PDA

View Full Version : Australia bans small breasted porn.



Ajamil
14th June 10, 09:11 PM
This is from February. You Aussies aren't doing your job. I found this researching reasons to go to Australian beaches.
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/pages-5/Australia-to-pay-for-porn-star-breast-enhancements-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side.html)


AUSTRALIA TO PAY FOR PORN STAR BREAST ENHANCEMENTS

February 4 2010

Canberra, Australia – When one thinks of Australia naturally the thoughts trend towards Kangaroos, endless outback, perpetual summers, crystal clear water, and white sand beaches. For decades Australia has been a magnet for tourists despite being more than a little off the beaten path. That is of course quite the turnaround for the former prison colony that for a long time had more than a rough reputation, not only for its landscape but also its rough and tumble populace.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-5/Gemma-Atkinson.jpg


One thing that most people do not think of when it comes to Australia is arch-conservatism, something that has become more and more prevalent in recent years. Bans on video games and harsh ratings for foreign films, whether a product of or the cause of that growing conservatism has overshadowed the previous open breeze that the country has nurtured for so long. Now though the country has gone a step further in that conservative bent, banning all pornography depicting women with small breasts. Ostensibly the measure is designed to eliminate the possibility of films simulating child pornography, an apparently significant issue in the country. With thousands of women now potentially out of work due to the size of their chests, the government is reportedly considering a plan to pay for enhancements, something critics believe was the plan all along.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-5/keira-knightley-beach.jpg

“Breasts came under the spotlight a year ago, as Senators Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett commenced a campaign against publicly available porn. Rounding up magazines from corner shops and filling stations, Senator Joyce claimed that publications featuring small-breasted women were encouraging paedophilia,” reported The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/australian_censors/). “We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size. 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.”
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-5/katie-morgan.jpg

Breast size has frequently been a matter for debate in the Australian Parliament, due in large part to the bikini culture that exists on so many beaches throughout the country, as well as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s deep affection for large mammary glands.

“The size of women’s breast in adult movies has never really been an issue in any other country before this, at least not a federal government level. True there are plenty of people in the public who will debate the merits and appeal of small breasts versus large breasts but rarely has that become an issue for government debate, but this is Australia,” said Scrape TV International analyst Gustav Hander. “I personally like medium sized breasts but I would not force that on anyone. The government of Australia seems to think differently and are looking to not only enforce morality, but also taste. This is going to be a major issue for many women across the country who have been looking to get into porn. Suddenly the entry fee is much higher.”
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-5/girl-with-big-boobs.jpg

It’s not clear if the law will affect amateur films or all women having sex in the country.

“I can certainly see how it would be appealing for the industry to increase breast size and for those companies that have had difficulty encouraging their performers to size up this might be a new source of motivation, especially if the government puts some money towards it,” continued Hander. “Then the country will likely be up to Rudd’s standards, meaning he won’t have to look at surfboards on the beaches anymore, at least ones not in the water. I expect too that tourism will see an uptick.”

It’s also believed that the legislation is a result of the growing bust sizes of women from neighbour and rival New Zealand in recent years.
This is awesome on so many levels. Not to mention the furious debate that can spark in the small/large field. I've never been a fan of huge bazoombas, and don't like higher than a C cup. Not really a fan of mosquito bites either, but like Gary said in Weird Science, "Anything more than a handful is wasting your time." Still, I can appreciate a fine bosom specimen, and am always glad for jkdbuck's avatars.

Anyway, what do people think of a natl. govt. stepping in and saying a love for flat-chesters is verging on pedophilia? It seems to much to me, and especially when said govt. is actually considering shelling out to give mandated boob jobs.

bob
14th June 10, 09:18 PM
You are being trolled.

Ajamil
14th June 10, 09:19 PM
Really? That's good.

It's still a good story, by any standard.

resolve
14th June 10, 09:22 PM
Banning pornography altogether and encouraging fine art in its place would be a better step in my opinion. But then you run into the mental quagmire that is taste and what constitutes pornography... something many countries and governments have run into in the past and not had the wherewithal, the consensus, or the intellectual vigor to take up the task... so kind of pointless.

I prefer B-C cups on women with wider hips although larger boobs aren't out of the question sufficing they are proportionate. I'm of the "handful is all you need" taste variety of men I guess. I have noticed a disturbing trend that women with very small breasts tend to have weight issues or eating disorders though.

Regardless, I don't think a government should be doing something like this.

Hedley LaMarr
14th June 10, 09:29 PM
This article is ridiculous. Small breasts don't simulate pedophilia. It simulates gay sex without a cumbersome penis in the way.

UglyBugly
15th June 10, 02:57 AM
Anyway, what do people think of a natl. govt. stepping in and saying a love for flat-chesters is verging on pedophilia? It seems to much to me, and especially when said govt. is actually considering shelling out to give mandated boob jobs.

