Twenty-year-old Porn has bought a new top, a spaghetti-strap blouse and plans to wear it on Songkran day. She is no big fan of this kind of top but for the upcoming fun-filled festival, it's a very practical choice. For one, it's highly suitable for any watery battlefield: the top gets soaked and dries easily.
To Porn, wearing such a top is not a big deal for her because it'll be just another day that the young lady will be in sai diao (or "one strap", the Thai name for spaghetti-strap). Little did Porn know she can't follow her dress code preference now that Cultural Minister Uraiwan Thienthong has announced the crackdown on sai diao in many of Songkran's celebration areas.
Her reason is that such a revealing blouse might induce sexual harassment. And not only the top but also hot pants are ruled out by the minister. Instead of hot pants, Uraiwan kindly suggested that ladies wear simple Thai sarongs.
"Doesn't she know that we have not grown up with sarongs and that they can slip off from our bodies anytime we're on the run?" Porn asks.
Her friend Dao wonders what if she and Porn take no notice of the dress code announcement and leave for Songkran fun spots wearing their usual outfits?
Well, what they've heard is that the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration police will order them out of the area.
"That's terrible and it really kills the joy of our festival," says Dao as she pictures in her mind young female revellers being banned from water-splashing areas just because they are sporting the government's unfavourable top. The two young ladies can't find any reason to justify the ban on si diao. If they can't even enjoy the freedom to be themselves during the country's biggest and most entertaining celebration, what remains of "freedom" for them?
"It's our basic right," Porn protests. "We buy our own clothes, wear them on our bodies, and don't harm anyone."
"Perhaps in the future the ministry would consider launching a proper dress code for us for all festivals," Dao says.
The two girls are not the lone dissenting voices. Many others have voiced their disagreement through various media, especially on the Net. Since Uraiwan cites sexual harassment as the reason for the ban, it leaves many people wondering if the ministry views the revealing fashion as an important cause of sexual harassment. And if the government has enough policemen to look out for the sai diao, why can't the same police force protect women from being the subject of sexual harassment during Songkran? And how about farang revellers who would certainly join the water battles in their own revealing outfits?
The ban on the spaghetti-strap demonstrates just another example in Thai society of women being the victim of problems caused by men. If not sexual harassment, the related government agencies prefer to link the sai diao fashion as a factor in cultural decline. A government radio programme even states that young women shouldn't wear sai diao on Songkran if they love the nation. What the heck is going on?
Dao sees such a statement as a way for grownups to deny that culture is also a dynamic thing.
"If sarong and sabai (breast wrap) were once their culture, sai diao is now our culture," Porn says. "But the point is, no fashion can really harm a country's dominant culture as exemplified by Songkran. It's not that we will wear sai diao to the temple or a religious event. We wear this comfortable top to play at splashing water."
And if we must blame someone, Porn and Dao would love to blame the minister who has already killed the spirit of "fun-filled" Songkran.
In the old days, Songkran - like other festivals in this country - gave a chance for young ladies to go out. It let them dress up and look as pretty as they could. They came out in breast cloths, not Western-style blouse, as was their lifestyles. When they were splashed, we could imagine how revealing they were.
No wonder that history professor Paothong Thongchua expressed worry about the ban on spaghetti-strap blouses. As an expert in traditional Thai fashion, Paothong understands well why the sai diao crackdown doesn't make much sense.
Porn and Dao and many other young ladies are so delighted by Paothong's comments. The ban is inappropriate and doesn't fit the spirit of Songkran. Paothong shares an opinion with many women that Uraiwan should have had launched a more democratic PR campaign, giving warning or advice rather than banning the outfit outright.
The academic's observation that the breast cloth of old is a bigger worry and more revealing than sai diao came just in time for young people like Porn and Dao who still have time to find their own comfortable yet genuine Thai fashion choice.
Why not? Breast cloths are friendly to Thai culture. More importantly, the minister hasn't banned them.
