Documentary from a Christian / secular point of view recognize and somewhat admire the success of the propagation of Islam. Not by evangelization or conquest, but via birth rates, higher fertility rates. And who to thank for the Islamic success? Islamic women! Yes, Islamic women have baby making power. Islamic women practice both monogamy and polygamy. Islamic women are less contraceptive. And it seems Islamic women are more family oriented. Success, success, success!

This is a wake up call to Christians or those who think they are Christian. These Christians can only think about evangelizing to others, but they cannot even shepherd their own flock. Christian / post christian / secular women make far less babies. Christian baby making systems suck, inferior. Christian women mostly suck at baby making. That is the wake up call.

Seems Islamic women are happier? Islamic family system makes for happier women? Islamic diets are more nutritious? Islamic women have more resolve to make more babies and raise more babies? Islamic women have better… higher quality sex? Or is it that Islamic women do not believe in the kind of sexual promiscuity being promoted in Christian / post Christian / secular societies? Maybe Islamic women are treated BETTER? Islamic women are happier?

Call to action? Make more babies. Contraception and promiscuity don’t work and only serve to obliterate families.

So, is it time to say, if you can’t beat em, join em?

Stop hating the Muslim women and admire them and point out what seems to be working for them. Maybe if your culture adopted some key aspects of Muslim women, you can still save your own culture.

Where are the women’s groups in this case? There should be a global uproar! Prove to us you women’s groups are not just another arm of the depopulation agenda.

A brave news reporter slipped unnoticed into a Chinese hospital to speak with a “detained” woman who was eight months pregnant. Her crime? Being pregnant and already having a child. Later, the reporter interviewed the woman’s husband who was waiting outside in a car. So terrified of retribution, the pregnant woman consented to being filmed only if her face wasn’t shown.

Dear Friends for Life, this week I share with you an email from Bradley Mattes concerning China’s one-child policy:

Dear Fr. Novotny,

The timing of this just-released news story is ironic. I recently taped a TV episode in Washington, DC on forced abortion in China. One of my guests, Reggie Littlejohn, is an attorney seeking asylum for the victims of China’s brutal one-child policy. She sent me a link to this 2-minute video. Please take a moment to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmfBA6KhAfg

A brave news reporter slipped unnoticed into a Chinese hospital to speak with a “detained” woman who was eight months pregnant. Her crime? Being pregnant and already having a child. Later, the reporter interviewed the woman’s husband who was waiting outside in a car. So terrified of retribution, the pregnant woman consented to being filmed only if her face wasn’t shown.

The video shows her with huge bruises on her arm. Her husband described what happened when she was captured. “They held her arms behind her back, pushed her head against the door, kicked her stomach.” The footage shows the jail cell where she was held as they killed her near-term unborn baby by lethal injection.

China’s trying to give the impression that they’ve eased up on their cruel one-child policy. This video is compelling evidence that’s not true. Thousands of women are literally being dragged into abortion mills, strapped down and forced to endure the horrors of an unwanted, late-term abortion – babies they desperately love and want. Forced sterilizations are also part of the ugly process. By its own admission, the Chinese Communist Party has reported killing more than 13 million babies each year – more than 35,000 abortions a day.

This woman’s fate isn’t unusual or rare. It was done in one of China’s most modern cities. Fines for having an unauthorized pregnancy can result in 10 times a person’s annual salary and most can’t afford to save their babies’ lives by paying them.

Just imagine how many women fall prey to China’s cruel population program. You can help protect them by sharing this news with others and speaking out against such horrors.

Sincerely for the women and their babies,
Bradley Mattes. [Executive Director, Life Issues Institute]

God Bless,
Jerry Novotny, OMI

I received this from the life issues mailing list and just had to pass it on to all of you.

Here is another abuse case and enslavement testimonial. IUDs are harmful – not safe, Tubal ligation is harmful – not safe.

Today’s 21st century urban world is littered with reproductive incompetence. Contraceptive cultures, polluted environments, cooked foods and following the wrong food pyramid, pharma drugs and clueless doctors. Everything is conspiring to stop you from reproducing. Sometimes, many times a spouse is reproductively incompetent, some times I see the competent spouse merely a sheep bowing its head following the reproductive incompetence of the other.

