Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Online

Jan 29, 2010

Has Australia really banned small breasts?

The internet is buzzing with outrage over claims the Australian Government has banned the depiction of naked A-cup breasts in films in case it encourages pedophilia. Never let the truth get in the way of a good trending Twitter topic.

Share

The internet has its “outraged” face on over news that the Australian Classification Board plans to refuse classification to films depicting A-cup breasts in case it encourages pedophilia.

The story was kickstarted by a press release on Wednesday from the Australian Sex Party on the censorship of female ejaculation in film, which included the statement:

The Board has also started to ban depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. This is in response to a campaign led by Kids Free 2 B Kids and promoted by Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett in Senate Estimates late last year. Mainstream companies such as Larry Flint’s Hustler produce some of the publications that have been banned. These companies are regulated by the FBI to ensure that only adult performers are featured in their publications. “We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size”, she said. “It may be an unintended consequence of the Senator’s actions but they are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in Australian adult magazines of late”.

The piece was seized upon by website Somebody Think of the Children (“discussing censorship and moral panic in Australia”), blaring the headline “Australia bans small breasts”:

The Australian Sex Party (ASP) said Wednesday that the Australian Classification Board (ACB) is now banning depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. It comes just a week after it was found that material with depictions of females ejaculating during orgasm are now Refused Classification and Australian Customs directed to confiscate it.

The post quickly went viral around the likes of Twitter and Reddit, and was picked up by popular UK tech site The Register and snarky feminist blog Jezebel, prompting even more fist shaking and outrage.

But it looks like the critics are the ones guilty of “moral panic” in this case. As an apparently more level-headed member of the Australian anti-censorship movement found after a bit of investigation:

One publishing  company mentioned, no specific decisions cited, no basis for the story other than the an unconfirmed statement by a leading figure of a political party.

There is no information from the Classification Board on any specific ban, only a general statement that publications with depictions of persons who appear to be under 18 must be refused classification (that is, banned).

The second article also says Ms Patten attended a training session at the Censorship Board where she was shown material that had been refused classificiation due to the size of women’s breasts in the material. The article says Ms Patten says some of the banned titles include “Barely Legal”, Finally Legal” and “Purely 18” – the links go to the Classification Board’s database showing the bans on each of those publications.

However, one of these bans was made in 2008, one in 2003, and the rest in 2001 or before.

For its part, the Australian Classification Board has responded to the original Somebody Think of the Children post:

A spokesperson for the ACB told me today that publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC. They said the Board classifies publications on a case by case basis, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, the Code and the Classification Act and that the Publications Guidelines do not specify breast size.

Not that the internet seems to have taken notice, as the original story continues to gain traction around the web.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good trending Twitter topic.

UPDATE 12/02: Given this topic is continuing to generate interest — particularly due to the recent cyber attack on Australian government websites over the issue — here’s the latest from Somebody Think of the Children:

The Australian Classification Board (ACB) has confirmed to Somebody Think Of The Children that a person’s overall appearance is used by the Board to determine whether someone appears to look under the age of 18 in a film or publication.

Asked whether breast size was considered by the Board when determining age, McDonald said he had no further comment to make.

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

139 comments

Leave a comment

139 thoughts on “Has Australia really banned small breasts?

  1. Ungulate

    Of course the Guidelines don’t specify breast size. The guidelines are deliberately vague and open to interpretation by Classification Board members. Go and take a look to see how much is actually “specified”: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/0/149B1F3EC2A074C6CA257412000164C7/$file/PublicationsGuidelines2005.pdf

    Each “case by case” basis sets an example.

    Have ACB at all denied that they refused classification to an image of a woman who – despite the magazine she appeared in being regulated by the FBI to ensure its models are over age – had small breasts on the basis that she “appeared under-developed”?

    The decision clearly sets a precedent for rejecting images of women because their anatomy doesn’t measure up to some stereotyped notion that all “matured” women should have the measurements of Marilyn Monroe.

    I’ve got a 26 year old female friend who has the body type of a 12 year old boy. Does that mean she shouldn’t be allowed to pose nude?

    Maybe the “truth” is that the internet outrage is actually a reflection of the fact that there is growing awareness of how arbitrary Australian censorship is.

    If this is all just a storm in a teacup, then why have the Classification Board failed to directly deny the allegations made against them?

  2. gerard

    Ever since K.Rudd denounced Bill Henson’s photography exhibition of pre-teens, the ‘ ‘ban the small breasts’ brigade has been in uproar.

    With the increase in childhood obesity, soon we will ban photography of anything above the waistline, be it young or old, male or female.

    Logically, this will then have to include photography or depiction of nude animals as well. Just imagine the shock of seeing a photo of a lactating little ‘Fluffy’?

    I looked into the mirror this morning and spotted a small breast. I smashed the mirror.

    hhtp://oosterman.wordpress.com/

  3. gerard

    Sorry, wrong http.
    Ever since K.Rudd denounced Bill Henson’s photography exhibition of pre-teens, the ’ ‘ban the small breasts’ brigade has been in uproar.

    With the increase in childhood obesity, soon we will ban photography of anything above the waistline, be it young or old, male or female.

    Logically, this will then have to include photography or depiction of nude animals as well. Just imagine the shock of seeing a photo of a lactating little ‘Fluffy’?

    I looked into the mirror this morning and spotted a small breast. I smashed the mirror.

    http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

  4. Elan

    Just the one breast Gerard? I’m not surprised you smashed the mirror!

  5. Michael Meloni

    Hi Ruth,

    Michael Meloni from Somebody Think Of The Children here. I’ll readily admit my orginal healdine could be considered sensationalist (http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/ ), but the fact remains the claims I reported in my original story were those of the Australian Sex Party and quoted as such.

    I explained how under the National Classification Code and State Criminal Codes such bans (and criminal charges) can occur in Australia.

    In response to the dates the publications were banned, this is irrelevant as to whether the publications were banned because of the reason claimed by ASP — small breasts making a model appear younger than 18. This law is not new, nor are the campaigns in Australia against magazines such as Barely Legal for reasons such as models having small breasts and no pubic hair.

    In my followup post, I provided both ASP and the Classification Board a chance to respond further and both parties did ( http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/classification-board-responds-to-small-breasts-ban/ ).

    While the Publications Guidelines do not specify breast size (they are vague at best about all content), the ACB aknowledged that all offensive depictions of any subject that appears to be under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC. ASP’s claim is that breast size was used to make such a call.

    Further questions to the ACB remain unanswered at this stage.

    The response to this worldwide has been massive, I agree, and unfortunately some people have misinterpreted what has happened. If ASP’s claims turn out to be false, a story will be published on my blog addressing them as such. As is always the case.

    In the meantime, ASP has made an accusation and in turn I blogged about it, giving the Classification Board the opportunity to refute the claims (which they did not) and respond.

    Michael Meloni
    SomebodyThinkOfTheChildren.com

  6. Fiona Patten

    I would like to clarify a few points. In the last 18 months the Classification Board has revoked over 30 serial classifications for a range of reasons, one major one being that the models appear to be under 18. These revoked classifications do not appear on the classification database.
    Late last year I attended a classification publications training session with 3 adult magazine distributors and one publisher. We were shown a range of images and the notes made by the board were read out. The underdeveloped nature of the model’s breasts was cited as a reason for the image to be refused classification numerous times.
    I don’t know which publisher Ruth Brown spoke to but the 4 companies that attended the meeting with me have now drastically reassessed the publications that they will import or publish. All the publications that have been refused classification adhere to the very strict US laws that enforce model age verification in adult publications and films. These laws are upheld by the FBI. There is no chance that any of the models were under 18

  7. glengyron

    Hang on a minute… the ACB says nothing more than “we follow our guidelines” and the journalist takes that to mean they don’t refuse classification based on small breasts? The ACB didn’t specifically respond to that accusation at all.

    If you’ve read the guidelines (obviously not…) they say that no one can be depicted as being less than 18 in pornography in Australia. The people in the films are all legally 18, so, on what basis is it decided that they ‘look’ less than 18?

    Well, according to the ASP and distributors in Australia, breast size is a criteria. This highlights the problem with the sort of broad guidelines applied by the ACB.

    I don’t think the journalist understood the issue. At all.

  8. Ruth Brown

    Hi Michael and Fiona, thanks for your input. I didn’t really intend to editorialise on the issue at all — just a look at the “Purple Monkey Dishwasher” Chinese whispers way a story gets twisted by hyped internet fist-shakers. I think Fiona was justified in highlighting this issue, and Michael covered it fairly.

    It’s places like Twitter and Reddit where people just read a headline or sound bite and run with it, twisting a complicated matter over the issue of sexual taboos on screen into “ZOMG THE GOVT WON’T LET US SEE BREASTS!” without actually reading what the original article and PR is saying.

  9. Ms Naughty

    I’d like to weigh in and say that while the “Australia bans small breasts” headline may have been a bit over-the-top, it did an excellent job of drawing attention to the main issues involved. Issues which too many mainstream media outlets are happy to ignore because “it’s just porn”.

