The Contraception Deception

This is a difficult piece to write as almost everyone today will quickly point to how effective contraceptives are at preventing pregnancies. Some will also point to how effective they are at preventing the spread of STIs. I don't doubt the studies performed though I'd like to insert my own spin on this topic.

Let's take one of the more common forms of contraceptive, the condom. How effective is a condom at what it claims to do? You'll hear the 98% figure a lot. But note that this 98% figure refers to the chance of success every single time you use it. This also assumes correct use of the condom. But say you have 5 independent sexual encounters. What would you say is the chance at least one of those times involves a failure in the condom?

Since these are independent events, we take them separately. The probability that all 5 encounters will end in the condom achieving its goal would be 0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98 or 0.98^5 or 90.39%! That means that there's practically a 1 in 10 chance that one of those encounters involved a failure. The more encounters you do, the higher the rate of failure. Remember, it only requires one failure in the condom for an STI to be passed. Pregnancy, which still depends on the woman's fertility might not happen as often.

To put things into perspective, one need only have sex 35 times to have a 50% chance of failure one time. Or just 15 times to have a 25% chance of failure one time. When condom manufacturers say that there's a 98% success rate, do not believe them. Planned parenthood even puts the efficiency of condoms at a much lower rate (85%). You can check their website for that info.

So when lawmakers and some medical practitioners say that it's "safe" to have sex as long as you use a condom, it's simply not true. While I'll admit that not using a condom will most definitely open you up to bigger chances of STIs and pregnancy compared to using a condom, there's always a better more effective option - abstinence has absolutely no chance of giving you an STI or getting a woman pregnant, for example.

Other family planning options like Natural Family Planning (NFP) involve both the woman and the man in family planning and results in the man understanding more how his wife's body works in all their intricacies. Slapping on a condom, while more simple, does not take into consideration the natural cycles of the woman. If you're thinking of a true feminist method, NFP has got to be the way to go. Other forms of contraceptives are simply a guy's way to convince a girl to have sex more than she actually wants.

If you still think that contraception is the right way for you, go ahead but educate yourself. Remember that whatever they advertise as the effectiveness rate is just that, an advertisement claim. Remember also that there exists one way to absolutely be sure that no pregnancy will occur. It might be more difficult, but it's 100% effective.

Teenage Pregnancy in the Philippines

Teenage pregnancy is a real problem no matter what culture or religious belief you have. Some of my woke friends have proceeded to blame the Church's influence in the Philippines for this.

The church in the Philippines is opposed to sex ed being taught in schools. Or that's what we're told. The truth is more nuanced. The sex ed the woke millenials are calling for is basically contraception. In other words, "When you have sex, wear a condom." And this is were you can see the church would have a problem. The stand of the church has always been that sex is for marriage. And since most children attending public schools in the Philippines are Catholic, you can see why the church would be opposed to this. As such, sex ed in the Philippines has always been left to the parents.

But if you look at Catholic schools, you'll find a different story. Catholic schools do have subjects that teach sex ed. It's just not the sex ed the liberals want. Sex ed in Catholic schools goes something like this:

1. Sex is something people do to reproduce.
2. Condoms and other contraceptives are available but they will never be 100% effective and
3. The only way to 100% sure you won't get pregnant is to abstain from sex

None of these three statements are false or controversial. However, liberal lawmakers wish to introduce a sex education scheme that looks like this:

1. When you have sex, wear a condom,
2. This is how you wear a condom, and
3. If you have safe sex, you can't get pregnant or contract an STD.

It doesn't bother itself with what sex is for or the risks of failure. In other words, you have a sex education which teaches the wrong things about sex. You hear the 98% statistic thrown around for the effectivity of a condom. But the actual effectivity of the condom is much lower at 85%. The 98% figure comes only from individual contacts. As such, there is a 2% chance of failure per sexual interaction. And with more interactions, the chance of failure goes up rather quickly.

