It’s about sex?

“Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty experiences go, it’s one of the best.” – Woody Allen

    Archbishop Oscar Cruz wrote an editorial arguing that the Reproductive Health Bill is a misnomer and that it should be renamed Sex Bill 4244. Because all he could see in the bill was sex, sex, and more sex. Or as he puts it, “Take away the dear trimmings and endearing niceties from the Bill and this is its fundamental tripod: Sex. Safe Sex. Sexual Methods.”

    Well, yes Archbishop, if you put it that way, the RH Bill is indeed about sex. But there’s really nothing wrong with sex…unless you find sex filthy.

    The archbishop is not condemning sex. He knows that to do so would be anti-life. No sex, no new life. Besides someone who crusades against sex might be mistaken for an advocate of cloning.

    What the archbishop does not like is sex without fear or worry.

    “The Bill promotes promiscuity. It guarantees copulative delight without fear or worry. No attention to their consequences. No concern for human dignity. It invites sexual consummate actions with others not his or her spouse. It induces “lovers” to premarital relationships. It draws young people to sexual acts. Reason: No problem. No conception.”

    The archbishop forgot married couples. He forgot to say whether it was okay or not okay for them to enjoy conjugal sex without fear or worry. But I assume the archbishop will rant at couples that delight in carefree marital sex because he believes that sex is best served with a generous sprinkling of fear and worry.

    He added, “The Bill encourages insensibility. Simply enjoy sex with anybody at anytime, in any way and at any place. The good manners and right conduct about human sexuality are irrelevant. The good or evil of sexual acts is nonsense. The propriety or inequity of sexual encounters is immaterial. The supreme law of life is sexual delight. Sexual deviates are likewise a non-issue.”

    Mutual consent will address the archbishop’s concern about the inequity of sexual encounters. As to sexual deviates, I agree it is an issue if the archbishop is referring to pedophiles, zoophiles, and necrophiliacs. Because mutual consent is absent with corpses and animals. And kids, well, that’s why the RH Bill has a provision on Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education. So that kids will know why they have to say “no” and when to say it. But if the archbishop is talking about sex between consenting adult homosexuals then it should be a non-issue because homosexuals are also God’s children.

    Finally, “The Bill inspires amorality. Just enjoy sex. Simply ensure safe sex. Try any and all sex methods that give the greatest sexual pleasure. Ethics? What is that? Morals? So what? Sexual amorality promotes addiction to sex. And sexual addiction is a real family malediction, a special empirical social curse.”

    God meant sex to be enjoyed so that the human race would have lots of it. But why did He make childbirth painful, was it to punish a woman for having sex or was it a less than subtle message telling her to take precautions the next time around?

    I’m at a loss over the phrase “sexual amorality promotes addiction to sex.” How many sex addicts do you know? Not many, I’m sure. And that’s because not everybody can be a sex addict. One has to have the looks, the personality, and the means to become a successful sex addict. Without any of those requisites, one can only fantasize about becoming a sex addict… unless the archbishop is referring to someone addicted to masturbation. If that’s what he is talking about, then there could be other factors involved in that addiction besides amorality.

    I’m worried about my favorite prelate. He is obsessed with sex. He thinks giving married couples the freedom to choose the family planning method that suits them best is about sex. He thinks making contraceptives available to the poor is about sex. He thinks educating children about the right values on sex and relationships will turn them into sex fiends. Sex. Sex. Sex. Filthy sex.

    The RH Bill is not about filthy sex, Archbishop. It is about dignity and human rights.

Manuel Buencamino

Buencamino was a weekly columnist for Today and Business Mirror. He has also written articles in other publications like Malaya, Newsbreak, "Yellow Pad" in Business World, and "Talk of the Town" in the Inquirer. He is currently with Interaksyon, the news site of TV5. MB blogged for Filipino Voices, blogs for ProPinoy and maintains a blog, Uniffors.com. Game-changers for him, as far as music goes, are Monk, Miles, Jimi, and Santana.

  • UP nn grad

    Mister Manuel Buencamino : You may need to sit down before you read the next sentence.

    Good job, dude!

    • Manuel Buencamino

      thanks cowboy!

  • What the dear Archbishop cannot (and will not) say out loud is that he thinks sex is filthy. I pity him.

    • Bert

      Hindi naman, Prudence. I agree the the good archbishop does not feel highly of sex, the reason perhaps why he chose to be a priest and just venting up his private frustration against it. Well, he’s entitled to his opinion. He’s using the RH Bill to relieve his pent-up rage, is all.