Here's an ad I came across while waiting for the lift and this is what it advocates:

"Ini Sarah, remaja 16 tahun yang belum berkahwin tetapi sudah mengandung.  

Hmmm, kalaulah Sarah tahu untuk menolak. Apa kata kita bantu Sarah dari mula?  

9 bulan yang lepas, Sarah seperti remaja yang lain gemar bersosial dan mempunyai ramai kawan. Disebabkan perwatakannya yang menarik ramai yang meminati Sarah. Ada yang memang ikhlas untuk berkawan dan tidak kurang juga yang mahu mengambil kesempatan. Kebanyakannya lelaki tetapi ada juga perempuan. Sarah sering berhadapan dengan pujuk rayu dan kata-kata manis. Ada yang memberi isyarat dan ada yang berterus-terang. Semuanya menjurus ke arah hubungan seksual dan Sarah mula keliru dan berasa serba salah.  

Tahukah anda risiko yang bakal dihadapi oleh Sarah sekiranya dia termakan dengan semua pujuk rayu ini? Pertama, Sarah boleh ditempatkan di pusat pemulihan. Kedua, risiko kehamilan yang dihadapi oleh Sarah adalah empat kali ganda lebih besar dan ketiga, Sarah boleh terdedah kepada HIV dan juga risiko jangkitan kelamin seperti Sifilis dan Gonorrhea. Sarah perlu mengelakkan diri daripada menghadapi semua ini.  

Untuk itu, dia perlu tahu tentang 3 tahap risiko yang perlu dihindari yang dikenali sebagai: (i) tiada risiko - iaitu perlakuan bersendiri seperti berangan-angan dan beronani di mana ia tidak mendatangkan sebarang risiko HIV; (ii) risiko rendah - iaitu perlakuan berisiko rendah seperti "french kissing" dan beronani sesama pasangan; dan (iii) risiko tinggi - iaitu perlakuan berisiko seperti seks faraj, dubur dan oral. 

 
Kita semua tahu bahawa perkara yang besar bermula dari yang kecil. Sekiranya Sarah tahu tentang semua peringkat tingkah laku berisiko ini, semestinya dia tidak akan mencuba walaupun ianya hanya adalah hanya suatu tingkah laku lampu hijau yang tidak berisiko kerana di akhirnya ia akan mengundang kepada tingkah laku lampu merah yang sangat berrisko sepeti aktiviti seks luar nikah. 
Mengikut kajian daripada pelbagai sumber, penglibatan remaja dalam aktiviti seks luar nikah di Malaysia semakin meningkat saban tahun. 

Sarah harus tahu semua ini supaya dirinya tidak termasuk di dalam statistik kes kehamilan remaja. 

Tahukan anda, bahawa secara puratanya terdapat 18 ribu kes baru kehamilan remaja yang berdaftar dengan Fasiliti Kementarian Kesihatan Malaysia ("KKM") setiap tahun dari tahun 2011 hingga tahun 2013?  

Ya, ia umpama jumlah pelajar untuk 18 buah sekolah dan ia terus bertambah setiap tahun.

Sarah tdak perlu mengulangi kesilapan yang sama pada masa akan datang. Sarah sudah tahu akan risikonya dan Sarah tahu semua tingkah laku yang berisiko. Sebaiknya, Sarah perlu berani menolak, menahan diri, dan bertegas untuk mengatakan tidak kepada perlakuan-perlakuan berisko. 

Ini Sarah, remaja 16 tahun yang bertanggungjawab akan sebarang tingkah laku yang dipilih." 


While the ad aims to educate, the POV taken was sending all the wrong messages, and worse still, reinforcing gender stereotypes.

By targeting only women, the ad tells women that we call all the shots, we have all the say, we bear all the risks, and therefore, we ought to shoulder full responsibility. Therefore, even if sex really is a mutual act, women will always be at fault for letting it happen.

When the ad portrays men as perverts with little or no control over themselves and women as victims, it tells men that their behavior (which really is a result of social conditioning) is biological, inherent and further acceptable. They ought to behave that way, and if things get out of hand, it cannot be helped. Or at least, they're biologically speaking not in a position to do anything about it.

Even if assuming, that the ad's POV can be justified on the basis that it is enough to get one of the two (in this case, women) to say "no" to the act, because it takes two to tango, the ad would have been more egalitarian if it advocates abstinence as the responsibility of both men and women, and not women per se. After all, the reality is, the consequences do affect both men and women equally, save for the fact that only women can bear children.

What the ad should have done is to encourage the sharing of equal responsibilities by both men and women when it comes to sex, contraception, and children, and by addressing what both men and women can do to help eradicate unwanted consequences.

News:

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2015/12/16/saudi-millionaire-cleared-of-rape-after-claiming-he-fell-and-accidentally-penetrated-teenager/

So here's my take on the matter.

The girl who cried rape shouldn't have gone to the man's apartment in the first place. Now, that is not to say that every time a woman enters a man's den, she's deemed to have consented to anything and everything. She hasn't. And he's got no right over her, whatsoever.

But when it comes to proving rape, and in a situation such as this, it's his words against hers! And the benefit of doubt must be given to the man, because, after all, why sleep over at a man's place in the hope that nothing will happen when there is no way anyone can be sure of that?

Ladies, I think the lesson to take away is this. If it's a "No!", it has to be an unequivocal, absolute, clear, obvious "No!" in words and conduct. There's no having it all. There is no in-betweens.

And, if he's really a gentleman - he'd have gotten you a room, all for yourself.

A completely unrelated photo, save for the fact that I am donning an AWAM Shirt

Feminism isn't about one gender emulating the other, or otherwise. It is about understanding that we are not defined by our gender. It is about deconstructing this "male" and "female" social construct. We can, and should be able to be whoever and whatever we aspire to be, without being accused of either conforming to or defying our gender. 

Gender, is a social construct. It is plagued with stereotypes. Gender tells you that men are rational and women are emotional. Gender tells you that men are egoistical and women are nurturing. But men can be emotional, and nurturing. And women can be rational and egoistical. They shouldn't be accused of emulating the other gender. They shouldn't be scorned at for not conforming to norms.

We have also our gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and queer friends, who fall into neither or all of these categories. They too shouldn't be scorned at, simply because they are "different" and impossible to "categorize" (and sometimes to "comprehend").

If there's one thing that set the male apart from female, it's our biological differences. But even that is changing, with science and technology. 

Feminism is about recognizing that equality is possible only when we rid ourselves of stereotypes, and free ourselves from the chains of social construct and norms. 

And also facing the fact that today - the lines are blurred. 

This morning, in the train, a little girl of about five was fighting with her brother of about twelve or so.

She soon started to scream. Seeing this, the elder sister of about ten came to them and tried to pull them apart. When this failed, she slapped the little five year old in the face a few times.

The five year old, shocked but still angry and crying, began punching her brother in the head with her little hands. He took the blows, smirking. His hands strong, his built bigger than his two little sisters'.

The elder sister turned to the brother and spoke to him quietly, asking him to stop. Almost begging.

The cause of the fight was over a few RM1 notes - which the brother had apparently snatched from the five-year old and didn't want to return. He gave half of it back, when he saw that the people in the train were looking.

Patriarchy begins at home.

Growing up, I didn't have a brother to look up to. I am the daughter, I am the son. I am the sister. I am the brother. My mom would always say "what boys can do, you can too. As well if not better". I grew up believing that. Nothing is too heavy, too hard, too tough, or too dangerous.

There were times I wish I had an elder brother to look up to. But looking back, I am not sure if I will be the woman I am today if I had one.

News: 

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ministry-says-single-women-conditionally-allowed-contraceptives-to-guard-ag

Surely there are better ways to discourage random sex than this? Education and open discussion do not encourage sex. They equip men and women with knowledge which will empower them to make informed decisions for themselves.

Conditional contraceptives if anything exposes women to unwanted pregnancies, and the possibility of life-threatening underground abortions.