    But it’s not “just porn”. We’re talking about censorship here. And we’re also talking about the increasing moral panic surrounding child abuse and child porn.

    The Classification Board have only confirmed that they follow “the guidelines” but they haven’t actually said how they interpret the rules and the interpretation is everything. Fact is, arbitrary decisions about what Australians can see, hear and read are being made by a small group of people who are not elected and who don’t seem to rely on evidence for their decisions.

    The guideline that bans models who “appear to be under 18” is supposed to be part of the fight against child porn. But how does it *actually* protect children? If the (presumably small-breasted) model is over 18, she’s legal so no crime has occurred. As far as I can tell, the rule exists solely to discourage people from thinking that a young-looking woman is sexy. But that’s thought crime.

    And in the process, the rule defines a certain body type as being automatically juvenile. Which is rather insulting to those adult Australian women who might happen to be thin, or have small boobs, or who generally “look young”.

    The same goes for the female ejaculation issue. The Board have yet to officially say they don’t think it’s urination. But even if they do think it is… why are some sex acts and some bodily fluids declared to be “abhorrent” and others not? And this comes back to the official “guidelines” as to what aspects of human sexuality are “decent” and what’s “obscene”.

    How is it that in 2010 we have censors deciding what adults can see, hear and read in the privacy of their own homes? Why is it anyone’s business if an adult wishes to see depictions of female ejaculation, or “golden showers” for that matter? Why do we still rely on “community standards” to define what’s “offensive to reasonable adults” when the internet means we’re now part of a global yet incredibly diverse “community”? And when the internet means that an individual’s use of adult material can remain completely private within the confines of their own home?

    These are the issues hiding behind an inflammatory headline. I’m glad it snowballed the way it did because it at least gets us talking about the issue. And in the light of the planned internet filter, censorship is something every Australian needs to think about.

  10. David Jackmanson

    Glengyron, I am the journalist who wrote the article demonstrating that the Sex Party’s claims have not yet been backed up by evidence.

    We don’t know from the published articles that the Classification Board was even asked if the bans mentioned by Ms Patten were in fact based on breast size.

    I do understand this issue and understand that the Classification Board must refuse classification to publications with pictures of people who appear to be under 18. But the simple fact is the claims made by Ms Patten have not yet been independently verified. Fact-checking things like this is important if we want to keep our credibility in the face of a pro-censorship movement that would love to catch us out.

    To independently verify this story we’d need to know the names of the publishers who say their publications have been banned, the names of the publications, and ideally the chance to see copies of the notice from the Classification Board saying that classification has been refused or revoked. Until then, we only have the word of Ms Patten. While I support Ms Patten’s political aims, she is a partisan and any publication that reports her words as fact without verifying them is doing propaganda, not journalism. Which is fine but it needs to be seen as such, and when such propaganda that can’t be shown to be true spreads quickly throughout the Net and misleads people, it damages the anti-censorship cause.

  11. glengyron

    David, given that Fiona Pattern is even here in this thread I don’t think it’s that hard to clarify the story. It’s a matter of seeing if one of the four other companies is willing to come forward and corroborate the story. Given the fact that they have to get future product past the censors that might take a bit of work, but it’s eminently possible.

    The opacity in this story is in the guidelines and decision making that occurs at ACB. Turning a spotlight on the ASP doesn’t seem to be pointing in the right direction.

    The ACB has certainly not said that breast size is irrelevant to classification decisions, which they could easily do.

  12. Melinda Reist

    Thanks for cutting through Australian Sex Party panic on this Ruth. Another reality check can be found here.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2429316.htm

  13. gerard

    So what is the policy on big breasts on under 18 years old? Some very young have size D and might well make it past the censor’s loupe.

    Talking about the loupe, how about looking at breasts with just one eye or just squinting? Would that be allowed?

    We must stay alert but not tumescent.

    http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

  14. David Jackmanson

    Glengyron, the point is that the story was *not* confirmed before publication. It’s sensationalist and can’t be shown to be true based on currently available information.

    I suspect that there may well be pressure on the Classification Board to ban more magazines of the “barely legal” type. And it’s entirely possible, even likely, that breast size is a big factor in making decisions to ban these magazines or not. But the simple fact is we have only the unverified word of someone who is both a partisan in this issue, and who represents organisations with commercial interests in these decisions. That is perfectly legitimate, and I broadly support the aims of the Australian Sex Party. However I don’t accept the word of any partisan in any issue without checking for myself.

  15. Ben

    Melinda Reist, I believe you are blurring the difference between correlation and causation.

    Yes paedophiles and rapists use porn (for the 99% of people who don’t commit sex crimes), but that in no way proves that porn made them into sexual deviants.

    Many of these research pieces look at porn as the first step, then trace it back to the paedophiles instead of the other way around.

    For every research piece that says that porn is evil, there is another which says that it isn’t and could even decrease the rate of sex crimes.

  16. barry saunders

    A spokesperson for the ACB told me today that publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC. They said the Board classifies publications on a case by case basis, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, the Code and the Classification Act and that the Publications Guidelines do not specify breast size.

    The point being then, that the ACB can make a call on how old someone appears, regardless of how old they are? How, exactly, are they making this judgement?

  17. Fiona Patten

    David J,
    I assume that my word is not good enough.

    Sadly the response from the Classification Board is vague at best when questioned about their decisions.
    It is not easy to get board reports and the reports given lack detail including the ones regarding the revocation of classification.

    When we last asked to see a report we were told that would need to apply via FOI.

    David, I do however have some letters regarding revocation of classification. In the main they just state that the image appeared to be under 18 and give no reason why they came to that decision. There are also some instances where they will cite the setting of the photo and the clothing worn by the model.

    But they said categorically in the training session that breast size was relevant in their decisions.

    If you want to contact me outside this forum about doing a story in more detail. I will try and help

  18. David Jackmanson

    Ms Patten, the word of no political partisan is good enough to remain unchecked. Would you believe something Mr Rudd or Mr Abbott said on a political matter without checking it? I certainly wouldn’t.

    However I’d welcome the chance to see details of Classification Board documents about political decisions so I can write a properly detailed, non-sensationalised article about the problems with our censorship regime. I will email you via the Australian Sex Party.

  19. David Havyatt

    Wow. Have we noted the disconnect. The Board are saying they Refuse Classification to material which “contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 ” The FBI check only deals with half of that.

    Can I just ask why we mighht want “offensive depictions” of people who “appear to be under 18” other than to try to titilate those who want to get their rocks off on under age people!

    So – I don’t give a stuff about what the FBI might be doing on actual ages – it is the image that matters and I’d guess breast size is just one indicator the Board is using on the question of “appears to be”.

  20. Fiona Patten

    The problem is David that deciding if someone appears to be under the age of 18 is very subjective. We have even had instances when the same model is in two magazines. In one she is found to appear to be under 18 and in the other not.

    The images themselves are not offensive – they only become offensive if the Board decides that the model appears to be under 18 or is being portrayed as under 18.

    Most other countries use proof of age as the line.

  21. Matt McLeod

    Leaving aside the specific question of whether the Board is banning “small boobs”, I think the bigger problem is that there’s clearly a lack of transparency in the decision making process. Otherwise this would be easily settled by reference to the evidence, one way or the other.

    I am not a fan of censorship — even when the material in question is something I personally find objectionable — but if we are to have it then it must be properly accountable and transparent. Hiding behind FoI is not acceptable.

  22. LukeRevolution

    Melinda Reist links to her own article on ABC which seeks to describe all pornography as harmful. She cites a number of studies to support her case. I note that several of them are either quite old or were conducted by partisan right-wing researchers. I think the more correct method for correlating studies is to gather up all the studies and see what conclusions can be drawn. The less correct method is to start with the conclusion and ignore any dissenting information.

    There are also plenty of studies that show pornography is not harmful. The Porn Report by McKee et al is the first one that jumps to mind. Interestingly, Michael Flood has just released an overview of existing studies. His report says the evidence is often conflicting and inconclusive. He found that porn in and of itself is not harmful; rather that a variety of factors including family, socialisation, peer groups, culture and pre-existing psychology make a huge difference. He advocates education (not censorship) as a vital factor in reducing any possible harm caused by porn.

    Ms Reist then discusses numerous magazines which she finds offensive. These items all depict models that are over 18 but are made to look younger – they “appear under 18”. She is concerned that such magazines encourage pedophilia. To be honest I wonder the same thing. But here’s my problem. There’s no actual evidence to prove that looking at such magazines leads men to commit a crime. There may be correlation, pedophiles may very well read porn magazines but did the magazine cause the pedophilia?

    Hell, it’s even possible that these magazines prevent child sexual abuse crime, but there’s no evidence of that either. Although Todd Kendall’s 2007 study showed a correlation between increased availability of pornography and decreased rates of rape. Could material not involving and harming children, obviously, reduce the pedophile’s socially unacceptable orientation?