So your spouse cannot have any more babies… but you can. Do something about it. Get a sperm donation. Get another wife. Get another woman to agree to give you and your wife a baby using your sperm. The possibilities are there… just stick to being pronatal – pro-your family – pro-your-bloodline… and you can see the obvious solution.

So I hear the standard lecture that aren’t you happy with the x number of children you’ve got already? And the answer is NO. Because we all have our hopes and dreams. Just because one partner is incompetent does not mean he or she should shatter YOUR pronatal dreams.

Life is about making more life, living life, giving life to newborns, raising new life on and on and on. We are pronatal. We just want to live.

The depopulation agenda has been successful in brainwashing most people of the world today. Not only are people poor materially, but also physically and mentally. Women today are reluctant to give birth and raise children themselves for many reasons.

When selecting a woman for a mate, companion, wife, it is very important to not lose track of our primary objective in life, which is to make more life. Sure a woman of your liking may seem very pretty, but beauty is useless and pointless if she is unwilling to bear your children.

The problem is males still run on pure instinct. Young males look for the prettiest thing. In the old days, the prettiest thing also engaged in reproductive sex which led to children and the raising of children. Nowadays many women are taught to engage in contraceptive sex with abortion as a backup. Women are taught that raising one’s own children is pathetic so they strive to work at anything other than raising their own children. Leave children to be raised by professional strangers paid to raise children.

Then there is the problem of rampant un-health. As people have degenerated through the generations due to bad habits, bad food, knowing all the bad health practices as dictated by commercial television, radio and magazines. Their capabilities to bear children are extremely diminished. Many are infertile, many cannot bring a pregnancy to term.

Choosing a woman these days is a very delicate thing. You must make clear your objectives. You have the health, the wealth and the will to make children and your choice of women must meet your wishes. Birds of the same feather flock together. Seek the right woman and you will find her.

I have total disrespect for the opinion of Bishop Oscar Cruz regarding his opinion that minimum marriage age must be increased from 18 to 24 years old.

Hey.  If the Church cannot educate its members about marriage and sexuality, upping the marriage age to ridiculous ages will not save marriage.  Why stop at 24?  Why not 30?  How about 35?  Geeezzzz….

Bishop Cruz is shooting from the hip, or he is blinded or coerced by the Population controllers who would like nothing more than raise the marrying age.

News for you Bishop Oscar Cruz:  18 to 24 is the PRIME reproductive years of human beings.  No man made laws will change that.  18-24 is nature’s laws.

What you should do:  Pre-teens must be educated and convinced that they aspire for marriage, family and baby making beginning age 18.  The well taught men and women are ready for marriage by age 18.  The infantile culture of never maturing urbanites must not condemn the rest of the Filipino people with their marriage failures.

You want a better model?  I say the muslims have a better model. They can get married at younger ages and achieve more success.

I’ve mentioned long before that my children will opt out of this rotten man corrupted culture of marriage failures.  Upping the marriage age to 24 just proves my point that the mis-education of the Population controllers has infiltrated members of the Catholic Church.

The original universal intent of marriage is for the survival of the civilization, the proliferation of people, to enhance the reproduction of people.

Since 18 – 24 is the prime reproductive ages of people, and this is fixed by NATURE, you can’t change that, no preacher can change that.   But you can WORK WITH NATURE.  You can go along with NATURE and see that the reproductive activities of people ages 18-24 are put to good use… for actual reproduction… REAL SEX.  Not fake contraceptive sex.  Not “true love waits” aka “suppress sexual activity until the ages where you are no longer interested in sex.”

The result of a BAN ON MARRIAGE in the 18-24 age range is a more MARKED increase in “SINFUL” / non-marriage sex -  leading to EVEN LESS CHILDREN, EVEN LESS FAMILY FORMATION, EVEN MORE CONTRACEPTIVE PREVALENCE.

This 24 year old minimum marrying age idea belongs in the trash can.

See the news report from http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2008/01/25/news/bishop.backs.revision.of.law.on.marriage.html

Friday, January 25, 2008
Bishop backs revision of law on marriage

A SENIOR official of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) is pushing to amend the law on the minimum legal age for marriage from 18 to 24.

During a dialogue last Wednesday with members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in Pasay City, former CBCP president and Lingayen Archbishop Oscar Cruz, head of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal, asked for the revision of the law on marriage.

