FREE PORN VIDEO'S

by **admin_pornrev** » Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:39 am

Australian censor board demands large-breasted porn-stars

FROM: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/28/au ... eviouspost

By Cory Doctorow at 9:22 PM January 28, 2010

A reader writes, "Australian Classification Board (ACB) is now banning depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. They banned mainstream pornography from showing women with A-cup breasts, apparently on the grounds that they encourage paedophilia, and in spite of the fact this is a normal breast size for many adult women. Presumably small breasted women taking photographs of themselves will now be guilty of creating simulated child pornography, to say nothing of the message this sends to women with modestly sized chests or those who favour them. Australia has also banned pornographic depictions of female ejaculation, a normal orgasmic sexual response in many women, with censors branding it as 'abhorrent.'"

The Board has also started to ban depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. 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. "We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size", she said. "It 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".

Depictions of Female Orgasm Being Banned by Classification Board
(Image: 124, a Creative Commons Attribution photo from brittsuza's photostream)
Previously:
• Great Firewall of Australia will nationally block sites appearing ...
• Net censorship down under: Australian government to block protest ...
• Australia's proposed 'net censorship scheme: the politics. - Boing ...
• Word-map of net-censorship in China Boing Boing
• Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman receives death threat for ...

137 Comments

| Leave a comment

seanwilliams | #1 | 21:29 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
The whole porn issue is horribly complicated, ethically speaking, but I do have to say that this is one of those things that makes me embarrassed to be an Australian. For a small country, we do seem to be doing our fair share of dumb things at the moment.

AsteriskCGY | #2 | 21:36 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
First they can't get any M rated games because their outdated rating system can't be changed because that one guy won't let it, and now crazy porn censors.

TheGZeus | #3 | 21:37 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
Considering the general lack of notable breasts I noticed while I was in Japan, and about 30% of their adult film stars (not that I've seen all of their stuff, or even close... there's _alot_ I don't want to see coming out of... any country) having ~A cup breasts, they're banning an entire ethnic group in the process.
I'm a bit of a cynic, but I wouldn't doubt that one or two people wanted less Asian porn being imported, be it for nationalistic, racist, or jealous reasons.
See, I think breasts are fun, but I can take or leave them. "whee! jiggle jiggle" is fine, I'm fine without it.
What's next? Penis size?
Repeat the above, but I'm not fan, but I'm fine with it being there.

ryxxui | #4 | 21:37 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
I am still having a hard time believing this is real. It just seems so utterly ridiculous to me that I can't believe there are people who can justify it with a straight face.
Actually, I'm not convinced they could. Wouldn't it be fun to ask, "On what do you base your idea that pornography featuring small-breasted women is in any way, shape, or form related to pedophilia?".

Anonymous | #5 | 21:39 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
It's been easy lately to be cynical as an American citizen. Right before the inauguration last year I was on a 5 hour bus trip, sitting beside an Australian who was in the States studying American politics. That discussion - and moments like this - remind me that however tenuous Constitutional protections may be at times, however under assault, the very fact that they exist is remarkable.

musicman | #6 | 21:45 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
oh the shame. My representatives embarrass me.

Anonymous | #7 | 21:48 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
Next they will ban porn with men with smaller penises because it may promote pedophilia.

Anonymous | #8 | 21:50 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
One can only imagine the resulting Foster's beer ad about how things are bigger in Australia.

Anonymous | #9 | 21:53 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
Maybe they should also ban any porn featuring waxed/shaved pubes...

MattF | #10 | 22:00 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
This is a joke, right?

Kerov | #11 | 22:10 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
What is it with you Anglo-Saxon countries? Australia seems to have been infected *both* by Britain's surveillance culture, AND the United States' absurd judicially enforced ultra-Puritanism.

pretentious platypus | #12 | 22:11 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
Similar things are happening in the EU. Germany made "jugendpornographische Schriften" illegal in late 2008 (§184c StGB) - both posession and attempts to acquire such materials.
Same completely vague criteria (some mythical "average viewer" can decide that persons depicted *look* 14-18 years old) and everything.
Supposedly this development stems from some sort of EU resolution, so I wouldn't be surprised if this pops up in various other countries as well.

hairap1961 | #13 | 22:12 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
@musicman - did you vote for Barnaby Joyce? Or maybe Family First? I know I didn't and they certainly don't represent me. What did a former Australian Prime Minister say about "unrepresentative swill"?
And does this mean any aussie bloke with a photo of his bikini-clad, a-cupped, [possibly middle-aged] significant other or ex will be prosecuted?

13tales replied to comment from MattF | #14 | 22:15 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
@MattF
Sadly, no. Although the post above sensationalises it a bit, the facts are correct. The Australian Media Classification board can Refuse Classification to porn in which the actors "appear to be" less than 18. I guess the theory is to inhibit or discourage stuff that might present young-looking actresses 18 and over as children in order to cater to people with a youth fetish. Ie. No "BARELY LEGAL" type stuff. It's decided on a case-by-case basis, and apparently this has led to some porn with flat or small chested actresses getting banned because the participants are under 18.
Of greater concern really is the underlying issue of the "war on kink". Fetish material including "golden showers" etc. etc. is explicitly banned (unlike small boobies).
Whose business is it what turns people on? (As long as they aren't hurting anyone, of course.) In the wise words of XKCD "Holy shit! People are COMPLICATED!"

Anonymous | #15 | 22:15 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
Crikey.com.au reckons that the story is something of a beat-up in that the legislation refers to "Actors who are or appear childlike". So the legislation is being interpreted to mean a-cup.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/29/has ... l-breasts/
But i think crikey is being pretty weak. who gets to determine what is "childlike". It all gets nasty when you start using censorship to ban works that would otherwise be legal.
The Rudd government did this in the Henson case where a photographer showed underage nudes and the government cried "porn" actually sexualising what wasn't sexual. Next they'll be banning cherubs.

Dr_Wally | #16 | 22:18 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
It's certainly decisions like these that give me the impression that the ACB is full of crotchety, puritanical old men who think everything's shocking.
As an Australian I would like to let readers know we're not all like this, and most people find this sort of decision absolutely ridiculous.
We DO have some idiots in our Parliament though... not disputing that point.

Anonymous | #17 | 22:18 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
after reading this I am left feeling slightly like a pedophile because my girlfriend has small boobs..
dumb, dumb, dumb. this is why I fear our governments plan to censor OUR internet!