Published on Apr 12, 2003
Showing posts with label Thai-ness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thai-ness. Show all posts
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Purity campaigns a little one-sided
Among the numerous campaigns relating to today's Valentine's Day celebrations, the most surprising one (in my opinion) is the Public Health Minister's effort to dissuade teenagers from having sex. To be precise, the message is to discourage young ladies from "losing" their virginity on the day they celebrate their love.
Although the public views the campaign as a good step towards protecting our youngsters from all the bad consequences of casual sex, like Aids and unwanted pregnancy, there remains a disturbing question. Why does the government seek to impose its will on an issue that is considered a very private one?
The perception that Thai ladies are looking forward to having sex or "losing" their virginity on Valentine's Day is ridiculous, if not contemptuous. Isn't that too simple? You need two to tango. The government might want to try telling men not to have sex on Valentine's Day just to make life a little easier for women.
The private sector, the Education Ministry and the Family Institution have also taken the opportunity to launch a "Purity Day" crusade called Od Preaw Wai Kin Wan (save the best for last) to persuade Thai people not to have sex before marriage.
A popular Abac poll is also keeping pace with Valentine's momentum by conducting numerous surveys to find out how many female respondents have lost their virginity and how many others are planning to let theirs go.
And the results may shock many parents as 17.3 per cent of respondents say they want to celebrate the day by having sex.
Add to this the idea of imposing a 10pm curfew on teenagers. The government wants young people to stay home and be good, and the surveillance has extended into their bedrooms. They will be watched closely on Valentine's Day as the adults have already decided that they are planning to have sex on that day. Young people may be just as interested in maintaining their virginity, but let them choose instead of forcing them.
Putting pressure on them will only raise the spectre of doing the opposite. Try to recall how you reacted to adult rules and guidance when you were in the prime of your teens. Dealing with youngsters requires much more understanding than the top-down approach allows.
Relationships and sex are natural and private things and they are too complex for any government to teach us how we should handle them. A teen's decision to keep his or her virginity will not be based on public sentiment or government propaganda. As human beings, everyone has the right to decide whether they want to have sex before or after marriage. Some would rather live their lives and die without courting and sex, while others may prefer having relationships and sex without getting married.
If the government expects teens to keep their virginity, does it also expect to tell them what the most "suitable circumstances" and time are for their first sexual experience?
Public Health Minister Sudarat Keyuraphan has an answer. "Keep your virginity as long as you can," she told young people at the famous Centre Point area.
This parental attitude ignores the right of those who have boyfriends or girlfriends and do not want to go through the ritual of marriage, and the right of women to search for Mr Right, where sex is concerned. The government's proclaimed social values will confuse many young minds. How can people who are simply living together justify their relationship and chosen way of life as morally right? .
The increasing popularity of live-in relationships shows young people have a good understanding of sex and relationships. They may be more mature when it comes to sex, responsibility and marriage than the old generations, which comfortably tolerated men having mistresses while at the same time trying to preach about when is the best time to have sex is.
Thai ladies from past to present are taught to be modest and keep their virginity, while Thai men are not taught accordingly. This is one messy and hypocritical society. Most Thai men have many sexual relationships with women before and after their marriage. So who exactly needs to be taught about sex and responsibility?
The issue of when young women should give their virginity to their men is certainly not in the government's hands. Few even reveal the occasion to their parents. The challenge is how to make them understand and manage their sexuality well and in a mature manner. There's no black and white where relationship is concerned. And people make their own choices when it comes to living their lives.
To young ladies: You don't need to let go of your virginity today because there are many days left this year and in the year to come. But if you really want to go for it, I hope he is the right person, and all the best. For the young men: By asking your girlfriend for her virginity, it means there is one less virgin around for other men to choose from in this virginity-obsessed society.
And for the single hearts: Happy Valentine's day anyway. You guys are lucky that you don't need to take any notice of this "virginity" issue.
Published on Feb 14, 2004
Although the public views the campaign as a good step towards protecting our youngsters from all the bad consequences of casual sex, like Aids and unwanted pregnancy, there remains a disturbing question. Why does the government seek to impose its will on an issue that is considered a very private one?
