Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog

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.

You may notice that I’ve changed the colour of my header image. My usual cheerful purple has been replaced by black and grey. This is because I’m taking part in the Great Australian Internet Blackout this week (24th-29th).

The blackout is part of the ongoing protests against the plan to impose a mandatory internet filter on all Australians. It’s mainly to raise awareness about the issue. I also spent a substantial part of my Saturday writing long letters to politicans in protest against the filter.

If you’re an Australian reader, please read the EFA’s list of ways to protest against net censorship (and sign their official petition).

If you’re not Australian… well, thanks for your patience. And please be aware… your government is probably paying close attention to what’s happening here. They may well be planning their own form of online censorship. Remember that the internet poses a giant threat to those who would keep power and manipulate their populations. It’s the best tool we have for political organisation and communication. Plenty of politicians would like to take away our growing power.

And when they do it, they’ll use the excuse of “protecting the kids”. And before you know it, they’ll be “protecting” you too.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. We must fight to keep that right.

The Australian Classification Board has decided to ban any adult films that feature female ejaculation because they deem the liquid expelled during squirting to be urine. Thus, it comes under the umbrella of “water sports” which our good censors deem to be an obscene activity that should never be depicted on film.

Never mind that female ejaculation has been scientifically documented. Not all women are able to ejaculate but those that do tend to expel a clear liquid through the urethra from the paraurethral ducts during orgasm. There’s some debate as to what the liquid exactly is comprised of but most experts agree that it is NOT urine.

For more information on the whole deal about female ejaculation, read New Scientist’s 2009 article Everything you always wanted to know about female ejaculation (but were afraid to ask). You might also want to have a look at Violet Blue’s page on the G-spot.

There’s also plenty of anecdotal evidence from women who experience ejaculation. Those who are in touch with their bodies and their sexuality know that squirting is very different to urination.

The whole issue has been well documented elsewhere so I don’t need to add much more beyond saying that it is a very real phenomenon. It also needs to be pointed out that Anna Span has only recently made the British Board of Classificiation see sense on this topic – and even then the decision has been made begrudgingly.

What all this discussion about squirting and paraurethral glands and water sports does do is shine a light on the nonsense of declaring some bodily fluids OK and others “obscene”.

One thing all the censors seem to agree on is that semen is an above-board bodily fluid. It can be ejaculated anywhere – internally, onto a woman’s body or face, across the Russian wallpaper – and it can even be mixed into milkshakes and drunk. If 20 guys all want to ejaculate their semen onto a woman lying on the floor waiting – or onto each other – that’s A-OK, thanks very much. Nothing kinky about that, it’s just normal sexual activity.

If a woman ejaculates onto a man’s face, however, that’s a fetish. That mean’s in Australia it’s offensive, obscene and Australians should not be allowed to see it lest it corrupt our immortal souls. Or something.

The same goes for urine and menstrual blood. Beyond the pale. Those bodily fluids have no place in nice normal sex, thank you very much. (For more on menstruation porn, please read Tasty Trixie’s excellent post Menstruation: The Last Taboo?.

Like so many aspects of censorship, this careful delineation between “good” bodily fluids and “bad” ones shows up just how ridiculous the concept of “obscenity” can become. By what reasoning is semen OK but female ejaculate or urine bad? Is it just simple, individual squeamishness?

Look at the ban on water sports as an example. If we consider that some consenting adults happily indulge in urine-play in their own bedrooms (or bathrooms), why should it not be able to be depicted on film?

I’m not in any hurry to see that kind of thing because it’s not my bag and I know that plenty of people feel the same way but our own sexual preferences shouldn’t mean that other less popular sex practices should be banned. I don’t have to watch films with water sports; that’s an individual, adult choice. In theory, that’s what “classification” is about – telling me what to expect from a film so I am free to make my own decisions.

As always, if it’s safe, sane, consensual and done in private then it’s nobody’s business but those involved. This should apply to acts shown in sexually explicit films, books and websites as well.

Squirting is a very real aspect of female sexuality. By labelling it “obscene”, the censors are making a statement about what a “normal” woman should experience in bed. They’re saying that those women who are able to ejaculate are freaks, somehow, and that the enjoyment of their natural bodily fluids is fetishistic – psychologically wrong.

That’s a pretty damaging and sexist thing to say.