I can't see why a love for small tits is like verging on pedophilia but I love how suggests that girls with small tits are just little girls .D it is kind of degrading and it would be so fun to tease flat chested girls with this kind of stuff.. and the fact that the government is considering to give boob jobs to porn actors.. awesome. Ridiculously stupid but GOD I love it.

danno
15th June 10, 07:29 AM
warm beer?

vegetarians?

small tits?

AUSTRALIA SAYS NO.

jkdbuck76
15th June 10, 08:25 AM
Flat wimminz and flat rocks have one thing in common: you skip them.

And normally, I dont' agree with big government coming in and telling an industry what they can and can't do. But in this case, my motto is: Bigger Guhment for Bigger Bewbz

travis
15th June 10, 09:00 AM
I'd say next up is Asian porn because the males' small penises also encourage paedophilia.

WarPhalange
15th June 10, 11:44 AM
Anonymous failed us this time. :(

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Titstorm

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
16th June 10, 01:43 AM
How does this apply to trans porn stars?

Robot Jesus
16th June 10, 03:51 AM
I am physicality unable to read the article.

partyboy
16th June 10, 08:10 AM
Banning pornography altogether and encouraging fine art in its place would be a better step in my opinion. But then you run into the mental quagmire that is taste and what constitutes pornography... something many countries and governments have run into in the past and not had the wherewithal, the consensus, or the intellectual vigor to take up the task... so kind of pointless.

www.ifeelmyself.com (NSFW) ..there's fine art for you

resolve
16th June 10, 04:34 PM
Is porn, but does give a very fine example of what I was talking about.

You can make fine art look like porn and you can make porn look like fine art. Where do you draw the line?

danno
16th June 10, 06:49 PM
you don't.

resolve
16th June 10, 08:29 PM
you don't.

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/funny-celebrity-photos-katy-perry-california-gurls-video.jpg

danno
16th June 10, 09:48 PM
i was half joking, but the way i see it, there isn't really a line you can draw.

porn, essentially, is just something designed to turn you on. it can have artistic merit, but that is secondary to the goal of switching on those reproductive instincts.

art is made to stimulate us in many ways, and getting sexy can be a part of that.

i think porn can be compared to action films, where the story line does nothing but set up the next fight scene. the film as a whole is just designed to fiddle with the competitive and aggressive instincts that males have (and of course females, but to a much lesser degree). it's fight porn. still, it can have great artistic merit, and can be great art.

my rule of thumb is that the more one dimensional something is, the closer it is to being absolute porn. that is, it approaches absolute porn, but there is no such thing as absolute porn. kinda like that thing in maths where two lines get closer together for infinity, yet never touch.

so to me it's not so black and white, it's different shades of grey.

danno
16th June 10, 09:49 PM
also, shittingdicknipples.

Ajamil
17th June 10, 12:22 AM
Animated gif porn is probably the most one-dimensional. Not even a set-up or opening title. Just straight to action and looping repeat of whatever has been highlighted.


porn, essentially, is just something designed to turn you on. it can have artistic merit, but that is secondary to the goal of switching on those reproductive instincts.
And yet a line must be drawn in cases where the "art" is legal, and the "porn" is not. I considered posting a spoilered pre-teen "modelling" pic, but even that's not going on this site - so just hold the concept in your mind. Or better yet, nude pre-teen bathing in waterfall.

"Porn? That's art and don't you dare stop me from selling it. What do you mean it's porn? You mean that turns you on? You sicko."

danno
17th June 10, 12:59 AM
Animated gif porn is probably the most one-dimensional. Not even a set-up or opening title. Just straight to action and looping repeat of whatever has been highlighted.

yes.

still, there is a lot of art involved. there is the camera angle, the composition of the frame. the way the performers have decided to act, their expressions and gestures, and how that interacts with what they've been told to do by the director / person behind the camera. the lighting. the scene background.

even the maker of the gif plays a strong role - how they choose to edit the gif changes meaning. they are giving artistic input themselves.

in a 2 second gif, there can be so much design, so much that has been conjured up by the minds of the creators. it's still not objective reality, it's an interpretation, a representation of reality which has been designed by human beings.


And yet a line must be drawn in cases where the "art" is legal, and the "porn" is not. I considered posting a spoilered pre-teen "modelling" pic, but even that's not going on this site - so just hold the concept in your mind. Or better yet, nude pre-teen bathing in waterfall.

"Porn? That's art and don't you dare stop me from selling it. What do you mean it's porn? You mean that turns you on? You sicko."

yeah. i don't believe that labeling something art means you can do whatever the hell you want.

then there's the other argument - a real sicko might also get turned on by family photos of kids playing on the beach.

