We are the largest, most active group of freethinkers in the Philippines. We practice and promote reason, science, secularism, and, of course, freethinking.

Visit our website at http://www.filipinofreethinkers.org.

Posts I Like
Posts tagged "Dustin Celestino"

By Dustin Celestino

Mon Tulfo says that Raymart punched him first. Raymart says that he was retaliating from a previous kick… yada yada… I’m sure you all know about what happened because this incident was Inquirer’s headline last Monday. Currently, it’s the most important national issue (not the RH Bill, or the Freedom of Information Bill, or the hypocrisy the Roman Catholic hierarchy) and it affects all of us, Filipinos.

There is, however, divided opinion on who started the fight, since both parties have accused each other of instigating the brawl. It is in these crucial situations of National importance that each Filipino citizen must re-evaluate his or her notion of truth in order to ultimately determine which side of the story (Team Tulfo or Team Barreto/Santiago) he or she ultimately believes. In this essay we will examine several theories of truth and how they each apply to this incident:

1. The Correspondence Theory of Truth


According to Wikipedia, which is the most reliable source of information in the universe, this theory of truth “states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.”

This theory, of course, implies that there is an objective reality and that individuals have the ability to perceive that reality objectively.

Unfortunately, this theory of truth is proven useless by the NAIA incident, because, as statements from both parties clearly demonstrate, objective reality doesn’t exist. Mon Tulfo and Barreto/Santiago have perceived different versions of reality…

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

By Dustin Celestino

I remember wanting to be an action star. I also remember how sad I was when I realized that it’s not practical to be an action star in real life. But the myth of the action star did affect me as a person deeply. Because of the action star, my idea of masculinity has been distorted, as I often associate being a man with not crying, beating up bad guys, and growing sideburns.

Also, I was not very popular in high school (or ever) because I liked leather and denim jackets, even when the weather was warm. But this article is not about my personal issues. It’s about being psychologically messed-up by the greatest B-movie archetype in the world – the Action Star!

My dad is a big fan of Mr. Action Star himself, Fernando Poe Jr. In fact, he had VHS copies of most, if not all of his films. When he first established a video shop when I was a kid, I think he bought all the FPJ films and we watched one every night. One Christmas, inspired by all the action awesome, my dad bought every one of my brothers a pellet gun so we could all practice together, and he also taught us how to do a Chinese get-up (I don’t know what it had to do with FPJ. I’ve never seen FPJ do a Chinese get-up).

To us, FPJ was a mythical figure, a divine savior; he’s the hero who comes and provides salvation to a community at the brink of despair – because they believed in him. FPJ was like a cool Catholic Jesus.

I’m making this comparison because I think the action star has ties with the Catholic mythos…

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

By Dustin Celestino

Disclaimer: Apologies to all the women in the world for the potentially misogynistic contexts that may emerge from my usage of the loaded term “warat” in this article.

Warat is a common Filipino expression often interchanged with “wasak.” It means “broken” or “destroyed” in English, but is also a slang word for “drunk and high on an assortment of drugs” or a devirginized girl.

“Warat” is also the title of a 90′s bold movie starring Joyce Jimenez.

"Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba? (1999)"


My years of exposure to the devious underworld of 90′s bold movies — my exposure to videos of naked women — has supposedly corrupted my soul and turned me into a depressed adult who compulsively cries at night when recalling scenes from “Balahibong Pusa” and “Sutla.” These transient images carve themselves into memory, haunting men like naked sirens, beckoning them towards madness. 90’s soft-porn cinema: a truly great evil.

At least, that was what my values teacher told me about bold movies. Thankfully, although many hours of my youth were spent in isolation and many VHS and Betamax devices have malfunctioned after much fast-forwarding and rewinding, I still don’t have a corrupted soul.

The absence of the “artistic factor” was a common criticism tossed around by regulatory boards and “purists” alike to condemn the bold cinema trend of the 90’s. However, I’m not entirely sure what these people meant by “artistic.”

One of the most debated topics in aesthetics and censorship legislation is the nature of art. What is art? While a fair number of people are aware of the principles of art (balance, contrast, proportion), not many are aware of the standard “approaches” used to define what is artistic. Is a 90’s bold movie artistic? Is porn artistic?

