In her article â€œBetween Sensationalism and Censureâ€ (Philippine Journalism Review, April 2002, pages 35-37), Diana Mendoza observed how the bizarreness of Filipinosâ€™ regard for sexuality is reflected in Philippine cinema. Her observations are gleaned from among others, comments made by sociology professor Michael Tan of the University of the Philippines in the Sixth International congress on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific held in Melbourne, Australia from the 5th to the 10th October 2001:
Commenting if the Philippines could be at the forefront of education on sex and sexuality Tan said no, because “media have very sensational coverage but they still have this patina of moralism which is strange.” He said this brims over to the film industry that churns out movies carrying the “crime and punishment” theme — for instance, movies with plots of adultery that run steamy sex scenes but which towards the end, mandate that the adulterer, who is always the female, gets shot or imprisoned.
“With these endings, movies become a morality play after two hours of titillation,” he said.
Tan said Filipino movies also carry the “crime and redemption” theme, in which a sex worker eventually realizes there is a better life outside prostitution, but only after the audience [have] been treated to several sexual episodes.
More disturbing than simply being uncomfortable is how inconsistent and misguided Filipino responses to issues of sexuality can get. The Filipino Male enjoys the better half of a double standard that prevails in Philippine society. And this is what contributes much to the bizarreness of Filipinosâ€™ regard for sex. Male sexual indiscretion, as mentioned earlier, is routinely tolerated and even encouraged and cheered (the famously philandering Joseph Estrada was even elected president). Filipino men are predisposed to openly and indiscreetly staring at and regarding women maliciously. These indiscretions are clearly outside the more well-known but imagined Filipino virtues of modesty, humility, and adherence to tradition. They are nonetheless widespread and accepted as normal (although desensitised may be the more appropriate word to describe Philippine societyâ€™s acceptance of this Filipino male condition), but there is presently no Filipino philosophy or code of ethics to frame this condition, it being outside the Tradition-Religion Complex that many Filipinos continue to â€œofficiallyâ€ validate themselves with. Thus the Filipino male â€“ with all his expected indiscretions and excess â€“ is a social aberration that is accepted, yet at the same time, is not normal and oftentimes unsavoury. Conflicting descriptions that are collectively oxymoronic, to put it mildly, encapsulated in a neat package that we find ourselves using the phrase Filipino (male) sexuality to describe. Remember how I used the word â€œbizarreâ€ early in this paragraph?
Or take the whole debate on population and human capital. The issue of population â€“ specifically the embarrassingly high rate at which Filipinos continue to multiply â€“ is complicated by the Churchâ€™s adamant stand on artificial contraception. Time and again, government efforts to roll out coherent and not-so-coherent family planning programs and population policies have been blocked by the Church. This is not necessarily bad, except that Filipino humanity is not economically productive enough to sustain its own numbers. In other words, we love our multiplication but are clueless about turning out productive products of this multiplication. Many Filipinos are instead born â€œblessedâ€ â€“ they are blessed because they are poor, and remain blessed for most of their lives â€“ straining state resources as they go (which is why they are encouraged to seek employment overseas). Strangely, the teachings of the Church to â€œgo forth and multiplyâ€ are in fact balanced by other teachings. It is also written that The Lord hath given nature to man for him to use productively and that gold coins should be returned two- or three-fold to oneâ€™s master rather than kept buried safely in the ground. Why did the Filipino latch on to â€œgo forth and multiplyâ€ but at the same time, overlook â€œmake more gold for thy masterâ€? The Church encourages Filipinos to multiply but seems to have obscured its own teachings on how to increase economic output to keep up with the mouths to feed. Worse, the mantra â€œThe Lord will provideâ€ was added to the lethal brew. So rather than focus on increasing economic output, the devout Catholic Filipino would go on to produce lots of babies and then pray for manna from Heaven â€“ a sure recipe for disaster. And this disaster is unfolding right before an entire generation of Filipinos.
The point is, in Philippine society, the unwritten (and ironically vastly more ingrained) cultural framework for guiding â€œproperâ€ behaviour and conduct is itself convoluted, inconsistent, and unjust. Much of it lies outside the increasingly irrelevant Tradition-Religion Complex. Does this mean that Philippine society is inherently unjust? Maybe. It seems to be a theory that neatly explains a lot of paradoxes about Philippine society, among which is the famous paradox of our high Church services attendance back dropped against the virtually institutionalised corruption and passive-aggressive â€œimmoralityâ€ that prevails. We now find that these paradoxes are only paradoxes because we view them through the lens of Philippine societyâ€™s Tradition-Religion Complex. The fact is, Philippine society runs on a cultural framework that has already overspilled the Tradition-Religion Complex and is rapidly spreading in an unstructured manner â€“ in other words chaotically (which is why we find so much difficulty making heads or tails of these cultural issues). To the typical Filipino philandering male, there is no conflict between his regular church attendance and the harem of mistresses he maintains. He absolutely loves and adores his religion and complies faithfully with its dogma but at the same time he is aware of the reality of the moral ambiguousness of the society to which he belongs.
We can dare generalise that Filipinos get their kicks from breaking rules. Among Filipinos, there is some measure of cleverness and machismo (remember this is a backward male-dominated society we are talking about) associated with putting one over or being above the System. This contributes to explaining why Filipino motorists drive the way they drive, why tax cheating is so rampant, why corruption is so endemic, why personal connections are so valued in even the most mundane of day-to-day activities, and why street parliaments are favoured over robust institutions. Filipinos do not see themselves as stakeholders in the effectiveness of their own societyâ€™s rules and conventions. And this is where we come â€“ full circle â€“ back to our original assertion about the utter lack of ability of Filipinos to think things through critically. Continuously taking stock of how we are organised, our framework of laws, rules, policies, procedures, and approaches to doing things (from the most macro to the smallest of tasks) and continuously tweaking, upgrading, and re-designing them takes an immense amount of structured analytical thought. And because Filipinos, as weâ€™ve shown thus far, are deficient in that field of advanced thinking it is easy to see why we are such chronic rule-breakers. Rather than go through the proper exercise of keeping our governance frameworks (whether they be civil or cultural frameworks) scalable and, therefore, relevant, we simply look for workarounds. Pwede na yan â€“ (roughly translated: â€œthatâ€™ll doâ€) the triumphant mantra of the typical Filipino. We donâ€™t ensure that the systems work for our ends. Rather, we view systems more as roadblocks to our ends. Therefore very little systemic solutions are ever considered to address Philippine societyâ€™s ills.
The irony there is that many Filipinos do consider the existing systems and frameworks stifling. Itâ€™s just that we as a people are not, by nature, critical thinkers and therefore lack the faculties to clearly articulate our issues objectively (while tempering sentimentality). Clear understanding of the issues is a pre-requisite to coming up with a coherent solution and plan of action. Which therefore makes it even less of a surprise that no clear vision of where the Philippines is supposed to be headed has ever been crafted.
[Excerpt from Get Real Philippines Book 1 which can be downloaded for free here.]
Image source: AniolMroku.
- The lynching of Renato Corona: 2012 goes down in Philippine history as a year of infamy - April 30, 2017
- The death of old-school ‘journalism’ proves that democracy is ALIVE in the Philippines - April 29, 2017
- The rich understand poverty a lot more than the poor do - April 24, 2017
- Are we seeing the end of an era of extreme liberalism? - April 22, 2017
- Campaign to put Duterte in @TIME ‘100 Most Influential’ list backfires! - April 21, 2017