I should also point out that the Classification Board considers fisting to be an obscene fetish as well. Never mind that fisting is an activity consensually enjoyed by many lesbians, an intimate sexual act that can form a common part of their everyday sexual repertoire. Nope. Those lesbians are obscene and kinky and wrong as well.

Consensual adult activities such as spanking, piercing and the dripping of candle wax are also banned.

Australia’s censorship laws and the decisions made by the Classification Board seek to define a “normal” version of sexuality, one that is increasingly vanilla and yet still male-oriented. Their rules help to maintain the porn status quo and, unfortunately, it limits the opportunity for alternative expressions of sexuality.

It also puts a lot of independent and female-produced erotica at a disadvantage.

A lot of the ground-breaking films and websites made by feminists overseas feature acts the Board deems “obscene” and yet these are the porn movies that are breaking the old mould of misogynist, cliched porn. I originally became interested in porn because I liked the idea of it but hated the majority of stuff I saw (mostly produced by mainstream porn companies in the US). Since then I’ve found so many great artists who are putting their vision of erotica out into the world in a holistically ethical way – and their work includes spanking, female ejaculation, fisting and BDSM as part of a wider vision of female sexuality.

As a writer, webmistress and filmmaker I’m keen to make a difference, to help make sex positive, female-friendly material but it’s demoralising when even the government gives the thumbs up to facial cumshots but declares female ejaculation to be wrong.

I’ve written it before and I’ll say it again. By all means, classify and rate media to assist adults to make decisions. But do not have the presumption to officially declare one thing “offensive” and “obscene” based purely on subjective, personal opinion.

And that’s what it is with the Classification Board. They pretend to reflect “community values” but they refuse to conduct any research into exactly what people really think. They are the unelected moral gatekeepers for the rest of us, making decisions to ban material based purely on their own judgement, without recourse to real data on what “reasonable adults” think or whether what they are banning causes any harm to the viewer.

In a free society, someone else should not be able to make that decision for me. I’m a grown adult and I consider myself to be perfectly reasonable and ethical. I do not find female ejaculation or spanking or piercing or fisting to be obscene. It hasn’t turned me into a mad rapist, or a drug addict, or any kind of degenerate person. Being able to view these things on the internet has done me no harm whatsoever.

Of course, I do find plenty of other things to be distasteful or offensive but I would never dream of stopping anyone else from seeing them. If it’s safe, sane, consensual and done in private, it’s none of my damn business.

* Pic is of Deborah Sundahl’s Loving Sex: The G Spot And Female Ejaculation. Presumably this will now be banned in Australia along with other educational films on the topic like Tristan Taormino’s Expert Guide to the G-Spot and Nina Hartley’s Guide to Female Ejaculation. If they’re not banned, it might be because the ejaculate only went onto the sheets. Suddenly, accuracy is everything!

Following on from yesterday’s blacklist post…

Wikileaks went down yesterday but it’s back up again today. I’ve just spent a bit of time going through the list again and making a note of all the adult websites that I’ve heard of before, ones that feature consenting adults or are run by adult companies that I know.

The list contains 40 domains. The majority of them are hardcore sites, a lot in the reality style that I personally find offensive. That doesn’t make them illegal, however. The majority of paysites on the list contain warning pages or make use of ICRA/RTA codes.

Several of the URLs on the blacklist are simple adult linklists. There are 2 adult affiliate program domains, 3 swinger’s meeting sites and 2 BDSM sites (including Hogtied.com) which, according to our classification system, are considered to be “abhorrent.” Also listed is the Alt Sex Stories Text Repository. There were plenty of other domains that looked fine but I wasn’t game to double check them.

There’s also at least 18 gambling/poker domains on the list.

Interestingly, the oldest links – the ones at the bottom of the list – contain very few legitimate URLs (that is, the vast majority of domains listed under the June 1 2007 date ARE illegal CP or rape sites). As time goes on, however, mistakes and bad judgements creep in. It’s indicative of the ad-hoc, complaints based system, combined with an increasingly lazy or moralistic ACMA.

I was going to post my list, but then it occurred to me that it would make the government’s cover-up job a little easier if they knew what shouldn’t be on there. Conroy and the ACMA are claiming the list isn’t theirs, even if the official one resembles it an awful lot. It’s entirely possible that the 40 legitimate adult domains have been put there by an ISP. If that’s the case I’d like to see the government come out and explicitly say that those 40 adult domains are fine.