"Ligaya ang Itawag Mo Sa Akin (1997)" is another artistic movie from the 90’s which had realistic intercourse-ing.

Why “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” is Art Reason #1: The Plot is Absurd but the Sex Looks Real (and/or Art as Imitation: Plato and Mimesis)

“All artistic creation is a form of imitation.” – Plato

One of the earliest approaches to art was by Plato. Plato believed that the primary element in determining artistic quality is mimesis or an artist’s ability to mimic or re-produce reality. In other words, an artwork’s realism is what defines its artistic quality.

By this standard then, the bold movies of the 90’s are definitely inferior to “Jersey Shore,” Hayden Kho, and contemporary amateur porn. But via the same standard, in terms of realism, “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” is actually more artistic than any movie that implies that Carla Abellana could actually be attracted to Jorge Estregan Jr.

“Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba? (1999)” had several scenes that allowed the audience to feel an approximation of the emotions felt by an individual who was intercourse-ing.

Why “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?” is Art Reason #2: The Audience Gets Aroused (and/or Art as Expression: Tolstoy and Authenticity)

“Works of art so often arise from some deep personal feeling or crisis in the lives of their creators that emotion itself is commonly taken as the defining characteristic of art.” – Leo Tolstoy

Art is not art unless it is able to transfer raw emotions. According to Leo Tolstoy, an artist’s ability to make the audience feel what he feels should be the standard of art. This premise, however, postulates that artistic intention and audience reaction is the highest standard of artistic quality.

If a poem about something sad was written in a way that makes a reader sad too, then by this standard, it is art. If a scene exhibiting sexually aroused individuals makes the audience aroused too, it is artistic. With regard to “Warat: Bibigay Ka Ba?,” when Joyce Jimenez was moaning and writhing to express her sexual arousal while she was having make-believe intercourse with an actor, many viewers were also sexually aroused. Needless to say, the scene was successful because it seemed authentic enough to generate an authentic response.

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

by Dustin Celestino

[Part 1]

Disclaimer: I am writing not as a representative of the Filipino Freethinkers but as an individual with an opinion. My views are my own and should, in no way, be viewed as an indication of what beliefs or values members of our organization hold. Throughout this article, I might use hetero-centric language in that, more often than not, when I refer to “men,” I’m actually referring to heterosexual men. Though I am aware of its importance, I decided, for the sake of brevity to omit the heterosexual part in the assumption that through this disclaimer I have clarified the context of the erasure.

“So How Funny is a Mutilated Penis?”
The last article I wrote was about how there’s a bias on my dick with regard to how much violence on men is tolerated by society. In that article I also mentioned how a group of women laughed about a man’s castration. This article is going to be about that, SlutWalks, ElevatorGate, and Feminism, among other things.

Reuters reports that a California woman was charged with torture on July 13, 2011 after authorities said she cut off her husband’s penis with a kitchen knife and ground it up in a garbage disposal. Catherine Kieu, 48, is accused of tying her sleeping husband to a bed with nylon ropes, pulling down his pants and slicing off his penis, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office said in a written statement.

A few days later, the event was featured on a show called “The Talk,” which aired on a major US television network. In the show, Sharon Osbourne made fun of the castrated man, while her co-hosts and majority of the female audience laughed with her.

It wasn’t a soft, cute laugh either. They openly mocked the man for several minutes. Sharon Osborne even called the event “delightful” as she proceeded to demonstrate, with a finger, what a mutilated penis might look like while it’s being torn to shreds, to the delight of the crowd. Footage of the event could be found in this video here. The “funny & delightful” part happens at 4 minutes 45 seconds.

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

by Dustin Celestino

Disclaimer: I am writing not as a representative of the Filipino Freethinkers but as an individual with an opinion. My views are my own and should, in no way, be viewed as an indication of what beliefs or values members of our organization hold. Throughout this article, I might use hetero-centric language in that, more often than not, when I refer to “men,” I’m actually referring to heterosexual men. Though I am aware of its importance, I decided, for the sake of brevity to omit the heterosexual part in the assumption that through this disclaimer I have clarified the context of the erasure.