And further, why should only "single women" be counselled when sex is an act by both the man and woman?

On 'Marital Rape': 

You see, lawyers of course, would like to think that the law is the solution to our every day problems - that makes us feel important, like we're the key. It's all about the law - and nothing but the law.

The thing is, it isn't. The law, for the most part of it, only reflects what the society perceives as right and acceptable. Sometimes, of course, the law sets the standard - but we don't need laws to tell us what is right. Surely, we are better than that.

Marital rape, boils down to things that are far from the law. It goes back to the very basic notion of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", to treat another fellow human being with the same respect as you would want to be treated with.

So back to the question - should marital rape be criminalized? If one answers this question from a "policy" point of view, then yes. Because to do otherwise, is to say that the society condones marital rape. But from an 'enforcement' perspective, to criminalize marital rape is to open Pandora's box. It pits the husband's words against the wife's - one says it's mutual, the other cries rape. Is "injury" what makes something mutual, forced? Not necessarily.

The simple answer to all these? Look beyond the laws. Think outside the "legal box". For as long as we confine ourselves to the overwhelming task of how best to "control" our behaviors with the best set of words, we're going no where.

What changes us is not the law.

We change us.

What difference does virginity make?

If virginity is equivalent to or indicates purity - then it would follow that intercourse is, tarnishing? It is dirty? 

That is what we have always been made to feel, isn't it? Although, from a religious point of view - there is a distinction, i.e. intercourse within marriage is 'pure and holy'.

Still, within or outside marriage, it is of one and the same. It is essentially... intercourse.

I am not sure if I like men who can perceive intercourse as degrading and tarnishing - even for just a split second. I cannot live with the prospect that I can be tarnished and degraded. In fact, I think I am (very) repulsed by the idea of it.

To be brutally honest, deep down, I have this inkling feeling that that's how most men - or people in general perceive intercourse. Thanks to religion and pornography.

Am I the weird one out - am I being too much of an idealist? It's just that, that's not, and will never be how I ever want to look at intercourse, be it within or outside marriage.

So to me, virginity shouldn't matter. It should never be brought up. At all.

It's all a social construct reinforced by religion and philosophies. What if it was decided that it's the hands which should be covered instead?

It's a form of indoctrination. Because honestly, I don't remember feeling embarrassed naked, when I was a baby. When was the first time people made you feel bad about going around naked? It' all a social construct.

We are taught to see things the way we see them now. Men are taught to look at women the way they do now. If men feel like they cannot concentrate seeing women in skirts or hotpants, that is because they're taught by the society to look at women as sex objects.

If men are taught to respect women and to look at women as humans, they will not look at women the way they do now.

The world around us don't depict men as sexual objects, so when I see naked men I don't imagine myself doing them. Naked or clothed, it make no difference to me.

So the society should stop depicting women as sex objects. It does not have to be direct, although ads and pornography do abuse women's sexuality directly. It can be in a very covert form, and it's these covert abuse that are most detrimental because it reinforces those explicit abuse. One example is the banning of short skirts. This ban presupposes:

1. That women are and will be seen as sex objects, unless they're clothed in a way that hides their sexuality.
2. That men are rampant, horny, perverts that lack control.

The message sent out to women are: 

"Well, women, face i, you are sex objects. And men are a rampant, perverted, horny bunch. You better cover up, or be sorry."

Which is why I can't help but to get angry sometimes at these. I should be able to dress however I want. If it's hot, I'll put tank top and shorts on. It doesn't mean that I want to be seen in a particular way. 

I don't dress for men, I dress what I feel comfortable in.

So today, I accidentally hopped on the women's coach. There were a few men inside. No one said a word. I knew it's dangerous and I was just as afraid, but I told them to get down. To my horror, they refused! No other women dared to speak up at that point.

I don't agree with having all women's coach. 

It reinforces patriarchy. Women are still too afraid to speak up or defend what is rightfully theirs. Men still barge into women's coach and in utter disregard of the cold hostile stares thrown at them, as if to say:

"We are not afraid of you women or the law, and there's nothing you can do about it."