Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog

Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

A while ago I went to Sexpo and came home with a showbag full of… well, I didn’t bother to look to be honest. I was too busy being interested in my new corsets. The bag got shoved into a corner of my office and ignored until I did some cleaning. Thus I discovered 3 freebie copies of softcore men’s magazines: Zoo Weekly, Picture and People.

These magazines won’t win any prizes for offering subtle or intelligent journalism. They’re really just soft porn with exclamation marks. Guys like looking at naked women and these magazines cheerfully offer that, albeit with a veneer of hur-hur-hur sexism. In the era of the internet, when you can find any kind of porn at the drop of a hat, these mags still sell. I guess it’s sometimes hard to download porn in a truckstop bathroom.

In any case, that’s not why I wanted to write a blog post. What caught my eye was the ridiculous photoshopping that these magazines perpetrate. Not just removing blemishes or thinning thighs, either. These magazines heal up vulvas. Thus:

They even “improved” porn star Tera Patrick:

And here the frontbottom has vanished, leaving a worrying gap:

These magazines don’t photoshop vulvas into smooth mounds for fun. They do it so they aren’t penalised by Australia’s censors, the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The existing guidelines say that those kinds of soft porn mags can’t show “excessive genital detail” – i.e. pink bits or inner labia. Pink bits makes it real porn, not just a “lad’s mag”. So, to ensure they don’t get into trouble with the government, they get excessively happy with the healing brush, often removing any hint of a vulval slit at all. In other cases, protruding labia are “tidied up” so all that’s left is a “perfect” pussy.

This situation isn’t new. In 2001, Australian Women’s Forum published an article decrying this type of censorship, arguing that it was encouraging women to have genital surgery to meet the unrealistic bodily standards suggested by men’s magazines. Ironically, their article illustrating the difference between photoshopped and real vulvas was itself censored for having “too much genital detail” (see image above).

In 2010 the ABC program Hungry Beast discussed this censorship issue. Watch it here:

The message that this kind of photoshopping sends is very fucked up. It says that female bodies as they occur naturally are obscene and must be “tidied up”. But the censorship rules are fucked up to begin with – witness the attitude toward female ejaculation in adult films.

There is supposed to be a review of our censorship system occurring right now. Unfortunately it seems as though the Australian Law Reform Commission has dropped the ball. They’re actually recommending MORE censorship, especially of online content, while refusing to recommend the legalisation of X-rated movies. Irene Graham from Libertus tears them a new arse in her excellent submission which points out all the assumptions and errors in their discussion paper.

Meanwhile, the UK has just taken a step into the 21st century via a court case which has challenged their definitions of obscenity. It feels as though a legal challenge is the only way we’ll get anything changed in this country.

Just as an aside, these kinds of photos remind me just how censored the female vulva has been throughout the ages. If you go to an art museum you’ll find that female nudes rarely feature realistic genitals. They were either covered up or the artist simply glossed over the details, creating the familiar “smooth mound”. Public hair was considered to be obscene. As far back as Roman times they were leaving out the all-important slit and the tradition continued up into modern times.

Hell, Barbie still has the smooth plastic mound although there are now other anatomically correct dolls on the market. Which reminds me, when I was a kid I honestly thought that grown women grew hair and then their slit healed up.

See how important it is to show bits as they really are?

* Note: The last pic is from People magazine 25 July 2011. The ones above it are from Picture magazine 27 July 2011.

Related Posts:

• “Too Much Genital Detail”
• “A Real, As Opposed To A Fanciful, Risk Of Harm”
• A Need For Privacy Makes This “Debate” One-Sided
• Quick! Censor The Non-Existent Boobs!

I’m back from a lovely month in France. I could bore you with a slide show of my adventures but I thought I’d put up this photo instead.

It was on display in a French newsagent on a low shelf. Where children could see it! Ack! Cue the moral outrage! How could this happen? Don’t they know that images of boobs irretrievably corrupt children and turn them into nasty, fire-breathing atheists, or something? Quick! something must be done! I’ll have to complain to a politician and demand greater censorship somehow.

I believe the model on the left is androgynous male model Andrej Pejic, whose image was recently censored in the US because he looks too female.

Interestingly, images of bare boobs seem to be relatively common in France. I saw some on a movie poster at a cinema complex, right next to a poster for the Smurf movie. I also spotted a nipple or two on a billboard advertising cars.

France is also delightfully blase about putting condom vending machines everywhere. You’ll find them on any street in larger cities. Voila:

I took a pic of that one because of the sexy ad for skin cream behind it.

Seems that France doesn’t have much of an issue with public displays of sexuality. There’s no demand to hide it from children, no plaintive wails of “what will I say to my kids!” (or equivalent in French, although I suspect there’s no translation because the French don’t bother with such shit). Sex is part of life there and the French happily embrace it as part of the joie de vie.

It’s part of a wider culture difference I observed in that country, one that expects individuals to take responsibility for themselves. There are no signs on ruins warning you that it’s dangerous to climb on the ruins. The French think that if you choose to be an idiot, that’s your own problem. There are no signs telling you not to swing off ropes into the river or to walk along high walls. There are very few railings in high places. The one time I did see a sign warning of danger due to steep drops, it was telling parents to keep an eye on their kids.

So naturally there’s no ramped-up hysteria about the “sexualisation of children” and no concerns that a picture of a woman’s breast will somehow ruin a child’s life. Zey are boobs, zey are beautiful. What is ze problem?

Related Posts:

• Revisiting The Rudeness Of Hot Gossip
• Questioning The Moral Panic About “Sexualisation Of Children”

I have had my first video removed from Youtube. It’s a trailer for “That’s What I Like” that I edited so it was incredibly tame (see above). Essentially it consists of shots of Mia talking about sex alternating with images of her kissing Andy. The closest the video comes to nudity is bare shoulders. And you can see that they are on a bed. Apparently that’s far too rude for the good people at Youtube.

The official “warning” email and page that I received said:

The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled:

That’s What I Like Trailer – (indigolush)

YouTube is not the place for nudity, pornography or other sexually provocative content. YouTube makes limited exceptions for appropriate educational, documentary, artistic and scientific contexts, but only in limited circumstances where the purpose of posting is clear and any nudity it is not sexual in nature.

OK, so… “That’s What I Like” is an erotic film that could be said to be “sexually provocative” but it’s also a documentary and I think it’s rather artistic. Also, the trailer is extraordinarily tame and does not include any nudity or pornography or sexually provocative content. It’s just a bare-bones glimpse at a sexual documentary.

I suspect that this has come about because I complained to Google about losing the ability to login to my Indigo Lush Youtube account thanks to Google merging Gmail/Blogger/Youtube accounts together. Obviously I raised my head above the ramparts by doing this and I’ve been consequently punished for it. There’s no way for me to appeal the ruling or to try and discuss the issue with them.