The perception that Thai ladies are looking forward to having sex or "losing" their virginity on Valentine's Day is ridiculous, if not contemptuous. Isn't that too simple? You need two to tango. The government might want to try telling men not to have sex on Valentine's Day just to make life a little easier for women.
The private sector, the Education Ministry and the Family Institution have also taken the opportunity to launch a "Purity Day" crusade called Od Preaw Wai Kin Wan (save the best for last) to persuade Thai people not to have sex before marriage.
A popular Abac poll is also keeping pace with Valentine's momentum by conducting numerous surveys to find out how many female respondents have lost their virginity and how many others are planning to let theirs go.
And the results may shock many parents as 17.3 per cent of respondents say they want to celebrate the day by having sex.
Add to this the idea of imposing a 10pm curfew on teenagers. The government wants young people to stay home and be good, and the surveillance has extended into their bedrooms. They will be watched closely on Valentine's Day as the adults have already decided that they are planning to have sex on that day. Young people may be just as interested in maintaining their virginity, but let them choose instead of forcing them.
Putting pressure on them will only raise the spectre of doing the opposite. Try to recall how you reacted to adult rules and guidance when you were in the prime of your teens. Dealing with youngsters requires much more understanding than the top-down approach allows.
Relationships and sex are natural and private things and they are too complex for any government to teach us how we should handle them. A teen's decision to keep his or her virginity will not be based on public sentiment or government propaganda. As human beings, everyone has the right to decide whether they want to have sex before or after marriage. Some would rather live their lives and die without courting and sex, while others may prefer having relationships and sex without getting married.
If the government expects teens to keep their virginity, does it also expect to tell them what the most "suitable circumstances" and time are for their first sexual experience?
Public Health Minister Sudarat Keyuraphan has an answer. "Keep your virginity as long as you can," she told young people at the famous Centre Point area.
This parental attitude ignores the right of those who have boyfriends or girlfriends and do not want to go through the ritual of marriage, and the right of women to search for Mr Right, where sex is concerned. The government's proclaimed social values will confuse many young minds. How can people who are simply living together justify their relationship and chosen way of life as morally right? .
The increasing popularity of live-in relationships shows young people have a good understanding of sex and relationships. They may be more mature when it comes to sex, responsibility and marriage than the old generations, which comfortably tolerated men having mistresses while at the same time trying to preach about when is the best time to have sex is.
Thai ladies from past to present are taught to be modest and keep their virginity, while Thai men are not taught accordingly. This is one messy and hypocritical society. Most Thai men have many sexual relationships with women before and after their marriage. So who exactly needs to be taught about sex and responsibility?
The issue of when young women should give their virginity to their men is certainly not in the government's hands. Few even reveal the occasion to their parents. The challenge is how to make them understand and manage their sexuality well and in a mature manner. There's no black and white where relationship is concerned. And people make their own choices when it comes to living their lives.
To young ladies: You don't need to let go of your virginity today because there are many days left this year and in the year to come. But if you really want to go for it, I hope he is the right person, and all the best. For the young men: By asking your girlfriend for her virginity, it means there is one less virgin around for other men to choose from in this virginity-obsessed society.
And for the single hearts: Happy Valentine's day anyway. You guys are lucky that you don't need to take any notice of this "virginity" issue.
Published on Feb 14, 2004
I love him but I'm sorry I talked about it
C'mon, folks. She's 22 and in love, so please give her a break. From what I have seen and heard over the past few days, even if superstar Amita "Tata" Young is "different" from ordinary Thai women, they still have one thing in common: Both are victims of so-called Thai social norms and values.
From the very first moment Tata announced her relationship with Thailand's tennis ace Paradorn Srichaphan at a press conference on Monday, the pop idol has been the target of criticism from all quarters. Some accuse her of using her relationship with Paradorn to market her new release, while others, including Paradorn's mum Ubol, say her behaviour is not in keeping with good Thai traditions.