    My concern is that she is advocating legislation that essentially bans *thinking* about it. Once you start getting into the area of thought crime, you’re in very slippery territory indeed. And the thought crime problem produces its own chilling effect, which we’ve seen within the Arts following the Bill Henson case, and in the new wariness of adult magazines to avoid small breasts.

    Considering that Ms Reist heads an organisation called Women’s Forum, how does she feel about any possible bans on depictions of female ejaculation? Does she feel that images or movies showing female orgasm are harmful to those who watch it? Does she feel that this aspect of female sexuality should never be captured on film or seen by anyone? Can she cite a peer-reviewed report that proves viewing depictions of female orgasms result in crime?

  23. Julie Gale

    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.
    This is a ridiculous strawman campaign – almost laughable…if so many people hadn’t believed it.

  24. Ms Naughty

    Julie Gale
    Would you care to elaborate on exactly what kind of work KF2BK has been engaged in with the Classification Board?

  25. Melinda Reist

    lukerrevolution

    I don’t ‘head up Women’s Forum Australia’. I also don’t have an issue with female ejaculation. I do have an issue with teen porn magazines promoting sex with minors, rape and incest. These magazines – many of them imported by David Watt, an office bearer with the Eros Association – pose young women (who may or may not be 18) as child-like. They are surrounded by soft toys, holding hand puppets, wearing braces, pigtails, and other accroutements of childhood and presented as desperate to be penetrated multiple ways by older men. Some issues depict the girls in sexual acts. Perhaps you think this is OK. I share Gail Dines view, expressed in a soon to be published book chapter titled Childified Women: How the mainstream Porn Industry Sells Child Pornography to Men.
    “…More men than ever now have the opportunity to masturbate to pseudo child pornography (PCP) images of ‘girls’”. Dines points out that what pseudo child pornography and actual child pornography have in common is their aim to “sexually arouse men to images of sexualized ‘children’”.

    Maybe you don’t have a problem with that.

  26. Melinda Reist

    Also ‘Lukerrevolution’ why don’t you come out from behind the veil of anonymity so we know who you are and if you have any vested interests? Some us are prepared to use our real names (though Crikey has abbreviated mine somewhat, but you seem to know who I am).

  27. glengyron

    Melinda Resit, a personal attack in response to legitimate questions? Classy.

  28. LukeRevolution

    Before the KF2BK people start pulling out their matches they should look closely at the strawman that underpins their “all children are being harmed all the time by anything designed for adults” model. Sure, the model has an air of appealing ‘truthiness’ about it and offers clear target that are easily demonized but it is not a proven model.

    If we are going to face the real problem of child sex abuse we need real action underpinned by peer reviewed studies not stabs in the dark by the panic stricken. While we are wasting our time banning female ejaculation and small boobs we are allowing more and more children to be abused.

    Imagine the harm being done to young women who are being told that to be a woman you’ve gotta go big. Is this being sponsored by the plastic surgery industry? See, that has an air of truthiness about it but I have no proof.

  29. David Jackmanson

    Ms Gale,

    I am using my real name, and while I generally support the aims of the Australian Sex Party I am not a member of it and have no financial interest in pornography.

    How do you claim the work of your organisation has been misrepresented by Ms Patten?

    How have you worked with the Classification Board? What approaches, formal or informal, have you made to the Classification Board, or to politicians, regarding the Board’s practices in classifying sexual images of people who appear to be under 18?

  30. Julie Gale

    Luke Revolution – did you not read my previous response?
    KF2bK has made no stabs in the dark and has had absolutely NOTHING …I repeat NOTHING to do with the female ejaculation or ban small breasted issues.
    What a joke! Unfortunately when something is ‘press released’ some people believe the content must have some validity.
    Save your breath and let your steam off on an issue that actually exists… unless of course you want to continue strawman propaganda.
    Another thing to clear up is the constant insistence from a minority – including the media academics you have mentioned, that the sexualisation of children and child sex abuse is exactly the same issue. They may be connected on a continuum but there are clear distinctions and both issues need to be dealt with.

  31. gerard

    Small or big breasts. You can’t legislate human behaviour but what you can do is educate the young and well before and not after they have become teenagers.

    Australia has a high rate of unwanted teenage pregnancies. The Netherlands have a very low rate of unwanted pregnancies. I assume both countries have young women with small and large breasts and young men with eager penises. The big difference is the no nonsense approach in Holland to sex education which starts at primary school level.

    If you want to fight the incidence of child abuse or pedophilia start giving the facts to the young so that they can grow up into adults without the fear for the world they live in.

    Also stop sexualising young girls by making them wear silly little swimmers with bras when they are four years old. I don’t think children below 10 years look much different above their navels.

    http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

  32. Brian X. McAllister

    Just a paragraph into Mrs. Reist’s article it was already obvious that the article was just a blatant stab at the pornographic film and publication industry. While I am not going to even bother getting into the politics of whether or not the pornography industry is morally right or not or socio-economically damaging or not I would like to raise three very important issues which I have resonable doubt as to whether or not the author of the article probably had not considered at the time of publication seeing as the article has obviously been taken from the one-sided viewpoint that all pornography is evil rather than actually honing in on the small breast issue specifically, the point that the article purports to be all about.

    Point #1: What is the point of such a supposed ban (which I believe to be in place not directly as a small breast ban but a possible underage portrayal of pornographic actresses ban) if one of it’s main effect will be to say to women across Australia, all of whom are beautiful (if not always in the sense that Marylin Monroe was beautiful) that it is wrong to have small breasts or that young individuals (under the age of 18) are more mature than others with smaller breasts because they have larger breasts? In a society where youth is seen to value maturity (young kids seek advice from older individuals such as their parents, teachers, or older family friends don’t they?) what sort of messages of maturity are we sending by a law like this?

    Point #2: Ken Park. This film is banned because the actors within the film portray individuals suggested to be under the age of 18 in real sexual situations even though they are over the age of 18 (and obviously visually and physically so). This film was banned in Australia years ago, a ban which has not yet been revoked despite the fact that it is non-pornographic as is not intended as such. Shouldn’t responsible adults be able to decide if they want to see this movie? Especially considering none of the actresses have small breasts or other physical attributes that would suggest in any way they are underage. I highly doubt any individuals would watch this film just to see short and non-offensive footage of consensual adults partaking in sexual acts portraying children in the context of the story but not pertaining to any physical attribute to suggest youth. I am sure there are examples of bannings of quality pieces of art just as this one that haven’t garnered the critical or media response that this film Ken Park received due to it’s critical acclaim. If you don’t know what I’m talking about look it up (Google: Ken Park Margaret Pomeranz).

    Point #3: What about Bill Henson’s images? What makes one thing art and another pornography? Does hanging something in a gallery make it art? Is it artistic intent? Should individuals be constrained from artistic exploration of touchy subject matter just because it is controversial?

    I’d love to read any responses. Just for some personal background information, I am a 17 year old Sydney selective high-school student with absolutely no outsider influences on my interest in this topic. If a reasonable point of view can be put across to me I would be happy to reconsider my viewpoint on the issue however I am yet to encounter one.

    Also, slightly off-topic but slightly related all the same, I was wondering if anyone knew if the Australian DVD release of Californication Season 2 had the Female Ejaculation scene edited out as the TV screening of the series did?

  33. Brian X. McAllister

    In response to Gerard’s most recent comment, I totally agree. I learnt so many contradictory things from year 7 all the way to year 11 in PDHPE class about sex and pregnancy and drug-use I’m still not quite sure what’s true. I believe there should be a review of the current Physical Education curriculum and the Department of Education should remove the tired and fatigued view they hold, I like to call the “ends justify the means” approach to teaching students about the dangers of drugs and sex which eventually led me to not believe anything I was learning in the PDHPE classroom and seek my Drug and Sex education from more truthful and consistent sources outside the school.

  34. Skepticus Autartikus

    Clearly big norks are best, but only if the body’s big enough to buttress such bouncy protrusions. The problem nowadays, with all these stick insect sheilahs, is that they either have matching pancake titties, and look like jail bait, or they get them swollen with silicone and look like trannies.

  35. Skepticus Autartikus

    What about baby man-boobs? Perhaps Mark Latham needs to address the nation?

  36. Skepticus Autartikus

    We’ll probably have Marilyn Shepherd along next telling us that according to international law, Australia has an international obligation to accept even those sheilahs who are washed up on our shores by a storm in a B cup.

  37. Meljane

    Some are discussing whether men getting aroused by the idea of sex with children leads to peadophilia. Why on earth would we want to take such a risk? Surely many of the men who purchase these publications are peadophiles, but what about the men who watch “normal” pornography and decide to experiment by getting off on what appear to be little girls? Do we really need to encourage more abuse of children? If the women/girls in the “Barely legal” magazines were under 18, then yes, those children have been harmed and it is a crime. But even if the images are of women over 18 who are presented as children seeking sex with men, then children everywhere are harmed because we are creating an environment where lust for children is seen as legitimate. What you’re essentially arguing for here, sex party apologists, is the right for men to masturbate over images of children. Ensuring the women are “over 18” yet removing as many signs of adulthood as possible is merely an exercise in ensuring it’s legality. It didn’t work because thankfully there are enough people in this country who see these publications for what they are – a replication of child pornography.

