Should the State Pay for My Hooker Too?

117 Shares

So the very divisive Reproductive Health (RH) Bill finally got the OK at second reading in Congress and it looks like it is inches away from getting ratified. I have always been a supporter of the intent of the RH Bill. From what I know, the RH Bill mandates the State to uphold and promote:

1. Responsible parenthood, informed choice, birth spacing and respect for life in conformity with internationally recognized human rights standards.

2. A guarantee for universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information.

Heck, the Senate version even guarantees safe and pleasurable sex with this Bill so why wouldn’t anyone want that? But to agree with the intent is one thing, to agree with its mechanism is another. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy that the State is concerned about women’s “reproductive health” and I’m glad the State wants to guarantee women’s safe sexual pleasure. But what about the men? If the State would now use taxpayer money to guarantee women’s birth control pills and other contraceptives, shouldn’t men now demand that taxpayers pay for their Viagra and even hookers too? Afterall, I’m sure there are studies out there that would show that lack of sex in men can be a health issue as well. Doesn’t our Constitution guarantee laws for equal protection?

Now let’s get real here. Who the heck are we kidding? The main motivation for the RH Bill is really about population control, the health angle is secondary at best. Actually, there are more arguments being raised on economic issues rather than health issues on this RH Bill. Even the great Mar Roxas said that the country needs this Bill to achieve progress and prosperity. Not that there’s anything wrong with managing our population for economic progress, prosperity and sustainability. I actually support that. However, what I am not sold on is the idea that the supposed benefits of this RH Bill (with the way it is designed) outweigh the unintended consequences and ramifications that many of our legislators and even our fellow Filipinos seem to fail to see.

contraception_rh_bill_philippines

So with this RH Bill, do legislators believe that the economic problems of the country will be lessened? The militant and activist proponents of the RH Bill, do they really think that government is in the problem solving business so the more laws like the RH Bill gets passed, the better off the people are? Will Filipino women really be better off with the RH Bill? I can only envision the red tape, government spending and kickbacks, tax increases and added business overhead cost this RH Bill would entail and it won’t be too farfetched to imagine business owners hesitating to hire more women if they would have to pay for their contraceptives and prenatal medical costs. Where do we think the funding to sustain the contraceptive freebies would come from? Besides, don’t we realize that the added overhead cost in business will eventually end up getting passed on to the consumers through price increases? These contraceptive freebies certainly seem appealing to people especially those who don’t realize that the freebies would really be coming out of their pockets in one way or another. Poor unemployed women who can’t afford contraceptives may get a guarantee for sexual pleasure (as per Senators Miriam Santiago and Pia Cayetano) through the RH Bill but may later realize that this law also potentially deters employers from hiring them. So again, how do we take this unintended consequence?

Okay, forget about money and the economy. Let’s focus on the health angle of this Bill. So if this RH Bill is really a health issue and if birth control pills must be subsidized, then shouldn’t Erectile Difficulty pills such as Viagra, Cialis and Levitra be subsidized too? If the State must pay for Nena’s birth control pills because Nena cannot afford to buy them, why shouldn’t the State pay for Totoy’s Viagra if he can’t afford it either? Shouldn’t both men and women get the same lawful benefit of sexual pleasure and sexual well-being? Heck, even if Totoy has no problem getting it up but he still isn’t getting any action, this can be a health issue too. Consider the following:

1. A 10-year research carried on 1,000 middle-aged men at Queens University in Belfast, Ireland, showed that sex on a regular basis increases the humans’ lifespan. For the same age and health, those who had orgasms more frequently had half the death rate of men who did not have such frequent orgasms. This could be due to the plummeting stress hormones, reaction that installs after we have sex.

2. Various researches have shown that a high ejaculation frequency and sexual activity are linked to a lower risk of prostate cancer later in life. A study found out that men who ejaculated 13 to 20 times monthly presented a 14% lower risk of prostate cancer than men who ejaculated on average, between 4 and 7 times monthly for most of their adult life. Those ejaculating over 21 times a month presented a 33% decreased risk of developing prostate cancer than the baseline group.

If the State can’t afford the high cost of pharmaceuticals like Viagra, how about hookers for those lonely guys who can’t get laid? Don’t worry about sexually transmitted diseases from hookers, the State will be in the business of giving away free condoms anyway! So you see how ridiculous the argument for “guaranteeing” sexual satisfaction and health from this Bill can get?