Curious about Youtube’s policies I followed a few links and ended up on the “General Policy Enforcement” page where they talk about adding age restrictions to videos. It discusses the idea of what Youtube considers to be “sexually suggestive”:

Videos featuring sexually explicit content, such as real sex acts, are not allowed. Other content, such as nudity and dramatised or implied sexual conduct, may be considered sexually suggestive, depending on whether or not it is intended or designed to arouse viewers. Nudity includes exposed or partially covered genitalia, buttocks or breasts, as well as sheer clothing. Videos featuring individuals in minimal or revealing clothing may also be age-restricted if they’re intended to elicit a sexual response.

Additional considerations include a combination of:

Whether breasts, buttocks or genitals (clothed or unclothed) are the focal point* of the video.
Whether the video’s setting is sexually suggestive (e.g. a location generally associated with sexual activity, such as a bed);
Whether the subject is depicted in a pose that is intended to sexually arouse the viewer;
Whether the subject’s actions in the video suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity (e.g. kissing, provocative dancing, fondling); and
If a subject is minimally clothed, whether the clothing would be acceptable in appropriate public contexts (e.g. swimwear vs. underwear).

* Focal point is determined by factors including the length of time an image appears in the video (fleeting vs. prolonged exposure), especially relative to the overall length of the video, the camera angle and focus, the relative clarity of the images in the video, the lighting and the video thumbnail (content that appears in a thumbnail is also considered to be its focal point).

So. Kissing. The bed. The willingness to engage in sexual activity (thought crime!). The filmmaker’s evil intent to arouse. That’s enough to bring out the big stick on Youtube.

Interestingly, it’s pretty damned easy to find other videos that are WAAAAAY ruder than mine. Since I’ve become a fan of True Blood I thought I’d do a search to see if one of the many and varied sex scenes are on Youtube. Bingo. There’s a plethora of them. Like this compilation or this kinky Exorcist neck-twisting scene from series 3. I found the sex in the dirt scene has been age restricted but not banned.

Then there’s this College Humor video of a “realistic Hollywood sex scene” that’s fairly naughty but is now up to 24 million views.

I’ve also found a wide range of what’s “appropriate” when adding videos to my Sexy Short Films site. One of my favourite erotic films called Aprop is still up on Youtube and it’s got rather a lot of sexual suggestiveness and nudity. But it’s in black and white and it’s artistic so that makes it OK.

So really, what’s happened here is not that my video was too sexy or graphic. It’s just that it was a trailer for something that Youtube doesn’t approve of – a film about sex that also appears on an adult site. So far the rules are: Sexy HBO series: Yes. Arty lesbian images: Yes. Glimpse of an independently made doco about sex: No.

In any case, I won’t be uploading it again. It’s made me wonder what else might trigger the ban button. The application of the guidelines are all over the place so it’s all very hit and miss. Vimeo seems far more grown up about what can be uploaded so I’ll use that from now on. And I’ll still be only using very tame footage.

By the way, filmmaker Tony Comstock has already been here, done that.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (attributed to Voltaire)

I thought I’d preface this post about censorship with that (overused) quote because the film I’m about to write about is exceptionally distasteful, disturbing and, most likely, trash. The Human Centipede 2, which has just been banned by the British censor, could well be the most horrific movie to be made in many years.

Someone made a comment on a Guardian article about it saying “You should pick your battles and this is not a good battle to pick.” And this piece points out that the film is made expressly to shock and, by writing about it, I’m helping to sell it. Still, I wanted to blog about the issue because it raises some important questions about censorship and the assumptions behind governments making decisions about things adults can and can’t see.

The official press release from the British Board of Film Classification is here. The article describes some of the horrific acts depicting in Human Centipede 2 (including masturbating with sandpaper and rape using barbed wire). It says the film must be banned because it focuses too much on explicit sexual violence.

This Guardian piece questions the double standards of the board: why is the torture violence of “normal” horror (e.g. Saw) OK but sexual violence not OK? Why does the presence of sex tip this film over the edge into “obscenity” when common or garden variety flayings, disembowellings and murder easily get the nod?

I’m no fan of horror and the thought of watching either Centipede films is stomach-churning to me. And there’s a little voice in my head that almost agrees that something so disgusting should be banned. Why would anyone want to watch that? I mean, really?

But what’s prompted me to write this post is a single line in the BBFC press release that stuck out like dog’s balls:

It is the Board’s conclusion that the [film] poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers.

Got that? The BBFC thinks that watching Human Centipede 2 will harm you. Really harm you. Not just some “fanciful” made up harm which has apparently motivated the banning of other films in the past. Nope, this time, this sucker is going to fuck you up big time.

Let’s think about this, shall we? Watching a movie is going to cause harm. What kind of harm? Vomiting? Nightmares? A pathological fear of sandpaper?

Is it more serious than that? Are they saying it’s going to cause people to want to replicate the disgusting scenarios in the film? Copycat crimes?

Or are we talking “psychological harm”? That mysterious, difficult-to-prove concept that insists that watching a film will irrevocably alter a person’s mental health and way of thinking? According to that theory, seeing this kind of film degrades the viewer, encourages negative or pathological thoughts and makes them less empathetic or emotionally insecure. This is the kind of harm that Gail Dines talks about when seeking to ban porn. No doubt it’s the kind of harm that motivated the banning of Lady Chatterley’s Lover

I don’t know what kind of “harm” the BBFC is talking about because they don’t elaborate on that point. Nor do they provide any actual proof for their assertion.

And what’s interesting is that they all managed to view this film without suffering harm themselves. No doubt this proves they have very mild superpowers which the rest of us don’t possess.

This point illustrates the underlying assumptions about class and intelligence that underpin censorship regimes. The censors themselves can watch films without “psychological harm” because they’re better people than the riff-raff plebians who’ll watch it. They’ll have all the proper reactions like disgust and horror and they’re completely immune to sexual arousal because they have special states of mind.

But the rest of the film-going public? Well, you can’t trust them, can you? They’re not smart enough to think critically about what they’re seeing. They might not understand that it’s just a story or a fantasy. You’ve got to make their decisions for them, protect them. It’s for their own good.

Is “psychological harm” real? I don’t know. I haven’t researched the topic so I don’t know if there are any peer-reviewed studies looking at whether viewing media causes *actual* harm to adults.

What I do know is that more people need to be asking that question. If the government can ban something based on the concept of “real, not fanciful, harm” it would be really useful to see proof of their assertions.

* You might also want to read this piece about how the British censors classify films.

* I’ll be interested to see what the Australian censors do with this film.

