Topic: Will Indonesian ban on sex outside marriage affect businesses adversely? - page 2. (Read 409 times)

The law is aimed at Indonesian citizens and not foreigners or tourists visiting Indonesia. Moreover, foreigners or tourists who visit Indonesia are not to have free sex or the like because they can do this in their own country. But they are visiting Indonesia for other things such as business or the like and they must also know that in Indonesia it is not permissible to have sex in public even though they are married. So the law does not burden foreigners or tourists who enter Indonesia because they only protect themselves from having sex in public.

It's precisely strange for me if they are afraid to visit Indonesia just because there is a law about it. Because I don't think that those who visit Indonesia are just to have free sex, but they are going to Indonesia to see business and investment opportunities that can be very promising and have nothing to do with sex or anything like that. So there is no need to be afraid of this very simple law.

I already have an opinion

I have read the law that has been stipulated, but the rules are not strict unless the woman is not happy and reports what the man has done to the police. what you are saying is right, the new law that was enacted also seeks to protect child from child sex trafficking but also to make women more respectable because there are still many cases of sexual harassment that harm women but greatly benefit men.


corruption will always exist even in developed countries, what I'm worried about until now is that the law in our country (Indonesia) can still be controlled by rich people, even if the man has been proven guilty, if he has money then the punishment he will receive is very light.

It's more like an exotic thing. Like when you go to a zoo to see a chimps throw poop at each other.

The whole world doesn't need a government to enter people's bedrooms to check if the dick is in a man's pants, in his hand, or in a woman's vagina, and if it happens to be this third case both of them have to show their IDs so that the government can know if they are to be punished or not.

Stop! You're having sex with a woman that is not your wife! Take him to jail!
But it's my ex wife!
Ex wives don't count it has to be your current wife!
It's now my brother's wife and he agreed!


I'm not going to Indonesia that's for sure.

lets translate

lets use "taxes"
imagine a culture that demanded 30% tax from everyone no matter if resident or tourist

many outsiders would not respect such tax regime automatically. and would question it.
locals would just abide by it because they are used to it and accept its the rule

but just having a local saying "abide by our laws because its our law so respect it, dont question it" does not stop the questions.

however if the locals said
20% went to healthcare so if tourist got hurt they can be treated for no billable expense

5% goes to environment protection where it means clean drinking water, good quality alcohol, disease free food and the beaches with clean sand and clear oceans
 and 5% for subsiding low income earners. meaning that their hotel rooms are maintained and cleaned cheap meaning that room costs are low..

then tourists see the economic benefits and learn to respect the tax regime

however just shouting "because its our law" does not earn respect

The law could be created to suppress sexual tourism, but it's not the case. They are criminalizing every sexual activity outside marriage, what is a clear violation of individual rights.

Let's say a couple visits your country, but they aren't married. So can't they have sex while there? Will they be punished accordingly to your local laws?

And let's say a foreigner visits your country, fall in love for a local woman (no prostitution) and they want to have sex. Should this person go to jail for commiting the crime of loving someone?

That is insane! I wouldn't go to a territory with such tyranical laws. It must affect tourism, indeed.

i do understand other culture and religions. but i enjoy researching the histories. far back thousands of years the WHY their religion began. the WHY certain laws and beliefs become ..

saying abide by a law or beleive in a religion "just because" is a way that a culture never evolves or grows or progresses. or gets respect

laws and religions should be progressive and meet the needs of the people within. current alive.

certain rules that applied a thousand years ago had a purpose that is different than today

some cultures origins were about when the men went away to battle or trade in other regions. by having the rule ensured the guy came back home to the wife instead of starting a new family elsewhere.

some cultures it was about reducing prostitution exploitation and spread of disease locally

others was the sanctity of keeping a family together to support a child economically and welfare. so that the child can prosper

others were that it was population growth control. instead of a man sowing his seed with a dozen women producing 1 child per port. meaning 12 kids per man. became a population accelorator. where as keeping it between married couples made it a 2 parent 2 child population control

just having a blanket law without knowing the reason just doesnt show a reason to have respect for the rule

knowing the WHY does matter. more so then "just follow a law because its law"
if the law does not satisfy its purpose anymore, then make a different law that does.

