Taxing Coke and Pepsi Flavored Condoms?

A few days ago I came across a news article saying that the government is mulling higher taxes on soft drinks. This isn’t new as increases in levies on soft drinks have been brought out for discussion and proposed in the past. The motivation for increasing the tax on soft drinks was tied up to health aspects. While it is true that soft drinks, especially the ones with ultra high sugar content, aren’t healthy I’m just wondering why our lawmakers are not being consistent with their penalizing of unhealthy behavior. It seems to me that with the recently signed RH law, it is okay to be sexually promiscuous provided you use protection but it isn’t okay to drink a bottle of soda as suggested by this soft drink tax proposal. Hmmm… I wonder if soda manufacturers put a condom on the bottles instead of bottle crowns, would the State also give soft drinks for free like they do for condoms and birth control pills? If fancy condoms come in Coke and Pepsi flavors, would these get taxed?

soft_drinksI am not against promoting healthier choices. Heck, I too, need to ease up on my waistline expanding, artery clogging and sugar spiking habits. If the State’s idea to promote healthier choices and to improve the country’s healthcare system is through increased taxation as they did with the other “sin products” such as alcohol and tobacco, I won’t be surprised if they would be increasing the taxes on those LDL cholesterol filled goodies we eat. But would increased taxation really be the ultimate solution to people’s health issues? In an effort to patch up this problem, wouldn’t we potentially create other problems as a result? How about job losses from the soft drink and “sin products” companies? How about increased financial burdens on the consumers? How about increased smuggling and bootlegging to avoid the harsh taxation? You see this is the problem with most liberal governments (as is with the current party in power in the Philippines). It seems that they have a knack for the quickest fixes and these are often in the form of increased taxation and subsidies. We have an issue with out of control population growth? No problem! Subsidize with free condoms and birth control pills! We have an issue with lung and liver cancers? No problem! Hike up the tax on smokes and booze! We have an issue with fat people? No problem! Make them eat more taxes together with their burgers and sodas! Aside from these measures being mere band-aid solutions, what annoys me is the unequal treatment. I mean think about it! Aren’t all these issues pretty much the same? These are all about bad habits that present a cost to our society – either smoking too much, drinking too much, eating too much, or banging too much. But why on Earth should we get penalized for eating too many burgers and drinking too many sodas at Wendy’s but we get freebies for banging too many Wendys? Whether it is too much smoking, drinking, eating, or banging, doesn’t the flaw lie with lack of discipline and self-control?

Ah yes, that’s the problem. We Filipinos seem to have a big problem with discipline and self-control. I think it is sad that we have to resort to penalizing ourselves with taxes just to learn about the virtues of moderation. We just aren’t mature enough to take things in moderation. Very much like immature brats, we need to be grounded or smacked in the head by our parents first before we realize that staying up and out too late does a number on health and grades. Also, I think it is even sadder that we are deluding ourselves of the notion that the increased taxes the government would collect from our bad habits will really be used in improving our lives. The government has been jacking up the taxes on pretty much everything. In turn, the government has also been increasing social welfare and education budgets. However, what good has the CCT dole-out program brought aside from a pathway to more corruption and the coddling of our mendicant society with a helplessness mentality? And the increase in education budget that the government likes to brag about? What kind of students have our public schools produced but a generation of dumber kids who know nothing more than creating texting abbreviations? Heck, why not tax people every time they use those dumbing text abbreviations if the State is really concerned about our welfare? In the liberal line of thinking, wouldn’t this generate a boat load of revenue and force people to actually learn how to spell correctly?

Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

It’s funny. We seem to live in a society where we don’t want to tolerate smoking, boozing, and eating too much but we want to coddle those who screw too much. My fellow fat people don’t bother me. Heck, last time I checked, there aren’t a lot of emphysemic, drunk, and fat criminals running from the cops because they are too out of breath, tipsy, and heavy to run from the cops (provided that the cops aren’t emphysemic, drunk and fat themselves). Why the harsher treatment on those folks than the horny toads? Getting inspired from writer Greg Gutfeld’s humor, at least when we drink a bottle of sugar loaded soft drinks we don’t (often) get syphillis from the bottle. I’m not so sure the same thing goes for the bottle if a sexually promiscuous person drinks from it. Anyway, nice job government! If the band-aid solution doesn’t work, I suppose there’s always the previous government to blame.

