The Folly of Saying Sex Is Mainly For Pleasure

Back when Benign0 posted his article that the main purpose of sex (as in, copulation) was reproduction and not pleasure, a lot of reactions came that tried to dispute this. Some said that pleasure is a function of humanity above animals, and that humans are entitled to pleasure. But that’s exactly what Benign0 was trying to prove wrong. Believing that sex is mainly for pleasure is the start of many problems. It’s evident from these reactions that people either don’t get the point, or they’re stubborn, preferring to stick to their wrong beliefs despite knowing the consequences.


Let’s start with the observation some people have of the Philippine family: that there are couples who just crank out child after child even if they can’t afford it. This is acknowledged to be a major problem in our society. And thus, the solution many support is the RH Law; put out the condoms and contraceptives while letting “love” flow in the air, because the latter is part of “freedom.” Yet there are many others who say that it may not work. Benign0 touched on the very reason this is so: Filipinos, in believing sex is for pleasure, forget that it is also for reproduction. So, when Filipinos get together for fun, they “accidentally” have a child, that they soon find themselves in massive debt and scrambling all over the place for support. Among the worst things they can do is abort or abandon the child.

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

So, following the saying “an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure,” isn’t the better solution just to not copulate? Is that really hard? Because that’s the crux of the problem. People insist on copulation, saying it’s their “right,” despite the consequences. But like I said in my article about flaunting wealth, not everything permissible is beneficial; just because you can do something doesn’t make it right.

So let’s address the idea that humans are a touch above animals because they feel pleasure from sex. No, that’s wrong; even animals feel pleasure from sex! So this is not what separates humans from animals. As I repeat from my comment on Benign0’s article, what separates humans from animals is the ability to question their own actions and reflect on whether what they’re doing is right or wrong. And from this comes the ability to practice self-restraint, the ability to say no even when the balls say go. It is this that makes people truly human, and thus creatures of reason. If people say, “don’t fight it, go with the flow,” then they are shirking human reason.

Perhaps there are methods of having sex that avoid penetration or impregnation. But that’s the problem; most Filipinos want to do the “normal thing.” Do it another way, you’re a deviant or abnormal (like the stuff you’ll see in 50 Shades of Grey). Some parts of society even encourage the moronic idea that unchecked copulation should be accepted in society. TV, movies and other mass media promote this. When people have a kid, they’re called stupid, it’s not part of the plan. But it is part of the plan!

Thus, the problem is not just education, but miseducation, the teaching of wrong attitudes and wrong beliefs that lead to wrong actions. What’s scary about all this is that I’m hearing the miseducated principles not only from the ordinary people or poor, but the middle class, the supposedly educated and may-kaya who are able to post comments in English on this site. Truly, if you can miseducate the middle class, you can effectively disable society.

So you may advise the person to use a condom, but they may eschew it. Why? This may be explained in the concept of putting in one’s seed in the sex partner. Anyone read about the story of Seth and Horus in Egyptian mythology? The concept behind Seth sodomizing Horus was that putting one’s seed in another person is a sign of dominance. That seems the attitude of many men today; putting in one’s seed is a mark of dominance, similar to how dogs mark territory with their pee. This attitude will probably make men want no condoms in the sex act and insist on the copulative act that leads to reproduction. They certainly won’t be the one to buy or give the contraceptive stuff, because all they want is the pleasure! And because, in our social context, sex is dominance (50 Shades of Grey again). After all, isn’t asserting class dominance the main compunction of the Filipino?

I wonder if this also explains the Filipino fixation on “love” songs. Perhaps this fixation is a manifestation of Filipinos wanting wanton sex all the time, and thus may be a symbol of our societal dysfunction. When will Filipinos understand that sex isn’t true love?

So believing sex is for pleasure than for reproduction leads to cranking out children they can’t afford to raise, and perhaps the overpopulation or overcrowding some people claim. It would be an example of Benign0’s definition of poverty: a habitual entering into commitments one is inherently incapable of honouring.

And the idea of sex as mainly pleasure is also a demonstration of yet another bad attitude: sense of entitlement. When Filipinos believe themselves entitled to pleasure, they shirk responsibility. They believe they deserve the pleasure they want, and are willing to suffer the consequences for it. Then, then they suffer the consequences, they cry “ang hirap ng buhay” (how hard life is). Or, to get what they want, they are willing to make others suffer – namely the children who come out of a careless copulation encounter. This applies not only to the poor, but even the middle and upper classes.

As Benign0 had observed, modern society tries to make us believe sex is for pleasure. It even tells us it’s a “liberating” thing. But it’s not. It’s a marketing ploy. It’s simply because sex sells. Business is out to sell products to you. It wants the money in your wallet, not for you to be free. So you’re hoodwinked to just buy products to make sex “pleasurable” when you could just simply avoid doing it.

While I’m not against others using condoms and contraceptives, I still advise looking at the purpose of what you’re doing. If it’s just for pleasure, you better remember that you’re human, and you must think and consider the consequences of what you do. And, if you realize what you’re doing is wrong, you’d better NOT do it. Really, among the best solutions for Filipinos in solving their problems is just to stop doing something, because, simply, they’re doing the wrong things.

If you still want to defend “Sex is for pleasure,” go ahead. You will open your eyes to the consequences later on, and will need to grow up.

And is sex the only thing that brings pleasure?

(Feb 19, 2015 addendum) Let’s take it from Aldous Huxley:


168 Replies to “The Folly of Saying Sex Is Mainly For Pleasure”

  1. I am truly sorry, but I am still lost (here). Maybe different “rules” apply for Philippine people compared to the “rules” that apply in my country (and probably many other European and western countries).

    Pls let me give you an insight how most people behave regarding sex, make love and eventually getting pregnant.

    In a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship there will be sex among those 2 people but because a preegnancy at that time is unwanted (too young, still in school, hence no job).

    When those 2 will enter the next phase (living together or living together contract or registered partnership) they will continue in the same way.

    The 2 people will only decide to have kids when all circumstances (emotionally ready, psychologically ready, do both have a job, bodily ready) are beneficial to have their first kid. So even when those 2 are married they will still wait and first start enjoying their status of being married (working, saving money, buying a house, party, travelling abroad together).

    Then there are still the couples who do not want to have kids simply because they favor their careers over/above wanting kids.

    Furthermore, most newer generations will almost always take a lesser number of kids than the number of kids that were in their own family. The consequence of this is that the overall population will decrease. Well, who cares.

    Thank god, my pinay girlfriend and I have sex with no intention to get kids (yet).

  2. I am told that many Filipinas/Filipinos take kids because those kids must take care of the parents when the parents are old (pension/retirement age?).
    Another reason will be of religious nature of course (“go and multiply”)

    If this is true (kids need to take care and look after their own parents) then that is something european kids dont need to worry about.

    In short, a country, where religion plays hardly any role and where kids do not need to take care of their parents, the number of offspring automatically declines.

    1. There are many sexual acts that do not lead to conception (even among heterosexuals.) Why do we practice them?

      “sexual acts release neurotransmitters in our brains. They help us relax and make us feel good.”

      “Sex reinforces bonds that can form larger social structures, something that may help in overall survival.”

      Those are two reasons why we have sex, that are not related to reproduction.

      1. I was referring to the above comment by JAMES GANG and posed the relevant question of why sexual acts that do not result in conception are nonetheless pleasurable.

      2. So, gays are exempted because there is no way reproduction can result in gay union? But I thought ‘desire for pleasure’ is where the problem starts? If the main point of the problem is reproduction and gays are exempted on it, does that mean gay sex is alright? I mean, gay sex is also a ‘desire for pleasure’ thing, you know.

        Since reproduction is out of the question, are you telling us that gays are in a much better position because they do not have to grapple with idea of the consequence of doing sex? That since they cannot reproduce, they can pursue pleasure for sex to their hearts desire?

    2. There are still cases of female turned male who left their reproductive organ untouched and got pregnant via artificial insemination (male pregnancy in UK). And of course some lesbians and female bisexuals still produce their own offspring via, er, the method they desire.

  3. We at the worldwide pimps union beg to differ. The oldest profession should surely give us insight on what humans really think about sex.

    I will view this piece as an overzealous defense of population control. trust me it’s not just us pimps that want you to have pleasurable poontang. You do want to live in a world where others control your non-life threatening bedroom activities.

    Also the players ball wants me to spread the word that not having sex was a Victorian idea and yes even then kids as young as 14 would be allowed to have sex well because the human lifespan was 35ish.

    Again population control legit, telling people what sex is for and demanding that they live to such standard not so much.

    Happy v day all. If you can’t be good at least be safe.

    1. Pimps. All you want is money. So you rent out girls’ cunts so you can take the money.

      So the life span today is more than 35ish (if that was true). Do we still need to do the same things as when the human lifspan was 35ish?

  4. that’s why contraception and other birth control methods were invented

    but with pinoys, especially the poor, stupid, and lazy ones:
    1. they can’t afford them
    2. they don’t have the discipline to use them
    3. they have superstitions against them
    4. the grand old rcc only approves either abstinence or withdrawal. good luck with self-control

    1. And that is why our country in a dump. Lack of self-control. Good luck to other Filipinos who don’t believe in teaching the poor (or even middle-class who think they’re poor) the value of self-control. As I recall, that’s the reason why some Singaporean have few or no children. Things became too expensive to have children. So they know how to hold it. But Filipinos, because of the hedonism being promoted today, don’t apply self-control, and thus, the country is in a dump.

  5. The article above by Chino F is an anti- feminist, anti poor. pro Roman Catholic rant disguised as an examination of human nature. It is a ridiculously simplistic analysis of an incredibly complex subject and as such is a gross distortion of the material it claims to engage.

  6. There, that’s what I mean. My main message in this article was to show that lack of self-control is what leads to many of these problems with family and sex. Because people feel entitled to “pleasure,” they’re willing to do what’s better not done just to get that pleasure. And they later pay the consequences. Of course, I’m not against using condoms and contraceptives. But just to simplify things; why not avoid copulation altogether?

    And I would say, exhibiting self-control in this area might mean the person would show it in other areas of his life. That would make for a more contributive person who doesn’t create burdens for society.

    Oh yes, before labeling me an RCC defender, I will say my alignment is with evangelical Christians, or Protestants. And I disagree with the pope saying couples who do not have children are selfish.