Related Posts:

• British Censors Finally Allow Female Ejaculation Scene
• Cabaret Desire Is Like Visual Erotic Fiction
• New Porn For Women Movies
• Fairy Tale Porn

Last Friday I heard that anti-porn author Gail Dines was going to appear on the ABC’s interactive program Q&A. As the public is invited to submit questions, I thought I’d add mine. It went something like:

Gail Dines dismisses feminist porn by saying it’s not different enough from mainstream porn. What kind of sexually explicit material would be OK by her personal feminist standards?

I signed it as “Louise Lush” because, after being mentioned in the SMH a couple of weeks ago, I should post the question as a feminist pornographer.

I hit return and the question went into moderation, along with thousands of other questions. Then, at 10.30pm on Sunday night, I got an email from one of the producers of Q&A asking me to video myself asking the question and to send it in. She also wanted to know where I lived.

Immediately, I quailed. The idea of me appearing on national TV under my porn pseudonym – with bonus information about where I live – is not appealing. I live in a small town and every second person on my street is a fundamentalist Christian.

I declined on the video question. The producer replied the next morning saying that was OK… but where did I live?

I didn’t reply. As far as I know, the question didn’t get asked. (I couldn’t bring myself to watch it).

I guess you could say it was a cowardly response. Surely if I believe in what I do and oppose censorship I should stand up and be counted, fight the good fight and be damned what people think.

The problem is, if it was only a matter of what people think, I’d probably be OK. But it’s not that simple.

Australia has some very confusing and fucked up laws regarding porn. As far as I’m aware, I haven’t broken any of them. Still, that’s no guarantee of protection from persecution. As we saw with the prosecution against Abby Winters, it only takes one crusading journalist to kick up a stink and things can go very pear shaped indeed. It would only take one fundamentalist Christian neighbour to call the police and tell them I was making child porn and my life would become a living hell. Never mind that I don’t or that my kind of porn is possibly the most innocuous stuff in the world… that doesn’t matter when the police are raiding your house at dawn and confiscating your DVDs and computers.

Ask Richard Wollstoncraft about that one.

I have a lot to lose. And while I want to engage in political discussions and tell the world that Gail Dines’ anti-porn stance is wrong, I’m at a distinct disadvantage.

Things are great for Gail Dines and other anti-porn activists like Sheila Jeffries and Melinda Tankard Reist. Our society gives them the high moral ground. Porn is automatically assumed to be evil so those who want to ban it can swan about and demand censorship with impunity. Gail Dines gets opinion pieces in major newspapers, radio show slots, TV appearances and special presentations at NSW Parliament House. Those who oppose that position are on the back foot already because defending porn invites automatic personal attack. And, in my case, possible breach of privacy or persecution.

I’m always conflicted about this. I wanted to start a group similar to Feminists for Free Expression in Australia. I want to have a lobby group to oppose the increasing influence of conservatives with an anti sex agenda. Problem is, I don’t want to be the spokesperson. I can’t be the spokesperson. I’m tainted. And I’m also afraid for my privacy and my livelihood. And yet I want to defend freedom of speech and speak out for feminist porn.

How can there be any kind of reasonable debate about the place of porn in society when the board is set so unevenly?

—-

Note: Thomas Roche has written an excellent reply to Gail Dines’ SMH piece from last week. He says everything I wanted to say – and saved me the hassle of writing it myself. Thanks Thomas!

Related Posts:

• First They Came For The Pornographers…
• At Last: The Sex Party
• Australian Porn, Censorship And Statistics Roundup
• Poems Punishable By Jail

In the US bookstores Barnes and Noble and Borders are censoring the cover of Dossier magazine which features an image of androgynous model Andrej Pejic, shirtless. As you can see, Andrej is biologically male but he is also very pretty and his face may be considered to have feminine characteristics. Andrej has made waves in the fashion world by modelling women’s clothing, including a wedding dress by Jean-Paul Gautier.

It seems that Andrej’s genderbending prettiness is too much for the good folk in the US so opaque plastic covers are being placed over the cover to protect the oh-so-delicate sensibilities of bookshop customers. Dossier are expected to pay the extra expense for the plastic.

So… where to start with this. Firstly, it’s a lovely PR coup for Dossier magazine and a great publicity boost for Andrej, so in essence I guess this kerfuffle isn’t a bad thing. But it says so much about gender, censorship and society’s attitude to breasts.

From the SMH:

Dossier creative director Skye Parrott told the Huffington Post that the magazine had informed both stores that Pejic was male, and that they were essentially censoring the image of a shirtless man.

However, both stores stood by their decisions, saying customers could mistake Pejic for a shirtless woman.

I think that statement what’s really caught my attention. This shows up just how ridiculous it is that we declare a woman’s breasts to be obscene and censor-worthy but it’s OK for a man to show his nipples (except, of course, for this man, because he looks too much like a woman). It’s the assumption that breasts are alwasy sexual and must be hidden from view. That putting boobs on a cover is always indecent or sleazy.

This is the same way of thinking that sees breastfeeding photos banned from Facebook and images of shirtless children deemed obscene. It’s helped along by the increasing use and acceptance of the term “breast nudity” in the media, a fact that no doubt pleases the hysterical anti-sex conservatives. Men can be “shirtless” but women must never be “topless”.

I’m a believer in the top free movement. If guys are allowed to take their shirts off in public, women should have the same right. Nobody should be demanding censorship because a magazine shows male nipples, no matter how feminine he might look. And nobody should be automatically assuming that censorship should occur because a magazine shows female nipples.

Obviously this censorship is also a kneejerk reaction to a queer image. Andrej’s photo messes with our ingrained perceptions of gender and no doubt this upsets some people who want it all to be neat and tidy, thank you very much. I’m sure there’ll be howls about the “gay agenda” surrounding the whole thing. Dossier have achieved their aim which was to garner attention and create that gender-ridden confusion. It’s challenging to our sense of what’s “normal” and that’s a good thing.

I’ve looked at pics of Andrej on Google Images. He’s a very, VERY pretty man. He has that aloof, ethereal quality that seems to be favoured by the lunatic fashion designers. I’ve seen comments suggesting he may be the image of perfection to the often weirdly misogynist fashion world: a stick-thin model that looks female without all that nastiness of actually being female. Part of me thinks that’s not too far off the truth.

Is he sexy? I’m not sure. He’s not really my type. Perhaps he looks TOO female for me. Especially in this pic (left) which would probably have caused armagedden if it was on a magazine cover.

Actually, that image is also a good one for challenging stereotypes and stirring up discussion. It shows just how critical the pose is to our interpretation of an image. Here Andrej is posed in a typical, “sexy” female position. It demands that we read that picture in a certain way, looking at it as a sexual image. It also demands that we study it with a male gaze and admire the feminine beauty of the model. But he’s male and that throws a delicious spanner in the works. It’s good fun.

Reminds me of the good old days of Boy George and Marilyn and Dead or Alive. Although I do hope lovely Andrej doesn’t go the way of Pete Burns.

