Come on, you married THE CHAMP. Spreading seeds is what champions do! There is the reproductive rush in winning competitions and all that money. Champs bedding lots of women is expected, it is the norm. Welcome to human life 101.

Divorce settlement for Elin? Not bad, hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s great. But wouldn’t it have been better if you and Tiger knew this tiny bit of information about human nature earlier? Did you know you could have still lived a happy life with Tiger even if he had playthings? You could have been the woman he truly loved, the woman to come home to, even if he spreads his seeds every now and then. This is what champs do!

What is unacceptable is this much media outcry to castrate a champ like Tiger Woods. In-human. Life doesn’t work that way. Monogamous marriage in the USA will come tumbling down with easy divorce clauses such as these. It is idiotic. Let the human race sort itself out to something more lasting and more solid.

In my country, moneyed men will play but have a budget for it. It is poor form for them to leave their wives. Some have multiple wives, an instituted polygamy whether formal or informal, but that is how things work. And it has worked for several hundred years. Polygamy is outright legal and instituted for Muslims. While there is no law against having multiple unmarried girl friends with many children each.

The Elen Nordegren – Tiger Woods divorce just highlights the USA wrong system of easy divorce and serial marriages. Plain idiocy. No one should bother getting married in the USA, it’s just a piece of paper enslaving men for unreasonable demands they get absolutely no benefit from.

Keep your american junk system out of the Philippnes. Gabriela anti-women / anti-family group stay out of the Philippines, go and migrate to the USA and be miserable like Elen Nordegren – miserable with so much money.

Youtube video description: Christian polygamy works. Two wives, plural marriage, or polygamy, is not abuse or manipulation of women, but is a perfectly normal AND happy way of life for many people in today’s society. CHRISTIAN POLYGAMY PAMPHLET: http://www.box.net/shared/eq5qjxm12n

Chavit is a well known rich and powerful patriarch, a pronatal patriarch with alleged several wives and many children. He is rumored to have a new wife every few years and move on and on. Chavit loves children and wants children. Chavit wants custody of his 5 children with Che, patriarchs are interested more in children than just sex. Sex is merely a tool to make children. Chavit was noted in saying in a private family party to his descendants to make and make babies… because we have lots of money. Isn’t that so nice?

If you are any intelligent male with any sanity left in you, you do not go out of your way provoking Chavit’s anger by attempting to inseminate any female in his alleged harem. As in primal human nature, the big bull will protect his genetic interests and will do whatever it takes to ward off foolish males from trying to reproduce with any of his alleged harem. Any patriarch invests and spends on his harem for his exclusive insemination to propagate his own genes.

Chavit stood up to the President of the Philippines Erap Estrada (on a different issue) and won that battle… do you think any lesser man like this foolish Richard Catral can stand a chance?

My analysis of Richard Catral is that he saw a beautiful woman and with his own good looks saw an opportunity to reproduce by attempting to inseminate Che. This is it, a sperm wars classic. Previous to the alleged beating of Che, she was inseminated by Chavit just the same. The sperm battle is on. Who will win out? Only a DNA test in the future will reveal the sperm wars winner.

The wild card is, is Che on birth control? Birth control technologies muddle the whole primal instincts scenario.

What is happening is a very easy, very classic case of genetic interests. Maybe Che merely needed a rest from birthing. When she got her rest from birthing… she is ready to be impregnated again, thus accepting new inseminators.

All those muddling the issue of primal human genetic interests is due to civilization, technology, political ideologies and twisted inhuman laws.

I would like to see a surprise pause to all this much publicized scandal with the announcement of a pregnancy. Then I want a Maury Show type genetic dna paternity test drama to show WHO IS THE FATHER.

The Human Primal instinct for genetic propagation is alive and well. Everyone wants to reproduce. Lots of inseminating happening… Look at this issue and just laugh at the rest of the side issues like human twisted written laws.

I think Richard Catral is the true victim here. My guess is Che did not tell him she belonged to the harem of Chavit Singson. Any guy in his right mind would stay away from Chavit’s women.

In the natural scheme of things, healthy men are sexually active when called upon for action. Women have a cycle where they are interested in sex when the time is “right”. That right time is when she is healthy and willing to bear children. A pregnant female is not interested in any more sex, nor should she be having sex, she is already pregnant. Do you understand?

Once a female has given birth, she needs to breast feed her little one for some 2 years and stick close to her baby. At this time there is no desire for children. And if there is no desire for children, no sex is desired.

Now the civilization and other means of organization have come up with marriage. A man for every child to ensure that children are better taken cared of. A man and his whole family plus the woman and her family is a pretty good idea. Since a woman may only be interested in sex every 2 to 3 years it makes no sense for a man to with hold his sexuality in those 2 to 3 years where a woman is not sexually available, nor should it make sense to rush a woman and have additional children when she is not healthy nor ready yet. So it was and still is natural for men to have multiple wives. Everyone was happy with this arrangement. The man’s family had more offspring through their men. And the women could pick the best men in their village to fertilize them. Polygamy was the norm and everyone was happy.