56 Replies to “Taxing Coke and Pepsi Flavored Condoms?”

  1. Frankly, what a silly article.

    The British government is planning to impose a 20p/litre tax on sugary soft drinks, using the same reasoning as the Philippines Government.

    Nobody in Britain is connecting this with the sale of condoms.

    Nobody is going to start smuggling soft drinks at the tax levels proposed in either country.

    One of the reasons why the use of condoms is promoted is that – guess what – they reduce the rate of transmission of STDs.

    The level of sexual promiscuity is not driven by the availability of condoms – and considering that the Philippines has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Asia and one of the highest in the world, one might reasonably infer that there was plenty of sexual promiscuity around before the RH Bill was passed.

    This article is a fine specimen of the thought of showy clever-cleverness that one thought GRP was against. Evidently not.

    1. Silly? Really?

      Yeah, Brits and taxes. Robin the Hood didn’t like taxes. Colonial Americans didn’t like taxes and had a tea party. In fact they had the biggest anti-tax party in 1776. Yep, Brits and taxes….no wonder the Brits lost the Empire.

      One more thing, comparing the British government with that of the Philippines is like saying that this article is “a fine specimen of showy clever-cleverness that one thought GRP was against” and then saying “Evidently not”.

      On second thought, you may be right, the current Philippine President has been taxing his people like he were an English king. I’m not sure then what he means when he calls his people “BOSS”. Is that like calling a waiter or a security guard “BOSS”? I always thought BOSS was king.

      1. Thanks for reading, Jack! No biggie… I think Andrew is just one of those passionate folks supportive of the RH Law. As I said, this article isn’t about dissing the RH Law but a jab at the apparent unequal treatment of excesses and how the government seems to have a knack for increased taxation (and subsidy) as their default solution to issues. Of course… I just threw in a touch of sexual humor to spice things up a bit. Afterall, being too serious all the time ain’t too fun!

  2. You do realize that the article’s connection of taxation of soft drinks with the contraceptive freebies was for humor, right? Anyway, for me something seems not right when one excess get tolerated and the other gets penalized. As I mentioned, too much smoking… too much drinking… too much eating… too much banging… these are all about lack of discipline and self-control. But we penalize people for smoking and boozing (and feasting on sugary drinks) too much but we coddle those who bang too much.

    No one is arguing that unprotected sex increases the risk of unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Frankly, I don’t really care what people eat and who people screw. The point is, if we want to put a check on excesses… shouldn’t we at least be consistent about it? If it’s so objectionable to drink sugar, why is it okay to screw Sugar? Heck, the government will even guarantee that you get pleasure out of it! Isn’t that what one of the guarantees of the RH law to be?

    Relax, Andrew… I’m not dissing your very much loved RH Law. That’s old news! It is a law of the land now and it doesn’t matter whether I think it is a half-assed law or not… it is something the people have to abide by. This article is criticizing the apparent unequal treatment of excesses. It also takes a jab at the knack of the government for quick fixes – often through mere increased taxation and subsidy (as with the over-population issue).

    Now the Brits are gonna tax their people more on sugary drinks? Yeah okay… perhaps they should tax bad teeth as well while they’re at it. Now don’t tell me you don’t think that’s funny. 🙂

    Thanks for reading!

    1. Taxing Brits with bad teeth———That is hysterical, too funny!

      Here’s a nice,ice cold BIG 32 ounce sugary drink for you… and one for me. Cheers! Drink-up and hurry before it gets banned or taxed to kingdom come.

    2. @Hector – Unlike drinking too much, smoking and eating too much, sex without unintended consequences is healthy exercise, is free, and is actually good for your health. That’s an important difference, I think.