Robstafarian
17th June 10, 02:36 AM
i think porn can be compared to action films, where the story line does nothing but set up the next fight scene. the film as a whole is just designed to fiddle with the competitive and aggressive instincts that males have (and of course females, but to a much lesser degree). it's fight porn. still, it can have great artistic merit, and can be great art.
Heh, you reminded me of something I wrote almost six years ago.
I usually end up giggling at action movies, either because of the ridiculous fight choreography or the bad storyline. Action (and Gung Fu) movies are actually a lot like porn if you think about it. Some generic, predictable story line that's only there to tie together the hardcore action. I'd love to see someone do Gung Fu (I spell it that way because I prefer a different transliteration system than Wade-Giles, the commonly used one) films that handle the combat like an art film does tasteful nudity. Lots of nakedness, very erotic stuff, but generally realistic and wholly complimentary to the story. The story is great, and the nakedness is even better. If a Gung Fu movie was done that way, it'd be groundbreaking. It has been tried before, but always with that Bruce Lee tinge to it. Bruce Lee movies (while enjoyable) are Gung Fu-sploitation, not to be taken as seriously in our own time as what I propose. FYI, I differentiate a Gung Fu movie from an action movie because it focuses on exploration of a martial style rather than just combat.
I can't believe I used to write that poorly.

Back on topic, I'm far more sensitive to breast shape than size. I don't care how big a breast is, as long as it's an attractive shape.

Feryk
17th June 10, 10:41 AM
This law is incredibly stupid, but I'm in favor of it's unintended consequences.

danno
17th June 10, 09:38 PM
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/ba/1265891016907.jpg
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/31/Ned_Kelly.jpg
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/39/Typical_Aussie_Centrelink.jpg

Pro-porn protesters target government websites

Posted Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:43pm AEDT
Updated Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:53pm AEDT

An internet protest group has launched an attack on Government websites in a protest against the proposed internet filter and censorship of some pornography.

The attack, dubbed Operation Titstorm by the group known as Anonymous, brought down a number of Government websites this morning, with the Parliament House site remaining offline well into the afternoon.

Anonymous claimed the attack was to highlight moves by the Government to ban the import of films featuring female ejaculation (which was classified as urination) as well as films featuring small-breasted women, over fears such films were simulating child pornography.

"More importantly, Anonymous does not approve of the steps already undertaken by the Australian Government to control what their populous [sic] sees," the statement said

"Claiming to be cracking down on 'simulated child pornography,' many depictions of women with small breasts in pornography have been banned," the group said in a statement.

"Officials cannot claim that they believe the models in these movies are in fact underage, as the production the titles that have been affected are heavily regulated to ensure the age of the models.

"Instead they are relying on earlier ambiguous wording that allows pornography featuring models that 'appear to be' under 18 years of age to be treated in the same manner as actual child pornography."

But lobby groups campaigning against internet censorship in Australia have condemned the attacks as "harmful".

Stop Internet Censorship co-founder Nicholas Perkins says any illegal action to protest censorship must be condemned.

"By attempting to bring down or deface government websites, a minority of internet users have brought negative attention to what is a very important issue for Australians," he said in a statement.

In a emailed reply to ABC News Online, an anonymous spokesperson for the group said the protest succeeded in raising awareness about internet censorship.

'Not afraid to act'

"The goal of today's attacks was to show the Australian Government that we are not afraid to act, and to raise awareness of the issue of internet censorship and our group's dedication to fighting it," the email said.

"Myself and the other protesters are quite satisfied with the results of our initial attacks.

The spokesperson also said while they understood concerns the group was doing more harm than good, they would continue to step up attacks on the Government.

"In terms of our response to claims that our attacks did more harm than good... this is a legitimate concern," the spokesperson said.

"These people should know that our recent attacks were simply the first of many planned protests.

"We plan to employ a variety of protesting methods in the future, including many quite different from those used today. Anonymous has quite a number of tricks up its collective sleeve."

Mr Perkins said Anonymous should instead focus on educating the public about the ineffectiveness of the proposed internet filter.

"Educating families, friends and the local community about that the filter will not work, does not target child pornographers or paedophiles, and could result in parents believing that their children are safe when they are not, is more important," he said.

"Parents need to be aware that any attempt to filter the internet by internet service providers will never work as well as filtering technologies that can be used within the home."'

A spokeswoman for the Attorney-General's Department said the Government was aware of the attacks and had briefed agencies identified as targets.

She said the Australian Parliament House website was down "due to a distributed denial of service attack by individuals belonging to the 'Anonymous' group".

"Australian Government agencies identified as potential targets by 'Anonymous' were briefed in advance and were provided with suggested mitigation strategies," the release said.