Then an imperialist civilization arose and through their primitive monetary system and contraceptive technology had the dumb idea to impose government business partnerships called marriage and made it exclusive and unnatural. They called this invention monogamy. An artificial construct founded on contraceptive herbs and technology. They made it law that men and women can marry only one at a time. If they wanted a new partner, they needed to divorce their old partner. In the old days, you just added a new wife and everyone was happy. Common divorces made people unhappy in the empire and eventually the concept of marriage became moot and no one wanted to have anything with that government partnership called marriage.

Fast forward 2000 years later today in my country. Monogamy is made possible through contraceptive technology. Women become sexual toys, sexual receptacles, available to give and receive sexual pleasure any time with minimum possibilities of pregnancy. In government marriage, men are given the unnatural burden to have sex with only one woman because with contraceptive technology, that woman, his wife can supposedly fill all his sexual entertainment wants.

But this is unnatural. Millions of years of evolution cannot be enforced by man made laws policing sexual behavior. What happens today is that contraceptive technology has debased sexuality into a religion of entertainment, of pleasure, instead of sex being a means for reproduction. This sexual repression has led to enormous industries serving the contraceptive side effects. Prostitution is the all encompassing side effect. Millions of women are now prostitutes for money, for food, for love, for free. Millions of men have been stunted of their maturities by submitting to contraceptive sex.

Millions of women feel they are goddesses, they control a man through his contraceptive penis. What a shame. What a low down shame people have gone today. Men submitting to women and thanking them for sex? Give me a break.
Top grade males are always in high demand. Top grade males do not submit to contraceptive slavery. A woman who partners with top grade males want their sperm, they demand it, top material to make their babies with.

And punishing males for their non-compliance to monogamy?  What an an unnatural man made abomination of laws we are  living in.  Most wives cannot keep their end of the bargain.  Most of them don’t enjoy being sexual receptacles and have sex during times they don’t want to.  Contraceptive technology is imperfect and unhealthy in the first place.  Those health conscious women will merely abstain from sex.  And where does that leave their husbands?  Back to nature.

The idea of a 2nd wife, 3rd wife, 4th wife doesn’t sound so bad after all now.  What woman wants to give birth year after year after year?

First wife is pregnant, sexual relations stop and continue only when her child is 2 to 4 years old.  A 2nd wife may be a good idea, and when that wife becomes pregnant, a 3rd wife may be a good idea, then a 4th wife, then it is back to wife number 1 then 2, then 3 then 4.  Everyone is happy.

All that is needed today is a change in the monetary system and everyone should be happy.  If each and every child came with a guaranteed living fund, people would choose the natural way.  I’m dreaming.  The international money masters, the bankers would never want this.  They want the money and the power all to themselves.

Government monogamous only marriage is just one of their tools to control a hapless citizenry.

Congressman Akbar and 3 of his wives ran in the recent elections and we had an interesting and entertaining article posted here in Pronatal.org regarding that event.

“We may not have time to coordinate in the boardroom but certainly we can coordinate things in the bedroom!  Vote Akbar, Akbar, Akbar, Akbar.”

Our condolences to the Akbars.

Cheryllyn, Jum, Marieta and Nur-in, wives of Basilan Rep. Wahab Akbar, grieve over the casket bearing his remains in Zamboanga City yesterday. Photo by CHARLIE SACEDA

For example this woman who swears against polygamy for her children. And she won’t promote monogamous marriage either. So what is she unconsciously promoting? Fornication!

These are the useful idiots in 21st century society. They have no idea what marriage is all about. In fact they hate marriage, all forms of marriage. They adore singlehood and the contraceptive fornication that comes with it.

Now don’t get me started on lifetime sexual abstinence. No way are my children becoming extinct. Let the others who choose to be extinct be extinct. Not us.

We are the pronatalists. We are sexual beings. We are the reproductive people. We are the sexy, we are the beautiful, we are the marriageable, we will form families, we will live on.

Know that contraception is a female ploy. A man who agrees to contracepting is being played by the female. Whether the female is his wife, his girlfriend, his fubu, or a plain old prostitute. Contraception is a way females play russian roulette, it is a manner in which they choose the fathers of their children. A woman subconsciously chooses the father of her offspring by conveniently “forgetting” to put on that condom, by “forgetting” to take
her pills, by “forgetting” to put on her diaphragm.

A wife may have chosen to marry a man as her legal husband. But her body language, her reality shows she has in fact NOT chosen him to father her child when she chooses to have fake sex with him by using condoms on him.

Men agreeing to engage in fake sex are poor desperate slobs asking to be whipped by their female masters. Better to have fake sex than no sex at all they think. Tsk tsk.

Nonsense! There are many women out there who will accept your entire manhood, real sex and all. Will get pregnant? No problem. Glad to choose you to father her children, now, today.

Sometimes I think the metaphor of adam and eve was that Eve engaged Adam in contraception. The forbidden fruit is contraception. Prostitutes will have fake sex for some money. Sex with condoms is fake sex. Sex with birth control pills is fake sex. Sex for the sake of sex because it is her “safe” day is fake sex.

Woe is the man who gets no respect. The next time your woman tells you to wear a condom… dress up and leave. She has no respect for you.

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