Focus on the Filipino Youth!
Written on Monday, October 13th, 2008 at 3:12 pm | by Ishmael AhabTeenage sex is the norm of the day. In the subdivision where I reside, there are many teenagers (age 15 to early twenties) who were involved in various sexual activities. Male teenagers are more vocal about their “sexcapades,” and most of the times brag about it with their peers (at one time, I heard one of them talking about the girls that he brought home through texting and offered his friend to bring him one). I also observe that many of teenage girls in our neighborhood were pregnant or already have a child or two and were eventually wed with their boyfriends.
The examples of incidents that I mentioned, though not enough to be taken as representative scenario in the whole country, can be used to show how active the Filipino youth our with their sexuality, especially of those young people residing in urban and suburban areas. The whole problem with those scenarios are that they often lack the information and the proper guidance regarding sex, pregnancy and the risks of their sexual activities.
Young Filipinos were being left out while institutions of our society were battling one another regarding the Reproductive Health Bill. The solons, the Church, and civil societies were missing the real problem entirely.
In our country, sex is still a touchy topic. Because of that and the fact that many Filipino parents (specifically the poor) were still ignorant with many information regarding sex and sexually transmitted diseases, topics regarding sex were not eagerly talked about in our homes and most parents were mum about such things.
On the other hand, the Church is viewed as too moralizing when it comes talking about sex. Meanwhile the government is still too inexperienced regarding this matter and its proposed Sex Education Curriculum proved to be more dangerous than helpful.
With that, our teenagers were left in the hands of the media and their peers. The problem with our media is that it is too commercialized. Local media giants are too engrossed in raking in lots of cash, failing in their duty to educate and inform the public. In current state of things, sex and shows that shows sexy bodies and suggestive scenes equates to loads of cash. Thus in the name of money, such shows and advertisements will continue (remember Frenzy Condom and the new show Banana Split).
Teenage pregnancy comes with many complications, for both mother and child. Teenagers were usually mentally ill prepared to rear and care for a child. They will be having harder time to carry the responsibilities as opposed to mature people. Some studies also reveled that babies from teenage moms are more prone to illness than those born from mature mothers. This is compounded by the fact that they will be financially ill equipped. Teenage parents usually stop their schooling and focus their time with their baby.
So, instead of wasting their energy and time regarding the RH Bill, why don’t all the solons, the Church, and other groups focus their attention with the Filipino youth? The problems with misguided teenage sex are teeming with problems and it does not only affect the present but its effects will be felt to the next generation of Filipinos.
Tags: RH Bill, Teen pregnancy, teenage sex- 25 Years Since
- Do the Youth still know Ninoy Aquino?
- Small p, Big P
- A Christmas Greeting…
- A Greater Responsibility: An Acceptance Speech
- Barack Obama Greets Filipinos on Philippine Independence Day
- Philippine Land Reform Needs You
- The Philippine Issues Writing Project, Week 1 (Kind of)
- Philippine Issues Writing Project Week 2
- Hybrid Cars for the Philippines?
Comments
124 Responses to “Focus on the Filipino Youth!”
Leave a Reply
Current Events, News, and Press
- Manny Villar Resigns, Juan Ponce Enrile is New Senate President
Senator Manny Villar has resigned as Senate President. Immediately, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was nominated then declared New Senate President. Read More...
- The Catholic-Muslim Joint Declaration
Three days of talks at the Vatican that included scholars from The Islamic and Catholic faith, finally concluded with a joint declaration. Here is the full text of The Catholic and Muslim Joint Declaration. Read More...
- Change.gov The Official Website of President-elect Barack Obama
To those who wish to dive deep into what President-elect Barack Obama has in store as his presidency nears, you can go visit Change.gov, his official website introducing the reader to his policies during his presidency. Read More...
- Obama assembles White House team
Barack Obama has started forming his administration by asking Rahm Emanuel, a former adviser to President Clinton, to be his chief-of-staff. Read More...
- Pimentel cautions colleagues against obstructing probe of Bolante
Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, (PDP-Laban) today cautioned his colleagues against blocking the reopening of the Senate's investigation into the fertilizer fund scam that could expose them to suspicion that they may be unwittingly covering up the scandal. Read More...
- Full Text of President-Elect Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech
Here is the full text of President-Elect Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech. Read More...
- Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech Video November 5, 2008
This is the full video of President Elect Barack Obama's Presidential Victory Speech. As November 4th gave way to November 5th, America heralded in a historic moment, by electing, for the first time in history, an African-American as President of The United States of America. Read More...
- A Global Market Meltdown
The world financial system is teetering on the "brink of systemic meltdown", the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned in Washington. Read More...
- Full Draft Copy of The Proposed Bailout Plan
This is the Full Draft Copy of the proposed bailout plan that was struck down just yesterday, and is estimated to cost The United States government, $700 billion or upwards to $1 trillion. Read More...
- Chavit Singson Is New Deputy National Security Adviser
MANILA, Philippines—After a yearlong absence from the political scene, former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson is back in the corridors of power. Read More...
Archive for Current Events »
- Manny Villar Resigns, Juan Ponce Enrile is New Senate President
-
Subscribe to Filipino Voices!
-
FULL TEXT
I do not appreciate the implication that sexual exploration is more common among urban/suburban youths than that of rural ones. Teenage pregnancies in the rural areas also happen all the time. In some areas moreso than in their urban counterparts.
Besides, linking the RH bill here is non-sequitir. Teenage pregnancy is not the only problem that it wishes to address. Focusing on the youth will take more than focusing on their sexuality.
The Roman Catholic hierarchy has a credibility problem when it comes to sexuality. Until the day comes when the married priesthood is RESTORED as the NORM in the Latin Church (the Eastern Catholic Churches have a married clergy), this credibility problem will get worse,hence the moralizing and silly statements as “self control in the bedroom when the husband or wife needs it”
For the meantime,the Roman Church can effectively use laypeople in catechesis. I believe a huge chunk of the problem is due to catechism failure in the Church (One of the most tragic consequences of the politically Sin-ful Church). But laypeople can only do so much in ministry. They cannot absolve people of their sins.
The Philippine Catholic Church can also make this catechism more effective by ordaining married men as deacons (Which Vatican II restored and the Philippine bishops haven’t considered). When I was a Catholic parishioner overseas, it was Deacon Jody ( a happily married man with two wonderful kids) with whom I can discuss sexuality issues at my level not with Father Bill,who is a celibate priest. (I just couldn’t discuss why I get so aroused with all the women around me with a celibate! )
This Roman Catholic disconnect with the whole culture of life which includes the open and dignified discussion of sexuality extends to the home.