"The Department of Defence Cyber Security Operations Centre continues to monitor the situation."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/10/2815605.htm

Adouglasmhor
18th June 10, 01:28 AM
If Aussie Government are banning small breasted women appearing in porn, are the also banning pubic depilation on porn models as hairlessness is also a sign of sexual immaturity.

Or are they just being arseholes, my GF was really pissed of by this, full rant mode, "just because I have small breasts doesn't mean I am a child".

bob
18th June 10, 03:25 AM
I repeat, you are being trolled.


But it looks like the critics are the ones guilty of “moral panic” in this case. As an apparently more level-headed member of the Australian anti-censorship movement found (http://letstakeover.blogspot.com/2010/01/australia-bans-small-breasts-no-these.html) after a bit of investigation:
One publishing company mentioned, no specific decisions cited, no basis for the story other than the an unconfirmed statement by a leading figure of a political party.

There is no information from the Classification Board on any specific ban, only a general statement that publications with depictions of persons who appear to be under 18 must be refused classification (that is, banned).
The second article also says Ms Patten attended a training session at the Censorship Board where she was shown material that had been refused classificiation due to the size of women’s breasts in the material. The article says Ms Patten says some of the banned titles include “Barely Legal”, Finally Legal” and “Purely 18” - the links go to the Classification Board’s database showing the bans on each of those publications.
However, one of these bans was made in 2008, one in 2003, and the rest in 2001 or before.
For its part, the Australian Classification Board has responded (http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/classification-board-responds-to-small-breasts-ban/) to the original Somebody Think of the Children post:
A spokesperson for the ACB told me today that publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC. They said the Board classifies publications on a case by case basis, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, the Code and the Classification Act and that the Publications Guidelines do not specify breast size.


http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/29/has-australia-really-banned-small-breasts/

danno
18th June 10, 06:17 AM
what's that you say? large breasts for all women are being enforced by the australian government?

awesome!

KO'd N DOA
18th June 10, 11:02 AM
Its a marsupial plot against the mammals.

Adouglasmhor
18th June 10, 12:45 PM
I repeat, you are being trolled.


But it looks like the critics are the ones guilty of “moral panic” in this case. As an apparently more level-headed member of the Australian anti-censorship movement found (http://letstakeover.blogspot.com/2010/01/australia-bans-small-breasts-no-these.html) after a bit of investigation:
One publishing company mentioned, no specific decisions cited, no basis for the story other than the an unconfirmed statement by a leading figure of a political party.

There is no information from the Classification Board on any specific ban, only a general statement that publications with depictions of persons who appear to be under 18 must be refused classification (that is, banned).
The second article also says Ms Patten attended a training session at the Censorship Board where she was shown material that had been refused classificiation due to the size of women’s breasts in the material. The article says Ms Patten says some of the banned titles include “Barely Legal”, Finally Legal” and “Purely 18” - the links go to the Classification Board’s database showing the bans on each of those publications.
However, one of these bans was made in 2008, one in 2003, and the rest in 2001 or before.
For its part, the Australian Classification Board has responded (http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/classification-board-responds-to-small-breasts-ban/) to the original Somebody Think of the Children post:
A spokesperson for the ACB told me today that publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC. They said the Board classifies publications on a case by case basis, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, the Code and the Classification Act and that the Publications Guidelines do not specify breast size.


http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/29/has-australia-really-banned-small-breasts/

We know we are being trolled (except Phil) but we are having fun, stop spoiling please.

Ajamil
18th June 10, 05:15 PM
Or are they just being arseholes, my GF was really pissed of by this, full rant mode, "just because I have small breasts doesn't mean I am a child".You asked her to prove it, right?

Adouglasmhor
19th June 10, 02:16 AM
You asked her to prove it, right?


Dude I don't know what you mean, we were talking about it in the bath together after a body combat class.

Ajamil
19th June 10, 05:08 AM
I'm going to need more detail on this scene to form an opinion of whether or not she "proved it."

AAAhmed46
19th June 10, 06:20 AM
i was half joking, but the way i see it, there isn't really a line you can draw.

porn, essentially, is just something designed to turn you on. it can have artistic merit, but that is secondary to the goal of switching on those reproductive instincts.

art is made to stimulate us in many ways, and getting sexy can be a part of that.

i think porn can be compared to action films, where the story line does nothing but set up the next fight scene. the film as a whole is just designed to fiddle with the competitive and aggressive instincts that males have (and of course females, but to a much lesser degree). it's fight porn. still, it can have great artistic merit, and can be great art.

my rule of thumb is that the more one dimensional something is, the closer it is to being absolute porn. that is, it approaches absolute porn, but there is no such thing as absolute porn. kinda like that thing in maths where two lines get closer together for infinity, yet never touch.

so to me it's not so black and white, it's different shades of grey.


SILENCE FILTHY LIBERAL!!!!!!