Sun.Star Network Online’s coverage of the Sinulog 2008 Festival

Cruz said the present age requirement for marrying need to be refined, noting that an 18-year-old man and woman, are still incapable of living alone and has yet to establish his/her independence.

“They should be mentally and financially capable and prepared since marriage involves raising a family,” he said.

The bishop added that marriage is not like a girl and boy relationship, it involves many responsibilities that require physical, emotional and spiritual preparedness.

He said amending the marrying age requirement might be the solution to avert troubles in marriage.

However, Cruz said they are against divorce, since it is against the rulings of the church.

On the other hand, Senate President Manuel “Manny” Villar Jr. and House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., the discussion’s heads of the panel of legislators, said they will study Cruz’s recommendation. (FP/Sunnex)

I’m into an email conversation with my best friend regarding the topic of Adultery and Concubinage under Philippine laws. Interesting discussion and I’m glad my friend took the time to research well. My conclusion:

It is obvious to me that these old Philippine Christian / Secular laws are not suited during these times of imminent extinction. Following these Philippine Christian / Secular laws is a recipe for the extinction of my children. My response therefore is to abandon these laws for the sake of my progeny.

xxxx,

Very nice analysis. Thank you very much for doing the research for me.
I am interested in this topic for the benefit of my children, my grandchildren, all my descendants.

FYI for the others reading my response, this is the PARENTAL POV, while the singles are still in the SELF POV.

This all the more hardens my www.pronatal.org objectives. Am I pronatal or am I just concerned about survival from the world trend of willing extinction?

These laws were made during times when Total Fertility Rates were a healthy 6 or 7 children per woman. During those times, continuity of life, of family lines, self-perpetuity was more or less assured… confident that life goes on. Unfortunately, in the 21st century contraceptive to extinction culture and widespread unhealthiness ignorance, most people do not as hell care if their genetic extinction is at a high probability. Metro Manila TFR today in 2007 is 1.7 children per woman. By 2030, during the times of my children, the TFR will most probably even below 1.0 children per woman, just like Hongkong today.

This means it is my responsibility as the father to see that my children are raised healthy and wealthy, where true health and wealth is measured in progeny. Combat the clear and present danger of extinction. My instincts of survival go beyond myself.

It is obvious to me that these old Philippine Christian / Secular laws are not suited during these times of imminent extinction. Following these Philippine Christian / Secular laws is a recipe for the extinction of my children. My response therefore is to abandon these laws for the sake of my progeny.

No marriage like Erap, Dolphy, Ramon Revilla, Gov Singson seem to be better models. Islam deserves exploring. If a son marries 4 women and each woman only gives birth to a feeble 2 children each, at least my son makes 8 children “legally”. That is the mediocrity of the 21st century, it takes at least 4 women to make as many children as a mid-20th century woman, pathetic.

So for those concerned with sexual self-gratification, gluttony or moral POVs, count me out of this. I’m into parental concerns, pronatalism, mere genetic survival.

Thanks.

XXXX wrote:

WARNING: the contents of this post may be offensive to some. It is written as a response from one best friend to another (why it is Public is beyond me). No material within was intended to be hurtful or insulting to any person, gender, belief, profession, religion or ideology. If you choose to read what follows, please bear that in mind.

XXXX,

Here’s the long overdue reply. Sorry, I got really busy.

To address your question I’d have to stick to basics. What I’ll be doing actually is just discuss a few general topics, which is really all that I understand (in the way that I understand them). A lawyer can better discuss the legal matters in terms of Jurisprudence & will back up what he says with actual cases (which is the acceptable method). Since I’m not a lawyer, and don’t have access to SCRAA… naku. There are obvious ways by which something here can go wrong. Given this possibility of flaws… all I offer is a best effort-basis. Okay?

To begin, let’s tackle the definition of LAW: here are a few from varied sources:

*A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature.

*A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

*The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system

*set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law

With that out of the way, let’s tackle a subject matter of great importance to Law, which is “Good faith“. To make matters simple, here’s a definition from Thomson & Gale’s Law Encyclopedia:

Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.

Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.

From the Civil Code…kindly note what it says.

CHAPTER 2 HUMAN RELATIONS

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

What this law talks about is CIVILITY (kaya nga Civil Code).