At best the liberal sex education program is a band aid solution to the problem of people having more children than they can afford. The much better and more sustainable solution is to teach children the truth about sex - the dangers, the pitfalls, and the one thing almost everyone forgets, the purpose of sex.

This is one reason I don't get why the blame automatically goes to the Church. Here's another one. Many of my woke friends say this in other contexts but totally forget it now. The Church doesn't have as much influence as it did way back when. Fewer of the younger generation go to church regularly or even know what the church teaches on certain things. The church doesn't have as much influence now and even when the priest teaches about sex during his homily, most people just ignore it (just as most of my friends do).

It seems whatever problem we experience when it comes to sex or reproduction, the blame somehow finds its way to the church. This is something I don't get. None of the teenage pregnancies were caused by the church. It was caused by ill informed teenagers who get their information from the liberal media.

Choosing the Battlefield

One of my favorite video games to play even today with my nephews is Smash Brothers. I played it back in college and it's a fun time to be had when playing even with inexperienced players. Choosing a stage in any fighting game is crucial and can give a certain player an advantage or disadvantage. Smaller stages can benefit players who prefer close combat fights while bigger stages will benefit a run away tactic. The idea is one player picks the stage and as long as both agree they're fighting on fair terms (no hazards) the results of the match should be accepted by both players without question.

I use this metaphor when talking about debating on issues as it draws how online debates often miss the idea.  More recently, a woman online asked me on what basis I was against abortion (she basically asked me to pick the stage). I responded saying, "Biology!" Now, had I said some religious basis, my biases would've been questioned and I would agree wholeheartedly that religious basis alone should not form public policy.

As it stood, the basis on which I stood by my position was one she accepted and so it should've been so clear cut. She however goes on to talk about personhood which is a term used in Philosophy. A friend of hers then asked me to lay the Philosophical groundwork to establish that a fetus in the womb is a person. This is we had already agreed to talking in terms of biology and she wanted to put bring the debate to the realm of philosophy, a field I have little to no experience in.

So I insisted on staying on the decided "stage" but her friend pointed out that I couldn't possibly be using solely biology to prove my point and they continue to talk about personhood and if the fetus should be afforded personhood. The idea of a person belongs to the realm of philosophy. This little exchange actually told me that my position was defensible and rational from the perspective of biology. When they wished to change the battlefield (as it were), they were actually conceding that their own position wasn't defensible through the lens of biology. But which lens should we look at certain issues through? Is biology somehow superior to philosophy or vice versa?

Being in the Debate Society back in my high school years, my teacher and good friend mentioned something I didn’t quite understand back then. He told us about bias and how it forms our arguments. People always say they want an “unbiased” opinion but such does not exist as all people will have a certain bias.

I saw it more clearly when I started questioning my own beliefs. I realized I always leaned towards Church teaching on many issues so when engaging with people who don’t have the same bias as I do, we end up clashing and not agreeing at all on anything! So I decided that for moral issues, I would not support the church’s teachings if it could not be supported on a bases other than divine law.

This is how I treat certain forms of debate whether online or face to face. If your position is worth defending, it should be defensible under any microscope. I do this mainly for moral questions. Going back to the earlier discussion on abortion, the pro-life position should be defensible from a philosophical or a scientific angle. I'd agree that we would have to settle the personhood issue eventually.

However, when doing debates and you let someone else choose the battlefield, stick to the chosen battlefield and avoid straying from the agreed upon bias. What happens when you don't is the two parties will almost never agree on absolutely anything as they're looking through totally different lenses.

Planning for the Big Day

So the date has been set and in less than a year, me and Nikki will tie the knot. It's a lot of stuff to plan out and to think about. When we started planning, Nikki asked me what I wanted for the color palette. I gave her a blank stare and ignored it for the most part. For weeks she asked me about the color palette and really I didn't matter to me what the color palette was and how important it would be.