But that is on the religious side. Catechism is nothing but education. Teenage sexuality is nothing but biology acting according to Darwinian theory. But as anything with biology, this can be modified. The best way is strengthening education especially in the sciences.
We should give credit to Catholic priests and laypeople who have openly discussed these issues.
Since we have to uphold the secular, what is definitely needed is to educate people in all aspects of sexuality. The RH bill is a step in the right direction, but not the only step.
The Philippine Roman Catholic Church in these aspects is stuck with the Pio Nono papacy. Thus its siege mentality on the RH bill. It misses out on a great opportunity to evangelize and renew.
‘misguided teenage sex’????? as opposed to?
just give them condoms and teach them to have safe sex. sex is inevitable.
This is the youth we are talking about, the hope of our country. What about teaching them to dream again, to have high goals, to aspire to achieve, to want to be better persons? Helping them see their gifts and put these to good use is something many of them may not get from their families for one reason or another, and I think this aspect of education is worth pursuing.
Character education is what young people need, don’t you think? Values such as perseverance, integrity, honesty, responsibility, other-centeredness and the like are worth imparting to them, aren’t they? Helping them learn to face challenges squarely instead of taking the easy way out… toughening them up to say “no” when called for and to make the more difficult choice when it is the right thing to do… are these not what will boost our young people to be better individuals and, in the process, happy, healthy and productive citizens of our country?
Then you have a proposed bill that seeks — among other things — to require schools to teach their students about sex.
Starting from 5th grade.
Until 4th year high school.
Six years to study sex.
And the kind of sex education that the government backs is the method-based kind, not the value-oriented one. Methods, how-to’s. And of course it is all in the context of population control, which is the government’s aim as we know.
And it won’t be 1 subject. It will be injected in several — science, sibika/social studies etc. Six years for this. That’s even longer than the regular college course.
If this is what our citizens want injected into the curriculum for our young people, then we need to find a way to insert character education somewhere.
If this is what our citizens want injected into the curriculum for young people, I believe we are letting them down.
(Sorry to invade your privacy here once again.)
Safety instead of morality?
In the deferred move of DepEd to include Adolescent Reproductive Health in public schools curriculum, it is reasoned out that that the program is “more of sexuality education rather than sex education” as featured in the article “Sex education in public schools” by Alcuin Papa published in PDI dated July 9, 2006. There would be no point of contention and argument if education of youth on sexuality ends at a point wherein unlawful sex relations are condemned in a concrete way given the same grim consequences that they might incur thereby afterwards.
For instance, in the Philippines, both the state and the church must complement each other on efforts designed to shoo youth away from illicit sexual relations. At the same time, these complementary efforts must be translated into law, or that the likes of such restrictive measures must be implemented to the fullest in aid of legislation/s. Of course, its promoters say so. But sadly, it has never been the case.
Our modern society is helpless today of youth’s sexual perversion as demonstrated by the data below Alcuin’s feature article. ( I have proven this deplorable trend of youth’s brazen sexual misconduct myself during the course of our four-month congressional internship at the House of Representatives which ended last July 2006 that while on board of a bus bound for Manila, a “horny pair” in their young age were shamelessly doing “something malicious” at the back seat. The konduktor was about to collect fares from the newly boarded passengers when his eyes got wide open as he reached their seat and that out of “shame” he immediately pulled back his side to the front seats.) And that since there’s no way out to stop youngsters from becoming sexually active, reproductive rights advocates and population workers recommend that adolescents must be taught of safe sex practices i.e. training them on the proper use of birth controls and providing them access to their supply, their own choices, for safety and protection. In laymen’s grasp, it is as saying “go on with your lust exploration or sexual adventurism, provided you use condom so you would not catch sex diseases!” as the nashman “honorably” suggests here. Condom is now the buzzword vis-à-vis the issues on AIDS and population control.
Now, given this time youth’s access and assurance of safety that contraceptives accord, let alone guilt, will this not spur adolescents even more to persist on unlawful sex relations? Driven by lust and an environment conducive for its unbridled expression, a minor for this matter shall not be prevented from fornication by his lack of “education” on safe sex practice. He or she just thinks twice only after consummation of that “rare chance”, but now has turned common. In this case, ARH merely and meretriciously deals on those resultant problems e.g. unwanted and teenage pregnancies, abortion, STDs, etc, instead of dealing squarely with the real underlying problem i.e. promiscuity due to import of permissiveness and corrupt western lifestyles. As such, it instead condones slyly and approves pre-marital sex among adolescents (and extra-marital sex among married individuals) provided it is protected.
A policy that discourages, so to speak, young people from pre-marital sex, yet presents and proposes the use of birth controls for a safe and protected sex practice is so inconsistent. Shooing youngsters away from pre-marital sex through scaring them of the menace of early marriage, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, or STDs at one end while “educating” them on safe sex practice to avoid the same at the other, is counter-productive and so inconsistent a policy. It instead undermines the very purpose of preventing them from fornication. This is in reality abetting sexual adventurism with the assurance of safety and protection this time! Making youngsters accessible on the availability and choice of birth controls is a different story entirely inconsistent with merely educating them on sexuality.
As such, when analyzed meticulously, it is safety and protection which is the primary concern of the country’s reproductive health program so that the present circumstances justify that safety is a priority instead of morality as so claimed. Such program on family planning, which is originally designed exclusively for couples before has now included adolescents on its target-beneficiaries. But given the situation that adolescents are not yet in the circumstances of a marital life since they are not yet married, where shall they make use of those information on birth control methods as well as supply of commodities, though safe and legal? Will this not instead encourage promiscuity among youngsters, ultimately spurring them even more to contract pre-marital sex relations? This instead condones insidiously the wickedness in which safety and protection are implored as excuses to perpetuate youth’s sexual misconducts. In here, it doesn’t matter in anyway that morality is sacrificed provided the guarantee of safety and protection is assured.
This perverted outlook has been magnified even more when the Department of Health has suggested recently that the Department of Education must integrate “early sex education” in the elementary curriculum. The proposal did seek to educate elementary pupils on human anatomy, specifically on human reproductive system in relation to prevention of sexual exploitation of children. Proponents of this attempt have took it lightly that early sex education shall be like teaching children about “birds” and “trees”.
But is this proposal consistent to children’s wholesome growth and development? Is this a challenge or a threat to our moral threshold? Would it not lead instead to children’s vulnerability and perversion of their morality in the end? Would it really shield them from adult’s sexual assault? Sexual abuses and violence against children emanate from adults. Therefore, elimination of these deviant behaviors must not start from children. Such is a blunt and inconsistent approach so unfair to children. It must be from the adults themselves. Why not re-educate instead those miscreant adults that they should not perpetrate sexual attacks against minors? If such education proves futile to tame adults’ perverted libido, then castigate and incarcerate them. But if this would not still work, then crucify and execute them!