Good faith is used most often in Commercial Law. However, it is so encompassing that even Marriage Laws are affected. Ergo, it is involved in the answers to your question.

Earlier, I mentioned that I’ve no access to SCRAA. What’s that? It is a compilation of landmark cases. What’s a landmark case? These are court cases that already happened, from which decisions made by the particular court (Supreme Court rulings) sets the standard for which similar cases, would be judged. In short, the past legal history of our country determines the current & future history of similar cases. So what happened in a case in 1952 would still apply to a case today, if that law is still in effect. Only a change of law would make a judge decide something else. A new law would generate a new history.

Philippine Law was derived from many sources (and not just American law). The primary sources were: Roman Law, some Mosaic Law (Moses), Spanish Law, British Law, etc. As far as marriage laws are concerned, a huge body comes from Roman Law. Romans practiced monogamy due to the influence of a pre-Christian belief in the deity Freya, goddess of love & fidelity. Fidelity therefore, was a major factor in the creation of Roman laws concerning Marriage.

As an aside, many countries all over the world used Roman Law as a basis to formulate their country’s own laws. So monogamy is in fact, the norm and can be seen in more countries than states that allow polygamy.

Now differentiate polygamy from sexual promiscuity.

Even among those countries that allow polygamy – there are still laws which prevent infidelity & adultery. It doesn’t mean that you’re allowed multiple wives that you’re allowed to screw around with persons who are not your spouses. Plus, you’ve to prove yourself financially & morally capable of handling more than one spouse.

Now before proceeding – there is such a thing as “Common Law relationships”. This is primarily British in origin. If you’ve heard the term “Common Law husband/wife” they’re the source of this. In our local parlance, we call it “LIVE-IN”. There is no legal marriage contract, but – laws exist anyways to cover this situation. Why? Because people do it and in the course of people doing it – problems arise. It’s but natural that not every relationship is a fairy tale. So there are laws that cover this also. Why? So that when two parties argue – someone can adjudicate what is just.

A bit about Commercial Law which is relevant: if I promise you that I will deliver 10,000 chickens to your doorstep by 8 AM tomorrow… and all we have is a verbal agreement… I HAVE TO DELIVER. If come 8 AM tomorrow and I don’t deliver, you can sue me. Many people would think that since there is no contract – I don’t have to. BUT, what a written contract does is to create material proof of our agreement or in short, it’s EVIDENCE. But, a Verbal Contract – is still binding. Why? Because of good faith. We agreed on it, you trusted my word that I’d deliver. I gave you my word that I’d deliver. If I don’t deliver… then I’m in trouble.

Now how much more do you think does Good Faith apply when I publicly make a vow to be faithful to my bride and sign a contract of marriage in the presence of witnesses?

The simplest expectation of you – is that you will be true to your word.

Having proof of a spouse’s infidelity or concubinage/adultery does not excuse you from doing the same. You married. That means you must fulfill your part of the contract. That, simply spelled out – means no sex outside of your marriage, regardless of what your partner does or doesn’t do. It is not your spouse’s behavior that makes you liable. It is your own actions which do.

You have the right to seek sexual gratification with whomever you want who agrees to give it to you… BUT, you gave that freedom up when you got married. At that point in time – you agreed to be faithful & loyal to your wife until she dies. More importantly, you’ve to remember that your wife has the right to demand fidelity from you. Clearly, she can send you to jail if she can prove in court that you were otherwise.

Sigh. I’m getting lost. Let me break your original questions down & simplify the answers.

Does this sexual incapacity of one spouse condemn the sexual spouse from ANY SEX for the rest of his or her life?

Yes. You’re doomed. Even if you (hypothetically) resorted to Legal Separation… let me quote the Law again:

TITLE II LEGAL SEPARATION

Art. 63. The decree of legal separation shall have the following effects:

(1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other, but the marriage bonds shall not be severed

What do you think?

Freedom to not be sexually great. How about Freedom to be sexual?

Again you gave that up the day you got married. Marriage under any country’s Laws that were based on Roman law follows the same trend. Your only legal option is to pursue sexual bliss with your spouse. That’s it. Anything extra-marital, and you could get into trouble.