I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

This is the thing, there’s outrage aplenty over the dentist and the dog kennel, but we need to be outraged about the censorship regular porn sites too. Explicit sexual content featuring consenting adults should be considered protected speech in Australia, end of story.

If you want the list, email me – msnaughty AT msnaughty dot com

Two days ago I was complaining that the internet filter plan is sucking up my time. Damn, if that hasn’t been true today. At 11am the SMH revealed that the ACMA blacklist of “illegal” sites had been leaked on Wikileaks. Naturally I went straight there to check out what the government authority considers to be “prohibited content.”

As is to be expected, the list is a fairly abhorrent catalogue of child porn and rape sites – which is what Senator Stephen Conroy has been trumpeting about in his quest to censor the net.

Unfortunately the list also has more than its fair share of legitimate adult sites featuring consenting participants: Abby Winters, I Shot Myself, I Feel Myself, Girls Out West, The Hun, XTube and Redtube are all listed, along with Australian linklists like Danger Dave and even Whale Tails – a site that focuses on women wearing their g-strings above the waistline of their jeans. Shocking, no?

The list also contains the site of a dentist, a dog kennel facility, a school tuckshop and a website design company. Beyond that there are gambling and poker sites, euthanasia sites, gay dating sites and LibChrist.com – an online community for Christians who are into swinging and polyamorous lifestyles. Plus, of course, the anti-abortion site which was added after a single complaint by an anti-filter protester to see what would happen.

I checked carefully. None of my sites have been banned.

Yet.

Last week the ACMA was threatening $11,000 a day fines for publishing any URL that was on the blacklist. Even though nobody officially knew what was on the blacklist. Go figure.

Now they’re threatening the fine and 10 years jail to any Australian who publishes the Wikileaks link. Even though Conroy is saying that the list is a fake. If it’s a fake, why the threats?

I found myself feeling suddenly worried. I’ve been linking to Abby Winters and plenty of other blacklisted sites for years! How was I to know I was breaking the law? Thankfully, the fines only apply if your site is hosted in Australia. Thanks to the draconian laws of 2000, all of my hosting money is paid to US providers.

Indeed, it tends to prove how silly the whole idea of internet regulation is. Blogger, Facebook and millions of other sites do not come under the jurisdiction of our puny bunch of pollies. The internet is the world. It can’t (and it shouldn’t) be ruled by any one nation.

There is no constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech in Australia. Thus, it’s possible for the government to compile a secret list of sites deemed unacceptable based on single complaints from individuals. No review process, no appeal. And, until today, no idea what was banned.

Right now this list is used by ISPs for optional filters and by workplaces. Senator Conroy’s plan is to use it as the base for the mandatory nationwide filter. If it goes ahead, no Australian will be able to access Abby Winters, or the Whale Tale site, or even find out about Christian swingers (which, you’ve got to admit, is a pretty amusing site that NEEDS to be seen). It’s patently obvious how much of an imposition this will be on freedom of speech. The list already contains legal sites. What’s to stop the government from secretly adding anything else that irks them?

And there’s more than a touch of Room 101 in the blustering threats of prison and fines for linking to the list. Where is the harm in looking at a list of URLs? Certainly, the majority of them lead to highly offensive or illegal CP sites, but I’m a grown, thinking woman. I calmly and sensibly went through that list to see what was included. I did not click any of the illegal links – I know better than that. I’m sure most people do.

So why is some beaurocrat more morally able to look at this list of links than me? Who decides?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchmen?

I’ve been following this issue all day. It’s been a fascinating example of why the internet is so powerful, and why governments want to clamp down on its use. Within hours, thousands of people in Australia and around the world knew that our government is not being honest with us. We Tweeted about it, blogged it, talked about it, considered options. When the story appeared in our major online newspapers, about 99% of comments were anti-filter. A huge groundswell of opposition to the filter made itself known – and the government has been scrambling and lying to protect its position.

This is our revolution. We’ve got to protect it, or the bastards will snatch it away forever.

By the way, if you want to look up the blacklist for yourself, type “Wikileaks” or “ACMA blacklist txt” into Google.

There. I didn’t link to it.

Edit: Just have to add this pic, thanks to Overclockers.

Another edit: If you can get to Canberra this weekend, attend the March In March anti censorship protest.

You may have noticed that the blog has been scarce with posts recently. That’s because I took another week off, relaxing and trying to recover from a bad RSI attack. The house I stayed in only had dialup, which decreased my computer use substantially – and a lovely thing it was too.

