Archive for August, 2008

J.J. Abrams traces his love of the unseen mystery — the heart of Alias, Lost, and the upcoming Cloverfield — back to its own magical beginnings, which may or may not include an early obsession with magic, the love of a supportive grandfather, or his own unopened Mystery Box.

One of Abrams’ interesting insights: Mystery is the catalyst for imagination. There are times that mystery is more important than knowledge.

It’s that sense of infinite possibility that drives human curiosity, and inspires man to expand his awareness of the universe. However, on the flipside of that argument: is that man’s love for mystery can blind him from the truth–and forces man to cling to myths.

Wonderful insights from this talk from TED.

Read Full Post »

AIDS and HIV are two aspects of world society we now have come to take for granted since its emergence in the 1980s. The disease and the virus that causes it have become staple facts that no one dares to challenge.

However, the ease and availability of information via the internet have made it possible for myths and propaganda to be challenged, and recently AIDS dissidents have found a voice to air their side. The basic facts about AIDS commonly accepted now:

  • HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.
  • HIV was first contracted in Africa from monkeys.
  • HIV is primarily transmitted through sexual contact with infected partners, secondarily from infected needles, tertiarily from infected mothers to their infants.
  • Irresponsible homosexual males and intravenous drug abusers are at high risk from AIDS, but everyone is at risk from the disease.
  • These are the facts, or are they? What if like many things taken for granted, AIDS is simply the product of clever marketing and potent propaganda?

    Gary Null produced a video that tackles these very issues and provides a venue for AIDS dissidents to speak out. Check out Null’s work here.

    The debate that has sparked since Null’s documentary have people taking rabid sides. Two websites present their arguments and counter-arguments on this issue:

    1. VirusMyth is a website dedicated to AIDS dissidents presented by Gary Null. They compile petitions, testimonials, and research disproving the basic facts about AIDS.
    2. In response to VirusMyth, AIDSTruth.org was formed to debunk the counter-arguments of AIDS dissidents, classifying them as denialists and their research as pseudo-science. The website presents research of its own that answes the basic challenges of AIDS denialists.

    Considering the massive global funding on AIDS, this debate is one of the most controversial of our times and is a perfect study in the ability of an idea to take on a life of its own.

    Read Full Post »

    People Power in 1986 was a singular and powerful event that freed the country from the clutches of oppressive dictatorship and provided a venue and expression for free thought that had been repressed for decades in the Philippines.

    However, the modern idea of People Power has been changed from its purest expression into one that is used to manipulate people.

    This is the harsh critique of benign00 in YouTube who expresses a message for all Filipinos.

    A transcript of her message follows:

    Filipinos have become addicted to People Power revolutions. Our society is dying from this addiction.

    In September 2005, the first impeachment bid against President Arroyo failed to pass Congress. Former President Cory Aquino took the cue to lead a protest rally in Commonwealth Avenue that was expected to lead to another People Power spectacle–presumably to continue where Congress failed.

    That fizzled out spectacularly.

    Arroyo is still president today and Aquino has gone from Ms. Edsa Revolution to pathetic chump. So you just have to ask why we again see her in her ho-hum yellow outfit with the rest of the Catholic mafia knelt in prayer before the paparazzi.

    Groups addicted to People Power clamoring for a modern democratic society fail to see the irony in what Cory Aquino, the Catholic Church, and the 2008 opposition would have us do. Yet again ignore modern institutions and due process in favor of the Inquisition.

    What can be a more fitting reminder of primitive medieval sorcery than the sight of feudal land owners and oligarchs hand-in-hand with the clergy inciting misguided fervor on an ignorant throng of people. Do we want a modern country run by modern institutions or a primitive country run by organized religion? Do we as a people want to continue to play the part of the ignorant throng dancing to the tune of these characters?

    At the heart of this crisis there is no pro-Arroyo or anti-Arroyo. This is about what we want to be as a society. We want to be known as a people who want to do things properly. In 1986 there was no alternative to People Power. Today, 2008, people will have us believe that we are fighting for freedom. Yet the reality is that we already have this freedom. We only choose to misuse it–hitting the streets at the drop of a hat whenever Cory Aquino and a bunch of bishops are not happy. Contrary to what they say, we are a free people, and we are free to do the right thing today. Use the proper channels to reach your representatives in Congress.

    And next time, vote for the right people.

    Read Full Post »

    Murray Gell-mann is a physicist who reflects on the “theory of everything”. He mentions that there seems to be a relationship with elegance and beauty to finding truth.

    What are things that can be said to be beautiful or elegant? Elegance refers to simplicity. Elegance refers to something all-encompassing. Elegance is something that isn’t complicated. Elegance is something that you can immediately relate to–something you can immediately say is beautiful or elegant.

    Beauty is a unified theory. There is a simple statement that explains everything. Beauty is symmetry. Beauty is a self-similarity in Nature on all levels. We search for this beauty and we will be closer to truth.

    K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid!)

    Are elegant questions more likely to be right than inelegant ones? Do you need something more, something supernatural, something inexplicable–to explain reality?

    Murray Gell-mann reflects on these things in this wonderful talk on TED.

    Read Full Post »

    More about the assassination of Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino. The official verdict: the Senator was shot while descending the stairs from his airplane by his military escort–thus Aquino’s death was a military conspiracy, which loosely places the blame on incumbent President: Ferdinand Marcos.

    This thought was the spark that set off a critical chain of events that culminated in the ouster of Marcos in 1986.

    However, what if the verdict was wrong?

