IDEAS (must we have the anti-porn law?)
We have every reason to believe that anti-porn bill was derived from a noble idea of protecting the society from moral deterioration (whatsoever). In that respect, nobody can deny the importance of the objective, and how it is worth fighting for. We are obliged to appreciate the good intention. Yet it is still debatable that banning bare breasts in public will positively result in the improvement of our morals.The fact is, the more repressive the regulation is, the more outbursts it creates. As reported by The Jakarta Post yesterday, the number of violation towards women increased during the previous year. The number of rape in Indonesia is five times as big as those in European countries. The same goes with sexual crimes toward children (not considering the unrevealed ones).
Instead of protecting the adults –who can think for themselves anyway-, i am more than willing to accept the antiporn law when its main concerns are of protection for children and women. Anything to do with sexual crimes toward children is undoubtedy a subject of banning. Children exploitation for sexual reasons, no matter how private, is still a violation. In this case we must not succumb to -nor tolerate- any pretexts.
On the contrary, the noble objective of protecting women can also be a boomerang. In this patriarchal world, where women are still seen as the (main) sex object, the impacts of the war against pornography will fall badly on women themselves. There will more restrictions as to what they are allowed to wear and do, while in the other hand this “compulsion” will encourage the increase of sexual crimes, whose victims are none other than women. What is expected to be a moral improvement and an aid could as well run far from the initial plan.
TECHNICAL (if indeed the law must be passed)
First of all: to what extent does the state have the right to manage the morals of its citizens? They might have the right alright, but i don’t think that right encompasses the entire aspect of the citizens’ lives. It has nothing to do with religions and Islam –as the majority. Even if Indonesia IS an Islamic country, and bound to enforce The Syari’a, including to eradicate porn for religious reasons, there is still a question left: isn’t there supposed to be no compulsion in Islam practises? Isn’t religious matter (along with all the rules and rituals) a prerogative of each individual’s?
The state may regulate what’s in the public domain, but if i decide to walk around naked in my own room, i believe the state has no say in this. This can well mean the porn the state may arrange is confined to what’s visible (and maybe “can be heard” as well) in public.
Secondly: how do you define porn?
The Anti-porn bill goes as follows: pornography includes “certain sensual parts of the body”. Further explanation says: "it covers genitals, thigh, hip, bottom, navel, woman’s breasts, either shown partially or entirely.”.
According to Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary: pornography (inf, porn): books, videos, etc. that describe or show naked people and sexual acts in order to make people feel sexually excited, especially in a way that many other people find offensive.
The problem is, definitions depend a lot on the perspective of the observer. And perspective is subject to subjectivity. For a conservative muslim, even the hair of a woman is a form of porn. But try and go ask a fed-up-with-as*es clubber, we might well hear a different tune.
So whose definition are we going to use? These definitions vary not only from group to group, but also from culture to culture. Indonesia does have a range of cultures. Will we charge a female Balinese dancer in her costume (which is a part of a sacred ritual of worship) of committing porn? If the Papuans remain in their koteka, will we take them all to jail?
The problem of perspective gap will not emerge if the border between what is proper and what is porn is not so strictly drawn. It is fair to say that in any culture there is an “agreement” that the genitals and sexual acts are porn, and not to be shown in public. Actually between the proper and the porn, there is an area of the indecent, and it is exactly this area that varies from culture to culture. Porn may (and should) be banned, but merely a indecency can still be tolerated in accordance with local custom. Hence, it will be much better if every region produces a by-law of porn and indecencies that facilitates a more down-to-earth definition.
We must also stress how ambiguous it is to use the word “erotic” to define porn (as is the case with the anti-porn bill). Semantically, erotic means showing or involving sexual desire and pleasure; intended to make somebody feel sexual desire. It’s clearly subjective. What is erotic for a person might be something trivial for others, and it has nothing to do with clothing. A woman wearing jilbab with her jilbab blown on the wind, revealing a bit of her hair, might be more erotic than a girl (out of thousands) with bikini on a beach. How can you make a definition out of something indefinitive? That would be foolish indeed.
IMPACTS
The issue has sent back a wave of opposition to passing the law –including that ridiculous act in Bali. Furthermore, the possibility of separation of Bali and Papua –as they threathened that that would be the case if the law were passed- becomes a must-discuss topic these days. Tourism sector will indeed suffer a great loss, as tourists definitely prefer free, relaxed places to a tropical country which obliges them to wear long sleeves whatsoever in the hot air. And Papua is due to have a culture-shock if the people are forced to adopt an unfamiliar set of principles.
As the demo, debate, discussion, and all the riot go on, owing to this particular issue, so many energies are spent, so much time is wasted. They might not be wasted in vain, for all the enthusiasm is another step in the journey toward a mature nation. Yet just imagine if the energies and time were lavished on something essential: fight against corruption or improving the quality of education.
SUMMING UP
I believe that we can enforce acts but we cannot enforce morals. Even if the bill were finally passed, it did not subsequently mean that the morals of this country would improve. The true measurement of morals is when you have the chance of doing something “bad”, yet you don’t. A saying goes, “Character is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking.”. Hence, let people dress the way they like, act the way they want (as long as it doesn’t do harm to –nor offend- anyboby, why bother?). Make the regulations –unambiguous ones, that is- for things that really matter, child protection for example. Instead of binding rules, what counts is how to cultivate their awareness of the consequences of their choices when they have the freedom to choose. Once again education (not in a narrow sense) takes a major role. Because the thing about life is that you choose freely and live with it. I know i can wear tanktop if i want, all the same i wear jilbab. Yet if other girls wish to show their belly buttons off, be my guests. It’s their lives anyway.
Ditulis oleh eloque.
