Who will the pornography bill protect?

Bonni Rambatan ,  Malang, East Java   |  Mon, 10/13/2008 11:35 AM  |  Opinion

What is the practical danger of pornography? Is the infamous saying, "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice", really true? Have no illusions: Recall the statistics of family rapes in Amish tribes, homosexual pedophilia in monasteries and domestic violence towards females in Middle Eastern societies.

And compare them to the statistics in liberal societies. Does the opposite not then ring loudly true: The more sexual liberation you have in a society, the less rape and sexual harassment there will be? A good, quick Freudian theory will speedily erase the paradox of this notion, but since we do not have very many Freudian supporters around, let us do ourselves a favor and skip such erudite discourse.

Imagine the typical image in a liberal society in which women can jog around a park only very scantily clad in perfect harmony alongside adult men. Is that condition what one would call "too free" (in terms of clothing)? Would it not be more logical if this image is seen instead as a society with very strict moral codes already in place? For the women to be able to feel safe alongside men even in such clothes, they must first presuppose that the men already follow a very strict code of conduct that regulates even the movement of their eyes so as not to offend the women.

Without such a strict moral code that a liberal society obeys, they would not have the freedom to wear any clothes they want to in first place. In this sense, within this ethical societal context, their scanty clothes are not at all a statement of sexual invitation, but rather a statement of total sexual indifference: "I do not care if I dress this way, because for me, your sexual desires do not even exist!"

Whenever I bring this topic up in any discussion or a class, I get a uniform response: "The Indonesian culture is not yet ready for such kind of morality, which is why we still need a written law!" It is hard to look for an idea that is more miserable than this one: If our culture is not ready, then why celebrate its unreadiness with a law? Why not educate our people to respect women more instead of by erecting a big, long bill?

Are we not, then, basically saying out loud that our culture -- if there is any -- is a primitive one that can never be ready, a backwards culture whose men are wild sexual predators who get aroused by the slightest hint of a genital? And even if we do need to be educated by law, why not make a law dispensing stronger punishment for rape, or basically just regulating sexual harassment?

Why not make a law that would make it easier for women to report on men who are harassing them instead of making it easier for men to report on a woman who they feel just has a beautiful butt that is slightly too exposed for the public to see? Would the former not be much better for society?

With the bill in place, are men not then practically free to stare at any voluptuous body part on any woman on the street -- first, because we have no pornography to stare at, and second, because it is the woman's fault for dressing too sexy anyway?

Does not the Pornography Bill, in this sense, promise a greater, much more obscene sexual freedom -- not a freedom to express, but a freedom to harass -- which is supposed to be the long lost freedom of our liberal world?

Clearly, this is a violent masculine backlash against feminism and liberal political correctness. But there is much more to it than meets the eye.

There are two types of laws/regulations: One that condemns the predicate, and another that condemns the object. The majority of examples belong to the first group: One must not kill, one must not steal. Others belong in the second group: Cigarettes and alcohol are forbidden to minors, we are forbidden to use recreational drugs.

When predicates are regulated, it is because it does harm to another; when objects are regulated, it is because it does harm to oneself. So now we are practically back to the first question: What harm does pornography practically do? Practically speaking, it is generally not harmful to the self. And if it is harmful to others, i.e., it causes sexual harassment, is not trying to regulate pornography to get rid of sexual harassment like trying to regulate thriller movies to get rid of murder?

There is a more fundamental logic at work: When you are on trial for mutilating a person, nobody else is to blame but you. Imagine now a society in which mutilation is discussed based on whether or not the victim is tempting enough to be mutilated, and a suggestion that a law should prohibit video games because the criminal actually did it while under the influence of video games.

It turns out that our society is perfectly fine in our current way, and if there are some people who want to justify mutilation, they will just be shrugged off as crazy people. Should the same not also apply to sexual regulations?

Would it not be perfectly better to live in a society in which rape and sexual harassment are fundamentally wrong, regardless of how sexy the victim was or whether or not the criminal was under the influence of pornography?