In any case, fuck you to Barnes and Noble and Borders. And fuck you to everyone who thinks censorship of the human body is a good idea.

Related Posts:

• Now Australia Is Banning Small Boobs
• Alien Nipples And “Adults Only” Hair Sex
• “Excessive Genital Detail”: Photoshopped Vulvas In Men’s Mags
• “A Real, As Opposed To A Fanciful, Risk Of Harm”

Back in 2008 a censorship controversy erupted over Bill Henson’s photographs of nude teenage girls. Police raided the gallery and shut down the exhibition, the Prime Minister called the images “disgusting” and a lynch mob mentality generally prevailed. Eventually the images were classified “G” (suitable for children) by the censors.

Since that time the art world has become increasingly paranoid about censorship and have been self-censoring images of children, including closing down an exhibition because it included a painting of a young boy without a shirt (mischievously called “above the waist nudity” by the religious nutjobs who support censorship).

Now the issue is in the papers again. A right-wing Christian senator (due to lose his seat in a few months) has chaired an inquiry into the Australian classification system and accepted submissions calling for art to be classified and possibly blacklisted if it contains nudity. The are also calls for films with full-frontal nudity to be banned. The Australian Christian Lobby have said “there are dangers to children everywhere” posed by images and bemoaning the fact that “it will be argued that adults should be able to see whatever they want, even claiming photos of naked children have artistic merit.”

(Yeah, like photos of your children in the bath. Or images like this one of Mary breastfeeding a naked Jesus.)

Naturally, the art community isn’t impressed.

Some shuddered at the thought of bureaucrats or religious groups controlling what art lovers could see. And others feared it would have a chilling effect on boundary-pushing art.

Welcome to my world, I thought.

In my original blog post on Henson I wrote my defence of his work from the position of “Come ON, people. It’s ART!”

The post incited a lot of comments including criticism from Tony Comstock who pointed out the flawed logic in my post (and I’m grateful for it). He wrote:

If you want controversial work to be protected because it’s “art”, then you are opening the door for controversial work to be supressed because it’s “not art”.

His comment is ringing true at the moment because I’m seeing all sorts of people up in arms about the idea of censoring art (and rightly so). Unfortunately it’s often couched in terms of “But you can’t censor us, it’s ART! Not porn!”

The subtext is obvious: art is good, porn is bad. Some censorship is OK… as long as it’s not of MY work. Because what I do isn’t nasty pornography! I am tasteful and intellectual and upstanding and I make ART, not PORN.

This page on the ABC website says:

We live in a time in history when more than ever before, all sorts of images are available to us. Some are beautiful. Some will make you smile. Some are confronting. Others are downright disgusting.

So how do you make that judgement about what is just a naked body – and what is pornographic? Is it about context? Is about whether or not you can see genitalia? Is it about positions, facial expressions, intent? And who do you trust to make those decisions for you?

Notice how that paragraph automatically makes a number of assumptions, mainly that pornography is inherently bad, that someone ought to be making decisions for you about what you can see.

This kind of porn/art dichotomy is ultimately harmful to the cause of free speech. It goes against the old saying, attributed to Voltaire, of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

I’m writing this post to make an appeal to artists and people who enjoy art. My appeal goes like this:

Thank you for being appalled at the idea of censorship. You are, quite rightly, upset at the idea that some government body would want to ban artwork or prevent you from seeing something, thus taking away your own agency to make decisions about what content or media you wish to consume. You want to change this. You want to fight it. Great.

Because if you don’t stand up for speech you don’t agree with, you open the door for the kind of censorship the art community is facing today.

Someone on Twitter has suggested sending Senator Guy Barnett hundreds of photos of Renaissance nudes to make a point about the stupidity of his anti-nudity stance. I like the idea but I doubt it will make much difference. The man is a dyed-in-the-wool religious conservative who probably believes that seeing nudity is harmful to children. He’s also a fan of using child pornography and “protecting the children” as an excuse for curtailing the rights of adults to freedom of speech.

He’s not the only one. Modern day prudes like Melinda Tankard Reist and “Young Media Australia” are also pushing for censorship in their crusade to “protect children”. The Australian Christian Lobby have their tentacles everywhere in government. They too are waging a moral battle to “save the children”.

Don’t be fooled. This isn’t about protecting kids at all. It’s really a campaign to inflict a certain religious moral agenda onto adult Australians. This “morality” is ultimately anti-sex, anti-reproductive rights and anti-feminist. It’s about returning Australia to a repressive time when information about sex was hidden, when children were seen and not heard, when women knew their place and had no access to contraception or safe termination.

These people want censorship because they fear sex. They think images of nudity or sexuality are inherently corrupting. They believe that repressing sexuality will somehow create a better world. They have no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to back up their claims of “harm”. All they have are religosity and an unshakeable belief that they are righteous. They are the Western version of the Taliban.

We have to stand up to them.

Here’s hoping that this latest censorship assault on the art world will be a quickening for some people, in the same way that the gamers have become organised. And I’m hoping that those who love the arts remember what’s happening here next time they ban an erotic film like Matinee or LA Zombie or Ashley and Kisha.

* The top image is by Rodney Pople. He painted this image of himself being beheaded by his children as a comment on the censorship of art.

* The bottom image is Caravaggio’s “Triumph of Eros” which would undoubtedly be blacklisted.

* Wikimedia Commons has a lovely collection of nude boys in art, there’s plenty of images to help to fire up the moral panic.

Related Posts:

• A Need For Privacy Makes This “Debate” One-Sided
• “9 Songs” And The Hypocrisy Of Censorship
• Australian Porn, Censorship And Statistics Roundup
• What’s Art? What’s Porn? What The Fuck?

Wendy Bacon was a campaigner against Australian censorship in the 1960s and 70s. In this amazing article, she details the fight of students against censorship in those heady libertarian days. This was a time when the Minister for Customs justified bans on books by saying “normal healthy Australians would not be interested in the works of DH Lawrence and Henry Miller anyway.”

Wendy and her friends conducted civil disobedience activities to highlight the nonsense of censorship. They included the publication of two poems that I want to include here on the blog. The poems show just how much sensibilities have changed – and how much the reactions to “obscenity” have stayed the same.

The first poem, Eskimo Nell, is a bawdy football poem:

But Eskimo Nell was an infidel – she equalled a whole harem,
With the strength of ten in her abdomen and her rock of ages beam.
Amidships she could stand the rush like this flush of a water closet,
So she grasped his cock like a Chatswood lock on the National Safe Deposit.
She lay for a while with a subtle smile while the grip of her cunt grew keener,
Then giving a sigh she sucked him dry with the ease of a vacuum cleaner.

The second poem is a deliberately provocative anti-religious poem called “Cunt is a Christian Word”:

Think of all the careless girls
who let men touch them there,
Who were foolish and silly
and forget about their immortal souls
Thinking instead of fleshly pleasures
and who have been brought to ecstasy
five thousand times.
But you have been saved from that.
Saved.

