Activists say it's time to set clear standards on porn

In 1996's critically acclaimed People Vs. Larry Flynt, the lawyer of Hustler hardcore magazine owner Larry Flynt (Woody Harrelson) intermixed images of nude bodies with graphic ones of war.

The question for the jurors was how exactly the images of the former could be more destructive and harmful to society than the latter.

Flynt finally won the case as freedom of expression, however offensive to public opinion, is accommodated by the U.S. First Amendment.

The scene was cited during a recent discussion organized by the feminist journal Jurnal Perempuan, which addressed the issue of pornography, and especially highlighted the recent rebuke from President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono over the showing of navels on television.

Feminists derided the President for focusing more on trivial matters than pressing issues, such as combating corruption and terrorism.

They said that the statement could be categorized as harassment, dehumanization of women's bodies, uneducative and once against placed women as the passive targets of violence and morality crusades.

Activist Gadis Arivia said the government was crossing the line of interfering in private matters.

"It's not surprising, though, as a failing government always highlights the issue of sexuality to reach the vote of conservatives."

However, she was worried that the statement would accelerate the passing of the controversial "antipornography" bill.

As many people, parents especially, have shown their concern about smutty tabloids and porn VCDs and DVDs sold on the street, the government has been working on the bill on pornography.

However, the bill, introduced earlier this year, has been criticized as repressive and meddling in private matters.

The bill, for instance, threatens a one year jail sentence for public kissing and two years incarceration for private "sex parties".

The Independent Broadcast Committee (KPI) has also been working on the regulation against pornography on broadcast media, which also raised eyebrows.

The regulation, among others, would ban scenes of kissing and of a man and a woman seen on the same bed (whatever it is they are doing) and the presence of skimpy outfits. Under such criteria, a movie like Teguh Karya's Dibalik Kelambu (Behind the Mosquito Net), from the early 1980s, would be banned, for it features at least one scene of the protagonists talking on a bed!

All of the regulations are ridiculous, according to the women's right activists, as they confuse freedom of expression with protecting children from obscenity.

Gadis said that a regulation governing pornography distribution to protect children was crucial, but nonviolent pornography itself should not be banned because every adult individual had the right to express themselves and make their own personal choices.

"The ban on pornography means banning democracy and we don't want that. We wish to have a mature society where people can decide for themselves. Banning pornography is such a repressive and conservative act, as well as not in line with our aim at educating and ushering people into a more developed society."

Activist Debra Yatim said that there should be a clear definition of pornography.

"In the United States and the United Kingdom, what is banned is obscenity, not pornography. Now, we're even going to ban 'minimum' outfits? What's the definition of minimum?"

KPI member Ade Armando said the group's definition of pornography was any material in the media causing sexual arousal, something which has been questioned for its vagueness.

"There is nothing wrong with arousing sexual excitement and besides, different cultures have different perceptions on that," Gadis said.

What KPI should do, she said, was implement and enforce ratings and regulate the viewing of adult content instead of imposing a uniform ban.

The activists agreed that the lack of a clear definition of pornography was harmful to women.

As stated in the latest edition of the journal, pornography is "the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words that also includes women dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities; enjoying pain or humiliation or rape; being tied up, cut up, mutilated, bruised or physically hurt; in postures of sexual submission or servility or display; reduced to body parts, penetrated by objects or animals, or presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture; shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual."

Through this encompassing definition, women, the main target of the most violent types of pornography, can be protected.

"When people talk about pornography, it has always been women who are condemned, and at the end, women are also conditioned to be against each other. History shows that the bodies of women have always been the target of violence and morality, and that's unacceptable," Gadis said.

As with the argument that pornography can lead to rape, the activists said it had nothing to do with women, but with a man being unable to manage his sexual desire and considering women as mere sexual objects -- and using violence to get what he wants.

In the meantime, Mr. President, why don't you just do your job, for an exposed navel will cause you no harm.