      The “British bad teeth” thing is well past its sell by date. It was true during WW2, when American servicemen posted to Britain were shocked at the state of our teeth. We brought in free dentistry on the National Health in 1947. It hasn’t been true in my lifetime – I’m sixty and I have all the teeth that I started out with, less some wisdom teeth and one tooth broken playing rugby and capped. My children have dual nationality and – no fillings. That’s actually normal. We don’t tax bad teeth; we spend some of our taxes making sure people don’t have bad teeth.

      But the old joke meanders round the backwoods of the States and so inevitably it washes up in the Philippines – a nation with far worse teeth than the British, but with bigger things than teeth to think about.

      A tax on sugary drinks makes sense to just about everyone except the owners of sugar haciendas and Coke bottlers (who may be the same people, of course…)

      Now, being serious, the reason why simply telling people to grow up and take responsibility for their actions, be they smoking, drinking or fucking, is a waste of time is that it does not work.

      The Church of Rome has been telling the people of the Philippines not to go in for sex outside marriage and to contain themselves within marriage for the past four hundred years and more – and today we have a population exploding past 100 million, one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Asia… IT DOES NOT WORK!

      A nation with the sorts of problems that the Philippines has needs things that actually do work…

      1. @ Andrew: Well… I see what you are saying but too much sex can still be detrimental, I think. You have these horny toads who instead of being more financially productive they would rather be more reproductive. 🙂 hehehe

        Oh Andrew… the British bad teeth thing was a joke. Are you really this serious all the time?

        With regards to tax on sugary drinks… well… I’m not really a fan of taxation altogether. This is not to say that I don’t believe that there ought to be no tax… that would be wishful thinking. I am, however, against going with taxation and subsidy as the seemingly default solution by the government regarding the country’s problems.

        Now with regards to not going with telling people to grow up and take personal responsibilities for their actions… I know how frustrating it can get especially as in the case for the Philippines. But I believe it can work provided that the conditions are conducive. Dole-outs and continual subsidies are just encouraging our already bad medicant society. Taking from the “haves” for the benefit of the “have-nots” can be counter-productive as well. The key, I think, is to come up with ways to make the conditions more favorable. We can probably think of ways that will raise revenue without having the need to increase the tax burden on the people and at the same time provide more opportunities to the people so that they can be more empowered.

        Yes, we need things that actually do work. Increased taxation and more subsidies and dole-outs from the government hasn’t really worked wonders. Perhaps it is time to visit other options such as that other current hot topic regarding amending the Constitution to get rid of the foreign business equity restriction, in order to increase FDIs. Apparently, it has worked with our other Asian neighbors and perhaps we can consider that option.

        1. Sorry….

          “This is not to say that I don’t believe that there ought to be no tax… that would be wishful thinking.”

          should have been…

          “This is not to say that I believe that there ought to be no tax… that would be wishful thinking.”

          Gosh I got victimized by double negatives again! Ugh! 🙂 hehehe

        2. Thanks, Hector – no, I’m not usually so dull, but I’ve had a lousy day at the office!

          I am indeed very much in favour of amending the Constitution to get rid of the restriction on foreign direct investment – and if it were down to me, which of course it isn’t, I would be looking hard at bringing in a Parliamentary system and certainly doing away with the national franchise for the Senate, which imho is a source of nothing good.

          We have to remember that the Americans copied the British system but weakened the Executive for fear of King George Washington and the Filipinos copied the American system but weakened the Executive for fear of Datu Manuel Quezon!

          This is a recipe for hopelessly weak government; one in which nothing gets done and almost everything gets corrupted.

          I would also want to get political funds out of the hands of individuals and their families and into the hands of parties – where they would be much easier to audit. It goes without saying that the pork barrel would get kicked down the hill of history, and having got that far we might look at putting in some reforms to the legal system, which is far too slow and too open to abuse. At the moment it combines the worst features of two bad systems – the Spanish and the American.

