It didn't take long for it to be announced that while Cosmopolitan would be permitted, Playboy would still remain banned. Exactly what the difference is between these two, I can only surmise; I wouldn't spend time or money chasing after either.

Has any local publisher tried to exploit this niche? A quick glance at two newsagents' stock indicated that "Dr Love" has. This is the nom de guerre of Dr Yu Wei Siang, whose 4th issue of his magazine Love Airways is shown here. It was sold in a clear but sealed plastic bag, on top of which was affixed a small sticker that said, "Unsuitable for young readers".

"Oh, I had bought the first issue of this magazine," said Jon when he saw me holding the latest edition. "It was super lame."

Yu's mission is to get people to be more comfortable with their sexual sides. Despite the veneer of modernity we see all around, the medical practitioner thinks people are still holding back when it comes to intimacy.

The interesting thing is that far from being a fringe character exploiting a market niche newly permitted by the MDA, in many ways, Yu appears to have the blessing of the establishment. The mainstream newspapers have featured him, his "love boat" cruises and his magazine. Mediacorp's Chinese-language Channel U aired a regular half-hour program hosted by him in 2005 (There might have been more that I'm not aware of).

There is a widely-held theory why this is the case, though I don't really subscribe to it. The theory is that the government, concerned about Singapore's falling birth rate -- currently well be low replacement levels -- supports Yu's ventures in the hope that it can help solve the demographic problem. No doubt such a view is easily reinforced when the lead story in issue #4 of Love Airways (page 18) is "Great sex after marriage".

However, in my opinion, this is predicated on the notion that more sex means more babies. I do not think such an equation holds true; it's more a reflection of the way people have been conditioned by the Judeo-Christian justification for sex, as an activity "meant" for procreation. I find it hard to believe that the government thinks in such a simplistic way, though I could be wrong.

The theory is also predicated on the belief that our mainstream media has no agency of their own: whatever they do is because the government has told them to. This cannot be. I'm sure our mainstream media do go out of their way to find interesting stories to tell. On the other hand, that they have repeatedly told their readers and viewers about Dr Love certainly indicates that the government has not stepped in to tell them to stop. This is probably because Love Airways is a very "safe" magazine, despite it being sold under plastic. And at this point, you may wonder, as I do, whether there is some inescapable connection between being blessed by the establishment, or at least acceptable to it, and its "super lame" quality.

Commencing from page 23 is a feature story "Paving the way to healthy lifestyle". It's about working out and fitness. 

On page 30 is a photo of someone's posterior, except that you'd discover quite quickly that this article, headlined "Sssh" is about snoring.

You're about to chuck the magazine out when page 56 beckons with "What a tease!" It's an interview with Joy Leng who teaches "exotic dancing". Garnished with 2 amateur photographs of fully-dressed ah lians (Singapore-speak for working-class lasses), it's all of 300 words revealing such secrets as:

Q: Any tips on how to dance your way to your lover's arms?

A: The most important thing is to exude confidence, because that comes across as very sexy to men.

Nowhere does the story or its pictures even come close to striptease despite its header.

Moreover, if you refer to the article from 2004, Manazine manacled, you'll see that similar pictures were already being published in other local magazines such as Her World and Men's Health -- and these did not and do not require plastic wrapping. It should be no surprise that since Singaporeans have already been getting similar photographs for years in unwrapped magazines, to offer up the same within a wrapped one is a big letdown. Almost like false advertising.

So has the MDA liberalised, or tightened up its sexual sphincters?

In other countries where newsstands offer plastic-sealed magazines, you can rightly expect that those are porn. In Singapore, it simply means they might offend the Bible-thumpers.

Another good example of how we're a universe apart from other countries with similar ethnic, social and economic profiles may well lie in how we handle the film Shortbus, directed by John Cameron Mitchell. Do a Google search for reviews of this 2006 movie, and you'll find that it has received a lot of critical acclaim.