Of utmost importance: “Ignorance of the Law does not excuse you”. This is so common its cliché. NOT knowing that your sexual liberties was in fact extinguished when you got married, does not dissolve your marriage. It is assumed that you knew and it is YOUR responsibility to know. It is likewise your responsibility to keep true to it. Afterall, no one put a gun against your head & said “marry me!!”.

Does the freedom of one spouse to refuse sex have to impact on the freedom of the sexual spouse to seek sex elsewhere?

Your part of the contract states that you will observe fidelity under any and all circumstances. Only Death dissolves a marriage under our laws. You are not free to seek sexual pleasure with anyone else apart from your spouse while your spouse remains living.

Very common in most marriages regardless of religion and I quote “For richer, for poorer… in sickness and in health… til death do us part.” What do you think this means?

A relevant Law quoted again:

TITLE III RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE

Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

Just in case you think I’m inventing the fidelity part… there you go. Now what the heck does that word mean anyways?

ENCARTA says of Fidelity:

1. loyalty: loyalty to an allegiance, promise, or vow
2. sexual faithfulness: faithfulness to a sexual partner, especially a husband or wife
3. factual accuracy: accuracy in reporting facts or details

Does the penalty of adultery etc still apply to the sexual spouse if he or she is seeking mere human gratification from others?

First, labeling it “human gratification” or whatever you like does not change the all-important label here… that is Concubinage/Adultery. The basic idea here is that you AGREED to be monogamous in a society & country that enforces monogamy. Your partner expects you to be monogamous. Moving elsewhere won’t solve the problem. Roman Law is very popular globally… and wait til you really understand Sharia Law. More on that later.

The inability of one’s spouse to sexually satisfy the cravings of the other does not excuse the “unhappy” individual from seeking sexual gratification from another individual. It simply violates the terms of agreement. Period.

Of course polygamy lawfully and morally fixes this.

Nope. Polygamy doesn’t. What happens if 4 wives don’t satisfy you either? What happens if you just happen to marry four women who don’t like sex at all? Or what happens if they gang-together and agree that they’ll each refuse to have sex with you (because let’s say your relationship with each of them sucks)? Then what?

Were you aware that women living together tend to have their periods together also? What then?

In Islamic Law, sexual intercourse outside of marriage is punishable (depending on the crime – you could be stoned to death, literally)… be it premarital sex, or adultery.

Here are highlights of two cases that became an International sensation:

2002:Bauchi: A woman, Adama Unusua, 19, was sentenced to 100 lashes by a Bauchi court, for engaging in sexual intercourse with her fiancé. She was pregnant at the time of the trial…

No pre-marital sex allowed.

2002-MAR: Nigeria: Safiya Hussaini, 33, was convicted of adultery. She was sentenced to be buried up to her neck in sand and to be stoned to death. However, her sentence was deferred until her 13-month-old daughter has finished nursing…

Guess what? No to adultery.

NOW WAIT A MINUTE… I’ve some doubts about your understanding of Polygamy. It is simply defined as “the practice or condition of having more than one spouse”. Notice that it said “spouse” and not necessarily “wife”. See the problem here?

Exactly which kind of Polygamy do you believe in anyways? Polygyny? Polyandry? See? There are two kinds.

Clearly you would prove to be absolutely biased if you said Polygyny only. Because then only men would be allowed to have multiple wives. If you said Polyandry, then how does that help you since you’d be allowed only one wife and she in turn would have multiple husbands?

If you said yes to both – then allow me to quote something again:

“Inconceivable!!!” Viccini, a character from the book “Princess Bride”.

I do not know of any society in existence today that allows both polygyny and polyandry to exist at the same time. Maybe it does. I really don’t know.

If you want to find out more about Polygamy, Polyandry and Polygyny – visit this website: http://www.religioustolerance.org. It’s a decent place to get information, and the usual mud slinging is absent.

But what does the secular / Christian Philippine law have to say about this issue?

Here, your bias is very obvious (no worries, you’re entitled to it anyways). Were you aware that the Philippine Legislature made an effort to separate State from Religion? They teach this in high school. Can you name a Cardinal who was also President? Now I know that’s not what you meant, but hey – its my turn to ask a few questions.

As far as I know, in the democratic states – the same effort was made. Now it’s a different matter if the efforts were in vain or not. Attempt does not guarantee success.