    Now, more than 20 years after Ninoy’s death, more and more witnesses and arguments are coming to fore that exonorates the military soliders accused of killing Senator Aquino, and placing the blame on Rolando Galman–the other person shot on the tarmac on the day of Aquino’s death.

    Here is the account of the sole civilian witness of Aquino’s assassination that day:

    In the same breath, more calls to reopen the case on Ninoy’s assassination, backed by more forensic studies that exonorate the soldiers:

    Finally a local forensic expert makes an argument against the official verdict against the soldiers:

    However the arguments are compelling, the case remains closed to this day.

    Read Full Post »

    Let us first start with the definitions: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/faith

    faith audio� (fth) KEY NOUN:

    1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
    2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
    3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
    4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
    5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
    6. A set of principles or beliefs.


    In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defence mechanisms or defense mechanisms (see -ce/-se) are psychological strategies brought into play by various entities to cope with reality and to maintain self-image. Healthy persons normally use different defences throughout life. An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behavior such that the physical and/or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of the Ego Defence Mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety, social sanctions or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.[1]

    Let’s use the definition of faith in number two. The person concerned does not believe his religion due to rationalization but probably due to authority. I personally don’t find anything wrong with having a belief which has not been validated by rationality. What seems weird though is, some people believe that their beliefs are definitely the truth with no room for error. Now that seems stretching it a bit too far. We all know that when we were kids we believed that our parents were infallible. But as we grew up we noticed that they just simply knew more. Now why would grown up humans, supposedly rational at that, actually believe that some supposedly representative of God is infallible. Has there even been any perfect track record of that person? Has the that organization which supposedly represents God been acting immaculately clean? To put everything in perspective, let us think that this religious organization is a company which your pretty freshly graduating daughter would want to apply to for a job. Say you are looking for a company, not only for your daughter’s financial future, but also for her moral well being. These would possibly be a list of a few requirements:

    1. The company or its employees should have no history of criminal activity.
    2. The company’s employees should have no history of internal sexual harrassment.
    3. The company should be ethical in its principles.
    4. The company should always tell the truth and not tell half lies in order to save itself.
    5. The company should not use fear in order to be followed.

    Now since religion is primarily for being good and going to heaven, it should not only pass the above requirements, but should actually pass it with flying colors. So, does your religion pass? Is my analogy reasonable? To put it more bluntly, would you let your pretty daughter get employed in a company which employs several people who are accused of sexual harassment or even sexual intercourse with minors of the same sex? And worse of all manages to shuffle them to another location where they are near other minors instead of quarantining them? If they can’t pass that simple test! How can you even state that everything they are saying is absolutely true? On to ‘defense mechanisms’. As state in the above quote: “are psychological strategies brought into play by various entities to cope with reality and to maintain self-image” “The purpose of the Ego Defence Mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety, social sanctions or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.” You may ask, what are the realities that a human being has to cope with which is addressed by religion.

    1. To be given hope when one is down.
    2. To be given a parental figure, specially if one feels that he/she is missing such.
    3. To be given hope that there is life after death.
    4. To feel that justice will be given to the ones who have wronged him/her.

    Does the above make sense? I have been to several internet forums where discussions take place. When logic begins to batter believers, usually one angle they resort to is that life will be better if one believes in something, if one has hope.


    Try checking out the definition of one of the “psychological defence mechanisms” called “denial”.


    Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. [1] The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference). The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction. The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality. Where denial occurs in mature minds, it is most often associated with death, dying and rape. More recent research has significantly expanded the scope and utility of the concept. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross used denial as the first of five stages in the psychology of a dying patient, and the idea has been extended to include the reactions of survivors to news of a death. Thus, when parents are informed of the death of a child, their first reaction is often of the form, “No! You must have the wrong house, you can’t mean our child!”

    The problem with this hope is, it seems to fit into this “defense mechanism”. There are 4 levels of defense mechanisms, from the least mature starting with level one to the most mature being level four. Denial is a first level “defense mechanism”


    Level 1 Defence Mechanisms

    The mechanisms on this level, when predominating, almost always are severely pathological. These three defences, in conjunction, permit one to effectively rearrange external reality and eliminate the need to cope with reality. The pathological users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane to others. These are the “psychotic” defences, common in overt psychosis. However, they are found in dreams and throughout childhood as healthy mechanisms.

    They include:

    • Denial: Refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening; arguing against an anxiety-provoking stimulus by stating it doesn’t exist; resolution of emotional conflict and reduction of anxiety by refusing to perceive or consciously acknowledge the more unpleasant aspects of external reality.
    • Distortion: A gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs.
    • Delusional Projection: Grossly frank delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.

    I don’t know what Psychology officially thinks about religious faith. I don’t know if they even consider my analogies above to be reasonable or if they are just skirting the issue and just being religiously tolerant.

    Read Full Post »

    August being the anniversary of the assassination of Senator Benigno Ninoy Aquino Jr., it merits a closer look at the man and his life. He is currently recognized as a national hero, his death in 1983 being the spark that caused a national outrage against Marcos that culiminated in the 1986 uprising that ousted the dictator from the Philippines.

    Our media and minds are filled with memes associated with Ninoy such as “The Filipino Is Worth Dying For” and others, and the common Filipino might treat Ninoy as a person who willingly died to restore democracy to the country.

    However, we have to ask an important critical question: did Aquino really want to die? Did he consider himself martyr material? Let’s take a closer look at Ninoy from what scant material we have in the media.

    Batas Militar Documentary

    Here’s an excerpt from the TV documentary “Batas Militar” which talks about Ninoy’s life and epitomy as a politician. Ninoy in history has always been a great orator and commentator, and his communication skills were excellent tools in politics. However, it is his story as a Philippine martyr that overwhelms most references to him, probably due to the extreme emotional outrage that his death sparked amongst his fellow Filipinos.