But soon you will realise,
That you have been getting fucked all along.
For there is no cock as big and rough
As the one your church has thrust into you.
God’s great steel penis …

Funny how the football poem is almost tame by today’s standards but I’m sure the religious will still be horribly offended by the second. That’s no reason to not publish it, of course. Freedom from offense is not a human right.

Wendy went to jail for publishing both of those poems. I’d like to thank her for her bravery and fortitude. A pity that 40 years later, we’re still fighting this nonsense fight with our government.

Related Posts:

• A Need For Privacy Makes This “Debate” One-Sided
• First They Came For The Pornographers…
• Fiona Patten Reveals How The NVE Classification Was Derailed
• The Small Boobs Have Snowballed

In August last year, film director Richard Wolstoncroft decided to engage in some civil disobedience.

He had wanted to screen the film LA Zombie, an explicit gay film about zombies, at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival (MUFF). The Australian censors did not grant permission for him to do so – it’s illegal to publicly screen porn in Australia. Angered by the banning of the film, Mr Wolstoncroft organised a “public disobedience freedom of speech event.” No police turned up so he went ahead and showed the film.

Then in November, police raided his home demanding a copy of the DVD. He said he’d destroyed it. They threatened to confiscate all his DVDs and computers but finally relented.

Yesterday he went to court to face charges of… well, I don’t know what, to be honest. Screening a porn film in public or similar. He could have been given a $28,600 fine and spent 2 years in jail. Instead, the magistrate gave him a diversionary order and fined him $750 (plus all costs). He was ordered to pay the money to the Royal Children’s Hospital.

Let’s go beyond the insanity of our laws that make it illegal for consenting adults to view an adult film in a cinema because I think the absurdity of the situation speaks for itself.

What’s more interesting is the way Mr Wolstoncroft has been told to effectively donate to a charity to expunge the sin of showing other adults a porn film. A children’s hospital. Are you picking up the message loud and clear here folks? The implication is that the showing of LA Zombie caused harm. And somehow that harm was to children, apparently. Hence restitution for the crime of watching porn is to pay money to the children’s hospital.

Never mind that nobody was actually harmed, that adults happily attended the screening with out any ill effect, that police didn’t give a damn about it for months (it does seem that in November somebody higher up got a few phonecalls from a Christian lobby group and felt compelled to act).

The other thing is the rather mixed messages it sends. 2 years in jail for showing an adult film is just horrific. The $750 fine seems to suggest the law doesn’t want to take such a ridiculous “crime” seriously. Except to send a veiled message that porn somehow harms children in hospitals.

I’d love to hold a porn film festival in Australia. Perhaps we could just dispense with all that messing about in court and I could just donate some money directly to charity. A couple of grand to the children’s hospital to erase all the sin of watching explicit sex and we’ll call it even. Kind of like six hail marys but with swearing in between.

Or we could, oh, I don’t know… change the fucking classification laws in this country to reflect the 21st century.

Richard is holding a free speech event and mystery film screening to help pay for the court costs this Sunday. Check out the details here.

Related Posts:

• Berlin Porn Film Festival 2009
• Ms Naughty Goes Adventuring
• My First Premiere
• “9 Songs” And The Hypocrisy Of Censorship

Another year has whizzed by and it’s time to do another rundown of all things porn for women in 2010. This year the adult industry has again endured tough times in the face of ever-increasing free content and the dismal global economy. Nonetheless, erotic content for women continues to grow and become more popular. There’s been a real attempt by many in the industry to try and cater to women, perhaps out of desperation. There’s also been an explosion of queer and alternative porn.

In The News

* “Hello Ladies.” In February, Isiah Mustafa first uttered the opening line to the now much-loved Old Spice ad and caused an internet sensation. The advertisement took a quirky view of masculinity and also unashamedly appealed to the sex drive of straight women, something that is still rare. Now millions of women around the world have begun to fantasise about a well-spoken black man who’s on a boat… and a horse.

* Playboy TV made headlines in November when they announced a revamp of the channel, setting their sights on female viewers. They plan to offer “softer” content with “real chemistry, nonenhanced body parts, varied body shapes and contextualized’ sex.”

* In January the Shady Lady ranch in Nevada caused a stir by getting approval to offer male prostitutes to female clients – a first. One of the new workers (”prostidudes”) called “Markus” caused a stir by comparing himself to Rosa Parks. He didn’t last long, quitting in March. The Shady Lady continued on without him.

* The Twilight books and films were so popular that some took to calling the saga “porn for women”. I disagreed.

* British women’s porn pioneer Anna Span put her filmmaking career on hold to run for parliament in March. She stood for the Liberal Democrats using her real name of Anna Arrowsmith and came in third, considerably increasing the LibDem vote.

* The ongoing saga of the .xxx domain continued and I was actually quoted in the Guardian opposing it.

* It was also a huge year for censorship – which I’ll address a little later in the post.

The Magazines Are Back

* 2010 was a bumper year for UK startup magazine Filament, with strong sales and an expansion into the US and Australia.

* Playgirl announced that it was going back into print after a year of web-only publication. The headline-grabbing nude photoshoot of Levi Johnston (Sarah Palin’s would-be son-in-law) prompted the turnaround; his pics appeared in the February edition, causing much distress because there was no full-frontal nudity.

* In January Candy Rain, another magazine for straight women, was launched. Only one issue appeared all year however a benefit has recently been held to assist in publishing the second.

New Porn for Women Movies (Straight)

* In my opinion the best film for women released this year was Erika Lust’s Life Love Lust. Her beautifully-produced vignettes have a depth and vision not usually seen in porn. She also dared to portray sex that results in… a baby. For The Girls interviewed Erika in July and I included pics from the movie here.

* Petra Joy released Her Porn 2, another compilation of erotic short films and excerpts for women. I found this important because it includes my first short film, “That’s What I Like”. Petra also completed filming her fourth feature, despite ill health and numerous production issues.

* Netherlands-based director Jennifer Lyon Bell teamed up with Belgian artist Murielle Scherre, aka La Fille D’O, to create Des Jours Plus Belles Que La Nuit, a depiction of a real couple making love in real time. It won a Feminist Porn Award for Best Direction. It is due to be released in the US soon, following the already successful Matinee.

* Mimi Balfour created a softcore erotic film called Man of My Dreams which also won a Feminist Porn Award.

* Sex advisor and author Jamye Waxman directed 101 Sex Positions For Lovers which was filmed in Jamaica and featured real-life couples.

* Larger producers Playgirl and Sweet Sinner continued to release new features aimed at straight women regularly in 2010. Major studio New Sensations also created a new line called “Romance”, aimed at women and couples.