Anonymous | #18 | 22:35 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
The definition of paedophilia is a person who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children ... I thought breasts came with puberty and as such any woman with A cup breasts cannot be a facsimile of a prepubescent child.

Urcher Vlastom | #19 | 22:36 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report

Crikey have a short discussion pointing out that this is mostly sensationalism and small breasted women haven't actually been banned form porn.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/29/has ... l-breasts/

hairap1961 | #20 | 22:42 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
Thank you UV

Anonymous | #21 | 22:49 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
RE: female ejaculation harmful to minors.
The phenomena of female ejaculation is dangerous for kids. Children can drown is as little as an inch of water.

daz | #22 | 22:59 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
The key issue here is that the Australian Classification Guidelines mandate a 'refused classification (RC)' rating for media where the models *appear* to be under 18, unlike the US which is concerned with the actual age of the model. This means that even though there may be verifiable proof that the model is of age, a petite small-breasted woman in a school uniform could very easily appear to be underage (and that may in fact be the point of the shoot) and refused classification.

benher | #23 | 23:34 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
"Australia has also banned pornographic depictions of female ejaculation, a normal orgasmic sexual response in many women..."

Woah, wait, banning what? Could someone teach me more about this phenomenon?

Anonymous replied to comment from hairap1961 | #24 | 23:46 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
Except the senate's also got all the Greens, who are doing a pretty good job opposing censorship and net filtering (Clive Hamilton notwithstanding). Both major parties are pretty bad with Labor being pro-censorship and the Libs being tied to the Nationals.

geeklawgirl | #25 | 23:57 on Thu, Jan.28 | Reply
Report
I'm a natural D, my roommate is a natural A. We're both 29 years old. Apparently one of us should be ashamed of our size. Surprisingly, for once, it's not me. As a size 12 compared to her size 0, I'm used to being the one told by society that my size is not desired. It's really frustrating that this kind of ban is real. Not only are women told that we should be smaller, now we're being told that we shouldn't be TOO small or else we resemble children. No wonder women resort to plastic surgery.

greengestalt | #26 | 00:36 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
I think they've gone too far.

But let's face facts: "Pedophile!" is simply the new "Witch!" or "Communist!" or "Jew!". The world governments are choking on their stupidity and false economies, they need someone to blame to distract as those that have continue to take and take and take from the have lesses until the system crashes.

They couldn't care less about "protecting the children".
I mean that.

Back when America had it's "War on Drugs" under Dubya's dad with the crack cocaine he'd paid 20 times street value for to get it sold "On the White House lawn!!!" they stepped up the "Mandatory Minimum" thing for drug offenders. This, and they certainly knew what they were doing, pushed out a TON of pedophiles. It used to be, if they kept it overseas or just in porn, they were safe, but the first underage kid they raped they got "One year to life". That meant they begged the parole board tearfully every few years with Al Capone types getting out first. With all the petty drug dealers, a flood of the relatively rare "Predatory Pedophiles" (Chester the Molester, basically) got released. At least one even begged them to KEEP him in prison, but they were already so crowded they had "Human Rights" lawsuits pending and too many people they couldn't release. The media was eagerly waiting to lap up any and every lurid detail of any crimes repeat offenders did, and I'm sure it was a conspiracy.

It's like David Icke pointed out: "Problem, Reaction, Solution" The controllers create a problem, then use the media to scare the public to have the reaction and the solution always is more money to them, less freedom.

Anonymous | #27 | 00:42 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Hummm I wonder who made this small breast / pedophile connection. Maybe someone should check them out. Funny how the person (s) who profess something to be evil are the ones who know the most... they are the one's involved. Hummmm

bcsizemo | #28 | 01:27 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Wow it's like I've stepped into 4chan this morning...
Size 12 and D cup, that seems perfect to me.
At least the US is a little more low key on the age thing. You have to have to proper documents and all, but the model has to be 18, it doesn't matter how old she looks. Which pretty much goes to Internet Rule 34. So somewhere someone is fapping to something that the norm finds offensive.
And banning female ejc? Obviously they haven't experienced it. :-)

While they are at it lets go ahead and ban masturbation by the 13-17 year old crowd. Since that child porn and all.

Anonymous | #29 | 01:43 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
This sort of thing makes Australia look like China's bed buddy in terms of censorship
why on earth would you ban something as wonderful as a woman having an orgasm and happening to ejaculate a bit in the process
Are we in 1950 where the women had to please the man at all costs even if that meant she didn't get off her self
First Australia introduces rediclous "hoon" laws then putting normal movies (i.e. Die Hard) in with the soft core porn, suggests having a mandatory internet blacklist and now they are banning small-breasted women in porn and female ejac
Well thank god i'm not living in Aus right now
I think it's time to vote for a Very liberal party (not The Liberal Party)
Vote for the Greens or the Marijuana party (actually not them nothing would even get done) but a different party than the Conservatives we have as the two main parties now Someone Radical who will put decent climate policy in place and will stop coming up with these stupid "censorship for the kids" ideas

Keres | #30 | 01:47 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Hmm. I may be wrong, but doesn't all this nonsense simply look like a step towards a ban of pornography altogether, or anything sex-related, for that matters ?
Australia (like many other, anglo-saxon or not)has been making more than a few censorship oriented decisions lately, it's almost surprising this didn't happen earlier.

Anonymous | #32 | 02:32 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
We should really thank those censors. They are protecting us from our own debased natures. The sacrifice they make in viewing all that porn is a service to all humanity.
/s

Anonymous | #33 | 02:37 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
If they're banning small breasts because they think they encourage child abuse are "fully shaved" adults next?

Anonymous | #34 | 02:47 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'm horribly ashamed of such backwards legislation, that's for sure. Not only is it sexist (I see no 'men must measure >Xcm' law) and likely to draw regular women toward life-threatening surgery, but it sets a terrifying precedent. What's next? Porn performers MUST be unshaven? To be otherwise MUST be paedophilia!

robulus replied to comment from thequickbrownfox | #35 | 03:10 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Hey quickbrownfox, have a read of this http://www.getup.org.au/files/campaigns ... tsheet.pdf and then tell me all about how sensationalist these claims are.

