Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog

Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

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.

Not 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.

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

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.

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!

I’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

SPOILER ALERT: Warning! This post is about the film Avatar and may contain spoilers. Stop reading now if you haven’t seen it. Also, stop reading now if your find the idea of alien nipples or hair sex disturbing.

I finally saw James Cameron’s Avatar yesterday and I quite liked it. The visual imagery was stunning but I found the plot a little derivative and unoriginal. Where Titanic made me cry like a romantic fool, Avatar didn’t really inspire any serious emotional reaction. So I was a trifle disappointed but still mostly impressed.

Reviews aside, I’m rather intrigued about the “nudity” and sexuality depicted within the film. As you probably know, Avatar features a race of blue-skinned, forest-dwelling aliens called the Na’vi who tend to wear very little clothing apart from loincloths, necklaces and weapons. Their long tails tend to cover up their buttocks and we don’t ever see any glimpses of genitals.

The females have small breasts and presumably also nipples because the males have them. Problem is… we’re not allowed to see them. The women wear various neck decorations which cover the whole nipply area although there are a number of times when we are given glimpses of the full boob. At the very start I swore I saw a nipple outline but on other occasions there was a simple flat blue surface. Others have debated this whole vexed question and someone pointed at that since these aliens aren’t placental mammals, they shouldn’t have breasts at all.

Why do I care about whether the audience can see alien nipples?

I’m interested because it throws light on issues of censorship, “child friendly” entertainment and of Western society’s whole attitude towards breasts and sexuality.

In theory, it shouldn’t matter that we can see the nipples or genitalia of an alien. If the computer-generated image on screen doesn’t depict a human, why are we imposing human ideas of “obscenity” onto it? Surely the tails of the Na’vi are just as rude?

The same thinking applies to the excision of the love scene between hero Jake and the Na’vi woman Neytiri. We only see them kiss… and then we have a few vague shots of them cuddling, fading to black. The original script sees them “plugging in” to each other via the nerve-type thingies (”queues”) in their hair:

He puts his face close to hers. She rubs her cheek against his. He kisses her on the mouth. They explore each other. Then she pulls back, eyes sparkling.

NEYTIRI: Kissing is very good. But we have something better.

She pulls him down until they are kneeling, facing each other
on the faintly glowing moss.

Neytiri takes the end of her queue and raises it. Jake does
the same, with trembling anticipation. The tendrils at the
ends move with a life of their own, straining to be joined.

MACRO SHOT — The tendrils INTERTWINE with gentle
undulations.

JAKE rocks with the direct contact between his nervous system
and hers. The ultimate intimacy.

They come together into a kiss and sink down on the bed of
moss, and ripples of light spread out around them.

THE WILLOWS sway, without wind, and the night is alive with
pulsing energy as we DISSOLVE TO –

LATER. She is collapsed across his chest. Spent. He
strokes her face tenderly.

(from this page)

Apparently Cameron made the decision to cut out the scene to keep the film PG-13. It will feature in the DVD, along with more nipple shots.

I think the whole “ultimate intimacy” idea behind “queue mingling” sounds rather fabulous. Much more spectacular than the usual messing around with bodily fluids. And it certainly buys into the idea of sex as being a transcendent activity, more important than mere reproduction or physical pleasure.

But is it sex at all? There’s no real hint as to whether “queue mingling” actually qualifies as a reproductive act – especially given that the Na’vi tend to “plug in” to their horse-creatures and dragon-type animals and trees. Declaring the act to be a sexual one tends to turn the Na’vi into the very naughtiest kind of tree-huggers.

But why should children not see a scene that doesn’t actually involve sex – at least, sex of the human kind? Why should kids be protected from glimpses of alien nipples? (Indeed, I could go off on a rant about why we get so upset at the idea of kids seeing human sexuality… but that’s another post.) In theory, the Na’vi are the same result of evolutionary biology as the rest of us; their bodies do what they have evolved to do. I could detect no overtly restrictive sexual “morality” written into the imaginary society of Cameron’s indigenous people beyond the fact that queuing enforces a natural monogamy.

