Let’s Talk About Sex

In our latest Fabcast, Migs asked me what I thought about something that Danton Remoto reportedly said, that going to the bathhouse is “an unhealthy expression of sexuality.” Listening to how I fumbled for an answer, one can figure out that I was caught unaware by Migs’ question.

What flummoxed me was that a statement like that would be attributed to Danton Remoto—he who has been in the forefront of a very public battle for gay equality and rights. It almost sounds like he was quoted out of context. Or if not, then it sounds like one of those deliberate sound bites he tossed to the media in an attempt to get the more conservative sectors of our society to consider him as a serious Senatorial candidate.* *(A reader named John messaged me on Facebook, claiming that Danton was misquoted. Full message will be posted here in The McVie Show.)

Whatever.

Obviously I disagree with that statement. And my disagreement clearly shows the difference between my views on sex versus how sex is viewed by the general Filipino populace, raised by the standards of the Roman Catholic Church. There already lies the disparity. They say “procreation,” I say “recreation.” They say “copulate,” I say “fuck.”

But in the end, a tomato is still a tomato and a potato is still a potato. (Let’s call the whole thing off.)

Look around, everywhere you turn is sexual, it’s everywhere that you go. Sex is so natural. Animals do it without getting bothered whether they are “copulating” or “fucking.” And while monogamy does exist with certain species, most animals do it because Nature has hardwired into all living creatures a very basic instinct: survival of the species.

Conservatives will argue that sex among humans should go beyond basic instincts because, well, we are more evolved than animals. Thus we have sex not just so we can ensure our genes will be passed on; we also have sex because: [1] it is the highest expression of love between [2] two people of [3] opposite genders who [4] have come together in sacred matrimony.

Whew! That’s four qualifications. Four rigid “musts” that should be present; otherwise, any kind of sex not covered by that (or one or more of the “musts” is missing) is considered unhealthy and a sin.

See what my problem is with the Church’s stand on sex? It is so limiting and narrow.

[1] Why can’t sex be just a friendly fuck? Or why can’t people have sex purely out of lust? Why can’t sex be viewed as recreational, a physical activity unlike playing tennis, where two people come together, sweat it out, then shake hands at the end? [2] Why can’t three or more people have sex with one another all at the same time? [3] Why should it just be between a man and a woman? [4] Why is sex limited to within matrimony?

And why is it that someone who questions these things is suddenly labeled as unhealthy? A slut? Immoral? A published author on bathhouses? (Ay.)

It’s about institutions (the Church and, sadly, the Philippine government which kowtows to the religious powers) that insist on putting a specific and quite deep meaning to an act that, at its core, is as natural to us as breathing. “Oh, but we shouldn’t reduce sex to something primal!” they counter. My dear monsignors and fathers, I have no intention of seeing sex as merely primal—there is nothing “primal” about preparing for sex, cleaning up oneself, buying condoms and lube, making sure there’s a safe place to do it, etc. Sex is a deliberate act. It is also an act that can be quite meaningful (physical expression of love between two people), somewhat meaningful (a playful romp between fuck buddies) and completely meaningless (anonymous, furtive sex in public bathrooms). And besides, monsignors and fathers, you’re the ones who give in to primal urges when you break your vows of chastity and become cover stories of Time and Newsweek. (And yes, dear monsignors and fathers, you were being quite deliberate when you were breaking your vows.)

But let’s go back to the original question: is going to the bathhouse an unhealthy expression of sexuality? For me, the bathhouse is not the issue here, for it is only a venue for sex to happen. The core of the issue here is the going into such places to have random sex. And I believe ultimately it is the “random sex” that throws the conservatives—gay or otherwise—off. (I can almost hear their unspoken grumblings: “Why are certain gays so lucky? They can get away with having venues and opportunities where they can have sex with almost anyone?”)

Yes, random sex can be unhealthy and unsafe and an irresponsible act. That is, if the persons doing it have an unhealthy view of sex, an unhealthy view of their bodies, and ultimately an unhealthy view of their self-worth. (It doesn’t help that narrow-minded views on sexuality produce people who are raised with guilt about their bodies.)

But if two healthy, consenting adults were to meet up and agree to have safe and responsible sex, then I don’t see any problem. The bathhouse just provides a relatively safe, clean and private alternative, as opposed to public toilets in the malls or in MRT stations.

Of course the Church, while being monolithic, has members who aren’t as medieval in their way of thinking. But as a monolith, it needs to make one stand on the issue of sex. Okay fine, well and good. But just don’t expect that everyone will agree to that stand. And there should be a live-and-let-live attitude towards those who disagree, even those who aren’t believers of the same faith.

Widget by Forex Trading | Business