Hand on my heart, I'd give Tata two thumbs up if the first accusation turns out to be true. If she just wanted to generate some quick publicity, she has succeeded, and in a society where wife beaters get sympathy left and right, what's so wrong with that? It worked for J-Lo and Ben, didn't it? And she'd certainly have saved some cash that would have gone to an expensive PR firm - she's all over the front pages without any help from a marketing guru.
But it's a completely different issue if her feelings towards Paradorn are real.
If so, she's attacked for being "un-Thai".
So what is Thai anyway? I don't dare analyse "Thai values" in this space - might get the Tata treatment myself. But I believe it is too early to jump to the conclusion that Tata, by being open about her relationship, is chronically immodest about her sexuality . . . "un-Thai", in other words. It may have been rash and naive to tell the public the juicy details, and she may have underestimated the reaction of what's become the "Hate Tata" club. But admit it, everyone has that day. The day when you look mature but you act childish, the day when people think you are smart but you do stupid things. Unsurprisingly, it's often the day you fall in love and you just feel so good about it that you want to boast about your boyfriend or girlfriend. You'd love to have the whole world celebrate the moment with you.
At 22, Tata should have passed the period of puppy love emotions, but love has a way of undermining all our hard-earned maturity. Let's recall our own behaviour and loves when we were in our early 20s. I'm guessing we can all remember many instances when we did things not much less embarrassing than Tata's boasting. The only difference is that our behaviour is not broadcast and published in the media. And none of us were dating a bona fide national hero like Paradorn, who has become the "property" of the Thai people in the minds of many. Talk about a jealous rival for your boyfriend's affections!
Yet the depressing part about the Tata controversy is that she finally broke down and apologised for announcing her relationship with Paradorn. She called it "a mistake", but I don't quite follow what the mistake was. Tata stated clearly that the press conference was arranged with the consent of Paradorn. She also downplayed their affection for each other, saying they were far from calling each other boyfriend and girlfriend. From a moral standpoint, no matter what Tata said - as long as Paradorn gave his consent - there's no crime. It's not like Paradorn is married, after all. He's fair game for the ladies, despite there being millions of Thais who believe they ought to pick who he dates.
But this is Thailand and women are supposed to be modest. Freedom of expression and a right to privacy exist but women can only exercise them as long as they don't irritate society. Had Tata watched enough prime-time soap operas, she would have understood how Thai ladies are expected to act. A heroine must not in any way show she is in love no matter how much she pines for the hero of the story, or else she has to bury her love deep down in her subconscious where it should lurk until the very end of the story.
Tata said "this man is mine" and she got chopped to pieces, by a society that cheers when a soap heroine is raped by the hero to underline his "love" for her.
One of the many criticisms levelled at Tata is that her relationship with Paradorn has developed too quickly in just three weeks. Whirlwind love affairs tend to raise suspicions that something other than true love is going on. But relationships don't follow mathematical rules. Who can say how long two people have to date before they can agree that they're meant to be together? Well, if we go by those old standbys the soap operas, figure 80 per cent of the total length of the series, often even the very last scene.
And of course, all good Thai women are virgins (up until the rape by the hero, of course). That's not just television talking, either - social order crusader and former interior minister Purachai Piumsoomboon famously said he wanted to bring back the "good old days" when Thai women were modest and valued the importance of their virginity. No wonder so many female celebrities want to keep their romances as secret as possible to avoid looking "un-Thai". Some go to great lengths to hide pregnancies to dodge the "bad girl" label.
We are back to the question of what is Thai and what is not? If being a hypocrite is what it means to be Thai, then being "un-Thai" may emerge as the much better choice. If telling lies to cover up one's mistakes and crimes is the Thai way, then what is the value of being Thai?
When a woman as young as Tata has to go in front of the public and say sorry to society simply because she announced that "I love this man and he loves me, too", it's society that ought to be apologising to her.
Published on Oct 11, 2003
From the very first moment Tata announced her relationship with Thailand's tennis ace Paradorn Srichaphan at a press conference on Monday, the pop idol has been the target of criticism from all quarters. Some accuse her of using her relationship with Paradorn to market her new release, while others, including Paradorn's mum Ubol, say her behaviour is not in keeping with good Thai traditions.