Of course, we all know that these imaginary aliens are simply a metaphor for human indigenous people. They share too many humanoid traits for us to consider them as “true” aliens – of the kind that, say, tend to lay eggs in your chest or go on intergalactic hunting missions.

So all the careful concealment of genitals and nipples and weird hair sex are to suit the strange attitudes of the audience, for whom nudity is still shameful and sex is still taboo. And ultimately, this self-censorship by the filmmaker was about getting the film out to as many people as possible, including children, who we deem to be too frail to endure the sight of blue nipples.

And do I even need to point out the ongoing insanity that says kids can’t be exposed to sexuality but violence – such as the graphic final battle scenes of Avatar – is fine?

We’ve obviously got a long way to go with the way sex is depicted in mainstream films if we can’t even explore the sexual biology of an imaginary alien species.

Photo is from the official Avatar site. I wasn’t able to find many pics to better showcase alien boobs, although I suspect the filmmakers want it that way.

The mandatory internet filter has been on the cards for nearly two years now but I must admit I honestly didn’t think it would get off the ground. The whole idea is manifestly flawed and technically unfeasable and I foolishly thought that Senator Conroy would have to bow to common sense in the end.

Alas, no. Religious zealotry tends to flush away all common sense and thus it is that today Stephen Conroy has given the green light to the filter.

It’s hard to articulate the churn of negative emotions I’m feeling now but suffice to say that I’m angry, frustrated, outraged and perplexed by the decision. The plan still involves a blacklist and it’s still going to be secret; it’s essentially a green light for the government to censor pretty much anything under the guise of “protecting the children.”

And what’s being sold as a fight against child porn is actually a war on legal, adult pornography. The report says that RC (”refused classification”) material will be blocked – this is material that it is actually legal to own in Australia. The Australian Sex Party says 99% of all adult websites would be considered RC if the government had the resources and time to classify the millions of them out there.

Even female ejaculation is considered a “fetish” and thus beyond the pale. Once again, censorship imposes itself on female sexuality and tells us what is and isn’t “normal”. This is a regime that bans the healthy sexuality of Matinee but thinks images of clitoridectomy a la Antichrist is OK.

The only positive thing I can take from this is the overwhelming response to the announcement on Twitter and in comments on news sites. About 99% of all comments and tweets I’m reading are opposed to the filter and a lot of people are saying it’s a vote-changer. There’s real anger out there and I think it’s going to be forcefully expressed in the coming days and weeks.

Fact is Australia has outgrown it’s ridiculous censorship laws and there’s a wave of Gen X and Y internet users that are about to start getting seriously vocal about their right to freedom of speech. It really is time we stood up to these conservative bastards and told them what the majority of Australians really think.

And if protests and letters and emails and strong public antipathy don’t work, I will be leaving Australia. Probably in a year’s time when the filter is due to come into force. No doubt For The Girls and some of my other sites will be blocked and I don’t want to give my tax dollars to a country that thinks my brand of positive sexual expression is obscene.

Fuck them.

Update (and I think I’m going to keep updating this post this evening as things progress): The Australian Christian Lobby which pushed for the filter is ALREADY demanding that it be extended:

Managing director Jim Wallace issued a statement claiming the Enex report had “proven the technological principle [of filtering] can be extended to deal with other harmful X and R-rated material on the internet.

“This is now clearly feasible and we need a review in three years that might test this in practice, particularly using third party providers of URLs,” Wallace said.

Hello slippery slope.

Scanning in old photos a few weeks ago I came across the pics we took at the Sydney performance of Annie Sprinkle’s Post Porn Modernist in 1996. Annie positively insisted that the audience took photos of the show so these blurry images are the result of our participation. I’ve also still got one of the rice-filled shakers we used to create a wall of sound during Annie’s orgasmic meditation.