“Shut-up and Man-up!”According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a double standard is a “set of principles establishing different provisions for one group than another; also, specifically, allowing men more sexual freedom than women.”

According to Dictionary.com, a double standard is “any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, especially an unwritten code of sexual behavior permitting men more freedom than women.”

In many instances the word double standard is commonly defined and commonly accepted as a belief or view that discriminates against women and provides men with unfair advantages and privileges. The most common example of this is the Stud/Slut double standard that goes something like, “If a man sleeps around, he’s a stud. If a woman sleeps around, she’s a slut?”

It is implied, even in most dictionaries, that when double standards occur, women are on the losing end of it. We always hear about female side about their problems with the double standard because women were actually smart enough to come up with a movement, feminism, that dealt with issues like this and that fought for policies that could educate and assist women in dealing with these matters.

Straight men didn’t bother (I’m making that distinction because gay men have the gay rights movement available to them), partly because they were expected, pardon the sexist idiom, to “shut-up and man-up.” Majority of straight men do not have a proper venue for productive discourse with regard to men’s issues because, in the dominant paradigm of gender politics, straight men are considered to be the privileged oppressors in patriarchal cultures and are, therefore, in no position to voice out grievances, especially grievances about the opposite sex. However, this postulation of dominance by males does not exempt them from bias, harmful double standards and oppression.

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

by Dustin Celestino

In the lecture “What’s Wrong and What’s Right with Contemporary Feminism?” Philosophy Professor Christina Hoff Sommers makes a distinction between equity feminism and “gender feminism” calling the latter, “victim feminism.” She describes Equity Feminism as the classical liberalism that inspired the First Wave of feminism in the 19th century. What she refers to as “victim feminism” is, according to her, the type of feminism that adheres to the sex/gender system and defines it as a “complex process whereby bi-sexual infants are transformed into male and female gender personalities, the one destined to command, the other to obey.”

She does not agree with the latter view and even complains that, “The dominant philosophy of today’s women’s movement is not equity feminism–but “victim feminism.”

According to her, “Victim feminists don’t want to hear about the ways in which women have succeeded.  They want to focus on and often invent new ways and perspectives in which women can be regarded as oppressed and subordinated to men.”

Ms. Sommers connects the “gender feminist” perspective with how Eve Ensler’s Vagina Monologues was written. She says, “What I want to point out to you is the play’s deeper gender feminist message. It is all about exposing the ravages of patriarchy and the evils of all things masculine. The play is poisonously anti-male.  There are no admirable males in the Monologues–-the play presents a rogues’ gallery of male brutes, sadists, child-molesters, genital mutilators, gang rapists and hateful little boys.”

She criticizes both the play and gender feminism saying, “Here is the problem with the play and with the gender feminist philosophy that informs it: Most men are not brutes. They are not oppressors.  Yes, there are some contemptible Neanderthals among us, and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. But to confuse them with the ethical majority of men is blatantly sexist. Yet again and again, we find that contemporary feminists take the worst case example of pathological masculinity and treat it as the male norm.”

"They want to focus on and often invent new ways and perspectives in which women can be regarded as oppressed and subordinated to men."

Equal Rights or Special Rights?

The SlutWalk movement, in my opinion, is an extension of what Ms. Sommers called “victim feminism.” I’m sure, by now, you’ve heard about SlutWalks since a few articles on it have been written by several of my colleagues. It’s this movement which is supposed to deconstruct patriarchy’s negative caricature stereotype of sexually liberal, sex-positive women (since patriarchy, allegedly, implies that only prostitutes can enjoy sex with multiple-partners) but ends up reinforcing it by walking the streets dressed up like, well, prostitutes – thereby inadvertently isolating the idea of “a woman who enjoys sexual freedom” with the image of – provocative clothing.

Some would argue that these provocative clothes are worn as costumes to make fun of the patriarchal stereotype. But at the end of the day it’s called a SlutWalk; it’s a pride march for a sexually liberated lifestyle and a sexually liberated identity and even in jest, the association between sexualized images and sexual liberty might imply that only women who have the audacity to dress like this enjoy sex.

Personally, I have nothing against women who dress provocatively. Ultimately, women are supposed to be able to wear what they want. In fact, it is completely legal for women to wear what they want. There is no law which prevents women from wearing revealing clothing. My problem with the SlutWalk is that these women want a privilege or an assurance that extends beyond legal permission.

There’s a claim that women should not be judged for what they wear, and that people should not respond negatively (by calling them sluts) or respond positively (by approaching them, or staring at them at length [I think the exact term was “to ogle”], or by whistling) to what they wear. In other words, they want to be able to wear what they want, without you being able to say what you want about what they wear. They are, in my opinion, asking for “special” rights, not equal rights.

According to Brendan O’Neill, in his article, “These are the most anti-social sluts on earth,” “The SlutWalk organiser says that one of the ‘main messages’ of her campaign is that ‘a woman’s appearance is not a sexual invitation’. But it is. When women wear revealing gear in a pub or a nightclub, they are definitely issuing a sexual invitation. And why shouldn’t they? They want to pull, get off, cop off or whatever the crazy kids call it these days. It is part and parcel of the perfectly normal, perfectly healthy interaction of the sexes that women dress attractively and men respond in kind, by making a comment, offering to buy a drink, attempting one of those apparently criminal come-ons.”

"A 1991 study by the Council for Prostitution Alternatives, in Portland, Oregon, documented that 78 percent of 55 prostituted women reported being raped an average of 16 times annually by their pimps and 33 times a year by johns."

Prostitution and Rape

SlutWalks claim that there is no correlation between sexy clothing and rape. Research proves that there isn’t, so I have to agree. There is no proven correlation between sexy clothing and rape, but how about sexy clothing and cat calls? How about plunging necklines and ogles? How about promiscuity and rape?

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website

Please vote for us in “The One” and “The Advocate” categories of the Globe Tatt Awards. Thanks!

by Dustin Celestino

My Dear Catholic,

When an adult male has an overwhelming need to put his penis into the mouth, anus or vagina of a child, there is clearly something wrong with his being and he must be considered a danger to society.

Unfortunately, the leaders of your beloved religion — including the Pope — have decided that instead of seeking punishment for people who use children as sex toys, they should instead protect them. In fact, since 2004 the Roman Catholic Church has spent over $2,700,000,000 or P108,000,000,000 to address clergy sex abuse.

Another project that you might have unintentionally helped fund is a bogus research report that makes up excuses as to why certain members of the clergy were sexually involved with little boys and girls. That report cost $1,200,000. That report claims that certain members of the clergy put their penises in the mouths, anuses, or vaginas of little children because it was common practice in the seventies.

That money came from believers like you, dear Catholic. So, in essence, you are actually funding operations that keep people who like playing with little boys’ penises out of jail.

Now, I have often asked myself — what kind of logic would propel a person to protect grown-ups who put their penises into the mouths of children? Better yet, what kind of person would help fund organizations which allow for such practices?

So, my dear Catholic, why do you give money to an organization which uses its resources to keep people who force-fuck children in the mouth out of jail, and funds bogus reports to justify and rationalize force-fucking children in the mouth?

To make things worse, my dear Catholic, the influence of your church is more pronounced in countries like the Philippines, whose majority is composed of Catholics. There, politicians are often manipulated and coerced into making dumb nation-sabotaging decisions because they’re afraid that if they cross your “Mother Church,” they would lose Catholic support.

My dear Catholic, I’m not saying that all of you are stupid or immoral. Some of you are not stupid at all. In fact, many of you, Catholics, are personal friends and family members of mine. Some of you have told me that you, like me, are disgusted about the child-fucking propagated and tolerated by the highest officials of the Roman Catholic clergy.

Because some of your religious leaders seem to have no problem with grown-ups having sex with children, several of you, my dear Catholic, have suggested that maybe it’s time for a new brand of Catholicism to emerge; a type of Catholicism that does not acknowledge the infallibility of the Pope; one that condemns the Vatican’s attempt to cover-up sex scandals; one that doesn’t hate homosexuals; one that respects the secular conditions of our constitution; and one that relies on common sense and not a primitive book to determine proper human conduct.

Read the full article at the Filipino Freethinkers website.

Please vote for Filipino Freethinkers in “The One” and “The Advocate” categories of the Globe Tatt Awards. Thanks!