Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Talking About Anti-Pornography and Porno-Action Bill



In November 2008, the government of Indonesia legalized a bill against pornography and porno-action in the country. It has been an issue long debated and had roused so fierce an argument amongst the people. Many agree on the establishment of this new regulation, in order to prevent obscenity to spread in the society and to barricade our children from the negative impacts of pornography. Some, however, object – not on the issue of fighting against pornography, but on the double side of the new regulation itself. “We reject pornography, but we disagree with porn bill!” they protest. How is it possible?

Let us get to the point and take a good look at the newly established regulation: it is put into action to cross out all that falls into the terms “pornography” and “porno-action.” As for pornography, I believe none would agree that there’s anything morally fine about it. It is a degrading and destructive act of obscenity – and anyone in his/her right mind would normally agree on the effort to abolish it from the society. But the other term, “porno-action,” is something rather obscure in practice. To what extent is something classified as “porno-action”?

Some people shallowly define this term as the way women dress themselves in public. Take note: women! Not men!

“If women would dress themselves properly as to prevent themselves from indecent and unwanted assaults, then there would be no reason for acts of rape and sexual harassment against them,” they’d argue.

As we all can predict, this kind of statement or idea has roused the objection of many scholars, artists, writers and – especially – feminists! Soe Tjen Marching (Indonesian composer and feminist, now professor at University of London), for example, had published a book entitled The Discrepancy between the Public and the Private Selves of Indonesian Women and criticized some irrelevant regulations established by the government which corner women.

She believes (as do other thinkers and scholars) that acts of rape and sexual harassment spring up from the mind of men, and not from the way women dress themselves! It all begins in people’s head. A woman may dress up like Inneke Koesherawati, covering her entire body from head to toe, and a man can burn with desire upon seeing her, thinking what she hides beneath those layers of clothes! Or, a woman might wear bikini to the beach like Mariana Bridi and men would consent to that without raising an eyebrow or wolf-whistling although 90% of her flesh is exposed!

It is thus unfair to blame the cause on women and not hear both sides of the tale. The porn bill therefore may do more harm to women than to protect them. It gives the legal ground to criminals and harassers to justify themselves by arguing that it is because of the women’s dressing manner that they commit indecent assaults!

It is most advised for women to dress decently in public. But it doesn’t mean that all women should wear jilbab (head-cover) and cover their body entirely. Just be decent with your clothes, Ladies! Men will respect us, women, when we know how to respect ourselves.

On the other hand, let’s hope the next government elected through tomorrow’s presidential election would reconsider that newly established bill. I do agree with Mrs. Marching that it is truly a waste to restrict women in their dressing manner while there is no effort to behave the opposite sex’s way of thinking. Morality begins in the mind, not in the outfit.

What do you say, Men?

No comments:

Post a Comment