    Fiona Pattern, you said:

    “The problem is David that deciding if someone appears to be under the age of 18 is very subjective.”

    ok Fiona, so pigtails, stuffed toys, braces, dummies, “shhhh dont’ tell mum” and “daddy’s big **** is that subjective is it? You’re not sure about this? In this context, small breast size is but one component of the image used to convey the idea to the reader that this is a child they’re masturbating over. You have taken the issue of breast size out of context and misrepresented people’s concerns.

  38. Perpetual Tart

    As a woman who ejaculates, frequently and with enthusiasm, I find it quite disturbing that depictions of this perfectly natural act are being censored. If it wasn’t for pornography, I (and my partner) would have been shocked and possibly repulsed by my body’s response. Instead we rightly see it as it is – wonderful evidence of arousal and pleasure.

    And I can’t believe that the debate still rages over whether women ejaculate or not. My evidence is only anecdotal, but I can assure you that the result looks, tastes and smells nothing like urine.

  39. Lydia Jade Turner

    LukeRevolution

    As a psychologist specialising in sexual health, body image issues, and young people, I want to respond to the question you raised regarding porn magazines deliberately portraying models to “appear under 18:”

    You said: “There’s no actual evidence to prove that looking at such magazines leads men to commit a crime. There may be correlation, pedophiles may very well read porn magazines but did the magazine cause the pedophilia?”

    1. The fact that science currently lacks the method to tease apart nature/nurture 100% is not “evidence’ that these magazines do not cause harm. In fact, positive correlations suggest that the repeated viewing of such images, normalise and ‘shape’ the preference for pedophilic images.

    Whether or not a person is prone to commit a criminal act is one thing, but shaping their sexual preferences towards those who are most vulnerable – children- should inspire within us to put up safeguards.

    Is men’s sexual pleasure, regarding sex with children (as these images promote), more important than the safety of our children? Seriously? Again, I urge you to consider that the lack of fail-proof evidence (as this is untestable) is NOT evidence of harmlessness.

    2. Research in the field of neuroplasticity informs us that ‘neurons that fire together, wire together.’ If boys and men are encouraged to view images that consistently pair a physiologically rewarding (sexual) response to particular images (girls that appears underaged) – then the evidence actually suggests that they are more likely to desire such ideas/images of ‘innocence’ – ie experience more sexual thoughts of having sex with children. Until you can provide safeguards, why would you give this the ‘okay’? what’s to stop this from escalating ?

    I am appalled that you actually have no problem with pedophilic images.

    You also stated:

    “Hell, it’s even possible that these magazines prevent child sexual abuse crime, but there’s no evidence of that either. Although Todd Kendall’s 2007 study showed a correlation between increased availability of pornography and decreased rates of rape. Could material not involving and harming children, obviously, reduce the pedophile’s socially unacceptable orientation?”

    Oh come on. Surely even you are aware of the wealth of research indicating that populations with increased access to porn experience significantly higher rates of sexual violence than those that have more limited access!

  40. Lydia Jade Turner

    My understanding is that KF2BK had nothing to do with the suggestion that female ejaculation and small breasts should be censored… really – as a psych specialising in body image issues I would be absolutely opposed to that.

  41. Rakarth

    You know what, there probably are “dirty old men” choking the chicken to porn involving a woman with pigtails surrounded by furry animals right now. But they’re not the threat to children. The real threat, the paedophiles, don’t use the internet like the rest of us. They have very advanced technology to spread their child porn with and to evade detection. They already have a way to circumvent the proposed Internet Filter.

    When even child protection groups are speaking out about it, then what do people honestly think it will do to stop the actual child predators?
    http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/330087/child_groups_slam_conroy_isp_filtering_plans/

    It still doesn’t protect children on MSN, ICQ, MySpace, Facebook and all the other usual predatory mediums and may even give parents a false sense of security.
    But even with the idea of protecting children in mind, what right does the government have to stop grown up adults viewing material which is 100% legal is somewhat morally objectionable?
    What right do they have to force their standard of morality on adults who are perfectly with in the law viewing material created by other consenting adults?
    The scariest aspect to me is the idea of scope creep, which this already seems to be. Today it’s female ejaculatory porn but tomorrow it may be spanking or bondage or some other fetish that consensual adults have every right to do, but apparently no right to view if the government deems it’s not up to their standards.
    If implemented, this filter will put us on the same list as China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, and a whole bunch of other countries famed for their repression of civil liberties and human rights.
    If parents want a filter then there are many options they can install on their own PCs including the government sponsored PC filter.
    http://www.netalert.gov.au/

  42. gerard

    The real abuse and exploitation of kids, far worse than adults looking at any small or large breasts, or the spilling of male and female squirtings (during the worst drought), is of course the sale of W11, Ipods and other mind bogling stupid gadgets with small knobs.

    Kids that should be on the streets, terrorisng the neighbourhood with billy carts and making pocket money selling those 5 minutes of joy gadgets that have been abanded in the box underneath the bed. Climbing trees and riding bikes, catching frogs and growing pods into peas.

    The real perverts are those commercial exploiters of kids who know they are the most lucrative market with loads of guilt driven parents only too keen to keep kids quiet and sadly subdued.

    http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

  43. LukeRevolution

    Meljane
    Your story is a disturbing one, but is it true. It has a wholesome truthiness about it that current affair programs lap up. For this to be the information that we are acting on it needs to be shown that a man watching a barely legal video will turn from being a non-pedophile into a pedophile. This is not so that this material can just be available for self pleasuring. We need to know that the removal of this material *will* decrease pedophilia rates otherwise we have just given ourselves a false sense of security. Sure, we’ll all feel warm and fuzzy but the abuse will go on regardless.

    I don’t think that viewing “Barely Legal” or other small breasted material would change someone’s sexual orientation. Attempts have been made in the past to convert gay people with positive and negative re-enforcement whilst viewing straight and gay porn. It doesn’t work. So, if it can’t make gay people straight how can it make anyone who sees it into pedophiles?

    Perpetual Tart:
    Your evidence is much more firm than the censorship board’s evidence. They looked at it and said: “That looks like pee”. You ejaculated the liquid, smelt it and tasted it – it doesn’t get much more open minded then getting right in there and having a good hard look like that. I’ll take your word over the censorship board’s bias any old day. Thank you for your efforts and honesty.

  44. Brian X. McAllister

    +1

  45. Eric Brodrick

    This just proves that the “Peds Under the Bed” issue is completely out of control and is totally beyond rationality and good sense. It is becoming more a “thought police” issue than protecting children in a genuine and practical manner. If anyone truly thinks that actions like these will stamp out pedophilia they’re living in “La La” Land. It’s on the same level as banning photography in public parks.

    I would much rather someone getting his rocks off watching a porn movie of an 18+ plus lady with A cup breasts and fantasizing, than have him out on the street stalking my 14 year old grand-daughter. Afterall watching someone of legal age perform is not a criminal offence and there are men who genuinely prefer mature ladies with small breasts.

    What’s next, taking a ruler to the “members” of the male actors to make sure they’re not posing as boys ?

  46. MS

    @Ruth Brown.

    Nice backpeddling, to quickly claim that you’re just covering the internet explosion around the issue, as opposed to the actual issue. Well, why the hell aren’t you and Crikey actually looking into the issue? If I wanted to read about what people are tweeting, I can get that from MX and the Herald Scum. This isn’t frickin news.

  47. Ms Naughty

    Rakarth, spanking, bondage and fisting are already listed as “abhorrent” fetishes by the Classification Board.

  48. Meljane

    “Imagine the harm being done to young women who are being told that to be a woman you’ve gotta go big. Is this being sponsored by the plastic surgery industry? See, that has an air of truthiness about it but I have no proof.”

    Oh good grief give me a break. Women are already under pressure to get plastic surgery but I doubt it’s because of the Australian Sex parties flawed press release.

  49. Brian X. McAllister

    @MELJANE: Note the use of the word “truthiness”; you haven’t seen much Colbert Report have you?

  50. Grebo

    Seriously now Meljane, you believe these magazines are “a replication of child pornography”? What nonsense. Are you seriously trying to suggest that Hustler and other mainstream magazine publishers are selling virtual child porn, and have been for a long time (since 1993 in the case of Barely Legal), yet people in North America and Europe (where there is a UK edition of Barely Legal) can freely buy these magazines. Please tell me how Australian men are more susceptible to becoming a paedophile by reading these magazines, yet European and American men somehow aren’t?

