Rejected by ST Forum
Baby Guide
I was horrified to read the articles featured in Life! dated 31 August 2000. While I can understand the newspaper's intention of offering a guide to married couples on how to make babies, I find the manner in which this was done extremely distasteful. For example, the "guide" which came with colourful pictures suggested ways to ìmake out under the stars" by providing a list of ìthe darkest, the most secluded and the most romantic spots for Romeos and Juliets with wheels". In the writer's attempt to show her consideration for the couple's comfort as well as the car's cleanliness, she also included a section where essentials like cushions for ìextra padding, comfort and lift" as well as wet ones ìto clean up, freshen up and mop up" were listed.
No doubt, the existence of other newspapers like Projecteyeball and Streats has made it necessary for The Straits Times, which has been around for decades, to make "improvements" and changes so as to remain relevant and interesting to as wide a spectrum of readers as possible. Nevertheless, although changes are indeed necessary, we must not forget that The Straits Times still remain the staple for most Singaporeans. Readers of The Straits Times include not just married couples. Most students too rely on The Straits Times for the latest update. As such, when a subject like marital sex is dealt with in a manner and tone that is flippant and tongue-in-cheek, the sanctity of the act of procreation gets undermined.
It is the responsibility of The Straits Times to ensure that in its attempt to maintain its wide readership, its quality is not compromised. After all, we do pride ourselves on being Asians who are relatively less liberal and sexually permissive. Or don't we?
By Nor Azah Abdul Aziz