Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog
Ms Naughty looks at porn for women, the adult industry and sex in general.
Great Moments In Australian Censorship
Friday, January 29th, 2010
So, while I’m waiting for the Classification Board to officially say that they don’t think female ejaculation is urine, I thought I’d compile a quick list of other things that have been banned by our great and heroic censors in the last decade.
* In 2009 Jennifer Lyon Bell’s gorgeous erotic film Matinee was due to screen at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival. The ACB refused the festival permission to screen the film due to explicit sexual content. At around the same time, the ACB gave Lars Von Trier’s sexually violent film Antichrist an R rating. It features footage of a woman cutting off her own clitoris.
* In 2009 the game Aliens vs Predator was classified RC (banned) but the decision was reversed on appeal and the game given an M15+ rating. There is currently no rating available for adult games in Australia.
* In October 2009 Even More Intimate Moments, a DVD from adult site Abby Winters, was classified RC following the raid on the site’s offices in June. Police seized over 30 DVDs and submitted them for classification. All but that one were rated X. No reason has been given for the RC rating of this particular film.
* In 2008 police raided the gallery showing an exhibition of photographer Bill Henson’s photographs, alleging that the photos were child porn. Controversy ensued, charges were suggested but in the end the photos were rated G by the Board.
* In 2007 the OFLC (now ACB) refused to grant a festival exemption to Tony Comstock’s erotic documentary Ashley and Kisha: The Right Fit because his past three films had been classifed X. The film was thus banned from screening at MUFF even as an equally explicit film called Destricted played the same night at a festival across town. Another six films were also banned from the festival.
* In 2007 The Peaceful Pill Handbook, a euthanasia guide by Dr Philip Nitschke, was rated RC. The website was included on the ACMA’s leaked blacklist and will presumably be blocked by the proposed internet filter.
* In 2006 the Queerdoc festival was due to screen Tony Comstock’s erotic documentary Damon and Hunter: Doing It Together however the OFLC refused to grant the film a festival exemption, effectively banning it.
* In 2005 the uncut version of 70s epic Caligula was re-classifed as RC. The same year saw 9 Songs rating changed to X18+ in South Australia, heavily restricting its availability.
* In 2005 an Australian film made by teenagers called Welcome to Greensborough was rated RC because it contained explicit sex scenes performed by the filmmakers themselves. They subsequently reshot with adult performers. Another Australian film called 70K was banned because it depicted the activities of a graffiti crew..
* In 2003 Ken Park was classified RC. Margaret Pomeranz led a protest against the banning, risking arrest, but nothing changed.
* Pasolini’s 1975 film Salo was briefly available from 1993 to 1998 but has since been re-classified RC numerous times at the request of politicians such as Liberal MP Trish Draper.
* In 2002 Baise-Moi was originally rated R18+ but the rating was changed to RC on appeal by the Attorney General Daryl Williams. Cinemas kept showing the film after the ban date, saying they would only stop when police intervened. Christian politician Fred Nile then mounted a campaign to ensure DVDs of the film could not be imported into Australia.
* In 2001 an article about genital cosmetic surgery in Australian Women’s Forum was forced to black out the “before and after” photos illustrating the story due to a ruling form the OFLC that the magazine was “including too much genital detail”. Ironically, the story was about how young women were becoming paranoid about their genitals and turning to surgery because the censored images in porn were giving them a false idea about how labia should look.
* In 2000 the adult film Dreamquest was rated RC due to a non-sexual act of violence (the protagonist hits a guard on the head) which was a necessary part of the plot.
For more info on films and books that have been banned, visit the Refused Classification site and Libertus’ excellent Banned and Challenged Information list. You should also read this excellent article by Helen Vnuk about the insanity of Australia’s censorship laws.
Related Posts:
The Small Boobs Have Snowballed
Friday, January 29th, 2010Not long after I posted about the Australian Sex Party’s press release that the Classification Board were now banning depictions of women with too-small breasts, my friend Michael Meloni wrote something similar on his blog Somebody Think of the Children.
His post ended up on social networking site Reddit and from there it went beserk, ending up on hundreds of blogs, The Register, Jezebel, Encore, Crikey and the Sydney Morning Herald.
Both Michael’s blog and the Sex Party’s site went down under the strain of so much traffic.
Michael’s post was far less ranty than mine. He also contacted the Board and received this response. They stated that they’re only following “the guidelines” and that said guidelines don’t specifically target small boobs or female ejaculation. They did not, however, say that female ejaculation was NOT urination and have yet to respond to a direct question on that topic.
Their reply pretty much confirms that the Board are able to arbitrarily ban films and magazines based upon their own interpretation of the almighty “guidelines” and that interpretation is not necessarily based on science or evidence.
