Feminist Philosophers

News feminist philosophers can use

Small Breasts Banned in Porn January 31, 2010

Filed under: appearance,sex — Jender @ 9:44 pm

to protect the kids. Really. Because apparently women with small breasts look like kids, and so porn depicting them encourages paedophilia. So Australia has banned A-cups in porn. As well as female ejaculation. And no, that’s not about protecting the kids. That’s because it’s “abhorrent”.

I just don’t know where to begin. But it is fascinating to see how an anti-paedophilia campaign turns into a stigmatization of small breasts. (I’m also wondering if they insist on women with body hair. Because body hair’s actually something kids don’t have but normal women do. Bet they’re not insisting on hairy women in the porn flicks.)

Thanks, Mr Jender!

UPDATE: BW informs us there’s reason to doubt this one. Go here for more.

 

8 Responses to “Small Breasts Banned in Porn”

  1. I’m not sure this is really true. Crikey isn’t the most reliable source in the world, but on Australian politics I trust it a little more than Boing Boing. (Especially since the Boing Boing story mostly consists of press releases from partisans.)

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

    The underlying idea here seems to basically be a good one. There’s a good reason to ban porn involving minors, and there are plenty of reasons to ban porn involving actors who look like minors. One reason is that it’s very hard to be sure they aren’t in fact minors; it’s easy to misrepresent a person’s age in an official-looking way. Another reason is that encourages abhorrent behaviour. If the censorship board is really doing this on a case-by-case basis, and not saying in general “women with small breasts look like children”, that sounds like they’re basically doing the right thing.

  2. [...] have a Censor for this? Via Feminist Philosophers, this is a story that raises so many questions that I don’t want answered: Australian censor [...]

  3. jj Says:

    BW, I think the comments on the article you linked to make it look much more complicated. It looks to me as though the basic story gets something like vindicated, though I haven’t read through all of it. Interestingly, a number of the protagonists get involved.

    That said, we need to recognize that it’s so easy to get caught up in a viral internet event, and your warning, the second recent one we’ve gotten, should be welcome.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    Whoever BW is, his or her comments seem to be entirely without merit.

  5. jj Says:

    Anon, unless you give reasons for a statement like that, it does not make much of a contribution to the discussion.

  6. stoat Says:

    The report linked to by BW does appear more sensible than that described in Boing Boing, at least with respect to whether a blanket ban on small breasts has been enacted (it appears not).

    But that still leaves the claim about female ejaculation, depictions of which being ‘abhorrent’, apparently. It is also stated that a second reason for the ban is:

    1) That the depictions are a form of urination which is banned under the label of ‘golden showers’ in the Classification Guidelines

    This was reported on the site of the Australian Sex party, linked to from Crikey (link in BW’s post above).

    Surely they couldn’t have got things so wrong?!?!?!?

    I went to the Australian Classification Board website and searched ‘female ejaculation’ but nothing came up. Any further info on this ridiculous claim?

  7. Hi JJ – I agree the comments do provide some interesting pushback in defence of the original story. But I was a little suspicious of the people writing there. As you say, they were the original protagonists. That is, in some cases they were people whose job it is to lobby for the pornography industry. I’m more than a little suspicious of them! And there was quite a lot being made of the fact that the Classification Board hadn’t denied various claims, which seemed like a thin reed to base stuff on. Gov’t bodies are really slow – that they haven’t denied something is as likely as not due to red tape.

    That’s not to say the original story was wrong; indeed there clearly is a policy of banning pornography that involves people who look under-18, whether they are or not. But that’s a long way from a ban on all pornography involving A-cups.

  8. [...] April 25, 2010 Filed under: appearance,pornography — stoat @ 9:19 pm We’ve mentioned the policies of the Australian Classificatory Board before (there in relation to films). And [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,633 other followers