Imagethief is always scandalized when he sees international press coverage of Singapore that mocks country for conservative stuffyness. This is partially because deep down, Imagethief believes that, based on his long experience with the city state, he should have a monopoly on such mockery. It always rubs him the wrong way --metaphorically speaking-- when people step onto his patch. It also has to do with what appears to be a total lack of any deeper investigation of what drives and shapes the way Singaporean society relates to sexual matters.

The problem with any international press coverage of anything having to do with sex and Singapore is that it invariably falls into the trap of relying upon the usual skin-deep cliches of prim Singapore. These derive far too much of their portrayal from government policy and not nearly enough from  getting out into the trenches (or bars) and seeing what's actually going on.  Given how much time most of the journalists Imagethief knows spend in bars, this is a shocking dereliction.

Imagethief raises this issue because of yet another predictably one-dimensional story on the predictably tightly-managed sex exposition in Singapore. Judging from the name of the correspondent, this story may actually be written by a Singaporean. Nevertheless, the usual formula applies:
Singapore keeps sex exhibition tame

By Fayen Wong  Sat Nov 19, 5:00 AM ET

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - No nudity. No whips and handcuffs. No penis rings. No inflatable sex dolls.

Those were just some of the sex toys barred from display as strait-laced Singapore opened its first sex exhibition under the watchful eyes of the police.

Instead the three-day Sexpo 2005 offered pole dancers, condoms, vibrators, sexy lingerie and sexual health seminars to titillate crowds and excite the libido of a country consistently ranked bottom in a global survey of sexually active nations.

Barred to anyone under 21, the exhibition is far from racy yet it is seen as a milestone for the tightly controlled city-state that bans pornography and has tight censorship laws that routinely snip nudity and sex scenes from movies.

"This is really tame for a sex exhibition. But this is Singapore, so I was not expecting a lot more," said Christopher Hedman, a 49-year-old marketing director.

Curious crowds, mostly male retirees in their 50s, converged on booths demonstrating use of a condom that comes complete with a vibrating ring. Many whipped out mobile phones to snap pictures as erotic dancers -- clad in midriff-baring tops, mini-skirts and three-inch-heels -- gyrated to pumping music.

Police and Singapore's media watchdog reminded organisers of rules restricting display of adult toys and warned them not to promote "objectionable sexual behaviours or lifestyle, such as sado-masochism, bestiality, homosexuality, paedophilia and promiscuity".

The organisers, who spent about a year obtaining police approval to stage the event, said the exhibition was not intended to mimic Australia's Sexpo, which has autograph sessions with porn stars, strip shows, bondage and love-making demonstrations.

Sexpo 2005 included exhibits from the Chinese Ancient Sex Culture Museum in Tongli, China.

Visitors peered at erotic paintings of love-making scenes, pored over scripts on sexuality in ancient China and gawked at a curious 5,000-year-old artefact called the "Donkey's Saddle" - a torture device used to punish adulterous women.

Director Kenny Goh said he planned to make Singapore's Sexpo a yearly affair and would try to push the boundaries gradually.

In an attempt to shake off its stuffy image and woo tourists, the city-state's authorities are gradually relaxing social controls, allowing bar-top dancing and recently lifting a ban on the sale of Cosmopolitan magazine and on the television series "Sex and the City", which had previously been deemed too racy.
There are a few things that Imagethief wants to remark on in this story, beyond the desperate seediness implied by the demographic characteristics of the audience of "male retirees in their 50s".

First, by what yardstick is it determined that vibrators are permissible, but inflatable women are not? This sounds like an indefensible synthetic-genitalia double standard. Is there a government pamphlet or website that explains this?

Second, why display sexy lingerie as part of an exhibit in a country littered with sexy lingerie stores? Imagethief has spent hours standing awkwardly in these boutiques while his wife browses various lacy confections. (He rushes to point out that the payoff has always been worth the awkward wait.)