  7. Sex is for pleasure and for reproduction. However, if you cannot afford to give your children, their basic needs, and education. Do some Family Planning; not Family Planting…

    Sex removes tensions in your being…it is a consummation of your love with your partner.
    It is inherent in all of us to have the pleasure…and the fruits of the pleasure, that are our children. Do it responsibly…and you will not have much trouble in life…

  8. Uhm, and I assume the idea that reproduction can be done without sex is entirely irrelevant in this context.
    But seriously, to say that sex is for reproduction is (IMHO) a very simplistic – in fact, dismissive – explanation of the biological and cultural basis of sex. Given that Filipino society places a very heavy emphasis on companionate marriage, an emphasis that did not exist during the early epochs where technological development was not advanced and “costly displays of physical and intellectual prowess” was the norm, nonprocreative sex plays an important role in cementing that companionate relationship. (I did not say that sex is the only factor, but it’s hard to argue that a marriage where sex is merely procreative and thus occasional is satisfying to husband or wife – and we know where that will lead).

  9. Let me explain why I used the Pro Roman Catholic, anti feminist, and anti poor labels to characterize your article.

    Your contention that something (like sex) must be MAINLY for one thing or another (either pleasure or children) is a false dichotomy that finds its origin in the Roman Catholic doctrine that proclaims to know what the “maker” of humans intended for us. (Although benignO dresses the doctrine up with a Darwinian costume) In both articles you use pseudo logic to support an emotional (religious) position.

    You go on to claim that people are creatures of reason, this is what makes them human rather than animals. I would argue that people are ruled by their emotions. That is why they are impulsive and usually let the consequences be damned.

    Whether or not women and the poor are entitled to their pleasure?
    I believe as the US Declaration of Independence states: that all humans are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    Would you embrace the one child policy like they have in China?

    “…sex isn’t true love.” The dubious notion of true love it something only found it women’s magazines, religious websites, and romantic Dingdong and Marian films. The idea that an eternal and unconditional love exists (like the kind that God has for us) is certainly not borne out by the behavior of male homo sapiens.

    Although the purpose of your article was to offer sage counsel and not to support religious doctrine at the expense of women and the poor; your assumptions are nonetheless, riddled with conservative Christian ideas about the value of pleasure and the purpose of sex.

    1. Sea Bee, why I use this Pro Roman Catholic, anti feminist, and anti poor message is this: I believe people are deceived on what is right and wrong. Here I am trying to correct it. I base it on simple cause and effect: copulation, insertion of penis into vagina and resulting orgasm, is really meant to lead to a child being created in the process. So trying to avoid making the child while maintaining copulation this is a vain attempt in getting around nature. Which, in my view, is a bad idea. If people can have sexual pleasure without copulation, that’s fine with me. Thing is, one thing is a package deal with the other, so trying to separate them is likely going to fail or have unintended consequences.

      Yes, my “sage counsel” is conservative Christian, which I do hold mostly as my belief. It may be offensive to some. But what if it is correct?

      Of course, whether my message is heeded is up to the reader.

      1. Whoa, don’t you think “correcting people on the belief that they are deceived on what is right and wrong” won’t create a problem? I mean, to correct someone will require you to prove you are better than those you are correcting. Either you have more on education or experience or maturity or all of them at the same time than the people you are trying to correct. The question is, which is it? And it is worse if your correction is religion-based.

        “Insertion of penis into vagina and resulting orgasm that create a child is a God-given nature as proclaim by the dogma of your own religious affiliation. Are you trying to correct that ‘package deal’ by promoting self-restraint or abstinence? And why attack the pleasure part of sex when you can focus on the responsibility part where the problem starts?

        I’m not saying you are wrong but like I said abstinence has failed a long time ago. If you are trying to revive a failed idea, fine with me. It’s just that at this time and age, I would rather opt to a novel idea than cling to one that has been tried and tested and miserably failed.

        1. Jameboy:

          “…to correct someone will require you to prove you are better than those you are correcting.”

          This is a typical Filipino point of view.

          PLEASE, let me offer a different perspective:

          To correct someone will require you to prove that your point of view is more valid than those you are correcting.

          Why do Filipinos feel the new to destroy someone that they disagree with. I see it all the time in the poisonous comments section of GRP. This is another example of how people are driven by their emotions; even when they are attempting to discuss ideas.

        2. “To correct someone will require you to prove that your point of view is more valid than those you are correcting.” – Sea Bee
          First off, the Filipino has nothing to do with what I said. It is a universal understanding that if you correct someone you are in a much better position for doing so than the other guy or else your effort will go to waste.

          To prove your point is more valid would no be correcting for it assumes that the other point of view is also valid. You maybe improving something because of the superiority of your view but surely there’s no correction there.

        3. Jameboy:

          I said your statement was filipino because it shows more of a concern with personal honor than it does with whether an idea has evidence to support its assertions.

          Let me explain: You are confusing the message with the messenger. One does not become a better person by criticizing others. That is a childish point of view that advocates the idea that diminishing someone else, inflates you.

          We are debating whether ideas make sense; not the worth of the person expressing them. Some presentations of ideas are more logical than others and their conclusions follow necessarily from their premises.

          ChinoF makes some points that are valid. Everything that he said is not wrong. However, his argument does not convince because it lacks an internal logic and consistency to its claims. For example:

          A) Abstinence is good and pleasure is evil,
          B) Sex is pleasurable,
          C) therefore, if we want to be good, we should avoid sex.

          This is the foundation that his argument is based upon. If we do not accept his premises, no amount of reasons will convince us and will only muddy the waters.

          One should not use reason to support a dogmatic position of faith. It is like building a house on a swamp. Start with reason and stick with reason. Do not flip flop back and forth between emotion and reason.

          If you believe in god, that is enough. Why try to logically prove the god exists?

        4. Let me just clarify a few things:

          A) Abstinence is good and pleasure is evil,
          – I never said pleasure is evil, it’s the wanton pursuit of it that is. Like the difference between saying “money is evil” and “the LOVE of money is the root of evil.” Abstinence may just do better where ain certain situations.

          B) Sex is pleasurable – That’s what many others here here insist. But I do recognize that sometimes, sex can be something that’ll turn people off. The anecdote of Sic Amore below.

          C) therefore, if we want to be good, we should avoid sex. – Nope, didn’t say that. If you want to be good, avoid shooting yourself in the foot.

        5. Sea Bee,

          I don’t know what you are reading from my post because nothing in them even imply ‘Filipino’ or ‘personal honor’, etc. Let me refresh you on the statement I made my comment from.

          “I believe people are deceived on what is right and wrong. Here I am trying to correct it.” – ChinoF

          And this was the exact wordings of my comment on that statement.

          “Whoa, don’t you think “correcting people on the belief that they are deceived on what is right and wrong” won’t create a problem? I mean, to correct someone will require you to prove you are better than those you are correcting. Either you have more on education or experience or maturity or all of them at the same time than the people you are trying to correct.” – jameboy

          The message was clear and I directed my comment on it. I don’t believe one becomes better by criticizing(actually it should be correcting) others. Where are you getting this ideas from?

          You ‘correct’ me on an issue like sex and I will question your credibility about it. Unless you are a priest or a doctor or something, people will tend to put a wall between you and make you explain your intent of correction. Human nature, plain and simple. What I implied in my comment was that ‘correcting’ invites hostility or may create problems because the person doing the correcting will be put on the spot in terms of credibility and/or integrity. It’s a two-way traffic if you are trying to enforce something that is not within the purview of your expertise or authority or sphere of influence.

          Never did I even mentioned anything about validity of points because it is immaterial in the discussion. Nor I alluded to the wrongness of an idea for the simple reason that, again, it is immaterial on what we’re talking about. Of course, it was very clear that ChinoF was the one doing the talking about right and wrong. He was the one imparting the idea that the correction is his forte and he intend to pursue it by sharing his idea on matters about sex.

          My comment was not even trying to engage ChinoF in a straight out debate. In fact, I started it with a question casting doubt to what he said about correcting people. I called his attention to a possible problems and challenges ‘correcting’ might bring. I laid it on the table not to argue per se with him but to extract further justification in what he said.

          Actually, the whole point of my post was to ask question and get a responsive answers from ChinoF on those things that I raised based on what he said.

          Nothing childish, nothing sinister about it.

        6. This is something I see filipinos doing again and again. Challenge the idea, not the person. It is called the Ad Hominem fallacy (against the man). If someone corrects you on an issue of sex, challenge the issue, not the credibility of the speaker. That is not relevant to the argument.

          Do not attack the messenger, attack the message.

          Do not tell someone that they are not qualified to give an opinion on sex. Analyze the opinion itself. Point out flaws in its logic. Show weaknesses in the reasoning of the idea. Simply saying in so many words: “who are you to offer an opinion? You don’t know anything.” is not a rebuttal. OR
          “who are you to tell me what to do?” Discuss what he is telling you. Do not try to disqualify what he has said because of his impertinence. Get it?????

        7. Jameboy:

          Chino F said, “I believe people are deceived on what is right and wrong. Here I am trying to correct it.”

          Your response (in so many words): Don’t correct people. Not only are you not qualified to correct people; but correcting them will make them hostile and less receptive to your ideas.

          Discussing the appropriateness of the strategy of correction is a side issue.

          What issue could you have raised which lay within the purview of the argument? You could have told him that his statement was vague and then asked: Who are people deceived by? What is the right? what is the wrong? What exactly are you trying to correct?

          Instead of clarifying the argument; you took umbrage with his audacity, got butt hurt, and hijacked the argument and took it down a side street. The new direction had less to do with what he was saying and more about his attitude.

        8. Well, I guess you finally took the cudgel from ChinoF and decided to engage me to argue for him on something you are not sure of. Fine.

          Didn’t I inquire with ChinoF the possibility of correcting people might create problems for people don’t really enjoy others correcting them? That is why we have experts on certain fields offering their services to others. I never said don’t correct people. I insinuated that you may be put in the spot and get questioned when you encroach on other people’s business on issues like sex.

          Please don’t assume something and get off from there without verification. And don’t tell me what to tell people what to say because that is bad manners. Actually, I have yet to hear/read what ChinoF has to say about my comment. I don’t even know what is ChinoF’s credential or line of expertise for me to tell him to not correct people.