Michael Smith | #36 | 03:10 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
I am an Australian and I quite like my wife's small breasts. I should turn myself in because I am apparently a paedophile. Which is strange because my wife is a year older than me.

robulus replied to comment from AsteriskCGY | #37 | 03:16 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
We can get M games but there is no R18+ classification for video games. The rationale is that video games are more immersive, and therefore capable of doing horrible irreparable damage to our poor fragile sensibilities.
This is of course bullshit. All media is assessed on a case by case basis, so there will obviously be some interactive media that fits into the R18+ category, even if you go for the whole "more immersive is dangerous" thing, which is a tenuous and unsubstantiated theory at best.

Volker | #38 | 04:01 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
> Same completely vague criteria (some mythical "average viewer" can decide that persons depicted *look* 14-18 years old) and everything.
Actually, the German law is much worse. The Australian board is just stopping some products from being sold in the country. The German law essentially allows a prosecutor to retroactively declare something that you bought as illegal and send you to jail for it.

Ugly Canuck | #39 | 04:47 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
The laws banning the possession- the mere possession, mind you - of child porn came into being with the internet, or just before: before those laws were passed, the mere possession of any type of information whatsoever was very very unlikely to be illegal: never mind justifying big increases in police budgets to "watch the net"....
These new laws give the police in liberal democratic states a reason to spend public funds on monitoring internet content.
Without this law, there is no justification whatsoever for the Government to spend any $$ at all to "monitor the internet": with this law, now it's an endless gravy train for cyber-surfing cops.

thewinchester | #40 | 04:47 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
First useful thing Barnaby Joyce has ever done, made it mandatory for women of larger cleavages to be used in pornography. Nothing more to be said.

Anonymous replied to comment from seanwilliams | #41 | 04:51 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Australia a small country? You've got a friggin continent!

Anonymous | #42 | 04:55 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
And what about the 15 year olds with C and D cups? They APPEAR adult, but are not. So why not ban all breasts in case they APPEAR like under-sixteens? Oh ... wait ... maybe that's where this will go next.

BikerRay | #43 | 05:02 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
This from the country that just busted a guy for having possession of naked Simpson's cartoons. Are they going to ban moobs as well?

Thorzdad | #44 | 05:07 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
For some reason, I find it odd that they would ban small breasts because that supposedly encourages paedophilia, while not addressing shaved-bare-as-a-newborn nethers. I mean...if you had to choose which one arguably might actually have a paedophilic overtone...

boxbrown | #45 | 05:18 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
moving to Australia.

Ugly Canuck | #46 | 05:23 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Laws against the mere possession of "child porn": the Authorities' "foot stopping the door of internet privacy closing":
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/imp_ccd/
Complete control, and complete tracking & archiving of all you see & hear online, forever: paid for by you, out of monies that otherwise could go to income support, schooling or hospitals.
All so politicians & cops can "protect the public & children from that horrible all-encompassing and ever-threatening evil child porn on the internet"...

BdgBill | #47 | 05:49 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
So there are some people employed by the government of Australia to sit and wade through the endless ocean of porn on the internet and classify all of it?
I bet this is one of those jobs that sounds a lot better than it really is.

SamSam replied to comment from Kerov | #48 | 05:49 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report

@Kerov: As a quick note, while the US has more that it's share of completely absurd moral panics, the "Arrrghhh it's a paedophile!!!1!" scare is almost entirely a British phenomenon (and I guess Australia too). The level of paedophile hysteria in Britain has been completely divorced from reality for quite some time.
There was an article in BB just recently about how a village council had decided to ban parents from being in the play area with their kids, just in case, you know, the parent of one kid was also secretly snapping pictures of another kid. Only council-approved "play rangers" were allowed in the play area.

adonai | #49 | 06:09 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
They're refusing classification and therefore banning the sale of certain pornographic movies?
If only there was some medium where pornography could be shared freely, without petty government restriction!

fataltourist | #50 | 06:10 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Let this be a lesson to small breasted women: the only men who want to be with you are filthy child molesters.

ill lich | #51 | 06:32 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Next up, a ban on Brazilian waxing, and the return of the, uhhhh. . . "big bush", heralding a return of the merkin.

ethancoop | #52 | 06:32 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
So let me get this straight, I enjoy porn but big fake boobs don't necessarily turn me on I rather like petite women myself. I married a woman who is barely over 5 feet tall and hovers around 100lbs. My preference can't just be petite women, I must be a Pedophile. Makes sense to me.
I'd assume that 'shaved' will be banned next if they continue using this same logic.

Anonymous | #53 | 06:48 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Well the whole thing is kind of "thought police-y." Prosecuting people who exploit minors is important, but that's not what this is. This is about the idea that porn encourages people to engage in actions that they otherwise wouldn't. So they attempt to prevent people from thinking bad thoughts, because that's a prequisite for bad actions. Of course I live in the LAST US state to get rid of the board of censors for movies. There used to be little title card spliced in before EVERY movie with "Passed, Maryland Board of Censors, and the registration number."

Anonymous | #54 | 07:00 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Such a touchy subject! Pun intended!
There's a saying in the male world about small breasts and the women we love who have them, albeit with two similar versions: "Anything more than a handful/mouthful is wasted." To be clear, this is not saying there is anything wrong with any size, large medium or small, but it is more in defense of small (or regular even!) sized breasts given the objectification of women's bodies and large breasts in many western societies (I can at least speak for America on that one).

kobrakai | #55 | 07:19 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Is there currently another country on the planet that is coming up with such bizarre and arbitrary laws as Australia?

IronEdithKidd | #56 | 07:19 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Is this a back-door ploy to increase traffic at plastic surgery clinics?

princeminski replied to comment from greengestalt | #57 | 07:19 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Here we have the crux of the matter. Whenever they bring up the kids, start circling the wagons. And for a really simplistic generalization which I truly believe with all my heart, what sort of person joins a censorship board?

TTa | #58 | 07:23 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
following california's anti-homosexual bigots' rationale, gay porn should also be banned. that stuff is much more dangerous, as it promotes pedophilia and is just another step from beastiality and other ungodly horrors

Anonymous | #59 | 07:24 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Are they going to ban shaved pubic regions too? Surely by their absurd rationale that is closer on the scale to depicting child porn than smaller boob size? I'd be tempted to point this out to them but I'm afraid of giving these jackasses any ideas!
I think it's ironic that it seems that the Australian Censor Board are thinking with something else rather than their heads!