Does not the current elevation of sexual regulation into a law precisely increase the chance for a double-sided discourse -- such as a justification for rape or sexual harassment -- by moving over half the sense of legal guilt from the criminal to the victim and the media? Who are we trying to protect in this kind of society?

The writer is a psychoanalytic media researcher based in Malang, East Java. He maintains a theory/media/philosophy/sociology blog at http://posthumanmarxist.wordpress.com/

Comments (15)  |   Post comment
A  |   A  |   A  |   Mail to a friend  |  Printer Friendly Version |  Digg it!  |  Add to Del.icio.us!  |  Add to Reddit!  |  Stumble it!   |  Share on facebook  

Andrew (not verified) — Mon, 10/20/2008 - 12:42pm

Excellent article - thank you very much. I truly hope this will be translated into Indonesian for the wider readership domestically.

Dewi_ayu (not verified) — Mon, 10/20/2008 - 12:53am

great article, i'm so glad there are people who hold to such opinion! and our voices should be heard, right?

Mike (not verified) — Sat, 10/18/2008 - 12:07pm

I have to say that I am not able to see where in Indonesia the problem lays with pornography. The most obvious source is the internet, which is accessed by just a very small portion of the population, and in any event is just about impossible to control. I have never seen any newsstands with a ‘top shelf’ full of men’s mag's. The tv seems pretty well under control as does advertising. And for the life of me I cannot ever remember seeing any tourists walking about Jakarta or Bandung in a bikini. As it is now too late to be given as a ‘Ramadan Present’, the purpose there would seem to have faded also. Within these pages it is pretty clear that the overall enthusiasm for this bill is limp at best, and apart from the odd vitriolic letter, opinion seems very much on the nay side. Bali, the jewel in Indonesia’s crown, has stood up and said that it really does not favor the restrictions that this bill could place on its cultural and artistic heritage, and in turn the effect on it’s tourist industry. Unfortunately I have doubts as to whether Bali’s success truly matters one jot to those constructing this legislation. Regardless of sensible opinion this Bill would seem destined to become law, no matter how strong the objections or serious the consequences for the nation. However, at least when that happens it will allow the lawmakers to move onto other, obviously less important Bills that are waiting inline. I believe they include the following:

ANTI allowing babies in arms and young children being carried as passengers on motorbikes without crash helmets putting them in real danger of dying or being permanently brain damaged in the highly probable event of a crash BILL

ANTI burning rubbish including plastic and all sorts of other unmentionable stuff that pollutes the air with toxic nasties and seriously damages everybody’s heath BILL

ANTI carelessly tossing away rubbish that can be seen just about everywhere in the form of disgusting mountains of filth which have the potential of creating really horrible diseases and blocking up drains and rivers creating a really nasty toxic soup that is poisoning the whole community BILL

ANTI allowing driving licenses to be sold to just about anybody instead of insisting that a person who wishes to drive must first learn how to and then take a legitimate driving test so that the don’t put themselves and every other road user and pedestrian at serious risk of being maimed or killed because of their incompetence BILL

ANTI allowing knackered or under maintained lorries and buses whose owners are too selfish to consider anything apart from their own greed from spewing out a filthy black plumes of poisonous carbon dioxide that is literally choking all other road users and pedestrians to death BILL

And one very close to my heart:

ANTI allowing 'angkot'/public minivan drivers to stop just about anywhere without any thought or care for other road users causing constant traffic congestion in full view of your completely disinterested local policemen who is instead busy checking some poor guy on a motorbike seeing if he can find the tiniest infringement BILL

Perhaps readers are aware of more Bills awaiting consideration?

Henry (not verified) — Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:46pm

A very good article. I truly hope that many people take the time to read the article and contemplate about it.

It is my experience that in Indonesia men often behave like animals if they see women. It is very big contrast with Holland: men do not look at women as Indonesians would do or make sexually explicit remarks. Why? Because in Holland we are used to see the female body in all its splendour (we got used to it). It is not the beauty of the body that arises sexual feelings in us, but is the attraction we feel towards the other person because we think and feel the same.