          Very clearly, you are waaaay out of line pal in butting in for you have nothing but wayward assumption and knee-jerk reaction on a simple comment meant to expound on something that needs clarification. Instead of telling me what to say to him, why don’t you do it your self? Thank you.

          Looks like you are correcting me by acting as spokesman of ChinoF. Please. I don’t mind correction but dictating that I hate. You corrected me for some overlook statements before and I acknowledged it. Looks like you are pushing your luck too far this time. If I were you, I’m not going to insult ChinoF for speaking for him without his consent.

          Go slow, friend, I mean no harm.

        9. Sea bee,

          Encroaching on people’s privacy? Of course you will be challenge, idea or whatnot, that is the reason why I raised the issue of being put on the spot. It is a real possibility that you will be questioned not only your ideas but also your status if you start correcting people.

          In this day and age when even priests are guilty of sexual abuse you are telling me that inquiring as to the credibility of the speaker fall on the category of ad hominem? Really? Seriously?

          If someone will correct me on the issue of sex, I will not only challenge him on that issue I will MOST IMPORTANTLY challenge his person as to his credibility or integrity to find out where he is coming from. You correct or question me about my sex life, before I go to the idea or issue I want to know if you have experience on sex your self. Is that wrong? Can you erase or ignore that in the equation? Please.

          That’s not ad hominem, that’s finding out what the other person’s intention and his field of expertise is on something he wants me to correct on. I’m not going to allow anybody to encroach and violate my privacy without verifying whatever authority or knowledge they have. Are you telling me you’ll do the opposite? Somebody who is a virgin and never had sexual experience trying to correct you on your sex life and you’ll tell me you will entertain his encroachment of your privacy and not bother to inquire as to who he is or what his background or experience is?

          Your view as to attacking the messenger HAS NO LEGS TO STAND ON. It is valid on certain issues or circumstances but when you encroach or invade personal privacy be ready to defend not only your ideas but also your person because violating another’s space is violating their ideas and person too.

          You’re telling me you don’t know that basic rule?

          Who said who is not qualified to give an opinion on sex? You are again assuming something that has no basis. Look at how you premise your ideas, ‘do not attack…”. “Do not tell someone…”, “analyze the opinion, point out flaws…”, “show weakness…”, “discuss…”, ” do not try…”, “Get it?”.

          You are the one not only telling but actually dictating what you want to read in other people’s post. Terrible!

      2. ChinoF: I respect your point of view on many things, but I beg to differ on this. Please read this article titled “Use of Long Term Contraceptive Reduces Teen Pregnancies by 79%.” The “just say no” strategy among this age group does not seem to work. We have over 100,000 teen pregnancies in the Philippines every year.

        1. Sea Bee,
          read the article.

          Such tests will never happen in Phili (unfortunetely).
          Philippines is a country fully controlled by the RC church and by politicians who are also RC members. But most importantly there is hardly one soul in the population who want change. Furthermore, they live by only one principle and that is sex is only meant for procreation. Well, we see the negative result of that every day in Phili.

          So progress & improvement are 2 words totally unknown to the Phili masses.

        2. Since this article talks about teens, I would wonder what the hell the parents were doing. Setting the example, perhaps, or just not being there for their children.

  10. Reading the article above I can’t help but notice the repeated appearance, at least six times, of the word ‘problem’ in the writeup. Let me explain.

    First, the title suggest that it is folly or foolish to ‘say sex is mainly for pleasure’. And I agree, for sex is more than pleasure. It is a process or system where we derive pleasure and happiness not only for its commission but also to its usual result which is procreation or reproduction. There are consequences when we commit ourself to copulate or have sexual relation/intercourse with another person. But what specifically is the ‘sex’ the article was talking about? Is it about sex for pleasure where parties do not hold any commitment other than engaging in sex? Or sex for reproduction as a social issue where even the government has dipped its fingers into because of the implications of population control, pop. explosion, etc.? I would say the two – pleasure and reproduction – are different but both are part of the whole operation of the process we called sex. Pleasure brought about by desire to copulate/sex is the initial activity a person does. What follows is the sex itself and eventually reproduction.

    Very clearly, we cannot just say sex is all reproduction. It is all endings no beginnings; it’s all narration with no introduction. We know that is not true. You can have sex and not end on reproduction.

    And it is also incorrect to say that sex is just for pleasure for the simple reason that there are consequences to it. It is pleasureable doing sex but impregnating the woman entails responsibility and commitment.
    To go back in my introduction, this is what I noticed:

    1. Believing that sex is mainly for pleasure is the start of many PROBLEMS.
    2. couples who just crank out child after child even if they can’t afford it. This is acknowledged to be a major PROBLEM in our society.
    3. Because that’s the crux of the PROBLEM.
    4. Perhaps there are methods of having sex that avoid penetration or impregnation. But that’s the PROBLEM
    5. Thus, the PROBLEM is not just education, but miseducation, the teaching of wrong attitudes and wrong beliefs that lead to wrong actions.
    6. Really, among the best solutions for Filipinos in solving their PROBLEM is just to stop doing something, because, simply, they’re doing the wrong things.

    Given the above I would hazard to say that the writer combine and incorporate the aspects of pleause and reproduction in trying to tie up sex to what he perceived as a social problem. And I’m with him on that because our expanding population has been a perenial problem that needs serious attention. And I would even dare say that the pleasure factor is the crux of the matter why we have problems not only on population but also on issues of safe sex, sexual diseases, broken families, scandalous relations like concubinage, adultery, etc. which affects a large segment of the population. We are all affected on problems that emanates from our mores or attitude towards the aspect of sexual orientation or understanding of sexual relations, commitment and responsibility.

    I know sex is a complicated issue but we can simplify it so long as we are clear as to where we are relating it.

    1. “… scandalous relations like concubinage, adultery,…”

      Why are concubinage and adultery scandalous? As long as both happens with consent from both parties, I dont see any problems.

      The fact that adultery happens must mean that something is “wrong” in the relationship that the married person has.

    2. Let’s go back to one article which says, the first step to solving a problem is to admit that it is a problem. Thus, I maintain my thesis that seeing sex as mainly pleasure is itself a problem. This is because I believe that people pursuing what they feel is pleasurable and their kind of happiness is not always right, and can actually lead to misery. For example, a couple who begets so many children, perhaps hoping that all these children will support them when they’re old, will encounter misery when some of these children die, or are on the streets with their parents when these parents are unable to support them properly. So letting pursue their own happiness as they please will not lead to happy lives. Sometimes, you have to tell them what is wrong – against their pleasure.

      And adultery is wrong because it has effects. Whether it is wrong cannot be subject to perspective, because there is a reality which says, it is wrong.

      1. “Thus, I maintain my thesis that seeing sex as mainly pleasure is itself a problem.”

        Pls paint me a picture of what the problem is here?

        “… and can actually lead to misery.”

        Pls paint me a picture of what the misery is here?

        “Sometimes, you have to tell them what is wrong – against their pleasure.”

        Pls paint me a picture of what is wrong here?

        “And adultery is wrong because it has effects. Whether it is wrong cannot be subject to perspective, because there is a reality which says, it is wrong.”

        Can you provide examples of this?

        I live in a western country where there is no utang na loob (whether rich or poor) and I dare to say that we live in a functional country.
        I am convinced that when that circle of looking after parents is broken a big chunk of poverty will also be broken.
        When kids will stop looking after their own parents, future parents will think twice (become reponsible) to procreate for that reason. And finally when that circle is broken, kids can finally seek their own happiness without any burden of looking after their parents. Finally they are really free.
        Positive consequence of this will be that the total population will diminish and the population can finally become better (less dysfunctional).

        1. Robert, since you are not here in the Philippines, you are not able to see the misery that comes from the carelessness I describe. Perhaps that is a factor.

        2. Pls be my guest and name a few.

          I have seen squatter homes and I experienced – first hand – beggars. I will not share with you what I told the 10 year old.

        3. In adultery, it’s obvious. Let’s say one married guy has a child with a prostitute other than his wife? He has additional mouths to feed. Or, let’s say he’s just gone to a prosti, no child. But why do that instead of his wife? Broken relationship already there. Rationalizing adultery is dangerous here.

          However what you say in the latter part, I’ll agree with. If people are willing to lift burdens off others, including their children, that’ll make things easier for everyone. Hence what Ben Kritz wrote about better elderly benefits.

        4. ChinoF,
          I am not advocating people going to visit a prostitute. But they do that for a reason. Most likely they do that because maybe their own sex-life (with their own partner; married or not to her) is quite boring. And besides prostitutes in the western world use contraceptives.

          A way to prevent a guy going to a prostitute is by talking about each others wishes when it comes to sexuality. But I really think that even talking about sexuality in the Philippines is a taboo. Do they know anything about the KamaSutra?

        5. If a couple’s sex life is boring, should that jeopardize the relationship? No. Sex is only a part of a romantic relationship. If the relationship is based mainly on sexual aspects, then it’s a faulty relationship. If their sex life is boring, either find ways to un-bore it, or do something else fun other than sex.

        6. Yes my friend. If my sex life is boring then I will quit. In any relationship its normal to talk about sex before we even start our first encounter of intimacy. “what do you like” (cunnilingus, fellatio, she on top), “what do you NOT like”, “what do you want”, “how do you want it”, “shall we incorporate sex toys”.

          If and when sex is limited only to the actual intercourse and only in the misionary position then I call it boring and dull.

          Not only the sex life but also all other parts of the relationship should be kept exciting at all times. When either part of the relationship (the emotional & the psychological part as well as the intimate & passionate part) becomes boring and dull then that is the “kiss of death” of every relationship.

          Both parts are equally important. So they can be both or individually mean the end of the relationship.
          If the emotional & psychological part is boring and dull but the sex part is great, it means the partner is not my match. There is something lacking.
          If the emotional & psychological part is great and the sex part is boring & dull, it means the partner is not my match. There is lacking something.
          It needs two to Tango.

          I am a simple guy but I want a high quality life.

      2. “I maintain my thesis that seeing sex as mainly pleasure is itself a problem.”
        But the problem is, your example did not match your thesis. Let me show you why.