          But it would still be necessary to improve taxation, because at the moment the tax take is too low, and much of it is squandered. This results in what I call a “tea mone”y Government service – where everyone who works in the public sector can say “they pretend to pay me, and I pretend to work” – everyone – teachers, doctors, nurses, administrators, policemen, firemen gets paid so badly that they are informally expected to use their positions to extract a “little something” – “tea money” in China and Vietnam – from whomever they come into contact with as the price of getting them to do their job.

          This is a recipe for weak and permanently corrupt government…

          (rant over!) 😉

  3. @Hector,

    I like to think that I do get your drift regarding your Blog. But if a law like the RH law costs money for the government (and having no immediate revenue) then I can understand that the government needs to raise other revenues. Probably sugar drinks are the most drank beverages in Phils and not tea, coffee or bottled water.

    I wanted to say that implementing the legal right to have an abortion could deminish the number of teenage pregnancies but I dont believe that will work in a country like the Philippines as a solution.

    1. Hi Robert,

      You see that’s what I don’t really like and that’s one of the criticisms the article is pointing out – increased taxation as the seemingly default solution. In one of my previous articles (entitled “Should the State Pay for My Hooker Too?”) I raised the question on who is going to pay for the RH law. So now in your comment, you brought out the idea that perhaps one source of funding to support the RH law is to increase taxes (for example in soft drinks). So basically to support the contraceptive dole-outs other people need to shell out the money for it. So the RH law, in a way, shows that Filipinos would rather demand free stuff to support their sexual lifestyle choice, claim it as a health issue then expect someone else to pay for it. Why should I pay for someone else’s sexual lifestyle choice? What ever happened to individual responsibility? In this article, whatever happened to the virtues of discipline and self-control?

      Taxing our way out of the problems we have just isn’t sustainable. As former Brit PM Margaret Thatcher once said… “Eventually you’ll run out of other people’s money”. I think it is better for the government to look at more feasible and sustainable approaches to raising revenue. Perhaps getting rid of business foreign equity restrictions in the Constitution could pave the way for more revenues from increased FDIs. I don’t know… we can certainly discuss the merits of that option. But merely taxing people to death just won’t cut it.

      Thanks for reading!

      1. Hector,

        Like I stated earlier, I think I do get your drift with your Blog and I also understand your above response to me.

        However and let me first apologies to you that I know nothing about the finances of the Philli government.

        But as far as I understand and understood the RH law, things will be given (for free) to the public. Someone has to pay for that. If its not you, then who will pay for those free condoms, free pills, free UIDs?

        Its not fair to keep on comparising my country with yours. But here either you pay for it yourself (condoms, pills or UID) or its part of your health insurance package. And its compulsory to have an health insurance for each and every dutch citizen.
        So if you cant afford to pay for it your self and you cant afford to have an health insurance then please fuck at the most convenient time so that nobody will get pregnant and that nobody will get an STD/HIV/AIDS. Or dont have sex at all.

        Its pretty straight forward and quite easy and simple.

        The way I look at it is this: Somebody has to pay the bill. I would think that the one who wants to engage in (safe or unsafe) sex should pay the bill! And nobody else.

        But is that do-able in a country like the Philippines? Just a practical question on my part. I really think the problem lies much deeper than that. A boy and a girl do have unsafe sex (before marriage). She gets pregnant and he leaves her. Who are the culprits here and who is the victim here of a rotten, fucked up society?
        Why doesnt the girl demand from the boy to use a condom? Why doesnt she take matters in her own hand and use the contraceptive pill?
        Is it all about money, religion, convenience, dislike of using a condom or …..

        1. Yup, they are contraceptive freebies. The problem with the RH Law is that the funding for the “freebies” weren’t thought about thoroughly. As I mentioned in my other article, the “freebies” actually aren’t “freebies” at all. The cost would be coming from someone else. Businesses would be mandated to shoulder the cost and this increase in overhead cost will just get transferred to the consumers through price increases. The government’s contribution would be coming from increased taxation, of course. In addition, there is a chance businesses may choose to avoid hiring more women as women can pose as a liability since they could potentially translate to added cost in business. Here, you can read more on what I wrote…

          I like personal responsibility too, just like you. When it comes to contraceptives, I’d rather pay for my own sexual lifestyle choice. In the Philippines, a lot of people claim that they cannot afford birth control. It’s funny because a lot of these same people don’t have any issues wasting their limited money in tong-its (a favorite gambling game) and dumb text messages. Condoms are pretty cheap even in the Philippines. The problem is… many Pinoys just love being moochers and they just suck at discipline and self-control.