Today, it is shocking that reference or text books for elementary schoolers include lessons on human reproduction with particular illustrations, emphases, and highlights on the operations and functions of male and female reproductive organs. Therefore, not a remote development that “C” shall finally stand for “CONDOM” in pre-school classes in the nearest future!
To me, strict stress on morality in aid of state legislation is the best and effective protection of youth from VDs, AIDS and other STDs as well as the shame and risk of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. “Safe sex practice” instead promotes adventurism and promiscuity among youth. Marriage is still the moral and legal solution to tame youth’s unbridled promiscuity. It is a great irony that we are so much scared of STDs yet never have we been ashamed of those despicable sexual misconducts that give birth to these social ills. Why not act out a legal sanction that imposes sex segregation, especially among unrelated opposite sexes? Why not create an atmosphere wherein youngsters are barred from “group dates”, “bar outings” and “hanging out” to prevent them from contacting “casual sex relations” or “one-night stands”? Why not enact a law that imposes punishment upon youngsters, and those married as well, who will be caught engaging in unlawful sex, even in public places?
Islam teaches not only not to commit fornication but even not to approach it. Otherwise, Islam rules out: fornicators shall be lashed a hundred times in public while adulterers are stoned to death. Or would such punishments be dabbed instead as cruel, harsh and inhuman?
Sunnyday,
my youngest son is a first grader (’tho they use grade 2 books) and they have been introduced to sex ed already in Sibika. I estimate my youngest to get laid at about 12?
Otherwise, Islam rules out: fornicators shall be lashed a hundred times in public while adulterers are stoned to death. Or would such punishments be dabbed instead as cruel, harsh and inhuman?
Yes. Cruel, harsh, and inhuman.
Jeg, so we must not complain about youth’s sexual perversion, huh!
only those guilty of fornication and adultery would fear or assail this system of punishment.
Aren’t you Jeg?
Jeg, so we must not complain about youth’s sexual perversion, huh!
Non sequitur, danny.
only those guilty of fornication and adultery would fear or assail this system of punishment.
Aren’t you Jeg?
Im guilty of other sins. Again non sequitur, by the way.
Mr. “danilo u ignacio”,
Your agrument is a house of cards propped up by the following dubious premises:
In other words you are imposing a moral code that is based on the dogmatic teaching of your specific religious affiliation onto a society that is constitutionally bound to secularism.
blackshama, as resident expert on logical fallacies, I’m sure you will have a field-day with this Taliban official’s assertions.
“Imposing” “Sir Benigno?”
I admit debate and argumentation is not my province, but “experts” should instead gain “sensible popularity” from concrete “good” and “effective” actions, not just in the arts of outwitting words with words alone!
The problem on youth’s “sexual perversion” can not be solved by the “arts of argumentation and debate” but through concrete action. This action must never be trapped by the relative morality of these “critical thinkers.” “Lawful” and “unlawful” things are all clear to a plain thinking mind.
You don’t say.
So let me get this straight. The concepts you presumably apply to the effort of convincing us of the righteousness of your position in this matter include the following…
… granting that an ability to “debate” and “argue” within a coherent framework of logic and reason escapes your personal faculties.
Classy indeed.
Danilo’s framework of what is ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’ is coherent (perhaps based on the Koran and its interpretation by particular clerics), but it is nevertheless incompatible with modern, secular society. As such, it cannot be imposed on non-Muslims in the same way that Roman Catholic or Evangelical belief systems cannot be imposed on Muslims.
And since our Constitution has separation of Church [aka Mosque] and State, it cannot even be imposed on nominal Muslims.
‘it’ above (at 12:48pm), meaning Danilo’s interpretation of what is ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’.
why not focus on the media also?
if that’s where these teens get ideas about sex, then governing bodies for the media should carefully evaluate existing rules, regulations and implementations.
“… granting that an ability to “debate” and “argue” within a coherent framework of logic and reason escapes your personal faculties.”
No so, “wise benigno,” otherwise, got no faculty too to grasp the “thoughts” of the “logical discourses” post here, let alone thoughtlessly wise arguments.
anyway, this is an age of postmodernism, where the interpretation of everything gets relative.
Hey, is FV just for syntax of logical gymnastics, or as “launching fad” of discreet action?
Relative to what exactly?
The reason logical “gymnastics” was invented is to provide a framework for argumentation that minimises misunderstanding brought about by the “relativistic interpretation” you mention above.
Yet by your own admission “debate and argumentation is not [your] province”.
Surprise, surprise.
It seems that you make this as an excuse to retreat into the wishy-washy world where your quaint “postmodernism” and “everything gets relative”-isms are easily tossed about in a stew of incoherent New Age jibber-jabber.
I’ll leave this up to Nick to respond to if he finds the time.
I’d be cautious if I were you about focusing on action without an emphasis on rigorous thought to underpin said action. If you hadn’t noticed yet, the Philippines is a classic outcome of such an approach.
As classic as classic gets.
anyway, this is an age of postmodernism.
I mustve missed the memo.
“…emphasis on rigorous thought to underpin said action. If you hadn’t noticed yet, the Philippines is a classic outcome of such an approach.”
Of course I do, that’s why - no doubt - we always savor these faulty, hence failed policies of each of its administration, courtesy of such “rigorous thought.”
Danny, the proverbial genie is out of the bottle, and she’s dancing to the tune of the newest album of “twice-divorced at 23” Britney Spears.
Unless we cut-off access to civilization and follow North Korea’s cue, we can’t stop these MTV kids na totohanin ang larong bahay-bahayan, we might as well “protect” them from destroying their young lives by being mothers at age 13.
Also, why is it that when it comes to sex issues, people who are against it always thinks of the worst case scenario? That when the RH bill is passed, we automatically see images of high-school kids in their uniforms lining up at the nearest health clinic, why?
Take the case of the issue on same-sex marriage, were they automatically assume that the next progression would be to allow marriage between people and animals. Who the hell wants to marry a turtle? Do you?
Seriously though, danny, Im interested in your assertion about Islamic rules: “fornicators shall be lashed a hundred times in public while adulterers are stoned to death.” Is that anywhere in the Qur’an? Or did those laws come later? IIRC, Jesus is deeply revered as a great prophet in Islam and when he was presented with an adulterer for stoning, he berated the corwd by saying ‘Whoever among you is without sin cast the first stone’. He then forgave the woman.
it’s hadith, jeg, as is the prohibition for alcohol.
Qur’an 24: 2, (The Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language, by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan)
Jeg, I think the episode you mentioned here is found in the Bible, John 8: 1-11.
note that the lashing is supposed to be symbolic (i.e., similar to public ostracism).
a good read is this interpretation here, for non-arabic speakers.
Thanks, danny. So according to the Qur’an 24:2, Jesus was wrong — he should have let the crowd stone the woman to death. What is the opinion of Islamic scholars on what Jesus did? Did Jesus have special warrant from God to do what he did?
symbolic? huh!
I repeat, Jeg your story is found in the Bible while the subject presently at hand i.e. public lashing and death-stoning for fornication and adultery respectively are in the context of the Qur’an. You can not relate the two as the same.
You can answer yes or no, danny. It’s allowed. Let me see if I can put it simply:
Was Jesus wrong when he forgave the woman instead of allowing her to be stoned to death?
I think it would be unfair jeg, as I’ll be judging biblical passages according to my own religious bias. It could be inconsistent to interpret biblical verses through Qur’anic ayahs, and vice versa. Hope you get me.
let’s just throw the koran and the bible into the library stacks under “fiction-mythology”…
I do get you. That is exactly what Im asking: for you to judge biblical passages according to your religious bias. Im not offended if that’s your concern. (Although I cant speak for the others of course.)
danilo, re your 4:30 and 4:46 - 2:242.
So where do the youth figure in all this?
Amid all the comments since I last checked in, I’d like to tell Ishmael (the person who started this thread) that I appareciate his blogging about this topic. I agree that the youth have somehow been forgotten amid all the discussions in Congress and elsewhere about the reproductive health proposed measures. I also agree that media is part of the problem and something can still and ought to be done about it.
What I find faulty with the sex ed curriculum that the gov’t is pushing is it doesn’t bother to include the purpose of sex (bonding and having babies), bec it focuses on contraceptive awareness.
It doesn’t help the youth understand that sex is not a casual thing. It involves responsibility and love–real, self-giving love at that. The sex ed curriculum doesn’t take into account each individual youth’s personality and maturity. This is why I think the matter should be in the hands of the parent, guardian, or mentor who knows the child well. The key is to teach responsibility.
Some might point out that teaching contraceptive use is teaching responsibility, but really it isn’t. Because with contraceptives, you take away the promise of being there when a child is conceived (this should explain why sex should be exclusive in marriage), which teaches the youth to take and enjoy, and forget about giving.
“sex should be exclusive in marriage?”
okay, then.
“sex should be exclusive in marriage?”
So now what, we follow the tradition of our equally horny Arab brothers that due to unlawful premarital sex, resort to sodomize less-hairy guys or worse, their animal pets?
Maybe the fear of marriage between man and goat will be true, no?
Nicole,
You’re right about the sex ed curriculum being focused on contraceptive awareness. Methods and prevention — I think this basically sums it all up. Methods of birth control, methods of keeping STDs at bay. Prevention of pregnancy, prevention of STDs. What a letdown if this is what adolescents so full of potential will be taught (and are being taught already in some schools) and with the full endorsement of the government.
As for sex as a complete giving of self, I wouldn’t be too hopeful that adolescents will even hear about that concept in school if the rh bill is enacted into law. The way things are going, looks like a lot of people are settling for sex as a recreational activity and have given up even trying to help the youth regard life in general with higher ideals.
I’m edified, however, after reading your comment, Nicole. Thanks for that
The State teaches the clinical aspect of sex and maybe a few other technical details, and the Family teaches all the rest (the values, ethics, and other humanities that surround it).
I think that’s the way it should be.
Di naman pwede lahat na lang responsibility ng State. That’d be our loser mentality at work if we choose to think so.
spot on, benign0. the state should teaches the secular stuff (in keeping with maintaining public health and population management), the family the ethical stuff (in keeping with passing down the values people want their kids to imbibe).
still in line with the separation of church and state, i’d say.
Hi Benigno,
I don’t think of the State as tasked with teaching children matters that are for the parents/family to do. But I know that part of the State’s responsibility is the protection of the family. When the State wants to implement a school curriculum nationwide that is based partly on a premise like this — that the adolescent has the right “to a satisfying and safe sex life” — is this a manifestation of the State’s remaining true to its duty of protecting the family? We know that it is difficult to impart time-honored values to our children with the current state of the mass media. Can we not rely on schools either to be partners with the family on this matter, because the State is imposing such a curriculum?
I know what you mean about the “loser mentality” you mentioned. But that’s another topic altogether. And when I get into that, I merely end up ranting, so it wouldn’t be productive at all
The State is there for the person (and the family), not the other way around. And one of its duties is to protect the family, right?
Oops, failed to erase the last 2 sentences at the end of my comment before hitting the Enter key
Nasa draft lang dapat yon.
it’s also another of the state’s duties to protect the populace via maintaining public health and by managing population. these are of paramount interest.
let individual families teach their kids the values they want their kids to imbibe. the state, however, should be able provide protection to the populace if the kids decide NOT to follow the teachings of their families.
yet again, the spiritual sector is not the province of the state.
Why is it automatically assumed that having an active sex life would “destroy” the family? No one is advocating extramarital affairs. Teenagers WILL experiment with sex and it’s better if they do it with condoms to avoid disease and unwanted pregnancies.
As for the OP, he makes the mistake of either/or. Why can’t the government do both? You don’t need to drop the RH bill to help the youth. In fact, the RH bill may even help.
Jester, you said: “sex should be exclusive in marriage?”
Answer: why not? otherwise (with due respect to all) one would fine one’s sister or daughter putting up that thing with guys outside wedlock; otherwise, one would find one’s marital partner doing the same with others casually. Wouldn’t that pain us; I mean, as marital partner of the other, or as father or mother of a daughter who shall suffer all the consequences of such transient pleasure?
You see, in terms of sexual drives, we humans have in common with animals and only marriage which civilized therefore humanized man’s expression of it, apart from the animals’ “animal way.”
Danilo, i felt the same as you when i was younger. However, i realized that my sister or daughter are also independent human beings who are free to decide what to do with their bodies (and their lives). (I’m not speaking of situations in which they are under economic duress.) Do we then as male-folk have the right to be such busybodies?
Question:
Is it being a busybody if a person points out to others on the street (those who — because they overlooked it, simply ignored it, don’t know what it’s for, or some other reason — are crossing or about to cross the street without using the pedestrian lane) that there is a pedestrian lane? Then he may even point out a few signs announcing the presence of the pedestrian lane, and probably one that says “Don’t cross here” or something like that.
The people have the choice to go their own way and still cross the street at whatever point they want or to use the pedestrian lane.
Is the person being a busybody? Does it depend on his motivation for pointing it out to other people? If we think about it, the pedestrian lane is there to serve not as street art. It has a purpose, the ones I appreciate most being that it puts some degree of order on the street and it lessens my chances of hurting someone (when I’m driving).