The viral response to the idea that “Australia bans small boobs” has been rather fascinating. Almost everyone has responded with horror at the idea. Even feminists who are anti-porn think that banning female ejaculation is sexist and stupid.
Crikey has criticised the whole thing as being a case of Chinese Whispers. But even if the headline was over the top I think it’s done a great job at getting the problem of Australian censorship out into consciousness of the wider world. The plethora of comments I’ve read today suggests that plenty of people understand the issues at stake here and they’re not happy about it. Questions are being asked about why our censorship system is making these kinds of judgement calls about body types and sex acts. I think people are wondering about the accountability of the Classification Board and their ability to be so secretive about their decisions.
The pro-censorship groups who lobbied for stricter applications of the guidelines have weighed in to the debate, arguing that banning depictions of models who “appear to be under 18″ is basically about banning certain magazines that allegedly appeal to pedophiles.
While I can understand their concern, I remain an advocate of free speech. If a model is over 18, she is legal. The magazine in question may be offensive in what it depicts but it’s not child porn. Unless someone can show evidence that reading that kind of magazine leads directly to criminal activity, we are legislating against thought crime.
Interestingly, today’s Sydney Morning Herald featured a related story saying that Australian artists are now afraid to depict children in their work for fear of prosecution or censorship. They’ve even released a book for artists called The Art Censorship Guide, detailing what to do when confronted with police. The spectre of thought crime is having a chilling effect on our artists, it seems. I discussed the issue of thought crime and art a couple of years ago during the Bill Henson saga.
To be honest, I feel like the “small boobs” thing is not as important as the female ejaculation ban. This is a real clear-cut issue that feminists can stand and fight for. We need to be vocal and tell the government that banning certain depictions of the female orgasm is sexist and wrong. We need to tell them to stop trying to regulate sexuality and to let adults be adults. We need to say that the personal is the political, that freedom of speech includes sexual speech, that declaring female ejaculation to be “abhorrent” is an act of oppression against women.
Time to draw up the slogans, girls?
Get your laws out of my drawers!
I squirt and I vote!
Female ejaculation is not a phallusy!
Every orgasm a gushing orgasm!
Australian women need the Classification Board like a fish needs a bicyle. (Ok, this one isn’t going to fit well on a sign)
Previous posts:
Female ejaculation films to be banned in Australia
The strange politics of “obscene bodily fluids”
Now Australia is banning small boobs
Update: The Sex Party have posted further comments about the last 24 hours here including a story of a female ejaculation scene being classified RC.
Update 31st Jan: The comments section on the Crikey article has made for interesting reading. In it I’ve elaborated on a few points.
Related Posts:
Blue Steel, Hard
Thursday, January 28th, 2010
Thanks to Violet Blue, I’ve been treated to the glory that is the Work Hard, Play Hard fashion shoot. Some genius decided to distract attention from that pesky clothing and focus it all where it belongs – on a man’s crotch. The above photo is my favourite because it’s pure Blue Steel… with a giant woody added. It really is hard to be ridiculously good looking, you know.
Related Posts:
Now Australia Is Banning Small Boobs
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
The Australian Sex Party has released a statement on their site about the new bans on female ejaculation films (my original post is here).
Turns out that squirting is not the only natural aspect of female sexuality that the Classification Board deems obscene. Now small boobs are in the firing line.
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”, Fiona 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”.
Fiona says she’s seen some of the photos deemed “too flat chested” and the women depicted had larger breasts than her.
Why ban small boobs? I can only assume it stems from paranoia that flat chests somehow stir up the pedophiles. And you only need to mention that “p” word to start a full-scale moral panic in Parliament.
Shall we put such hysteria aside and look at what this ruling is saying to Australian women? Basically, it’s classing a certain normal female body type as obscene. It’s declaring all flat chests to be automatically juvenile, something that should not be viewed by anyone because of a fear that it will stir up “base instincts” in certain people.
Can the Classification Board be any more insulting or sexist?
As mentioned in the statement, adult companies are already narrowing down the range of “acceptable” body types they can display. Add in the requirement to Photoshop out any glimpses of inner labia and you’ve got a delightful recipe for distorted body images.
Indeed, these new rules are pretty much saying: normal women should have nice large fake tits and never emit any kind of liquid when they orgasm. Actually, it might even be less obscene if the women don’t have orgasms at all. Much easier that way. Just stick to the facials and the bukkake, thanks very much.
Oh, and if you’re a guy who just happens to think small boobs are sexy? Look out, mate. You’re obviously a pervert.
This all stems from the law that says that not only should a model be over 18, she has to LOOK over 18. This kind of extremely-hard-to-define rule exists solely to prevent thought crime. But too late! Now, thanks to the prudes, we’re all forced to look at women with small boobs from the perspective of a pedophile, trying to work out if she looks “too young.”
