Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Friday, April 07, 2006

Playboy Hits Jakarta, Is Porn Good For Islam?

American porn takes on the Muslims world...

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- A toned-down edition of Playboy magazine went on sale Friday in Indonesia, defying threats of protests by Islamic hardliners who called the publication a form of moral terrorism in the world's most populous Muslim nation.

The magazine does not feature nude women, and its photos of female models in underwear are no more risque than those in other magazines already for sale in the country. More explicit photos appear daily in local tabloids.

Protesters hit the streets in towns across Indonesia when the magazine announced in January it was planning a local version, but it remains to be seen whether demonstrations will pick up again after people have read it.

One hardline group, the Islamic Defenders Front, pledged to forcefully remove the magazines from shops.

"The first edition might be tame, but it will get more vulgar," said group spokesman Tubagus Muhamad Sidik. "Even if it had no pictures of women in it, we would still protest it because of the name."

Muslim leader Yusuf Hasyim said the magazine posed more of a threat to Indonesia than the terrorism from al Qaeda-linked militants that has killed more than 240 people in the sprawling country in recent years.

"This is a kind of moral terrorism that destroys the way of the life of the nation in a systematic and long-term way," state news agency Antara quoted Yusuf Hasyim as saying, calling on Muslim youth not to attack shops selling the magazine.


You read that correctly. Islamic zealots actually think that pictures of women in their panties are worse than terrorism.

All joking aside, this publisher is a brave soul. Remember that cartoons published in a Danish newspaper through the Muslims world into violence and riots. Just imagine the risk he's taking by publishing pictures of Arabic women in their panties.

I sometimes wonder, though, if it isn't people like this publisher who will end up being instrumental in winning the war on terrorism. It seems to me that spreading western culture to the oppressed middle east is a good way to push back said oppression. People in Jakarta are going to hear their leaders proclaim that this magazine is "worse than terrorism," and then they're gonig to look at the actual magazine and think to themselves that maybe their leaders are exaggerating. After all, for someone who lives with terrorism in their lives it is hard to reconcile pictures of scantily-clad babes with being as bad as innocent women and children being blown up. And once this realization begins to dawn on the populace in the middle-east how long will it be until they begin questioning their leader's other proclamations about the "evils" of the "great Satans" in the west?

If western culture can get a toe-hold in the Muslim world (and I'm not just talking about pornography - not that this watered-down version of Playboy is "porn" by western standards - but also books, movies, music, plays, etc.) I can't help but feel that it will have a positive impact in that it will expose them to new ideas and perhaps lure them into becoming a modern liberal society.

Of course, I'm simplifying things a bit as cultural changes like this can take generations, but you see my point.

Playboy may well be the best thing to have happened to Indonesia in a long, long time.

A couple of images of the magazine are in the extended entry. It is, as the article suggests, no more pornographic than your typical check-out-aisle magazine fare.

indoplayboy.jpg


indoplayboy2.jpg

Comments

Avatar for realitybasedbob

"This is a kind of moral terrorism that destroys the way of the life of the nation in a systematic and long-term way"

 

Was this plagiarized from a Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell or James Dobson communiqué?
With outstanding Americans like Brian Doyle and Frank Figueroa making headlines, now might not be the right time to defend girlie mags.

 

Nice jingo job though. I will remember this when “We are a Christian nation” comes up again.
realitybasedbob on April 7, 2006 at 07:18 am
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

Realityboob, I’m no Christian.  Not sure what gave you that idea.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 7, 2006 at 07:48 am
Avatar for Sherard

This is a kind of moral terrorism that destroys the way of the life of the nation in a systematic and long-term way

I can only assume that by comparison, this implies somehow that the "way of life" in Indonesia is superior to many other modern countries, let’s just use the US as an example.  Porn is pretty prevalent in the US, access to it is unfettered for nearly anyone of legal age. 

I would defy ANYONE to give examples of how the Indonesian "way of life" is superior to the US - and I mean everyone in the US.  Certainly there are decadent lifestyles that are less deisirable than likely some pious lifestyles in Indonesia.  The fact, however, that there are equally pious individuals in the US tells me that the availability of porn is a choice and not something that destroys ways of life.  I would suggest that whoever in Indonesia is ripe for mass consumption of porn is probably not leading a particularly admirable way of life at the current time. 

Sherard on April 7, 2006 at 09:04 am
Avatar for robert108

Yes, totalitarian regimes are so much more moral than free people making free choices.

robert108 on April 7, 2006 at 09:14 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Somehow I expected it to be a gal in a burqa with the garment lifted just enough to show a bit of ankle.....