Anonymous replied to comment from boxbrown | #60 | 07:34 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Amen! Same here! Let the jiggles Bounce!

Xopher | #61 | 08:16 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
daz 14: ...[T]he Australian Classification Guidelines mandate a 'refused classification (RC)' rating for media where the models *appear* to be under 18, unlike the US which is concerned with the actual age of the model.
Almost. Models over 18 are permitted to work in porn no matter how they look, but they can't play someone under 18 either; no matter how much proof there is that they're 18, and it says "18-year-old [name]" on the box, and so on and on...if the model says "I'm 17" in the script, that's not allowed. In fact, textual porn has the same rule: if I write about that time I messed around in the woods with Mike when we were 15 and 16, that's technically illegal in the US, though it's only enforced if I put it on a porn site or in a porn magazine.
greengestalt 17: But let's face facts: "Pedophile!" is simply the new "Witch!" or "Communist!" or "Jew!".
Well, no. Real pedophiles do actual harm, unlike the other groups you mention. But I agree that they're using it pretty broadly to sweep up people who haven't really done anything very wrong.

Wishbones | #62 | 08:57 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Oops, Avatar banned in Australia then I guess.

Mitch | #63 | 09:17 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
It's been estimated that 1/3 of phone sex calls in the US involve the operator pretending to be underage. That's a subject of much heated debate withing the phone sex industry.
Any producer of visual pornography in the US has to keep records of having seen proof of age for the models. That should be sufficient.

jessemoya | #64 | 09:27 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
I'm absolutely apoplectic, and in sharing my outrage with a friend his response was:
"A story about small breasts on a site named Boing Boing. Am I five years old or what?"

Felton | #65 | 09:47 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Do the males also have to be well-endowed? I mean, if their penises are too small, they might look more like little boys, which would encourage paedophilia, right?
:-P

cymk | #66 | 10:01 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
This is childish, banning something because it can remotely be construed as something else completely defeats the purpose of doing it. Banning small breasts also borders on thought crime; what next australia? Arresting people for thinking?

technogeek | #67 | 10:07 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
OK, let's see. No toys (well, other than explicit sex toys), no candy, no shaving of either gender (especially but not restricted to no shaving of the pubes), no clothing that someone might think looks juvenile...
Cue Tom Lehrer: "When correctly viewed / Anything is lewd". Or lewder.
BTW, SamSam, paranoia about this isn't exclusively a British phenomenon. It's the same problem as many scares: the modern media is biased toward "if it bleeds it leads", and by covering the world indiscriminately makes every problem seem closer and more frequent than is actually true for most of the audience. And since the _unusual_ is what's considered news, that makes it seem usual. I'm not surprised that some folks become paranoid.

Steaming Pile replied to comment from geeklawgirl | #68 | 10:12 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
And there is nothing that is more of a turnoff for me than fake boobs. I don't know where these "actresses" are getting their boobs done, but most of them are too obviously fake to have been done by a top-drawer surgeon. Dr. Nick is more like it.

Tom Hale replied to comment from Steaming Pile | #69 | 10:23 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
But Steaming Pile. even fake boobs are coated with real boob - which makes them just fine.
Anyone remember the really old 'Nipple Placement Surgery' thing that was on the internet about 8-10 years ago -now that was funny.

Anonymous | #70 | 10:38 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
So you take away the porn that the paeds like, and then what will they have to resort to for their jollies? ACTUAL KIDS!
Good thinking, retarded censors!

Blue | #71 | 11:02 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
I thought Australia was supposed to be part of the Coalition of the Willing, fighting the Taliban.
Not turning slowly into them.
'If you can't beat 'em...', I guess.

Blue | #72 | 11:06 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Just to add ...
Let's call a spade a spade, the Oz government is saying: "If you like ADULT women with small boobs, you are a paedo."
"If you like ADULT women with shaved va-jay-jays, you are a child molester who rapes kids."
They are 'insane'.

Xopher replied to comment from Blue | #73 | 11:10 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Well, the leader of the Coalition of the Willing was the US, and we have our own home-grown Christian Taliban under various names, like the Family Research Council and so on. We had a government that tried to ban all porn from the internet! Fortunately, at the time we had a sane Supreme Court, and they swatted that down. I shudder to think what would happen now that the SCOTUS is openly partisan.

Anonymous replied to comment from pretentious platypus | #74 | 11:23 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
"jugendpornographische Schriften" means "child pornographical writing" which is illegal in many nations, including the US and as you mentioned, Germany. Is there anything ethical in allowing people to create child pornography? and if not, then why shouldn't Germany make it illegal?

Chuck | #75 | 11:43 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
"Your girlfriend's breasts are too small. You're under arrest for symbolic child molestation."
"But wait -- she's thirty-four. And she's my English teacher! I'm fifteen! She's molesting me!"
"Tell it to the judge."

Anonymous | #76 | 12:13 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
This makes me ashamed to be australian. This is just stupid. There is a political group in Australia called the Sex Party, can some people vote for them in the next election to stop this stuff.
p.s. Their stace is more of common sense than overly sexual stuff. (www.sexparty.org.au)

cymk replied to comment from Xopher | #77 | 12:15 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
"I shudder to think what would happen now that the SCOTUS is openly partisan."
I think SCOTUS has already given all of us a reason to shudder with its campaign finance rulings of late. If that is an example of their "wisdom and judgement," I hate to think what rulings might come out of their halls. Let us not forget the infamous and equally ambiguous "I know it when I see it," thanks to Justice Potter Stewart; and that was some 50 years ago.

angusm | #78 | 12:19 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
If I remember correctly, existing Australian law also defines as hardcore pornography any image in which the labia minora are visible. Presumably the people who drafted the law didn't know - or care - about the range of natural variation in female anatomy. There was considerable protest about this from models who found themselves immediately relegated to the hardcore ghetto simply because of the way they're made.

Anonymous | #79 | 12:20 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
You don't understand. See, small breasts is one of the signs. If they show more than three of the signs they are actually robots! You don't want our kids to be seduced by robot porn, and eventually become willing slaves of the preserved animatronic head of Walt Disney, do you? Think of the children!

blueelm replied to comment from Chuck | #80 | 13:19 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
lmao

blueelm | #81 | 13:23 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
I apologize for the useless post there... it was just genuinely funny.
This is why morality should not be dealt with through legislation. It really disturbs me from a feminist perspective. It also *really* misses the big picture of what pedophilia is.