There’s an easier way to do it, folks. It’s called identification. If a model is over 18… well, she’s over 18. Simple, sensible, straightforward. Far too sensible for this government, obviously.
Other posts:
Great moments in Australian censorship
The small boobs have snowballed
Related Posts:
Quick Links
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010* Does sex sell movies? Not really – I was surprised to find that a Wiccan actress was behind this study. She feels that actresses shouldn’t have to be naked in the name of their art. It’s an interesting idea but her push to remove sex or nudity from film is incredibly sex-negative. It means refusing to portray an important aspect of human experience. The study also doesn’t seem to take into account the ratings system which can impact on box office receipts.
* Embracing Teenage Sexuality – Let’s rethink the age of consent – a great opinion piece on Huffington Post.
* Sorry chaps but please get your kit on! says a former Cosmo editor in the Daily Mail. She trots out the same old “women aren’t visual” argument. Boring. I can’t even be bothered going there except to say: what a pity she was editor of Cosmo for so long, refusing to offer centerfolds. Denied!
Related Posts:
Defining The “Harm” Of Porn
Monday, January 25th, 2010
The Times Online has followed up last week’s opinion piece about teens and sex with an article headed Boys who see porn more likely to harass girls. The piece discusses Michael Flood’s report looking at existing research into the effects of porn on adolescents.
“There is compelling evidence from around the world that pornography has negative effects on individuals and communities,” he told the Times.
Naturally I sat right down and read the full report. And you know what? The “evidence” he found in various peer-reviewed journals isn’t all that compelling. Indeed, his summary of the existing literature looking at the “harm” or otherwise of porn found it was generally conflicting or inconclusive or not long-term enough or not particularly thorough. Almost every paragraph of the report says that while there’s plenty of concern that porn can cause harm, there’s no magic bullet that proves the hypothesis.
He says that porn doesn’t cause rape and that research is unable to “encapsulate the complex role that emotions and intent play both in the use of pornography and in sex, a role that may either enhance or minimise harm.” Essentially, a whole bunch of outside factors are the deciding influence as to whether porn is a good or a bad thing.
The point became rather repetitive. Research keeps offering the rather sensible supposition that a teenager’s attitude to porn and sex is usually shaped by their family, their peers, their culture, their exposure to other media and their education. That is, you have to take a holistic approach. If a teen – usually male – is using porn in a negative way you should probably look closely at pre-existing problems or bad attitudes before you blame the porn itself. Bad porn is more like the icing on a very bad cake than the recipe itself.
That aside, there was one aspect of Flood’s report that I found very disturbing. It’s his definition of what constitutes “harm” in the first place – and I think it’s something that needs to be discussed more often. Because in all the hysterical hand flapping of “somebody think of the children!”, nobody really sits down and says: “Well, what is it that we don’t want kids to learn or do when it comes to sex?”
Flood doesn’t claim these definitions are his own. He farms them out to “the community” in this paragraph:
Not surprisingly, given the high rates of adolescent exposure, concern exists that young people are being inundated with unwanted and wanted, and possibly violent sexual information before they are developmentally capable of constructively dealing with it. This may detrimentally transform sexual attitudes and behaviours and ultimately sexuality and intimate relationships. Concerns within different parts of the community focus on the potential of pornography to:
* interfere with normal sexual development (e.g. encouraging early sexual activity)
* foster ‘open’ sexual lifestyles (e.g. acceptance of casual and extramarital sex, multiple partners, etc.) and ‘unnatural’ practices (e.g. anal and oral sex, homosexuality)
* undermine physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing (generate shame, guilt, anxiety, confusion, poor social bonds, and addictions)
* undermine relationships and foster sexual violence (e.g. Jensen & Okrina 2004; Zillman 2000).
So folks, let’s have a look at these supposed harms, shall we?
Let me go for the obvious one first. Flood raises the terrible spectre of embracing “open sexual lifestyles”! Lord save us, people might actually take up butt sex! Casual sex, multiple partners, homosexuality… the horror! And all because they looked at porn!
I’m rather stunned that a supposedly scientific report would include such a conservative and judgemental definition of “harm.” Just because a “community” (and face it, we’re talking about fundamentalist Christians here) thinks these things are wrong does not prove that they cause verifiable harm to the individuals doing them.
I should point out, Flood later includes erotophilia as another “harmful” effect of viewing porn. If I may be lazy and include the Wikipedia definition:
Erotophilia is a term used by psychologists to describe sexuality on a personality scale. Erotophiles score high on one end of the scale that is characterized by expressing less guilt about sex, talking about sex more openly, and holding more positive attitudes toward sexually explicit material.