        2. So Hector, what is your solution for this problem then?

          I dont know if all current contraceptives are also available in Phili, right now, right here. And I dont know the cost of each contraceptive (cost for the end-user, hence the consumer). Lastly, I dont know if a few or some or most Phili consumers really cant afford it or have just other priorities to spend their Pesos on.

          I would think that the cost of a pregnancy, birth and having an unwanted kid (cost of raising, education, clothing, food, proper shelter etc) is much higher in the end than a text message.

        3. Solution? Address the causes, not just the symptoms. Why do we need to raise taxes? To support social programs like the ones in the RH law. Why do we need the RH law? Primarily for population control and to reduce poverty. Why are Filipinos making so many babies? Aside from being horny… there’s nothing much to do when one is unemployed. Why is unemployment high? Not enough job opportunities. Why are job opportunities scarce? Not much competition and development in business scene. How do we address this problem? We can come up with ways to increase FDIs such as getting rid of foreign equity restrictions. You get the idea, right Robert? The key is to analyze the issues and their root causes and come up with ways to address the root causes and not just the symptoms. The problem with the Philippine government is that it seems to always go to the default solutions without giving things much thought. It feels that it can just tax and subsidize its way out of its problems all the time.

        4. – First we have to wonder/determine if there is a problem.
          – if yes, then we have to describe/define the problem.
          – then we have to look for the (root) causes.
          – then get rid of the causes or at least solve the causes if that solves the problem. (but what if the causes cannot be solved?)

          Personally I do think the RH law can have a favourable contribution when the educational part will be transparent, honest and based on scientific facts (and not religious ones). But then again, there never should be an RH law to make that possible. Sex-ed should have been part of scholar education since yesteryear. But also the parents should do their task and duty as parents and tell their kids everything there is to know about reproduction. Geez, trhey (the parents) put them on this planet. Parents should know their responsibility!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        5. Trosp,

          “Parents has responsibility? Of what?

          I am sure you are making a joke here, Pen. Otherwise pls do tell me what according to you parenthood is all about? You fuck your wife, she becomes pregnant and you keep your hands of off the raising of YOUR kids? It comes with responsibility. You fucked your wife, so you should inform them about the sacientific facts about everything of reproduction. If you only can tell your kids that they have to fuck in gods name then you are lacking your duty and task as parent. You have to inform them about how your body really works and that NO god makes your wife pregnant.

          Did you tell your kids about:
          – their libido
          – their erogenous zones
          – male sperm cells
          – female egg cells
          – male orgasm and ejaculation
          – female orgasm
          – ovulation
          – menstruation?

          Did you tell your kids that making love, having sex, fucking each other:
          – should be something beautiful for both to enjoy?

          I am sure you didnt because you are a conservative, god-fearing guy. The only thing that counts for you is what the bible tells you and you dont want to read about how a body really works. So basically you are lying to your kids by not telling them the factual, scientific truth!!!!!!!!!!!

        6. Bob, yes… root causes. That’s what I have been saying… the problem with the government is that they seem to have a knack for coming up with mere band-aid solutions that address only the symptoms but not the root causes. Now, what if the causes cannot be solved? Then lean on the most pragmatic approach. But at least the government ought to consider more feasible and viable options rather than to automatically go with the default solution of increased taxation or subsidy. Like I said, if revenue is the issue… then come up with ways that could pave the way for more revenue that would yield the greatest benefit. (e.g. Get more FDIs by scrapping the constitutional hindrance for foreign business equity in the country.)