        “For example, a couple who begets so many children, PERHAPS HOPING that all these children will support them…”
        There is no ‘sex mainly as pleasure’ as reason for the problem in what you said in your example above. Actually, it was their “hope” you are citing as reason for begetting more children.

        But even if ‘pleasure’ is really the problem you’ll have a hard time proving it since pleasure do not really create problems. Drinking alcohol because it relaxes you is not a problem; abusing it is. Engaging in sex is not a problem; doing it with anybody is. What creates the problem is the consequence of seeking and obtaining the pleasure. What creates the problem is our failure to comply or confront the responsibility after achieving pleasure. It is not about self-entitlement it’s about being responsible.

        1. Not pleasure itself, but the desire for pleasure leads to problems. That can easily lead to abuse. Yes, engaging in sex is not a problem, but on what is a problem, it’s more than just doing it with anybody. Doing it when you better not is also a problem. That’s true, failure to comply or confront the responsibility after achieving pleasure is also a root of the problem. But why have anything to confront when you could avoid it by controlling the desire for pleasure? That’s the best way to be responsible in this issue.

        2. But why have anything to confront when you could avoid it by controlling the desire for pleasure?
          But avoidance have failed a long time ago. That is the reason we have birth control pills.

          And controlling your urge is not that easy especially when what you desire is not against the law. Look, taking drugs is against the law but we still have problems about it. The desire for pleasure is a normal feeling. You can control your feelings if you like and that would be fine because it is your decision. But once the decision to control your self is impose by another person then that would be wrong.

        3. If and when sex is limited only to the actual intercourse and only in the misionary position then I call it boring and dull. – Robert Haighton
          But how ’bout if you’re in love? I noticed it’s all sex to you and never about love. How will you now juggle the excitement of sex with the passion of love?

        4. jameboy,
          When I am talking about sex here on this forum, I am talking about love.

          In short, I am talking about a guy/man and a girl/woman who are both in love with each other. But those 2 do not need to be married per se. Mutual love for each other is all it needs to have sex (plus consent of course).

          While Mr ChinoF will only allow sex for married straight couples because he is indoctrinated and brainwashed by his bible.
          And Mr ChinoF wants only kids who can look after and take care of the parents when the parents are old and senile.

          So here you get what is happening in the Philippines. An overcrowded population. With no abortion and no divorce.

          My view on sex is this:
          – there should be love among the 2 people
          – it should contain “foreplay” (, actual intercourse & afterplay
          – it should contain both female orgasm and male orgasm
          – it can only lead to a pregnancy when all circumstances (enough bedrooms, considerable income, both emotionally balanced, etc) are at least good to excellent

        5. The problem with saying avoidance has failed is that it actually applies to only a few people. For some, it has worked. It falls into the trap of over-generalization. It’s probably a message trying to discourage self-control. That does not mean well for all people, I would say.

        6. The problem with saying avoidance has failed is that it actually applies to only a few people. For some, it has worked.
          It worked for some and not for many that is why we have a population problem now.

        7. When I am talking about sex here on this forum, I am talking about love. In short, I am talking about a guy/man and a girl/woman who are both in love with each other. – Robert Haighton
          Glad to know that.

  11. Since I went to church, I was fortunate to learn of the late Dallas Willard from my pastor. Here’s that lecture in the Divine Conspiracy series that explains my point here that unrestricted or totally free pursuit of one’s pleasure is going to lead to more wrong than right.

  12. I find this kind of thinking quite appalling – not because it encourages people to think (which is always a good thing) but because of the subtext that humans are somehow ‘different’ from animals; that we are above nature, or have mastery over it.

    Like it or not, ChinoF, humans are animals; primates. Our sexual drives and responses, regardless of hair-splitting over their ‘purpose’, are fixed. They can be modulated to a certain extent, but they cannot be denied, redirected, or excised – at least not for any length of time. You may as well tell people to stop eating or breathing.

    People have been humping since the beginning of time at approximately the same rate, and will continue to do so for evermore. Filipinos are people. The only difference between Filipinos and the rest of the world is the poisonous nonsense put into their heads by the Vatican State: that it is God’s will that they should reproduce themselves into oblivion. There are many different ways to avoid pregnancy apart from abstinence, just as it’s possible to avoid obesity by means other than fasting. Your argument makes little sense and has no practical value.

    1. But I doubt the observation can be denied; we have mental faculties that allow us to distinguish right from wrong. If we do not use it, with the faulty reasoning that “we are animals, too,” then we open the door to serious harm. The thing is, if people want sex, just to fulfill their desire, it can lead to harm, because desire doesn’t always lead to right. It very much can lead to wrong. Like when couples follow their desires and just produce children out of having sex so often and yet they can’t support their children. Why don’t they just practice self-restraint? Because Filipinos have been deceived to believe self-restraint is wrong is “slavery,” when that itself will give the best of freedom.

      Let me also quote a nice line from Dallas Willard: Reality is the first thing that hits you when you’re wrong.

      1. Human sex does resemble animal sex. It differs mainly in being expressed in a richer emotional context than those found in animals. As I said, given our emphasis on companionate marriage, sex provides one of the primary cementing factors contributing to the strength of the companionateness of the said marriage. And given that we don’t primarily penalize infertile couples for having sex because the sex they practice is non-procreative, I do not see why we should penalize fertile couples either.

      2. ChinoF: I honestly can’t see where you’re going with this. You seem to be suggesting that sex is inherently wrong, and that therefore less is better. Or, possibly, that because sex MAY lead to unwanted kids, we should stop having sex.

        Having sex, in and of itself, is not morally wrong. Nor does it “lead to serious harm”. It MAY be wrong, sometimes. It MAY lead to harm. Most of the time, it is neither wrong nor harmful.

        As for self-restraint, what level of self-restraint do you recommend? Is there some ideal level of restraint? And why is self-restraint of greater moral or social value than contraception.

        I get the impression you’re attempting to argue in favour of the Catholic position for contraception, but have no logical, moral or theological basis for doing so. If Catholics insist on using ‘natural’ contraception, that’s up to them – but surely the important point there is not self-restraint, but knowledge. I wonder how many Filipino Catholics even understand how it’s supposed to work? It’s pretty effective IF done properly – but the key word there is ‘properly’.

        1. Perhaps you are right. Knowledge seems to be missing from many people. For example, some might not even be aware that copulation is the action done when they want to have children (yes, to that extent). Some might not know that they can have pleasure without penetration.

          Why self-restraint has greater moral value, should be obvious. A person with self-restraint is likely to be more careful in other things as well as in sexual activity.

          On, and I’m arguing for a more Protestant view, not Catholic, on this issue. They will just look similar.

  13. It also occurs to me that, when supposedly religious people point at some part of God’s creation and describe it as a ‘problem’, they’re being supremely disrespectful. I also find their assumption that God basically doesn’t LIKE pleasure to be a rather odd one.

    Sure, it’s possible for people to get way too hung up on sex. Most people don’t: they get on with their daily lives, and sex – the pleasurable part of it, not the cranking-out-kids part – is an important aspect. While ChinoF might be thinking of its more sordid variants, sex for most people is a bonding experience. In no small part, it holds society together.

    I suggest ChinoF might try a thought experiment: imagine that the government were to ENFORCE his idea of celibacy. Some societies do. Would this somehow make the Philippines a better and happier country, or would it be simpler if the Pope were to simply tell his servile minions: please, guys, get a contraceptive implant already, why don’t you?

    1. The thing is, sex and cranking-out-kids are hard, maybe even impossible to separate. If that is more accepted, then certainly, a lot of misery can be more easily avoided.

      1. There’s this thing in the west. It’s a right to an abortion. That literally separates the act of sex and cranking out kids. I understand that there you have to do it yourself buy some potion sold in front of a church or go to an unlicensed massage informal settler woman who uses hangers.

        1. And, for me, if the abortion is in a stage where you could call it human – like when the brain is formed – the abortion would be murder.

        2. I really hope your partner will never get raped. And I hope you and your partner will have loads of money to spend on your big family.

        3. hmmm…. you are more open to abortion than I thought. Brain formation typically occurs three weeks after conception, that is more than enough time to decide.

          Imagine if people in the Philippines had a right to abortion three weeks after conception…how many unwanted children would not have been born.

          This would make a definite effect on the population since giving birth to even one person has a potential exponential effect on making more humans because you know humans love having sex (which can but not necessarily will result in more children).

      2. ChinoF, you’re really grasping at straws here. Sex and cranking-out-kids are completely separable. There are at least a half-dozen different ways of achieving that separation. Abortion is not necessary: contraception is easy, safe, and doesn’t require much in the way of self-restraint.

        However, contraception DOES involve modest application of brainpower – something which Filipinos seem spectacularly bad at. I find it baffling that you speak of slavery and freedom when the entire debate about contraception has been co-opted by the ghosts of long-dead colonial masters, who used religion to control the natives. Seems like it worked a little too well.

        1. I’ll just say is that trying to discourage Filipinos from self-restraint isn’t a good policy.

          And we should stop seeing religion as a tool of colonial masters for controlling the populace. Because if colonial masters are long-dead, so should that belief. Also, because religion has benefitted some believers. It is not all harmful.

      3. Well ChinoF it’s been nice talking to you about this. I respect your beliefs even though I think that it may not be the best way to handle attitudes about sex.

        I have some politicians to bribe, police to grease, need a doctor to examine my employees (dont want them to spread the aids or the clap), etc… such is the life of a pimp in Las Islas Filipinas.

        If you ever try to do some more in depth research on the subject (i.e. sex as pure pleasure) maybe I can hook you up.

        I recommend two on one action. Two girls or guys whatever your preference. Massage or no massage. Lotion, oil, hell vicks if you want. Guaranteed a stimulating time. It makes me think do you think people who engage in group sex have procreation in mind?

        Peace, and think about it six hands (two your own of course) and all the other parts you can enjoy.

  14. ChinoF,
    If sex is only for procreation then for sure it doesnt matter who I choose//pick as partner, right? As long as she has a vagina and boobs, right?
    And for her the same will apply, as long as he has a dick that is able to come up.

    Or can we be picky after all?
    Now what if it turns out that she is (I am) not my (her) match, not my (her) wished partner and by now having already 1 or 5 kids with her. Looks a bit odd and weird to me, dont you think?