At the center of it all, what concerns me the most is the implication the design of this Bill entails. After all the sad and stupid debates throughout the 14 years or so this Bill has gone through, the Filipino people seem to go back to where they feel they are comfortable with – an entitlement and mendicant society rather than a society that values individual responsibility. So Filipinos would rather demand free stuff to support their sexual lifestyle choice, claim it as a health issue and expect someone else to pay for it. So what’s next? Free dinner? Free movie? Free cellphone load so that you can hook up with the guy you met on an internet dating site and get to use the free contraceptives that is guaranteed by the RH Bill? Oh well, thanks for reading folks! I have to go – my hooker is ready (which by the way, you’ll be paying for).

print

28 Comments on “Should the State Pay for My Hooker Too?”

    1. I’d just like to add something that I just thought of:
      Equality or whatever the correct term is…if pleasure is to be guaranteed for men, then this bill won’t be able to work…since to maximize pleasure for a man (and a woman in truth) there would need to be no rubber barrier known as a condom.

    2. Hi stahlbacht! Yes, I agree… it will be up to the individual whether or not this thing will turn out great or a dud. But that’s also scary if we think about it. I mean a lot of our countrymen don’t exactly have a good record when it comes to individual responsibility. Thanks for reading!

      1. Hector,

        Around November of 1999. I really forget the name of the establishment in Surrey- we made the drive on the premise that Ron was just going to tell stories for an hour. When we got there they still kept saying his name as if he was going to be there. Then I think the excuse was delay in customs. Which is BS if you ever saw the movie based on him. He travels without luggage because he is way too frugal. I remember consoling outselves with a Red Robin dinner. Thirteen years and several continents away later I still regret what could have been.

  1. Hector, do we even need government to stock and give away free condoms? Eh ang mura-mura na nga eh.

    It just teaches more irresponsibility.

    Parang, sige, maging salot ka sa lipunan, sagot ng gobyerno lahat.

    1. I’m not for giving out condoms/contraceptives for free either. i think it just encourages waste and knowing Pinoys they might dispose of these in an irresponsible way (i.e. down esteros and storm drains).

      1. I agree, benign0. In addition, the whole idea of giving more forms of doleouts (this time in the form of free contraceptives) really reinforces our mendicant and mooching society. Eh talagang hindi uunlad ang bansa nyan. Best regards and by the way… thanks for the t-shirt! 🙂

    2. Hi Paul! Yeah… exactly! What’s even more irritating is the thought that a lot of these folks who are deemed too poor to afford condoms can waste money on cell phone loads texting stupid messages or spend the whole day playing tong-its. With regards to government… well… I’m not exactly a fan of government in general. The way I see it, they kinda have a reverse Midas touch. Everything it touches turns to turd. Can we really trust the LGUs and the baranggays to stock and distribute these contraceptives? Yeah… with the rampant corruption around? I doubt it. I have a feeling this whole this is just going to be one helluva waste as the mechanism wasn’t exactly well thought out. Thanks for reading!

    1. I agree, Chino. I get the impression that it is one of those “pwede na yan” concocted ideas. Like I said, the intended benefits are okay but there are other factors they probably didn’t bother to consider or ponder on. For a half-assed law, sometimes it can turn out more harmful than good. In the end it would be good for the lobbyist who will directly profit from the sales of the contraceptives to the government and the politicians who will get their cut of the loot. The people would end up still getting screwed without the protection. *Pun intended* 🙂 Thanks for reading!

      1. This type lawmaking seems common for most of our laws. For example, our Penal Code had been unchanged since 1930, so it’s basically obsolete. Yet the lawmakers don’t even think about this. Also, they’re onto making laws that make more money. Somehow, I feel that Congress and Senate are focused on making more laws to increase revenue and income. Aside from the recent 2013 budget approval, the Sin Tax Reform Law. More for the pork.

        1. I believe Ilda touched on that matter in her article, citing Harvard professor James Robinson. The Philippines operates under political and economic institutions that are “extractive” in nature. From “Why Nations Fail” Robinson writes:

          “Extractive political institutions concentrate power in the hands of a narrow elite and place few constraints on the exercise of this power. Economic institutions are then often structures by this elite to extract resources from the rest of the society… Inclusive political institutions, vesting power broadly, would tend to uproot economic institutions that expropriate the resources of the many, erect entry barriers, and suppress the functioning of markets so that only a few benefit.”

          Since the time of the Spanish colonization, government officials in the Philippines have passed legislation that promote monopolies, blocked innovation and entrepreneurship and prevented society from fully harnessing our people’s talents, skills and creativity.