          Bob, I sense that you are very supportive of the RH law and I don’t wish to take that away from you. Like I said, this article was not about dissing the RH law. What I’m a little concerned about is the apparent direction you seem to be taking this discussion on – and that is anti-religion. While the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception and while it is true that there are many Catholic faithful in the Philippines… I do not believe that the main reason why Pinoys love making babies is because of their religion. I bet you the horny toads aren’t thinking about the Bible or the most recent Sunday homily whenever they hit the sack. Gee, that will certainly kill the mood! Merely blaming religion, I think, is weak. I think it is more about under-education and lack of discipline and self-control. The under-education cannot be blamed solely on religion either as there can be a lot of other non-religion related socio-economic issues to consider for this.

        7. Hector,

          I am involved in and with the Philippines bec of my partner. I can behave in a very short-sided way and tell myself “WTF, why should I care about the Philippines”. But thats not my style.

          Am I a supporter of the RH law? I dont even know the full text of that law. I think every little thing can contribute but in the end I think that the RH law will not be the factor contributing to its goal (lessening the population or let it grow less/less fast).

          “I bet you the horny toads aren’t thinking about the Bible or the most recent Sunday homily whenever they hit the sack. Gee, that will certainly kill the mood! Merely blaming religion, I think, is weak. I think it is more about under-education and lack of discipline and self-control. The under-education cannot be blamed solely on religion either as there can be a lot of other non-religion related socio-economic issues to consider for this.”

          Hector, by the above statement you are defending the horny clueless ignorant part of your population. May I remind you that that are 2 persons you are defending. Both the boy/men and girl/women. Basically what you are saying is that “go fuck around and just accept the consequences.” Sorry chap, thats too shallow. Its too lame, too corny, too sassy. Jesus, every 16 year old here knows what to do and what to expect when having sex. But not in your country? With such an attitude (behaving like horny, clueless, ignorant people) the Philippines really make themselves “the laughing stock of the class”.

          I can have unsafe (marital or pre-marital) sex every day without making my partner pregnant. Why cant they?

          Is it ignorance? And if so then how do they become ignorant? Where does ignorance start and where does it end? And if it is not ignorance then what is it? Killing the mood? So a (untimely, unwanted, unplanned) pregnancy is acceptable bec killing the mood is worst? Strange way of thinking in your country!!!!!!!!!

        8. Hector,

          back to the topic. The RH law costs money. Do you agree? The way I see it is that the Phili government has to pay the condom manufacturers or importers, pay the pill manufacturers or impporters, pay the IUD manufacturers. How can the government recoup some of that money? Is there still a un-used budget for that? Is there an estimation for such a budget and for the duration of that law? When is its desired goal in sight? By the time the population is fixed at 110 million? 120 million? Will the RH law become a never ending story or what?
          If there is no un-used budget then the money has to come from somewhere. The governement needs to increase the VAT, taxes or import duties or fees/dues.

          But I hope somebody in the government knew how to finance all this before the bill became a law.

        9. Okay, Bob…. so you don’t know the full text of the law? So are you saying that you are not a supporter of the RH law? Please clarify. What you said neither affirms not denies your support for the law. But with regards to your ignorance of the full text of the law, that’s easy to fix… you can just google it and read it. Now will the RH law be the ultimate solution for the problem of over-population? As you indicated, probably not… but as you also said… it may contribute a little to achieve the objective. I guess we’ll see in a few years.

          Bob, I do not appreciate you putting words into my mouth. Where did I say I am defending the ignorant horny toads? You really have to quit erecting straw man arguments when you are pushing your piece. Your previous posts give me the impression that you blame religion to be the (or a) big problem for over-population. In fact, based on your other commentaries on other posts, you seem to be quite vocal about your anti-religious sentiments. I find it funny that you suggested the possibility of folks having sex because of their religion. You know Bob… when someone having sex yells “Oh God! Yes! Yes!! Yes!!!” that’s not really praying and that’s not really because of the inspiration from the Humanae Vitae.