This show was like a first step into a wider world for me. I’d had my interest in sex and sexuality stirred by the then-risque pages of Australian Women’s Forum mag but beyond a few furtive visits to a sex shop, I was still pretty naive.

And then Annie Sprinkle came to town amid much fanfare and negative press. I don’t think I paid much attention until the day the police paid her a visit. Suddenly it became imperative that uniformed officers determine if “obscene” acts were being performed in the Belvoir Theatre, something that couldn’t be allowed to go on if drinks were being served.

The libertine in me was galvanised. I booked two tickets to the show, partly to say “fuck you” to conservative censors who would tell me what I could and could not see.

Once I was in the theatre, I found myself feeling rather nervous. What was I in for? Was this really my kind of thing?

And then Annie appeared in all her positive, cheerful, bewigged glory and related the fascinating tale of a life lived to its fullest. She made us laugh and she made us share in the sad times. She also made us squirm. I can still remember my shock at hearing the story of a customer who enjoyed anal fisting: “I’d reach up and around and tickle his heart,” she said with a twinkle in her eye. I think that’s the first time I’d even heard of fisting, let alone the anal kind.

In the interval she invited audience members to come down and have a photo taken with her boobs on their head – for $15 of course. I was too shy and I still regret not doing it. The above photos show that we enjoyed it vicariously.

And then she performed her amazing breath orgasm which was just a stunning thing to watch (I actually tried it a year later with mixed success). It was a mind-expanding experience, to be in the same room as a woman who could achieve orgasm through breathing and mind power alone. I was just so impressed and Annie has been a heroine for me ever since.

Indeed, she showed me that sex can be a positive and feminist experience and that one can make a living out of prostitution or porn or sexually-based art without having to be all those negative things that society insists a woman should be. In a way, Annie’s Post Porn Modernist put me on the path that I’m still walking today: a feminist pornographer out to change the world.

I dug up my old Sydney Morning Herald and Age data CDs to see if I could find the news reports of Annie’s visit here. They’re so out of date they don’t work on Windows Vista but I did salvage some articles after much mucking around. Here’s a sample of some of the media from Annie’s 1996 visit.

Sprinkle’s tour into realm of the censors
By Mark Ray

IN a city accustomed to sordid revelations at the Wood Royal Commission on corruption within the New South Wales police force, New York-based performance artist Annie Sprinkle seemed an odd target for a burst of censorship fervor.

Sprinkle, a former US prostitute and star of 200 pornographic movies, has just finished a sell-out week-long season of her show ‘Post Porn Modernist’ at Sydney’s Belvoir Street Theatre, despite threatened police action against the theatre. The show opens at the Athenaeum in Melbourne on Tuesday for a two-week season.

During the week, the Belvoir Street Theatre was told its liquor licence might be revoked because of Sprinkle’s explicit one-woman show. There are no longer any censorship laws in NSW but police action against the show was threatened by recourse to provisions of the Liquor Licensing Act.

By Friday that threat had been abandoned – apparently after the Minister for Police suggested to his commissioner that the moves against Sprinkle were inappropriate.

‘Post Porn Modernist’ is certainly explicit, but the atmosphere at one performance here this week seemed unlike that of a sleazy porn show.

An audience of apparently unremarkable suburbanites, dedicated fans and the curious broad-minded staged no walkouts, made no complaints but responded with much laughter…

WHAT I LIKED ABOUT ANNIE.
SHANNON HALBERT, 26, high-voltage linesman.
“It was bizarre. Much more spiritual than I expected. I thought it’d be the life and times of a porno queen but it’s a decent show.”
AMANDA GARLAND, 29, film producer.
“I didn’t know what to expect but it was nice to see sexuality brought out so openly and presented so positively.”
ROBERT SKAPPEL, 50, interior decorator.
“I liked the fact that she included spirituality into her sexual experience. I’m all for that message.”
DIANA COXSHEAD, 35, naturopath and pharmacist.
“She seemed most comfortable in the last part of the program, going into the spiritual, tantric side.”