  2. You should have spoken during the second reading of the RH Bill. 🙂 this article covered almost everything I feel about the bill. Do not get me wrong, I am for population control and education, but just like my question(S) in the previous article, will it really becial for all. I saw a comment in one of GMA 7s article about the RH Bill. Non-verbatim: those who oppose the bill are from the the rich and middle class, the bill was meant for the poor so do not complain.
    I was completely taken aback by this way of thinking because I am anti-poor –the circumstance, not the person. And to achieve a middle class/rich status, hard work and integrity are needed.
    For the non-Catholic/Christian believers, I still stand by the words, teach them how to fish. I think it is only fair that the middle class/rich would question the bill as it is the taxes paid by them will be used. To say that it is just for the poor is discriminatory. When a bill/law is passed, it should benefit ALL, not just one sector of the country. I may not be able to expound on my thoughts as well as you guys do, but th

    1. Hi Nathania! The GMA7 article you spoke of sounds like a classic “class warfare” type of approach. You know – the rich versus the poor type of drivel. The problem with those politicians and personalities who pontificate so-called “pro-poor” measures is that more often than not what they do is hurt the poor the most. Instead of coming up with policies that would actually open up opportunities for the poor and elevate them to the middle class their dole-out and band-aid solutions are encouraging mendicancy and a society of moochers. The problem with the Philippine government, especially under this Yellow regime is that it operates as a Big Government even though it really cannot afford to run as a Big Government. It’s too bad there aren’t any political parties in the Philippines that espouse smart running of government. You know… a party that is pro-capitalism and free market, small government, and low taxes. You know… a party that values individual responsibility and not a welfare or nanny state. Well, I’m glad you enjoyed my article and thanks for reading! 🙂

      1. Hector,

        Don’t you think that the changes you are proposing involve, by their very nature, class warfare?

        Developing policies that extend opportunities to the majority of society. Creating “inclusive” economic and political institutions that promote entrepreneurship and innovation. Giving free rein to the market and encouraging competition. These are antithetical to the small elite where the wealth and political power are concentrated. The oligarchy is certain to oppose any change in the enormous inequality that benefits them and frustrates 98 percent of the population.

        1. Hi Johnny Saint! I guess in a way some people may see some class warfare in it. But I’d like to think of it as advocating a transformation of the politics in the Philippines. The problem that I see is that the Philippines has too much of a personality-based politics and not much ideological basis (except for the leftist commie loons under some partylist umbrella). This is why we really don’t have any distinction on who the conservatives are and who the liberals are. (Although Noynoy’s Liberal Party is living up to the Liberal penchant for high taxes and big government) They all say the same motherhood statements! At the end of the day they are all the same guys! As for the protectionist stance of the small elite, well… I think they are also limiting themselves by trying to suppress opportunity to the majority of society. Competition would encourage innovation that they themselves could benefit from as well. But adopting the good things you said (e.g. economic and political inclusivity, free market, competition, etc.) don’t have to turn out to be this ugly class warfare vilification of a certain segment of society. People can just take those as guiding principles instead of using those to vilify the rich. Thanks for reading!

        2. Hector,

          I would agree that in an ideal, free market economy, a healthy competition drives economic development. But we have to consider the realities of the political situation in the Philippines.

          Our leaders as you said are driven not by any ideology but overriding self interest. That is why we as voters cannot distinguish one from the other. As a result, each election becomes a personality contest, the outcome of which is predicated on who can outspend their opponent. That usually comes down to who can secure the financial backing of the oligarchy. After the dust settles, elected officials then go about the business of repaying political favors and pass laws in favor of their patron/s.

          Look at our primary legal framework — the Philippine Constitution. By its very nature, it discourages competition. Denying businesses access to the Philippine market based solely on race is a medieval, xenophobic notion. It has no place in modern economic systems. The fact that Filipinos enshrined it in the late 20th century shows how backward our thinking is. Furthermore, it encourages corruption by forcing companies who want to participate in the Philippine market to dream up ever more creative ways to sidestep and subvert these restrictions.

          What we’re left with are a handful of companies who are supposedly competing with one another but are actually offering the exact same services at the exact same price. This isn’t free market competition; this is what happens under a de facto oligarchic monopoly. Consider the fact that the Philippines has virtually ONE power generation company, ONE power grid company and ONE power distribution company. In contrast the United States has approximately 200 under its deregulated power industry. Japan has fourteen power companies. There are only TWO telecommunications companies operating today. They both use the existing laws and the NTC like a stick to beat any competitors into submission. NO ONE in the Philippine congress is exactly stepping up to move us in this direction. The top two percent of society to which the owners of these companies belong certainly do not want the status quo to change. They aren’t looking for additional competition to stimulate innovation except on their terms.