Christianity modernised.  because it realised certain things deemed as sins were no longer solving a problem that existed 1000 years ago. because modern age solved it with modern things like moral understanding of consent. contraception and medication

for those who want everyone to abide by a law have to first understand their own law before they expect others to follow it.

no one will understand your culture if you cannot tell them first the origins of your culture and the purpose of the different rule

to have someone respect a culture. is about understanding what needs to be respected

Actually this is not too difficult to uphold in my opinion, especially when talking about Indonesia where most of the population has the same belief and of course the majority of Indonesian citizens have a religion which clearly prohibits this. I don't think this is difficult.
As for the actual impact, it doesn't really affect me in my opinion because it depends on the intentions of the tourists whether they are only visiting for sex or indeed for other business purposes because when they say business and sex are two different things. We live where we have rules and when we are in this case we cannot rule out rules that are prohibited either by law or religion unless you really don't have both in you.

Everywhere it is politics that is getting mixed with religion. This too a kind of terrorism. It should not be done, and the politicians try to make votes out of each and everything. Indonesia being a Muslim majority nation, there won't be big opposition. As mentioned, everything will happen same as the past. We can see some complaints arising to end up revenge. A big drop in the tourism will happen from the person who travel single. Maybe as predicted this rule can encourage religious people visiting Indonesia in large numbers.

I personally don't think this is bad for any business because when we say business it doesn't mean we have to have sex freely without strings attached. It's funny when sex is banned, tourists will be reluctant to visit Indonesia. Is it true that businessmen and tourists who enter only focus on sex life? I, as an Indonesian citizen, regret that the stigma is like that because it seems as if Indonesia is an object where there is only sex, even though we can see other things such as culture and lots of beautiful scenery here.

I think you don't really know about Indonesia, where from the start sex outside of marriage was also prohibited here, but it didn't reach the prohibition in the legislation and now that it has been legalized, it means that the prohibition will be even bigger.
When saying a religion, I will probably quote Qatar's rules in this case where when the world cup took place, beer and all forms of LGBT attributes were banned around the pitch to respect Muslims. Many people are against it, but when we are in an area of power that requires it, what can you do? Are you going to oppose it for reasons that don't make sense because it discriminates against something? of course this makes sense because those are the rules that they have always upheld from the start and until now Qatar still upholds these rules.
Likewise in Indonesia, with a large Muslim majority there, of course this would be very contrary to their beliefs and in fact not only Muslims but other religions would definitely oppose something like this even though it was only a small group.
When tourists don't want to come because in Indonesia they can't have sex, then it's a mistake in their thinking that they only think about sex in their brains, not religion and culture in Indonesia.

I predict it will have zero effect on businesses because everything that was happening before will continue to happen, it will just end up in more of a black market for it. It's a very dumb law that is clearly made by politicians who want to pander to some religious leaders and are probably trying to "buy" votes for the next election, since they've done nothing to help the economy or get more jobs going. Ultimately if people are going to do these things, they'll just rent a hotel room and do it low key. Thinking about it a bit more, it could certainly kill off whatever remnants of a tourist trade they might have going because people who are not married might never want to visit such a place for fear of legal punishment.

tourism is only 6% of indonesia's GDP

half of that is families in a marriage. so the max extent is about 3% irritation of any possible rule that separates a unmarried couple from staying in the same room

that said some unmarried couples may want their separate rooms. and then sneak into one room when feeling randy.. and unless their a a bell boy sitting in the room watching. its not something that will cause disruption. thus less than a 3% impact.

many hotels can actually earn more by selling 2x single bed rooms rather then 1x double bed

so again les than a 3% impact..

that said..
when it comes to the rules/laws/religions.. the bigger question still remains WHY are there these old rules that do not fit the modern lifestyle

its not about trying to break you from your beliefs. its about. WHY
have you asked yourself WHY she has to remain chaste.
not "because its the rule" . but the real anatomical physical reason.

what do you benefit from, from what the woman loses by the rule.

WHY do you think its good.
and please dont just say "its my belief" or "its the rule"

does the rule fit any real problem that actually does solve something that is needed to be solved

Sorry, as a Muslim, I think it's an obligation that women need to be kept chaste before marriage. And sorry, maybe we don't share the same beliefs, so it's only natural for you to say so. It doesn't matter, but the context needs to be scrutinized friends, we focus on the context of one country, and what we talk about needs to refer to the rules of that country. Not compared to foreign countries that already have different rules from this point of view.


Can we get back on track as per the OP's topic? if the OP didn't mention a specific country, then you're free to speak broadly about such and such a policy.

for what reason?
a. to be "tight" to allow the males nubby to feel the inner lining of her genitals? (seems one sided and selfish)
b. STD prevention?
c. have no other experience to compare so think that bad sex is normal and just put up with a guy that cant do it right?

explain why you think a woman needs to limit her life experiences for the gratification of a man

(im male but i can see the gender equality/inequality of the issues)

Unfortunately, Op is discussing a certain country, maybe where you live the stages are like that but in our country, we get married first and then have sex. So in our country, not everything is generalized like that and cannot be equated with the stages you mentioned. I think everything is clear, I appreciate your concept! For us, a woman needs to be kept pure.