- The Age, 31st March 1996

Annie’s Happy Ritual
By Jim Schembri
…The reaction to the show has been strictly divided, Sprinkle says. “I’ve had the best audiences in Australia and the worst press. The audiences have been the most appreciative of anywhere I’ve been in the world and the press has been the most vicious.

“I’ve been misquoted here in Australia more than I’ve ever been. I wouldn’t say (the coverage has been) the most conservative, (but) I would say (it’s been) the most misinformed, the most taken out of context, the most uneducated. And very judgmental, extremely judgmental.”

Sprinkle says she’d never bring Post-Porn Modernist back to Australia because of the stress of bad press, but will bring her new show MetamorphoSex here. “I would have to think hard if I’d want to bring something back that has that potential to be controversial. The bad press inspires a lot of hatred.

I’m a lover, not a fighter.”
- The Age, 4th April 1996

In deep water with Annie
By Emma Tom

NOT LONG into the all-nude Annie Sprinkle bath-house interview, I wish to inform Houston that we have a problem.

Note-taking in a ginseng bath is turning out to be almost as difficult as the well-documented “where the hell do I put my wallet?” nudist nightclub dilemma.

Plus, for some weird reason, the unclothed subject matter is not proving conducive to family newspaper photographs. No matter how low we sink in the spa or how strategically placed the sauna towels, there’s always a stray nipple or three vying for camera attention.

This is Annie Sprinkle, live performance sextress and former porn film starlet, after all. Asking her to keep her money- makers out of the camera would be like asking Eva Cox for a lap dance. Just wouldn’t seem right…

- The Age, 29 March 1996

Reading through some of the other pieces I’m somewhat depressed that Australian society hasn’t progressed in the 13 years since Annie’s visit. A 1996 article called “Have We No Shame?” used Annie’s public cervix announcement as an excuse to bewail the alleged decline of society’s morals. You could easily reproduce the piece in today’s papers and the conservatives would happily nod along. The visit by the police was reproduced during the Henson art gallery censorship incident in 2008. Seems that Australia’s attitude to sex is still very furtive and juvenile.

Annie hasn’t come back and I don’t blame her. Looks like I’ll have to make the effort to go to the US and seek her out. Maybe then I can finally get that photo of her boobs on my head.

I’ve just received a PR email from British adult film director Anna Span. She’s won an important legal victory over the British Board of Film Classification (UK censors) over whether female ejaculation exists.

Her film Women Love Porn, which contains shorts from five separate female directors, has been held up for several years thanks to the original ruling of the BBFC with regards to the ejaculation scene. The censors maintained that female ejaculation is not possible and that the scene actually contained urination. They demanded that cuts be made to the film in order to pass.

Anna Span decided to fight the ruling. She presented the BBFC with substantial scientific evidence that female ejaculation is a natural and normal phenomenon, helped by expert Deborah Sundahl.

Anna says; “I am really proud to have changed this outdated ruling and to have made a difference to women who experience this in their own lives throughout the UK. It was never fair that the BBFC dismissed their amazing orgasms as urinary incontinence”

The BBFC is still being a stick in the mud, saying that their “position remains fundamentally unchanged for future releases” but it’s fairly certain that any future bans will be contested based on this precedent.

Interestingly, the BBFC is currently hamstrung thanks to the fact that Britain joined the European Union but they carry on regardless.

I’ll say it again: I’m OK with labelling videos (classifying – on a voluntary basis) so that adults can make informed choices but banning films is just draconian and stupid and it should never happen in a civilised society to values freedom of speech.

Check out Anna Span’s videos at Porn Movies For Women

Update 9th October
This story has now had some decent coverage in the media and large blogs.
Kristina Lloyd from Erotica Cover Watch has this opinion piece in the Guardian.
That article prompted this post at Jezebel.
Violet Blue’s latest column at SFGate is about the issue and she also wrote a blog post about it here.
Eye for Film featured this article on the issue.

