Australia bans small breasts

[Yazman]

Source: http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/

Snippet from source (click link for full article:


The Australian Sex Party (ASP) said Wednesday that the Australian Classification Board (http://classification.gov.au/) (ACB) is now banning depictions of small-breasted women (http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/press-releases/619-depictions-of-female-orgasm-being-banned-by-classification-board) in adult publications and films. It comes just a week after it was found that material with depictions of females ejaculating during orgasm are now Refused Classification (http://www.msnaughty.com/blog/2010/01/16/the-strange-politics-of-obscene-bodily-fluids/) and Australian Customs directed to confiscate it.
ASP’s Fiona Patten writes on her party’s website that they are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup breast size:

“This is in response to a campaign led by Kids Free 2 B Kids and promoted by Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett in Senate Estimates late last year. Mainstream companies such as Larry Flint’s Hustler produce some of the publications that have been banned. These companies are regulated by the FBI to ensure that only adult performers are featured in their publications.”
Patten writes that such bans may be an unintended consequence of the Senator’s actions “but they are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in Australian adult magazines of late”.

How can this be happening
The National Classification Code (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/A4DD01BB110AD94DCA25700D002EF73E) dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.

State Crime Acts are also similar. Victoria’s Criminal Code (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s67a.html) includes the ‘or appears to be’ clause in its definition of child pornography and it doesn’t need to cause offence to a reasonable adult for it to be illegal.

Even if you are 18 years old but you look younger, taking a photograph of your breasts and uploading it to the Internet could land you or someone you know in serious trouble.

Keep in mind it’s highly unlikely that a naked photograph of a 30, 40 or 50 year old woman with small breasts would ‘appear’ to be child pornography on the basis of her breast size alone. Small breasts do not automatically mean something will be banned or is illegal.


So.. the Australian government now considers both the female body and its orgasms to be "obscene" and something that should be censored out of print media and film.

What the fuck?

[Post-Something]

I cannot believe what I just read.

[Dean]

preposterous.

[Rousedruminations]

outdated conservative BS !

[un_person]

Un-fucking-believable.:confused: Wouldn't this mean that no men could be shown shirtless, I mean we have very small breast.

[Psy]

Un-fucking-believable.:confused: Wouldn't this mean that no men could be shown shirtless, I mean we have very small breast.
It basically saying males should be masturbating to bigger breasts else they are a pedophile thus porn with small breasted women is aimed at pedophiles thus illegal in their weird logic.

[jake williams]

I'm not surprised by this move at all, in fact I'd been in some form expecting it for awhile.

To be totally honest - and this is all conjecture, I'm just raising the possibility - what I think we're seeing is a soft recriminalization of sexuality as a weapon of self-control. The laws, more and more, are so broad that they include almost any sexual activity, and especially with porn laws, this includes sexual fantasy. All-encompassing "child porn" laws are ready tools for associating political enemies with child sexual abuse. The facts are these - almost anyone who has used the internet has seen material that under the most brutal contortions of the term could be considered "child pornography", for example by making even a symbolic reference to "the teenager". And at least under some laws, even viewing the material is illegal.

I've heard of a number of cases, both public and rumoured, where some political enemy, both radicals outside the political establishment and "internal" enemies, are presented by law enforcement with "evidence" of a potential child porn charge, and the target either does a deal or disappears, and the charge goes away. Now we don't konw the details of the case, because they don't come out. It may well be that all of these folks are actually the dungeon types who really are a threat to others' safety, which would be pretty terrifying. But the thing is, we don't even usually find out many details because people are so willing to do deals, because being publicly associated with "child porn" AT ALL is something almost everyone does almost everything to avoid.

Now there's no reason at all such a process should have to be conscious - let's get together and come up with something we can come up with fake charges to get the Reds with - but I think more of a softer process, where more powerful laws sort of click with the institution of the state, is totally in line with history. But really, it's just a thought, and it's possible but pretty depressing to contemplate that there actually is a large pool of really sick people.


Another possibility, of course, is that this is an attempt to enforce a more commercializable standard of attractiveness, help the breast implant industry and so on - but of this I'm really really suspicious. For one thing I'm just reflexively skeptical of any theory asserting this weird post-left, anti-feminist-"feminist" consumerism as a primary social cause. A lot of the logic of this nexus of belief is that our society is about "consumerism" and "commercialism", and not about capitalism. It becomes about the symbolism of culture, and not about the actual economic reality. There's also this really irritating theory that when bad things happen in society, it's out of "meanness", that, for example, our patriarchal capitalist society is that way because men are mean. And that when we get policies like this, it's just because men are bad and don't like small breasts. I think that's a really ridiculous explanation. At any rate, the economics of the modern "image economy" suggest that a lot more is to be gained from diet products etc. than from boob implants

[Uncle Hank]

What's next, they force all women to get breast implants to 'prevent pedophilia'? :rolleyes:

[Rousedruminations]

lol !

[cska]

Errrm. The title of this thread is extremely misleading. Australia banned depictions of what would appear to be under-18 people in pornographic material. The publishers interpreted this as meaning small breasts would appear under-18. How the Australian government enforces the law will determine wether it is actually unjust. Take alcohol companies that show "over-21" people who actually look like teenagers in their advertisements. There isn't a simple black and white answer to this question.

[khad]

Errrm. The title of this thread is extremely misleading. Australia banned depictions of what would appear to be under-18 people in pornographic material. The publishers interpreted this as meaning small breasts would appear under-18. How the Australian government enforces the law will determine wether it is actually unjust. Take alcohol companies that show "over-21" people who actually look like teenagers in their advertisements. There isn't a simple black and white answer to this question.
This entire thread is an epic fail.

[gorillafuck]

This isn't outright banning small breasts or quite what people are making it out to be, but it still is negative. It's restricting who is allowed to appear in porn based on appearance (and it apparently doesn't restrict younger looking males). Also, the thing about banning the portrayal of female ejaculation is just ridiculous.

[Chambered Word]

Enter the new age of sexual McCarthyism. Tiny boobs on the net? Witch hunt time! :rolleyes:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Apparently, "watersports" are banned. I don't see how they have any business banning consensual pornography. While I'll admit that most female ejaculation pornography is urination, and most female porn stars are being exploited, it's unfair to punish a minority because of this reason.

As for the small breasts, that's ridiculous stupid. But who buys pornographic magazines these days anyway?

[Revy]

This isn't outright banning small breasts or quite what people are making it out to be, but it still is negative. It's restricting who is allowed to appear in porn based on appearance (and it apparently doesn't restrict younger looking males). Also, the thing about banning the portrayal of female ejaculation is just ridiculous.

the language " appears to be a child under 18" was used, so it applies to both males and females. The article just focused on the idea that adult women with smaller breasts might fall under the law. It was an interpretation of the law, but it wasn't the law in question.

[Tatarin]

Like I've pointed out before. The world is such a boring place without communism. Now it's stuff like ben Laden, small breasts, Islam and asians that threatens the stability of everyone.

So much for the fall of the wall.....

[IrishWorker]

I the missus and the wee boy were on the verge of immigrating to Melbourne where I have family about 6 years ago but I lost my job for 7 months and the whole thing went tits up.
Irish Worker could have very easily been Australian Worker.