Thursday, September 20, 2012

Consider me naive, or inexperienced, or too full of myself, too proud, maybe, or too feminist, possibly, but I could never understand the reasons and the thought process (if that even exists in situations like these) that goes on when people decide that, "This is it, I agree to be The Mistress."

The Kabit. The Number Two. The Third Party. The Home Wrecker.
The Glorified Whore.

I may be insulting a lot of people (even persons that I do know personally) but I honestly, sincerely, do not understand. I cannot grasp why men and women enter into these kinds of relationships when they know they are hurting and stepping on another human being's feelings and destroying a peaceful relationship, if not a family.

See, romance-wise, I live with this principle: "If he cheats WITH you, he will cheat ON you." Smack me with all the reasons in your artillery of excuses but this line really makes sense to me. It goes like this.

The fact that he is willing to be unfaithful to the woman he has said "I love you" to just that morning while he is preparing to meet up with you that night to make passionate coitus just goes to show what kind of person he is. A cheating liar. An untrustworthy lover. Do you really want to attach yourself with that kind of person? Really, now. Do you hate yourself that much?

And I'm not vilifying the men, it goes for both sexes. Just reverse the pronouns.

Maybe I'm being immature. Or possibly even too mature for today's Id-satisfying society. I just do not understand. If any of you can explain it to me, please feel free to do so.

Olivia M. Lamasan's masterpiece tackles this kind of conundrum our society knows too well. Unnervingly well, that this is bound to be a blockbuster (if it isn't already) and will no doubt pinch a nerve in a large percentage of movie-goers. Whether the benefactor, the legal wife, the lover or the mistress, everybody who has been in this kind of situation will be able to relate to the sharp piercing dialogue that says what people in those relationships desperately need to hear. 

What I liked the best about this film, aside from the flawless performances of all the lead actors and the stellar script, is the complexity of its characters. There is no black nor white, no evil antagonist nor holy protagonist. 

It shows Bea Alonzo's "Sari" as a lola-bathing-perfect-ate with a dark secret and John Lloyd's "JD" as a charismatic playboy with I'm-not-Dad's-favorite issue. Meanwhile, Ronaldo Valdez's "Rico Torres" is the slightly perverted (eww the bed scenes, wth) CEO of a multi-million family who apparently loves his family but cannot stop from taking in various mistresses. And lastly, Hilda Koronel's "Regina Torres" is the alcohol-friendly legal wife who just takes it all in.

The script is superb if not for the climax that I predicted 15 minutes into the movie. But then I can't remember the last time a local film's ending managed to completely surprise me so it's not a big deal. There was a couple of confrontation scenes that just stole the whole show and I was grateful that they didn't skirt around the things that needed to be said and images needed to be seen.

Try as hard as I might, however, I cannot feel sorry for The Mistress's character even in her most trying and humiliating times. I just feel like, a woman like that is not stupid, she definitely knew what she was getting into. Given, she got attached and developed real strong feelings for an old rich man who may or may not be using her just for sex and companionship but what made her enter that kind of agreement in the first place?
"Walang babaeng pinangarap maging kabit!" 
Then why are there so many of them stuck in the same circumstances over and over again? See, in the middle of the fire, one can simply blame uncontrollable feelings but I'm pretty sure in the beginning, the feelings weren't that hard to block, if only people were determined to do so.

Feel free to establish how juvenile my views are if you must, that I have no credibility to say any of these things because I haven't been in these kinds of situation and felt the turmoil of such complexity. Maybe, maybe not.

I have been asked, multiple times, both jokingly and in semi-seriousness under the guise of innuendos, by very eligible in-a-relationship bachelors if I'd be willing to "be Number 2-3" and my answer was a resounding, without a second thought, no.

Personally, I think it all boils down to this. From Stephen Chbosky's Perks of Being A Wallflower,  this quote said it best.

"...we accept the love we think we deserve."