Weeks passed and we finally sat down to choose a color palette which I still didn't get. Guys don't think about color palette when choosing what they'll wear to a wedding. I also don't remember seeing any color palette when I attend a wedding. However, supplier after supplier will ALWAYS ask for the color palette.

Truth be told, I don't know what I'll be actually doing on the day. All I know is I need to show up in a nice looking suit. That's pretty much all that's on my to-do list for that day. It is quite overwhelming everything that has to be done before the date though. Caterer, venue, flowers, church documents, host, dress, ninongs and ninangs, choir, band, invitations, and I'm pretty sure I've only scratched the surface what needs to be prepared.

One thing is for certain though. I'm enjoying the ride so far. It's one thing to plan for the big day and you're dreading the days that follow. I, however, am very excited for spending the rest of my life with Nikki. It makes all the strange things I'll have to do like learn how to dance all the more bearable. I don't mind having to go with Nikki to see a bunch of designers or having to look for that perfect material for a thing that you put on the tables in the reception (I know it's called a centerpiece but that's how I describe it my head).

We've gone window shopping as well for furniture. I've been buying things which I would use for cleaning the house. These are things I would normally not look forward to buying but things are different now. I'm excited for this next major event in my life. I find myself excited to baby proof our new home. This is all very new things to me but I'm ready to dive in with my chosen partner in crime.

Planning for a wedding can be stressful and tiresome. I'm just glad I get to do it with the best possible person I can. It makes the entire process more excited and that much less stressful.

Permits! Permits! Permits!

Our recent family trip to the US made me realize something about how things are done here in the Philippines. It's something I never thought about twice even when I had an exchange with my American uncle who made passing remarks about things that shouldn't be.

The hot topic at the time was about the government wanting to restrict drivers in Cebu by limiting the days of the week you're allowed to bring your car out or what Manila people would call, "coding". He commented that that's scary. At the time, I didn't get what he meant but after our recent trip, it does make sense. Car owners buy cars for the convenience that cars can give them meaning, they should be allowed to use them whenever they want to. But this is just a side issue.

The real issue here is how much restrictions our government puts on us. You're not allowed to build a small structure without a building permit. You're not allowed to construct it without a construction permit. You're not allowed to occupy it without an occupancy permit. If it's a business, to operate, you'd need a business permit. Also, certain businesses you're not allowed to go into unless you meet certain requirements.

One cannot simply open a taxi company or operate a taxi service unless they pay a franchise fee and since the government has ceased releasing franchises, the people who used to own taxis are the ones who have taxis now. This is exactly the rule that made Uber merge with Grab! Some businesses are easier to go into. But some are very difficult. Owning large parcels of agricultural land can have your land distributed to other farmers (CARP). Car service businesses also have a harder time with the bureau-CRAZY. 

It makes me wonder how much freedom we really have as a people. Wanna start a business? You need to ask permission from the government. Wanna build a house? You need a permit. Wanna occupy said house? You need a permit. Wanna 

Now, don't get me wrong. Permits aren't all that bad. But when it comes to things you own and have, you shouldn't need to get a permit to use them! I would understand if the government requires permits for holding run or a triathlon or a march in the city. But those are cases where individual citizens are asking to use public property - not cases where individual citizens are getting permission to use their own property.

And if you look at what permits are, they're simply more paperwork which may or may not be read at all! Building permits for example, usually require 5 sets to be given to the city or municipality to be (quite frankly) stored.

And this is where most of the corruption comes into play. Imagine having to get a permit for practically everything you need to do. Permits are just another piece of paperwork which need either approval or denial from a person in authority. You can then easily see how this power can easily be abused. These people in authority can say what is wrong is right and vice versa with practically no accountability. Once they leave office, there's almost no way to hold them accountable. And if the system does catch them, guess what? It's another case of you can simply pay someone else to right your wrong.

It's a vicious cycle that needs to stop. We, as a people shouldn't be asking for more regulation on anything! If we should be fighting for anything, it should be less regulation. Keep the government out of things we can do by ourselves.