Robert Perry on April 7, 2006 at 09:17 am
Avatar for Epicurus

Sherard,

Some anti-porn activists in the U.S. are trying to undertake studies which demonstrate the mental and physical harm of porn as a means to legislate against it. 

Epicurus on April 7, 2006 at 09:20 am
Avatar for Dave

You read that correctly. Islamic zealots actually think that pictures of women in their panties are worse than terrorism.

Good thing our western leaders have a much more reasonable view of the world. 

Senator Jim Bunning on gay marriage:

"I rise to discuss probably the most important issue this body or I have ever debated on the floor of the Senate since I have been a member, 6 years. Our nation faces a potential disaster."

Dave on April 7, 2006 at 10:03 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Well, if you want to discuss detrimental effects, tell me what has happened to the divorce rate, crime rate, drug use rate, and so on since 1953, when Hugh Hefner started publishing Playboy.  It’s certainly not the only factor, but certainly the rise of soft core and other pornography has not been accompanied by societal changes that we’d see as favorable, no?

I’m not a defender of Islam by any means, but they may just have a point here.

Robert Perry on April 7, 2006 at 10:15 am
Avatar for Dave

Well, if you want to discuss detrimental effects, tell me what has happened to the divorce rate, crime rate, drug use rate, and so on since 1953, when Hugh Hefner started publishing Playboy. 

On the other hand, since 1953 we’ve started letting blacks and whites to go the same school together.

Plus, our crime rate has been rapidly declining over the past 15 years--the past 15 years, the time at which the internet pornography business took off.

Dave on April 7, 2006 at 10:31 am
Avatar for Andrew

I’m not a defender of Islam by any means, but they may just have a point here.

They may have a point, but isn’t the real issue here whether or not people should be free to destroy their own society?

Andrew on April 7, 2006 at 11:40 am
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

Robert, I don’t think they have a point about Playboy being as bad as terrorism.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 7, 2006 at 11:45 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Really?   Ask yourself:

1.  How many people has terrorism killed?

2.  How many people has the Playboy lifestyle killed?  Think AIDS, abortion, other STDs, etc..

If anything, they’re being rather moderate in Indonesia, I dare say.

Robert Perry on April 7, 2006 at 11:50 am
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

Oh Robert, I couldn’t disagree more.

The things you talk about are the results of people suffering the consequences of their own actions.  Terrorism is murder.  I’m not sure we can compare the two.

Also, what I did (and I assume what most people do) with a Playboy back when I was a teenager wasn’t really about to get me AIDS. 


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 7, 2006 at 11:59 am
Avatar for Dave

Also, what I did (and I assume what most people do) with a Playboy back when I was a teenager wasn’t really about to get me AIDS. 

Read the articles?

Dave on April 7, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Avatar for Robert Perry

The aborted baby died because of actions of his own? I beg to differ.

Let’s be serious here.  Hefner is a tireless promoter of sex outside of marriage, which is the big driver for abortion, STDs, and yes, divorce.  He’s one of the biggest contributors to Planned Parenthood.

The deaths from his chosen lifestyle are estimated at 50 million annually.  Every three or four years, you have the Holocaust, Stalin and Lenin’s purges, and Mao’s purges....COMBINED.

Innocent fun?  Perhaps not.

Robert Perry on April 7, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

Read the articles?

Davey, go ask your parents about the birds and the bees and then listen very carefully to what they tell you.

The aborted baby died because of actions of his own? I beg to differ.

I didn’t know we were talking about abortion.  I thought we were talking about AIDS, which is primarily the result of people acting irresponsibly. 


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 7, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Avatar for Robert Perry

Rob, fact is that the primary driver of abortion is pregnancy where the father isn’t willing to care for the mother.  In other words, the same strings free sex that Hugh Hefner’s been endorsing for over half a century.

Robert Perry on April 7, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Avatar for Dave

Hefner is a tireless promoter of sex outside of marriage, which is the big driver for abortion, STDs, and yes, divorce.  He’s one of the biggest contributors to Planned Parenthood.

The deaths from his chosen lifestyle are estimated at 50 million annually.  Every three or four years, you have the Holocaust, Stalin and Lenin’s purges, and Mao’s purges....COMBINED.

I think Kate Chopin deserves some blame here too, right? Or hell, why not William Wycherly? The Marquis de Sade?

And, out of curiosity, should we have killed Hugh Hefner 50 years ago? Think of all the lives it would have saved…

Dave on April 7, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Avatar for Robert Perry

Dave, others certainly bear a degree of blame.  I don’t endorse killing anyone here, of course.  What I endorse is this; rejection of the man’s product based on what it is and what it’s helped to do to our country.