Hand on my heart, I'd give Tata two thumbs up if the first accusation turns out to be true. If she just wanted to generate some quick publicity, she has succeeded, and in a society where wife beaters get sympathy left and right, what's so wrong with that? It worked for J-Lo and Ben, didn't it? And she'd certainly have saved some cash that would have gone to an expensive PR firm - she's all over the front pages without any help from a marketing guru.
But it's a completely different issue if her feelings towards Paradorn are real.
If so, she's attacked for being "un-Thai".
So what is Thai anyway? I don't dare analyse "Thai values" in this space - might get the Tata treatment myself. But I believe it is too early to jump to the conclusion that Tata, by being open about her relationship, is chronically immodest about her sexuality . . . "un-Thai", in other words. It may have been rash and naive to tell the public the juicy details, and she may have underestimated the reaction of what's become the "Hate Tata" club. But admit it, everyone has that day. The day when you look mature but you act childish, the day when people think you are smart but you do stupid things. Unsurprisingly, it's often the day you fall in love and you just feel so good about it that you want to boast about your boyfriend or girlfriend. You'd love to have the whole world celebrate the moment with you.
At 22, Tata should have passed the period of puppy love emotions, but love has a way of undermining all our hard-earned maturity. Let's recall our own behaviour and loves when we were in our early 20s. I'm guessing we can all remember many instances when we did things not much less embarrassing than Tata's boasting. The only difference is that our behaviour is not broadcast and published in the media. And none of us were dating a bona fide national hero like Paradorn, who has become the "property" of the Thai people in the minds of many. Talk about a jealous rival for your boyfriend's affections!
Yet the depressing part about the Tata controversy is that she finally broke down and apologised for announcing her relationship with Paradorn. She called it "a mistake", but I don't quite follow what the mistake was. Tata stated clearly that the press conference was arranged with the consent of Paradorn. She also downplayed their affection for each other, saying they were far from calling each other boyfriend and girlfriend. From a moral standpoint, no matter what Tata said - as long as Paradorn gave his consent - there's no crime. It's not like Paradorn is married, after all. He's fair game for the ladies, despite there being millions of Thais who believe they ought to pick who he dates.
But this is Thailand and women are supposed to be modest. Freedom of expression and a right to privacy exist but women can only exercise them as long as they don't irritate society. Had Tata watched enough prime-time soap operas, she would have understood how Thai ladies are expected to act. A heroine must not in any way show she is in love no matter how much she pines for the hero of the story, or else she has to bury her love deep down in her subconscious where it should lurk until the very end of the story.
Tata said "this man is mine" and she got chopped to pieces, by a society that cheers when a soap heroine is raped by the hero to underline his "love" for her.
One of the many criticisms levelled at Tata is that her relationship with Paradorn has developed too quickly in just three weeks. Whirlwind love affairs tend to raise suspicions that something other than true love is going on. But relationships don't follow mathematical rules. Who can say how long two people have to date before they can agree that they're meant to be together? Well, if we go by those old standbys the soap operas, figure 80 per cent of the total length of the series, often even the very last scene.
And of course, all good Thai women are virgins (up until the rape by the hero, of course). That's not just television talking, either - social order crusader and former interior minister Purachai Piumsoomboon famously said he wanted to bring back the "good old days" when Thai women were modest and valued the importance of their virginity. No wonder so many female celebrities want to keep their romances as secret as possible to avoid looking "un-Thai". Some go to great lengths to hide pregnancies to dodge the "bad girl" label.
We are back to the question of what is Thai and what is not? If being a hypocrite is what it means to be Thai, then being "un-Thai" may emerge as the much better choice. If telling lies to cover up one's mistakes and crimes is the Thai way, then what is the value of being Thai?
When a woman as young as Tata has to go in front of the public and say sorry to society simply because she announced that "I love this man and he loves me, too", it's society that ought to be apologising to her.
Published on Oct 11, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)