    If I was rather cynical, I’d say that groups like Kids Free 2B Kids just want to ban porn magazines because they don’t like them, not for the “benefit of the children”. I mean there’s links to her site on the Australian Christian Lobby’s website. I think that says it all.

  51. Lydia Jade Turner

    Grebo, to suggest that KF2BK is all about pushing a Christian agenda is clearly misguided.

    To suggest that only Christians are concerned about the increasing sexualisation of children and ideas that promote sexual desire towards them is just an easy way for you to dismiss the valid arguments that exist against this type of commercialised porn – Please don’t simplify this issue.

  52. Gutterspine the Bladeleper

    No, Lydia, I think Grebo was suggesting that Kids Free 2B Kids may be – or is at the very least acting like – an affiliate of a moralising, hatemongering lobby group that masquerades as Christians as part of a crusade to outlaw any and all depictions of human flesh, and drag Australian society kicking and screaming back into the 19th century.

    There is nothing Christian about the Australian Christian Lobby.

  53. Brian X. McAllister

    Lydia Jade Turner:
    “To suggest that only Christians are concerned about the increasing sexualisation of children and ideas that promote sexual desire towards them is just an easy way for you to dismiss the valid arguments that exist against this type of commercialised porn”

    I think you’ll find that most of us are at least a bit disgusted by the over-sexualisation of children recently but you need to understand this is not a discussion about that. We are discussing the ‘childification’ of adults not the ‘adultification’ of children (for want of a better term). These are two clearly separate issues and should be treated as such. I agree, it isn’t just Christians or so-called Christians who push a non-Christian agenda who are disgusted by the issue of increasing sexualisation of children to push products and generally sell sex to a new market (and before someone corrects me I know this has always been going on in the past in one form of another) however this is not the issue the Australian Sex Party is fighting to protect. The so-called Christians pushing an obviously non-Christian agenda want to combine these two issues so they have an easier fight to win and only affiliate themselves with Christian organisations to try to drum up Christian support and place themselves in the eye of the general public to hold the moral and religious high-ground but in doing so contradict themselves by pushing false agendas that go against the general rules and ideals of what you would expect an institution such as their own to uphold. I know I’ve gone on for quite a while so to summarise:
    1) The issue not the over sexualisation of kids, it’s the over-childification of adults in certain pornographic films and publications
    2) These are two different issues and should be treated as such
    3) It is not only the Christian’s morally objected to either issue
    4) As Gutterspine The Bladeleper said: “There is nothing Christian about the Australian Christian Lobby.”

  54. Lydia Jade Turner

    Brian X. MCallister

    You did notice that I wrote “… and ideas that promote sexual desire towards [children]…” didn’t you ?

    This would include the ‘childification’ of adults – these images and language including stuffed toys, “shhh don’t tell mum,” pigtails, dummies, braces etc normalise and promote the idea of having sex with underage girls.

    And, as I stated earlier, it’s not simply a Christian concern.

    Further to this, as a psychologist I am aware of how sexual desires can be shaped. What you find sexually desirable is significantly shaped by the environment.

    For example, Nick Broomfield, internationally acclaimed documentarian, interviewed several men at a boutique brothel in New York, known as ‘Pandora’s Box.’ In here, several of the Jewish men could only ‘get off’ with having women dressed in Nazi uniforms, and re-enacting out Holocaust fantasies. There were African American men who could only ‘get off’ re-enacting Rodney King scenarios. If these socio-political traumas had not happened, these fetishes/fantasies could not exist.

    Think about it. If there were no shoes in the environment, you couldn’t have a shoe fetish. Racial preferences can also be shaped through pornographic representations (but I’m not here to write an essay).

    It’s true that some people are more resilient than others, and that we all have different predispositions. However-

    My point is – our environment shapes our predilections to a significant extent.

    Research into neuroplasticity suggests that ‘neurons that fire together, wire together.’ When you pair a physiologically rewarding response (ie masturbation) with a particular set of images or narratives (idea of having sex with underage girl or image of girl who looks underage) – you reinforce and strengthen these neural pathways. You are literally, shaping the brain. Men who already prefer underage girls, have this predilection reinforced, while those who don’t have a particular preference for them, can learn to do so.

    Whether or not this drives a person to commit an act of sexual violence against another is one thing. But for those who are prone to sexual abuse and violence, this predilection for those who are most vulnerable in our community – children – is dangerous. Until we have safeguards in place, I find it abhorrent to privilege adults’ sexual desires above the safety of kids – there are other things to get off to, you know?

    This is not about being the ‘thought’ police- there is a huge difference between porn and commercialised porn.

  55. Ungulate

    Hard to argue with that. Lydia makes some very strong points.

    The issue here is finding the line between “promoting sexual desire towards children” and making judgement calls on how young a woman “appears” based on the size of her tits or her body type. Please let’s not let the outcome of this be that the only type of woman it’s acceptable to see in porn is one with inflatable breasts.

    There needs to be more specificity brought in to Australia’s Classification Guidelines. Otherwise it all just comes down to the personal whims of Board members.

  56. Brian X. McAllister

    Lydia Jane Turner

    “For example, Nick Broomfield, internationally acclaimed documentarian, interviewed several men at a boutique brothel in New York, known as ‘Pandora’s Box.’ In here, several of the Jewish men could only ‘get off’ with having women dressed in Nazi uniforms, and re-enacting out Holocaust fantasies. There were African American men who could only ‘get off’ re-enacting Rodney King scenarios. If these socio-political traumas had not happened, these fetishes/fantasies could not exist.”

    While this may be true this is a significantly small number of the population and there are flaws with you bringing up this particular point:

    1) Pedophiles existed before child pornography so pedophilia is not a direct response to the existence of a particular pornographic publication.

    2) These men required re-enactments not the real thing and it didn’t lead to them seeking out actual Nazi’s or real life Rodney King scenario’s to get off. One could therefore argue that publications portraying child-like adults could in fact decrease the overall demand for illegal pornographic publications depicting individuals who actually are under 18 and also decrease a pedophiles need to seek out real children to enact their sexual fantasies. This point proves that by allowing individuals to feed these sexual desires in a controlled environment we can prevent the need for any of these scenarios to go beyond fantasy

    “Think about it. If there were no shoes in the environment, you couldn’t have a shoe fetish.”

    3) This point furthers my point. Pedophiles came because of the children, not the adults as kids which is an entirely different fantasy altogether. And while I’m sure some pedophiles partake in both fetishes I think you’ll find that most will find the idea of an adult as a child disgusting. They get off on youth, not fake youth.

    ” When you pair a physiologically rewarding response (ie masturbation) with a particular set of images or narratives (idea of having sex with underage girl or image of girl who looks underage)” – you reinforce and strengthen these neural pathways. You are literally, shaping the brain. Men who already prefer underage girls, have this predilection reinforced, while those who don’t have a particular preference for them, can learn to do so.

    4) Actually, these men will learn to do so. They will learn to get off on adults dressed as kids.

    And why I agree with your final point and I do think we should always think of the children I think that you are doing what is done time and time again. You are bunching together two similar issues that have majorly different outcomes: Child pornography and fake child pornography. Most fetishes are about fantasies not the real thing (Bondage, Sadism, Domination, Submission etc.). We should be looking at this from another point of view. We ban snuff but we don’t ban horror films.

  57. Gutterspine the Bladeleper

    Okay, Lydia, now you’re sounding dangerously similar to Robi Sonderegger and the “sinews welding” bunkum he promotes in his “buy my overpriced motivational DVDs” seminars.

  58. Evan Beaver

    Things have developed since last time I was here. I’d like to see policy that meets this rule:
    “This would include the ‘childification’ of adults – these images and language including stuffed toys, “shhh don’t tell mum,” pigtails, dummies, braces etc normalise and promote the idea of having sex with underage girls.”

    State sponsored haircuts anyone?

  59. Grebo

    Lydia Jane Turner said; “Men who already prefer underage girls, have this predilection reinforced, while those who don’t have a particular preference for them, can learn to do so.”

    What a load of nonsense. Why would I want to “learn” to have a sexual preference towards something when I have no interest in it or am even repulsed by it? This sounds awfully like tripe that “experts” such as Dr Robi Sonderegger prattle on about and those who want to “convert” homosexuals back to heterosexuality. It’s utter nonsense.

  60. gerard

    The main thing to watch for is elderly men having a snooze in libraries.

    Please listen and get a little closer to your screen now!

    Don’t be fooled by them. They are clearly having illegal ‘underage small breasts thoughts’. You can tell when they snore and their top lip vibrates. Be especially suspicious if they have their legs crossed as well.

    Get rid of them and phone up Queensland or Hetty Johnson immediatement. Do it now!

    http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

  61. b1_

    Lydia, I’m sorry, but I find your replies genuinely disturbing. They smack of witch-hunting hysteria with pseudo scientific justification.

    “My point is – our environment shapes our predilections to a significant extent.”
    I would doubt that based on my experience. I would be interested in any links to such research. I’ve seen gay porn and I didn’t turn gay. Can’t say that any of my sexual fantasies have come, even remotely, from any real life experiences either.

