I recently watched a television advertisement for a consumer product, using the marketing theme "Play with Beauty". The ad caught my attention because of its bright colors and interesting effects.

The ad showed an ordinary, decent young woman's transformation into a super-duper hot and sexy babe right after using the product being advertised. It is understandable the transformation should be vividly or exaggeratedly shown in the ad -- after all, they are promoting a beauty product. Still, I don't think promoting the transformation of decent people into wild ones is the objective of the ad -- or is it?

The ad shows how the product turned the young woman into a hot and sexy babe, walking like Halle Berry's Catwoman. She charmed all the male figures around her, from a squirrel to old men. I kept following the story of the ad, waiting curiously to learn what it was trying to say.

Her confident sexy walk took her to her final destination after the transformation -- a place with signs saying things like "lounge" and "hotel". So off she goes, to the center of entertainment and nightlife.

Simple conclusion: "If a simple girl were transformed into a pretty woman, she would end up enjoying a sparkling and glittering nightlife. Who else wants to feel such an experience?" Is that really the message the ad maker wanted to convey? If yes, then the ad successfully conveyed it, because my brain certainly absorbed it well. If that was not what they meant then the ad was a total failure.

Is it true beautiful women belong only in the world of entertainment? Can't beautiful women find better and more respectable work or activities than being the mere object of male passion? Are we returning to the era before Kartini was born -- the era where women were treated like commodities?

Any ad broadcast on television should contain moral values appropriate to those of the target audience, in this case Indonesia. Even if an ad does not intend to send any particular moral message, it should at least not encourage its audience to behave in a way that conflicts with the society's moral values. This ad reflects the shallowness of the people involved in its creation. The kind of hedonistic lifestyle it promotes will only benefit men -- and at the end of the day, it's women who will pay the price.

Obviously, the ad showed the woman being harassed in a very lighthearted way. Not many women seem to be aware of that harassment but I felt insulted.

Surprisingly, we saw no reaction from nongovernmental organizations (NGO), especially those that defend women's rights, because surely they did perceive the insult in the ad.

Perhaps because the ad was classified as art the women's rights defenders accepted it. I am not surprised the NGO did not react in the name of human rights. It is a crazy world: if someone posed naked in "public" and some government guys made a fuss of it, it would soon drag a strong reaction from people, especially women's rights organizations and NGOs. They would all fight on the same grounds: for the protection of human rights and art.

It is such a pity Indonesian women seem to have lost their sense for when they should fight and when they should keep their mouths shut. Perhaps this reflects the ironic reality that many Indonesian women are confused about their own position. On the one hand, they hate being harassed but on the other hand, some clearly need such harassment to bolster their own existence.

I am not better than other people, particularly the ad makers, and I am sure they are not thinking that way either. I am just a viewer who watched their product and concept. Besides, I have a little daughter who also watches television -- including ads like this one. Should we send those innocent little angels such false messages?

I believe there are many other ways to describe beauty than the message: "If you are beautiful, then men will come after you". Is it not a deceitful message that the beauty of a woman exists only to satisfy men's desires?

The ad also gives the false impression the purpose of women's existence on this earth is just to please men, although we know the duties and missions of men and women as God's creatures are the same. Women are created equal but now they position themselves as men's servants in a very passionate but undoubtedly base way. It seems men also have forgotten their extra duties and responsibility as heads of their family and leaders of their people -- not as predators.

Beauty without brains and decent moral values will not bring any good to the "beautiful woman" and her society.

Everyone knows just how long beauty lasts. After a certain age when beauty fades away, then what next? What a shallow point of view the ad presents. Is it right that to sell a certain consumer product we have to detract from the dignity of women in general? If we are unable to justify the sense and sensibility of a very short and simple television broadcast, why did anyone fight for the elimination of the LSF (Lembaga Sensor Film/Film Censorship Body)? To me, the LSF is still needed. At least we would still have a body that protects the interests of those people who do not want to watch such irresponsible and shallow television broadcasts.

The writer is a lawyer based in Jakarta. She can be reached at nela_dusan@yahoo.com.

Popular

PDI-P will likely be part of opposition: Ganjar

Indonesia one step from Olympics after beating South Korea

Bahlil leads task force to boost sugar, bioethanol production in Papua