Sexual Infidelity, explained.

I spent seven hours today at Starbucks with the urgent desire to finish everything Atty. Cerezo will include in the midterm coverage. The first three hours was spent silently beside Kathy and the succeeding hours were spent chitchatting with Jordanne and her fellow barrister friends during 10-minute breaks. Conversations turned to relationships and then I found myself telling them about my Niyaku love story. I am amazed at how I still get giddy and uber kilig when I tell it. Hahaha! Then we talked about wives and mistresses and why men marry bitches and how a woman must be a kitten and a tiger at the same time. It was a fun, really hilarious and crazy evening.

Eto ang mga natutunan ko sa kanila:

“Good girls, no gain. It’s the bitches that reign.” *CHECK*

“Men are attracted to women who have the qualities they don’t have.” *CHECK*

In re: Long Engagement. “Sabi ng lola ko, lalong nagpupulupot ang kalabaw kapag humahaba ang tali. Kaya, ikli-an mo lang.” *CHECK*

Then I went back to my reading and suddenly I was confronted by this excerpt from Atty. Rabuya’s book.

SEXUAL INFIDELITY before the enactment of Executive Order 209 also known as The Family Code of the Philippines

Before 3 August 1988, it is required that sexual infidelity must be in the form of adultery (on the part of the wife) or concubinage (on the part of the husband) before the same may constitute as ground for legal separation. As a consequence, a single act of sexual intercourse on the part of the husband with a woman other than his spouse will not necessarily be a ground for legal separation if such infidelity will not fall under concubinage, as the term is defined under the Revised Penal Code.

Note that for the crime of concubinage to be committed, it is required that the husband must either (1) keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; (2) have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife; or (3) cohabit with her in any other place.

On the other hand, a single act of sexual intercourse on the part of the wife with a man other than her husband is always a ground for legal separation since the same constitutes adultery.

Theoretically, a female homosapien ovulates only once a month which explains the reserved horny behavior. The longing for intercourse is relative to the amount of egg released. Meaning, once a month is enough. The male homosapien, on the other hand, can populate the entire world by just one ejaculation. Imagine the millions of swimming blind sperm cells being released in however manner, to whoever, wherever and whichever way the host wishes. Thus, if a male wants to shower his worldly possessions at a certain hour, he expects the horny-only-once-a-month female to receive them with all their glory. And since the female is said to be sexually accommodating only once a month, the male homosapien hunts for another female whose egg is right on schedule.

Through the ages, monkeys turned to humans and evolution made quite a civilization that not a single ape could have expected. Society evolved and the theory mentioned above is now labeled as a patriarchal element of a civilized world. Perhaps this explains the framework of the Old Civil Code. A single act of sexual intercourse on the part of the husband with a woman other than his spouse is NOT sexual infidelity. But a single act of sexual intercourse on the part of the wife with a man other than her husband constitutes sexual infidelity and is ALWAYS a ground for legal separation. WHAT?! SERIOUSLY?! I MEAN, SERIOUSLY? So basically, we are to go back to the ape illustration I mentioned? Dios mio! Although sexual infidelity has already been explained by physiologists, I still don't get this animalistic behavior. I mean, do you?

Am I now blabbing nonsense?  It's almost 2am. I need a rest.