Um, I’m not sure about you, but how is this harmful, exactly? It seems to describe me quite well. Should I assume that I’m somehow psychologically damaged? More inclined to go on a homicidal ramapge?
The idea of “less guilt” when it comes to sex seems to completely contradict his third point that porn undermines “physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing” by generating guilt and shame. I would argue that any guilt or shame arising from pornography use comes from outside influences telling an individual that their porn use is wrong. Either that or it’s a pre-existing guilt arising from being raised to believe that sex is dirty and sinful.
Porn may encourage early sexual activity? How early, exactly? And what is “normal” sexual development? Some teens mature faster than others and make a conscious decision to have sex even before the age of consent (which differs, I might add, according to where you are). If a teen has safe sex and enjoys the experience without regret… is that “too early”? Again, it feels like there’s a judgemental, cultural yardstick being used here rather than any empirical standard of “harm”.
Now I don’t have a problem with some of the other definitions used in that list. If porn causes anxiety about body image or confusion about how to have good sex or how to maintain a healthy relationship, that’s bad. If it encourages unsafe sex, that’s bad. If it encourages pre-existing bad attitudes toward women or normalises a negative, possibly violent view of sex, that too is bad. If it becomes an obsession (note, I refuse to use the word “addiction”) and creates a dispute in a relationship, that’s bad.
Those things may actually result in problems for the individual viewing the porn (or their partners) and we should focus our attention and concern on those. And we should always look at those concerns within the broader context of the individual’s personality, upbringing and culture.
That’s the thing: I don’t want to come out swinging completely in favour or mainstream porn. I’ve expressed my distaste for it many times on this blog. I find a lot of it to be sexist, sex-negative, boring, cliched and sometimes cruel and we need to have a continuing discussion about the images and world view that a lot of porn presents. Because it is a part of our culture and it does have some influence on us as consumers.
I am, however, always worried when a study like this is used by media (like The Times) to say “There’s conclusive evidence porn causes harm, let’s ban it!”
That’s exactly what’s happened here in Australia with the internet filter. The whole idea of the filter was actually thought up by Clive Hamilton, who co-wrote a paper with Michael Flood in 2003 about the effects of porn on 16 and 17 year old “children”. They used the fact that almost all teen boys over 16 use porn to whip up hysteria about “children seeing porn on the internet”. This may be partly while I feel so antagonistic towards this latest study by Michael Flood. It feels as though he’s approached the issue from a pre-decided stance and done his best to make it say what he wants… even thought the actual evidence won’t come to the party.
Still, I can’t argue with his final paragraph which actually offers a perfectly rational solution to everyone’s concern about teens and porn: education.
Though restricting exposure will remain a priority, an over-reliance on this approach to protect against the perceived harms of pornography is problematic as it fails to recognise the realities of ready availability and the high acceptance of pornography among young people. Moreover, it fails to examine the holistic way in which adolescents’ sexual expectations, attitudes and behaviours are shaped in our society and the complexity of factors that give rise to the cited harms.
Protecting young people necessarily requires equipping them, and their caregivers, with adequate knowledge, skills and resources (e.g. media literacy; sex education; education about pornography and rights and responsibilities of sexual relationships; safe engagement with technologies) to enable successful navigation toward a sexually healthy adulthood, as well as tackling factors predisposing to sexual violence.
Interestingly, this is exactly the approach advocated by Joybear’s Justin Ribeiro dos Santos in this second Times piece.
“It’s out there and the reality is, we can’t stop that. French and Italian kids are allowed to drink at the dinner table and they don’t have our problems with binge drinking. Maybe it’s the same with porn. We need to stop being so prudish.”
Given the panicky headlines that Michael Flood’s research is going to create, I don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon.
Related Posts:
Blacked Out
Monday, January 25th, 2010
You may notice that I’ve changed the colour of my header image. My usual cheerful purple has been replaced by black and grey. This is because I’m taking part in the Great Australian Internet Blackout this week (24th-29th).
The blackout is part of the ongoing protests against the plan to impose a mandatory internet filter on all Australians. It’s mainly to raise awareness about the issue. I also spent a substantial part of my Saturday writing long letters to politicans in protest against the filter.
If you’re an Australian reader, please read the EFA’s list of ways to protest against net censorship (and sign their official petition).
If you’re not Australian… well, thanks for your patience. And please be aware… your government is probably paying close attention to what’s happening here. They may well be planning their own form of online censorship. Remember that the internet poses a giant threat to those who would keep power and manipulate their populations. It’s the best tool we have for political organisation and communication. Plenty of politicians would like to take away our growing power.
And when they do it, they’ll use the excuse of “protecting the kids”. And before you know it, they’ll be “protecting” you too.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. We must fight to keep that right.
Related Posts:
Adam’s Wiener
Friday, January 22nd, 2010
Jamye Waxman’s 101 Positions For Lovers
Thursday, January 21st, 2010
Last year my friend Jamye Waxman disappeared to Jamaica (of her own accord) in order to film a new instructional adult movie. She then amused us on Twitter with her ongoing search to delineate all 101 sex positions featured in this film.
I was amazed that she managed to even find 50 positions, let alone 101. There’s only so many places your arms and legs and cock and cunt can really go.
Thus I’m really curious to see the final result. It looks like a lot of fun and all filmed with lush tropical backgrounds. It also features Jamye being her usual irrepressible self.
It’s available on DVD here or you can download it here.
And don’t forget to check out Jamye’s blog!
Related Posts:
“My Sphincter Isn’t For Sale”
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010
The new year saw Nevada’s Liquor and Licensing Board approve male prostitutes at the Shady Lady Ranch brothel. Owner Bobbi Davis says she’s had hundreds of applications for the 7 jobs available. Rates start at $200 an hour.
Details has a fascinating interview with “Markus” who is going to be the first legal male prostitute employed at the Ranch.
The whole interview has a bit of a train smash feel to it; I read the piece and see-sawed between approving nods and worried cringes. Markus, an ex Political Science student, ex-Marine, ex porn star from Alabama, seems to have his heart in the right place. Thus:
Women don’t pay for sex, they pay for experience. And luckily for me, I don’t have that much experience with sex, but I have the mentality and the emotion and gumption to make them feel the way they want to feel. And if I complete that through sex, too—which I’m a very good performer in that respect, too—my mission’s accomplished. The fourth thing that separates a gigolo is a gigolo knows how to cook, clean, and do the things necessary to upkeep himself. He’s totally independent. He can cook a 3-course meal, and at the same time, serve wine… He must be literate, he must have a sense of honor and dignity to himself. He should just be an all-around good guy.
And yet he also comes out with a number of rather dodgy statements, including a few worrisome Freudian theories and a comparison to Rosa Parks. He seems frighteningly naive in some ways, not least in the sexual experience department. He’s only 25 and very eager and earnest but I kind of feel that he needs some training wheels on before he takes up being a fully-fledged male prostitute. Not that there’s any kind of course you can take. One hopes they offer him at a discount rate in the beginning.
One thing Markus is certain of is that he’s not interested in gay-for pay (hence the post title). To him, that’s just being a prostitute as opposed to a “gigolo” which is his preferred title.
A few years ago I met and interviewed an Australian male escort for For The Girls. He was a slightly built, gentle guy, not devastatingly handsome but attractive enough. He actually struck me as someone who was perfect for the job because he had a real desire to understand and please his partners. There was a lot of compassion in him and I guess it’s an important trait to possess.
The quote from Markus above seems to indicate he’s on the same wavelength. I hope. Although I’m not sure I’d pay $200 an hour for him. And I’ll be very curious to see how well the Shady Lady does with its new business plan. It’s usually assumed that women aren’t interested in paying for sex but I think people may be surprised at how things pan out.
Related Posts:
A Negative Yet Nuanced Article About Porn
Monday, January 18th, 2010
This morning I read an opinion piece by Natasha Walter in The Times Online called How Teenage Access To Pornography Is Killing Intimacy In Sex. The headline is pure moral panic but I was surprised to find that this extensive article actually contained a real attempt to be vaguely balanced in its anti-porn argument. Normally these kinds of pieces are all hysteria and generalisations and Dworkin-style feminism. This one went close to that but then tried a bit harder. These paragraphs were what gave me pause:
Now that the classic feminist critique of pornography — that it necessarily involves or encourages abuse of women — has disappeared from view, there are few places that young people are likely to hear much criticism or even discussion about its effects.
Many women who would call themselves feminists have come to accept that they are growing up in a world where pornography is ubiquitous and will be part of almost everyone’s sexual experiences. I can see why some are arguing that the way forward really rests on creating more opportunities for women in pornography, yet I think it is worth looking at why some of us still feel such unease with the situation as it is now.
I do not believe that all pornography inevitably degrades women, and I do see that the classic feminist critique of pornography is too simplistic to embrace the great range of explicit sexual materials and people’s reactions to them. Yet let’s be honest. The overuse of pornography does threaten many erotic relationships, and this is a growing problem. What’s more, too much pornography does still rely on or promote the exploitation or abuse of women. Even if you can find porn for women and couples on the internet, nevertheless a vein of real contempt for women characterises so much pornography.