Third, all "promotion of objectionable sexual behaviours or lifestyle, such as sado-masochism, bestiality, homosexuality, paedophilia and promiscuity" was banned. Given that whips and handcuffs could not be displayed, Imagethief assumes that, in this instance, "promote" is used synonymously with "acknowledge in any way", as you could probably include reference to these lifestyles without attaching any value judgment to them. Although handcuffs were out, it was OK to display a device once used to actually sexually torture adulterous women. Presumably this is because you are in no danger of being corrupted by witnessing it and immediately running home to order one from the Internet.

Sliced another way, and sight-unseen, this suggests an exhibition devoted almost entirely to reinforcing straightjacketed traditional notions of sexuality (yes, that includes the pole-dancing). Imagethief finds himself reminded of the sketch in "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life" in which John Cleese, as a British don, deadpan lectures a classroom full of English schoolboys on sexual technique, with a graphic demonstration. Did we, or did we not, cover vaginal juices?

One other thing really stands out in that story. Imagethief previously remarked on an AP story (the original story link is now dead) that also discussed this sex exposition. That AP story included the following line:
But restrictions abound: Cosmopolitan magazine can only be sold if wrapped to avoid browsing by minors, and programs like HBO's "Sex and the City" and "Six Feet Under" have been screened with cuts by the country's censors. Singapore also outlaws oral sex and homosexuality.
At this point, a really important question must be asked (no, not about oral sex--Singaporeans have  plenty of that). Why is it that every single story on this topic by every single foreign news organization feels compelled to remark on Singapore's restrictions on Sex and the City? Fine, granted that it is a witty and entertaining show. But how has it become the international yardstick for sexually liberated media? Can we find another one, please?

Frankly, Imagethief thinks we can all agree that if it was up to the Singaporean government, Singaporeans would reproduce asexually by budding or rhizomes. In fact, he is sure that the Singaporean government is working on just such a scheme in order to boost Singapore's fertility rate, which scratched out another all-time low in 2004 at 1.24. It was a flaccid 1.07 for the extra-repressed ethnic Chinese majority; other, poorer ethnicities continue to make a better, but also declining, show of it. These are Singapore government statistics, so please don't complain to me if you are offended. This is far below the replacement rate of approximately 2.1. In the best of all possible worlds, the government would be able to control the rate of budding, or rhizome production, by adjusting the composition of the tap water. Sadly for them, but fortunately for the rest of us, it is not to be.

Several related factors seem to be coming together here (no pun intended). Just a couple of days ago, Durex, a condom maker, released its annual survey* of which countries are getting some and which aren't (and much other interesting data, if the methodology is sound). Congrats to Singapore, who, out of 41 nations surveyed, out-libido only the shockingly unmotivated and rapidly declining Japanese, and who come in well below the average in frequency of sex. (It's the very last chart; keep scrolling.) I should point out that I haven't read in depth on the metholodology or statistical analysis methods used in this study. Given that it's a web survey by a condom company, and not, say, a peer-reviewed study in the Lancet, one must approach with care. But let's go with it.

A birth rate that points toward eventual extinction (or, at the least, cataclysmic ethnic shift); a national indifference to sex; and a government with a repressive attitude towards frank discussion or depiction of sexuality or sexual creativity.

There's only three dots here. It's not too hard to connect them.

Alright, it's really more complex than that. Of course Imagethief would like to believe that the policy answer to Singapore's problems is as simple as an island-wide p*rn-o-rama. Unfortunately, despite my repeated letters to the parliamentary representatives of my wife's GRC district stressing the need for such a p*rn-o-rama, none has yet materialized. This may be because my wife's district's parliamentarians include Lee Kuan Yew and health minister Khaw Boon Wan (who's announcements have previously been scrutinized in this space), neither of whom is likely to be receptive to Imagethief's "outside-the-box" policy ideas. It may also be because they realize that there are more complex demographic and socio-economic factors at work, and a p*rn-o-rama alone won't solve them. After all, look at the Japanese. They came in dead last in that survey --barely over half of Singapore's score-- and they have some of the most lurid p*rn in the world. So let's not suggest cause and effect here. In fact, the government's approach might simply be another manifestation of whatever social forces are conspiring to make Singapore an oddly sexless and, apparently, reproductively sterile place. But the government's attitude doesn't do much to help.