    700 Club

    Here’s an interview of Ninoy in the Christian show 700 club. More of how Ninoy is able to effectively communicate and use the sensibilities of his audience to rally people to his cause.

    Japanese Media

    Here are few media snippets of his interview prior to his arrival in Manila.

    ANC: The Big Picture

    Finally here is the best insight into Ninoy’s mind prior to his return. In a recorded conversation with close friend Steve Psinakis, Ninoy shares his motives for coming home and the trump cards he had prepared to garner Marcos’ support.

    Some things that isn’t top of mind to the common Filipino about Ninoy Aquino:

    1. He had nothing to do with the EDSA revolution that led to Marcos’ ouster (that was after the fact, long after he died). And yet, most Filipinos associate EDSA with Ninoy Aquino.
    2. He wanted to become President of the Philippines at any cost–whether it was against or with the blessing of Ferdinand Marcos, he had no preferences. Until the day of his departure for the Philippines from Boston, Ninoy was heavily entertaining the chance to speak and negotiate with Marcos to sell himself as his successor.
    3. It is very likely that Ninoy thought that best chance of him becoming President was through Marcos’ endorsement. He was already negotiating behind the scenes to ensure his transition after Marcos–ASEAN, the MILF, the US, and Japan.
    4. Ninoy Aquino never intended his wife Cory to stand in for him in case of his death. 
    5. The US was less inclined to support Ninoy due to the instability his presence could cause in the Philippines, which threatened the status of US military bases (Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Bay).

    History is written by the victors in any conflict. Of Ninoy, we know the hero, but not much of the consummate politican and statesman. Had he survived, perhaps our idea of Ninoy would be very different–not far from how we treat other politicians. He was an old-school player of the game, and a very good one at that–still posing Marcos a threat even while in exile.

    Meanwhile, history will always remain played out the way it did–and so will our collective understanding of Ninoy–or the idea of Ninoy, far from the reality that Ninoy really was, or intended himself to be. We can’t rely on the history books for that. Only Ninoy can really say for sure.

    Read Full Post »

    You read it right! Before, some religious sectors believe that homosexuality is not ethical if those homosexual tendencies are entertained with homosexual activities like man to man sex. From the way this article unravels, it seems that it considers what it calls a “soft male” an aberration even though the male is not a homosexual.


    Recapture Value in True Manhood

    August 25, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com

    Men today are suffering from gender confusion. Our society is now full of “soft”—and unhappy—males. Men’s encounter groups are springing up all over the world to help men deal with their intense sadness. Some are beating drums and dancing war dances to recapture their true manhood. What is true manhood anyway? By Dennis Leap

    I could imagine a number of soft, unhappy males, but what this article does not point out is exactly how many of these males really exist. And even if the majority of soft males are unhappy, it does not mean that these soft males are an aberration. It may just mean that human are evolving into a different kind of human with genders going becoming more androgynous.

    Androgynous, in this case meaning number 2


    an·drog·y·nous Audio Help [an-drojuh-nuhs] Pronunciation KeyShow IPA Pronunciation

    1. being both male and female; hermaphroditic.
    2. having both masculine and feminine characteristics.
    3. having an ambiguous sexual identity.
    4. neither clearly masculine nor clearly feminine in appearance: the androgynous look of many rock stars.
    5. Botany. having staminate and pistillate flowers in the same inflorescence.

    I don’t know about evolution, but from experience, change is usually accompanied with ‘pain’. This happens since new structures are to be followed. If you are a drug addict and you stop taking your illicit drugs, you may undergo withdrawal. Do you think it’s reasonable for you to stop since it gives you pain? Of course not, that is part of the transformation from the drug addict to the person who is not drug dependent. In the case of the soft male, this new version of men will have to undergo ‘scrutiny’ from people who follow the ‘herd mentality’. Since the masses are still considered to be used to distinct gender types and roles, then androgynous males or females will of course feel out of place.


    Mr. Bly states: “The male in the past 20 years has become more thoughtful, more gentle. … He’s a nice boy who pleases not only his mother but also the young woman he is living with. … But many of these men are not happy. You quickly notice a lack of energy in them. They are life-preserving but not exactly life-giving. Ironically, you often see these men with strong women who positively radiate energy. Here we have a finely tuned young man, ecologically superior to his father, sympathetic to the whole harmony of the universe, yet he himself has little vitality to offer” (pages 2-3).

    Oh, now I get it. The author says, “they are life-preserving but not exactly life-giving”, now what is wrong with that. If you’ll notice, the soft male, has now acted feminine. It seems that the author either considers femininity as inferior to masculinity, or assumes that if one is physically male, one must be masculine and not feminine.

    Today, many men, young and old, have become confused as to what it means to be a man. Many are perplexed on how to behave in marriage, in the family or in society. To put it simply, men are suffering from serious gender confusion.

    If those people who follow the herd mentality, just accept people for what they are, then soft males and strong females would not be perplexed on how to behave in society wouldn’t they.

    The Prophet Isaiah wrote this about our current social values: “Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding” (Isaiah 29:15-16). Isaiah criticizes our leaders—the men and women who influence our culture—by showing they are guilty of turning things upside down. “Upside down” is an apt description of our society and its values. It is a perfect description of many of today’s marriages and families. The new roles carved out for men and women today are not as God designed them to be.