LiudvikasT | #82 | 13:26 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
That's it, I am sick and tired of protecting the kids.
Every time I hear some law is made to protect the children, I know it will be beyond stupid.

Xopher replied to comment from cymk | #83 | 13:58 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
The campaign finance ruling is the one which, for me, crossed the line into "openly partisan," which is a stronger statement than calling them "hidebound conservatives," which they clearly are and have been for some time. Now it's clear they'll make any ruling that favors the Republicans over the Democrats.

MadMolecule replied to comment from benher | #84 | 15:53 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
benher, google will take you to the Wikipedia page (and many, many others) on female ejaculation.

Jenonymous | #85 | 15:55 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Hrm...lemme see, I really truly am barely a B-cup, have hardwood floors as it were (no carpet) and I'm a female ejaculator (always was, way before it was hip and apparently a mandatory part of pron).
Guess that means they won't even let me into the fucking country or something, or arrest my special friend if they catch us making full use of our hotel room?
Jesus, Mary, and Elvis help us if I pose for any arty pix I guess...

Tom Hale replied to comment from Jenonymous | #86 | 16:06 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
@ Jenonymous, tell us more about yourself - really, I'm very interested. What color is your hair? I'm trying to build more of a picture of you in my mind. -thx

Antinous / Moderator replied to comment from Tom Hale | #87 | 16:13 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Don't make me remind you that there's a Mrs. Hale.

Tom Hale | #88 | 16:19 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Oh yeah- faithfully married 22 years this March - a little flirting doesn't hurt does it? Anyways, she doesn't really know about this thing I have going with BB.

Xopher replied to comment from Antinous / Moderator | #89 | 17:15 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Don't make me remind you that there's a Mrs. Hale.
And a son who just had a birthday.

Tom Hale | #90 | 18:23 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
Please Xopher - He would So rat me out
And - He thinks you're really cool (not his words) except for the way you put down his religious stuff - With his interests, I am constantly amazed at how religious he is - he's even had talks w his Mom, worried about me.
He constantly amazes me - if only I was as smart as he is when I was his age.

Xopher | #91 | 18:52 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
I think I'm quite friendly about how I talk to him about religion. I am, however, pretty blunt about my own opinions.
I think he's cool too. And I agree, he's amazing.

Germanico | #92 | 19:32 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
So what about shaved privates?

hijukal | #93 | 23:35 on Fri, Jan.29 | Reply
Report
This sort of shit makes me embarrassed to be Australian.
Who wants to go to their closest art gallery (i.e. NGA, NGV, etc), find tasteful paintings depicting young nudes and send letters to their members of parliament asking for them to be banned?
Then again, they just might miss the point and do it.

cubicblackpig | #94 | 03:41 on Sat, Jan.30 | Reply
Report
So what about shaved privates?
One of the ironies here, as Helen Vnuk pointed out in her 2003* book on Oz censorship Snatched, is that stroke mags wishing to avoid getting a "Category 2" rating (which means they can't be displayed in newsagents except sealed in plastic covers) aren't allowed to include "detailed" images of genitals and consequently the mags airbrush photos in a way that makes the models look underage. (With this new rule, finding a happy medium is going to be quite difficult, you'd think.) Note that this is only a problem for actual porno mags, as women's mags like Cosmo and "general interest" men's mags don't get rated at all.
Vnuk also has chapters on the absurdity of the 18 year old rule and on the Oz [Howard - but I don't believe Rudd's mob has changed it] government's decision to ban depictions of "fetishes", where in both instances perfectly legal sexual practises can't be described or depicted. In "pornography", at least.
*So things may have changed. Doubt it, though.

logout | #95 | 04:51 on Sat, Jan.30 | Reply
Report
lol

Anonymous | #96 | 05:56 on Sat, Jan.30 | Reply
Report
We have our own problems, but this is one of the areas in which Canada seems to be a relatively sane former colony.
We are remarkably sexually permissive all things considered. This extends to sociopolitical issues -- breastfeeding in public and gay marriage are supported, reluctantly by some, but still.
When it comes to 'retail' porn, as long as people are of age, we don't care. When I was teens/twenties, our local sex toy store was run by quite a prissy mother/daughter team that was quite amusing given their business.

Anonymous | #97 | 06:05 on Sat, Jan.30 | Reply
Report
Banning anything on subjective criteria like this is stupid. I'm a double D myself so I have different issues, but (common? general? normal?) people's poor understanding of sexual attractions and fetishes as a whole has always annoyed me. The only thing bans do is that more and more things go deeper under ground where you won't find it and all kinds of atrocious shit can be going on.
To be a pedophile is not even necessarily punishable (you can't prove and punish a mere thought). Pedophilia - sexual attraction to prepubescent boys or girls - is "just" a sexual fetish. It's not in itself harmful. It becomes harmful when someone violates children in order to satisfy the sexual need.
To be a molester, rapist, abuser, trafficker and kidnapper is despicable - and punishable; being a pedophile is not.
--K

RanxeroX | #98 | 08:28 on Sat, Jan.30 | Reply
Report
Sounds like the censor is a bit of a perv if their knee jerk reaction to seeing a small breasted woman is to think of childsex....
"A lot of straight guys like to watch their buddies fuck. I know I do"
Otto, Repo Man

pretentious platypus replied to comment from aft6982 | #99 | 08:45 on Sat, Jan.30 | Reply
Report
"jugendpornographische Schriften" means "child pornographical writing"
No, it doesn't. It's a new legal term specifically designed to outlaw stuff that wasn't and couldn't be covered by the existing laws against child pornography ("Kinderpornographie").
which is illegal in many nations, including the US and as you mentioned, Germany.
And rightfully has been for a long time. What we're talking about here is a new development (2008), specifically targeting actors who an undefined "average person" could believe to be older than 14 but younger than 18 simply based on their looks, voice, behaviour, the environment they're depicted in, or various other criteria ("Scheinminderjährigkeit"). The problem is that many of these are awfully vague, subjective and not properly defined anywhere in the law, meaning anyone charged essentially is at the mercy of their prosecutor's and judge's personal feelings/views. The result is that people could end up in prison and/or branded sex offenders for far more than just the "barely legal" or schoolgirl uniform stuff or whatever they're trying to fight with this.
Is there anything ethical in allowing people to create child pornography?
lolwhut?
and if not, then why shouldn't Germany make it illegal?
Child pornography already is and has been illegal for a long time. These new laws are badly crafted, and even if one agrees with their purported intent, in their current form the danger of collateral damage is simply far too great for my taste.

