Monday, May 25, 2009

Live by the Pudenda, Die by the Pudenda!

IT JUST BOGGLES THE MIND how a highly paid commercial sex worker ("bold starlet") like KATRINA HALILI has suddenly become transformed into a combination of Joan of Arc and Suzette "Nicole" Nicolas after running to Senator Bong Revilla (surely, the brightest light bulb to grace the Senate hallways)  and the Mass Media with her tale of Sex, Videotape and mental suffering at the hands DR. HAYDEN KHO, her erstwhile lover while she was patient of, and he a lover to,  the very famous Dr. Vicky Belo,  who has single handedly made Plastic Surgery of face,  neck, boobs and buttocks, the sought-after social status symbol of celebrity-addled Manila.  Yes, it's complicated, I know but a chaos of glass houses smashed to smithereens in an all out stone throwing war might really be entertaining at this point.

Katrina Halili, bold starlet

Of course, it doesn't hurt her cause to have the national TV/radio network, GMA-7 fully behind her, as advocate, employer and marketer.  As an example of unbiased television journalism,  this Saturday StarTalk editorial "burns Hayden Kho at the stake" as a perverted secret sex videographer of many women. But talk about the POT calling the KETTLE black from the network that specializes in noontime shows featuring dozens of scantily clad Katrina Halili wanna-be's.

In the blogosphere  yesterday, Ding Gagelonia (At Midfield) looked into the role of drugs in the sex video scandal, and today on her blog, Noemi Dado  (the Momblogger) presented a psychological dissection of Dr. Hayden Kho and his "mental illness" which some say  amounts to a perverse auto-voyeurism. But I think the picture needs to be enlarged a bit to include Ms. Halili.  I find it impossible to believe that she did not know of the cameras rolling while she and Hayden were too.  She is, after all, not camera shy, nor ignorant of the technology and its ubiquitousness. She would have to be an extreme naif as  well as deaf and blind and largely senseless not to have known, considering that this was not the sort of thing they did just once during a many months long perfervid dalliance.  Moreover, it is not logical to suppose that a premeditated release of the sex video was Hayden Kho's brilliant idea. Neither Hayden Kho nor Katrina Halili could possibly have wanted these videos to become public on the World Wide Web.

The true measure of a person's character is to be found in what he or she is willing to do when he or she presumes that no one is going to find out.

What Hayden Kho and Katrina Halili are suffering now is merely the consequence of that tragically false presumption. We owe them pity, but that is all. I don't see why either of them should be held up as examples of causes worth fighting for. I'm cold to them both and am willing to predict that  Katrina Halili and Hayden Kho, and those behind, in front, under and over them both will all soon realize they ought  to just patch this all up quietly and continue in the business of making money by selling made up flesh doctored and dolled up for ramp, runway and studio.  The alternative of course is an escalating war of dueling videos,  in which videos of other famous people doing it could hit the World Wide Web.

Then will the same Public be fooled and fleeced  once more by hedonistic voyeurs, commercial sex artists, and their show-bidnez purveyors.  But a chaos of glass houses destroyed in an all out stone throwing might really be entertaining at this point.

1 comment:

baycas2 said...

My thoughts last week…

The whole affair might center on a stolen private video disseminated on the internet and distributed in optical disks causing psychological violence on the part of the woman-complainant…

(a) Stolen private video – The man alleges it was a private sex video albeit a non-consensual video recording. It was a consensual sexual encounter done in private and may pass to some as non-obscene in nature. The non-consensual video recording, although widely perceived to be wrong (or an act by one who is sick or a pervert), may not be a crime.

(b) Internet uploading – This borders on “indecent publication of pornographic materials” (as mentioned by the NBI). Is there a law against uploading a non-obscene material? Or if the material is considered pornographic, is there a law against uploading it to the internet? Anti-piracy law maybe? A wise guy commented that the video is actually a copyrighted material – he said, “what better way to copyright a personal video than by starring in it.”

(c) Optical disk creation and distribution – Obviously, this is for profit. This borders on “indecent publication of pornographic materials.” This could be covered by our Revised Penal Code…

Revised Penal CodeTitle Six
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Chapter Two
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS

Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:

(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals.


…However, there was no mention of “optical disk.” Besides, proper definition of obscenity and indecency should be in order.

(d) Psychological violence – The man alleges he was also a victim and all he did was record a video, although non-consensual as alleged by the victim. The video was supposed to be a private or personal one. As drawn together from the statements of the man’s lawyer, how could he have caused substantial emotional or psychological distress and public humiliation on the victim when he himself is a victim? Remember the ‘bonsai” and “the not-so-dangerous weapon?” It’s possible there is now mental or emotional anguish on the man and he is also at present publicly ridiculed and humiliated. His privacy was also violated when his private property was stolen.

(Now, come to think of it, how will they appreciate the admissibility of evidence if only a copy of the stolen private video can be produced? How will the maker of the video tell if the video that will be produced in court is the original digital recording – the author, date and time stamps in “Properties” possibly? Well, that’s probably the case why the Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division of the NBI is handling the case. The OMB would also come in handy in investigating the copyrighted material.)

The one who mainly caused psychological violence to the victim is the one who made the video public. True? Abangan…-----

KH may prove to be our Susan Wilson…who learned the hard way that a high-tech invasion of privacy wasn't against our existing laws.

-----

Trivia:

LO: What’s the most beautiful dream that you ever had?KHO: “The whole world was flooded and I was onboard this huge ark that was flying.”

LO: What’s the Freudian explanation to that?KHO: “Well, maybe that I’m bound for something spectacular and the world will recognize me for it. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!”

From newsflashdotorg