Lesbian and Queer Porn

* Artist and porn star Madison Young had a huge year in 2010. She directed and starred in a swathe of films including Pregnant With Desire, a new film exploring the sexual aspects of pregnancy. Madison herself is expecting her first child in 2011.

* Queersexual personality Jiz Lee was everywhere this year, appearing in many indie and alt films as well as popping up in more mainstream productions. She also set up her own charity website, Karma Pervs and appeared in a massive queer orgy for her 30th birthday on Crash Pad Series. For The Girls interviewed her in November.

* Courtney Trouble was also a queer filmmaking powerhouse this year, releasing numerous films through the Reel Queer Productions label including several titles in the Roulette series and Seven Minutes In Heaven. She also maintained her stable of queer porn sites including NoFauxxx.

* French director Emilie Jouvet took a group of queer friends on a sex tour of Europe and released Too Much Pussy: Feminist Sluts on the QueerX Roadshow, an erotic documentary of their trip.

* Triangle Films made waves with their major production River Rock Women’s Prison which won several awards.

Statistics and Surveys

* In February the Sun reported that more women were watching porn than ever with 76% of readers “admitting” to enjoying porn.

* In June, Cosmopolitan reported on a survey of their readers and found that 60% of their readers enjoyed porn, either alone or as part of their relationship. Another 15% said they hadn’t seen it but were open to the idea.

Awards and Festivals

* In April the fifth annual Feminist Porn Awards were announced with gongs handed out to a variety of groundbreaking straight and queer films. The list of nominations was substantial, revealing just how much the female-friendly and alt porn movement has grown. 2010 saw the first Emerging Filmmaker award handed out to Tobi Hill Meyer.

* The AVN Awards continued to mostly ignore alternative films, concentrating on the mainstream industry. Tristan Taormino won Best Educational Release for her Expert Guide to Threesomes but that was about it. The awards night was attended by the “Queer Porn Mafia” (Jiz Lee, Dylan Ryan, Amber Flores, Madison Young and Courtney Trouble among others – see pic above).

* The Pornutopia erotic film festival held in Albuquerque was cancelled after local authorities told them they were breaking zoning laws. The city maintains it isn’t censorship but the festival directors aren’t convinced.

* I didn’t get to attend the Berlin Porn Film Festival this year which was a pity as they had a record-breaking attendance. Jennifer Lyon Bell conducted a workshop on porn and feminism and Emile Jouvet’s film Much More Pussy received an honourable mention.

* Cinekink, the kinky film festival based in New York, toured the US throughout the year. I’m pleased to say my film That’s What I Like featured at a number of screenings.

Our Porn, Ourselves and The Anti-Porn Brigade

* 2010 saw a major increase in campaigning against pornography, thanks mostly to Gail Dines who was flogging her anti-porn book Pornland to anyone who’d listen. Dines uses shock tactics and generalisations to argue that porn was “hijacking our sexuality” and ultimately should be prohibited. Dines said “Women defending porn are likely deluded by the near trillion dollar industry.” My reply to that is here.

* Religious groups are also moving to ban porn using the dodgy concept of “addiction”. In May I looked at Dirty Girls Ministries, a site that charges women money to help cure their “addiction” to masturbation and porn.

* Blogger and author Violet Blue fought back against the anti-porn movement, creating Our Porn, Ourselves, a gathering of pro-porn activists including many women who enjoy explicit material. Violet’s Facebook page had over 3000 members when Facebook shut it down without warning or explanation in July.

* Moral panic about the “sexualisation of children” has also spurred numerous calls for censorship. In July a conference in the UK attended by Australian academic Catharine Lumby sought to cut through the nonsense and properly study the issue. They pointed out that most of the “research” on the issue is biased or poorly conceived. I wrote about the issue here.

Other Censorship

Looking back at my blog posts over the last year, it’s depressing to see how often censorship and anti-porn campaigning comes up. Perhaps its a personal obsession but I think it’s part of an overall trend. The governments of the world have woken up and they want to control the internet. Part of that is a panic over online porn and a demand for increased censorship. Here in Australia, the nanny state has gotten worse in 2010 with numerous arrests and crackdowns on adult material.

* In January a storm erupted in cyberspace over reports that Australia had banned the depiction of small breasts in porn and were also banning female ejaculation. The news came from The Sex Party and I wrote about it on this blog post. Within days the story had gone viral and turned up in mainstream media. The censors eventually denied that this was the case, although it did publicse the fact that material can be considered child porn if the models *look* underage.

Nonetheless, it rapidly became an established internet “fact” and even resulted in web vigilantes Anonymous attacking the Australian parliament in “Operation Titstorm” as part of a protest against the proprosed mandatory internet filter.

* In March TV show Hungry Beast raised awareness of censorship with their report on the way magazines alter images of female genitalia to meet classification guidelines: “Too Much Genital Detail”

* In May Garion Hall, the owner of AbbyWinters.com, was found guilty of “making an objectionable film” – even though the magistrate didn’t watch the film or ask for anyone else to classify it. It was the first conviction of its kind in Australia. Abby Winters has now moved all operations to The Netherlands.

* Also in May, an adult shop owner was sent to prison for three months for selling X-rated films in Sydney. Since then there have been numerous raids on sex shops and a crackdown on selling explicit porn in several states. It is not illegal to own or buy X-rated films in Australian states but it is illegal to sell them. NSW has since given police the power to decide if a film is illegal on the spot, rather than handing it over to classifiers.

* In July Australian Senator Stephen Conroy announced that the planned mandatory internet filter would be delayed pending a review of the classification categories. The subsequent federal election saw a minority Labor government with the filter still on the cards.

* In the US in April, adult director and author Tristan Taormino faced protests from a “family” group before giving a presentation on porn at Princeton University.

* In December, the UK parliament decided they wanted to jump on the censorship bandwagon, looking at a plan to ban online porn unless adults “opt in”.

Ms Naughty In 2010

Professionally, this year hasn’t been the best for me. The biggest problem has been neverending delays with the upgrade of For The Girls. You can read the full, painful story here. I still haven’t got a refund and I lost so much time waiting, putting things off. I also held off on my plans for more erotic films. So it’s been very frustrating.

Indeed, writing this retrospective based on my blog posts has been difficult simply because I haven’t posted as much this year. Twitter is partly to blame but I’ve also been spending time doing other things.

Still, the last couple of months have seen me get back on track. I’m still editing the footage I shot in November and I also took part in a fabulous male model shoot at the start of December for FTG. The results are fantastic.

2010 marked my 10th anniversary creating porn online. It’s kind of hard to believe I’ve been doing this for so long. I have been suffering a bit of porn fatigue lately but I’m also motivated to head into the new year with a fresh mind and try new things. Lots to do!