People who don’t like rules for one reason or another can simply ignore such lanes and signs, and they risk being hurt, killed and getting others killed in the process. If you care about the person who doesn’t appreciate the presence of pedestrian lanes and street signs, would you just let him cross the street anywhere without trying to explain street dynamics? Are you being a busybody when you do your best to help the person understand? Probably, if your sole motivation is to satisfy your own need to insist that you’re right about the whole thing. Otherwise, I see it as a noble thing, one that shows a sense of responsibility and other-centeredness.
I hope I made sense here because it seems I’ve used so many words to explain one point.
using that paradigm in mind, danilo, sunnyday, perhaps we should make premarital sex illegal and punishable by law, yes?
Sunnyday, advice is fine, but i think those who ‘care’ enough to punish their mothers & sisters (e.g. via lashes, stoning, or honor killings) are going overboard.
Jester, sometime back over at Manolo’s, he said that under the Penal Code, pre-marital sex is still a punishable offense.
Jest,
I mentioned streets, lanes, signs, people, consequences and choice. Nothing about the law or breaking it
Cvj, I don’t know about those people you mentioned and I can’t speak for them and their intentions.
Also, I don’t favor such manner of upholding principles (stoning etc).
Sunnyday, ok that may have been a strawman argument on my part. Perhaps where we disagree is the extent to which we would intervene after we have given such advice (against wantonly engaging in sex) to our respective mothers and sisters.
Just another thought: several times I’ve been in public areas that were supposedly no-smoking zones. One time it was even at a government office. (This is no attempt to add to the already intense dislike for the government among some people here). When I politely pointed this out to a guy standing not too far from me, he was slighted. Even when I mentioned that my father, who was beside me then, was asthmatic, he didn’t give a hoot.
I’m not sure why I’m bringing this up here. I suppose I’d appreciate your ideas on dealing with people who obviously like to call the shots even when their actions are harming others, just like in the incident I related. Even if the rules are clear, and the majority don’t uphold them or fight for them, those rules hardly serve their purpose.
Sunnyday, you overstepped a bit and made a crucial assumption above which is the basis of what I know ask you:
Do adolescents who practice a lifestyle that includes a “satisfying and safe sex life” in a society necessarily imply that the institution of Family in said society is weak or degenerate?
If you cannot find a convincing</i? logical link between adolescents practicing safe sex and degeneration in the institution of Family, then what is your basis for asserting that the State becomes negligent in its duty to “protect” the institution of Family by limiting its involvement to the clinical and technical as far as adolescent sex is concerned?
Yes, I think so, too, cvj. That, and maybe the different approaches one may use to keep “intervening” out of genuine love and care. For me, it can’t be called “intervening” in some cases, and this is based on my experiences wherein people “intervened” (for lack of a better term) in my evaluation of factors and in decision-making, and in such cases I was, and still am, grateful. But no one can say that it was they who made my choices for me. The guidance, however was crucial.
I see that you have a comment addressed to me, Benigno, but I’ll have to reply to it another time to attend to some pressing matters. Btw, I visited getrealphilippines.com and tried to send an email, but I couldn’t get through. Would you care to leave your email addy here? Or you can leave it at my blog. Thanks.
This is another classic case of LOSER MENTALITY if I ever heard one.
In primitive societies, women get stoned outright for adultery.
The beauty of such a system is it absolves the male party of any accountability for the change in partner preferences of his spouse.
Kung baga, a Talibanesque use of the “sacrament” of marriage to imprison females has become a face-saving measure for the fragile egos of Third World males; a measure to put males in a position of immunity to accountability for ensuring that a marriage stays mutually beneficial to all parties.
In short:
If your wife suddenly decides to get her meat from a different butcher, it is likely your own shop has developed an unpleasant stench that has so far escaped your attention.
What separates the real men from the limpdicks is the ability to deal with that possibility.
Just a thought. It ain’t PRE-marital if we don’t intend to get married.
Benigno, you had an outright speculative conclusion over my 0ct 15, 10:21 post here. anyway, that is just a free exercise of thing you call “rigorous thought,” “critical thinking,” etc.
My post do not imply letting go of male fornicator or adulterer with impunity. That is just your imaginative concoction to impute malice over my post. It just tells how woman’s worth and dignity is taken cared of; how concern for woman when it comes to her honor is guaranteed. That is, when it comes to application of penal laws, it does not distinguish the sexuality of the offender.
And what is that thing you call WINNER MENTALITY sir Benigno?
Just a thought. It ain’t PRE-marital if we don’t intend to get married.
Hmm… so gays and lesbians are exempted then. Hooray!!!
Isn’t this statement an insult to a woman’s intelligence — that some dimwit law or dogma is required to “guarantee” her honour.
Talk about loser mentality.
A woman’s honour is her own personal accountability. A woman — or anyone for that matter — is deemed honourable when she leads an honourable life and is true to herself and her PERSONAL principles.
To presume to “guarantee” honour using a bunch of edicts made by some dimwit is the height of, well, dimwittedness.
corollary to that: if a woman wants to have wild, wanton, RH-responsible, consensual sex with the partner of her choice — whether or not they are married — that’s her business, isn’t it?
Hi Benigno,
I posed this question in my Oct. 14, 7:53pm comment —
“When the State wants to implement a school curriculum nationwide that is based partly on a premise like this — that the adolescent has the right ‘to a satisfying and safe sex life’ — is this a manifestation of the State’s remaining true to its duty of protecting the family?”
–
but it’s not meant as a rhetorical question. I’m interested in what you and others think about it. No assertion was made, though I do have my opinion on the matter.
Also, any possible link between adolescents’ sexual activity and the weakness or strength of the family is not what’s on my mind. It is this: that sexual activity has been explicitly labeled as a right, put on paper, and used as a basis for a school curriculum for elementary and high school levels nationwide. Now this curriculum is being imposed on private and public schools. Then now it is being legislated. Why legislate something such as the teaching of “the right to a safe and satisfying sex life”?
Why require a percentage of taxpayers’ money to go into implementing measures that include drumming up this message to young people? I suppose this is what I object to — taxpayers’ money will go into something that need not be legislated.
Ok Benigno “the wise,” forget about the moral side of the issue, forget about fornication and lust as wicked as you object, tired of your “witty” criticisms of the posts here, especially mine, for utter lack of syllogistic merit, let alone ethical consideration, that’s not the point here anyway. You see we do not just stop at pointless, more so directionless argumentation just for the sheer display of syllogistic knack, or diffusion of “litwitted manifestations,” I’m convinced you have more dose of that. Yet we do not just end excelling in pitbull-fights of words just for relief from upsurge of a philosopher’s tantrums, that is your province anyway, let alone obsession.