Now I’m home again and over the last couple of days have been sucked into the usual round of news-reading, Twitter feeds and trying not to procrastinate. And, fuck, if it isn’t depressing.

I came back feeling motivated and creative, but in the last few days I’ve felt overwhelmed and pessimistic. A lot of this is thanks to the ongoing bullshit that is the Australian plans for a mandatory internet filter. In the last few days it’s emerged that the “watchdog” is happy to blackban political sites on the say-so of a single person. The people who want the filter are still telling the same lies and it seems that everyday punters continue to believe the nonsense.

And then I find that Britain, Germany and a bunch of other countries are all planning their own filters citing Australia as some kind of magical filter paradise.

Friends, the seige of the free internet has begun. The politicians have realised that the internet has given us POWER. We’re able to make decisions, to muster support and to make our voices heard without the mainstream media getting in our way. We’re mobilising. We’re active. And we’re fucking powerful. They’re going to do their best to try and stop us, and they’re going to use porn and “the children” as their excuse.

That’s the other depressing thing. I keep seeing so many news items about porn lately and it’s always reported in a negative fashion. Porn is the great, amorphous enemy, despoiling lives hither and yon. Never mind that religion does far more damage in the world, it’s our clits and cocks that are the problem!

These are big issues and I want to wave the flag and encourage the fight… but, damn, if it isn’t draining and very, very difficult to be involved. And it makes it hard to do my everyday work, because I’m always spending brainpower thinking about how to argue against the filter and its supporters. At the same time, I feel the future looming like a black thundercloud. We’ve had a wonderful twenty years but now the fight for online freedom is about to begin in earnest.

I do hope the other free countries of the world are watching what goes down here in Oz with regards to the filter, because if it goes ahead it will be like a big green light to other repressive governments.

Once again I’ve got a bunch of things to write about and I’m just going to be lazy and bung them all into one post with a nice sexy pic to make it a bit more fun.

First – they’re about to release the rejiggered Joy Of Sex. The New York Times has a great article about how the book has aged and it goes into some interesting detail about how some parts of the book weren’t very female-friendly.

If Dr. Comfort was a man before his time, he was nonetheless still a man, and his book was written from a man’s perspective.

“He had a section on tactful ways to take a woman’s virginity,” Ms. Quilliam said. “He had a section called ‘frigidity.’ I’m sure he was a lovely man, but he said that most men, given a young and attractive partner, can always get it up — it’s only when a woman lets herself go that he has a problem. And you’re going, ‘No, no, no!’ But that is what it was like then.”

Meanwhile, I’ve discovered a new French-language site that is pitching itself as porn for women called Second Sexe. Unfortunately I can’t read it so I’m not sure what the deal is, but it’s inspired this article at The Observers. Naturally I had to leave a long comment.

The Porn for Women book keeps raising its determined little head, popping up in everyone’s Christmas wish lists and consequently setting off my Google alerts something awful. I did find this post at Jossip which questions the whole thing:

But what is this Porn for Women meme, where the joke is that the guys aren’t naked, they’re just helping out around the house and acting like gentlemen?

Is the implication that women are turned on by thoughtful gestures? Sure, that’s one way of looking at it. Another way is that it’s funny to imagine women thinking about porn, and ha-ha, I bet when they think of erotica they just imagine a man dusting! Get it? Because women don’t think about dirty things like sexy or objectifying men.

OK so now it’s time to get into “ooh that pisses me off” territory.

Indonesia has recently passed their “anti porn” law which effectively criminalises anything remotely sexual. It was fully backed by the Islamic heavies in that country who are pretty keen on turning Indonesia (and the region) into a theocracy. And then you get this: Indonesian clerics take child brides, back anti-porn bill. The guy has married a 12 year old and thumbs his nose at secular law that says she must be at least 16.

What a beautiful religion Islam is.

And while I’m bashing religion, the Catholics have weighed into the Australian internet filter debate, with a council of bishops happily supporting the idea. Somebody Think of the Children blog has a good post on the topic. One bishop has said that censoring the net is fine because it will bring it into line with all the other censorship we have. Here’s most of my comment in response to this argument:

My personal view is that Australia’s existing system of classification needs to be thoroughly overhauled to reflect the community standards of 21st century Australia: namely that Aussies like porn, that it doesn’t cause societal or personal harm and that consensual sexually explicit content should be legal to view no matter what media it comes in.