Snowrunner replied to comment from Anonymous | #100 | 13:56 on Sat, Jan.30 | Reply
Report
We are remarkably sexually permissive all things considered. This extends to sociopolitical issues -- breastfeeding in public and gay marriage are supported, reluctantly by some, but still. When it comes to 'retail' porn, as long as people are of age, we don't care. When I was teens/twenties, our local sex toy store was run by quite a prissy mother/daughter team that was quite amusing given their business.
Um, you may want to look up "Little Sisters Bookstore" in Vancouver and it's ongoing fight with Customs:
The bookstore is famous for being embroiled in a legal battle with the Canada Border Services Agency over the importation of what the agency has labeled "obscene materials". These materials, nearly all dealing with male-male or female-female sexuality, are routinely seized at the border. The same publications, when destined for other booksellers in the country, have often been delivered without delay or question (except see also Glad Day Bookshop).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Sis ... of_Justice)
There are (strong) obscenity laws in Canada, granted, they aren't "regularly" enforced but have, as with Little Sisters, been used on occasion to... "make a point" so to speak. From my reading of the rules they are extremely open to interpretation, so what may not get you in trouble at the moment can cause serious issues a wee bit down the road.

Anonymous | #101 | 18:55 on Sat, Jan.30 | Reply
Report
Linking this article to my FB page results in an amusing bit of Benny Hill style humour.
"Australian Censor Board Demands Large Breasted Porn Stars Boing Boing"

cubicblackpig | #102 | 19:49 on Sat, Jan.30 | Reply
Report
There are (strong) obscenity laws in Canada, granted, they aren't "regularly" enforced
Ditto, Australia. The only people who'll get stuffed around by a ruling like this are the porn publishers who want mainstream sales so they volunteer to do the right thing by the rules. Material "refused a rating" and therefore illegal to sell would remain available to Australians not only on the net but also from specialty sex shops, which tend to stock unrated stuff usually without consequence because, unsurprisingly, coppers have better things to do with their time than check if sex shops are selling porn.
And away from the pornography end of the spectrum, the Australian media remains significantly less puritannical than the US, despite their First Amendment. They show "Oz" or "South Park" or, in general, nudity, violence, swearing and simulated sex during prime time on broadcast stations* in the US? Thought not.
The problem is our lack of a constitutional protection of freedom of speech that the "Adult Erotica" industry can use to bludgeon our MPs into making the relevant laws consistent, rational and protective of the rights of grown-ups to sleazy entertainment of their own choice. But no party is going to push for that, or a rational overhaul of the censorship laws, if it's going to give their opponents the chance to smear them as soft on child porn.
*"Yeah, but that's just SBS!" Quiet, you.

Itsumishi | #103 | 20:32 on Sat, Jan.30 | Reply
Report
Oh god sometimes I hate my country.

Anonymous replied to comment from hijukal | #104 | 02:56 on Sun, Jan.31 | Reply
Report
In NSW, they're changing the law so Artistic Merit is no longer a defence against child pornography laws. I know if Atkinson tries to copy them I'll be rushing to that art gallery Premier Mike Rann's always supporting and look for any paintings of naked children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK_3I0MiAP8
"You've been molesting this little girl!
You have lured her into your sick world!"
"She's forty-three, she's from accounts..."
"She looks like twelve and that's what counts!"

Anonymous replied to comment from thequickbrownfox | #105 | 14:24 on Sun, Jan.31 | Reply
Report
This is not a bogus media release. I wrote it. I can offer plenty of evidence that show this move towards prohibiting from sale films that depict female ejaculation and publications thathave been prohibited because the models breasts were deemed underdeveloped which made her appear under 18

Marla | #106 | 15:04 on Sun, Jan.31 | Reply
Report
Hi guys, this may be a very viral beat-up of unsubstantiated claims and rhetoric. I might direct readers to: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/29/has ... l-breasts/
Small breasts have not been "banned". In addition, you might actually find that the banned materials (films) were banned for their obvious overtones of presenting underage women (i.e. selected on purpose, and directed in the film in such a way that they are presented as actually underage). It just so happens that to make a woman seem underage in a porn film, they have smaller breasts as a physical generalisation.
So not a blanket ban on small breasts, but a very small amount of films banned in a 10 year period for purposefully depicting girls as if they were underage.
Perhaps a clarification update?

Anonymous | #107 | 19:29 on Sun, Jan.31 | Reply
Report
Seems a rather transparent method to boost breast implant sales to me. As they say, "follow the money" -- see which of these geniuses has relatives in the cosmetic surgery business.

Anonymous | #108 | 20:49 on Sun, Jan.31 | Reply
Report
Marla #107 then it is racism and discrimination, because small breasted women are prohibited from certain parts in media which the large breasted\old looking are not.

Anonymous | #109 | 21:03 on Sun, Jan.31 | Reply
Report
Just goes to show what happens when politicians have a lot of time on their hands. Perhaps a reduction in the length of the legislative year, along with a commensurate reduction in their salary is in order.

Anonymous | #110 | 08:50 on Mon, Feb. 1 | Reply
Report
Since when did Labour willingly align itself with -- AND RECRUIT -- ultra-right neocons, I wonder.
It is shameful. The Great Australian Firewall of inevitable ->epic
Indeed, the list goes on. And on. Eventually, the whole world INCLUDING Australians in general will see just what these "leaders" of ours are doing, the hilarious, tragic, *criminal* lengths they will go to, to... I don't know... compensate for how miserable, how empty their personal lives are?
Whatever. There is no excuse for even attempting to take us back in time, and make us hate and fear ourselves and each other. More than is already (all too often) the case, that is.

Anonymous | #111 | 16:35 on Mon, Feb. 1 | Reply
Report
"Since when did Labour willingly align itself with -- AND RECRUIT -- ultra-right neocons, I wonder."
You should understand by now that the left end of the political spectrum is just as puritanical as the right, with no realignment necessary. The only difference is the internal justification they use for censorship.
In many ways the left is even worse. Unlike the conservative religious-right, the folks who censor based on of "social good" are seldom challenged or forced to admit even an ounce of self-doubt. Even when the bad guys are clear as crystal you let them off the hook and invent imaginary "neo-con" censors who must - somehow! - be to blame.

