Fast forward to the amendment proposed yesterday by Sen. Sotto, about removing the phrase "safe and satisfying sex". He made the case about how our culture is supposedly "unique" and that we are largely "conservative".
(See http://www.rappler.com/nation/18112-senators-approve-rh-bill-on-final-reading for more of the senator's statements.)
Sotto, a known opponent of the RH Bill, was an entertainer long before he entered politics. In fact, he still hosts the noontime show Eat Bulaga (I imagine on an irregular basis if he is supposed to be a legislator - something I've tackled in previous posts, government service being a full time job and not a "hobby") so I find it curious that this picture is now circulating over Facebook, a shot of what transpires in the said show.
Are we redefining "conservative"?
(Courtesy of the Facebook photo/page of Keisi Casey)
Juxtaposed after Sotto's claims that we have a "conservative" culture, it becomes laughable because his continued presence in this show lends it an air of acceptability - and his tacit approval - as far as his moral code is concerned, akin to having an animal rights activist going to a show honoring the best fur designers.
If he is such a "conservative" advocate, why isn't he railing against Viagra?
Why doesn't he propose laws that would close down all girly bars in the country?
Why doesn't he propose laws that would ban skimpy clothing on dancers in local shows?
And yet, the first sign that women can express that they are not satisfied with sex sends him into a tailspin and twists his boxers - or briefs - into such knots that he wants to make amendments banning that very phrase.
Which shouldn't be surprising because he is against a bill that would allow anyone, especially the poor and women, to have correct, factual and scientific knowledge regarding reproductive health as well as the means to access them, empowering women to decide regarding their own bodies, mindful of their economic status and their religious convictions.
Tying these two men together - the politician/lawyer complaining about men in skimpy underwear ads as well as Sen. Sotto calling our culture "conservative" - is a mysogynistic streak. One that is silent when women are objectified, made to dress in almost nothing and gyrating for "entertainment".
A deafening silence when the pleasures of (straight) men, in the form of bars and lingerie ads and other such "delights", are questioned.
And all of a sudden becoming shrill - something I imagine they would lovingly label the women who complain in any way - whenever men are forced to respect a woman's decision and choice, or when men are being objectified the way women have been treated for centuries by a culture that has largely been dictated upon by (straight) men.
They are okay if women parade in their panties on national TV, in billboards, and have no say regarding their own bodies and reproductive health, but heaven forbid there be men in almost nothing on print ads or if women can be on equal footing with men in making decisions.
Do they really hate women that much?