Kiss me quick, please, for I'm indecent

What turns you on? For the mature, a peck on the lips isn't that arousing. In fact, it's dismissive. Maybe a bit of voyeurism, watching others kiss in public or some suggestive images from the silver screen would do the trick.

A kiss is just a kiss, they say. It's the simplest, purest yet most outrageously demonstrative act of emotion of primates -- husbands kiss their wives, boyfriends buzz their girlfriends and simians nuzzle up to their mates.

But for some, an "unsanctioned" kiss, not to mention even touching above the wrist, is lewd behavior between unmarried couples.

It is this ultraconservative viewpoint that has done in Buruan Cium Gue (Kiss Me Quick). A minor uproar propelled by our paragons of virtue -- the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI) and cleric A'a Gym -- has painted the film as a vehicle to corrupt youth with carnal thoughts.

Put on the spot by the onslaught of criticism, the Film Censorship Board (BSF) withdrew the film from circulation on Friday, citing "societal unrest" as the reason.

Apart from the tongueless kiss, MUI listed other "lewd" scenes: A class chuckling as a teacher reprimanded children caught kissing (a scene considered "disrespectful"); junior high kids encouraging each other to kiss ("provocative dialog"); the depiction of school as a venue for gossip and dating ("uneducational"); and a girl smearing a drop of tequila on her neck to seduce her boyfriend ("erotic").

Disrespectful, provocative, uneducational and erotic -- definitely! That is if one ignores society's libertarian zeitgeist; if not, then these charges are the daft naivete of morality mongers who aren't satisfied with deciding what they view themselves, but who also want to dictate what others see.

Whether you agree with them or not, all of us should be proud of living in a society which can debate such a movie. Just as the moral arbiters have the right to point to its "decadence", supporters of the movie are free to argue that it is about as provocative as an episode of Baywatch.

But what's at stake here is not just the defense of a movie which most agree is esthetically mediocre. The movie, for all its deficiencies, is not obscene. What it does is exaggerate the lifestyle of middle-class urban teens.

Even if perverse or artistically lacking, works of "art" should be permissible if they contain redeeming social value, such as commenting on the human condition. We are never what we perceive ourselves to be. Film and art allows society to look at itself, but its prohibition only raises cultural ignorance.

It is always the artist -- not the philosopher, politician, nor the cleric -- who is at the forefront of examining our cultural precepts.

When we subjectively impose censorship based on our personal moral grounds, it's the first step on the path to political repression and curbs on free expression. Book banning is not far behind.

We've been there. We don't want to go back. Religion, which represents our most personal and sacred values, must not become an instrument of harassment.

A'a Gym said in a sermon last week that if producers of the film were not Muslims, they should still respect the rights of Muslims. The question is, if the movie was so offensive, wouldn't it insult everyone irrespective of faith?

Virtue knows no religion. The exploitation of religion in such debates reduces the dialog from intellect to mere dialect, and shows the true colors of the critics.

There are established guidelines for dealing with a film like Buruan Cium Gue, and it's called ratings. If it's considered indecent, slap on an adult rating so people can decide for themselves.

The moral education of our youth is important, but not through imposing moral norms on society beyond the mainstream secular baseline. Moral stigmatization only breeds creative fear.

Censorial technology and laws cannot wholly protect our young. It is education at home -- on sexual responsibility and social virtues -- which stem unwanted influences.

With a glut of information just a click away, debate and consultation -- not dogma -- should decide what is "virtuous" and "indecent" in a pluralistic society.

Even one of the most enlightened societies in the world, the United States, can surprise us with a list of material found to be offensive. According to the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom, among the three most "challenged" books in 2003 were John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men and J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series.

Harry Potter?!

One is reminded of G.K. Chesterton's foreboding of virtue run amok. For a dictatorship of the "virtuous" often leads to inquisitions and witch hunts. -- Zoso