    Now it’s getting clearer, this author wants to follow the bible. Things change with the times. Don’t let me start here with a bible discussion, but just to give you a peek into a blog entry which i may create in the future, these are some verses which I believe may have been appropriate in the olden times which will be probably be criminal today. Yes, they are from the bible.

    And just in case you want to know where I got the compilation, it’s from:


    Anyone who goes uncircumcised is to be exiled from his people (Genesis 17:14).

    If a man has sex with a menstruating women, both are to be exiled (Leviticus 20:18).

    A man who marries a mother and daughter must burn in a fire (Leviticus 20:14).

    If two men have sexual relations, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:13).

    If a mother and son have sexual relations, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:11).

    If a man and daughter-in-law have sex, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:12).

    If a man has sex with an animal, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:15).

    If a woman has sex with an animal, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:16).

    Anyone who attacks his mother or father must be put to death (Exodus 21:15).

    Anyone who curses his mother or father must be put to death (Leviticus 20:9).

    Anyone who commits murder must be put to death (Leviticus 24:17).

    Anyone who commits adultery must be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22).

    Anyone who commits perjury must be put to death (Deuteronomy 19:18-19).

    Anyone who commits kidnapping must be put to death (Exodus 21:16).

    Anyone who disobeys a judge or priest must be put to death (Deuteronomy 17:12).

    Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death (Exodus 35:2).

    Anyone who does not worship God must be put to death (2 Chronicles 15:13).

    Any strangers approaching a sanctuary must be put to death (Numbers 17:7).

    Any prophet who tries to turn you against God must be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:5).

    Any prophet who makes a wrong prediction must be put to death (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

    Family members who tempt you with other gods must be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

    If an ox gores someone, the ox and its owner must be stoned to death (Exodus 21:29).

    Anyone who claims to talk with spirits must be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:27).

    A stubborn and rebellious son must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

    Any woman who has had premarital sex must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:21).

    Anyone who worships another god must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-7).

    Anyone who curses or blasphemes must be stoned to death (Leviticus 24:14-16).

    Break the neck of your donkey’s firstborn or kill a lamb instead (Exodus 34:20).

    If a city worships other gods, kill everyone in it and burn it (Deuteronomy 13:12-16).


    Women Rule Over Them

    The majority of today’s families are suffering from absentee fathers. Because of selfishness, either as career pursuits or just plain pleasure-seeking, many men are shunning their responsibilities at home. How many fathers have allowed themselves to become mere shadows in the family? Think about this scenario. Tonight, how many homes will have a father either sleeping on a couch or absorbed in a sports program on TV, while the wife is assisting the children with homework or other activities? Far too many!

    Men are capitulating their role as leader, energizer, and influencer to their wives. Our sons (and daughters) are growing up without a father actively involved with and guiding their young lives. Many wives have been forced to be both father and mother. Today’s sons are growing up under a heavy feminine influence. Many men have become soft because they are not being properly taught how to be men.

    One other factor contributing to the effect of “soft males” is our high divorce rate. This has produced a large number of female-dominated, single-parent families. In other words, too many sons are growing up without any male role model in the home. Isaiah also wrote of our time, “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths” (Isaiah 3:12).

    Think about this scripture. God holds heavy criticism for our modern society. God is upset with us for allowing children to oppress us and women to rule over us. But who is God upset with? Who is at fault? Certainly today’s women. We do now live in a female-dominated society. God says that this is definitely in error. However, it would be too easy to just place all the blame on today’s women. Shouldn’t we also criticize men for giving up their leadership role to women? Yes—a resounding, yes!

    Combine all of these factors together: the feminist movement, the media ridicule of men, the lack of strong male role models, female-dominated families, and it becomes easy to see why we have “soft males” that must turn to mother for help when they face a crisis!

    Although some thinking people recognize the weaknesses in today’s men, they do not realize the somber consequences if the problems are not corrected quickly. Robert Bly feels that men are just experiencing another saga in our evolution. But man is not a product of evolution. We cannot evolve our way out of society’s tragic problems.

    We must learn what God reveals about this so we can live faithfully according to His revealed knowledge about men and the role men must play in marriage, in family and in society. Our society no longer knows how to value real manhood. Many men are suffering great unhappiness as a result. This article will show you how to recapture value in true manhood.

    Man the Head

    God designed men and women to function a certain way for a tremendous spiritual purpose. God reveals in Genesis, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26-27). God’s supreme purpose is for men and women to be born into His own spirit Family. God planned this physical life to be the training ground for that eternal life. To qualify to live for eternity, men and women must first live as God devised physically. Modern men and women have rejected God’s revealed knowledge concerning the unique sex roles for men and women. A global disaster is about to strike this planet as a result. All mankind must learn to live as God intended. Human beings will never be happy until they live according to God’s revealed purpose. What does God reveal about His intended role for men?

    Some scientists believe that the female evolved first. That piece of information does not square with your Bible. Paul instructed Timothy, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). God created Adam first. Why? Was it because he was better? No. Adam was created first because God intended that he be the head, or leader, of the family. Paul explained to the Ephesians, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (Ephesians 5:23).

    The man’s God-ordained role as leader of the family is markedly evident throughout the Bible. Paul stated it this way to the Corinthians: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). What does Paul mean when he uses the word head?

    In these two verses Paul used the Greek word kephale for head. The Strong’s Concordance number for this word is 2776. Thayer’s shows that this word means “anything supreme, chief, prominent, of persons, master lord … of a husband in relation to his wife.” In today’s language we could use the word president, chancellor, prime minister, king or captain in place of head. In other words, Paul taught that Adam was given seniority over Eve. By extension then, married men hold seniority over their wives.