    “Until we have safeguards in place, I find it abhorrent to privilege adults’ sexual desires above the safety of kids – there are other things to get off to, you know?”
    And I find it abhorrent to privilege the safety of kids over freedom of thought.

    It is a slippery slope you advocate that ends in men being required to wear blind folds in the presence of children. If you think restricting breast size in pornographic material is going to somehow reduce paedophilia I think you are naive, not to mention a menace to woman’s self-esteem.

  62. Ms Naughty

    Lydia, you use existing research into neuroplasticity to then launch into an argument that masturbation over certain unpleasant fantasies will turn you into a pedophile, or make an existing pedophile act on those fantasies.

    Sounds plausible enough but where is the actual scientifically-based, unbiased research that proves your point? Can you name any real studies that back up your case?

    It is entirely possible that the type of extreme magazines you are discussing may serve as a “release valve” that actually prevents crime and protects children but there’s no concrete evidence for that either.

    But I should say, the introduction of the idea of magazines featuring pigtails, “daddy” and the like was a bomb dropped into this discussion, especially considering that – in theory – those types of magazines aren’t legal in Australia anyway thanks to the existing classification guideline that bans incest-related material:
    RC includes “incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.”
    http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/6C888688A3BBD40ACA2574120004F72A

    (By the way… exactly who defines which fantasies are “offensive or abhorrent”? Does fantasising about Tony Abbott in Speedos qualify?)

    If I may return to the original point.

    The main concern raised by original press release is that the rule against models who “appear under 18” can easily be used against relatively inane adult material like those produced by Hustler with adult models. (By the way, one could easily argue that magazines like Barely Legal are actually more about fantasising over the Christian-sanctioned concept of virginity than child abuse.) The rule is also having a chilling effect on the adult industry resulting in even less diverse depictions of female body types.

    That is what this discussion was originally about.

    You are advocating that the rights of adults have to give way to the rights of children in the name of protection. It’s a stance that is now being used to justify censorship in so many ways – the net filter and SA’s new R-rated rules being the two most obvious cases at present. I think it’s time we stopped the hysterical pearl-clutching and found better ways to protect children without stomping all over freedom of speech or thought.

    My belief remains that education trumps censorship every time. Sex education, education about what porn can mean, education about what sexual images in the media mean. Education about stranger danger and education about “my body is my own, no touching unless I say”…

    And lets give adults education about how to use existing filtering software and the off button while we’re at it.

  63. Julie Gale

    Ms Naughty says:
    But I should say, the introduction of the idea of magazines featuring pigtails, “daddy” and the like was a bomb dropped into this discussion, especially considering that – in theory – those types of magazines aren’t legal in Australia anyway thanks to the existing classification guideline that bans incest-related material:
    RC includes “incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.”

    Correct Ms Naughty ‘those types of magazines aren’t legal in Australia’ – however, most, and I stress .. most … of the category 1 porn mags sold in the public arena in full view of kids…in petrol stations, milk bars, newsagents etc… are illegal. Most are unclassified, or ‘should’ be category 2 (only sold in adult venues) or are RC – refused Classification – that is, shouldn’t be sold anywhere.
    Even Ms Fiona Patten head of Eros and The Australian Sex Party agrees with this.
    This info from an Eros Foundation press release sept 2008:
    “Eros CEO, Fiona Patten, said that less than 5% of adult publications currently sold in Australia were classified and in many cases importers of adult magazines simply could not afford the classification charges. The system as it stood today was not working and inappropriate material was finding its way into non-restricted outlets like convenience stores and service stations. Not only are adult magazines being found in these outlets but explicit films were also turning up.”

    Point is ‘most’ of the porn magazines in the public arena do not comply with the Classificaiton Board guidelines.
    It is obvious from the postings on this site – that most people are actually unaware of the content of the teen porn magazines in question.
    Shell/Coles Express, Mobil and BP have removed all category 1 magazines from their company owned stores nationwide. They wouldn’t have done this if the magzines ‘actually’ complied with the guidelines.
    The major incentive to remove these magazines was the knowlege that content in the teen porn magazines often warrant an RC (Refused Classification)….for a host of reasons.
    The distributors are flouting the law by putting magazines in falsely categorised wrappers and selling direct to retailers.
    It is hardly worth entering discussions that are based on untruths and furphys like the ASP press release.

    And for the record – KF2bK has no control over who decides to provide a link to our website.
    Many and varied groups link to the Kf2bK .
    I have talked to and met with many different people, groups and politicians over the past few years – and Ms Fiona Pattern also requested a meeting last year (which never eventuated, but she requested it nonetheless)
    KF2bK has no affiliation with any religious or political group – and I find the assumptions very amusing.

  64. Gutterspine the Bladeleper

    “most … of the category 1 porn mags sold in the public arena in full view of kids…in petrol stations, milk bars, newsagents etc… are illegal. Most are unclassified, or ‘should’ be category 2 (only sold in adult venues) or are RC – refused Classification – that is, shouldn’t be sold anywhere.”

    Um…you already called them “Category 1”, which means they are neither unclassified, nor illegal: they’ve been classified “Category 1.”

    As to whether they’re in full view of children, all the fuel stations I’ve been in have the magazines in a fairly obvious section of the shop where any parent with half a brain can steer their children away from (say, towards the drinks aisle). Problem solved.

    How many “publications” (of the adult persuasion) are normally sold in fuel stations? I would wager about eight. Because even though every issue of every magazine is supposed to be submitted to the ACB, the big names – Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler, Picture, and so on – are smart enough to do their homework, and know what the laws are, and so will not submit an issue to the Board that they don’t already expect to receive a particular classification.

    So we can safely treat Penthouse as a single publication, Hustler as a publication, and so on. Hustler Gold, would of course be treated as a separate publication, but following the same rules of predictability (it just gets Category 2 instead), and the same with Penthouse Black Label. When condensing the array of adult magazines in that manner, we arrive at my aforementioned wager of eight “publications” on sale in fuel stations (maybe as low as 5, or as high as 15, depending on the neighbourhood). Which, as I’ve already discussed, are easily kept away from children by simply steering them away from the magazine rack altogether (let’s face it, a fuel station is neither a library nor a child’s playground – keep your children on a leash!), and none of which are RC, Category 2 or even illegal. And besides, they’re sealed in plastic – half the time the plastic’s not even see-through!

    When Ms Patten is talking about “less than 5% of adult publications currently sold in Australia,” she does not specify the types of venues, and makes no mention of fuel stations. She may well have been referring to the many “adult bookshops” that continue to operate in States that prohibit the sale/distribution of X18+ and Category 2 material, in clear violation of State laws. Perhaps you could try informing local law enforcement of actual illegal activity instead of hounding innocent local fuel stations, and pissing and moaning over some lousy TShirts.

  65. Gutterspine the Bladeleper

    Oh, and: “Shell/Coles Express, Mobil and BP have removed all category 1 magazines from their company owned stores nationwide. They wouldn’t have done this if the magzines ‘actually’ complied with the guidelines.”

    Well, ‘actually,’ these companies ordered the removal of C1 magazines because some busybodies started up a bad PR campaign to bully them into doing it. Who needs facts when you’re thinking of the children?

    I’d like to see some ‘actual’ evidence that Penthouse and Playboy were intentionally mislabelling their ACB ratings.

  66. Elan

    SO? Have we reached a conclusion on the tiny tits thing?

    (I’m in the clear,-I have worked hard to avoid retribution,-I now need scaffolding not a bra).

  67. Ms Naughty

    Right, so having dropped the bomb of the “daddy” magazines we’re now talking about what adult magazines are available in service stations – another sidetrack from the original issues of free speech. Still…

    Are you actually saying that you’ve seen extreme incest magazines being sold in service stations? Despite them being obviously illegal? Where? When? Did you contact the police?

    Or is your complaint that the Classification Board is not reviewing every single adult magazine that is published in Australia? That may be a reasonable thing to ask… except that the Board charges publishers a ridiculous amount of money for the privilege of being able to censor their material. So if you are in favour of regular and increased classification of magazines are you now agitating for a removal of said fees to facilitate the process? That’s what the Eros Association is talking about in your quote… if they agree with you, do you agree with them on this?

    But if I may get to the heart of your concern regarding these magazines: you don’t want children to be able to see them.

    So where is your evidence that harm is caused to a child by simply *looking* at a Category 1 magazine cover? Given the fairly strict rules covering what can go on the covers, how is it harmful? Or is it simply that some parents want to avoid answering questions about sex?

    I recall clandestinely checking out the covers of Penthouse and Playboy when I was a kid, back when the covers were actually more explicit than today. I was curious, you know, like all kids are about sex. Last time I checked, I grew up into a rational, happy adult.

    As I said in my last post – isn’t it better to talk to kids about this stuff, to educate them, rather than seeking to ban it?

