Sex Party scores big PR over small breasts
|
The Australian Sex Party enjoyed a rejuvenation of sorts at the recent Higgins by-election, securing 3.3% of the vote, but nothing could beat the PR bonanza flowing head-honcho Fiona Patten’s way in recent days over two apparently pressing porn issues. Two weeks ago, Patten issued a curious statement through sex industry lobbyists the Eros Association stating that the good regulators at the Australian Classification Board had banned the practice of “squirting” in porn films because it didn’t believe the practice of female ejaculation was real. Under current guidelines, that takes the film out of the acceptable X category and into the realms of a fetish, potentially drawing the ire of Customs and other heavy-handed government operatives like Stephen Conroy. The mainstream media, riffing off a related controversy about the banning of small breasts, snapped up the story this morning with the prestigious National Times leaping into to cyberspace on the “Weird politics of small boobs and bodily fluids”. On Wednesday, the Sex Party, building on the momentum, issued this press release over an apparent Australian Classification Board ruling that a-cup models that looked under-age would automatically refused classification. The code, and various state laws, include a long-time clause that nude models who “appear to be” under 18 are automatically refused classification. In clarifying comments to Crikey, Patten said she had attended an information session at ACB headquarters last year in which screenshots from several productions were shown as examples of when the censor would step in. At the meeting, “the underdeveloped nature of the model’s breasts was cited as a reason for the image to be refused classification numerous times.” Of course, it’s no coincidence that the stoush is occurring against the backdrop of activism Stephen Conroy’s naughty blacklist and the current “Internet Blackout” campaign. The Sex Party argues that the consequence of the laws in cyberspace would be the banning of not only websites that host the material, but those that link to them — ruling out a large proportion of the sin-obsessed industry’s massive online presence. The local stoush follows a seven-year controversy over the practice of “squirting” in the United Kingdom. Last September, after years of pressure from “feminist” filmmaker and Daily Sport columnist Anna Span, the British Board of Film Classification relented and allowed the practice to appear in Span’s DVD ‘Women Love Porn’. The fact that male ejaculation is normally allowed lead some local bloggers to accuse the censors of double standards. |
|
|
|
15 Comments
Are nude men with little dicks assumed to be under 18?
What is the cut off size?
It’s extremely easy to see how Herr Conroy’s Australian WebWall will gradually expand to block all sorts of areas. All it will take is for someone in the backroom of the Ministry of Truth to decide something or other is not to their liking and that’ll be it forever.
After all, who will then be in a position to know what’s banned ? And who in the Ministry of Truth would dare try to reverse a ban ? Imagine working at the ministry and fighting for the reinstatement of “squirting” ? It would never happen.
This WebWall plan is far worse and more far-reaching than any national security law.
Fiona Patten certainly needs to clarify her comments!
The Australian Sex Party media release, which she wrote, has grossly misrepresented and distorted the work of Kids Free 2B Kids, to push their agenda regarding their core business of promoting and defending pornography.
Fiona Patten has misconstrued and falsely represented the work KF2BK has been engaged in with the Classification Board.
We suggest Ms Patten gets her facts straight before writing or making any further comments.
Our work is often misrepresented by people and groups with hidden agendas.
Unfortunately some people believe anything they read.
“Unfortunately some people believe anything they read.”
Better that than people on the censorship board who believe anything they see in a movie.
Lest it’s the govt’s intention to block all proxie servers on the assumption all who use them are acting illegally the net wall will fail to stop anyone perusing said acts of naughtyness. Beyond that I find the govt using the ‘we care about kids’ slogo as an excuse for a censorship uncomfortably laughable.
@John Gold LOL
It’s extremely poor legislation - even if the current reaction over the size of breasts has been somewhat histrionic.
see:
http://commonsenseoracle.com/2010/01/if-reasonable-is-a-criterion-in-your-code-or-law-then-there-is-no-point-in-having-that-code-or-law-at-all/
Can we use the word “perky” instead off small ?
“Sin obsessed”? Are you a good Christian, then, Mr Crook? The word “sin” is quite charged and does a fabulous job of painting the whole adult industry as evil - just what the churches ordered, I’m sure. But perhaps “sin” should not be included in a rational discussion about censorship on a high quality news site such as this. And despite all the hyperbole, this IS about censorship.
I also challenge your use of quote marks around the word feminist when describing filmmaker Anna Span. You may be surprised to discover that not all feminists are hairy-legged porn haters. I’ve met Anna and she’s an intelligent, well educated woman who is seeking to redefine erotic film according to her own definition of feminism. I don’t think it’s up to you to define who is and isn’t feminist.
Snark aside, I’m eager to see a wider debate about censorship in Australia. I think Australians have been apathetic about it for too long but the filter has been the catalyst for a wider awareness and this latest drama is part of that.
The questions that need to be asked are: Why doesn’t our constitution guarantee freedom of speech? How is it that a small group of censors can decide what adults can and can’t see in 2010? Why do these censors deem some sex acts to be “abhorrent” and others OK? Why does the state have an interest in what people do in the privacy of their own homes? How did religious lobby groups like the ACL gain such a hold over our politicians (to the extent of private meetings with Senator Conroy)?
Never mind the small boobs. Let’s start talking about this big issues.
Quote: “Classification Board had banned the practice of “squirting” in porn films because it didn’t believe the practice of female ejaculation was real.”
Umm, does this mean that fantasy is finally being banned from movies shown in Australia, and that flicks such as Avatar will be refused classification in the future?
Or is fantasy simply being banned from porn - which, I assume, would effectively remove the entire point?
I have never watched a squirting film, so perhaps I am missing some other point to this need for female ejaculation to be real….
working at the ACB would be a wild and wacky job… what sort of cardigan-wearers do they recruit exactly?
Why the scare quotes around the word feminism?
Good on ya sex party. Who will guard the guards?
Sean:
This may be of interest
http://www.oflc.gov.au/www/cob/classification.nsf/Page/ClassificationinAustralia_Whoweare_ClassificationBoard_ClassificationBoardMembers
However this list is much more interesting:
http://www.oflc.gov.au/www/cob/classification.nsf/Page/ClassificationinAustralia_Whoweare_ClassificationBoard_ClassificationReviewBoardMembers
Notice the number of people from a law background that work in an area related to children and youth welfare