In Berlin last year I had the honour of meeting Jennifer Lyon Bell, an American filmmaker with a compelling vision for erotic film. Her film Matinee is a gorgeous work of art, well written, masterfully acted and beautifully filmed. It is a wonderful addition to the growing canon of well-made, female-focused erotic films and I consider it to be part of the new wave of sex-positive movies that are forging a new path in porn.

Naturally this means the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification has banned it.

Matinee was due to screen as part of the Melbourne Underground Film Festival over the weekend but the OFLC told MUFF it would be illegal to show the film in public, effectively banning it. The film has not been officially classifed by the panel; they merely made a brief decision based on… well, I’m not sure what. They haven’t actually seen the film. They found out it had real sex in it and that was enough, I suspect.

MUFF and Jennifer have issued statements regarding the decision and they’re currently on the front page of the MUFF site.

The organisers rightly point out that the OFLC didn’t have a problem with Lars Van Trier’s Antichrist, which disturbingly depicts a scene of female genital mutilation and seems to be misogynist in intent. Jen’s film, which only shows two people having nuanced, meaningful, tender sex, is apparently more offensive than that.

MUFF says:

MUFF opposes the OFLC’s decision on the grounds that it represents a hypocritical and troubling suppression of transgressive female-centric sexuality on film. The modus operandi of Blue Artichoke Films, Bell’s production company, is to create films which portray realistic sexual intimacy, depict empowered female characters, possess artistic merit and strong narratives, and do not fall back upon the damaging and often dangerous stereotypes of female sexuality that the Western media is accustomed to. In other words, Bell is looking to produce films about sexuality which women can enjoy, free of masculine control.

MUFF are considering a “civil disobedience” screening as a way of protesting this ridiculous decision.

Jen writes:

Seriously?

It’s just two characters enjoying sex in a realistic way that fits with their characters’ personalities. Consensual sex, nothing weird. Why on earth would that be dangerous to watch?

What’s weird is that mainstream movies spend hours building up the characters in a story, then mangle the lovescene with brusque camera cutaways and awkward sheet-covering bedroom choreography as soon as the moment arrives. You never see James Bond have sex; after a few witty double entendres it’s fade-out then fade-up with a lit cigarette…and this is considered a perfectly acceptable depiction of sex on film.

Frankly, I’d like to know more about how James Bond does it. Is he a true sexual connoisseur, able to quickly divine each woman’s preferences and feel from her subtle reactions whether she wants her G-spot stroked or her hands deliciously pinned to the bed? Or is he an arrogant Casanova who uses some weird abrasive “patented technique” on every woman he sleeps with, smugly congratulating himself “They all love it when I do that”? I’d like the movie better as a whole because it’d tell me a lot about who he is. Plus, if he was good, it’d be really fun to watch, wouldn’t it?

The films that inspired me to mix explicit sex with story and character – Ken Park, 9 Songs, Shortbus – have all had rough roads. But I hoped that outside of America, my loving but prudish home country, everything would be easier. As it turns out, New York was no problem at all, and neither was Amsterdam (my current home). Strasbourg and Berlin festivals are happily screening it this fall. But Australia has a problem.

It’s depressing but not surprising that Matinee has been banned. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that our country’s ridiculous censorship laws are applied in an ad hoc manner and that they are out of touch with what most Australians think.

How is it that grown adults are prevented from seeing a film because it contains sex? And why aren’t we up in arms about this?

There are no reports in the major newspapers about this issue. I’m hoping to contact Margaret Pomeranz for a statement on where she stands with this. She was willing to be arrested for Ken Park in 2003… will she also speak out for Matinee?

Find out more about Matinee and Jennifer at the Blue Artichoke Films site.

Edit: Tony Comstock gives his view on the issue here.

Psychology Today has a great article which nicely debunks the whole hysterical idea that children are in danger from sexual predators while online. It refers to the 278 page report by the Internet Safety Technical Task Force which looked at vast amounts of data about whether children were regularly solicited for sex online (as the hysteria would have us believe).

