EDITORIAL - He wasn’t aware

Senator Robin Padilla looks to have been genuinely surprised when told that a woman can refuse to have sex with her husband when she doesn’t want to, and that a man cannot force his wife to have sex with him.

“So halimbawa, hindi mo naman pinipili eh kung kailan ka yung 'in heat'. Papano yun pag ayaw ng asawa mo, so wala pong ibang paraan talaga kung para maano yung lalaki? So paano yun, mambababae ka na lang ba? Di kaso na naman yun. Wala ka sa mood, paano ako, nasa mood?” he asked when a Senate hearing in relation to complaints of abuse and harassment happened to veer to the topic of permissions.

Atty. Lorna Kapunan of the Kapunan & Castillo Offices had to explain to him that no means no and what he should do to relieve himself of his sexual urges.

It’s easy to misconstrue what Senator Padilla said, as well as to demonize him and add all kinds of innuendo and meaning to what he said, including blatant disrespect for women, their treatment as mere property of men, and the encouragement of marital rape. But in fairness to the senator, he never directly made such statements.

However, he did show what can be considered a blatant ignorance of the most basic of rights. And what makes this even sadder than sad is that he isn’t just a lawmaker, but the one in charge of constitutional amendments --and he didn’t know that married women can say no their husbands if they don’t feel like having sex.

We will no longer add to the criticism against Senator Padilla regarding his statement, various women’s groups and individuals are already taking up the cudgels and don’t seem to be putting them down anytime soon.

However, we will say this, not being aware of a woman’s basic right reflects poorly on him as a supposed senator of the republic, and that someone who isn’t aware of the basic rights of others may find it difficult, or perhaps not even be fit, to craft laws.