Imagethief has noticed something interesting about how Singapore relates to sexuality at an institutional level. I used to give the government credit for slowly loosening up.  I had an arsenal of things I would cite: The Boom Boom Room; the Neptune Room; relaxation of the kinds of movies and plays we would get, and so on. And some of this is valid, especially where adventurous movies and television are concerned. But at the same time, the national discourse about sex remains confined. Things like the Boom Boom Room, a drag show, and the Neptune Room, a topless burlesque, and many of the other things that came along were really ways to channel aspects of sexuality into the most managed and sanitized forms. Harmless transvestite clowns are OK. Actual homesexuality is taboo. The play Shopping and Fucking, about relationship angst, is OK. The play Talaq, about spousal abuse in the Indian muslim community, is taboo. Bar top dancing and the ridiculously cheesy Neptune Room is OK. Exhibiting items that suggest that there might be alternative ways of viewing what constitutes healthy sexuality, say a pair of fur-lined handcuffs, is taboo.

Something else in the Durex survey caught my eye. Singapore also has a high rate of unplanned pregnancy --the only area of fertility it seems to be doing well in-- and a comparitively late start to sex education. While I don't want to read too much into a study that is, after all, a PR stunt, it is an interesting set of results, especially when contrasted with the low degree of overall sexual activity reported. Remarking on the pregnancy rate, an article (proxied Google cache link - be warned) in Singaporean tabloid The New Paper had one quote suggesting that Singapore, as a city-state, was being unfairly compared with other countries with a mix of urban and rural populations; one totally baffling quote suggesting that easy access to abortion in Singapore somehow made people more willing to answer honestly about unplanned pregnancies in an anonymous survey; and two quotes suggesting that exposure to "liberal values" via television and the Internet might somehow be responsible. It had zero quotes suggesing that poor or late sex education (and anything after the onset of puberty is late) or a completely stultified national discourse about healthy sexuality might, even possibly, be involved.

What is worrying is that the cloistered official attitude towards all things sexual creates this strange, Victorian duality. Everything on the surface is  well-managed Catholic (or, more correctly, a mix of Anglican and born-again evangelical) sex-for-reproduction, missionary position only please. Everything below the surface is frothing perversion. Imagethief, a son of San Francisco, is, of course, a fan of frothing perversion, and can speak with some authority about Singapore's own frothy undercurrents, which are numerous. But I don't wish for anyone I know to get angry calls from the government sexual-position-police, so I will withhold details. Suffice to say, beneath its surprisingly pious exterior, it's got a blazing kinky streak.

Instead of getting into that myself, I will extend a tip of the hat to my good friend and ex-Sembawang Media colleague, Singaporean journalist Gerrie Lim. Gerrie has forgotten more about sex in Singapore than I or anyone in the government has ever known. This is not because of his own lifestyle (well, it may be, but I don't wish to know that), but because he is the author of an indispensable investigation into such matters, Invisible trade: high class sex for sale in Singapore. Admittedly, this concerns itself with one particular aspect of Singapore's suppressed sexuality. But there are clearly many more avenues to be investigated, and I can think of no one better equipped --intellectually speaking-- to investigate them than Gerrie. It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it. Gerrie, you and I will speak about this next time I am back in Singapore.

Meanwhile, I know that wire services have certain formats and standards to adhere to, and they are not generally the venue for deep, insightful reporting. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see some of these stories that invoke Singapore's sexual stuffiness peeling the metaphorical covers back just a little bit more. Behind the gags and the cliches about censorship and Sex in the City, this is a society with real issues about how it relates to sexuality. There are some really interesting articles to be written about that. Where are they?

Note: Thanks to my old Beijing walking partner, Dave Hull, for the Reuters story. Dave is now stranded back in Santa Barbara. Sorry. But it's probably more sexually active than Singapore, at least.

* Yes, it's PR.