The task force, led by Harvard researchers, looked at reams of scientific data dealing with online sexual predation and found that children and teens were rarely propositioned for sex by adults who made contact via the Internet. In the handful of cases that have been documented-and highly publicized-the researchers found that the victims, almost always older teenagers, were usually willing participants already at risk for exploitation because of family problems, substance abuse, or mental health issues.

The report concluded that MySpace and Facebook “do not appear to have increased minors’ overall risk of sexual solicitation.” The report said the biggest risk to kids using social networks was bullying by other kids.

Imagine that. Real evidence to counter the tabloid panic. Not that it will make much difference to religious groups or politicians. Fear sells better than facts.

Halfway through writing this post I found myself wondering if I hadn’t already blogged about this. Turns out I have, after a fashion. In February I wrote about the same report and how it found that kids aren’t necessarily interested in porn – and the majority of “teenagers” who were tended to be 17 year old boys.

To quote Psychology Today:

The Internet is still new, and kids use it more than adults, which makes many adults nervous that something nefarious must be going on. But according to the attorneys general report, next to nothing is.

New magazine Filament wants to put hard cocks in their next issue. Unfortunately the printers are refusing to come to the party, saying that “printing these images may offend women’s groups.” They’re now looking for another printer but need more cash so they’ve launched an “erection drive” in the hope of selling more issues.

We’re talking about fighting the system here girls! I can only applaud Suraya’s effort to get hard dicks onto magazine shelves.

Find out more here.

The other day I visited one of the local video rental shops, a store I haven’t been to in a while. Imagine my surprise when I discovered Michael Winterbottom’s 9 Songs sitting unabashedly on the drama shelves. This is a small town, after all, and sexually explicit “art films” are a bit thin on the ground. I haven’t had a chance to see Shortbus, Destricted or any of those other “mainstream” explicit films due to this general scarcity so naturally I jumped at the chance to see 9 Songs.

The film happily bills itself as “the most explicit mainstream movie ever!” The plot, such as it is, focuses on a young couple in the flush of first lust and love. We see their relationship over the course of a year as they fuck frequently and go to concerts. That’s pretty much it – nothing else happens except concert footage and sex. Winterbottom apparently wanted the audience to “fill in the blanks” of the couple’s relationship, opting to show only snippets of conversation amid a lot of fucking, letting the viewers decide what kind of characters they have and what problems they my encounter.

It’s an interesting idea and I’ve yet to decide whether it’s clever or makes for a very boring movie. Certainly I wasn’t enthralled by it (and fast forwarded most of the songs). Of course, if this was a porn film (i.e. a film made explicitly to arouse) I’d think it was fab because it shows perspectives and characters often missing from the genre.

But this is NOT, Winterbottom insists, a porn movie. This is an art film, thank you very much. And thus that makes the explicit sex far different from all the explicit sex you see in a porn movie. This is a film with morals, people, and it’s made for a more discerning class of viewer than your average wanker who likes porn.

At least, that’s the spin on it.

I personally sat there watching it and couldn’t help but fume at the hypocrisy apparent in the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) Board’s decision to give it an R rating (after an initial X rating). And I wasn’t fuming because I thought it should have been lumped in with the porn films and effectively banned from cinemas. Nope. I was angry because this film’s R rating entrenches an arbitary line that says “this is an art film, it’s OK” and “this is a yucky porn film, ban it”.

I found myself reading the OFLC appeal decision on the film, which lists in extensive detail all of the sex acts in the film like some kind of really bad sex story:

At 47 minutes 58 seconds Lisa ties Matt to the bed, she slaps his face with her open hand and puts her stiletto heel into his chest and puts her weight on her foot. She then puts her booted foot onto Matt’s legs. She undresses. At 49 minutes 45 seconds Lisa asks Matt “do my nipples feel sore to you? They are.” At 50 minutes a two-minute scene of actual sex commences. Lisa kisses Matt’s penis and pulls at his testicles. She holds his penis in her mouth (actual sex), she manipulates his penis with her hand (actual sex), her hand is shown repeatedly manipulating Matt’s penis (actual sex).