Of half-baked promises, stolen hours in the dead of the evening, saved number and messages in "the other phone", whispered phone conversations, scheduled meetings at random faraway places, the secrecy and the deceit.

If you think that is all that you deserve, then, by all means, go and be someone's mistress.


Anonymous said...

Coming from a family with decades old issues of infidelity, I'll try to answer your question. Whether or not you'll be satisfied with it, at least I've said my piece.

I don't know if this is innate in Filipinos (other races have had their share of shame and scandal in the family too), but I guess we just enjoy risky businesses. For mistresses (I don't know the male equivalent), there is a sense of pride and achievement in the fact that a man or woman chose to leave their spouse to be with them. Hence, they'll risk life and limb, reputation, even dignity to gain a foothold and eventually remove the competition out of the picture.

But yes. You are right. There is nothing to be gained from being the third wheel aside from the false security (whether financial, sexual, or emotional) it gives them. But can you blame them if they found the kind of attention and affection they want in a married person instead of a single, yet unworthy one? Can you really blame the cheater for the disappointment and disenfranchisement s/he has experienced from a partner who can no longer consistently provide him/her with the emotional, sexual, or financial security they need? Who can they turn to when they think of the love they think they deserve?

Again it all boils down to worthiness and commitment. If both partners in a relationship are consistently committed--from courtship till death do them part--to make themselves worthy of each other's affections and attention, then there will be no cheaters and no mistresses in the world.

Anonymous said...

DON'T BE A THIRD WHEEL... Mistress, other woman, kabit...DON'T BE.

Anonymous said...

People with low morals are punished later in their life. There should be a law to penalized the mistress who oftentimes cause problems in the family.

Clarriscent said...

@ the FIRST Anonymous

Thank you for your well-written piece. Although I do not agree that such behavior can be attributed to a certain race because it's just preposterous to presume that a certain group is more susceptible to cheating than other cultures (every one has their own individual ideologies on where to stand) you delivered some points that really had me thinking, especially these ones..

"But can you blame them if they found the kind of attention and affection they want in a married person instead of a single, yet unworthy one?

You are right. Things are not as black and white as they seem and the person you are with right now or the one you end up with as a legal other half may not consistently provide you with the things you need.

I cannot blame mistresses for finding the kind of love they think they deserve with men who are already taken (heaven knows it is HARD finding someone you have a connection with these days), or worse, married, but maybe I can blame them for the insensitivity, perhaps. For the SELFISHNESS of claiming love and happiness IN EXPENSE OF ANOTHER'S. Maybe I am an idealist but I don't see any excuse of knowingly hurting another individual for that coveted kilig moments.

Can you really blame the cheater for the disappointment and disenfranchisement s/he has experienced from a partner who can no longer consistently provide him/her with the emotional, sexual, or financial security they need? Who can they turn to when they think of the love they think they deserve?"

I have a lot to say about this. And it even involves laws that should have been passed decades ago. Let's start with this. I truly believe that every couple's problems can be solved by communication and compromise. But if things are irreconcilable, then I think it is best to just leave instead of hurting each other more with lies and deceit. But of course with married couples, things are not as easy since we have a crappy holier-than-thou government (and obviously, church) who still thinks marriages are unbreakable despite left and right unsolvable problems and illegitimate children.

Again, it's simple. If you are not happy and you think you can never be happy with the person you feel you're stuck with then leave. It's easier said than done, that is the hard fact, but it should be done sooner and not later. At least this way, you are giving the other person a CHANCE to also find him or herself someone who can attempt to finish what you have started but could not afford to finish. And don't worry about the kids, they will understand and will even thank you for it.

Again, thank you for the points and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Non threatening pieces like that are the ones that makes the cyberworld a better place. Cheers!

walalang said...

dami namang ipokrito/ipokrita dito.

i'm sure you're dying to try it for yourself. that's why you have this stupid blog that asks for explanation. ay bobo.

Post a Comment

Blog Widget by LinkWithin