    1. Looks like I’m being misquoted. I, and even Benign0, didn’t say sex is for procreation only. I said procreation tends to be the main purpose behind it. Pleasure certainly is involved. But pleasure is more of a secondary thing. If people treat that as the main thing, that does more harm than good.

      1. Dear ChinoF,
        I start to think we have a different view/definition of the word pleasure.

        Pls let me give you my definition/view on sexual pleasure.

        For me, pleasurable sex is about the climax, the orgasm in both parties. If and when my partner fails to orgasm then I will feel rotten. Rotten about myself and rotten for her. And there is no difference if sex is done not for procreation or that it is done solely for procreation. There should always be an orgasm in both parties. That is the fun and that is the pleasure.
        A sexual event without a female orgasm is like fucking a robot. So therefor I am not an animal.

        1. I’m sure animals feel orgasm too.

          Sometimes there’s no sex or no orgasm between two married partners. Sometimes, there are couples like that. So should they call it off or call it boring? No. There are couples who are in love without sex. Let them stay together. That is possible. So I wonder if you mean this couple not having any orgasm is not human – which would be ridiculous.

        2. What do you do when you are really hungry and starving and graving for food inside your belly/stomach? Will you tell yourself that giving in to that feeling is wrong? Or will you start eating responsibly?

          When both my partner and I are horny (libido) as hell then we will not inhibit our feelings and emotions. But we are not fucking like rabbits. There are weeks in a row that I am just too busy with work and all that stress. I have a lot of friends and I also like to spend some time on my hobbies. This also applies to/for my partner.

          Relationships without sex is the same as the relationships I have with my 2 sisters, platonic. I love them deerly but – god forbid – without sex (thank god).

        3. I knew someone would compare sexual desire to hunger. Let me put it this way: sometimes you feel hungry, but it’s just cravings, so sometimes, you better not eat. So the same, best not give in to every craving for sex.

          Also, I see sexual gratification as more of a want than a need. Or it happens more often that it’s a want than a want. Yes, food, when you’re hungry, you should eat, you can’t live without food. As for sex, that’s a different story.

  15. Had to repeat my post.
    Manobo, Mandaya, Bagobo, Bilaan and other IPs were the original settlers in the bigger part of Mindanao: namely, Surigao, Agusan, Davao, Bukidnon provinces. These are not Muslims, but pagans who worshipped anitos. There are parts of Sultan Kudarat, North Cotabato whose population are now mainly Christians.
    So the claim that Mindanao belonged to Moros is false, or half truth. Maybe, Sulo and other Muslim dominated areas, but the biggest part of Mindanao were settled by pagans who are not Muslims.

    1. Muslims reached Philippines in the 12th century. Obviously no Muslims can claim any parts of Mindanao. But for the sake that they reached Philippines and settled a part and parcel of lands, then give them the iota of lands but not the whole Mindanao. It’s a sheer folly to claim whole islands.

  16. I remember this scene in Dekada ’70 where Julian (Christopher de Leon) wanted to have sex with his wife Amanda (Vilma Santos). But Amanda, with the househelp, was busy doing something in the kitchen so Julian simply implied that Amanda need to go to their room because they are going to do something. Julian have to ask her twice since Amanda, not knowing what is it that he really wanted (because Julian can’t say it in front of the househelp), wanted to finish her work in the kitchen first. And on the third try Julian was almost mad that he commanded Amanda to just follow him at once. When Amanda finally got to their room and asked what it is that he really wanted, Julian said something like, “Never mind. I already lose my appetite.” Amanda answered with a smirk.

    Makes me wonder, did Julian watched or read something that aroused him that made him want to have sex with his wife? Definitely they are not in the honeymoon stage wherein couple can have sex all they want being prepared on having a child (to those couples who want it after marriage). Did Julian get excited after noticing the calendar which tells him it’s safe to copulate without the need for condom or pills, etc.? Would sex be pleasurable for Amanda when she’s not in the mood to do it? Sometimes sex for pleasure is one sided or it’s merely a gratification of physical desire.

    1. “Sometimes sex for pleasure is one sided or it’s merely a gratification of physical desire.” – Yes, I’ll agree with this, that’s one part of it. Sex for pleasure can be one-sided, because it serves such a base or shallow desire. Meaning from life isn’t gained from gratification of physical desire.

      1. ChinoF,
        what is our drive? It is our libido that drives us. And yes sex is all about orgasm, both in women and in men. Regardless of if the sex is for procreation or not for procreation.

        You probably dont care about your partner’s needs. You just put your penis inside her vagina. Then go up and down. Shoot your semen inside her and thats it.
        How much time do you need? Five minutes?

        How often do you have sex with your partner to make her pregnant? Every day of the month?
        To mnake your partner pregnant you only need to do it 1 time per menstrual cycle.

        1. I believe more in controlling libido. Of course, there are times you can give in to it, but still, it’s better to have some restraint practiced.

          And there, you described the simple way of sex that leads to “accidental” children. Pump semen into her. I believe there’s a way to achieve sexual gratification without that kind of contact. Or you didn’t catch that?

  17. Dear Mr. ChinoF,
    with your view on sex, the Phili population will only increase and increase. Wont that lead to failure and more misery in your country?
    Already at this moment the majority of the Phili population doesnt really strike me as one that excells.


    It is human nature to have is NOT HUMAN nature over 90% of new borns live! Thias is due to our modern if you want to have sex and and not raise children for every time you bust a nut..USE A DAMN CONDOM!

        1. I quite agree. Filipinos have some real messed-up thinking processes, and I guess that starts in school. Nevertheless, you seem to be arguing for one over the other. BOTH are required.

      1. Exactly. For those who want to practice natural contraception – for whatever reason – it’s actually very effective as long as you get your timing right. It’s a bit of bother, but not difficult. Unless, of course, you’re taking your instructions from a guy with a funny hat instead of doctors and scientists.

  19. Chinof sure told me. I will now only have sex with dogs and cats because the chances of them getting preggers from my seed are slim to none.

  20. @ ChinoF

    I thought the information age have already corrected all misconceptions about sex, the do’s and don’ts about it and other information as we know it today that would make the 21st century man and woman experts on this subject matter.

    Sex vs copulation is not a confusing subject.

    Imagine yourself living during the biblical times through the 18th century when personal hygiene even among the royals was not practiced. Biblical character Bathsheba, was known to bathe once a month after her menstrual period. Would you want to have sex with a woman that bathe once a month or would you just copulate with her? Copulation or coitus is plain penetration…done, you’re gone. That was the practice in the old days. Sex on the other hand is an art in itself. Performed with a certain degree of expertise and patience, you can make any woman into a whore. I rest my case.

    1. The thing is to know how to minimize the risk. One of the ways to do this is the general decision: Are you going to pursue pleasure or do you have better things to do?

      1. “Are you going to pursue pleasure or do you have better things to do?”

        As with unproductive or not regularly employed individuals, they are known to think of sex more often having nothing else to do and choosing to watch or read adult materials on their idle time. It really has something to do with what one expose himself more and where he channels his energy. Sex sells and those who are usually preoccupied with it are those who won’t transmute their sexual energy to creative forces.

        1. ChinoF,
          In lieu of your statement (abstinence or procreation only) what is your opinion about the Phili population?
          And why is it so big/large? Were all offspring wanted, was it a mistake, was it lack of knowledge, was it intentional? Are phili guys/men bullies who want to have sex per se in an unprotected way? And what about the role of phili girls/women? Has it something to do with Phili culture, Phili tradition. Or will you blame the RC church and how they indoctrinate the flock?

        2. I’ll admit, it couldn’t be explained in just one way, there are a lot of factors. Lack of knowledge, poor education, consumerism, lack of concern from our local elite, defective culture, etc. For the purpose of this article, the theme I tie in would be pursuit of pleasure without self-control. If people just care about getting what they want no matter the consequences, that’s where the problems start.

  21. That aside, this and Benigno’s earlier article is puritanism at its worst.There is nothing inherently wrong with the act itself. The problem lies in the primitive attitudes and knowledge surrounding said act. I say having more SECULAR sexual education and birth control proves to be more of a success than outright forceful abstinence. What Chino’s advocating for is akin to the American Prohibition and we all know how that ended right?

    1. “The problem lies in the primitive attitudes and knowledge surrounding said act.” I agree with this, this is actually what I’m saying. And Benign0 too. For example, believing pleasure is the main purpose of sex is what we see as the primitive attitude.

    2. Sex is pleasureable. No debate there. When we chase a girl with the aim to bang her eventually, we don’t really have making babies in mind. The motivation is the pleasure, not the result — which is where the idea that pleasure is the whole point of sex comes from.

      But in reality, the pleasure we feel from sex is a primitive brain function programmed by hundreds of millions of years of evolution. As a conscious species, we perceive the motivation to have sex as pleasure. Amongst lower life forms, the motivation is there but it remains debatable how exactly they perceive that natural motivation (if they can even perceive anything at all).

      One thing’s for sure, we share the motivation to have sex across many animal species. It is the our perception of sex that, perhaps, makes us different. For that matter, the ability to perceive an experience seems to be unique to the human species. But don’t confuse that perception with a uniqueness in terms of what motivates us to have sex.

      The whole point of sex ultimately is procreation. That’s from a biological perspective. The way our brain works to interpret that instinct to bang one another is just a quirk of our species.

      1. Benign0,
        Although I disagree with your ideas about this topic, I am wondering what your opinion is about gay men and lesbian women?

        Two gay men can at best have only anal sex and give each other a blow job (69-style). It will never result in a pregnancy nor procreation.

        Two lesbian women have nothing to insert when they have sex. All they can do is use (strap on) dildos, vibrators and maybe some other toys. This also will not lead to procreation.

        I am so open minded that I dont label those persons (gay men & lesbian women) as unnatural. At best it is unproductive but I am sure those people wont give a shit about that. So I am sure their motivation for having sex is purely about reaching mutual orgasms.

        Both (gay men and lesbian women) can eventually still visit an adoption agency and adopt a child from a poor background.

        I also happen to know heterosexual couples who do not want to have kids at all. Not because they dont like kids but kids simply doesnt fit in their agenda. And I am sure they have the best sex possible.

