While ‘galloping, spooning and tea bag positions’ (page 3 of the Weekend Mail’s now infamous November 4th & 5th, 2006 issue) may be the proverbial cup of tea for some, there are other notable positions -- of the non-sexual variant -- that are also worth supping on, as responses to the suspension of the Weekend Mail following its unbridled discussion of sex.

There were predictable positions, tried and tested ones, courtesy of government representatives, in the form of repugnance and denouncement. Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak reprimanded the media for ‘going overboard in exploiting sex’ (Reuters) and Women, Family and Community Development Minister Shahrizat Jalil labelled the Malay Mail as ‘irresponsible and downright vulgar’ (New Straits Times, November 6, 2006) for having the temerity to eschew the conservative position in talking intimately about intimacy -- where the lauded position is to not talk, at all, about such matters. The secretary-general of the Internal Security Ministry, Abdul Aziz Mohamad Yusof, deemed the subject -- sex -- as ‘contrary to eastern values practised by Malaysians’ (NST, November 8, 2006). Dare one have the temerity to insist on some qualification on equating sex with a ‘western’ value?

A crouching variant of these positions came from the New Straits Times Press (which publishes the paper) chief executive, Syed Faisal Albar, declaring that ‘the articles were offensive and distasteful’ (Reuters). The Printing and Printing Presses Act 1984 (Act 301) was invoked -- and, to enforce further submission, a resolution was passed at the Federal Territory UMNO Convention, condemning the publication of material that would ‘contribute to immoral sexual behaviour’, particularly among youngsters.

Dare one have the temerity to ask if sexual behaviour in itself is immoral?

So the Weekend Mail got ‘slapped for (its) sex story’ by ‘experimenting with more tabloid-style reporting’ (Reuters) beyond the tacitly acceptable limits of parading ‘College hotties’ to grace its weekly Campus pages. This stunt was deemed all the more audacious -- even deplorable -- as it had compromised the pristine reputation of the New Straits Times Press, its parent company. Like a child who misbehaves, the Weekend Mail got punished: it was suspended, as was its editor.

Knowing Your Stuff

Yet, I would contend that the Weekend Mail offers one of two positions that matter.

Let’s begin with a hard-to-refuse invitation: ‘Let’s talk about sex’. The Weekend Mail certainly did, in its full-colour, 57-page, and self-proclaimed ‘cheekiest issue ever’. Content-wise, there were three sections: first, a survey on sex, in which 100 respondents from the Klang Valley, between 18 and 35 years of age, were interviewed; second, members of the public, including an expert opinion (a sexologist -- but of course), were interviewed on their reaction to the results of this survey.

Third, a plethora of features for that added sizzle -- an A to Z of fetishes (did you know that hirsutophilia refers to those who are aroused by armpit hair?); opinion pieces (‘One size fits all’ and ‘Notches on bedposts’); sex accessories (‘Sexessories’); a health page (‘Sex-cellent prognosis!’) and an education page (‘How to drive your man [or your gal] wild with a girlie show’). Readers who tend not to notice writers’ by-lines would have noticed them, with double-take-worthy names such as Koko-Licious Kalbana Perimbanayagam, Minxy Meera Murugesan, Sick Simon Burgess and Gagging-for-it Grace Ong.

‘You’ll be shocked!’ the Weekend Mail promised -- and it delivered, judging from the predictably agitated positions I described earlier.

On the one hand, the Weekend Mail is guilty of sensationalising its coverage on sex to boost circulation rates. Sex sells. On the other hand, one could contend that talking about sex is a position that matters. It matters that a sex survey was conducted -- because talking about sex is not necessarily synonymous with talking dirty. It matters that gender equity was observed: of the 100 respondents interviewed, 50 were males and 50, females. It matters that Malaysians ‘know their “stuff” pretty well’, and are open to discussing them -- ‘stuff’ being one’s favourite sex positions (with ‘doggie style’ topping the list for men and the missionary position for women), frequency and nature of orgasms, the fact that contraceptives ‘reign among the top in sexual priority’, and the practice of ‘DIY love’, or autoeroticism. It matters that 84 percent of the respondents opined that ‘sex is a stimulating and relaxing activity that benefits one’s health’.

It matters that members of the public who were interviewed were not startled at the results of the survey -- principally, that sex is on the minds of respondents interviewed, on an average of ‘60 percent of the day’. It matters that an expert opinion, Dr Mat Saat, further challenges the taboo that shrouds sex, by affirming that, ‘sex education is not about sexual intercourse per se but about the art of living and the science of life’. It matters that the Weekend Mail ran features about the fact that sex advice on reproductive health (our holistic health from womb to tomb) and counselling are readily available via SMS for young persons worldwide, provided for by Marie Stopes International; and that homosexuality in Brazil was presented as a promotion of sexual diversity.

The More You Know

These are positions that matter, because they constitute ‘Asian values’, as practised by Malaysians. Although only 100 respondents were interviewed, one of three tenets of quantitative and qualitative researching is that analyses of data can be generalised (complemented, of course, by the validity of data and reliability of method; in this case, the survey as a method of generating data). This means that potentially many more Malaysians share these positions.

Embracing sexuality rights does not precipitate the road to debauchery and immorality: it is the right to achieving and enjoying sexual health. ‘Sexual health’ is a ‘state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being related to sexuality, not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity’ (Cairo Programme of Action, paragraph 7.2, the Beijing Platform for Action, paragraph 94). In addition, sexual health requires a ‘positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence’.

Embracing sexuality rights is a position that matters, as it fuses responsibility with basic human rights -- and this was well articulated by the responses of those the Weekend Mail interviewed. Embracing sexuality rights, as a right that is universal, inalienable and indivisible (from other fundamental rights) recognises that each of us has ‘the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health’ whether we are young or old (many have stressed the need for sexuality education among young teens, as it is an age where -- lets not be blind, here -- they are already experimenting with sex), rich or poor (vulnerability to gender-based violence does not discriminate), heterosexual or homosexual (with sexuality rights at risk for the latter, due to discrimination).

Being informed in making choices about our life partners, our bodily integrity (freedom from sexual coercion, including marital rape), our readiness to have sex and safer (and pleasurable) sex -- and, for many, negotiating these with their religious and cultural values, not only matter, but are integral. Being -- or remaining -- uninformed, and deeming this ignorance as occupying a higher moral plane, is an irresponsible position.

‘Readiness is all’, to quote Shakespeare. Essentially, the position that really matters is the one point that everyone interviewed by the Weekend Mail agreed on (and, statistically, this is rather astounding): ‘sex and sex-related issues should be discussed openly, to avoid any negative perceptions’.

~~~

Sharon A Bong lectures on Creative Writing and Women’s Studies at the School of Arts and Sciences, Monash University Malaysia. She is author of The Tension Between Women’s Rights and Religions: The Case of Malaysia (2006).