It’s very rare that writers actually acknowledge the existence of alternative porn such as the stuff I make. And I find that rather pleasing because it means they can’t get away with the “all porn is bad” or “all porn hurts women” nonsense. They also can’t then start arguing for censorship because they’re aware it would harm sex-positive erotic expression.
And the fact is that I too have major concerns about the ongoing misogyny and negative attitudes that pervade mainstream porn. I too wonder what it’s teaching young people and whether it’s reinforcing sexism or making guys into bad sexual partners.
My problem, though, is with the assumption that this is absolutely and definitely happening to a large number of men. And the reason I have a problem with it is because there is no scientific evidence to back up that claim. In the article Natasha writes:
For a long time I was sceptical about the claim that the internet had really changed people’s access and attitudes to pornography. Those who want it have surely always been able to find it, whether they were living in 5th-century Athens or the 1950s. But the evidence (my italics) has convinced me that the internet has driven a real change for many people, especially younger people.
She then goes on to quote statistics about how many teens and men are using porn but she fails to then offer any proof that the use of porn is then causing harm.
And that’s the real problem with these kinds of articles. The writer can come up with numerous individual anecdotes that back up their point (in this case, a lengthy interview with “Jim” who became obsessed with porn as a teen) but there’s no real, proper research offered to back up those individual cases.
I too find it disturbing when I hear of women saying their partners became crap in bed after they’d gotten a little too interested in mainstream porn… but can that be extrapolated into a wider trend within the male population?
Fact is, no huge studies have been done to prove it. And here’s the other problem: you’re gonna need a seriously massive study to see any kind of trend. Because the internet means that everybody looks at porn now and if you then think about whether this ubiquitous thing is having a visible, quantifiable effect on vast numbers of men… well, I just don’t see it. In theory we should be witnessing the wholesale destruction of relationships, increasing sexism in our everyday interactions, major psychological problems becoming commonplace among men but it’s just not there.
Instead you could point to the studies that show incidences of rape and sexual harrassment fell in the last ten years. Or even the recent very small survey in Canada that sought to answer these very questions. The researcher originally made headlines because he was unable to find any men who didn’t use porn for his control group. But he did discover that the men in his study watch porn with a cynical eye and that it doesn’t lead to criminal behaviour.
Thus, I don’t really buy into the argument that mainstream porn is making men into complete bastards even if it does make some kind of logical sense. And yet I do want to continue the discussion about what meanings mainstream porn IS constructing and what it means for teens who are, unfortunately, getting their sex education from porn. I’m all for talking about what’s wrong with the depictions of women and sex and advocating for a more positive portrayal of sexuality.
And I’m certainly keen on bringing men into the conversation and hearing what they think about it. Because too often articles like Natasha’s make generalisations about “what men think” without recourse to actually asking them. I actually like to hope that most guys do take porn with a grain of salt, aware that it often appeals to negative emotions or base impulses. And perhaps if we can get that discussion going, more men’s consciousness can be raised to the point that they’re aware of the problematic nature of mainstream porn.
Education and communication is the solution to this puzzle. It always is.
For another view on this, please read The Thin Line Between Pearl-Clutching And Concern at The Pursuit of Harpyness. A good dissection of the issue AND I just love the term “pearl clutching”.
Related Posts:
The Strange Politics Of “Obscene” Bodily Fluids
Saturday, January 16th, 2010
The Australian Classification Board has decided to ban any adult films that feature female ejaculation because they deem the liquid expelled during squirting to be urine. Thus, it comes under the umbrella of “water sports” which our good censors deem to be an obscene activity that should never be depicted on film.
Never mind that female ejaculation has been scientifically documented. Not all women are able to ejaculate but those that do tend to expel a clear liquid through the urethra from the paraurethral ducts during orgasm. There’s some debate as to what the liquid exactly is comprised of but most experts agree that it is NOT urine.
For more information on the whole deal about female ejaculation, read New Scientist’s 2009 article Everything you always wanted to know about female ejaculation (but were afraid to ask). You might also want to have a look at Violet Blue’s page on the G-spot.
There’s also plenty of anecdotal evidence from women who experience ejaculation. Those who are in touch with their bodies and their sexuality know that squirting is very different to urination.
The whole issue has been well documented elsewhere so I don’t need to add much more beyond saying that it is a very real phenomenon. It also needs to be pointed out that Anna Span has only recently made the British Board of Classificiation see sense on this topic – and even then the decision has been made begrudgingly.
What all this discussion about squirting and paraurethral glands and water sports does do is shine a light on the nonsense of declaring some bodily fluids OK and others “obscene”.
One thing all the censors seem to agree on is that semen is an above-board bodily fluid. It can be ejaculated anywhere – internally, onto a woman’s body or face, across the Russian wallpaper – and it can even be mixed into milkshakes and drunk. If 20 guys all want to ejaculate their semen onto a woman lying on the floor waiting – or onto each other – that’s A-OK, thanks very much. Nothing kinky about that, it’s just normal sexual activity.
If a woman ejaculates onto a man’s face, however, that’s a fetish. That mean’s in Australia it’s offensive, obscene and Australians should not be allowed to see it lest it corrupt our immortal souls. Or something.
The same goes for urine and menstrual blood. Beyond the pale. Those bodily fluids have no place in nice normal sex, thank you very much. (For more on menstruation porn, please read Tasty Trixie’s excellent post Menstruation: The Last Taboo?.
Like so many aspects of censorship, this careful delineation between “good” bodily fluids and “bad” ones shows up just how ridiculous the concept of “obscenity” can become. By what reasoning is semen OK but female ejaculate or urine bad? Is it just simple, individual squeamishness?
Look at the ban on water sports as an example. If we consider that some consenting adults happily indulge in urine-play in their own bedrooms (or bathrooms), why should it not be able to be depicted on film?
I’m not in any hurry to see that kind of thing because it’s not my bag and I know that plenty of people feel the same way but our own sexual preferences shouldn’t mean that other less popular sex practices should be banned. I don’t have to watch films with water sports; that’s an individual, adult choice. In theory, that’s what “classification” is about – telling me what to expect from a film so I am free to make my own decisions.
As always, if it’s safe, sane, consensual and done in private then it’s nobody’s business but those involved. This should apply to acts shown in sexually explicit films, books and websites as well.
Squirting is a very real aspect of female sexuality. By labelling it “obscene”, the censors are making a statement about what a “normal” woman should experience in bed. They’re saying that those women who are able to ejaculate are freaks, somehow, and that the enjoyment of their natural bodily fluids is fetishistic – psychologically wrong.
That’s a pretty damaging and sexist thing to say.
I should also point out that the Classification Board considers fisting to be an obscene fetish as well. Never mind that fisting is an activity consensually enjoyed by many lesbians, an intimate sexual act that can form a common part of their everyday sexual repertoire. Nope. Those lesbians are obscene and kinky and wrong as well.
Consensual adult activities such as spanking, piercing and the dripping of candle wax are also banned.
Australia’s censorship laws and the decisions made by the Classification Board seek to define a “normal” version of sexuality, one that is increasingly vanilla and yet still male-oriented. Their rules help to maintain the porn status quo and, unfortunately, it limits the opportunity for alternative expressions of sexuality.
It also puts a lot of independent and female-produced erotica at a disadvantage.
A lot of the ground-breaking films and websites made by feminists overseas feature acts the Board deems “obscene” and yet these are the porn movies that are breaking the old mould of misogynist, cliched porn. I originally became interested in porn because I liked the idea of it but hated the majority of stuff I saw (mostly produced by mainstream porn companies in the US). Since then I’ve found so many great artists who are putting their vision of erotica out into the world in a holistically ethical way – and their work includes spanking, female ejaculation, fisting and BDSM as part of a wider vision of female sexuality.
As a writer, webmistress and filmmaker I’m keen to make a difference, to help make sex positive, female-friendly material but it’s demoralising when even the government gives the thumbs up to facial cumshots but declares female ejaculation to be wrong.
I’ve written it before and I’ll say it again. By all means, classify and rate media to assist adults to make decisions. But do not have the presumption to officially declare one thing “offensive” and “obscene” based purely on subjective, personal opinion.
And that’s what it is with the Classification Board. They pretend to reflect “community values” but they refuse to conduct any research into exactly what people really think. They are the unelected moral gatekeepers for the rest of us, making decisions to ban material based purely on their own judgement, without recourse to real data on what “reasonable adults” think or whether what they are banning causes any harm to the viewer.
In a free society, someone else should not be able to make that decision for me. I’m a grown adult and I consider myself to be perfectly reasonable and ethical. I do not find female ejaculation or spanking or piercing or fisting to be obscene. It hasn’t turned me into a mad rapist, or a drug addict, or any kind of degenerate person. Being able to view these things on the internet has done me no harm whatsoever.
Of course, I do find plenty of other things to be distasteful or offensive but I would never dream of stopping anyone else from seeing them. If it’s safe, sane, consensual and done in private, it’s none of my damn business.
* Pic is of Deborah Sundahl’s Loving Sex: The G Spot And Female Ejaculation. Presumably this will now be banned in Australia along with other educational films on the topic like Tristan Taormino’s Expert Guide to the G-Spot and Nina Hartley’s Guide to Female Ejaculation. If they’re not banned, it might be because the ejaculate only went onto the sheets. Suddenly, accuracy is everything!
Related Posts:
Female Ejaculation Films To Be Banned In Australia
Friday, January 15th, 2010I’ve received a circular from the Eros Association, the advocacy group for the Australian adult industry. Thanks to shit stirring by a fundamentalist Christian group, the rules have been tightened as to what adult films can be imported into Australia.
The Classification Board has explicitly stated that films featuring female ejaculation will now be seized and considered RC – refused classification. Effectively banned. This also means that female ejaculation sites will be considered RC (prohibited) for the purposes of the internet filter planned to be introduced here this year.
Eros says:
The Classification Board have determined that female ejaculation is not a real event and therefore all issue from a women’s vagina is piss and therefore covered under the parameters in the Guidelines for ‘golden showers’. This means that if the shower happens to land on the body or in the mouth it is determined to be an offensive fetish and goes RC. The Classification Board’s finding that female ejaculation does not exist is something we will contest with them as there is a body of scientific (and personal) evidence that says otherwise. Even last month on the ABC Science Show with Dr Norman Swan, they spent an hour with scientists discussing this phenomenon and how it was not urine.
I’m glad Eros is going to fight this. It gets me hopping mad that a government can perpetuate this nonsense and are so eager to do the will of prudes and ignorant religious nutters who wish to meddle in the sex lives of others.
The sooner our outdated classification (censorship) system is abolished, the better. They should not have the right to ban films based on subjective, religious, unscientific, biased and sexist opinion as to what is and isn’t “obscene.”
* Please read my follow up post The Strange Politics of “Obscene” Bodily Fluids.
* Update 27th Jan: Please read my new post: Now Australia is banning small boobs
Related Posts:
New Magazine Candy Rain “Likes The D.”
Friday, January 15th, 2010
New York Press reports on the launch of another indie erotic magazine aimed at straight women. Candy Rain (previously “Ligerbeat“) is the project of three New York women, Callie Watts, “Mama D” and “Yung Ho”. It seems that Callie is the main driving force as she has previously worked for Playgirl before it folded and also helps with Bust magazine.
The mag came about because the three joked that they could do better than Playgirl. When a male friend volunteered to be a model, it all became quite serious. Candy Rain’s first issue was funded by a party with a $5 cover charge. It’s only 31 pages and I’m not sure where you can buy it.
What female porn consumers want, according to Watts, is a realistic reflection of sexuality encompassing both carnal lust and the inherent humor of floppy external genitalia. “No one ever gives porn a chance to be both [funny and hot],” she laments. “You can make fun of the dick and still wanna stick it in your mouth.”
When Filament launched last year I expressed doubts about how well they’d do because they decided to be a hard copy magazine. So far they’ve proved me wrong by being very popular. I’ll be interested to see if Candy Rain can replicate that success.
Related Posts:
Links: Old Fashioned Fucks and Erotic Art
Friday, January 15th, 2010I’m thinking that since I spend so much time stuffing around on Twitter and Facebook that I should start doing a weekly roundup of the interesting links I find every day. I don’t want to include any serious commentary as it will take up time and thus not get done. So this is just a “quick n fast” post:
“Common old fashioned fuck: $2.50″
“Squatting on prick: 62c”
Check out this hilarious menu from a brothel at Johnno dot com
Roseros is a wonderful site featuring the erotic paintings of Anthony Christian. These beautiful images have a passionate intensity to them that may well fire up your fantasies.
Annie Sprinkle reveals why she thinks the concept of “sex addiction is a crock here.
Top 5 Reasons Why Porn-For-Profit is Dying – not sure if it’s all dead just yet.
Disturbing news from the UK that 6 men were acquitted of rape charges after the judge found the victim had expressed a sexual fantasy about group sex. Good comment here.
New law requires women to name their baby and paint a nursery before getting an abortion – hilarious video from The Onion
Gay teen worried he might be Christian – also from the Onion
Related Posts:
For The Girls Sample Galleries
Ms Naughty On Twitter- msnaughty: Orchids: My Intersex Adventure doco will screen on ABC1 this Sunday 29th at 10pm. Worth watching http://t.co/4BjeZwvY
- msnaughty: Just recorded an interview about feminist porn for community radio 2SER. It will be on 9am Wednesday Sydney time, live on their site.
- msnaughty: RT @NoPlaceforSheep: don't be fooled by "pro life" language: how debates are framed:http://t.co/jgcbDDhR
- msnaughty: RT @ElenaJeffreys: "Reasons to be wary of anti-porn zealots" By Jennifer Wilson http://t.co/2GCU8qKQ
- msnaughty: I had a massage yesterday to cure my various sore muscles. It's given me a massive neck headache. Was going to do lots of editing today. :(
