The so­lu­tion to the pop­u­la­tion prob­lem may be found in chastity belts, crotch guards, and rav­en­ous rub­bers.


In Slap­stick, a novel by Kurt Von­negut, the Peo­ple’s Repub­lic of China has found the key to solv­ing the world’s pop­u­la­tion prob­lem: Minia­tur­ize ev­ery­one. This way, ev­ery­thing will come in huge pack­ages: land ar­eas will be wider, food items will be hu­mon­gous, and re­sources will be avail­able to sus­tain hu­man­ity for more life­times.

In the non-fic­tion world, how­ever, that ma­chine would take quite some time, not to men­tion the moral and le­gal dis­cus­sions that would prob­a­bly take place at the halls of Congress and the Se­nate, and the patent of the in­ven­tion.

So, we the faith­ful have to reckon with the on­go­ing ar­gu­ment of whether to keep the pop­u­la­tion down by plan­ning our sex lives, or whether to sim­ply re­frain from get­ting any. Of course, Catholic guilt tells us that abor­tion is a god­less act and will lead us to burn in hell.

Even Hol­ly­wood has made ref­er­ences to con­doms as evil things. Satan’s wicked rub­ber got its spot­light in the 1996 movie Killer

Con­doms. Here, in a New York ho­tel called Quicky, con­doms are car­ni­vores that bite off the penises of those who wear them.

Let’s em­power our­selves, our braburn­ing moth­ers said. Our bod­ies, our selves. Yet, while re­pro­duc­tive rights are ev­ery­one’s con­cern and duty to weigh in all kinds of views, from the lib­eral to the con­ser­va­tive, the gov­ern­ment and church seem to be treat­ing women as per­pet­ual ado­les­cents. “Here, you must have th­ese bowl-full of free con­doms or else you’ll get preg­nant in an in­stant!” the clinic staff in­tim­i­dates us. Or, “You’re a bad per­son if you use an IUD” preach re­li­gious groups. It’s a con­tin­u­ous tug of war.

Last year, the Philip­pine court ap­proved the Re­pro­duc­tive Health Law, a wel­come de­vel­op­ment ac­cord­ing to the gov­ern­ment as it aligned with the UN’s post-2015 Mil- lennium De­vel­op­ment Agenda. And here lies some con­dom re­demp­tion. The fu­ture will look even brighter if Satan’s rub­bers gear up for dom­i­na­tion.

No more AIDS, no more un­wanted kids. Not Utopia yet but at least we’ll slowly solve the prob­lem of con­ges­tion along with the gov­ern­ment’s lack of com­pe­tence or re­solve to pro­vide its tax­pay­ers with ba­sic ser­vices.

Mean­while those who are against the con­dom law will con­tinue to wield their Bi­bles and de­clare that this is sim­ply un­ac­cept­able. Rid­den with Catholic guilt as the ma­jor­ity in this coun­try still are, could there be a happy mar­riage in this? Per­haps women should just close their legs to end the ar­gu­ment? Chastity belts could be­come fash­ion­able again. Imag­ine the pre­ven­tive sex lock as a coitus con­troller.

The con­gre­ga­tion can chalk up ideas on how to make it stylish again. “Ay, we should tap the help of our top fash­ion de­sign­ers and mount an ex­hi­bi­tion on chastity belts. Th­ese things could be el­e­gant and com­fort­able given the right twist and em­bel­lish­ments! Our women will want to keep their hy­mens in­tact with th­ese de­signs.”

The chastity belts could be show­cased dur­ing fi­esta night—right af­ter the pa­rade of daz­zling crowns and capes worn by relics. Sales of the chastity belts would go to the un­wed and preg­nant women who re­al­ized too late that this beau­ti­ful life pro­cesses called birthing and moth­er­hood would en­tail costs.

Call it the chastity tax as pro­ceeds of the belts would also ben­e­fit the ba­bies turned over by their moth­ers to an in­fant care/ adop­tion cen­ter of sorts. Oh, ba­bies are too cute! This coun­try is just too in love with lit­tle ones—let’s not be pes­simistic. Sooner or later, they’ll find a home and a fam­ily that could really raise and love them. Im-

Our pi­ous so­cialites can set this no­ble trend by post­ing their self­ies wear­ing chastity belts of the day. Steam­punk chastity belts—love it!

pos­ing a “child-free pol­icy,” even a “one-child, one-fam­ily rule,” would raise more hell than fran­chis­ing con­dom bars. Hey, we in­vented the su­per ex­tended fam­ily.

(But let th­ese baby cen­ters en­sure that the moth­ers are duly reg­is­tered lest a foundling one day de­cides to run for pres­i­dent.)

Our pi­ous so­cialites can set this no­ble trend by post­ing their self­ies wear­ing their chastity belts of the day. Steam­punk chastity belts—love it! And af­ter hus­bands and lovers have phi­lan­dered, a woman can de­clare peace in her heart af­ter re­dis­cov­er­ing faith and that new lock for her beaded belt. The bet­ter to se­cure one’s pre­cious gear, of course, and re­solve to lead a life of virtue.

See, those chastity belts will work two ways: Slow down pop­u­la­tion growth and dis­cour­age spouses from roger­ing an­other woman. Well, this is as­sum­ing the con­dom law has been scrapped and the chastity belt law has turned into a Repub­lic Act at least.

Don’t smirk just yet, the Philip­pines con­tin­ues to have the most ar­chaic laws, in­clud­ing tol­er­at­ing rape in mar­riage (Ar­ti­cle 266 in the Anti-Rape Law of 1997), de­crim­i­nal­iz­ing squat­ting (Anti- Squat­ting Law Re­peal Act of 1997), and get­ting ar­rested and be­ing fined at least P500 if you’re a widow who re­mar­ries within 301 days since your hus­band passed away (Sec­tion 351 of the Re­vised Pe­nal Code ), to name a few.

On an­other plat­form, we could take our chastity belt mis­sion to beauty pageants, thus help­ing im­prove its bad rep as be­ing mere flesh matches. In­stead of a swim­suit cat­e­gory, or­ga­niz­ers could make it an op­por­tu­nity to present the belts as sym­bols of fem­i­nine per­fec­tion: pure, full of grace, and sub­servient.

And what about the men, you ask? Well they could, if they want to wear male crotch guards. In fact, go on­line and you’ll see a pro­lif­er­a­tion of prod­ucts, sold whole­sale and cheap by Chi­nese deal­ers. The prob­lem here is that they’re cat­e­go­rized as sex toys, as cock cages—a pre­lude to a night of un­leash­ing some jail­house f-ck. In­stead of paving the pu­ri­tan path to ab­sti­nence, it got lost in trans­la­tion and turned kinky in­stead.

Well, send in the car­niv­o­rous con­doms then. Per­haps that’s when equal­ity will truly hap­pen. Women would not be en­snared into hav­ing sex, would not get preg­nant, would not be jailed if they abort a child, or would not be prej­u­diced for be­ing an un­wed mom.

Mean­while, the men will fear be­ing snacked on by rav­en­ous rub­bers.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines

© PressReader. All rights reserved.