I would argue that, as it stands, the OFLC already tramples on our right to freedom of speech thanks to its ability to ban films by refusing classification. The classification system should be voluntary as it is in the US.

Essentially, it should not be up to the government or the OFLC to decide what I as an adult can view.

That should be the answer to the “bringing into line” argument – although I realise it may be considered a little too “out there” for some.

But if you think the current classification system is working, consider how the films of Tony Comstock were banned while other films like Destricted made it through because they were more “serious”.

Do we really think the people at the OFLC are representing society’s interests? What are they protecting us from?

We don’t need to bring the internet into line with current restrictions on freedom of speech because those restrictions in and of themselves should not exist in the first place.

I’ve been keeping fairy close track of No Clean Feed movement in the last few weeks. It’s so nice to connect with other Aussies who are opposed to censorship and moral panic. It seems the clean feed has created a space for better public dialogue about where we’re going with censorship in this country. And now some people are questioning the way child porn is increasingly used as an excuse to trample on our rights, in the same way that the spectre of “terrorism” is used.

I hope we can make a difference.




Today I’m feeling optimistic about the future of the internet in Australia. Grassroots group GetUp has finally launched a campaign against the clean feed. They’ve already collected 32,000 signatures in a little over 24 hours and the comments are running hot on their site. Apparently they’ve had more emails requesting a campaign on this issue than anything else.

There are now protests planned on December 14 in a number of capital cities.

The SMH has thankfully publicised the latest bit of opposition with this article published today. It’s nice to see reporting that doesn’t follow the standard pro-censorship line, and they’re actually putting the boot into the government quite a bit, possibly because Senator Conroy and his lackeys won’t speak to the media or anyone about this issue.

The Opposition and the Greens have said they will oppose the plan in the Senate. I suspect, though, that Nick Xenophon, the rogue independent, is a conservative who will vote with the government. A government, by the way, that’s not supposed to be this conservative, dammit.

I think the governments of the Western world will be watching what happens here quite closely. I don’t doubt that most of them are salivating at the thought of getting their mitts on the internet and stopping the free flow of ideas. “Protecting the children” gives them the perfect excuse. If we Aussies can successfully stop this through people power, it will send an important message.

We are the People’s Republic of the Internet and you mess with us at your peril!

I left a long comment on one of the blogs at GetUp and I want to repost it here.

I’m going to come in and make the point that people are afraid to make: why should the government have the right to stop us from viewing adult material?

Yes folks, I’m talking porn. NO, not child porn – that’s just the straw man thrown up to distract people from the fact of censorship. I’m talking about the legal adult material that is enjoyed by up to 70% of Australian adults.

The internet has allowed adults to enjoy sexually explicit material without the board of classification poking its nose in or giving its stamp of approval. The world hasn’t come to an end because people have been able to watch porn in the privacy of their own homes. Australians have been able to make their own decisions about what they want to watch without outside forces imposing their morals. This is a GOOD thing.

And the internet has provided the opportunity to create and access adult material that is sex positive, queer and female-friendly, inclusive, realistic and non-exploitative.

So yes, aside from all the perfectly good reasons for opposing the mandatory filter, we should be standing up for our right as adults to choose what content we wish to see – and that includes websites/movies etc dealing with sex in an explicit way.

Australians are, on the whole, pretty open minded about sex but we won’t speak up for ourselves on this topic. This has allowed the prudes and religious groups to lobby loudly and impose their morals on everyone else.

And we should be asking ourselves: why do we get so upset about sex but not bat an eyelid when it comes to violence? Why is sex so rigidly controlled by governments and the church?

Obviously children should not be exposed to inappropriate material. That’s what Net Nanny is for. That’s what “parenting” is supposed to be about. But the internet shouldn’t have to be reduced to to the level of a five year old in the interests of protecting children.

So I’ve mentioned the elephant in the room but it needs to be said. If you take porn off Australians, they’re gonna be very, very cross. And we should stand up and say that.

Good news: the folks at the Eros Association have decided to get serious and form a political party. They’re launching the Australian Sex Party at Sexpo in Melbourne on Thursday and are hoping to round up the 500 members required to make it officially recognised by the legal system.

They’re aiming to put censorship onto the agenda, but they also want to talk about sex education, abortion, contraception, gender issues and even the limits put on overseas aid. Essentially they want to start waving the flag at the conservatives and point out that most Australians aren’t prudes.