I’ll be asking, what is your MOST WISE ADVICE, or say PROFESSIONAL PRESCRIPTIONS for youth today so they get out of this social mess opened up by ishmael ahab?
I know you do know and I know you do care too. Or, isn’t it that what Ishmail Ahab had opened up does not merit your sublime wisdom to qualify it as a social predicament so we need not to mess with youth and their lot? We beseech your wisdom. Pray enlighten us with your wise words.
“When the State wants to implement a school curriculum nationwide that is based partly on a premise like this — that the adolescent has the right ‘to a satisfying and safe sex life’ — is this a manifestation of the State’s remaining true to its duty of protecting the family?”
I must have missed it but where did you get this premise that the proposed curriculum is premised on the ‘right’ of the adolescent to a satisfying and safe sex life? Is it in any of the pronouncements of the RH bill’s sponsors?
“corollary to that: if a woman wants to have wild, wanton, RH-responsible, consensual sex with the partner of her choice — whether or not they are married — that’s her business, isn’t it?” - Jester
Point-of-inquiry: Will she not regret afterwards in that exercise of unfettered right “to be herself?” Will she not violate others’ rights? Of course, none of our business to meddle with her private life. But when such becomes a norm, will it be healthy to all and to the society? I know you too have also the mindset of what is “socially healthy life” too different from mine.
My mindset about what is “norm” in here is that, lust is but natural, sex is one of its natural expression. It must not be quelled nor denied, yet it must be regulated so that man’s way has the qualified partition from animal’s way.
The animals’ way? well “kahit ano, kahit kanino, kahit saan,” it doesn’t matter them.
Just curious Sir Benigno, what is “honorable life” for woman in your wise opinion? Could this prescription of yours about what is “honorable” be true to all?
In HB 5043’s definition of terms (Section 4) is written:
**********
c) Reproductive Health - refers to the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so, provided that these are not against the law. This further implies that women and men are afforded equal status in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction.
**********
There’s also a definition of Reproductive Health Education. Then Section 12 is on Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education.
I’ll probably type the text corresponding to those two things sometime but honestly, I’ve developed a headache from all the typing I’ve been doing lately
I found an online version of the bill but I doubt if it’s the latest version; hence I went to Batasan and got a hard copy of the latest version to be sure. I typed a few sections in another forum, but it’s about Employments’ Responsibilities, penalties etc., not about where the youth figure out in all this.
Anybody can go to Congress to ask for a copy of the bill. It’s at the Bills & Index section, South wing (it’s in the basement).
“Isn’t this statement an insult to a woman’s intelligence — that some dimwit law or dogma is required to “guarantee” her honour.” Benigno
So you are trying to say that those laws of the modern-day states or even international laws related to the guarantee, protection and safeguard of woman’s honor formally legislated - as required, are nothing but “insult to a woman’s intelligence?
Can’t see the connection, sunny. Even the Church wants a safe and satisfying sex life for Catholics within the context of marriage. Even you, assuming youre not an adolescent, want a satisfying and sex life too when you get married (or if youre married already). Then you jump to the age-appropriate sex education thing (granted the ‘mandatory’ part is a bit sticky but that is beside the point we’re discussing), and conclude that the RH bill is premised on the adolescent’s ‘right to a satisfying and safe sex life’. It’s not there.
reading all these threads lead me to one conclusion–it’s wrong to equate sexual perversion with this issue. why? it’s not the purpose of the bill to fight or eradicate sexual perversion.
as one Prophet said, “let caesar’s be caesar’s and God’s be God’s” (old manuscript of the New Testament dated 3 AD)
Hi Jeg,
Maybe going over the latter part of my Oct. 16, 6:47 pm comment will shed more light on my take on the matter.
Done. Still no connection. You seem to be equating ‘age appropriate RH education’ with teaching the ‘right of adolescents to have safe sex’.
Here’s the proposed curriculum in the RH Bill:
1. Reproductive health and sexual rights
2. Reproductive health care and services
3. Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behaviour and sexual health
4. Proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications
5. Responsible parenthood
6. Use and application of natural and modern family planning to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies
7. Abstinence before marriage
8. Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders
9. Responsible sexuality
10. Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services
What’s missing is 11. The right of tweens to safe sex.
Beware Pat, you’ll be accused of being “fanatic” and “dogmatic” by nash re: October 14th, 2008 4:51 pm; and Benigno “the wise” here.
“Dogmas” indiscriminately don’t make sense to them, and we respect that hehehe.
danilo:
Will she not regret afterwards in that exercise of unfettered right “to be herself?” — i dunno. can you or i assume that she will regret or not regret afterwards? i am not so stupid as to say that i can make either assumption.
Will she not violate others’ rights? — what “others”? “rights” over what?
Will it be healthy to all and to the society? — what, that women have first and last say over their own bodies? i don’t know, what do you think?
“Will it be healthy to all and to the society? — what, that women have first and last say over their own bodies?”
Nope, it’s “if a woman wants to have wild, wanton, RH-responsible, consensual sex with the partner of her choice — whether or not they are married,” what if such becomes the norm?
with that answer, danilo, who should have the first and last say over a woman’s sexual proclivities, then?
what’s dogmatic or fanatism about sex?
look, what this bill simply says is this: have safe sex. simple. if you want to be a pokpok, you can definitely exercise your right to do so for as long as you use contraceptives. if you’re a sex addict, you can still do your thing provided you use condoms. Simple. What’s all the fuzz?
it is not the duty of the State to pry people’s lives. yet, it is the duty of the State to regulate the number of people living in its territory precisely because it impacts on other issues re: food security, economy, etc.
stop equating sexual education with sex and religion with contraceptives. it just does’nt add up. sex is sex and religion, religion. you can have sex without religion and you can be religious having sex or religious without sex.
sex is also not solely for procreation. it’s also for leisure. ask those Bilibid prisoners and you’ll get it.
religion simply says that if you have sex, please be responsible. period. gone are the days of adam when he can frolic around town, spreading his precious seed throughout the earth. people, we are nearing 90 million and we need to stop spreading our seeds around. and the only means to do is thru contraceptives.
the reason why religion wants to dictate how we procreate is they don’t seem to know how and they just want the missionaries to do it (get the drift?)
lastly, if teenagers want to have sex, fine. just don’t do it with another. do it in the comforts of your own homes. after 18 years old, then, maybe. but, always have a condom on hand. you just don’t know what will happen.
“with that answer, danilo, who should have the first and last say over a woman’s sexual proclivities, then?” - Jester
I suggest not just woman’s but even man’s Jester.
