Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog

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

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

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

This is an ad from the Australian Sex Party which parodies the conservative “Work Choices” campaign from a few years ago. It’s not often you get an electoral ad that makes a fairly direct reference to masturbation, even though it probably should happen a lot more often in political advertising.

Yes, the Sex Party ARE serious but they know how to make us laugh.

Related Posts:

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

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

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you… Fanta Pants.” – Marieke Hardy

It’s been a bit of a whirlwind 24 hours. I’ve got no work done at all because I’ve been glued to Twitter, news sites and the TV as the Australian political landscape shifted before my eyes.

Australia now has its first female prime minister, Julia Gillard. She was not directly elected to this role; rather, she’s now in the top job after a leadership spill that saw members of the ruling Labor party vote for her rather than Kevin Rudd. Our Westminster style of government can be brutal like this and part of me is a little sad that it all had to happen this way.

Nonetheless, as I watched Julia being sworn in as PM by our first ever female Governor-General, I felt a little shiver. I was watching a defining moment in our history. Finally, a woman holds the highest political office in the land. As someone said on Twitter: “At last, Australia has moved in to the 20th Century.”

Australia was only the second country in the world to give women the vote in 1901 so we’re overdue for this. A timeline of other first female leaders shows that 43 other nations have installed women as prime ministers or presidents before us. The very first was Sri Lankan Sirimavo Bandaranaike in 1960; Margaret Thatcher was the 6th.

Julia Gillard has been in parliament since 1998 and was Deputy Prime Minister from 2007 til now. I’m not sure if she’s going to make any of the political changes I desperately want her to make, like dumping the internet filter policy or properly implementing policies to prevent further climate change. In theory she’s a leftie but the last couple of years have shown that she’s really a political pragmatist with a strong predilection for spin. Politically, she could well be a huge disappointment for me.

Still, I’m feeling far too happy that she’s got the job. Only 3 days ago Kevin Rudd was kowtowing to the Christian Right via a closed webcast to churches. Julia has gone on record as saying she’s “non-religious” which means we might see an end to the increasingly disturbing sway of Christians over our government.

Demographically, Julia is also very unusual… and my kind of girl. She’s unmarried (but in a happy de facto relationship) and made the decision not to have children. This is groundbreaking stuff if you consider she’s flouted the prevailing wisdom of “family values”. She’s been abused for being “barren” and therefore not understanding the lives and needs of Australian women and naturally I call bullshit on that. I do think however, that her decision not to have kids has helped her get to the top job. I think politics is such a nasty business that you have to give it all your attention; most men in power leave child-raising to their wives and do this without criticism. She should be offered the same respect. She made a decision that would mean she didn’t have to make compromises with her career or family and I absolutely admire her for that.

Of course, I can’t help but feel supportive of her because she’s a redhead like me. We’re a minority and easily picked on in this country. The twitter feed was awash with bluey, ginger and ranga jokes (”I for one welcome our new ranga overlords” was popular). And hell, even I like to use the term “Fanta Pants” because it’s one of the more amusing phrases. We redheads don’t get that many role models – the best I could do was Sarah Ferguson in the 80s – so it’s great to see one of us up there. Julia even mentioned it in her speech, that she might be the first redhead PM (not true, though, that was James Scullin in the 20s). One of the more amusing cartoon depictions labels her as the Powerfox, a name which seems rather apt.

The hair is one thing. It will be interesting to see if the media gives in and starts making comments on her clothes and general appearance. I hope she doesn’t let them get away with it. Whatever her politics, Julia Gillard is a very clever and powerful woman who does not deserve to be marginalised because of her gender.

Still, she’s already been called an ugly, witchy, shrill bitch. All the usual terms for a powerful woman. I’m sure she’s used to it by now.

So there it is. In spite of my happiness with Julia’s elevation, I still won’t be supporting Labor. I still think anyone who cares about free speech and human rights should vote for The Sex Party in the Senate and the Greens in the lower house.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled smut.

Pics from the SMH, News.com.au and Crikey.

Related Posts:

• A Need For Privacy Makes This “Debate” One-Sided
• Sexy Science: Female Orgasms In An MRI
• Porn Research: Younger Women More Likely To Use Porn
• First They Came For The Pornographers…

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Posts:

• A Need For Privacy Makes This “Debate” One-Sided
• First They Came For The Pornographers…
• Poems Punishable By Jail
• And Now The UK Plans To Censor All Internet Porn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Posts:

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

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

Related Posts:

• Adventures With A Blacklist
• Besieged
• Blacked Out
• Opposition To The Clean Feed Grows

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.

Related Posts:

• At Least 40 Legitimate Adult Sites Blacklisted
• Besieged
• Blacked Out
• Opposition To The Clean Feed Grows

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.

Related Posts:

• At Least 40 Legitimate Adult Sites Blacklisted
• Adventures With A Blacklist
• Blacked Out
• Opposition To The Clean Feed Grows

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.

Related Posts:

• At Least 40 Legitimate Adult Sites Blacklisted
• Adventures With A Blacklist
• Besieged
• Opposition To The Clean Feed Grows




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.

Related Posts:

• ISP Filtering: Australians Don’t Want It
• At Least 40 Legitimate Adult Sites Blacklisted
• Adventures With A Blacklist
• Besieged