Anonymous | #112 | 16:36 on Mon, Feb. 1 | Reply
Report
LOL, anon n0#18 has a point.
If breasts are involved then it cant be pedophilia.

cubicblackpig | #113 | 18:59 on Mon, Feb. 1 | Reply
Report
You should understand by now that the left end of the political spectrum is just as puritanical as the right, with no realignment necessary.
*sigh*
The Australian Labour Party are no more the left end of the political spectrum than the US Democrats are. And it's the rightwing of the centre-right ALP that pushes for this censorship nonsense.

johnny payphone | #114 | 23:29 on Tue, Feb. 2 | Reply
Report
I chuckled to think of the reverse: Any depiction of a man without uber-manly qualities is clearly an invitation for pedophilia. So from now on out it's all beer-bellied, hairy-backed, bushy-eyebrowed Ron Jeremy types.
It's just what happened to Finland.

Anonymous | #115 | 05:36 on Thu, Feb. 4 | Reply
Report
this is very true - now that they are going to ban small breasts and show big ones, there will be a significant decrease in the pedophile population. congrats for you have solved the issue of pedophilia.

Anonymous | #116 | 19:56 on Thu, Feb. 4 | Reply
Report
From an another American's perspective, I just have to throw in the case of our own Traci Lords. She did porn starting at the age of 15, and was by all means a fully developed woman. So much so, that she fooled quite a few people. The average women develops between the ages of 9-13, so not all of today's youth are A-cups. One of the more popular fantasies of men is imagining their significant female other dressed up as a school girl. It usually caters to them wanting to play the more dominant role in the sexual relationship.
Really, the logic as I see it is this: if the women looks to be of age (larger then A cup breasts), then that is all that matters legally. It also insinuates that all men that have had school girl fantasies are latent paedophiles.
No where have they addressed that paedophilia is an actual mental illness, and that dark parts of Southeast Asia cater to these creeps. Are they gonna ban travel to Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam, as well? I just hope my fellow females in Australia hang in there through this as this IMO is blatant discrimination, and the wrong way to approach the horrible problem of child pornography trafficking.
Last and final note, usually when you ban something that most will have easy access to (esp. on the Internet), the more desirable it will become to have. At least with the porn industry, they legally have to check the ages of their performers to ensure they are over the legal age limit. However, no system is flawless without routine check-ups from the law to ensure everyone is doing the right thing.

Anonymous | #117 | 03:24 on Fri, Feb. 5 | Reply
Report
Awesome.

Anonymous | #118 | 12:16 on Fri, Feb. 5 | Reply
Report
About the new german law:
Something that didn't get mentioned is that this law even includes "fictional characters".
Meaning: Anime, Manga, Comics, Videogames
Everybody who's seen some anime/manga instantly knows that this will be a big problem.
In the end this could lead to people beeing arested because they have a picture of their girlfriend (that looks somewhat younger) with them. Or because they got a hentai manga/anime... or because their character in some sex-sim video game looks too young.
So as you see, australia isn't the only country with stupid laws. I think we germans can still teach you a thing or two (at least in the "zomg bann violence!1" sector).

Anonymous | #119 | 14:55 on Fri, Feb. 5 | Reply
Report
I want to move to Australia, and be one of these censors. I'll insist that the models present themselves to me personally, so I can make sure they don't look like little girls...Seriously, someone actually does this and doesn't think themselves absurd?

Anonymous | #120 | 15:07 on Fri, Feb. 5 | Reply
Report
"It all gets nasty when you start using censorship to ban works that would otherwise be legal."
Umm... doesn't all censorship ban works that would otherwise be legal? If it wasn't otherwise legal it was already censored by definition.

Anonymous | #121 | 16:28 on Fri, Feb. 5 | Reply
Report
At the same time we ban the shaved nethers, let us ban that other paedophilic horror: the shaven male chin! Obviously such a child-pornographic horror cannot be tolerated.

Anonymous | #122 | 18:08 on Fri, Feb. 5 | Reply
Report
Does this mean that a man who dates a small breasted woman can be called a pedophile? If so, it's probably best to keep temptation at bay by shackling all A-cups and sending them off to either the plastic surgeon or a convent.
"Woman! Your teats are too small! Get thee to a nunnery! GO!"

Anonymous | #123 | 19:41 on Fri, Feb. 5 | Reply
Report
As a small-breasted woman for most of my life (until I got older & heavier, so also invisible), this makes me want to sit down and cry -- and thank GOD I live in the USA. This is so horrid it's *almost* funny. Because of my genes, I "encouage pedophilia"?!?! This is NOTHING more than a bunch of dirty ol' hairy goats who don't PERSONALLY want to look at anything but a bunch of BIG TITS. (of course, that = no brains usually, but so much the better for dumb old goats, huh?)

algie | #124 | 21:03 on Fri, Feb. 5 | Reply
Report
Mammy state graduating to mammary state
We find that your breasts are too small
To be filmed while having a ball
If this leaves you stumped
Just go get them pumped
And with big guns your watchers enthrall
....uuuu..'o^o'..nn!n....algie
Illegitimi nOn carborundum

Anonymous | #125 | 08:57 on Sat, Feb. 6 | Reply
Report
I'm screwed... My 37 year old Chinese girlfriend is 1.55 meters, 48 kg, size A and naturally hairless (the mythic white tiger). Still gets carded sometimes in the US at the bars. Guess we shall avoid Australian travel since I don't fancy being locked up as a pedophile!

Anonymous | #126 | 10:44 on Sat, Feb. 6 | Reply
Report
What if someone likes small breasted women? My wife has small breasts and I think she's sexy and I am not a pedophile? The size of a woman's breasts do not make her any more or less a woman nor any more or less mature. This kinda stuff just degrades women down to the leval of a sex object were their breast size is more important than their personality.
BTW I'm not into porn either so I don't really care what that industry does, I just don't like biggoted idiots use a woman's breast size as an issue.

rioesmarex | #127 | 16:25 on Sat, Feb. 6 | Reply
Report
And I though us Americans were bad.... I mean we have the must fu..ed up moral values in the world and have got to be the most hypocritical moralistic idiots of all time .... but banning small titties ... that takes the cake

Anonymous | #128 | 18:05 on Sat, Feb. 6 | Reply
Report
How do the laws against under-age characters affect fantasy settings where age is arbitrary?
For example - a story where everyone has an accelerated life cycle (compared to us) so everyone grows up, has kids and dies before the age of 10.
They would all be underage? Would a plot like that be technically illegal?
Or episodes of Angel where Angel's son was only about a year old, but a fully grown adult?

