Category: Censorship

03 Aug

1 Comment

Fiona Patten Reveals How The NVE Classification Was Derailed

by

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

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 Nonetheless, our ridiculously outdated censorship system is still used by the religious right as a tool for imposing their version of morality on the rest of us.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.)

29 Jul

4 Comments

Facebook Deletes The Our Porn, Ourselves Page

by

In yet another example of their opaque censorship policies, Facebook has removed Violet Blue’s Our Porn, Ourselves page, even though it had over 3000 members and was obsessively policed by Violet. It seems the anti-porn zealots may have been behind it. Read more about it over at Violet’s blog.

Like other member’s of that group, I’m reposting Violet’s letter to Facebook, questioning the page removal. A shit storm is about to get started, folks. Will be interesting to see how FB reacts.

Hello,

I’m Violet Blue: bestselling and award-winning author, and educator who speaks from UCSF and UC Berkley (Boalt) to Google Inc. Tech Talks on my field of expertise — exactly what this Facebook group page was about.

My page did not violate any of the reasons stated for deletion. It was under constant attack by people who disagreed with our point of view, and constantly reported our posts and images, even though we were very careful not to violate your Terms. May I find out why the page was removed? It is my utmost priority to follow and uphold Facebook community rules and standards. With national media attention to the page, questions will be raised and I hope to be able to furnish answers. Especially with a higher minded page of over 3000 members seeking community and discussion around a topic that did not target any group, threaten anyone, or link/depict/suggest inappropriate content. In fact, I policed the posts hourly for spam and attacks on our members, of which there were many. We never posted obscenity in links or images, though innocent user photos seemed to be increasingly mysteriously removed.

I feel that our page was targeted, and that we did nothing to violate the community standards of Facebook, which we sought to uphold. Any help to find out why this has happened would be deeply appreciated. I do not want to be talking to press about this in the next few days and be left guessing. We sought a safe place to discuss sex culture in media, and that is all.

I sincerely hope we can resolve this. Salon and Examiner wrote about our page as a signifier of community organization around women’s empowerment, calling it a new movement for women’s rights. I could tell we were under attack by those who violently opposed our discussions and representation as a community intersection for enriched discussions about important women’s rights issues. This development is confusing and saddening.

This fostering of group community around female empowerment and the page topic stems from my work as a talkshow guest (Oprah), international conference speaker, and columnist for various national and international magazines and publications (Oprah Magazine, Forbes.com, MacLife, etc) and media pundit (Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, Esquire, Redbook, Wired, etc).

Please help me understand what I can tell media outlets asking about this, and the over 3K member we had in the page group.

Sincere thanks,
Violet Blue

12 Jun

8 Comments

Why Yes, I Am A Capitalist

by

I need to say something. Something that’s pretty obvious really: I’m a capitalist. I make porn to make money. It’s how I earn my living.

And it seems that some would argue that because I’m trying to make a profit from porn, this immediately means that anything I have to say on the topic of censorship or feminist porn is therefore tainted or hasn’t any weight. I got this aggravation from a certain angsty and light-on-for-facts female blogger last year and I’m feeling it again in the wake of the Our Porn, Ourselves conversation.

Audacia Ray, who I very much admire and respect, wrote this in her piece about the current stoush:

…there are plenty of people involved in the mainstream hetero porn world who are proponents of free speech being generously applied to the adult industry (dicey legal construction of “obscenity” be damned!), but their commitment to free speech is more about protecting their business interests than being renegade First Amendment advocates. Violet is very much not one of the motivated-by-porn-profit people, her interest in porn is actually about having an interest in the sexualities of women.

Audacia’s dichotomy makes me rather uncomfortable. It suggests that any effort to protect free speech should be somehow pure and untainted by the profit motivation. It’s a troubling assertion because it seems to suggest that those of us making a living from porn and protesting censorship (as I do regularly) are only motivated by a desire to protect an income stream. That’s a little too black-and-white for my liking.

Yes, I hate the idea of censorship because it means I wouldn’t be able to earn a living making porn. But that’s not the only reason, nor is it the biggest motivation. I hate it when other people tell me what I can and cannot read, see, hear, film or say. It offends me as a human being. Running a commercial adult business does not change that motivation. And I don’t doubt that John Stagliano, who is facing obscenity prosecutions, feels the same way.