          Another thing Bob… you indicated before that it’s really unfair to compare your country with the Philippines… yet you seem to be doing it all the time. So every 16 year old in your country knows what to do and what to expect when having sex and not in my country? Okay, then Mr. Dutch Atheist…. can you please provide me with independently verifiable empirical data to support that EVERY 16 year old in your country knows what to do and what to expect when having sex and that EVERY 16 year old Filipino doesn’t? Without your empirical data, I am inclined to dismiss your outburst as a mere rant. I mean come on, Mr. Dutch Atheist… am I suppose to take your assertions and suggestion through “faith”?

          So you say that you can have unsafe sex everyday without making your partner pregnant. Then good for you, Bob! But somehow I am skeptical just by going with that assertion of yours. Do you have independently verifiable data to show that you have had unsafe sex with your partner everyday for the last, say, 10 years and not gotten your partner knocked up? Are we missing any factors here, Bob? Have you had vasectomy? Do you have very low sperm counts? Can you even still get it up or maintain an erection for intercourse? How do I know that the unsafe sex you are referring to is in the form of vaginal intercourse and not fellatio or anal? Well, yeah… sure… you can have unsafe sex everyday without getting your partner knocked up if you merely stick it in her ass or mouth.

          Is it ignorance, you ask? Sure! I can grant you that possibility. How do they become ignorant? I think that’s pretty easy, Bob… that would be lack of education or lack of a good quality education. But it doesn’t stop there…. ignorance isn’t the only culprit. Surely it isn’t farfetched to think that there are folks who are aware of the scientific facts about sex and pregnancy but are just lousy when it comes to discipline and self-control, right?

          Now where on earth did you come up with throwing the “killing the mood is worst” bomb? Jesus H. Christ, Mr. Dutch Anti-theist (I’ve upgraded you to this level now, Bob)… go back to the context of how I used the “killing the mood” stuff. It wasn’t a comparative statement. It was used to point out that the Filipino horny toads do not really have religion in mind when they decide to go at it. If someone claims to feel randy at the image of the Virgin Mary… man, there’s probably something weird going on in that freak’s mind.

        10. Mr. Hector,

          Lets assume and pretend for one second that I go out to paint the town red one night. Then I will take my precautions and measurements before I leave my house. Most girls/women will do the same. Why? Because both parties dont want to end up with an unwanted pregnancy or maybe even worst: acquiring some stupid disease like STD or HIV.

          I am not saying each and every 16 year old is aware of the dangers, only those who are really stupid, careless and uneducated (by parents) will fall for the honey-trap.
          If in case the “flirtations” might occur
          without the notion of “painting the town red” then there is still a way out.

          No matter if this is a religious thing or not, it should be THE task of both the parents to provide their own kids sufficient information about sex and everything related to that.

          School is there to teach me academicals so I will excell in my future job. Sex-ed (by any school) is not part of that bec what I know (or not) about sex will not determine how I will excell at my future job.

          Pls inform me how many girls/women are (unwanted, unplanned) pregnant (and/or gave birth) out of wed-lock and why that happened?

        11. Oh my freakin’ lord… you really are fixated about the RH law, eh Bob? No one is disputing that the implementation of the law cost money. The issue at hand is… will programs from such laws be only sustained through increased taxation and subsidies? Aren’t there other means of raising revenue other than taxation and dole-outs? Shouldn’t we even consider ways to focus on empowering the individuals so that they can be responsible on their own and not depend on dole-outs and other people’s money? With empowered individuals, would we even have such problems as poverty, over-population, under-education, etc.? That’s the whole point of the article, Bob! it’s not whether the RH law costs money or not. It is not even really about the RH law! It is about a critique regarding the government’s penchant to automatically go with the default solution of taxation and subsidy. As I said, the government can’t tax and subsidize the country out of the country’s problems… that’s just not sustainable. The article is also about the apparent unequal treatment of bad habits… the inconsistency on how the government treats bad habits. Now if you are going to blame religion again for that… then go knock yourself out.