The movie revolves around a couples counsellor Sophia and a New York club called Shortbus where people go to work out their sexual fantasies. Some typical reviews:

Explicit, and that's a good thing

What everyone will hear about "Shortbus" is that the sex is real and explicit. Yes, this is all true. But so is the emotional journey the characters go through. Far from being crude or offensive, Shortbus is fresh, insightful, celebratory -- and, most importantly, focused on the fully realized people, not just the bodies, who bare their flesh and feelings on screen. ... Mitchell's "Shortbus" approaches 9/10 of the authentic experience of being human, being miserable, looking to come to joy, and exploring funny, sensual, and affectionate avenues to get there. Is "Shortbus" provocative? Yes. Is it explicit? Yes! And these are good things in these politically authoritarian times.

A road story with a difference

There are a couple of features about this movie that will hit you. Yes there is some rather graphic sex, but to anyone after hitting adulthood it works purely to support the film.... As we progress through the film we see the lives of a small group of New Yorkers grow as they develop their relationships or indeed the quest for a relationship. The medium for bringing these lives together is the "Shortbus" club. A rather carnal club which they all drawn to becomes a focus for their development.... A great movie, one which should become a cult classic (only because it might be a bit too "graphic" for mainstream cinemas, but certainly a classic). Any attempt to sanitize and edit it would surely destroy the film. This movie will make you laugh, cry and sing; you will leave the movie theatre affected by this film.

On-screen sexual thrills take a backseat to Shortbus' emotional core

Set in modern-day New York City, a heterogeneous group of straights, gays and transgenders find common ground at Shortbus, an underground salon where people are free to explore their most carnal sexual desires with random hookups and nightlong orgies -- sometimes even finding bits of wisdom along the way. Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee), a sex therapist who's never had an orgasm, seeks out ways to overcome her "pre-orgasmic" dilemma, profoundly affecting her marriage. James (Paul Dawson), a former male escort battling depression, goes to ultimate extremes when he can't even seem to feel happiness with his loving and devoted partner of five years, Jamie (PJ DeBoy). Struggling artist Severin (Lindsay Beamish), who succumbed to work as a dominatrix, seeks to have a meaningful relationship with someone -- anyone.... While sex is a main focal point in the film, it is not the sole one. "Shortbus" deals with all manners of human relations. Not stressing one form over another, it shows how sex, friendship and love continually intermingle. Because one's comfort level with their sexuality mirrors how one relates in all other relationships, showing the raw and carnal aspect of each character so explicitly works beautifully to accurately convey their motivations and struggles.... "Shortbus" lets us know that gay, straight, bi, transgender, whatever -- we all just want to feel accepted.

Getting off by getting on

Beyond being real, the sex in Shortbus is the kind you don't usually see in feature films -- sweaty and exposed, sincere and unpolished. It's not really pornographic. It's missing the standard "as close as you can get" shots of butts and vaginas. Moreover, it's not always very satisfying for the characters. How often do you see a porn star roll over after fellating himself to look horrified and sad? Overall, there's too much going on in the eyes and lives of the characters in Shortbus for it to feel like porn. For writer/director Mitchell (Hedwig And The Angry Inch) the sex is not a weapon meant to shock or a device meant to titillate. "Sex," he says, "is always about something else." It is a way to show loneliness, pain, fear as well as joy. Sex attaches the characters to each other; it links up stages in their lives. Sex is not the focus of the film, but a means of exposing us to the characters who are often damaged and fabulously crazy.

In a recent article I wrote for Fridae, Making sense of censorship in Singapore, I said that during the last few years we've seen the film rating M18 (at least 18 years old) applied to movies with gay-themed storylines without any depiction of sex. R21 has been applied to movies with gay storylines with some depiction of sex, but virtually no frontal nudity. I posed the question, what would happen if a film had a gay setting and full-on sex? Would it still be R21 or banned outright?

Shortbus, complete with anal rimming to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner, would challenge us in a way no film has. Will it be banned? If so, that would again make us look like an outlier. In Australia, it's been rated "R", (minimum 18 years old). Likewise in Hong Kong, where the film opened on 2 February 2007, it's been rated "Category III" (18 years). In Singapore? 

© Yawning Bread