The same applies with regards to the discussion of adult material, what it means and whether it may be a problem in our society. I’m a webmistress who is part of the adult industry but that doesn’t mean I don’t strongly believe in the ideals of feminist porn or automatically reject any valid criticism of porn. Yes, I have commercial issues to consider but it doesn’t negate my ideals or determination to make porn better. I’m not a saint, but then, is anybody?

Gail Dines, the organiser of the Stop Porn Culture conference, has dismissed me, Violet Blue and any other women who enjoy porn thusly:
“Women defending porn are likely deluded by the near trillion dollar industry.”

Ah, false consciousness is fun, isn’t it? You can dismiss almost anything by patting the other person on the head and telling them they “just don’t understand.”

I’m not deluded. I’m also not engaged in a purely cynical exercise just to make a buck in this alleged “trillion dollar industry”. If I were, I would have been selling Jenna Jameson products from the moment I started, not making porn for women like myself.

And I seriously doubt that all the women who are coming forward to defend the idea of freedom of speech and sexual expression aren’t just dupes of the evil porn industry. No doubt most of them have spent time thinking about porn and also struggling with the idea that women aren’t supposed to like it, on top of fact that so much of it is just plain bad. A woman who is brave enough to say she likes porn has given the issue some serious thought.

Unlike Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan who happily wrote an entire column supporting the anti-porn conference without bothering to do a skerrick of research.

In any case, my point is this: Yes, I’m a capitalist but I also care deeply about feminism and freedom of speech. And I think that one should not preclude the other.

10 Jun

1 Comment

The Big Red Shiny Button

by


History Eraser Button

emski* [AVS/MFL] | MySpace Video

Fresh from saving us all from “spams and scams coming through the portal“, Minister for Communications Senator Conroy has come up with another brilliant idea to save the kiddies from all the horrors of the internet. A nice shiny red browser button.

Based on the Adobe Air platform, the security device, notionally referred to as a “big red button” will either occupy the Windows taskbar or sit prominently on the desktop.

Clicking the device will permit a child experiencing trouble to either access assistance to report issues to a social networking site or to connect with Police.

Sounds a lot like the Porn Siren, a cunning idea I came up with quite a few years ago.

Ridiculously, the panic button is said to have cost $100,000 and a team of 8 programmers to create. Junket, anyone?

As IT wire points out, either kids won’t know when to push it or, like Stimpy in the History Eraser Button video above, they’ll be sitting there feeling incredibly tempted to push it. Hell, I’d like to push it just to piss people off.

What is wrong with simply talking to kids? Educating them about their media environment? Parenting them. Being in the room when they’re on the internet. Instead, this government is wasting my hard earned tax dollars on pointless things like the big red panic button.

Filed Under: Censorship

Tags: , ,

29 May

4 Comments

Australian Magistrate Declares Films “Objectionable” Without Watching Them

by

Abby Winters owner fined $6000
In June 2009 the officers of Australian sex positive adult company Abby Winters was raided by police. In January 2010 Garion Hall was charged with “producing an objectionable film” and also 2 counts of child porn.

The case has finally gone to court and G Media, the company that runs Abby Winters, has been fined $6000 after Hall pleaded guilty to the objectionable film charge. The CP charges were dropped, unsurprisingly. The verdict seems to have been the result of a deal between prosecutors and Hall. It’s possible that the police couldn’t get most of the charges to stand and wanted the whole thing to be over and out of the way. I’m sure the politicans wanted it this way too.

Looking at the broader picture, the end result is very disappointing. This was supposed to be a test case to see if the nonsense law of “making an objectionable film” could even stand up to scrutiny. “Objectionable” is defined in Victorian law as something that is offensive to a reasonable adult. Ideally the court should have tested this supposition by asking if Abby Winter’s films were too shocking for the average joe to deal with.

That didn’t happen. Indeed, the Magistrate declined to even watch the films.

Got that folks? The Victorian legal system has declared that someone had made an objectionable film without even viewing that film.

The Magistrate didn’t even get someone to do the dirty work for her. No “experts” in the form of Australian Classification Board officials were called in to discuss the nature of the films. Instead, we have the first ever prosecution of this criminal law without any decent kind of legal test.

I don’t blame Garion Hall for wanting to just pay a fine and bog off to the US to make his films. Why fuck around with such nonsense laws? And yet it feels like a wasted opportunity to really show just how out of touch our country’s censorship laws are.