    The bible again. I don’t find anything wrong with a man playing a woman’s “role” or a woman playing a man’s “role”. It’s a lot better than in some marriages where both husband and wife try to play the husbands role and dominate each other. A lot of women nowadays enjoy going out with gay men simply because they find gay men friendlier, more harmless and less horny. I myself prefer being with boyish women since they are franker, easier to talk to and when I am tired or not in the mood, they can lead and tell me where to go when we are out bar hopping. Have you noticed all the bars with gay men cracking jokes, don’t you find them funny? I myself enjoy the company of gay men as long as they don’t show any interest in me. And I definitely enjoy going out with strong boyish women, and I don’t mind if these boyish women show interest in me.

    The bible seems to have different ‘set’ roles for men and women. Some have even actually stated that the bible is chauvinistic. Do you really want to know how the bible treats women? See for yourself.


    The Rules Of Marriage

    Let’s start our analysis at the “beginning.” Everyone has heard the story of God becoming angry with Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Although God punishes both for disobeying his directions, the author clearly places the majority of the blame on Eve for tempting her husband. God says to Eve, “thy desire is to be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16). Since the other suppressing punishments on the couple, such as Eve’s childbirth pains, are still in effect, we have no justifiable reason to think that the servitude punishment applies solely to Eve and not the gender as a whole. If the Bible is the true word of God, this passage demonstrates his desire for women to live life in subservience to men. In actuality, however, someone most likely invented this portion of the patently unreliable story as a justification for the ongoing inferior treatment of women.

    Chapter 21 of Exodus provides us with some very detailed instructions from God on women and marriage. For example, in the instance that a father sells his daughter to another man who is not pleased with her, she must be redeemed. Regardless of the amount of satisfaction that the girl provides for the man, God’s rules still allow him to acquire another wife. If he so chooses, the first wife is not allowed to leave unless her master refuses her food, clothing, or other marriage duties (Exodus 21:7-11). These words would later serve as justification for men, such as King David, who had hundreds of wives and concubines. We’ve also learned in this passage that women are to be sold as slaves and treated as sex objects. If you dislike this conclusion and still believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, you must either unwillingly follow God’s derogatory and dehumanizing orders or take an opposing position against the almighty.

    The demoralizing instructions for daughter selling aren’t the only rules of marriage that God sanctions. If a man decides he no longer wants to be married to his wife, he can attempt to have her killed by claiming that she lost her virginity prior to their marriage. Following this accusation, the woman must then provide sufficient physical evidence, such as a bloodstain, to demonstrate that his accusations are fraudulent. In the event that she fails to prove her innocence of this “crime,” she is to be stoned to death because of this utmost act of disgrace. Guilty until proven innocent is the law within God’s court. Any woman who accidentally tears her hymen due to an injury or other non-sexual act is simply out of luck because she could never prove her virginity. Thus, she would be at the mercy of her husband throughout her entire life. If evidence is produced to exonerate the woman in question, the accuser is fined a couple pounds of silver and forced to stay married until death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). In this case, what does the man really have to lose?

    Some rules following the death of a man are relevant to his wife’s well-being. According to the rules of Moses, the deceased father’s inheritance goes entirely to his sons. If he has no son, it goes to the daughters. After that, the inheritance should go to the closest male relatives (Numbers 27:8-11). Not only do the boys of the household have priority over the girls, the wife is also noticeably absent from the will. Instead, God’s law forces her to marry her husband’s brother, provided she doesn’t already have a son with her former husband. However, the brother-in-law has the right to refuse the marriage; the woman does not (Deuteronomy 25:5-9).

    Menstruation is a natural occurrence in the lives of most women. However, the God of the Pentateuch despises this biologically necessary bodily process and gives instructions on how to deal with these treacherous circumstances. During menstruation, God deems the woman unclean. No one shall have any contact with her for seven days or until the bleeding stops. God deems anyone or anything she touches unclean. If she touches another person, God deems that person unclean until he bathes. In fact, the same goes for anyone who touches something that she previously touched (Leviticus 15:19-30). All this uncleanliness is resolved by needlessly killing two doves. Admittedly, there are similar laws for male ejaculation, but men can actually suppress these events to some extent.

    Childbirth is another natural event that God deems foul. If a woman gives birth to a boy, she will be unclean for seven days while she undergoes the same ritual for her menstrual period. She must then be purified for thirty-three days and barred from entering worship during this time. If she produces a girl, the sentence of solitary confinement is doubled to fourteen and sixty-six days, respectively (Leviticus 12:1-5). In addition to God unfairly designating women as filthy individuals following childbirth, this passage heavily insinuates that girls are dirtier than boys because it punishes a woman more harshly for giving birth to a female child.

    Society is evolving. At the rate it is going, in the very near future the number of bisexuals may exceed the number of heterosexuals. And after that, bisexuals may be considered the norm. Hopefully by that time religions that are against this trend may be hopeless in dealing with the situation and be considered to have medieval ideas.

    I am curious to find out what the stand of feminists are with this issue, could the feminists who read this article please comment?

    Read Full Post »

    Star Wars is one of the most well known movie series of all time. As far as 1977, the first of its series introduced itself

    Although the film entertains us with a beautiful story with cutting edge special effects, one can’t help but wonder if the film is philosophical as well. Did George Lucas actually have other intentions than to entertain the public?

    In Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, one of the lines even seemed to be anti-Bush


    One of the most surprising elements of this film is Lucas’ political statement. “Any one that’s not with me, is my enemy,” Anakin says at one point, paraphrasing the famous line from a George W. Bush speech. “Only a Sith believes only in absolutes,” Obi-wan replies. “So this is how liberty dies,” Padmé points out in another scene as Senator Palpatine is laying out his new political strategy. “With a round of applause.”