    Also, you haven’t answered my original question re the nature of KF2BK’s meetings with the Classification Board? What did you discuss? Are there records of these meetings?

    I’m curious to know how individual lobby groups gain access to the Board. What’s the criteria? Do you need to be an officially named and registered lobby group or can you just turn up as an interested party?

  68. Julie Gale

    Gutterspine the bladeleper – your understanding of the system is very niave and your infomation is simply not correct. As I’ve explained, distributors are flouting the law and putting false labels (incorrect classification labels) on the magazines…and most of these magazines have NOT been classified. To be deemed ‘classified’, the magazine issue must have been submitted to the classification board for a classificaton.
    This information is undisputed – by the police, by the classificaton board and by the Eros foundation.
    And for the record, most of these magazines are displayed near counters and next to the daily newspapers, womens magazines and often comics, and young girls magazines such as Dolly and Girlfriend.
    The failure of the current classification system for adult magazines and their display in the public arena is being addressed by the Attorney Generals SGAG (Standing Committee of Attorney Generals) CEWP – Censorship Enforcement Working Party. They are due to comment in April.
    BTW Shell/Coles Express BP Mobil …removed Cat 1 magazines because of the content – depictions that did not comply with guidelines and often case RC – refused classification.
    It is important that people understand the issues they are commenting on. Strawman arguments are not useful for anyone – just like the furphy press release from The Australian Sex Party that started this whole article.

  69. Julie Gale

    Ms Naughty – titles like ‘Cum on my braces Virgin cutie’ along with an image of a very young looking female wearing braces is hardly the sort of depiction that is appropriate to be sold near the daily newspapers or dolly magazine.
    or ‘Tender Teenage Twat’ or ‘Tight slits and Tender Tits’ or ‘Petite – young tight and sweet’ or ‘Freshest Teen Sluts ….to name a few examples of visible mastheads.
    Let alone lines inside the magazines that read – ‘Teen Tits, only very young breasts can make you cum like this’ – complete with a picture of a female who looks about about 10 years of age with semen all over her body.
    There is little doubt that the content (text and images) in these magazines are designed to incite sex with minors.
    Ms Naughty says: ‘Given the fairly strict rules covering what can go on the covers’
    See my previous post – guidelines are NOT being adhered to.
    Unfortunately many people have wilful blindness to this issue.
    Access to The Classification Board would be easy via a phone call.

  70. Ms Naughty

    Julie I feel like you are the one bringing a straw man into this discussion by your constant referral to what I would call extreme incest magazines. That’s not what this discussion was originally about. Concerns were originally raised over the overtly broad rule regarding “models that appear over 18”, over scope creep, over the lack of freedom of speech in this country.

    You haven’t really address any of the questions I was asking; rather, we’ve gone all emotive again with those quoted headlines.

    (By the way, those headlines seem to me to be about inciting fantasies about virgins, not children. Yes, there is a difference. And if the models are over 18, no children have been harmed in the creation of those particular images. Thus, we are back to trying to regulate what people are *thinking*. By quoting those headlines, you made ME think unsavoury thoughts, which I’d rather not do, thanks. But thinking and doing are separate things. To suggest otherwise is to spiral into the realm of thought crime.)

    I understand your motivations. You want to protect children. You find a lot of material out there to be disturbing and worry that it’s causing harm. To be honest, I also find the magazines you describe to be extremely distasteful. But I can’t side with you on this topic because you are advocating censorship and also raising a moral panic without any real evidence to back up your concern.

    Are magazines with the headlines you describe REALLY being put next to Dolly in newsagents and service stations? Where and when?

    If they are, can you elaborate on your solution to this? Does it involve placing the magazines on a “top shelf” the way they do in Britain? Or does it involve increasing censorship of the content of legal adult magazines?

    And what did you meet with the Classification Board about?

  71. b1_

    “There is little doubt that the content (text and images) in these magazines are designed to incite sex with minors.”
    Don’t be ridiculous Julie. These are fantasy publications targeted at the very common male fantasy of screwing the virgin, which itself is linked to the perfectly natural urge in men to seek out a mate that is youthful, and therefore healthy, and therefore likely to bare healthy children. In other words it is an outlet for natural desires denied to men in this country, whether rightly or wrongly (it is not proven whether the age of consent 18 laws are beneficial to society, nor are they universal around the world, nor are they historically proven, but we err on the side of caution).

    If there are people who are incited to molest children because of a magazine, they are a tiny minority that I put to you were likely to offend anyway. The idea that such material somehow turns a significant amount of men into child-molesting zombies is absurd.

    The classification board is doing nothing but following its guidelines – fine. But don’t think for a minute that such censorship is universally accepted – barely tolerated I would say. Every time I here of their antics it makes my blood boil, and makes me want to move somewhere that’s a little less backward than this country.

  72. Reg Shoe

    Julie sez: “Strawman arguments are not useful for anyone – just like the furphy press release from The Australian Sex Party that started this whole article.”

    But earlier: “This info from an Eros Foundation press release sept 2008…”

    Okay, so your argument hinges on one of Fiona Patten’s press releases, but you dismiss another one as a furphy?

    Can’t have it both ways, love.

  73. Julie Gale

    OK, this is getting a bit tedious.
    The reason I have talked about this issue, is because Ms Patten linked Kids Free 2B kids with the the baning of images of female ejaculation and small breasts.
    This was a gross misrepresentation – the press release I cited from 2008 from the Eros foundation was correct. Hardly having it both ways Reg Shoe.
    The link made to Kf2bK may have been to do with exposing the failure of the classification system foradult magazines in the public arena – particulaly the teen porn genre.
    These are not ‘extreme incest magazines’ as you have stated Ms Naughty – they are sold prolifically in petrol stations, milk bars, corner store and newsagents. In the past year, some retailers have acted on the knowledge that most of these magazines are illegal and have withdrawn them from their shelves.
    B1 (gotta love these pseudonyms people – nothing like putting your name and face out in the public !) Given the content, images and text, in these magazines – your views are a worry.

  74. Reg Shoe

    Just an aside:

    “gotta love these pseudonyms people – nothing like putting your name and face out in the public !”

    What’s wrong with pseudonyms? You don’t talk to strangers on the street, you don’t use your real name on the Internet. The Facebook Generation is a perfect example of what happens when you “put your name and face out in the public.”

    Plenty of people have legitimate reasons for using/promoting their real identities online, and these same people probably have business cards offline, and so on. You, for example, have a business, and an identity attached to that business, and you are making your comments as a representative of that business.

    I’m just some guy. So on a public forum like this I don’t use my real name, and take no shame in it. Whether that affects your opinion of my comments is your problem.

    Don’t use your real name on the Internet. It’s something all kids should be taught from an early age. We could call it Cyber-Safety, and get the Government to cook up a whole policy about it…but they’d probably bugger it up.

  75. Julie Gale

    also…Ms Naughty says:
    ‘Or does it involve increasing censorship of the content of legal adult magazines?’
    I have reiterated numerous times now – that although people assume Cat 1 magazines are ‘legal’ – most are not, and I have already stated some of those reasons.
    If the system cannot be effectively complied with in the current state then it makes sense to put cat 1 magazines into adult venues, so that kids and the rest of the population who aren’t interested don’t have to view them…..and see previous titles I’ve mentioned as typical.
    If the magazines were ‘legal’, that is… complied with guidelines and were displayed appropriately then we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.
    I’m not being emotive – just statingthe facts.
    Which are:
    *The classification system foradult magazines is failing – this is undisputed but The police and The Classification Board (as I’ve previously mentioned)
    *Distributors are flouting the law by putting false labelling on magzines and selling them direct to retailers without getting them correctly classified.
    * Many of the teen porn genre magazines are depiciting images of females who appear to be much younger than 18. The Australian Classificaiton Law (OFLC Guidelines) state:
    The National Classification Code sets out the criteria for classifying a publication ‘RC’.
    These include publications that:
    • describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a
    person who is or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged
    in sexual activity or not),
    (http://www.classification.gov.au)
    *Illegal porn is frequently sold in full view and easy access of kids and young teens.

    The Federal and State Attorney Generals’ working officers (Compliance and Enforcement Working Party – CEWP) are currently considering matters concerning:
    • strengthening and harmonising classification offences and penalties
    • reforming serial classification declarations
    • replacing the Category 1 Restricted and Category 2 Restricted classifications with a single ‘Restricted’ classification
    • limiting the sale and display of restricted publications to adults-only premises, and
    • display requirements for adult publications.
    CEWP is due to report April 2010.

  76. Grebo

    Julie Gale; “[…] and most of these magazines have NOT been classified. To be deemed ‘classified’, the magazine issue must have been submitted to the classification board for a classificaton.