        What am I not gonna deny, is the fact that heterosexual sex is the only natural way that will lead to a pregnancy (when done at the right moment and when both the sperm cell and egg cell are healthy).

        In a modern society there is simply no place anymore for big large families. Today, you will only see large families still among strict religious people. With those people any form of contraception is taboo.

        Let me give you a view on my own background:
        my parents had 3 kids (my 2 sisters and me). My oldest sister has 2 daughters, my youngest sister has no kids and I am too old now to start a family. I am not too old in a technical way but its absurd to still start a family at my age. I dont see myself changing diapers and by the time I am 70, my child will be 20. I will be blind, deaf and in a wheel chair by that age. Thats not very ideal.

      2. @Robert: This really has nothing to do with open-mindedness. It’s all about Nature’s goals. Obviously homosexual sex does not produce offspring. But the fact that people who posses sexual appetites that are oriented towards people of the same gender exist means that they too are natural occurrences.

        So the question is: Why did homosexuality survive natural selection when it serves no purpose relevant to the propagation of the species?

        I can only offer theories. Perhaps it is because some individuals who carry the gay gene realise their true orientations after they have engaged enough straight sex to produce offspring who also carry that gene. There are lots of genes that may or may not manifest their traits in an organism. Some people who are carriers of genes that predispose them to cancer go through their entire lives without ever developing cancer. Perhaps it is the same with gay genes. Some people are just carriers who remain straight throughout their lives, and some carriers actually see the gene manifest itself. Or, some have genes that activate after the carrier has had a chance to engage in straight sex and produce offspring.

        Whatever circumstances modern society throws at us will not change what millions of years of evolution has programmed in our DNA. We only happen to now have the technology (and presence of mind) to mitigate the effects of the motivation, but the motivation will still be there — still a vestige of the original purpose nature intended for it.

        Our modern longevity (anything past our peak reproductive ages) seems to be just a bonus. If you think about it, once we’ve raised our kids to the point where they are able to take care of themselves, our job in the natural scheme of things is done. We’ve done our part in ensuring the next generation carriers of our DNA have a good enough chance of living to reproductive age and start the cycle over again.

  22. While benign0’s point is fairly self-evident, the observation is of no practical value. There’s also a certain underlying hubris in deciding that you know what sex is “for”. For the religiously inclined, Job 38 springs to mind:

    “Who is this that obscures my plans
    with words without knowledge?
    3 Brace yourself like a man;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me.
    4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?
    6 On what were its footings set,
    or who laid its cornerstone—
    7 while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

    Sex works the way it works. God in his wisdom made it that way. It can certainly be taken to excess, but the majority really don’t, for the simple reason that other needs and desires – staying alive, for example – compete with that drive. He knew what he was doing. He doesn’t need humans to fix it for him.

    Where it’s all gone wrong is that life has become too easy. Whereas a family of 10 kids might have had 2 of them survive to adulthood 1000 (or 100) years ago, now most of them will. Nothing wrong with that. I don’t think God intended us to suffer. But contraception is so simple I don’t understand why ChinoF is arguing for an alternative that does not and cannot work. The “just say no” brigade tried the same thing in the US and found that – surprise! – people simply cannot exercise “self-restraint”.

    Do you think people in Korea or Denmark have a replacement birthrate because they’re all celibate prudes? They’re banging away at the same rate as everyone else, safe in the knowledge that there won’t be any unwanted babies.

    1. Well, I’m not essentially against contraception. But it also has a failure rate. Using a different perspective, I would think “just say no” doesn’t have a failure rate because those people who really said “no” have nothing to worry about. It’s those who said “no,” but their real intention is “yes,” that have the failure rate.

      The problem is a culture that does not promote self-restraint, and we get Benign0’s definition of poverty. Lack of self-restraint leads to a lot of things, such as corruption. If we just give up and say, “screw self-restraint, let them do what they want, but make sure they have condoms and use it” may also not work because of this simple allusion: if they don’t listen to you when you tell them not to play with fire, will they still listen to you when tell them to use a condom? Disobedience tends to have a wide range.

      1. >> if they don’t listen to you when you tell them not to play with fire, will they still listen to you when tell them to use a condom?

        Therein lies your problem with self-restraint.

        In a way I understand where you’re coming from. Filipinos are walking ids. They want everything and they want it now. Nevermind if they don’t have the money for it, or have to pawn their house for it, or can’t feed their kids. But you need to deal with reality as you find it. Contraception (not just condoms) are are lot more reliable than abstention, simply because people cannot abstain reliably. There is ample scientific evidence that humans act first and think later, especially when matters of instinct are involved.

        I would draw a parallel with diet. For decades, the talking heads have been telling us that obesity is caused by eating too many calories, and all we have to do is exercise “self-restraint”. There has been a small but vocal minority pointing out that this is not true: the actual reason is that fat people are eating foods that cause them to desire more food – specifically, sugary, starchy products. Simply removing those foods from the environment modifies the appetite: one is no longer driven to over-eat or to ingest substances that make one fat.

        Eating, like, sex, is mostly an unconscious thing. We follow our appetites, and our appetites are modified not by effort of will, but by our environment. In the case of the Philippines’ chronic overpopulation problem, a change of environment is needed. Specifically, the Vatican needs to stop telling people it’s their duty to spawn excessive numbers of kids, and that it’s OK to experience sex for pleasure. Telling people that sexual pleasure is a sin leads them to believe they MUST produce kids when they follow their natural desires – so your argument is completely counterproductive.

        1. Nope, my argument’s not counterproductive. People’s stubbornness is counterproductive. Eating and sex being unconscious actions is a rationalization. People can be conscious about it, and better behave according to their conscious knowledge about what’s right and wrong about it.

          I’m again misquoted here. “Telling people that sexual pleasure is a sin leads them to believe they MUST produce kids when they follow their natural desires.” I never said people should have kids when having sex (penetration). I said if they have penetration, then they’d better expect a kid. If they were not expecting one, they’d better not be surprised if their expectations are dashed. Hopefully, they show the kid adequate love and not clue in their behavior that they didn’t want them. Life is not obliged to follow our expectations.

          All I said is people should be more careful or they’ll have a kid they wouldn’t have wanted as part of unintended consequences. Since you compare eating to sex, people should learn their appetites. That’s the key to better decision-making and easier living.

  23. Primitive attitude? There is nothing primitive about sex. It is a pleasurable activity and the replenishment system of mankind. It is all that and will be that way even after all of us are gone from here.

    “The whole point of sex ultimately is procreation. That’s from a biological perspective.” – benign0

    If the title on the box says: biological perspective, I’ll take it anytime.

    If on the other hand, the box says: “Sex for Sale”, I’ll also take it

    In short, sex is everything depending on where we’re looking it from.

      1. So benign0 was wrong, is that what you are telling me? I mean, this came from him:

        “The whole point of sex ultimately is procreation. That’s from a biological perspective.” – benign0

        I agree with it is because it is what sex is and had been even before we were born. In fact, that is the main reason why we’re all here in this planet.

        How can seeing sex as a source of pleasure and reason for reproduction primitive?

        1. Because you don’t need thoughts and rationality to experience pleasure and orgasm. Like I said, animals can feel that. As Benign0 said, it is perception of the pleasure as well as the act that makes us free-willed humans different. That’s why Benign0 and I are actually saying the same thing. People chase after pleasure in sex, only to find that it has a cost in reproduction. Sure, they may try “safe sex.” But my own thesis is, perhaps the safer and better policy is to hold off, or at least practice sexual activity without penetration?

        2. Practice sexual activity without penetration like? Isn’t ‘holding off’ just delaying something inevitable? Sometimes it is easy to say something we are wont to do. Don’t you agree?

          I don’t think you and benign0 are saying the same thing. You are for abstinence and him about reproduction as main point of sex. You are rooting for zero and he for repro, pardon the pun.

        3. We each have our own opinions on certain things, but we’ve got the same basic point.

          “Practice sexual activity without penetration like? Isn’t ‘holding off’ just delaying something inevitable? Sometimes it is easy to say something we are wont to do. Don’t you agree?”

          Nope. I have better imagination.

          Kidding. Well, if you can’t imagine sexual activity (with orgasm) without penetration, that’s a pretty limited imagination. LOL.

  24. You know what group of people are extremely sexually repressed? Extremist islamists…just sayin…

    See the passion of the posters above …this proves that having pleasurable sex is a basic human need…bow chikka wow wow…

    Curious to see where our Maria clara ladies (or not) weigh in on this issue?

    1. My lover’s mother had eight children by three different men (two of which left her) while she was living along the side of the railroad tracks for 20 years. Now her 17 year old daughter has just gotten impregnated by a man 10 years older than her. Of course, they blame the girl. It all seems rather hopeless.

      One time I asked her, “Why did you have so many children?” Her response was “It is none of your business.” That shut me up. I was really embarrassed. What would have you said to the lady?

      1. One time I asked her, “Why did you have so many children?” Her response was “It is none of your business.” That shut me up. I was really embarrassed. What would have you said to the lady? – Sea Bee
        That’s what I’m talkin’ about.

        I say nothing because its really none of your business! Your embarrassment is justified. You deserved it, friend.

        Which brings me to the ‘correction’ issue you engaged me about some posts earlier. Here relate that inquiry narration you have above on what I said about ‘correcting’ or if you may asking people.

        “Don’t you think “correcting people on the belief that they are deceived on what is right and wrong” won’t create a problem? I mean, to correct (or even ask) someone will require you to prove you are better than those you are correcting (asking). Either you have more on education or experience or maturity or all of them at the same time than the people you are trying to correct (ask). – jameboy

        That would be the natural impression or reaction when you make inquiries or correction that encroaches on other people’s privacy.

        Yes, the lady answered you just right. It’s none of your business.

        1. Jameboy:

          I was not criticizing her. I was simply curious. However, she took it as criticism. Her pride was hurt. I am sorry for that. I do not assume that I am better than her. I admire the woman. However, she is unable to support her family without asking her son to beg money from me to buy food for them and to pay for their electricity, water, shoes , school supplies, etc.

          I asked the same question of my own mother. She also had eight children. Her reply was that they had not planned the size of their family and since she and my father were Roman Catholics and they did not believe in using birth control; our family just grew and grew. She did not get defensive about my question, assume that I was criticizing her and her pride was not hurt. One important difference is that my father’s salary was adequate to meet our needs.