          On the other side of the isle there is the CBCP and the leftist organizations. Their position repudiates economic prosperity and the free market in favor of high taxes and “big government” managing a “nanny state.” They are poisoning people’s minds by conditioning them to accept that state institutions and/or Church organizations should be in charge of directing the life of the community and all the activities in society. Of course the CBCP will accept nothing less than that they should have the final say on official policy. By the same token leftists desire to reorganize our country’s republican institutions along the lines of the communist Chinese state apparatus.

          In the middle of all of this is the ever growing MIDDLE CLASS. Fully cognizant of the enormous inequality in society, yet perennially frustrated in achieving its potential within the context of that society. This is where the most profound transformation needs to occur. For regime change and the changeover to an independent people capable of critical thinking and accepting personal responsibility. However, because the established political and economic institutions as well as prevailing attitudes toward social responsibility are deeply entrenched, it will require something on the order of a seismic shift to break the rule of the oligarchy and our cycle of dependency. Granted it will be difficult. When there is resistance by the establishment, things have a tendency to get messy. But there will be conflict; that is inevitable. Not because it pits one segment of society against another, but rather because the nature of change is very profound. This kind of change isn’t about following “guiding principles.” It goes against every cultural aspect the majority of Filipinos are accustomed to. Yes, it will be a messy conflict. But that is the only way Filipinos will achieve the unfinished promise made 26 years ago when they called for “people power.”

  3. I would just like to say that from my (Pro-RH point of view) your reasoning and logic is a lot sounder than what the anti-RH congressmen and the church are giving us.

    A pity really, the bill would probably have been properly scrutinized to patch up these lapses, if they actually tackled topics such us these instead of blaming it on the devil.

    1. Thanks, Le Derp! As I indicated, I do agree with the intended benefits and (to some degree) the principles of the RH Bill. I actually have a few articles that are supportive of the RH Bill. The problem I have with it is in the design and how it works to encourage an entitlement mindset rather than encourage personal responsibility. Sure it aims to promote responsible parenthood by educating and encouraging people to take control of their reproductive lives. But this RH Bill seems to be designed to only be effective only so long as the contraceptives are free. We know that these contraceptives really aren’t free. In the end the cost will be coming from the tax payers and consumers (yes, even those poor people who will get the freebie contraceptives) through price increases as businesses would only transfer the added overhead cost on to their customers. In addition, other unintended consequences such as less hiring of women can also result because they can be viewed as added cost. So I think the legislators should have thought about those kinds of things in the design. But I think we are at the point where people are just too sick and tired of debates and they just want to get this thing over and done with. Which is unfortunate because some of the lapses may very well end up opening a new can of worms. As for the anti-RH folks… I agree with you. It was a mistake for them to mostly concentrate their battle on religious grounds. Thanks for reading!

  4. Child and adult Hookers are multi-billion pesos business in the Philippines. Foreigners come here for this “tourist attraction”. Amsterdam, Holland has its “Show Windows” of Hookers in its Red Light district.
    I am not proposing , we have the same in the Philippines. Hookers and their “bugaws” can find better ways to sell their wares…

  5. I like the article. It is more sound and quite neutral in my opinion than most articles I’ve read in other sites so far. I so wish they’d pay for my hooker. Where do I sign up? =)) Just kidding though. I can afford it on my own, same goes with my own condom.

    Nothing against the bill it has good intentions but I think it still has a lot of rough edges and I do agree it is a half-baked bill/law.

    As for the free condoms, knowing how most people dispose of it especially those who don’t have access to proper disposal facilities, I guess I’ll be expecting a floating rubber parade together with the other garbage and turds as well in the near future.

    1. Thanks for reading, Kagami! I’m glad you like the article. I’m not against the RH Bill per se. As I previously said, I actually have a few articles in the past that are very supportive of the Bill. But like you, I do see some potential issues about the design of this Bill and a lot of folks have noticed the Bill lacking in specific details on how it is going to work. In a lot of cases, half-baked ideas result in more harm than not having such ideas at all. But then again others also say that it is better to have something rather than nothing. We can give this thing a try and see if we need to revisit it after some time. Now that this has been approved and is about to be signed into law by the President, we’ll just have to wait and see. But personally, I’m not optimistic about it. I hope my fears do not materialize.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.