Taking Sunnyday’s good example, it’s still the driver who desires when, where and how to drive. But, s/he should also take consideration of the traffic signs and road warnings, so s/he’ll not hurt her/himself or others while driving.
Given the forewarning that his/her way of driving will hurt her/himself, let alone hurt others, is it reasonable for him/her to go on driving that way?
i see.
would you yourself restrain a female stranger from entering a boinking motel with the fellow she’s got her arm around? do you feel that you have the right to prevent a female stranger from going to have wild, wanton, uninhibited sex with the partner of her choice?
given, also, of course, that the partner of her choice is likewise a stranger to you.
That is never implied in my posts. I just express my viewpoints, far from imposing upon others.
uh, you did say:
now let me tell you what *I* stand for: the woman, and only the woman, has any say over how she wants to enjoy her sexuality. should she want to be celibate, should she want to go boinkity-boink-boink-boink with hundreds of men, that is nobody’s business but hers.
the woman, and only the woman, has first and last say over her sexual proclivities, with reasonable restrictions provided by law. anything that infringes on that is an assault to her rights as a person.
But in Islamic society, that is not common, i.e. “a female stranger from going to have wild, wanton, uninhibited sex with the stranger partner of her choice”-i suppose you mean here they are not married, but either for money or for anything else, therefore outlawed as it does to prostitution. I know you know about it as you implied in your previous posts.
why, do unmarried women have sex with men only as prostitutes or analoguous?
and, yet again, the philippines is a republican democracy, not an islamic theocracy.
“I suggest not just woman’s but even man’s Jester.”
I mean here, even man’s first and last say over his body should also be considered here, not just of the woman’s first and last say over her body.
Unlike in the case of Christianity, there is no such a thing as theocracy in Islam jester. I supposed you also know that.
my question was specifically about the woman’s sexual proclivities.
answer that.
“why, do unmarried women have sex with men only as prostitutes or analoguous?”
not necessarily Jester. But if they are not prostitutes, what can you call them?
In fact, prostitutes must nurture contempt against these women because they are giving sex services for free, to the eventual “unemployment” of the prostitutes.
“my question was specifically about the woman’s sexual proclivities.
answer that.”
I already answer that in my 3:18 pm post,
re-read that.
the cop-out? yes, i read it, which is why i’m waiting for something categorical.
i call them “unmarried women who have sex.”
okay, i’ll stop now. this was just too funny.
*grabs popcorn*
I call 4 more posts on splitting hairs before we graduate to name-calling!!
i’ll see your 4 and raise you
“now let me tell you what *I* stand for: the woman, and only the woman, has any say over how she wants to enjoy her sexuality. should she want to be celibate, should she want to go boinkity-boink-boink-boink with hundreds of men, that is nobody’s business but hers.”
wow! what a noble sincere manifestation Jester.
What if they’ll do the same, say with you because you are a DOM with unfettered libido, nope just a hypothetical scenario Jester, but at your malicious instigation, say with the instrumentation of money you managed to make them acquiesced with your lascivious but calculated advances, are you then not infringing over thier rights as persons?
Woman is a mystery we shall never penetrate, gentlemen.
Law and Justice, War and Peace, maybe. But woman. forget it. You can’t even get close!
at danilo’s 4:06: was the sex consensual? if yes, then no, there was no infringement.
come on, danilo, don’t tell me that unmarried women have sex only because of money or profit. is it not possible that an unmarried woman will want to have sex with me because she finds me attractive enough to take me into her bed?
(naks, wishful thinking wahaha)
Before the next persons decide to purchase prophylactics or recommend prophylactic use to adolescents (or to anyone for that matter), here’s something that’ll bring you closer to making informed choices. The false sense of security is something that needs to be pointed out.
“Condom manufacturers in the United States electronically test all condoms for holes and weak spots. In addition, FDA requires manufacturers to use a water test to examine samples from each batch of condoms for leakage. If the test detects a defect rate of more than 4 per 1,000, the entire lot is discarded. The agency also encourages manufacturers to test samples of their products for breakage by using an air burst test in accordance with specifications of the International Standards Organization.”
That’s four (4) leaking condoms allowed in every batch of 1,000 — how many thousands (?) of leaking condoms circulating around the world does that mean? And this is a risk the public is willing to ignore, even among those in AIDS prevention programs?
When the people pushing for HB 5043 say “accurate and complete information,” I hope that includes telling students and the public in general about things like this.
Btw, this came from the US FDA website.
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/197_aids.html
as a QC specialist, sunnyday, let me say that 4/1000 (0.4%) is a pretty stringent criterion.
Dear Jon Limjap,
Yep, it is true that teenage pregnancy also happens in provinces. Marami nga doon ang nag-aasawa ng maaga.
In the RH Bill, tama ka uli’t na hindi lang teenage pregnancy ang binibigyang pansin ng batas na ito. Maraming maraming bagay (gaya nga ng nakasaad na title nito na “Reproductive Health Bill”). The message that I want to convey is that na sana bigyan ng mga institusyon ng lipunan ang kabataan. Ang nagiging problema kasi ay napapabayaan ang karamihan sa kanila, at yun nga marami ang nabubuntis sa kanila sa ‘di tamang panahon.
@Ishmael
I think the Sangguniang Kabataan was originally envisioned to be such “youth institution”, but it only ended up teaching local youth leaders the corruption game too early. SK is nothing but basketball leagues and jersey procurement corruption. Nakakasuka.
@Jon
Yep, I totally agree na ang SK ay para maging youth institution. Unfortunately, ‘yung mga pondo nila ay hawak ng mga mayor at iba pang locaL officials sa bayan nila.
Ang lumalabas tulo ay ginagawa na lang na gatasan ng pulitiko ang SK.
Ganito kasi sa Pilipinas, puro vision pero walang action.
Who is to decide the morality of the youth? “Convention doesnt dictate morality, your conscience does.” But on which values/beliefs are the youth’s conscience based on? Definitly not on old ideologies and assumptions.
The Youth believes We control our lives. Hello Youtube? NOT decades-old beliefs. Naniniwala ba kami sa views nyo about sex? Baka hindi. Naniniwala ba kami sa views nyo on marriage? Baka hindi.
Sabi nga ng Rivermaya, “Kung gusto niyo kaming sigawan, bakit hindi niyo subukan? Lalo nyo lang kaming hindi maiiintindihan.”
At isa pa, ang matatanda, nag-uubos ng oras on how to curtail sexual activities of the youth. Bakit ba kayo obsessed sa sex?
Ang dami-daming issues na dapat pag-usapan regarding youth and nag-uubos kayo ng oras sa isang bagay na sing-natural ng pagkain.
