WAS anyone surprised that Manny Pacquiao has a lovechild? No one. Was anyone surprised at his reaction to the “news?” No one.
Was anyone surprised that no one was surprised? In this macho world? No, of course not.
I was not even mildly surprised at Mrs. Pacquiao’s reaction. She dismissed the other woman’s claim as one of those things; after all, Miss Bacosa should have known that men like the champ are pursued by women “sa tabi-tabi diyan.” Mrs. Pacquiao did not seem pissed, the look on her face could even be interpreted as gloating.
Like the wife of Bill Clinton, the wife of Kobe Bryant and the first wife of Prince Charles, Jinky Pacquiao knows she has the upperhand, as she has the wedding band on her finger and the marriage contract in the safe. The house is hers to keep as the family name is hers and the children’s to use.
What more could a woman want? Why would a wife, ensconced like a proper lady in the lord’s manor, give up the creature comforts and surrender her share of the conjugal/paraphernal property (it all boils down to “What is mine is mine, what is yours is mine”)?
Maybe, if Pacquiao were something else – poor, anonymous, a born loser – Jinky would think twice before deciding to forgive and forget. She might even want to hand him over to Bacosa on a silver platter and get rid of him quick.
In the old days before civil and church annulments became available, wives tenaciously and ferociously clung to their philandering husbands “for the sake of the children.” Leaving a man because he was unfaithful just wasn’t done: Sooner or later he’d come to his senses.
Today, it’s the same story – the coming to their senses part – but wives like Jinky have a wealth of reasons to stay married. They are far too smart to pull out from the comforts of home, the power of their status, and the perks of celebrity. Indeed, why be inconvenienced, why not let him suffer?