The “interested parties” who made submissions regarding the film’s classification included TV critic Margaret Pomeranz and the conservative Christian lobby the Australian Family Association (and can I just say how much it pisses me off that the religious nutjobs have commandereed the word “family”?).

The paper discusses why the board decided to go against the “general rule” of “‘simulation, yes – the real thing, no.” I’ve added my own emphasis:

The Review Board in the majority found that there were special aspects of 9 Songs which differentiated it from other films which feature “the real thing” and have been Refused Classification by the Classification Review Board:

• 9 Songs is a film in which Matt and Lisa’s relationship is explored, from Matt’s perspective, through music and sexual activity. In this context, the scenes of actual sex are integral to the plot and theme of the movie.

• 9 Songs, made by the highly-regarded British director Michael Winterbottom, is a film of serious intent and considered by many to have artistic merit. The underlying themes of the movie, the honest, realistic and, at times, emotional and poignant depiction of the couple’s relationship, which were integrated with the scenes at rock concerts, were likely to resonate with a number of the film’s likely audience and had artistic value.

• The scenes of actual sex are not considered by the majority to be exploitative, immoral, indecent, demeaning, improper or gratuitous. In particular, regarding the scene in which Lisa slaps Matt and steps on him with a stiletto boot, the majority was of the view that the impact of this scene was mild and was not demeaning to Matt or Lisa.

• The tone of the scenes of actual sex, in terms of theme and style, were contextually relevant, filmed in a restrained manner and different from standard pornographic films that are routinely classified ‘X’.

The board also took into account “the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.”

So the decision to let 9 Songs be R rated was based on the idea that the film was artistic, serious, moral and not demeaning to the participants, as well as the fact that, being an “art film” it was designed for a higher class of people – you know, those smart trendy ones with university degrees who can obviously watch explicit sex without being corrupted or aroused – unlike all those scum who watch porn and for whom the X rating was created, to stop society from descending into a Mad-Max type scenario.

At least, I think that’s what the Classification system is supposed to do.

The OFLC document holds its moral head high in declaring the various teddibly important and artistic reasons why they made this exception to the rules. And yet to me it reveals that the Australian censorship emperors are clothing themselves in particularly airy garments.

I can name numerous adult films with explicit sex that are artistic, serious, moral and not degrading. Of particular note is, of course, the films of Tony Comstock which were banned from a film festival several years ago, but I could also talk about the explicit films of Petra Joy, Jennifer Lyon Bell, Shine Louise Houston or Tristan Taormino. Most of the movies I saw at last year’s Berlin Porn Film Festival could fit into that mould… but they would be illegal to screen here. I could easily argue that the new brand of porn seeks to explore relationships and sexuality in exactly the same way that Winterbottom has done with 9 Songs.

The only difference is that adult filmmakers acknowledge the arousal of their audience rather than placing themselves on an “art” pedestal, one that denies the fact that people WILL get turned on and masturbate if you show them sex.

And that’s what it really comes down to in the end. The OFLC can use all kinds of excuses about art and class and audience and intent but ultimately our laws are about the fear of people getting aroused and masturbating.

(It’s interesting to see the way film reviewers are so quick to say that 9 Songs isn’t really arousing… at least, for the right sort of person.)

If 9 Songs can explicitly show penetration, fellatio, cunnilingus and ejaculation and receive an R rating, why can’t others? I might think that 9 Songs is an art film but no doubt the Australian “Family” Association thought it was filth on the same level as your average gonzo. But if real sex gets the OK in some films and not others, what is the basis for distinction?