It’s also a great big slap in the face for freedom of speech in this country. Rest assured, you can’t make films with explicit sex in Victoria, even if that state has recently put new human rights protection laws onto the book. Seems that the courts won’t bother to consider the craptabulous question of whether it’s “art” or “porn”. You’ll just be fined and told to go elsewhere because Victoria doesn’t stand for that sort of thing. Cue the pearl clutching.

If you’re Australian and you’re shaking your head at this please consider voting for the Australian Sex Party in the senate at the next election. It’s our best chance to get laws like these off the books.

28 Apr

2 Comments

Protests Against Tristan Taormino At Princeton

by

Tristan TaorminoThe Examiner reports that a conservative “family” group operating on the campus of Princeton University has created a petition protesting against a planned lecture by Tristan Taormino on feminist porn.

Tristan is due to speak tomorrow at the campus. Her presentation is called “My Life As a Feminist Pornographer” and will feature clips from her films.

According to the Examiner, The Anscombe Society is a student organization at Princeton University “dedicated to affirming the importance of the family, marriage, and a proper understanding for the role of sex and sexuality.” The anti-porn group has put up posters condemning the event and created an online petition which currently has 274 signatures. They’ve also written to numerous university officials calling for the event to be cancelled and expressed disapproval at the government funding it has received.

The university has responded by saying it’s a legitimate academic discussion, aided by examples. Nice to see the uni standing up for freedom of speech and honest intellectual discussions.

And I bet the Anscombe society is never invited to Porn and Prawn nights off campus.

More details in this report from the Daily Princeton.

12 Apr

5 Comments

Strip Clubs Safer Than Churches

by

Church now 29% assault freeThis is too amusing to not blog about: figures from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that more assaults, thefts and sexual assaults occurred in churches than in adult entertainment premises in Australia in 2008.

A breakdown of the figures showed that 85 people were assaulted in places of worship, compared to 66 at an adult entertainment premises.

According to the report, places of worship include churches, synagogues, monasteries, mosques, convents, cathedrals and chapels.

Premises listed under adult entertainment included strip clubs, sex shops, brothels, massage parlours, homosexual clubs, gaming houses as well as gambling clubs.

Places of worship were also ahead on sexual offences (16), theft from motor vehicles (33), resisting arrest (7) and liquor offences (10).

Harassment and threatening behaviour at places of worship (30) was more than double that of adult entertainment (13).

Funnier still, 20 people were charged with possession of marijuana in a church in 2007.

I’m looking at these figures and wonder whether our current laws have it right after all; you can’t have a strip club within 500m of a church. Maybe because it’s so dangerous in them thar churches and may cause offense to strip club patrons.

31 Mar

2 Comments

The Filthy Fifteen

by

Today I was reading about the formation of the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) – the group headed by Tipper Gore responsible for creating the “Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics” sticker. Given the current climate of censorship it’s always useful to go back and look at previous moral crusades. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, it all sounds very familiar.

In 1985 Tipper Gore decided that somebody had to think of the children after hearing Prince’s distinctly sexy song Darling Nikki on Purple Rain (featured in the vid above). She began to push for ratings on albums and made up the “Filthy Fifteen” list of songs considered to be the most objectionable. Those songs are:

1 Prince “Darling Nikki”
2 Sheena Easton “Sugar Walls”
3 Judas Priest “Eat Me Alive”
4 Vanity “Strap on Robbie Baby”
5 Mötley Crüe “Bastard”
6 AC/DC “Let Me Put My Love into You”
7 Twisted Sister “We’re Not Gonna Take It”
8 Madonna “Dress You Up”
9 W.A.S.P. “Animal (Fuck Like a Beast)”
10 Def Leppard “High ‘n’ Dry (Saturday Night)”
11 Mercyful Fate “Into the Coven”
12 Black Sabbath “Trashed”
13 Mary Jane Girls “In My House”
14 Venom “Possessed”
15 Cyndi Lauper “She Bop”

As a child of the 80s, I regularly listened to music with explicit lyrics, including many songs on that list. I seem to have survived OK. As have the millions of other people my age. I fondly recall listening to Dress You Up at age 13, thinking that it was about… well, fashion, actually. And She Bop was about dancing.

But you know, I DID understand that Darling Nikki was a sexy song. I was a little shocked to hear the word “masturbating” but that’s what made it so damn cool. It made me feel sexy and it turned me on, which was pretty much the whole point. Beyond that… well, it was only a song. I can’t say it had any negative effect on my psyche or behaviour.