Robert Perry on April 7, 2006 at 01:02 pm
Avatar for robert108

I would hold Gloria Steinem a lot more responsible than Hugh Hefner on that one.

So now AIDS is a heteo disease?  News to me.  According to the lefties, it isn’t a gay disease, so what is it?  Blaming Hugh for AIDS is just idiocy.

The majority of abortions in this country are performed for birth control purposes.  Nice try blaming men, though. 

robert108 on April 7, 2006 at 01:14 pm
Avatar for robert108

I meant "hetero".

robert108 on April 7, 2006 at 01:15 pm
Avatar for Robert Perry

Robert108, Steinem surely bears a lot of blame, and it’s worth noting who one of the bigger contributors to NOW has historically been.  Chap named Hugh Hefner.  No kidding.  He’s been incredibly active in advocating "recreational sex" for both men and women; for the men through Playboy and for the women through Planned Parenthood and NOW. 

And yes, many see it as essentially "birth control"; because they’ve been persuaded by Hefner and many others that sex is "just for fun" and that the ordinary consequences are to be avoided or eliminated.  See how it works?

Robert Perry on April 7, 2006 at 01:25 pm
Avatar for robert108

I am familiar with the "Playboy Philosophy(?)"-its main tenet is that sexual repression has produced all our societal ills.  If we all had more sex(a lot more), we would be OK, and the world would be a much better place.  You know how that has turned out.  As you can see, I’m not a fan of Hef, but he doesn’t deserve all the blame.

robert108 on April 7, 2006 at 04:14 pm
Avatar for realitybasedbob

So now AIDS is a heteo disease?  News to me.  According to the lefties, it isn’t a gay disease, so what is it? 

Tell me you are joking…please…

realitybasedbob on April 7, 2006 at 05:11 pm
Avatar for Chief RZ

HIV and AIDS disease rates are approximately:  2/3 rds caused by homosexuals via unrestrained anal intercourse  and  1/3 rd caused by intarvenious illegal drug use and shareing of needles http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/02/heterophobia.html   

Chief RZ on April 7, 2006 at 05:23 pm
Avatar for Zsa Zsa

I don’t know which one is worse? Sharing a needle or anal sex? ... Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuwah!!!!

Zsa Zsa on April 7, 2006 at 05:57 pm
Avatar for robert108

I was being facetious.  I meant hetero disease.  One guy was making Hugh responsible for AIDS deaths, and as far as I know, Hugh advocates hetero activity.

robert108 on April 7, 2006 at 07:04 pm
Avatar for realitybasedbob

So chief, do you recommend homosexuals use restraints when having anal intercourse?

realitybasedbob on April 7, 2006 at 08:49 pm
Avatar for robert108

Maybe restrain from anal intercourse.  That would be smart.

robert108 on April 7, 2006 at 09:12 pm
Avatar for student student

Hmmm, that’s funny. I like how children are seen as "consequences". Isn’t there a nicer way to put that? Would you rather be a "consequence", or would you rather be a human being??

 I believe this article was about Playboy in Iraq, and not the immorality of Playboy. But, if that has to do with Playboy in Iraq, then so be it. I believe that the amount of people in Japan who view porn is very high, with a very low rate of rape and other crimes. People can go jerk off to their porn, and then return to normal. Not that I have ever read/viewed playboy/playgirl…

National geographic used to be considered risque by my grandmother because it had women in it. When I see that Playboy is selling a magazine of women in underwear, isn’t that about the same as looking at say, a Victoria’s Secret Catalogue? So looking at Victoria’s Secret is promoting promiscuous premarital sex! oh!

 By the way, the percentage of people who get married virgins is very small indeed. I’m sure if I said that I was raped, that would lower my value significantly. I’m just "damaged goods" to you. Oh well, my boyfriend does not seem to see it that way.

 People can choose their own lifestyle. At 15/16/17, I was reading 17 magazine, and I believe that promoted sex...but I chose to not have sex, it disgusted me. I wonder what the actual cause for this sexuality in preteens is. It may be the hormones in the chicken or something. I do hear they’ve been known to cause puberty early, and the larger breasts could be attracting males. I also believe that the parents are more accepting of kids buying thongs and having boyfriends early.

I wouldn’t ever attribute a single thing as a cause for the way society is.

student student on April 7, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Avatar for robert108

"larger breasts could be attracting males"  You got that right.

robert108 on April 7, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Avatar for Dave

What I endorse is this; rejection of the man’s product based on what it is and what it’s helped to do to our country.