Perhaps my biggest non-porn achievement of the year was cycling 500km over 9 days in September. I also attended the Rise of Atheism conference in Melbourne which was inspiring and interesting. And I handed out “how to votes” for the Sex Party which was more fun than I expected.

Some larger blog posts from 2010

Defining the harm of porn – a look at Michael Flood’s research and why it’s flawed
What Oprah didn’t tell you about porn for women – I wrote a guest piece for Good Vibrations blog on my favourite topic.
Dear kinky people, cut vanilla a break, will ya? – A somewhat controversial post about how vanilla sex is sometimes derided as boring or repressed.
It Gets Better… But why should it be bad in the first place? – Are teenagers forever doomed to be horrible to each other?
In 2010, a prosecution for procuring an abortion – My thoughts on abortion.
Fiona Patten reveals how the NVE classification was derailed – a video from the Humanist Conference detailing how porn was almost legalised in 1999.
How sex with your head in a toilet bowl can be OK – Not all porn is degrading
The female gaze does not exist? – Another bit of musing (and arguing) on the terms “porn for women” and “the female gaze”.

Eye Candy Posts

Admiring the mankini
The Dirk Diggler dick from Boogie Nights’ last scene
In defence of facial hair

Previous End Of Year Posts

Porn for women retrospective 2009
Porn for women retrospective 2008
Porn for women retrospective 2007
Porn for women retrospective 2006

Image Credit
Pic of the Queer Porn Mafia by Courtney Trouble from here.

Related Posts:

• Berlin Porn Film Festival 2009
• Porn For Women Retrospective 2008
• Where The Hell Is My Prince Charming?
• My Decade In Online Porn

“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” – Mark Twain

We’re into the… let me think… fourth year of plans to introduce a mandatory internet filter in Australia and now it seems the UK conservatives want a piece of the censorial goodness. The British government is going to start talks with ISPs to discuss creating an “opt-in” version of the internet where all porn is mandatorily censored unless you put your name on their list.

Wow, sounds horribly, stupidly familiar. And I can only assume that the UK will now go through the same process we have: first, questions will be asked as to the technical feasibility of it all. Because naturally the idea will be prohibitively difficult to pursue and also expensive.

Next, they’ll have to work out what they mean by “porn”. Are we talking just the hardcore stuff? Nudity? Breastfeeding? Sex education sites?

Then, the geeks shall arise. Porn-loving people will realise they’re not alone, that they won’t stand for the government telling them what they, as adults, can and can’t see and they’ll start to get organised. To protest. To stand up for free speech. Because this is absolutely an attack on free speech.

The usual excuse is being used: “Won’t somebody think of the children!”

The MP (Claire Perry) rejects claims she is anti-porn, instead insisting tighter regulations would stop children from viewing restricted content.

“Why is the onus on parents, teachers and carers to act as web guides and policemen? Where is the industry responsibility?” Ms Perry asks.

(Source)

Why is the onus on parents, teachers and carers, Ms Perry? Because that’s their fucking job! That’s what “parenting” is about last time I looked. But never mind that, she is going to impose censorship because she believes most people can’t look after their own kids. Insulting to both the child-free and those who are responsible parents.

She also defends her position because apparently most people won’t use filters, either because they don’t know how or they don’t want to. Sorry, Ms Perry, but the rest of us shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s stupidity.

Read her full opinion piece here.

Alarmingly, she does her best to back up her call for censorship with the claim that there’s “compelling evidence” that porn does harm to children. Her source for this is a group called Safer Media. I looked up their site. They are a Christian anti-porn group who believe that any kind of media can induce crime. Aside from 4 outdated studies from the 70s, their main example of this “compelling evidence” is a study called “A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of pornography” published in 1997. It seems to be a favourite of the anti-porn and religious purity brigade because it’s quoted often on the various anti-porn sites.

And, unsurprisingly, the research for that study was conducted by The Marriage and Religion Research Institute in co-operation with the “Love and Responsibility Project of The Center for the Study of Catholic Higher Education.” The opening statement on that study says pornography is a “grave offense” that “perverts the conjugal act.”

Yep. Nice bit of unbiased research there. Read it and be impressed by the way it reaches its conclusion at the start, unhindered by any trifling concern with scientific method.

One biased meta study by a religious group shouldn’t comprise enough evidence to motivate a government into large-scale censorship. Because the fact is there is still no definitive peer-reviewed scientific evidence that porn is harmful – to children or adults.

So, UK readers. It’s your turn to stand up and fight this crap. Tell these people that they can’t take away your right to free speech just because some people are bad parents. Tell them that if they want to start censoring porn, they’d better come up with real, quantifiable scientific evidence that it actually does harm.

And pop on over to the various Australian websites like Gizmodo where we’ve already been having this argument for four years. You’ll be able to see all the opposition’s nonsense trotted out in advance, along with the well-reasoned discussion points you can use in reply. And note that we are still fighting this shit – even though the government has been forced to back down and change its position numerous times thanks to our ongoing opposition.

You can win this. We can win this. You just have to stop being embarassed about liking porn and be prepared to stand up for free speech.

And if enough of you can unite to get Surfin’ Bird into the Christmas singles chart, you can definitely stand together to save the internet from government philistines.

Pic is from here.

Update – more good posts:
Sex educator Dr Petra Boynton unpacks the whole shebang here.

Good critique of dodgy data at Thought Soup.

Bish Training has another great perspective.

Violet Blue shreds MP Claire Perry’s “research” at ZDnet

Related Posts:

• “A Real, As Opposed To A Fanciful, Risk Of Harm”
• A Need For Privacy Makes This “Debate” One-Sided
• First They Came For The Pornographers…
• The Punishment For Screening Porn In Australia Is… A Donation?

Over the weekend, Australia had an election. Now the people have spoken and their overwhelming response is: Meh.

We have a hung parliament. Neither Labor or the Liberal/National coalition won enough seats to form government. This means the fate of the country lies with three country independents and a freshly minted Greens MP. Meanwhile, the Greens have gained control of the senate.

This is all fantastic news. If you’ve been following my blog you’ll know I’ve often written about the ridiculous internet filter proposed by Labor. I couldn’t vote for them because of it but I was loathe to support the conservatives. I really didn’t want to see either of them in charge… and now they’re not. Rather, we have three Independents who all seem to have a lot of passion and integrity. People are feeling a little stunned that these blokes actually give honest answers in their TV interviews. That’s how jaded and immune to spin we’ve become.

And now there’s a chance that these guys can actually change things for the better. They’ve all said they have little time for spin or party politics or bickering; rather, they want to see issues being addressed. They’re also promising changes to our crap electoral system so we won’t ever have to sit through the nonsense of this election campaign ever again. I’m just so pleased about it.

