BUTT, seriously not for charity…

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word pornography as; printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement. It is not every day that one looks up the word pornography in the dictionary, but the events of this week prompted me to. In case you haven’t heard, the latest in town is that President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni this week was reported to have assented to the anti-pornography bill making it law.

In South Africa, popular actress and TV host, Boity Thulo has been the subject of a media debate after she appeared in the latest issue of Marie Claire magazine’s annual Naked Issue, which was released on Monday. Radio DJs Catherine Grenfell and Zama Dube are alongside her in the picture on which none of the three has any clothing on, only retaining the slightest hint of modesty by covering breast with hands and other reproductive parts with a sitting posture that makes it hard for all to be seen. http://mediaslutza.com/2014/02/18/marie-claire-south-africa-march-2014-naked-issue/

Mzansi actress Boity "Boitumelo" Thulo

But what is grabbing headlines and stirring debate is the Pornography law in Uganda as some aspects of the law seek to establish a dress code. The Ugandan government said the president signed into law sweeping anti-pornography legislation that covers a range of issues related to pornography, including child pornography, pornographic publications and even suggestive music videos. Earlier in December 2013, Parliament passed the Anti-Pornography Bill, in an effort to thwart pornography which is blamed for sexual crimes against women and children including rape, child molestation and incest.

This piece of legislation also outlaws miniskirts and other types of revealing clothing. The law makes it illegal to wear revealing clothing, including tops that show too much cleavage and miniskirts, defined as anything above the knee. This is what baffles me, as this is tantamount to imposing a dress code. What has dress got to do with Pornography I may ask? I think our friends from the Ugandan parley have stretched the meaning of pornography far too much. Even the skimpiest of attire cannot be outlawed as pornography. Pornography remains, printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement and not skimpy dress.

Media houses are also banned from publishing pictures of couples kissing or indecently-dressed women like those taken in night clubs. This imposition of a dress code in the name of fighting pornography is an affront on human rights and the respect for women’s rights. If anyone wanted to legislate anything related to dress, then Freedom of dressing was supposed to be enshrined as a constitutional right. How a person presents themselves to their peers and to the rest of the world is up to them. Those that cross the line to nudity are a special case and each country must have adequate laws that govern indecent exposure and not criminnalising short skirts.

People wear different items of clothing for different reasons. A lot of people use dress as a way of self-expression while others’ dress determines their personal brand. Humans must have the right to exercise religion and the right of free speech among others, and limiting a person's way of expression abuses these rights. What must regulate dress are the dress codes that exist figuratively and literally in many places. A woman may not go to a Christian church dressed only in bum shorts, but can go jogging in her neighborhood. Why should you stop one going to a night club from putting on a mini skirt?

And how do you lamely blame rape on ‘indecent dressing’? Those that have done research tell us that most rape victims suffer their fate at the hands of people they know. This could be a boyfriend who lures a girl to a private place where sex happens without her consent. For all we know she could have been dressed as a catholic nun before meeting the boyfriend.

The bottom line is that men, as humans should strive to exercise themselves from finding excuses for animal behaviours, but shou1d remain dogged in the exercise of their power of self-control in the face of any temptation to do the contrary. In saying all this, I am not an advocate of indecent dressing but merely emphasizing on the importance of the human race to respect individuality, free thought and determination.

Speaking of dress codes and the lack of it, let me come back to Boity Thulo’s recent escapades in Marie Claire magazine. Never one to intentionally underdress, Boity is an avid lover of the mini-dress and towering platform heels. And I have no problem with that. In fact I have no problem if she poses nude in a porn magazine. But for a mainstream TV personality to go nude in a mainstream magazine that is not right in my eyes. Yes I do preach right of self-determination and self-expression, but I do not preach that nudity fit for pornographic magazines must now be brought to the public with utmost ease. In fact this is now propagating extreme behavior fit only for X-rated audience into the conventional audience.

I believe in freedom of choice and even in the issue of miniskirts I say one must be free to choose what they wear depending on the appropriateness of the occasion and destination. The chasm between skimpy dress and nudity is way too big and the two must never be confused. Those that venture into nudity must do it for the porn audience and never for a mainstream audience.

The irony of it all is that these nude pictures are an initiative to raise money for charity, so we are told. In the picture the actress and TV presenter has only a white towel wrapped around her head and stands facing away from the camera, with her buttocks in full view. I don't see the point of going naked for charity, why not ‘get your hands dirty’ and help out in communities for charity instead?

The noble cause of fundraising for charity is lost in the bum really. I know controversy sales but (BUTT, to paraphrase), definitely not for charity. What message are we giving to the young boys and girls who will benefit from the money raised from this initiative? “Boitumelo, Catherine Grenfell, Zama Dube and other celebrities undressed so that we put food on your table for this month and the next.”

The world and Africa in particular needs better role models for our little girls. They have to wish to be famous for thermo-nuclear research rather than taking their clothes off. In response to the controversy she has brewed Boity is quoted as having responded by saying;

"Yeah I’m glad that this whole reaction happened and Marie Claire will have had something good come out of something funny (#BoityReaction I’m assuming is the ‘Something funny’) I’m just glad that they’re getting the publicity out of it, it was the point. I didn’t expect my part to be this big but the fact that it is only good for the magazine."

"My Mother? She understood that it was for charity. She knew that I was planning on being a part of the shoot and she was looking forward to it. When the pictures came out she commented that they came out well and that she liked them. She was on board with the whole thing."

 

Above the knees: Stunning & elegant, but you could go to jail for this in Uganda!

I can only conclude that this was an attention seeking stunt because the result is that everyone focuses on the girls and the intended objective is hidden in the BUTT. So why not take an initiative that takes the objective of the cause as the epicenter?

In the meantime, all the Nkana Football club female fans travelling to Uganda for the game against Kampala City Council must carry with them clothing that look like catholic non habits. Carry a mini skirt at your own peril.