    But aside from political statements, the series can be quite philosophical as well. For some reason, some people have seemed to take the philosophy quite seriously and have tried to promote it as a religion. Just search for “Jediism” and you will be surprised at the number of websites you will find.

    I have tried in vain to search for quotation from the “Star Wars” series but only get relatively mundane quotations at best. So I will try to try my very best on this one from memory. The primary theme which I have seen in this series is the introduction of the “Force”. Another is the introduction of mental discipline.

    Let us start with the idea of mental discipline first. If you shall look at the development the character of Darth Vader, you shall see that this character is one of the central figures. The character spans throughout the whole six films of the series and goes through a transformation from good to bad and back to good at the last film. The character started as Anakin Skywalker, later to be renamed as Darth Vader as he turns evil. Although everyone agrees that Darth Vader is indeed evil, how many people have noticed how Anakin’s character had changed.

    Annakin, never showed greed, never showed materialism. But Anakin had been cautioned numerous times on his discipline. Anakin was the most loving and romantic of the characters, something which he never learned to discipline. He loved his mother and wife dearly. If you will notice, it was his love for his mother which had caused him to lose control and subsequently to slaughter women and children. And it was his love for his wife that caused him to change to Darth Vader. Anakin upon learning of his wife’s demise exuded so much force that he managed to rupture the robots beside him while being operated on on the operating table. Ok, maybe it’s not exactly love, but it was his attachment to his mother and wife which triggered all these.

    But again, true love does not hold grudges and can let go. True love is not possessive nor jealous. Maybe Anakin had too much of romantic love and not unconditional love. Again an acquaintance told me before that only God can give unconditional love. Throughout the whole course of the series, I have yet to find an event where Darth Vader had shown greed or materialism.

    When you think of it, the idea of it all seems so buddhist.


    1. Life means suffering.

    2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

    3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

    4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

    1. Life means suffering.

    To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

    2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

    The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a “self” which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call “self” is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

    3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

    The cessation of suffering can be attained through nirodha. Nirodha means the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. This means that suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.

    4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

    There is a path to the end of suffering – a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the Eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely “wandering on the wheel of becoming”, because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.

    The idea of non-attachment is very central to Buddhism. It is included in their “Four Noble Truths”. For christians, this would be similar to their “Ten Commandments”

    The gray area though is, what about love, is an attachment due to love considered an ‘attachment’? I have tried to search on this issue and it seems that buddhism is quite silent about it. If I were them though, I would let the seeking pupil find out for himself rather then tell it to him. Sometimes, experience is the best teacher. If you ask the typical person on the street though, he/she might insist that love is not love unless there is attachment. And love for God is different, with love for a spouse. If you look at Christianity too, there seems to be a lot of verses on love and no verses on attachment due to love. Hence people assume that once one is in love, everything is o.k. But how many times have we heard of men and women in suffering simply because they can not let go. They have not been wronged in their previous relationship, but for some reason, just can’t give up their attachments.

    Buddhism, aside from being good, consider mental discipline as a prerequisite to attaining nirvana. Nirvana would be consider Heaven from a Christian’s point of view. Out of eight, we have three which are dedicated to mental discipline.


    Below are the specifics of the three from the same webpage:

    Samādhi: Mental Discipline, Concentration, Meditation

    Samadhi is literally translated as “concentration”, it is achieved through training in the higher consciousness, which brings the calm and collectedness needed to develop true wisdom by direct experience. [42]

    [edit] Right effort

    Right effort (samyag-vyāyāmasammā-vāyāma) can also be translated as “right endeavor”. In this factor, the practitioners should make a persisting effort to abandon all the wrong and harmful thoughts, words, and deeds. The practitioner should instead be persisting in giving rise to what would be good and useful to themselves and others in their thoughts, words, and deeds, without a thought for the difficulty or weariness involved. In the Pali Canon, it is explained as:

    And what, monks, is right effort?
    (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
    (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
    (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
    (iv) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen:
    This, monks, is called right effort.[43][44][45]

    Although the above instruction is given to the male monastic order, it is also meant for the female monastic order and can be practiced by lay followers from both genders.

    The above four phases of right effort mean:

    1. make effort to prevent the unwholesome that has not yet arisen in oneself.
    2. make effort to destroy the unwholesome that has arisen in oneself.
    3. make effort to arouse the wholesome that has not yet arisen in oneself.
    4. make effort to maintain the wholesome that has arisen in oneself.

    [edit] Right mindfulness

    Right mindfulness (samyak-smṛtisammā-sati), also translated as “right memory”, “right awareness” or “right attention”. In this factor, the practitioner should constantly keep their mind alert to phenomena as they are affecting the body and mind. They should be mindful and deliberate, making sure not to act or speak through the power of inattention or forgetfulness. In the Pali Canon, it is explained as:

    And what, monks, is right mindfulness?
    (i) There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.
    (ii) He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.
    (iii) He remains focused on the mind in & of itself — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.
    (iv) He remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.
    This, monks, is called right mindfulness. [46][47][48]

    Although the above instruction is given to the male monastic order, it is also meant for the female monastic order and can be practiced by lay followers from both genders.

    Bhikkhu Bodhi, a monk of the Theravadin tradition, further explain the concept of mindfulness as follows:

    The mind is deliberately kept at the level of bare attention, a detached observation of what is happening within us and around us in the present moment. In the practice of right mindfulness the mind is trained to remain in the present, open, quiet, and alert, contemplating the present event. All judgments and interpretations have to be suspended, or if they occur, just registered and dropped[49].