        12. Bob,
          *Facepalm* I don’t know how else to respond to you because you just don’t seem to get it. This article ain’t about sex. The sex part was merely for humor. The main point was about a critique on the government’s seemingly unequal treatment on bad habits such as too much eating, too much boozing, too much smoking and too much banging. It also questions whether increased taxation and subsidies are really the only solution to solve the Philippines’ problems (since the government seems to have a knack for going with those as default solutions to every problems). It also points to Filipinos’ problem with discipline and self-control. Now we can discuss about other options where the government can raise revenues to support (social) programs from laws like the RH law. We can also discuss about ways on how Filipinos can get the motivation to improve their issues with discipline and self-control. Heck, we can also discuss how the country can have favorable conditions in order for the Filipinos to grow out of being moochers and to move towards individual responsibility and empowerment. But to dwell on trivial stuff like how teenage women get knocked up and how stupid religious beliefs sound is a freakin’ waste of my time. If you want to discuss or debate about religious stuff we can do that on another day and under a more appropriate article. Don’t worry… I’ve got some critique to your atheism stuff in my mind but I just haven’t had the inspiration to write an article about it yet. When I publish it, then I would be more appreciative of your religion-bashing outbursts. But for Richard Dawkins’ sake… please respect the nature of the discussion here.

          Again, no one is disputing the duty of the parents to provide guidance and information to their kids with regards to sex (and other things in life). No one is disputing the role of the schools to provide guidance and information on sex education (among other things) as well. You might as well posit the question: “What if Mohandas Gandhi ate an all beef hotdog?”… because what you are ranting about is just not what the article is all about! Are you just trying to showboat your sexual knowledge in here? Jesus H. Christ, are you kidding me?!

    2. @Robert

      Here you are again. Use your head once in a while. Read your comment again –

      “I wanted to say that implementing the legal right to have an abortion could deminish the number of teenage pregnancies…”

      1. Whoa! I had to do a double take on this one. I didn’t really pay too much attention on the abortion solution suggested by Bob. I had to make sure that he did actually say that… and yes… I guess he did.

        Now that’s another big topic to discuss – abortion. Personally, there are some arguments for abortion that I would be okay with. However, legally allowing abortion for the purpose of diminishing the number of teenage pregnancies? Hmmm…. I’m not so sure if I’m ready to go with that. Heck… I’m not even religious but I still feel iffy about that suggestion. Anyway… I don’t really want to go there… that’s another big topic for another day. Thanks for reading, Trosp! 🙂

        1. A little thought experiment:

          1. “Am I OK with the idea of an abortion or a 19 year old being pregnant?”

          2. “Am I OK with the idea of a an abortion or a 13 year old being pregnant?”

          They are both “teenage pregnancies”.

        2. Andrew,

          I fully agree with you. Although the 19 year old is (by law) considered to be a mature adult.

        3. To add:

          But for both I would suggest/advice an abortion. They both are too young and ruining their future. A kid is carrying a kid, is my expression in such situations.

        4. @ Robert – I agree with you. The 19 year old may be able to form consent to unprotected sexual intercourse, but she is on the young side to make a good mother.

  4. The LP today revealed a new emblem – a yellow condom, because it more accurately reflects it’s political stance.

    A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the
    next generation, protects a bunch of d#cks, and gives you a
    sense of security while you’re actually being screwed.

  5. I’m just glad I decided to make softdrinks a once-in-a-while affair. For health reasons, too.

    I hope they don’t tax Cobra, though. The green one is delicious. hehe

    1. And how exactly does this NYT article address the unequal treatment of bad habits such as too much eating, too much boozing, too much smoking and too much banging? How does the NYT article address whether increased taxation and subsidies is really the only solution to solve the Philippines’ problems? Or are you again trying to make this exchange about bashing religion again, Bob?

  6. From Facebook:

    Condoms don’t guarantee safe sex.

    A friend of mine was wearing one, when he was shot by the woman’s husband.


      1. 🙂

        Actually, the following day’s news was — and this is just sad — death by gun violence is now classified as an epidemic and therefore, gun control measures should be implemented by the health department.

        OY VEY! :-\ These Americans are crazy!

  7. Supporters promised the RH Bill will help poorer families learn to control the number of children they make so they can live within their means. For me, it still remains to be seen whether that will actually work. I already have my doubts.

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.