Nonetheless, in the process of making Laws – which are based on the morals, customs, traditions of the people of that country… everyone refers to History, the existing laws of other countries, and even Religions. A study is made about what laws were made, how they worked, if they worked, and how to make things better. Give Congress a little more credit. They don’t exactly put laws on a dartboard and shoot blindfolded. Granted that history is laden with morons, and that there are many in politics… let that not blind you to the fact that there are people who try their very best. Don’t tell me that every single individual from the first Philippine Republic to modern times was/is a moron. Even those armed with the best of intentions and give their best – sometimes fall short of the mark. That, is life!

More importantly, you’ve to take a good look at the lawmakers. Are they predominantly Muslim? Hindu? Jewish? Taoist? Atheist? We’re talking about people here. People make laws. Only Mosaic Law came from non-human hands. All the flaws, biases, beliefs, ideology, idealism, religion, etc – go into Law. Then there’s money. Talk about money in Politics and the crap hits the ceiling.

As proof to you that Christian Doctrine is different from Philippine Law, I’ll cite something that is of utmost importance to Christian Marriages:

Matthew 19:6

Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
Itaque iam non sunt duo sed una caro quod ergo Deus coniunxit homo non separet

Matthew 19:9

And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
Dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur

(Except it be, etc… In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living)

The scriptures above comes from the Douay English translation, one of the very first english translations of the Bible made for the English (Old Testament First Published 1609 by the English College at Douay, New Testament First Published 1582 by the English College at Rheims).

Now a bit of explanation. In Philippine Law, we don’t have divorce. But we have Annulment. By Law, if a marriage is annulled – think of it in terms of “it never happened to begin within”. There is a list of reasons for which this happens. Fraud, force, psychological incompatibility, etc – but the most important – incapacity to marry. Persons whose marriages are annulled can marry again.In Christianity, even if the Law says that the marriage is annulled – it is NOT annulled or negated in the eyes of God, who joined the couple together and made them “one flesh”. You CANNOT marry again.

How then can you reconcile the words you’d used “secular/Christian Philippine law” when there is clearly a radical difference of opinion here. I’ve not even begun to talk about the Death Penalty yet, right? Need I do so?

So if I may request, before you “LABEL” things – kindly make sure that your label is correct to begin with.

I said earlier “in the process of making Laws – which are based on the morals, customs, traditions of the people of that country”… ergo, if a population is primarily Muslim – then it follows that laws would be made which were apt for a Muslim society. However, since we live in the Philippines – which was predominantly Catholic… it makes sense that the population’s public morals & traditions would have impacted on Laws made. So blame history too.

There are things in life that are ubiquitous (ever present). Politics & Religion. No matter where you go, these will always influence the Laws of that country. Our Marriage Laws are no better or worse. They’re just “ours”.

Be very familiar with the phrase “The Law of the Land Prevails”. You may have a very different opinion about what is right and wrong, but never forget that whether you agree with the Law or not – it applies to you nonetheless.

We can talk more about sex, politics, history or whatever you like. But… I’d like to point out that I personally don’t know any woman who wouldn’t give sex to her husband IF their relationship was doing great. So, I go back to what I keep saying – relationships matter most.

My finale?

It is easier to work on relationships than it is to change society and laws.

regards,

XXXX

XXXX wrote:

XXXX,

No problem. Ikaw pa!

Your question involves just one topic, but the answer is actually quite long. The reason is that you’d still asked a very broad question and that there are many factors involved. I cannot possibly cover them all (not that I would know all the answers anyways).

Even a professor, like tito Tony Abad (Rika Bilan’s dad, Dean of Adamson’s University College of Law) will take a few weeks to explain all the things involved. So my answer will definitely be pathetic in comparison. I recommend tho that you speak to your brother-in-law who’s a lawyer and ask him the same question(s). No doubt, his answers will be more than satisfactory.

Now, I’m going to cut my reply short – not because I don’t have a response to your question, but rather… I’ve a few deadlines to meet today. I’ll attend to it first then I’ll respond later in the day. Actually, I’ve already started. I’m already at 2 pages long and nowhere near getting it right. Just check your email again later.

If anyone else is reading this topic, and you’re not interested… kindly ignore my next post.

regards to all,

XXXX