In describing the type of experience one expects from a “personal service provier (PSP),” I often come upon the acronyms GFE (Girlfriend experience) and PSE (Porn star experience). I wonder: What exactly does this mean? What does it connote? Why make the distinction? For example, standard fare for a porn star is to give fellatio; thus, girlfriends are not expected to give blowjobs?

And do those that claim PSE actually perform like a porn star? I know that porn stars perform a wide range of services–fisting and anal, for example–does that mean that PSPs who make such a claim will actually do these? Ok, maybe anal and fisting are a bit extreme (some however, may disagree, but please allow me that leeway), but what about facials and come-in-mouth?

Okay, in reality, I have (or, at least I think I had) experienced a PSE. I don’t think it has to do with the range of services; it’s in the way the PSP performs even the most basic sexual act. A GFE will be a more sweet, demure, conversational episode. A PSE will be more wanton and beastly.

Take the simple and trite missionary position: a PSP claiming GFE will probably give you sugary encouragement as you are mounting her. It is like enjoying fine wine with soft jazz piping through the speakers. A PSP with the PSE on her curriculum vitae will probably groan out all sorts of profanities, will stare at you with fiery hot passion, will purse her lips and bite her lips, and will show you a “come-and-fuck-me” expression on her face, akin to gulping down hard liquor with acid rock blaring.

Now that I finally have some time to spare, I thought I would give a crack at the controversial Reproductive Health Bill Act. Thanks to Buwayahman reader dgreat who provided a link to the document.

While I am no lawyer, I have a range of comments on this Bill. And I have a wider range of comments on the people who are commenting against this Bill. But, for starters, let me get the abortion thing out of the way. There is no mention that the Bill explicitly supports abortion. And by abortion I mean the situation when a pregnant woman goes to some doctor to have her pregnancy terminated. You probably know the drill. Man and woman do the nasty. Woman’s period is delayed. Woman buys a pregnancy kit and conducts the test. Woman finds out that she’s pregnant. Woman goes to a doctor and asks for an abortion.

Let me make it clear. There is no mention that the Bill supports this kind of abortion. There is no mention of abortion clinics. No mention of doctors prescribing an abortion pill. None. Although it does not also explicitly condemn abortion, I believe that would be a moot topic since the Philippine Constitution in sec. 12, Art. II already includes the provision that the State should “protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

So what is the ruckus about?

Apparently a number of people have another definition of “abortion.” Jo Imbong from Inquirer argues this:

The zygote not yet in the mother’s womb is not protected. Pills and the IUD hinder implantation of the embryo in the uterus, thereby precipitating the embryo’s destruction. That is abortion.

Okay, that seems to be a logical argument. But family planning methods are not limited to pills and IUDs. There is my all-time favorite: condoms. Condoms prevent my little tadpoles from meeting up with the woman’s egg. No meeting. No zygote. No conception. No “abortion” by Imbong’s definition.

Unfortunately, Lagman included in his bill the support of “the full range of family planning methods both natural family planning and modem contraceptive methods (e.g., condoms, vaginal barrier methods, oral contraceptives, implants, intrauterine devices, male and female voluntary sterilization, and emergency contraception (EC).” One can argue that once the egg is fertilized, the child is conceived, so any instrument that prevents that fertilized egg to continue its natural course is abortion.

In my opinion, the Bill had grand ambitions but over-stepped its bounds. If Lagman stuck to condoms and vaginal barrier methods, I would think that, legally, he had a chance.