It doesn’t matter that they’re a single issue party. I’m going to join and give them my support. I want someone to jump up and down and make some noise on these issues. The churches and the lunatic right wing have had the upper hand because they organised themselves earlier. I’m glad that a step is being taken to counter this.

So… The Sex Party. No doubt it will sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to those who truly believe in human rights and artistic freedom. Takes guts to say you support the Sex Party. Also… I’m sure it will score a heap of donkey votes come next election in 2011.

Read more:
news article in The Australian – with thanks to Violet Blue for the link.
AFP – Sex Party to heat up Australian politics
The Age – For new political party, it’s all about sex

Added: Jack Marx has a great blog post called Filtering The Bible:

Thankfully, as Senator Stephen Conroy assured the Christian Media Association back in May, the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s blacklisting of harmful content “is currently compiled by a complaints-driven mechanism”, so it is within our power to prevent other people from reading that which we ourselves find offensive…

What follows – just a sampling of what’s available to readers of The Bible – is plainly revolting by modern community standards, and, if Stephen Conroy is at all consistent, he’ll brand all who leap to its defense as sympathisers of rapists, murderers, cannibals, kidsters and blokes who use dead men’s foreskins as fun vouchers. Behold…

I’ve accumulated a number of interesting links regarding Australian censorship, statistics and hot websites so I thought I’d cheat and just whack them all in one post.

Firstly, Catharine Lumby, one of the authors of The Porn Report, has given a fascinating talk about the history of censorship and porn to the Sydney Institute. You can find a video of the event here.

While despairingly contemplating the state of Australia when it comes to censorship and moral panic, I found Somebody Think Of The Children, an excellent pro-free speech blog. Writer Mike Meloni casts a wide net. At the moment he’s discussing the crazy censorship of computer games and the looming threat of government ISP filtering. Worth checking out.

While the politicians and conservatives outdo each other to protect us from ourselves, a poll reveals – once again – that Aussies love their porn. A Newspoll survey found that 70% of Australians want bans on X rated films overturned. This figure rises to 82% of 18-24 year olds. Interestingly, 80% of people with children are in favour of legalisation compared to 69% of those without. I’m wondering if priests were included in the latter group.

Meanwhile, Sexpo has just finished in Sydney, attracting 50,000 or so visitors. The organisers say nobody is shocked by it anymore, Australians are really relaxed about sex.

Given this information, I’m now speculating on the previously mentioned plan to place mandatory filters on ISPs to block porn. I’ve seen a suggestion that this scheme will be even worse than first thought. The plan is that if you want to look at porn, you give your name to the government to “opt out.” That’s unappealing enough, but what if the “unfiltered” feed only allows access to very small number Australian R-rated sex sites pre-approved by the OFLC?

Cue the revolution, perhaps? Because I think if you do try and take away unfettered internet porn from Australians, they’re not going to be as apathetic as they have been in the past. Either that or I’m moving to Amsterdam. Perhaps both.

So, here’s a couple of examples of sites that don’t have the government’s tick of approval and may be filtered out.

Fancies and Fuckeries blog offers the personal musings of a rather sexy Melbourne guy plus plenty of cock pics. The author starred in Anna Brownfield’s upcoming erotica film The Band and he also does a bit of nude modelling on the side. Nice.

He led me to Aaryon, a truly delightful nude art photography site. There’s not a lot of info about who’s behind it, but the pics are glorious.

Just wanted to add a further post about the recent survey of the sex lives of Australian women (previous post here)

News.com.au has an article unfortunately titled “The sad sexual secrets of women” which is rather misleading since the survey has plenty of positive aspects to it, including an increase in masturbation, a desire for more consideration from male partners and a general urge to explore one’s sexuality.

I wanted to quote this part of the article, which hearkens back to the various discussions about “why women hate porn”.

But, overwhelmingly, we’re bored in the bedroom, causing many of us to stray in search of sexual thrills – which might explain why more of us are watching pornography to spice up our sex lives.

One respondent was so disappointed with the quality of porn movies available, she starred in her own.

“A lot of women described how porn is OK, but they would like it a lot better if it was made by women for women and then they would like to look at it with their partners and use it as a stimulant,” Sauers said.

On the downside porn, while titillating, had added “a whole new level of anxiety, not just about the body but about performance”, Sauers said.

She said that, while porn does carry risks because a small percentage of men become addicted, “to dismiss porn out of hand as an enemy of sexuality and an enemy of relationships is a mistake”.