...And how’s that working out for you? Is it doing better than my endorsement of rejecting the meat, dairy, and egg industry?

Don’t blame Hugh. He just sold the product. Blame the people who bought it.

Dave on April 8, 2006 at 12:52 am
Avatar for robert108

Why blame anybody?  Don’t you have anything better to do?

robert108 on April 8, 2006 at 09:27 am
Avatar for Dave

Why blame anybody? 

Even better.

Dave on April 8, 2006 at 02:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

Dave:  You wrote:  "Blame the people who bought it."  Why blame anybody?

robert108 on April 8, 2006 at 04:19 pm
Avatar for Robert Perry

Why blame anybody?  Well, the person who popularizes an idea is responsible in part for the consequences, no? 

If we are to argue that someone who popularizes an idea is not responsible in part for the consequences, we’d have to exonerate Hitler and Stalin.  Neither is ever recorded as ever taking part in the actual killing that their names are rightly associated with.  They just promoted the idea and delegated that actual atrocities to others.

And again, the scary thing here is that when you count the ravages of promiscuous sexuality in the last 30 years, it’s huge.  What a dictator can do to a nation is only a shadow of what atrocities we can perform on ourselves.

Robert Perry on April 10, 2006 at 06:25 am
Avatar for robert108

Robert: Not much for personal responsibility, are you?  My point was about "blaming", which is generally a victim consciousness thing.  Comparing Hugh Hefner to Hitler and Stalin is just comical, though.  I have previously considered you more rational than that.  Hitler and Stalin gave orders under pain of death;  I don’t think Hugh does that.  People never are forced to buy his magazine, as far as I know, and are not then forced to act on anything in it.  Not quite a parallel with murderous dictators, is it?

robert108 on April 10, 2006 at 08:47 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Not against personal responsibility at all; in fact, the reason I’m writing this is because I believe that some persons like Kinsey and Hefner are partially and personally responsible for encouraging the kind of sexual behavior that have led to millions of deaths annually from abortion and AIDS.  That doesn’t negate the responsibility of those who engaged in the sexual acts personally, but there is certainly guilt to be associated with encouraging this.

And yes, the analogy to Hitler & Stalin is apt.  For starters, the death toll from abortion and AIDS annually reaches the overall death toll of Hitler and Stalin.  And again, neither dictator ever had to threaten someone with his own personal force--they delegated the actual dirty work to subordinates, much like a Mafia don.

Hence, just as I consider the Gambino, Columbo and Gotti families guilty of mob activity, just as I consider Hitler and Stalin guilty of genocide, I also must consider Hefner and Kinsey guilty of encouraging the behaviors that led to our current Holocaust. 

In other words, the imams have a point here.

Robert Perry on April 10, 2006 at 09:06 am
Avatar for robert108

Robert: Info leading to behavior might work with children, but adults have the power to discriminate, and if they don’t, no one else is to blame.  Teenagers may claim "peer pressure" made them do it, but that also doesn’t wash with adults.  If you are judging by deaths, then the Black Plague was the most responsible cause of all, the worst dictator of all time.  I think it’s just silly to compare Hugh Hefner and Albert Kinsey to any murdering dictators.  It’s also wrong.  No one had to buy their books or let them influence their behavior.  Not so with murdering dictators.  Can’t you see the difference?

robert108 on April 10, 2006 at 10:09 am
Avatar for robert108

Of course, if you want to blame Gloria Steinem for it all, I’m right with you.

robert108 on April 10, 2006 at 10:10 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Actually, if adults are invulnerable to suggestions, explain "advertising."  Explain criminal penalties for "aiding and abetting" or "conspiracy." 

So no, adults are not invulnerable to this, as is shown by Hitler and Stalin, Kinsey and Hefner.  And just like the Black Plague, both statism and sexual libertinism have led to huge body counts.  There is plenty of blame to share among both leaders and followers.

Robert Perry on April 10, 2006 at 10:16 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Steinem shares in the blame too, by discouraging marriage among women--thus influencing women to choose dangerous relationships instead of marriage.  Absolutely.  Again, it’s not for no reason that Hefner supports Steinem’s organizations very significantly.

Robert Perry on April 10, 2006 at 10:18 am
Avatar for Dave

I believe that some persons like Kinsey and Hefner are partially and personally responsible for encouraging the kind of sexual behavior that have led to millions of deaths annually from abortion and AIDS. 

They may have encouraged it, but that doesn’t mean people have to follow it. I don’t blame McDonald’s for advertising their products; I blame the American people for purchasing them.

For starters, the death toll from abortion and AIDS annually reaches the overall death toll of Hitler and Stalin.

Following that line of reasoning, the death toll from omnivorism is higher than all those combined and multiplied by about a thousand. Do you see why death toll alone is not a good judge for this?

Dave on April 10, 2006 at 10:23 am
Avatar for robert108

Robert: You deliberately lie about what I wrote.  I wrote:  "...adults have the power to discriminate, and if they don’t, no one else is to blame."  Nothing there about invulnerability, so you lied about that.  Because of your lie, nothing else in your argument is true.  If an adult chooses to engage in wrong behavior, they bear the blame, not someone who writes a book or a magazine.  What part of that don’t you understand?  Who do you blame for the Black Plague?  That was my point, in that you can’t find anyone to blame, because it was a natural occurrence. It’s your need to blame someone that I’m addressing, not the content of your blame.  Being victims serves no one, and doesn’t lead to responsible behavior.  It’s just hatespew, in most cases.  If you really care about this issue, counter what you consider to be wrong info with the right info.  Blaming isn’t taking responsibility, it’s denying responsibility and placing it on someone else.  Not effective, but emotionally rewarding.  It’s all about feelings, right?

robert108 on April 10, 2006 at 10:28 am
Avatar for robert108

Robert: I was joking about Gloria Steinem. 

robert108 on April 10, 2006 at 10:32 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

No deliberate lie, but rather the basic point that there are points where those who induce others to do things, adult or juvenile, are guilty for a portion of that crime.  Nothing complicated about that, is there? 

One can quibble about the degree of guilt, or the means by which the persuasion was done, but in the end, any sensible person must allow that the man who persuades another to do evil is partially guilty.

Robert Perry on April 10, 2006 at 10:34 am
Avatar for robert108

Robert: You lied when you used the word "invulnerable" which I never said, and you had the post right above that to reference.  At best, you were careless.  My real statement didn’t serve your purpose to shift blame, so I understand.  I don’t believe that adults can be "induced" to do things they don’t want to do, so no, I don’t agree with you.  There is no guilt from an adult choosing a behavior, apart from that accruing to that individual.  Presenting info is not necessarily persuasion, but once again, no adult can be "persuaded" to do something they don’t want to do.  You just want to shift responsiblity for individual actions away from the individual, and that’s wrong.  Your position encourages the very irresponsible behavior you say you don’t like, by excusing it.  "The devil made me do it."

robert108 on April 10, 2006 at 10:41 am
Avatar for robert108

Robert: If I tell you it will make you more intelligent to eat a horse turd, and you do it, is that my fault, or your stupidity?

robert108 on April 10, 2006 at 10:43 am
Avatar for Dave

If I tell you it will make you more intelligent to eat a horse turd, and you do it, is that my fault, or your stupidity?

Good one! But I’m pretty sure that, according to Robert Perry’s insane viewpoint, it IS your fault!

Dave on April 10, 2006 at 11:01 am
Avatar for robert108

The emotional need to blame someone else and support victimhood.

robert108 on April 10, 2006 at 11:11 am
Avatar for student student

Look at it this way:

How many people know that eating a horse turd is bad before you tell them it is bad?

 How many people don’t know that eating a horse turd is bad before you tell them it is bad?

 We have both groups of people reading Playboy, do we not?

Just like we have both groups of people on the internet, who actually believe in the chain mail.

I would assume that most people by the time they reach the age to purchase playboy, would already have their opinions formed. I don’t think any 6 year old boy is going to order playboy. Otherwise, you can tell me a story about it. By 18 years old, I would HOPE that you would all know about sex. 

student student on April 11, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Avatar for robert108

ss: My point was about the ability of persuasion to "make" people do things they really don’t want to do in the first place.  In the words of WC Fields:  "You can’t cheat an honest man."  It still comes back to personal responsibility, not helpless victimhood. 

robert108 on April 11, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Avatar for student student

robert: exactly my point. thanks for clarifying!

student student on April 11, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Avatar for marriage counselor

Of course porn is not good in a large quantity. It must be censored but.. on the other hand “worse than terrorism”?! I understand them .. they respect their culture.. I’m asking myself for how long these religions will resist? When are they going to follow the occidentals example? And after all..why condemn beautiful pictorials with beautiful women?

marriage counselor on September 26, 2007 at 08:24 am

Of course porn is not good in a large quantity. It must be censored...

What’s the point of censored porn?

likwidshoe on September 26, 2007 at 09:00 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.