The OFLC document talks about the porn genre with disdain, indicating there are personal judgements of taste at work. I find a lot of porn to be distasteful as well (not to mention artless and downright stupid) but that should not be a defining factor in what adults can and cannot see in this country. I find the whole idea of Australian Idol and Transformers 2 to be fairly tasteless… so why are they on our TV and cinema screens?

Why are the personal tastes and “morals” of those who sit on the Classification Board considered to have more authority than mine? What special thing makes them able to sit and watch films that may corrupt the rest of us?

One of the things I find frustrating is that this nonsense is still on our lawbooks in 2009. 9 Songs was released in 2004 and the R decision prompted some debate… but nothing has changed. The legislation still talks about “the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults” but those in power won’t accept that standards have changed. The ready availability of porn on the internet means that people are a lot more comfortable with sexually explicit material now. What’s more, the fact that society hasn’t disintegrated as a result of this ready availability should be a strong indicator that all the moral panic surrounding sexually explicit material was wrong.

Until someone can show empirical proof that porn causes harm, there should not be laws restricting the consumption of it.

And if Australians can be grown up enough to rent 9 Songs from Video Ezy and not go mad, why not Xana and Dax, or Chemistry or, hell, even your average Buttman nonsense gonzo.

I’m looking on the bright side. 9 Songs has given me a happy hitlist of the top 10 important things I need to include in order to get an R rating for any explicit film I make:

1. Concert footage from whiny-yet-hip bands plus a brief snippet from a classical music concert
2. Footage of a couple eating breakfast and being playful together. It helps if the guy says “I love you” while wading in freezing water.
3. “Restrained” penetration, oral and cumshots. Whatever that means.
4. Arty lighting.
5. Wandering piano music during the sex scenes.
6. Comments about Antarctica and global warming.
7. A trailer that doesn’t show very much sex.
8. A marketing campaign that focuses on the right “class” of people.
9. A constant avowal to the press and critics that “it’s not porn, it’s art.”
10. A good relationship with Margaret Pomeranz.

I must admit, I’m not saying anything new with this post. If you want to read a more researched and academic critique of the whole “porn vs art” censorship issue, visit Tony Comstock’s The Intent To Arouse. For the Australian perspective I’d recommend my friend Helen Vnuk’s book Snatched: Sex and Censorship in Australia or read her excellent article on the whole topic here. Also another one here.

Here’s the trailer for 9 Songs. As you can see, it’s pretty light on for sex.

Yesterday the Victorian cops raided the office of abbywinters.com and arrested its owner Garion Hall. The raid was instigated by a journalist at the Herald Sun who provided the cops with a “dossier” on the site.

Garion has since made a statement saying no charges were laid, no hardware was taken and the police were “polite and amiable”. No doubt this won’t satisfy the Rupert Murdoch-run paper which will continue to hound the site, even if the cops aren’t particularly interested and have much better things to do.

Even if this hasn’t become a major legal case, I’d say most of those who work in the Australian adult industry are feeling more than a little nervous, myself included.

Australians are tolerant people and survey after survey has shown that we like porn and yet our laws remain stuck in a time warp. It is illegal to produce an “objectionable film” in the states (I must admit, I didn’t know this). Of course, what qualifies as “objectionable” hasn’t been tested in court and if Abby Winters becomes the test case I’d like to see them push the issue. How many “reasonable adults” would consider that site offensive?

Fact is that Abby Winters create some of the most positive and respectful adult material that I’ve ever seen. Their rules are very strict regarding how their models are presented and I know that all the girls on the site are paid and treated exceptionally well. One of the reasons they’ve done so well is that their brand of “Australian porn” was based on respect and goodwill towards the models. Abby Winters is creating change for good by showing that you can successfully offer adult material without resulting to degrading language or acts or by grossing out the audience.

So to see our country’s ridiculous censorship laws being used against it by a journalist on a right wing “moral” crusade is pretty fucking galling.

In theory, creating an “objectionable film” extends to couples filming themselves having sex. It’s nice to know our laws are protecting people from themselves.

I really am considering emigrating.