          I guess I still have a lot to learn about Pinoys. Some taboos:
          1. Do not discuss sex.
          2. Do not make suggestions because this will hurt someone’s pride.
          3. Do not discuss past choices that have been made because that will hurt someone’s pride.
          4. Do not offer any ideas because others will see this as you lording it over them and their pride will be hurt.
          5. Thoughts and ideas are meaningless, unless they come from the mouths of experts.
          6. Discussing an abstract idea on its own merits, independent from the person who thought of it, is incomprehensible to many people.

        2. That is precisely why I said this line, “don’t you think “correcting (asking) people on the belief that they are deceived on what is right and wrong” won’t create a problem?.” Now you know.

          Nope, it is not about those so-called taboos, it’s about your approach on issues and how to go about them with people. You have to be aware where you are coming from and most importantly the person must know that to avoid misinterpretation, suspicion and mistrust.

          I’m sorry but I don’t know how old you are so I’m judging your maturity or experience or whatever in the way you say and perceive things. And I can see that you really have to learn a lot of things not only about Pinoys for there is nothing exclusive about those six things you mentioned but life in general.

      2. A pimp has charm kaibigan. I would humor her first ask her how they even managed to get their dirty dirty on in such squalid conditions. What she thought about instead of you know the filth surrounding her? I would then ask her about the thrill of doing it while a train is barreling down the line. Ice broken I would then gradually ask about the baby dadies. Why she fell in love with them? Were kids planned? And how hard was it to raise them.

        I would then glance at the daughter and appraise her. Whether she could be a suitable employee at one of my establishments. Subtly ask about that. If she passes my standards then I would gradually build my sales pitch to the daughter and the mother of course (mom for consent purposes only) focusing on the lucrative nature of my business. Ending my pitch on a high note by quoting jay manalo.

        See link

      3. Like I said in an earlier comment here. Why many teen pregnancies? Trace it to the parents.

        And, that’s an example of denial of problems. I’d say, she might be reminded of her wrong decision to pursue pleasure and instead got burdens in return, so she doesn’t want to talk about it. Common attitude, I think.

  25. *****WHAT A TOPIC*****

    First Have To Say EVERYONE IS RIGHT-That Is In Their Own Right Of Opinion Based On Their Own Experience, Education and Beliefs.

    One Thing I Have Not Heard Or Read In This Topic Of Conversation(Or At Least That I Have Understood) Is RESPONSIBILITY!.

    I Think We Can All Agree That In Most Cases The Act Of SEX In It’s Many Levels, Types And Practices Are For The Two Reasons As Stated By And Argued By Everyone—IT IS A MATTER OF PERSONAL DESIRE.

    NOW RESPONSIBILITY—In It’s Deepest Aspects Can It Be Taught Through Education ?
    Can It Be Forced Through Laws ?
    Or Can It Be Accepted By The Individual That For What Ever Reason He Or She Chooses To Engage In The Act And Fulfills The Act, Then Stand Behind That Choice And Be Responsible ??

  26. ChinoF,
    I am doing my utmost to follow and trying if I can see eye to eye.
    If I am correct you advocate and promote abstinence (right?). Till when? What is the best moment to stop abstinence and go full throttle? Does it have something to do with age, with status (being married), with knowing what the consequences are, knowing when to have sex which will lead to a 100% pregnancy, something to do with the height of income, something to do with the level of education both parties have/had?
    And after the first time, when can we have sex for the 2nd time?

    I get the idea that we can only have sex as often as many kids are produced. In short, when we decide to have just 2 kids, we are only allowed to have sex twice in all our entire life span. You must agree to this, because a third time will then only be for pleausure (simultaneous orgasm in both parties).

    1. Well, I don’t feel the need for us to see eye to eye on this. I just stated my opinion, hopefully more people pick up and practice, but if not, so fine. tough luck. If you really hate what you see here, you may just choose to ignore it. There will be people who agree with you, there will be people who agree with me.

      I don’t promote abstinence per se, it’s fine for me if people practice it, it’s fine if they don’t, I’m just trying to relate cause and effect here.

      1. I think Robert is right, ChinoF. You haven’t really thought through the practical implications of what you’re saying.

        His questions are quite reasonable and deserve a proper answer if you want to defend your position.

        1. OK, so if you want me to answer Robert’s questions, I already said, it’s not abstinence per se, but being careful, in more ways than “safe sex.” All those things Robert said may be taken into consideration, but consequences would be the biggest thing to look at. Going full throttle when you’re ready to take the consequences and expect a kid, well, yes, maybe that. After the first time, 2nd time doesn’t matter, as long as you are ready for the consequences of your actions.

          “I get the idea that we can only have sex as often as many kids are produced.” If you see sex for pleasure as only penetration, and don’t see any other method, yes. OK, you want to use contraceptives and condoms, fine, but a person can get careless, and voila, a kid. The couple can choose to raise the child, but abortion is best avoided, as it would more likely be murdering life once it’s formed. Perhaps we could raise the ante. Once conception has happened, it’s a human being. Don’t kill.

          So when I say, couples can have sexual activity like mutual masturbation without penetration, is that abstinence?

          As someone else said here, responsibility is needed in sex, and Benign0 and I imply that if people are more careful, they can avoid creating unnecessariy burdens to be responsible for. If seeing sex as mainly reproductive than pleasure may impress on the person more responsibility, so they may be more careful, then that. Because for us, the main cause of poverty and overpopulation is people’s wrong attitudes.

  27. ChinoF,
    I am wondering and puzzled over and over about both your and Benign0’s blog about the same topic/issue.

    I dont know if there has ever been a woman in your life who you loved so immensely or that at present there is such a woman in your life. If so then I am wondering how you show your love to her.
    Will you say “I love you” every day to her; will you bring her flowers every friday; you hug her every day; you kiss her on her cheeks every day; you do the dishes every day; you cook every day; you clean the house every day; you raise the kids (if any)?
    I also wonder who takes the initiative saying its about time to procreate again? Is that you, her or both at the same time independent from each other?
    Pls shine some light because I am really lost here. I am just curious how the two of you interact together. Ah come on, dont say its private & personal and dont say its none of my business bec in your blog you made quite some assumptions about whats bad and wrong.
    It seems there is no intimacy, no passion, no fire (electricity) in your love life.

    1. No woman in my life right now, so I don’t think I can answer your question about loving a woman. But the initiative to procreate is surely something the couple talks about. They should agree on it, not one person only having the say. Well, that’s the better thing, I assume. I mean, if one partner goes one way, the other partner goes the other, that’ll be a big mess, wouldn’t it?

      I think you may not be able to understand our points if your foundation is different. If you insist that procreation should be a secondary purpose of sex and pleasure should be first, most likely you won’t agree with our thesis that this is more of a pitfall. A couple may be more likely to make a mistake and have a child if they believe it. You might call someone like that stupid for doing it wrong, but we might call them stupid for believing it wrong. On the aspect of “intimacy, passion, and fire,” perhaps others’ meanings of these may be different from yours. If one man’s crap is another man’s perfume, it may apply to sex.

      1. No woman in my life right now, so I don’t think I can answer your question about loving a woman.
        That could be the reason why it is easy for you to say “no”.

        ChinoF, you can never ‘coach’ basketball if you do not know how to play it.

        How come you want to “correct” people on something (partner) you don’t even have at the moment? I’m even starting to think that you are still a virgin!

        If that is the case, God forbid, this article was written out of hypocrisy!

        1. There are other people who are married and have experienced love who say the same things I do, so that will not be hypocrisy. Even if I’m a virgin, my points are not invalid.

        2. No woman in my life right now, so I don’t think I can answer your question about loving a woman. – ChinoF
          If you cannot answer because you don’t have a woman why raise a question to others who have women/men as sex partner!

          Why criticize others on something you don’t have in the first place? Why are you ‘correcting’ others when you cannot even answer he same question they were answering?

          Based on your own admission, how can you preach about love and sex when you don’t even know it?

        3. Like I said, there are people with sex partners who would say what I say. Perhaps I could even quote sites that promote “contraception” that also admit that it’s difficult to discuss “safe sex” without a concept of “abstinence.” Or at least traditional values. Also, as I suspected, abstinence means different things to different people. Better if “safe sex” and traditional values were taught at the same time.

          Also, I didn’t know “abstinence vs. safe sex” was heavily politicized. I guess that’s the source or why some people treat it like climate change or other moot points.

      2. ChinoF,
        you are saying that – at present – there is no woman in your life. And then I have to assume that there never was a woman in your life so far that you ever loved (except of course your mom, your sisters, your aunt, and your grandmom).

        But I am sure you have a vision, an idea about how it should/could be when there will be a woman in your life. By now, you watched your own parents and saw (and see) how they interact with each other; when you visit friends, you see how their parents interact with each other. Plus you are the only person who knows your own personality; who knows your own principles. So you must be able to tell yourself what you think is right and wrong about how to interact and how to show love to your (future) spouse.

        Because you can tell us in your blog how we should interact when it comes to sex. You are able to tell us (without any experience) what is good and what is wrong and bad about sex.

        You sound like a priest preaching to us that (a big) family is the only right and good moral thing to do. But a priest has no experience whatsoever. What does a priest know about love?

        So, excuse me, ChinoF, but I cant take your Blog serious and not for real. You are contradicting yourself. You can preach about sex, but you have no idea about how to interact. You are teaching us about the end-game of a relationship but you cant teach us about probably the most important part of a relationship: how to interact.

        When a person plays with matches, prepare yourself you might get burnt.

        1. I don’t see myself as a priest, but more like a protestant minister, in a way. They preach the same thing, but they’re married and have kids.

          “When a person plays with matches, prepare yourself you might get burnt.” – Exactly what Benign0 and I are trying to say. If one believes sex is more for pleasure, they might throw away all other notions that it can lead to children and thus treat it like playing with matches. So if people approach sex with the view that it is making children is a part of it, they may avoid the pitfalls – even if they were seeking pleasure in the first place.

          Although, there might be Filipinos who will say, “what the hell! It’s my RIGHT to play with matched and get burned when I want to!” Bummer, it is.