"better than nothing?"
no one said remove all laws because it doesnt fit the other cultures that want to visit.. its not about remove all laws to get tourists to come.. its about tailoring laws to the current modern lifestyles and need of a population foreign and domestic, due to laws actually making sense

EG if the main premiss of no sex outside of a wedding was for 2 things
reduce prostitution/child sex trafficking. instead of a broad rule that stops any sex unless its inside of wedlock. set rules for prostitution and child abuse. that way it still meets the goal without limiting other lifestyle things that people do want to experience.

imagine it this way.. imagine your a woman. you meet a guy you have a crush, you flirt you kiss but dont do anything sexual until wedding day. that night you find out he as a little nubby that does nothing for you sexually. or he has a massive wang that hurts every time.. and now your stuck for the next 60 years with a guy that cant satisfy you. so you end up cheating anyway..
same goes for the guy would he want to stay loyal to a woman that says "nope" each night for 60 years or it only happens if he pushes her thus it doesnt feel intimate and instead feels like a chore

did the law really solve anything? nope.
adding laws to force a woman to satisfy a guy. is then not a good law to add to the unsatisfied husbands situation

instead have laws that meet the needs. stopping child exploitation and prostitution and STD spreading. but allow consenting adults to explore and find their soulmate that fits and satisfies them to then marry and be happy for 60 years to not need to cheat on or catch STD via other partners.

its not about a rule for sake of rule. or a outlaw if rule doesnt fit.. its about the right rules for the right reasons

The reason why people ignored the law is because it was stupid. It has been long debated whether we should obey laws that are outright stupid or oppressive.
Let's say that someone decides you no longer can use a mobile phone, or that you are not allowed to drink alcohol, even at home. I feel like there's a huge difference between not allowing married people to have sex outside marriage and not allowing any unmarried couple to do it. Having sex is a natural human interaction. People meet, start dating, have sex, get married - this is how it's done everywhere.

For sure there would really be those under the table kind or type of transactions but totally this isnt something that could really be monitored out on 100% precision as these things do happen in private and there's no

way that they could be having those camera and staffs or agent everywhere to monitor out on each citizens activity or something like connected on sex.As for business talks then it would really be mainly be affecting

those who are really that in connected with sexual aspect.Just like the rest been saying that its their country then its their law to be imposed and its citizens doesnt really have that choice
but to follow on whats mandated and on whats been prohibited.

Isn't it better to prevent than nothing? I know that everything is run according to the principles of a country. But if the rules only focus on the economic sector without paying attention to other sectors, what is the main basis? Indonesia has other economic resources, but that doesn't mean we don't appreciate foreign tourists who come with their culture. Visiting Bali, all tourists are greeted with what they are accustomed to, but not in all parts of Indonesia.

This is the difference that we need to appreciate, you might generalize that compatibility can only be felt and proven by having sex. Oh, is it that simple to get married? Marriage is not just to satisfy desire alone, marriage is much bigger in purpose. Perfecting each other, accepting born and inner all of each other's shortcomings. Talking about satisfaction? can be searched for and worked on together, that is the beauty of marriage, doesn't it mean that when you don't have sex with your wife, you have to have an affair?

we all understand that. but instead of just saying "them the rules" or more preciously " Indonesia is a majority Islamic country and that is their rule." do you ever question the reason and the need of the rule. what does it protect or prevent. and are those rules still fit for purpose. or have those original rules been extremitised outside their origin purpose where by it now affects many things outside of their base purpose

i can understand sex before marriage can be troublesome for the young that are not ready for a sexual life.

i can understand that cheating breaks up a marriage

but when 2 adults of mentally ready age, fall inlove. having to get them to be married before they can find out if they can 'fit' together. enforces unwanted marriages. where your stuck with someone that does not satisfy you

What's the problem for you, our country is indeed a country that has the right to anything and any policies in order to maintain its own sovereignty. I think you are consuming too much news from one side and one source for referrals. Funny

If you are Indonesian, you see that a strong country is a country that establishes its own rules, not subject to being dictated by western countries. After all, if you know Bali, then the rules for foreigners are relaxed as a form of respecting their customs. Don't pretend that one generalized rule is bad.

In all beliefs sex outside marriage is not allowed Christianity, Buddhism, and Catholicism. Even if you read the Old Testament. Moreover, Indonesia is a majority Islamic country and that is their rule.