" against the RH Bill.  After this, I promise no longer to discuss this subject matter in my blogs -- in deference to Sen. Ping Lascon's wish, as quoted in the news today, saying: "After RH War, let healing begin."

One recalls that of the 37 or so amendments that Sen. Tito Sotto had wanted in the Bill was the removal of the phrase "for safe and satisfying sex."  I think Sen. Enrile also wanted it removed -- which, as we know, Sen. Pia Cayetano, the principal author of the RH Bill, had  very vehemently opposed.  Indeed, I could not help but ponder unto my self:  Suppose that, instead of removing that phrase, Enrile/Sotto simply suggested the insertion of the word "moral," after "for," would Cayetano have still rejected it just the same?  I would like to think so, otherwise, it's unthinkable that she would have not thought of that word in the first place.

Which, in turn, easily brings me to another question: Does "sexual morality" still exist in our society today?  Probably not anymore, if we begin to consider that the society in which we live today has obviously become relatively more sex-obsessed than in the days of our ancestors, who had consistently preached and quite invariably practiced the virtue of self-discipline, self-control, self-denial in everything that has to do with sex.  Well, that is as far as I have personally learned from my parents, I do not know about others.

As things stand, it seems to me that when we compare the role of sex in the mind of people then and before, there is a very clear difference. We now live in an entertainment world, i.e. such as made up of the movies, TV and like informal parties, where talks and jokes and day to day advertisements, do center on sex.  Indeed, so much so that if people's lust for sex would miraculously stop, then our whole society might perhaps be less satisfying to us.   Without that lust, advertising would be useless -- isn't it that all advertisements we see today, e.g. shampoo, cigarettes and wines, are designed to attract either the male or the female sex?  And so,  without advertising, our society, or a large part of our economy, might leave much to be desired.   Why?  Simply because our society, by extension, our economy, is very largely founded on greed for luxuries,  sex is just one of those, that is for advertising to arouse..  And lest we forget, social and economic issues predominantly constitute every politicians campaign slogan.

This suddenly calls to mind a cartoon I saw many years ago.  It depicted Moses standing on top of Mt. Sinai, holding a clipboard and reporting to God about what the people thought about the Ten Commandments  "Sir, almost everybody approves the Commandment against killing, a large part abides by the one about stealing, but only a very negligible number can vow against adultery."  Adulterers, as we all must admit, abhors "sexual morality" in the same way as a teenage girl doing sex outside of marriage is doing a sexually immoral act.  The thing is, under the RH Law, there is nothing wrong about it for as long as an adulterer  is not  caught by his/her spouse or the girl by her parents, or the act does not result in unwanted pregnancy through the use of contraceptives.  In other words, safety, that is, a sexual act not resulting in pregnancy, and satisfying sex now seems to be the only things worth considering. Forget if the act is moral or legal.   But come to think of it, let's be honest: is sex with a man using condom really more satisfying than one without?   Just asking, because my own experience tells me it's so much less.