Why The Iwa Moto "Rampage" Is Noteworthy

Not being a follower of local showbiz, I only know of the name Iwa Moto because I still go to book stores (something of a dying breed?) and I remember seeing this particular "entertainer" on the cover of a "men's magazine" practically wearing nothing. The thought bubble I had at the time was, if you added some letters and spaces, her name would read as Iwanan Mo To (leave this body/person).

Leaving nothing for imagination. Nothing at all.

(Courtesy of eligio.com/FHM)

Her name is now trending over Twitter because of a supposed "war" with another local actress, Jodi Sta. Maria (who I know as a milk commercial actress, not being particularly knowledgeable about her filmography). Arthur also posted a news link about the topic on his Facebook Wall - if news outfits consider this newsworthy, we are in deep doo-doo - and I find pop culture fascinating so I decided to read what coverage there is about the feud.

After reading through a lot of "news", this "battle" is noteworthy (as opposed to being newsworthy) from a pop culture perspective because of the insights it provides about media consumers and as an inkblot of what we now consider as acceptable.

1. Convolutions of the telenovela type will sell.

This is how the plotlines of local drama series known as telenovelas get their mileage: the mother of the main character happens to be the best friend of the daughter of the man who raped the main character, and is now in love with the man's estranged son, who also happens to be the son of her own mother from a dalliance she had with the man who raped the main character.

Get it?

While I don't, here's how I understand the Iwa thing.

Iwa and Jodi aren't friends or talk to each other. Iwa used to have a boyfriend, a father named Mickey. Jodi used to be married to Pampi Lacson, with whom they have a son Thirdy. (I remember the name of the kid from the milk commercial.) Iwa claims that Jodi had an affair with her then boyfriend Mickey while she was already married to Pampi, and while Mickey admitted the affair, Jodi denied it. Fast forward to last week, when Iwa posted a picture of herself with Pampi and Thirdy, and then gets accused of being a "homewrecker", so Iwa comes out to say that she was in no way the cause of the separation of Jodi and Pampi, that she loves taking care of Thirdy, and she has the truth on her side while she makes kwento about Jodi's past affair, and why Jodi can't supposedly sue her for libel while she is free to sell her side of the story.

Get it?

2. Politics and Showbiz are partners.

While I have not heard of Pampi as a candidate for anything, his last name is certainly a bell-ringer: his father is Sen. Panfilo Lacson, one of the more well-known senators of the country, who was recently MIA because of certain, uh, things, but has now resurfaced, and also recently, a judge in Corona's impeachment trial.

Iwa (someone invested in local showbiz tells me) got her break from some reality contest talent search, took on some bit roles, resorted to skimpy clothing when her career wasn't really going anywhere, and is now moving to another station, so the timing of her "pasabog" is seen as an attention-getter to announce her change of employment address.

These two getting together is really part of a long line of couples who have come from each of the respective worlds of politics and showbiz.

3. Legal separation is not a requirement.

So you have a kid. So you're still legally married. So what? No one can stop the crackling flames of passion that singes and burns, at least not according to the gospel of the Book of Iwa.

Apparently, this is how people read a separation. I personally know of at least 10 women who are seeing men still legally married to their wives, or are themselves still legally married to their husbands, who are dating other people because hiwalay naman na kami, eh. (We are already separated)

Does a marriage contract mean absolutely NOTHING? When I hear about these Iwa-like situations, it makes me laugh to hear homophobes accusing gay people of trying to ruin the "sanctity of marriage" who just want the right to marry. What sanctity?!? You're not even legally separated or annulled - and with kids yet! - but you jump to the next man/woman/bed and can't keep it in your pants until the annulment is final!

And you even flaunt it in our faces...Kesyo it's true love. It's real this time. You just know when it feels right. They have long been separated in heart and mind, it's just too expensive to have the annulment. And so on and so forth.

It doesn't change the fact that you're carrying on with someone else's husband or wife.

If any lawyers can send inputs here, please do.

4. The Rise Of The Mistress

Time was when you spoke of mistresses in hushed tones. Time was when it was considered "shameful" that you had a part to play in breaking up someone's marriage - or preventing a broken marriage from healing because of your presence. I'm not speaking from a religious perspective, but from a point of decency and allowing legally married people a chance to get their act together, seek therapy if needed, and to legally call it an end if all avenues have been exhausted.

That time is no more.

Mistresses today actually flaunt how much bags, shoes, or property their "partners" have bought them as opposed to the pittance he spends on their actual wives. They are seen in photo-ops with their politically powerful partners. They are the ones who take the children from the legal marriage to school.

If you are carrying on with someone who is not legally separated, then that makes you a mistress, period. (And in case you're thinking I'm being sexist by harping on the woman and not on the man, my reason is simple: the guy doesn't flaunt it - usually - but the woman, like in this instance, Iwa, tries to paint it as a "good thing" and verbally and vocally parades this perception of hers.)

5. Carry Yourself. Well.

Throughout this brouhaha, I have not heard a single peep out of Jodi. And frankly, that makes the perception of the long-suffering legal wife even more potent.

Iwa has gone on this media blitz, challenging Jodi to file a libel case against her for supposedly revealing things in the (sordid) past. It is on this premise - that she holds the truth - that Iwa stands by her actions, that she is now having her "revenge" because Jodi allegedly carried on with her then-boyfriend.

One of her statements regarding Jodi was: Pwede kita idikdik pababa.

Okay...

I don't know if Iwa is saying the truth (I'm so glad I'm not a judge who has to determine the veracity of everyone's statements), but it doesn't make her actions of airing dirty laundry less tacky or unseemly. Particularly since a minor is involved in all of this.

Isn't there some kind of legal provision that protects the child in situations like this?

Like an inkblot, the Iwa "thing" reveals where we are now.

It's depressing, to say the least.