Anonymous | #129 | 19:01 on Sat, Feb. 6 | Reply
Report
Whats Next? Banning shaved genitalia because it resembles a child's? WTF?!
plusaf | #130 | 20:51 on Sun, Feb. 7 | Reply

Report
re this post... "What is it with you Anglo-Saxon countries? Australia seems to have been infected *both* by Britain's surveillance culture, AND the United States' absurd judicially enforced ultra-Puritanism."
exactly! as an American, i offer my condolences to Australia for following in the Politically Correct, Blue-Nosed sophomoric steps we've taken towards this kind of crap.
as with most trends i've seen in my 64 years circling this star, the pendulum usually reverses in 7-20 years.
if you and we are lucky, maybe it won't take that long.
what morons!
you have my condolences.

Anonymous | #131 | 15:40 on Mon, Feb. 8 | Reply
Report
I hear they also want to ban the number '6.'

Anonymous replied to comment from ryxxui | #132 | 07:18 on Tue, Feb. 9 | Reply
Report
Or as a 60s Dr Who film put it, "if they call us monsters, what must they be like.".
It's a slippery slope down to out-and-out nazism.

Anonymous | #133 | 21:34 on Wed, Feb.10 | Reply
Report
The role of government is not to legislate morality, but rather to protect individual rights.
When it outlaws consensual activities and agreements, the state becomes an arbiter of tyranny instead of a beacon of justice.

Anonymous | #134 | 16:24 on Thu, Feb.11 | Reply
Report
Why not just teach your children about the human body, not to be ashamed of it, how to look after it, and how to keep yourself modest and safe and also teach them that some people don't like to keep themselves modest and that you have to feel sorry for them if they have to use their bodies like that? It your normalise what people can do with their bodies, and put it in perspective for children, they understand what's going on. Nudity doesn't corrupt children. Our attitudes do.

Anonymous | #135 | 19:20 on Thu, Feb.11 | Reply
Report
Oh crap....I actually have a picture on my phone of my A cup girlfriend which she took herself in her brand new underwear..... I'll be expecting a knock on my door in short order.
I agree, A cup women should be banned from society until they are able to pay exorbitant fees to a 'surgeon' to insert unstable plastic augmentation devices to an Australian Standard Size.
For all the arguments about teaching children to not be ashamed of their bodies and the campaigns run to remove digital photo touch ups in magazines which children can look at freely in any newsagent, it seems like a giant step backwards.

Anonymous | #136 | 23:16 on Sun, Feb.14 | Reply
Report
I guess they had better ban depictions of people with shaved or waxed nether regions now. as that may also invoke fantasies of the pre-pubescent in the paedophilially inclined. how about certain body shapes too? what about cloths that young people wear?
I am not a consumer of porn and have eclectic tastes when it comes to women's breasts (size, shape, colour etc) so what size boobs get shown in the flicks hardly concerns me. I do feel a little embarrassed though, for having paid someone to make this ridiculous decision.

Anonymous | #137 | 01:30 on Wed, Feb.17 | Reply
Report
"But let's face facts: "Pedophile!" is simply the new "Witch!" or "Communist!" or "Jew!". The world governments are choking on their stupidity and false economies, they need someone to blame to distract as those that have continue to take and take and take from the have lesses until the system crashes."
Actually hating Jews seems to be back. So "Jew" is the new Jew.
But yeah, I've noticed that English speaking countries are paranoid about pedophiles.. It makes me think of newspeak. In English the word "adult" means "sexual things".. other languages may not have that definition and not have that sense that there's something evil about teens etc. being involved in sex.
If we changed it so sexual thins were called "middle-aged" do you think we could outlaw depictions of sex between people who lack wrinkles?

by **admin_pornrev** » Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:28 am

Post from Dave

The discussions below all of these 5 articles from Boingboing.net are just as interesting as the actual news reports. Glad you found them Dick.

This could well be the most blatant case of various, Government agency's protecting the interests of business in their own country's. For example the the multi-billion dollar porn industry in the U.S.A is heading for trouble, they know the Asians are taking over.

So many connoisseur's of fine porn are sick to death of watching peroxide blonde bimbo's with fake tits, FAKING SEX.

90% of them just can't fuck, (Birth control folks, estrogen imbalance, just faking it for money, can CLEARLY to see they don't enjoy it) and it's gross to watch those fake 'bolt on" tittys that look like a mere pinprick would pop them like a balloon.

It's only the minority of Asians, and other 3rd world people who "fake it". They don't take Birth Control, they are FERTILE and naturally SEXY, it's as simple as that!

So what is the answer to this threat to western porn? Ban Asians. And all others with "youthful beauty", from not eating junk food.

FORCE THEM to spend $10,000 for the fake tits... FORCE US to watch crap porn.

For me it goes without saying now... FAKE peroxide blond hair + FAKE tits = FAKE SEX. And even if the hair is not peroxide blonde, the MOMENT I see FAKE tits in a porn video I switch it off and look elsewhere, because I KNOW that 90% of the time, I am going to be disappointed.

And it's the words, these "half" sterilised Eunuchs say too, they say things that make my dick soft.

Dick Amateur is right, the cock is "magic", when a man is young he can fuck any stupid bitch no matter what she does, or what horrible shit dribbles out of her mouth,

But when we men get older, more and more, as we age, the "magic" dick depends on the right words and actions from women to remain erect.

Sure Viagra will help, but if we want to stay hard the drug free way, the women has got to be "convincingly" SEXY, or it's just not gonna happen.

Cheers Dick,

LOVE your work Bro.

Sincerely,

Dave

FREE PORN VIDEO'S

Australian censor board demands large-breasted porn-stars

Australian censor board demands large-breasted porn-stars

Re: Australian censor board demands large-breasted porn-stars

Who is online