    [edit] Right concentration

    Right concentration (samyak-samādhisammā-samādhi), as its Pali and Sanskrit name indicates, is the practice of concentration (samadhi). The practitioner will have to concentrate on an object of attention until it reaches full concentration and then into the state of meditative absorption (jhana). Traditionally, the practice of samadhi can be developed from mindfulness of breathing, from visual objects (kasina), and repetition of phrases. Samadhi is used to suppress the five hindrances in order to enter into jhana. Jhana is an instrument used for developing wisdom by cultivating insight and use it to penetrate the true nature of phenomena through direct cognition, which will then lead to cutting off the defilements, realize the dhamma and self-awakening. During the practice of right concentration, the practitioner will need to investigate and verify their right view, in the process right knowledge will arise and then followed by right liberation. In the Pali Canon, it is explained as:

    And what is right concentration?
    (i)Herein a monk aloof from sense desires, aloof from unwholesome thoughts, attains to and abides in the first meditative absorbtion (jhana) which is detachment-born and accompanied by applied thought, sustained thought, joy, and bliss.
    (ii)By allaying applied and sustained thought he attains to, and abides in the second jhana which is inner tranquillity, which is unification (of the mind), devoid of applied and sustained thought, and which has joy and bliss.
    (iii)By detachment from joy he dwells in equanimity, mindful, and with clear comprehension and enjoys bliss in body, and attains to and abides in the third jhana which the noble ones (ariyas) call: ‘Dwelling in equanimity, mindfulness, and bliss.
    (iv)By giving up of bliss and suffering, by the disappearance already of joy and sorrow, he attains to, and abides in the fourth jhana, which is neither suffering nor bliss, and which is the purity of equanimity-mindfulness.
    This is called right concentration.[50][51][52][53]

    Although the above instruction is given to the male monastic order, it is also meant for the female monastic order and can be practiced by lay followers from both genders.

    According to the Pali canon, right concentration is dependent on the development of preceding path factors:

    “The Blessed One said: “Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions.” [54]

    Should this be correct, what will become of people of other religions which only preach love without mental discipline, whose lives are full of stress, insecurities and hangups. Shall they go to Heaven or not?

    The next big issue with the “Star Wars” series is their introduction to the concept of “The Force”. Exactly what is “The Force”? Is it God? When you think of it, how can it be God if there is “the bad side of the force” and “the good side of the force”. And both good and evil characters in the series use “The Force” to their advantage. Should this “Force” be God, it is also definitely not a personal God as to what the Christians and Muslims believe. The characters both good and evil do not worship the Force or even pray to it, but they do seem to attempt to assimilate themselves into it. There is also no mention of God in the whole series. This leads me to believe that the series is actually atheist in nature. The closest which it can relate itself into is the Yin and Yang of Taoism. Taoism is mum about its alignment with the concept of God. The Yin/Yang energy can hardly be called a deity. Buddhism is something else, Buddhism is primarily atheist and several Buddhists will even state of their disbelief in God.

    This is one such buddhist which is against the concept of God. Here is an excerpt from his book which specifically says so.


    Chapter 3:
    Why God Cannot Exist

    We have seen that the arguments used to prove God’s existence are inadequate. We will now demonstrate that logically an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God such as the one in which Christians have faith cannot exist.

    The Problem of Free Will

    For the religious life to be meaningful we must have free will, we must be able to choose between good and evil. If we do not have free will we cannot be held responsible for what we do.

    According to Christians, God is all-knowing – he knows all the past, all the present and all the future. If this is so, then God must know everything we do long before we do it. This means that our whole life must be predetermined and that we act not according to the free exercise of our wills but according to our predetermined natures. If we are predetermined to be good we will be good and if we are predetermined to be evil we will be evil. We will act not according to our will or choice but according to the way God has already foreseen we will act. Although Christians will insist that we do have free will, God’s omniscience simply makes this logically impossible. And that people will act only as God determines is verified in the Bible.

    If people are evil it is because God has chosen to make them evil (Rom 1:24-28) and caused them to disobey him (Rom 11:32). If they do not understand God’s message it is because he has made their minds dull (Rom 11:8) and caused them to be stubborn (Rom 9:18). God prevents the Gospel from being preached in certain areas (Act 16:6-7) and he fixes long before it will happen when a person will be born and when he or she will die (Act 17:26). Those who were going to be saved were chosen by God before the beginning of time (II Tim 1:9, Eph 1:11). If a person has faith and is thereby saved, their faith comes from God, not from any effort on their part (Eph 2:9-10). One may ask “If a person can only do what God predetermines them to do, how can God hold them responsible for their actions?” The Bible has an answer for this question.

    But one of you will say to me: “If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? For who can resist God’s will?” But who are you, my friend, to answer God back? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it: “Why did you make me like this?” After all, the man who makes the pot has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and to make two pots from one lump of clay, one for special occasions and one for ordinary use. And the same is true of what God has done (Rom 9:19-22).

    So apparently in Christianity a person’s life and destiny are due purely to the whim of God and as mere humans we have no right to complain about what God has decided for us. The idea that we are all predetermined is quite consistent with the idea of an all-knowing God but it makes nonsense of the concept of making an effort to do good or avoid evil.

    The Problem of Evil

    Perhaps the most potent argument against the existence of an all-powerful, all loving God is the undeniable fact that there is so much pain and suffering in the world. If there is really a God of love who has unlimited power, why doesn’t he put an end to all evil? Christians try to answer this question in several ways.