I spent Saturday morning handing out pamphlets for the Australian Sex Party. My husband and I caused quite a stir at the booth wearing our bright yellow “Vote 1 Sex” T-shirts; a surprising number of people said they wanted to own one. There was a lot of interest from a wide variety of people, including the other volunteers handing out How-To-Votes. So many people sidled up and said “Can I just have a look at that pamphlet?” We also got a few cheers and made plenty of people smile. Better yet, we noticeably boosted the vote for the ASP. I only wish I could have done it in Victoria, where Fiona Patten came incredibly close to winning a seat in the Senate. Next time, for sure.

So… after an idiotic and inane election campaign things took a surprising turn and I now have reason to feel hope for the future of this country. Which ever side gets in, they’re going to have to change they way they conduct themselves. Less spin, more consultation, greater honesty and integrity.

And one thing is certain: there won’t be an internet filter here any time soon.

As @benbirchall said on Twitter: “Nobody’s in charge, Australia! Let’s eat the condensed milk out of the can!”

Pic is from For The Girls.

Related Posts:

• A Need For Privacy Makes This “Debate” One-Sided
• First They Came For The Pornographers…
• Poems Punishable By Jail

And here’s my favourite: Muscle Bound, with a fabulous introduction by Marcel Wave.

A Twitter conversation has made me revisit some of the sexy Hot Gossip dance clips on Youtube, so I thought I’d post a couple here.

Hot Gossip were a dance troupe in the 70s and 80s who became famous via the Kenny Everett Video Show. They were also incredibly RUDE. At least, that’s what I thought when I was 10. I wrote about the experience in 2007 – read about it here – and posed the question: was it a bad thing that I got to watch suspender-wearing women dancing in a sexy way when I was young?

I don’t think it was. Yes, it shaped my idea of sexiness but I was never made to feel about about enjoying it. So it was never a problem and it’s now a fond memory for me.

I’ve recently written about the moral panic of “sexualisation of children” and I feel the urge to add a bit more to this in light of “the Hot Gossip experience.” To whit: it seems to me that those making a fuss about “sexualisation” automatically assume that a childhood awareness of sex and sexuality is harmful. But that’s a big call to make and I don’t think it’s backed up by any evidence.

And really, is it so bad for a young person to see a Hot Gossip or a raunchy Lady Gaga video and to find that experience sexy?

* Another thought: the ABC is repeating old episodes of The Goodies from 1972. The episode entitled “The New Office” sees Bill putting up a poster of a topless woman on the wall. The poster remains visible for the entire scene. Interestingly, while the ABC censored some bits of the show when it screened at 6pm weeknights (usually when they said “Get Stuffed”), the poster was never censored or blurred. Contrast this now with the censorship of nude photos from art exhibitions because “kids might see them”.

Related Posts:

• A Hot Guy For Friday

So it’s official now: the Opposition will scrap plans for the internet filter if they get into government. Liberal Treasury spokesperson Joe Hockey spoke about this stance on JJJ radio and it was later confirmed by another party spokesperson.

If you were reading my Twitter feed you would have seen that my husband actually got Joe Hockey to say this over two weeks ago (July 18) when we were on holiday in Cairns. We were strolling the boardwalk on the esplanade when seemingly out of nowhere Mr Hockey appeared, pressing the flesh with media in tow. My husband asked him if it was Liberal policy to oppose the filter and Mr Hockey said it was. There were channel 7 and channel 9 cameras recording this, along with several other journos present.

Alas, it didn’t make the Sunday news. There was no mention of him saying this anywhere. The media simply decided it wasn’t important enough to publish.

Worse still, we’d left our little camera in the hotel room so we had no proof that it even happened. Imagine if I’d got the exchange on camera and put it up on Youtube?

Today I read Annabel Crabb’s amazing behind-the-scenes article about how journalists are “embedded” with politicians on the campaign trail. It’s not surprising that this is the most inane and soulless election ever, given the stitched-up nature of political reporting in this country.

Imagine if citizen journalists were allowed access to these stage-managed press conferences? Imagine if more of us were able to ask the real questions and then put the footage out there via the net? Perhaps we’d have more honesty, clarity and facts and a far better democracy.

Maybe we need to be more proactive in holding our elected officials to account.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

In 2000, the Howard government seriously considered introducing a new law that would have essentially made explicit porn movies legal in Australia. The Non Violent Erotica (NVE) classification was to replace the existing X classification. Explicit films rated X are illegal to sell in all Australian states (though it’s not illegal to own them). The NVE classification was a handy way of liberalising erotic material in one broad legal stroke without messing around with the laws of individual states.

(I have to say, part of me is still stunned that the Liberals, traditionally the conservative side of politics in Australia, had actually decided to go down this path in 2000. And I’m appalled that the government and opposition we have in 2010 are essentially more conservative, religious and pro-censorship!)

Unfortunately one right-wing fundamentalist Christian had balance of power in the Senate in 2000 – Brian Harradine. And he succeeded in sinking the NVE classification, ensuring that Australia continues to be stuck with an archaic censorship system.

In this video, shot at the Queensland Humanist Convention in May, Sex Party leader Fiona Patten describes how Harradine convinced the Prime Minister that porn shouldn’t be legalised: he held a private screening of porn films. Essentially, Brian Harradine held a stag night at Parliament House.

Fiona also talks about how she’s spoken to MPs who privately have no issue with porn but who are afraid of losing the religious vote on “moral” issues – thus, we end up in this stagnant political quagmire.

You could argue that the derailing of the NVE classification became something of a moot point in the face of the glories of internet porn. Nonetheless, our ridiculously outdated censorship system is still used by the religious right as a tool for imposing their version of morality on the rest of us. And the internet filter plan has meant we are now hearing calls for the government to classify everything on the internet, with an aim of banning legal adult material.

If you are interested in the history of the X-rating, read An X-Rated Hoax on Libertus. This was written in 1999 and was originally submitted to the government when they were considering the NVE classification.

If you follow me on Twitter you’ll know I’ve been plugging the Sex Party a lot recently. As an atheist, feminist pornographer who believes in human rights, how could I not? We’re currently in the middle of an election campaign here in Australia, so I can’t help but “root” for the ones who are fighting censorship and oppression.

One more thing: isn’t the hypocrisy of censorship infuriating? It was OK for a group of politicians to have an (illegal) public screening of erotic transsexual films in order to “assess” them but the rest of us are apparently morally incapable of such dispassionate judgement. The same thing occurs every time the Australian Classification Board judges something to be Refused Classification; they can see it but the rest of us are too fragile to withstand it.

(Note: The video is 2:12 long and I’m hosting it on my server. Unfortunately I am having a lot of trouble uploading videos to Youtube or other vid services at present so this means the video is not embeddable. Sorry.)

Related Posts:

• A Need For Privacy Makes This “Debate” One-Sided
• First They Came For The Pornographers…
• Poems Punishable By Jail
• “Excessive Genital Detail”: Photoshopped Vulvas In Men’s Mags