I found it refreshing to read a relatively pro-porn comment like that in a News Ltd media outlet.

The aforementioned sad aspect of women’s sex lives is that one in three women have experienced some form of sexual assault.

Another day, another book, another news item and survey that says that women like porn.

A book called The Sex Lives of Australian Women says that 1 in 4 Aussie chicks will look at porn at least once a month. The book is based on a survey of 2000 self-selected internet participants.

Naturally, I’m not surprised at this 1-in-4 statistic, which seems to be the similar to the 27-30% figure that pops up regularly in most research.

One in five have also had a go at making their own sex tape, according to the report here. I liked this quote:

“It was fine, but to tell you the truth … watching it again was hilarious … not erotic … my arse was NOT ever meant to be on a tape,” responded a 33-year-old mother from Western Australia.

The Courier Mail article is also rather stunned that more women have orgasms via masturbation than any other method. This piece of information is always treated as if it’s an affront to men, somehow, and I’m a bit sick of that attitude. Of course you’re going to orgasm easily when masturbating! That’s the whole point. It’s a purely selfish activity aimed at creating an orgasm. Sex with a partner has a lot of other things going on, not least of which is the ongoing misconception that the penis should create an orgasm by moving in and out of the relatively non-sensitive vagina!

OK, just had to get that off my chest.

Meanwhile, in other unrelated statistical news, I’ve just realised I’ve now passed 700 posts on the Wordpress version of this blog (not counting the old blog). I installed WP in January 2006 so it’s taken me 2 and a half years to reach this point. Hurrah.

I’m still not sure if I should move the blog to a new domain. One of my tweaks seems to have worked with Google, a bit. I have a couple of other things planned to see if it helps.

A couple of years ago Anna Brownfield made waves when her film The Money Shot won numerous awards at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival. When the ABC show Mondo Thingo decided to do a piece on “chick porn” they interviewed Anna as the local representative of the porn for women movement.*

Now Anna is about to release her first full-on porn film called The Band. Set in the grungy Melbourne music scene, the film aims to tell a complete story with explicit sex added.

Her company Hungry Films says they are making “new wave erotica” and intend to:

…create erotic films that women, couples and men want. Films containing elements that are lacking in contemporary hard core content – sensuality, foreplay, believable scenarios, strong story-lines, good acting, character development, high production values and good music! All these elements will be combined to celebrate the diversity of human sexuality.

Pleasure Activism Australia has a fantastic interview with Anna here.

* An unrelated anecdote: The ABC also contacted Jane and I to ask if they could use images from For The Girls in the segment. We were over the moon and happily agreed, thinking we’d get some nice TV exposure. But no… they showed extreme closeups of a few pics from the tour and we didn’t even get a glimpse of our logo. Stupid muggenjuggen ABC, how dare they not give us free advertising!

The Australian government seems determined to go ahead with plans to filter the internet at ISP level, making people “opt in” if they want to see adult sites.

While the story itself is distinctly biased, the 51 comments listed after it cheered me up immensely. About 95% of them are against ISP filtering, and all make the point that parents shouldn’t expect the government to do their job for them.

It includes this amusing exchange:

DavidLastName: Im sick and tired of wading through a simple limewire download and gettin porn. Get rid of this garbage.

BlzBob: LIMEWIRE? If you allow your children to enter the the local strip joint to get a glass of water, don’t expect the strippers to put some clothes on while they are there.

Classic.

We may have a new government but it looks like they’re going to be just as painfully conservative in some areas as the last lot. On New Year’s Eve (nice sneaky date for it) the communications minister Stephen Conroy announced a plan to filter internet content at the ISP level. This despite the fact that every computer-savvy person knows it just won’t work. Complaints that the plan was repressing free speech was met with this comment:

“Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road,” he said.

“If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.”

I can only roll my eyes in despair at that kind of statement. CP is so often used as the tool of censorship, it’s endlessly frustrating.

Meanwhile, Adultshop.com lost its appeal in its attempt to make X-rated (sexually explicit) adult videos legal throughout Australia.

This opinion piece sums it up well and offers this depressing comment:

This court case has, for the first time, shed light on how the offensiveness test is applied to sexually explicit material in Australia. In the past, it has always been assumed that a majority needed to be offended. What the court has confirmed is in fact the opposite: that a minority will suffice.

A depressing start to the year.