The PMRC also organised a senate hearing into “porn rock”. Those keen on censorship said that music had become dangerous because it no longer talked about sex in a subtle way.

Susan Baker testified that “There certainly are many causes for these ills in our society, but it is our contention that the pervasive messages aimed at children which promote and glorify suicide, rape, sadomasochism, and so on, have to be numbered among the contributing factors.” Naturally they didn’t provide any conclusive evidence to back up their claim. The PMRC also got their knickers in a knot over backmasking and supposed subliminal messages in music.

There were three opposing witnesses: Frank Zappa, Dee Snider from Twisted Sister and… John Denver. The latter had been through his own controversy thanks to people misinterpreting Rocky Mountain High. He said he was “strongly opposed to censorship of any kind in our society or anywhere else in the world.”

The PMRC won, of course. The stickers went out and major stores such as Wal-Mart then refused to stock the albums. The “voluntary” rating created a chilling effect within the music industry, with some labels urging bands to tone down lyrics for the sake of better distribution and sales. At the same time, there was quite a backlash, with heaps of artists deliberately using explicit lyrics as a statement of defiance.

Interestingly, one of the first albums to receive an “explicit lyrics” sticker was Jazz From Hell by Frank Zappa, an instrumental album with no lyrics whatsoever.

* I’ve plundered most of this blog post from the Wikipedia entry on the PMRC which is well worth reading – especially the section on the various anti-Tipper statements made by bands.

Best example: the sticker that appeared on Metallica’s 1986 album Master of Puppets which read: ‘THE ONLY TRACK YOU PROBABLY WON’T WANT TO PLAY IS “DAMAGE, INC.” DUE TO THE MULTIPLE USE OF THE INFAMOUS “F” WORD. OTHERWISE, THERE AREN’T ANY “SHITS,” “FUCKS,” “PISSES,” “CUNTS,” “MOTHERFUCKERS,” OR “COCKSUCKERS” ANYWHERE ON THIS RECORD’

22 Mar

2 Comments

“Too Much Genital Detail”

by

A couple of weeks ago Hungry Beast on the ABC did a great job of exposing the insanity of Australia’s classification laws, focusing on the rule that forbids “too much genital detail” in photos of naked women in magazines. Essentially, the rule means that any glimpse of a woman’s inner labia is considered to be obscene and thus the mag has to be classified as “restricted” and be wrapped in plastic in some places.

This rule has been in force for over ten years. The end result is that soft porn magazines like People and Penthouse regularly adjust photos of women’s genitalia with Photoshop, “healing” any stray pink bits to ensure the pussy looks “neat and tidy”.

Never mind that women’s pussies are rarely “neat and tidy” or that uneven or protruding inner labia are perfectly normal, our government ensures that the average person can’t see them in a unrestricted magazine. The result, of course, is that anyone looking at these pictures may develop a warped view of how women’s vulvas are supposed to look.

This issue last surfaced in 2001 when Australian Women’s Forum featured an article on labiaplasty and discussed the effects of airbrushed porn on women’s self esteem. It sought to include “before” and “after” photos revealing how the Photoshopping occurs… but then the Classification Board stepped in and ruled that the article contained “too much genital detail.” Even though the photos were absolutely relevant to the story.

I watched this and snarled, especially at the clueless representative of the Board who hedged and said had no real idea as to what met the guidelines and what didn’t. Of course, he was lying. He knows that pink bits are bad. That’s the way it’s been done for the last ten years. The publishing industry knows it and have adjusted their practices accordingly.

I’m hoping that this report helped to raise awareness among younger people about the nonsense that is our censorship system. Maybe this combined with the R-rated games issue and net filtering will get people finally thinking about why the government thinks adults are unable to deal with inner labia, or violent video games, or fetishes.

29 Jan

6 Comments

Great Moments In Australian Censorship

by

BannedSo, 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.

29 Jan

7 Comments

The Small Boobs Have Snowballed

by

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.

27 Jan

40 Comments

Now Australia Is Banning Small Boobs

by

Small boobs - obscene now?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

25 Jan

2 Comments

Blacked Out

by

Blacked Out
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.

Filed Under: Censorship

Tags: , , ,

16 Jan

26 Comments

The Strange Politics Of “Obscene” Bodily Fluids

by

G Spot and Female EjaculationThe 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!

15 Jan

37 Comments

Female Ejaculation Films To Be Banned In Australia

by

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