    Firstly, they will say that evil is caused by man not God and that if only man would follow God’s commandments there would be no pain, evil or suffering. However, while it is true that evils such as war, rape, murder and exploitation can be blamed on humans, they can hardly be blamed for the millions who die each year in earthquakes, floods, epidemics and accidents, all of which are natural events. In fact, according to the Bible, the germs that cause hideous diseases like TB, polio, cholera, leprosy etc. and all the misery, deformity and suffering to which they give rise, were created by God before he created man (Gen. 1:11-12).

    Another way Christians will try to explain away evil is to say that it is God’s punishment for those who do not follow his commandments. However this implies that terrible things happen only to bad people, which is certainly not true. We often hear of painful sicknesses or disasters befalling good people including good Christians, and likewise we often hear of really bad people who seem to have nothing but good fortune and success. So it cannot be said that suffering and evil are God’s way of punishing sinners.

    Next, Christians will say that God allows evil to exist in the world because he wants to give us the freedom to choose good over evil and thereby earn salvation. Evil, they will say, exists to test us. At first this seems to be a good explanation. If a man sees someone being beaten up by a bully he has a choice between turning away (doing wrong) or deciding to help the victim (doing right). If he decides to help then he has been tested and found good. However, as we have seen before, an all-knowing God must already know what choices a person will make so what is the point of testing us? Also, even if suffering and evil exist in the world to test us, couldn’t an all-loving God think of a less cruel and less painful way to do this? It seems unloving and unfair to allow pain to be inflicted on one person so that another person can have the opportunity to choose between good and evil.

    Some Christians will try to free God from responsibility for evil by saying that it is not created by God but by the Devil. This may be true but again if God is so loving why doesn’t he simply prevent the Devil from doing this? In any case, who created the Devil in the first place? Surely it was God.

    By this stage the Christian will start to get a bit desperate, shifting the argument from logic to pragmatism. He will say that even though there is suffering in the world we can use it as an opportunity to develop courage and patience. This is undoubtedly true but it still does not explain why an all-loving God allows babies to die of cancer, innocent bystanders to be killed in accidents, and leprosy victims to suffer deformity and pain. In fact the existence of so much unnecessary pain, misery and evil in the world is very strong evidence that there is no all-loving all powerful God.

    Why Create?

    Christians claim that God is perfect, that he is complete in every way, but if God really did create the universe this would prove that he was not perfect. Let us examine why. Before God created the universe there was nothing – no sun, no earth, no people, no good or evil, no pain – nothing but God who was, according to Christians, perfect. So if God was perfect and nothing but perfection existed, what motivated God to create the universe and thus bring imperfection into being? Was it because he was bored and wanted something to do? Was it because he was lonely and wanted someone to pray to him?

    Christians will say that God created everything because of his love of man, but this is impossible. God could not love humans before he created them any more than a woman could love her children before she had conceived them. God’s need to create indicates that he was dissatisfied in some way and therefore not perfect. Christians might then say that God created spontaneously and without need or desire. However this would mean that the whole universe came into being without purpose or forethought and therefore it would mean that God was not a loving creator.

    The Problem of the Hidden God

    Christians claim that God wants us to believe in him so that we can be saved – but if this is so why doesn’t God simply appear and perform a miracle so that everyone will see and believe? Christians will say that God wants us to believe in him out of faith, not because we see him with our eyes. However, according to the Bible, God in the past performed the most awesome miracles and often intervened dramatically in human affairs so that people would know his presence. So if he did so in the past, why doesn’t he do so now?

    Christians will say that God does perform miracles today (healing, solving personal problems etc) but being stubborn and evil most people refuse to believe. However these so-called miracles are individual and minor and leave much room for doubt. If God performed a really impressive miracle which could have no other possible explanation, then most people certainly would believe.

    According to the Bible when the Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years, God fed them by making food fall regularly from the sky (Ex16:4). During the 1980’s, several million Ethiopian Christians died slowly and painfully from starvation due to a prolonged drought. God had then the opportunity to make food fall from the sky, as the Bible claims he did in the past, in order to prove his existence, his power and his love. Buddhists would say that God did not manifest his presence because he does not exist.

    Here is where you can download his free ebook

    Click to access beyond-belief02.pdf

    So what exactly is this “Force” and what are it’s functions. I have earlier made a book on this too, you can check out my other blog where I have placed it in.


    Read Full Post »


    Many Dads Unknowingly Raising Others’ Kids
    Increase in paternity testing reveals 1 in 25 men raising children not their own, study says

    THURSDAY, Aug. 11 (HealthDayNews) — Calling it a Pandora’s Box with broad health implications, British researchers say genetic testing is informing about 4 percent of fathers that a child they are raising is not their own.

    The implications are huge, the study authors noted, because such revelations often lead to divorce and increased mental health problems for both the man and woman involved, including the threat of violence by the man.

    Now that is such a large percentage! Years ago, I wondered why in Philippine law a wife could be criminally charged with adultery, in this case one extramarital affair would be enough to convict her. A husband on the other hand, could not be charged with adultery, but instead with concubinage. For concubinage to occur, one affair would not be enough. The husband would have to live with the other woman in the same domicile as his wife or would have to live with the woman as husband and wife. Such disparity, I later realized was due to the fact that a womans infidelity could cause the husband and wife to support a child which the husband did not father. Such is not the case if the husband fools around.

    But for the wives. You don’t have to cry unfair. Husbands can be charged with infidelity, although this carries a much lesser punishment since this charge is only a civil case and not a criminal case.

    Read Full Post »

    Older Posts »