It is the same with chocolate (or any other nice thing). If you forbid to look at it, it becomes more attractive because it is forbidden: it adds an extra dimension: the excitement of getting it. The excitement to know what is underneath the chocolate paper.

Ur & Us (not verified) — Fri, 10/17/2008 - 11:50am

Too much regulation make sick the nations but importantly the mind set of people towards it.

Dyssia (not verified) — Thu, 10/16/2008 - 10:50am

Brilliant article!! I saved in on my computer so I can read it again and again. Thank you!

Jon (not verified) — Wed, 10/15/2008 - 3:35pm

Thank you for such a great article about the civilize world and the primitive one. I always said it's the one that just came out of the jungle that are afraid to be naked. Women in the 40s, in the west, had those long swimsuits and no rights to vote. Now, thanks God that all has changed and we are equal as man and woman. The question about moral is that there is no perfect system. It is true that when you see brothels and sex industry in the west, it could come as a shock to other nation around the world especially the ones just coming out of the jungles or deserts. But when you see Arab countries, how can you speak about morals, most Arabian men had ones in their live homosexual experiences, as young man who doesn't have any relationship / healthy relationship with a woman, thinks it is normal that homosexual act are common eventhough there aren't natural homosexuals. Is the price of freedom of choice so cheap that on the mer excuse on moral issues we put ourself in jail. I prefer a less moral country but full of human dynamics and movement then a so call moral one but completely stuck. What goes on in Arab countries is an outrage and that the west doesn't do anything about it. Long live freedom stop fascist religion based stupidity.

Paolo Scalpini (not verified) — Wed, 10/15/2008 - 4:24am

Is this law not simply a further step in the Middle-Eastern cultural colonization of Indonesia, replacing 'adat' custom, ancient Hindu-based culture, tolerant Sufi Islam etc. by a Saudi style 5th century culture?

Mohammad Ali (not verified) — Wed, 10/15/2008 - 1:06am

Good article, with very presice point of view. The fact that the Indonesian culture is not ready to have such way in seeing woman in the streets, simply denounces the concept of woman emancipation. Woman are seen as objects, and have to be regulated. Just like a piece of chocolate, has to be covered with wrapping paper, otherwise is too tempting to be eaten.

R.Astari (not verified) — Tue, 10/14/2008 - 10:35pm

Everything must start from oneself first - not others.

Besides, how do we know if a person is morally decent from JUST the clothes they wear? I mean, seriously. Do we really want to become THAT shallow - just simply judging everything from the outside? I mean, there are more things than meet the eye.

For example, a head-scarfed girl can easily remove that cover from her head at night and transform into someone else at night if she may. That's her decision and responsibilities. How do we know that she's actually not just some "high-class" call-girl masquerading just to keep herself unjudged and unarrested? How can we actually tell?

You see, this kind of bill just makes more DECENT women feel unsafe. I mean, how would you - MEN - feel if all of us suspected that all of you were just HORNY PIGS wanting just that ONE THING from us??? How insecure would you like us to be? It's already bad enough for us here even without that stupid draft bill. Is your MALE-EGO way too BLOATED to think clearly and use more logic - like most of you tend to brag your kind about? Give me a break. I'm dead surprised if you're still too dumb to notice that you're simply tainting your own reputation as (so-called) gentlemen? I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a total man-hater here, but I'm just giving you another possible perspective if this stupid bill is forcefully legalized.

And I'm also dead sad that some women think it's a perfect solution for their lecherous husbands. Please, no wonder most men still think we're too emotional and incapable of thinking clearly. Instead of shooting off your insecurities over other women, why don't you just admit that your husbands are lecherous creeps who choose to let it go like animals do?

Please, do not bring any religion to this matter. Let's not kid ourselves. Let's not play God by pointing our accusative fingers to others and claiming that we're the holiest. If this is just how Indonesian government's trying to survive their corruptive habits over everything, then let's pay them all with our blood if they're still too hard-headed on this.

12next ›last »

What's On

more
more
more