60% Don’t come for sex

THE furor over the assertion of US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry Thomas that 40% of male foreign visitors are sex tourists re­minds me of the newspaper head­line that declared, “50% of the people in Congress are crooks.”
Expectedly, the honorable solons reacted violently to that dishonorable accusation and de­manded a retraction. The newspaper, forthwith, ran this headline the next day: “50% of the people in Congress are not crooks.”
That, of course, made the honorable congress­men happy.
Thus, it may make our honorable senators and congressmen happy to note that Thomas did, in fact, mean that the majority of male foreign visi­tors to the Philippines – 60% – don’t come for sex. They come for less interesting pursuits, like sun, sea and surf. And festivals. And arts and culture. And history. And food. And shopping.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile had an in­teresting rebuttal to Thomas’ statement: “There are also many foreigners going to America to have sex with American girls and American boys. So, it works both ways. Even Filipinos go there to enjoy the beauty of American women.”
Thomas, being the diplomat that he is, hasn’t demanded that Enrile should support his assertion with statistics. Thomas and Enrile probably know that over 40% of Filipino males go to America for reasons other than sex. Such as jobs.
Of course, once the Pinoys find jobs, it wouldn’t be sur­prising if they use some of their take-home pay on what En­rile refers to as “the beauty of American women.”
It’s so much easier for Pinoys to do that in American now. Back in the early 1900s, Filipino males were pro­hibited by law from marrying (or copulating with) white women. Farm workers and Alaskeros (those who worked in the canneries in Alaska) paid 10 cents a dance in cabarets to dance with white hostesses, but risked life and limb if they tried to take out their dancing partners. The law against miscegenation would not be repealed until well after the war.
But, going back to the 60% of male tourists who come to the Philippines for reasons other than sex, there are enough temptations in the Philippines to persuade them to also indulge in that pleasurable activity, after enjoying the sun, sea and surf, etc. Would that, therefore, bring up Thomas’ statistic to, say, 50% or even 55%? Or 90%, for that matter?
In other words, it’s not easy determining where the enjoyment of sun, sea and surf ends and where the diving and snorkeling in the boudoir begins.
Take the Philippine dignitaries, many of them honorable congressmen, who flock to Las Vegas to watch the Pacquiao boxing spectaculars. Who is to say that, after having won their bets on Pac­quiao, they do not seriously consider blowing some of those dollars on Las Vegas’ fairer attractions? After all, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
Will Secretary of State Hillary Clinton take of­fense if Philippine ambassador to Washington Jose Cuisia observes that “40% of Filipino male visi­tors – including members of congress – who go to America do so for sex”?
I doubt it. Sex, after all, is a sweet reality in America. Even in the White House. Ask Bill.
Which brings up the question: Why the furor over the Thomas statement? Is it the percentage? Would it have been more diplomatic if he had low­ered the percentage to 30%? What about 15%?
Would it have been better if he had said, vague­ly, “A good number of male tourists who come to the Philippines come for sex”, instead of citing a definitive percentage?
Does it really demean our country if a large number of males visit our shores for reasons other than sun, sea and surf? Does it necessarily make 40% of Filipino women sex objects?
Is it more offensive to Filipino sensibilities to state that large numbers of males come to our shores for our women, than to state that the Philip­pines is one of the most corrupt countries in the world? Or that the Philippines is one of the world’s most hazardous locations for journalists?
I don’t recall any of our honorable congressmen protesting loudly and demanding that whoever made that assertion should “pack up his bags and leave.”
Is it less offensive to Filipino sensibilities when international agencies point out that a large per­centage of our people are poor and hungry and a small percentage have cornered a huge percent­age of the wealth?
Thomas has apologized for citing figures “with­out the ability to back it up.” He meant the 40% statistic. But he did not apologize for the sub­stance of his statement.
Whatever the percentage, it still is a fact that pedophiles consider our country a happy hunt­ing ground. It is also a fact that the bars in Malate and Ermita and in Pasay, the massage parlors in Quezon City, the strip joins on Quezon Avenue, the nightclubs on Roxas Boulevard and the motels all over Metro Manila are thriving for reasons that have nothing to do with sun, sea and surf.
If fact, they are thriving, not only on the basis of Thomas’ controversial 40% but, conceivably, be­cause some of the remaining 60% are not beyond enjoying worldly pleasures.
Of course, they are also thriving because of the protection of city mayors and PNP officials, not to mention honorable members of congress.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima has denied that any of the agencies under her command, like the NBI, has definitive statistics on sex tourism. But she did not explain why such an obviously impor­tant piece of data should be missing in her to-do list. Sleeping on the job?
In fact, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the air when members of congress and the country’s highest of­ficials loudly protest being made to confront the harsh reality of pedophilia and female exploitation – a harsh reality that threatens not just the Philip­pines but every Third World country.
Even Thailand, which is concededly more ad­vanced economically than the Philippines is noto­rious for its sexual attractions. Anyone who denies that a good number of the 14 million tourists who visit that country enjoy body massages and other carnal thrills must be a monk.
Our national officials make a big issue out of the percentage cited by Thomas but deftly avoid offer­ing a solution to the problem. Does it matter if it is 40% or 10%? Assuming that half of the 3 million tourists who come to the Philippines are males, 10% translates into 150,000 looking for sex. Is that less alarming than 600,000 or 40%?
Indeed, it’s so much easier for our national of­ficials to castigate a foreign diplomat for pointing out the ills of our country than doing something about the problems.