        2. ChinoF,
          when I have sex either with the intentions to make kids or just only for fun, I will always get an orgasm (milli seconds before I will ejaculate). Pls tell me how to avoid the orgasm and I will try.
          For most women its different. They really have to “work” hard (well most of them anyway) to reach an orgasm. This is why most of us will start with “foreplay”.
          And you can believe me that achieving/reaching an orgasm simultaneously (the female and male at the same time) feels really like heaven.

          Most women are only able to achieve a clitoral orgasm, the minority is able to reach a vaginal orgasm.
          To get to that point (orgasm) is really a HIGH.
          You as man are even able to feel her orgasm and you can even see it. All muscles will contract. When you and your partner get to that point, it really is like melting together. Isnt that beautiful?
          Why do you want a woman deny her own orgasm?
          Is sex for you just a chore; a routine that needs to be done in a quick, fast fashion? (wam bam, thank you ma’am).

          Dammit, I know that sex CAN lead to a pregnancy. But I like to plan a pregnancy at all times. Having sex with only the intend to have an orgasm bears no wrong and no bad in it. It will at least lead NOT to an unwanted, untimely, unplanned pregnancy.
          Sex is good and sex is beautiful. Let me re-phrase that:
          Making love is good and making love is beautiful (BTW: you notice that we say “making love” and not “making babies”?).

          In most western societies we always use contraceptives during sex till the moment both parties decide that the next encounter is focused on getting pregnant.
          That decision is made based on circumstances that are ideal and perfect. And that is why most modern western societies are NOT overpopulated.

          So you tell me which version is better? Yours or ours?

        3. Nothing wrong with orgasm. There are ways to have orgasm without penetration, I would maintain. But I suppose you are right. Sex is beautiful… except when abused, and when there is no responsibility. That’s the whole point.

        4. “orgasm without penetration”?
          You are advocating auto-masturbation and oral sex? Fine with me. I always do the latter with my partner.

  28. My article is not even aimed at gays. It’s so obvious only heterosexuals create children when they come together. – ChinoF

    Not pleasure itself, but the desire for pleasure leads to problems. ChinoF
    The inconsistency above is very clear. If the “desire for pleasure leads to problems”, how come this article only aims against heterosexuals and not gays?

    Aren’t both groups feels the same desire for pleasure?

    What is the difference between the two if any?

      1. So, it is ‘bearing children’ that creates problem and not the “desire for pleasure”.

        Since only heterosexuals can bear children, they are the problem. And gays don’t create problems because they can’t bear children?

        So that was the logic of your article is all about? Gays are problem-free? Really, ChinoF?

        All this time, you camouflage your reason for telling people to say “no”; that they have other better things to do than engage in sex only to admit that you your self don’t have nobody to say “no” to for sex?

        And worse, you want to correct people about sex while admitting you are a virgin?!!!

        I rest my case.

        1. Gays don’t have this problem of bearing children by “stupidity.” Clearly it is heterosexuals who have this issue. If gays slip, they won’t have an “accidental” child to support. But yes, they have their own problems.

          Do virgins really have no right to comment about sex? Or perhaps they have the right because they have avoided making a mistake?

          There’s still a valid point is saying unchecked desire for pleasure is the germ of many mistakes. If you want, don’t take it from me. Take it from others with a similar message.

        2. ChinoF (and all others),
          pls dont be naive about thinking that STDs and AIDS/HIV is only a gay decease. There are many heterosexual guys/men and heterosexual girls/women that have STDs and AIDS/HIV. Pls wake up and dont be naive, stupid & ignorant.

        3. Robert, my pastor told me that while AIDs is not a purely gay disease, it was first discovered among the gay sector. But wait, where did I say AIDS is only a gay disease? And yes, many women have those diseases – all the more reason to be more careful. All the more reason to question motive than just the methods the couple use during sexual activity. Hence what Benign0 wrote. It basically says, “don’t forget, sex is also for making babies, mainly for that, so be careful” or something like that. But in this recent topic, you can add, “be careful, in your search for pleasure, you may end up getting an STD.” Like our favorite presidential sister.

  29. eh don’t feel bad it’s like what I’ve been telling my politician friends (please take less bribe money) about the oldest profession…it just will not go way because you cannot legislate morality. People in this Catholic nation of ours (with a real deep Madonna whore complex) will continue to seek paid sexual pleasure.

    same logic applies here…. ultimately you can’t legislate bedroom morality and seek to limit people of their perceived right to sexual pleasure… you would be fighting a losing battle…might as well get real and promote and demistify contraceptives and have some limited abortion rights.

    1. I’m not looking for legislation. I’m just offering a way of thinking that may help avoid problems here. But if you apply that logic, you can’t legislate bedroom morality, to something else, you could say even the RH Law will not be effective. Its purpose is to expect a change of behavior in people in their sex habits. But “you can’t legislate bedroom morality,” is based on “you can’t change people’s behavior with laws,” as thus I apply that to the RH Law, too.

      1. so this article is just a suggestion/gentle reminder that sex causes babies and that because of that we should just have sex
        only if we are sure that we can support the resulting child? yeah pretty sure people won’t follow that without fear of “real” penalty (that legislation would provide). theoretically it could work but in the real world (where every male is just hard wired to get it on) it likely will not.

        I see your point player people don’t realize that freedom is not all about doing what they want but being responsible in choosing what we do with that freedom.

        Here though there is a real way of having your cake and eating it. as I and others have noted there are ways to divorce the sex act from making babies (pills, abortion).

        Maybe a compromise is in order? maybe we can work both on people’s attitude and give them access to contraceptives and abortion just in case they stray from the straight and narrow? (Things I ponder while sitting with my babies).

        1. A compromise is fine. At least you get my point. It would be foolhardy to just throw condoms and contraceptives without any instruction or teaching of values to teens.

  30. Chino,
    as we speak, I am re-reading your blog/article again.

    What I want to do now, is trying to clear up some misunderstandings. At least from my side.

    Paragraph 1:
    “Believing that sex is mainly for pleasure is the start of many problems.”

    My definition of fun & pleasure is: reaching simultaneous orgasms (so both hers and mine).
    Simultaneous orgasm can be reached/achieved when both parties use contraceptives.
    But no matter what: the orgasm is the fun and the pleasure, and nothing else. The orgasm is what it is all about. This is so intense, goes so deep. But this is something you just cant fanthom yet bec you are lacking experience. Believe me, I wished you experienced your own orgasm as well as the orgasm of your partner. Nothing beats an orgasm. Nothing!!!!

    Pls always tell the audience what you mean by “problems”, pls specify them and tell the audience why it is a problem.

    Paragraph 2
    “So, when Filipinos get together for fun, they “accidentally” have a child, that they soon find themselves in massive debt and scrambling all over the place for support.”

    We all can still have “fun”, as long as we do it way outside the ovulation window. This mean we can have fun for about 25 days of a menstrual cycle; and 5 days we have to use contraceptives.

    NB: ovulation itself is a process that lasts about 12 hours. But the sperm cells inside the vagina can stay alive for approx 5 days. Hence the 5 day NO unprotected sex window.

    Example: A woman’s ovulation starts Friday 27 february 2015 at – lets say – 3AM.
    When a guy and that woman have unprotected sex Sunday 22 february 2015 at – lets say – 3PM then those sperm celss can make the woman pregnant. Even more so when those 2 people do it after sunday.

    Paragraph 3
    “People insist on copulation, saying it’s their “right,” despite the consequences.”
    Either use contraceptives or have sex not later than 5 days before the start of her ovulation.

    Paragraph 4
    what seperates us – humans – from animals – is that we have knowledge and we can actively search for more information when needed (see all the remarks made above by me).

    Paragraph 5
    TV was never my medium as THE source of information, especially when it comes to sex and procreation. I prefer the medical journals as THE source for correct and current information.

    I think that both your and Benign0’s definition of ‘sex for fun’ equals (comes close to) what we call a “one night stand”. But believe me, one night stands are done with contraceptives. Nobody wants to get gonnorhea or chlamydia. Although STD’s are very good treatable and curable.

    Finally, yes, making love is the only natural way to procreate. But I am sure that most of my fellow dutch men and dutch woman have sex for the reason NOT to get get pregnant and thus using contraceptives. Yes, even when such a couple is married. When having 3 (or 1 or 2) kids already, the sex doesnt stop. But they both decided already that 3 is enough (or 1 or 2 kids).

    Sex is not only for procreation; its also the only way to be intimate, romantic, passionate with each other and play with each other’s naked body.

    Sex has 2 functions for me: to procreate and also to be intimate and passionate with the one I love. And the latter part (the intimate & passionate moments) never leads to a pregnancy.
    But when I will procreate, it will look no different than when I have intimate and passionate sex with my partner. It will NOT be a 10 minute task.

      1. Wahaha. When I think of the Netherlands now, I recall Human Centipede. The Dutch Maid and Windmills faded from memory.

        To reiterate, my basic point is that humans should not do or get just anything they want. Freedom is not absolute, and no one deserves the fulfillment of their desires as they please. Like pleasure from sex; they can’t just get it all the time. There are the times it leads to consequences; like what Robert said, play with fire, your risk of getting burned is strong. Sometimes, it’s not you getting burned, but others. Thus, people need to be responsible, and know when it is better to not do something.

        1. O/T:
          You know what I hate so much? Ask a foreign tourist what he/she knows about the Netherlands and most of the times you get all the cliches.
          Wind mills, wooden shoes, tulips, red light district, legal soft drugs and coffee shops (but not really for coffee).

          What freedom really is about, is that when chances and opportunities arises that you should grab them and not let them pass by. And that there are no lawsand no culture that that will obstruct those opportunities nor will obstruct your chance to grab them.
          And if a person obstructs your path then you are allowed to “kill” (not literally of course) that person. Because no person has the right to block, hinder or obstruct you and your future.
          So always aim high and aim for the best.

          Success is a choice. Failure is not an option.

        2. Well, I don’t know. People have the right to obstruct another from doing certain wrongs, like murdering someone. Not all opportunities are worth taking. Well, let’s just agree to disagree on certain points.

        3. If I am not mistaken Benign0 once mentioned in a blog the term “crab mentality”. Thats what I meant here with obstructing.
          Every window of opportunities to improve, to progress or to evolve should always be taken, no matter what. Otherwise, one is accepting mediocrity as the only standard.

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.