Crystal Shards Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 This was posted on my forum, but I thought I'd share with you to get your thoughts: http://www.somebodythinkofthechildre...n-breast-size/http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php...ard?format=pdf http://www.somebodythinkofthechildre...l-breasts-ban/ And also on a slightly different subject. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...australian.ars Discuss MI. My response had been (it was kind of a rushed post and I was tired and cranky, but nonetheless it's potentially part of the discussion): All of this is absolutely ridiculous, for many reasons brought up. I mean breast size has less to do with age than it does with genes (take me for example; I easily had a C cup before high school and they didn't stop growing, even when I lost weight)--and really, just because someone has small breasts doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to have a job, no matter what it is. Does it matter if you think (I'm stressing the "you think" here because a lot of the porn industry is more about need than want) they can get another job? Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what the profession is. If a man or a woman has to or wants to do porn and is able to do everything (and can make the company money, since yes, attractiveness has a lot to do with it), they should be allowed to have the job. I mean shit, I don't NEED to be an RA. But I'd be damned if they told me I couldn't be an RA because of my bra size. Just because that's the "way something is" doesn't mean it's right.As an aside, there are many women in the modeling business that are NOT size 0 (and many people are fighting the previous stigmas for being a normal-to-plus-sized model), and besides, those women who ARE size 0 tend to have little to nothing in the breast area anyway, so I don't see how that's relevant. Like Dino said, I can understand not encouraging underage targeting, but then do it the logical way, not something that's mostly baseless. And again with the sexism. Female ejaculation, what a joke. On one hand it seems like every guy wants to see it, but then on the other it's "abhorrent"... Yet no one seems to be questioning how "abhorrent" male ejaculation is. It's just more proof that double standards are still very prevalent, despite what many people like to argue. Honestly I don't really have an opinion on the cartoon porn thing. I mean I would have assumed that illegal stuff wouldn't be shown to begin with, or at least having a disclaimer would be enough. So I dunno. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candlejack Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Reverse sexism? Now I've heard everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Fuck that. I love female ejaculation. I would be so pissed off if I was living in Australia, and I feel for anyone who is living there and shares my taste in porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candlejack Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Australia is the only place in the world that can be so awesome yet so lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 I've known about this for quite awhile already, as this sort of information is a hot topic among some of the circles I frequent. Let me just state briefly and unequivocally that the stances being taken by the Australian government, the associated agencies, and the lobbyists who pushed to make this happen are unscientific, uninformed, illogical, and anti-freedom. You've certainly lumped together quite a number of severely different issues, though granted they do share the similarity of being involved in human sexuality and typically the pornography industry, so I guess I should point out which of my accusations are directed at which issue. Unscientific and uninformed are definitely directed against the female ejaculation ban. While I haven't studied this as in-depth as some of the other topics, there certainly appears to be a very real body of research, and that this is a well-documented phenomenon. Simply labelling it at "urination" smacks of laziness at the best, and downright willful ignorance at the worst. The other grounds for its refusal as "abhorrent" is even more sinister, as it draws uncomfortable echoes to other "obscenity" laws, like anti-sodomy laws, which seek to enforce puritanical morality solely for the sake of enforcing morality. Assuming consent between the participants, the production of such films should not be banned, and if there's a demand for the product the suppliers ought to be allowed to sell it to those wishing to purchase it. It's a victimless "crime". Speaking of victimless crimes lets me segue into the next topic(s), which are admittedly much more closely intertwined, and where the issue of illogical thought rears its head. The fact that Barely Legal, Purely 18, and Finally Legal have been banned for "apparently underage depictions" when in fact such magazines are strictly monitored for content is mindboggling illogical. The only potentially acceptable reason for having laws against child pornography is to protect the models from being exploited while they are unable to make informed decisions and give the proper consent. Any other argument against it again falls under the morality for the sake of morality umbrella already discussed above. Yet here we do not have said reason, and the products are still being banned? Absurd! Cartoon pornography takes this even one step further. Now there aren't even any real humans involved at all, merely fictional characters. If we're banning fictional sexuality, why aren't we banning fictional murder or fictional robbery? All of these actions are anti-freedom. Freedom of expression, to be precise, and there is no valid grounds for its infringement due to concerns for public safety, or any other sort of excuse that is typically levied when someone decides to go on a banning spree. This makes me glad I'm not an Australian, but I'm frankly quite depressed to see any civilized country make such great leaps backwards, and fear that it may not be too long before other vocal conservative minorities are successful in pushing for things of this nature elsewhere. There have been efforts along these lines in Japan over the past year, as well as the United States, and I believe Great Britain as well. It will be a sad day if one of them follows in Australia's footsteps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystal Shards Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 Reverse sexism? Now I've heard everything. What's so "reverse" about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candlejack Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Well its not so much sexism really. IT's REVERSE since the norm would be if an average looking lady was suing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 I posted this on FEU a while ago, so I'll pretty much just restate my opinion. It is obscene for a countries government to ban something that harms absolutely no-one. The ONLY reason Child Pornography and sexual activity with children is illegal (or, the only reason they SHOULD be illegal) is because Children cannot really give consent. Once there is no child involved, it becomes a non issue. The same holds true for synthesized child pornography where it appears as if there is a child involved, but there is in fact none. Basically, it's a case of no-one is getting hurt, so why the fuck make it illegal? Now, I haven't even gotten into the message that this has to send to both women with small breasts and those who are attracted to them, which is basically just disgusting. And the female ejaculation thing is just like "wtf" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystal Shards Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 Well its not so much sexism really. IT's REVERSE since the norm would be if an average looking lady was suing. Um, no, no it's not... Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Maybe more women will finally start getting implants. Well played, Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Maybe more women will finally start getting implants. Well played, Australia. Dammitall. Natural is better. Just say "No!" to implants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Implants are made of things that come from nature. Kind of. Your logic just doesn't stand up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystal Shards Posted February 5, 2010 Author Share Posted February 5, 2010 Maybe more women will finally start getting implants. Well played, Australia. You realize this is Serious Discussion and not Far From the Forest, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Potato, potato. It's serenesforest.net But fine fine, I will be something close to serious. Completely unrelated to children, has no business being banned, dumbest thing I have ever heard of being censored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agro Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Australia's censorship laws are a joke. That is all I can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteor Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Personally I think it's derogatory and insulting. They are banning things that can't be controlled (without body modification) which is incredibly offensive. Balcerzak, that was a superb post. Too bad the Australian government does not think the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griulf Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Personally I think it's derogatory and insulting. They are banning things that can't be controlled (without body modification) which is incredibly offensive. Balcerzak, that was a superb post. Too bad the Australian government does not think the same way. You summed it up pretty good. Also, let´s not forget people who look older than they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lews Therin Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 There's censorship laws? I never actully noticed out of all the times I have been "browsing the net". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Glenn Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 There's censorship laws? I never actully noticed out of all the times I have been "browsing the net". That's a bit of a necropost you've got going on there and for a post in "Serious Discussion," your post is a bit lacking on both ends. Try not to necro again, mkay? Topic locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts