A provision in the RH bill imported from an international convention grants the right to a safe and satisfying sex life. I have no problem with the safe but satisfying?
A right to great sex contradicts the birth control agenda of the RH bill which is more about maternal health. So the bill mixes three unrelated subjects-economic demographics, public health and personal fornication-under one misleading title in violation of the constitution.
A right to great sex cannot be legislated. Great sex is a hope and a frequently frustrated expectation. Hardly if ever is it a command performance except for some people I won't mention out of humility. Its elements are good looks, good skills, good equipment, above all a deep and caring affection. The elements of great sex cannot be supplied by law.
Nature or God set a time limit on what a man can do with his organ aside from urination. When that time comes, his organ becomes a remembrance of things past, a poignant recollection of what it could but can no longer do: Make babies. Clint Eastwood said, a man's gotta know his limitations and I say he's gotta respect them.
It is unnatural to extend the procreative function to prolong genital life beyond the limit set by nature. Yet that is what the right to great sex does. It will oblige goverment to resurrect the dead and give it an afterlife with publicly provided Viagra, a lifestyle drug that will enrich big pharmaceuticals by the ten billions. Everyone who wants a hard-on will demand it. Somewhere in the Bible it must say, what God hath killed let no man bring back to life for therein lies frankenstein.
A right to great sex gives every man the right to demand what his sexual partner may not feel: an "A" okay when it is not okay at all. Therefore it violates sexual conscience. With this law, a man can insist that his sexual partner show to his satisfaction that she is satisfied even if she is watching TV over his shoulder. She must put on a show of "ah, ah" satisfaction sufficient to satisfy him or be declared frigid in a court of law. A right to great sex puts more pressure to perform on the man so he cannot do it. The prospect that she will sue him and have him judiciallly declared flaccid increases the pressure to perform and the likelihood of failure.
The frivolous inclusion of a right to safe and satisfying sex in a measure intended to make sex responsible, first by self-control and then by contraception if you are out of control exalts the very activity whose fatality in some cases and irresponsibility in more cases are the very evils the RH bill seeks to address. To wit more kids than we care to have or have the means to care for. If you want less kids, think less but how kids are made. If you want to lose weight, think less about lechon. Sex is like lechon, delicious especially the skin.
And finally the right to safe and satisfying sex was wrenched from the context of child marriages and child sex trafficking. The right was intended to protect children forcibly married or enslaved to the sex trade from assault if not death denying them the ability to enjoy sex as adults. Children do not experience, let alone enjoy sex. They suffer it. To steal this right from that context and sneak into a birth control measure to frustrate that measure mocks the plight of the children it was meant to protect.
Good night and good luck.