E paano kaya kung ma-obsess kayo sa paghahanap ng paraan para mas lumawak ang isipan ng kabataan, o mas ma-enganyo ang kabataan maki-alam sa pamamalakad ng bansa. O kaya totoong youth empowerment.
Please dont insist on us your own hypocrisies. We dont need it.
Teenage Sex is stupidity. If the youth is like this I think will forfeit my standing as a young citizen. Yeah, sexual exploration will never be the key to wisdom. It will only lead us to overpopulation, family rejection and worst, early parenthood. Sex? Urges? Need? I don’t consider these three things as my personal need I consider it as a hindrance in reaching my goals, My Success! My brother is already a flop and a victim of early parenthood and I Don’t want to be like him. A model? No! He’s my reverse inspiration. I’m making sure that I’m not gonna end up like him, a failure!
Should I speak in general? No! I believe that there are many like my brother! And few with Perspective like mine. I just want this message to reach those pathetic and low life kindred of mine, driven, urged, persuaded by their desires.
Sex is not a thing, a trend yet it is a wormhole that can transport us to dark room with no light at all… Therefore total blindness. Sex? I thought of it as gift after marriage but with the current situation, I’m thinking, it’s just another daily habit that when done, may give us temporary satisfaction and lifetime full of regrets…
I’ve heard of many and yet my words are rejected…
~A Child
I, as a youth, am speaking for my own generation. And it is a great disappointment seeing the Hope, BE the downfall of the Fatherland.
One way or another we will solve this!
But it’s hard controlling the teenage population itself! The more things done the more errors will be committed.
Bravo Concerned Grader!
Thank God at meron pang mga teenager na tulad mo na hindi naniniwala sa “new age” beliefs about sex. Yes, sex is a gift from God and as a gift, we should “use” it with due respect to the Giver.
But then, your voice is just a tiny one dahil sa panahon ngayon ay napaka-fashionable na ng tratuhin ang sex as instrument of pleasure. Tingin pa ng marami na liberating na sumunod sa animal instincts natin about sex. Sadly, they are not as liberated as they think they are. They are imprisoned in pleasing theirselves.
Maraming matatawa sa sasabihin ko but this age is a dark age. More and more people are submitting themselves to the Enemy by surrendering their minds and body to sin in exchange of empty pleasure.
Sa totoo mas mahalaga pa ang bagay na ito kesa sa mga problema ng mundo.
Sana ang mga tulad mo ang umayos sa nasirang henerasyon.
May God bless you.
Thank you Ishmael!
True, teenagers nowadays are subjecting themselves to sex, not minding their faith but losing control and gaining nothing but pointless pleasure. I don’t know why they want sex so much that it gives them not the image of liberation but the image of savagery. I hope some of the youth are gaining or having the realization that sex is not the answer to sexual needs. Temptations huh? Is sex really the answer to sexual exploration? I think not. What is sex education to them is the actual thing, to have sex in order to know, COMPLETE STUPIDITY!
What is in the youth of today that made them savage and uncivilized? I’m completely confused of what is happening now. Why? How? I can’t figure things out! It’s like the mentality of the youth is altered.
Sin? What is sin when there is no one to be tempted? I don;t give in to sin, I’m patient enough to endure it and make it give up on me. I don’t consider sin an option, it’s just another dirt on my way waiting to be stepped on. I kick it! lol!
Nice!
concerned grader,.
Yeah, in the end of the day, its all about self control. Another thing is that teenagers are left to their own. I think that parent-children communication is lacking nowadays. Kaya yung mga kawawang bata ay kung anu ano na lang ang ginagawa tulad ng sex, drugs, pagpapabaya sa school.
A true story
Tomorrow Inshaallah we muslims will celebrate our Eid al adha. But one Tausug lady is suffering befalls into a calamity becuase of so called fornication. 3 days ago she give birth to a baby girl in a hospital here in dubai.the pakistani man whom she said the father wont acknowledge. He said she have lots of boyfriends. 3 months before that she came to the Islamic information center asking help from the filipino balik islam community. even if we used our emotion to help her its still a lots lots of money to generate to buy an airfare ticket back to manila. this is dubai. lots of kabayan here needs help bec of visa things, jobs, etc. one cheaper solution as another one suggestedd is to produce a fake marriage certificate from Phil. We will give the money 1thousand AED and she will produce it. (even though its totally wrong). she didnt do it. Fast forward >>> after this season of eid a few days of nursing the baby the authorities will take the baby from her and bring it to institution. she will go to jail minimum of 3 months (with or without lashes only
God knows) and will never see the baby again.
who’s to blame? not the church, this girl is from a muslim background. not islam fornication is absolutely prohibited. Poverty? society?
>Ishmael
Agree! I guess the only answer is open communication with parents. Me, I talk about sex with my parents all the time, I often take sex as a joke, as something funny when done. Lol
>moe
I don’t really get the picture… Sorry…
concerned grader, i suppose you’re legit from the way you’ve written your arguments. just one thing, don’t be harsh on your brother. thank him for giving you the valuable lesson on the inability to control one’s urges. not everyone has that opportunity.
i’m just concerned with the way you put yourself in the high ground–at the expense of your brother. that’s exactly the reason why most people here don’t like the anti-RH comments. right now, what your brother needs from you is not condemnation but compassion.
true, I do thank him for giving me the warning… On how one wrong doing can cause the downfall of others. I do thank him…
But up till now he didn’t change at all. Things are still the same when he’s around. He is an undergrad, jobless (laborer, most of the time) and partially unwanted. Why? The answer would be: He didn’t change, He didn’t realize, He never woke himself up to reality.
Why I do this to him? If words can’t hit him? what else? So that leads me to action. I’m not harsh, but I will be if I have to. I suppose I’m now cold towards him, I look at him as a low person, Pity? NO. Respect? He has to give one to earn one. Rejection? I little bit. I guess I am what I am. And I’m still workin’ on myself.
I’m a child of a normal family
Challenged by poverty
Rated “low” on the eyes of others
With parents struggling for money
I don’t know how to judge myself anymore…
Sometimes hope is very translucent…
But I’m firm and I will continue being firm…
Keep your head high up! ^^
Concerned grader,
An open communication is the right thing. As a believer that sex is one of the wonderful gift of God, I do believe that it should talk about openly. The more we avoid talking about it, the more that the teens will be confused.
Halimbawa sa sex organs, bakit ba tayo ilag na ilag na sabihin yung parte ng katawan nating iyon? Parte naman ng katawan natin iyon, hindi natin dapat ikahiya.
Agree!
Teenagers nowadays are more discreet about sex… The more they are silent the more they get interested about it. Why be shy about the organ.It still is a reality…
All this talk gives me a head ache ^^