    This information is undisputed – by the police, by the classificaton board […]”

    Well gee Gale, the Classification Board’s website tells a different story. I know the titles you’re upset with from your previous press appearances, so I ran them through the website’s classification search engine, and what did I find;

    “Petite” 30 titles
    Classified March 1995 – June 2008
    Only one RC (PETITE NO 48 NOVEMBER 2003)

    “Live Young Girls” 110 titles
    Classified August 1995 – June 2008
    Three Issues RC

    “Teen Angels” 54 titles
    Classified June 2001 – December 2009
    Only one RC (TEEN ANGELS – ALL 18 AND EAGER! NO 36 © 2004)

    “Finally Legal” 81 titles
    Classified June 1999 – June 2006
    Only one RC (FINALLY LEGAL VOL 2 NO 12 DECEMBER 2000)

    “Barely Legal” 130 titles
    Classified August 1993 – July 2008
    Four titles RC

    So, Gale, yes, these titles are being classified and yes, they are legally being sold. Also note that the Classification Board online database is notoriously incomplete, so there’s probably a lot more issues that were classified that didn’t end up on the online database. Also note that some of the above issues that were RC were in fact modified and re-classified so that that they could be legally sold as R18+ Category 1 or 2.

    Julie Gale; “KF2bK has no affiliation with any religious or political group […] KF2bK has no control over who decides to provide a link to our website”.

    Strange, one would think this looks a lot like a press release; http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=18055 . If I was you I certainly wouldn’t want to be associated with an organisation that is essentially anti sex, is blatantly homophobic and doesn’t represent the views of the majority of Christians, let alone ordinary Australians. Maybe you should ask them to remove the page if don’t want to be associated with these people.

    Julie Gale; “And for the record, most of these magazines are displayed near counters and next to the daily newspapers, womens magazines and often comics, and young girls magazines such as Dolly and Girlfriend.”

    Right, so now you are deliberately confusing the placement of unrestricted issues of magazines like the Picture and bikini and lingerie “lads mags” such as Zoo and Ralph with the R18+ “teen magazines”. I have never seen magazines like Barely Legal next to women’s magazines or comics in any newsagent, in any petrol station or corner shop. This never happens. Even if it did, this is due to the shop owner’s negligence, not the publisher or distributor of the work. It would be better to ask the shop owner to move them to more appropriate place, rather than banning them, huh? What, you mean that’s far too sensible and it won’t lead to your goal of banning porn? Oh, sorry then.

    Julie Gale; “Strawman arguments are not useful for anyone […]”

    Oh, you make me laugh.

  77. Ms Naughty

    I don’t think it’s tedious. It’s a chance to engage with someone who is advocating censorship in the name of protecting children. I’d just like better understand what it is you’re trying to do and also to perhaps challenge you about your stance where I think it may be flawed.

    At this stage my challenge is still there because there are questions remaining to be answered.

  78. b1_

    “your views are a worry.”

    Trust me, the feeling’s mutual.

  79. Venise Alstergren

    Well the good old ‘filth’ syndrome is doing nicely in this once fair land. Once, oh so many moons ago, big tits were something ‘our children’ mustn’t be made too aware of-even today in sleaze magazines nipples have a mourning band wrapped around them.

    Now small tits are a crime because paedophiles might get an erection. Oh it turns men into paedophiles does it? I don’t think so.

    If our society wasn’t obsessed with American sexual mores, and it encouraged parents to act as parents, and all the parents who drop off their kids at movie houses on Fridays and Saturdays, who give their kids fifty dollars and tell them to come home when they’ve spent it, were stopped from doing this, and this ghastly Anglo-Saxon/Catholic/wowserism were to be removed from our ranks, children may not be so at risk from senile old men.

    Yes, these sick old men are predators. However, if our society prevented people from having children before they were mentally prepared to become parents, it would be a far safer place for children.

    On the other hand, to use children as an excuse for censorship makes as much sense as slamming minority groups into concentration camps-because they are members of minority groups. Which is, of course, where it will all end up with all of our neo-fascist right-wing renaissance we are presently undergoing.

  80. Lydia Jade Turner

    Wow Ms Naughty, Gutterspine, Grebo (what unfortunate names)

    You are fantastic at putting words in my mouth and twisting my arguments around. You did actually read what I wrote, didn’t you. If you had, you would have noticed I stated:

    “It’s true that some people are more resilient than others, and that we all have different predispositions. ”

    What I was saying was that the environment plays a significant role in shaping sexual desire/attraction – this does not negate the role of genetics, biology etc – but to assume that environment plays no role is ridiculous and you would easily open yourself up to scientific attack. Surely even you understand this point, Ms Naughty?

    This discussion has nothing to do with thought control. Would you support billboards in plain view depicting rape scenes? If not, why? You’re the ones who argue censorship is always bad. Or are you going to backtrack now and state that there’s actually a role for censorship somewhere along the line. What if someone yells “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre, is that okay too? How about standing up on a podium reciting hate speech?

    What about bombarding people with billboards, advertisements on TV etc inciting racial hatred?

    You want to talk about censorship? How about the videogame that was initially available via internet that rewarded game players to virtually rape a mother and her 2 daughters, aged 10 and 12? Do you seriously think that that is okay? Do you seriously believe it’s just fantasy, there’s no normalising effect. Seriously. You expect as a society we would condemn pedophilia and rape but openly be cool with commercialised products and advertisements that continue to promote these scenarios as desirable.

    I’m not in your head, monitoring your thoughts- there is a big difference here.

    And for those of you who continue to bring up the whole religion thing, I find it amusing that you continually try to portray me as some right wing, ultra-conservative religious fanatic. To those of you who actually accuse me of this, I’m the one out of the 3 of you who actually had to google who Jon Sondeberger was. So please, stop trying to dismiss arguments that don’t support your existing view by taking cheap shots based on false assumptions.

    And another thing, Ms Naughty, you do realise how ridiculous it is to actually state that these magazines encouraging men to have sex with “virgins” only mean virgins who are over 18? Cos right, that’s *precisely* why they show these girls with stuff toys, finger puppets, school uniform, braces etc – *That’s* what most 18 year old women parade around with. Right on.

    Someone else on here actually accused me of supporting the whole small-breasts-ban thing. What the? Where on earth did that come from? I have not even mentioned that because I believe this has been completely taken out of context and deliberately brought up to confuse the messages that other anti-child-sexualisation advocacy groups have promoted.

    As for your other points, Ms Naughty, I believe Julie Gale has addressed them sufficiently and you are now just filling your evening going around in circles. Good night.

  81. Lydia Jade Turner

    Allow me to make this clear- I do not, in any way, support the selective banning of women with small breasts or female ejaculation from pornography. That is ridiculous. I believe the context was more that small breasts are one of many signs of porn promoting sex with minors, including the airbrushing out of breasts to portray a prepubescent body and/or minor.

  82. Lydia Jade Turner

    Brian X McCallister

    Just read your post so here’s my reply.

    Your point #1 stating that pedophiles existed prior to this type of porn therefore this porn does not increase incidence of child sex offending. This is exactly like arguing that lung cancer existed before cigarettes came about.

    #2. “One could therefore argue that publications portraying child-like adults could in fact decrease the overall demand for illegal pornographic publications depicting individuals who actually are under 18 and also decrease a pedophiles need to seek out real children to enact their sexual fantasies.”

    You do realise that the nature of sex offending often starts off mild then escalates. If you really think porn that promotes rape and the idea of having sex with children prevents sexual assault, you’d better start calling schools and getting this material into the hands of high school boys. The idea that porn prevents rape and sex offending in general is based on popular myth.

    #3. “Pedophiles came because of the children, not the adults as kids which is an entirely different fantasy altogether. ” I disagree. The man masturbating to the image of an 18 year old who looks 12 and is surrounded by materials symbolising childhood is not thinking about having sex with an adult – he’s fantasising that this girl is underaged and getting off to the discourse that surrounds that. It’s ridiculous to suggest that a man would get off to the idea of a ‘childified’ adult minus the ‘childified’ side, the symbols of childhood are a significant part of that fantasy.

    #4. The nature of sex offending is that it escalates. You said “we ban snuff films but not horror films.” Exactly. Using your argument previously, perhaps you assume snuff films actually prevent murder and rape too. What I have argued is that the environment can intensify and shape certain preferences. And if one is prone to sex offending – then shaping their preference and normalising a discourse around sex with children – is dangerous.

  83. Grebo

    Julie Gale; “[…] replacing the Category 1 Restricted and Category 2 Restricted classifications with a single ‘Restricted’ classification […] limiting the sale and display of restricted publications to adults-only premises”

    Yeah, so now we’ll have to go to a porn shop to buy novels like “American Psycho” and comic “Heavy Metal” magazine. Gee, thanks for saving the children and killing off that sector of publishing in Australia. Also note that a lot of porn shops don’t sell any king of magazines anymore, so effectively you’re trying to kill off R18+ magazines and publications in this country, not just stuff like Barely legal and teen titles, the majority of which I have previously demonstrated ARE being sold legally and rated correctly in this country.

  84. Ms Naughty

    Lydia, you are arguing for a line to be drawn, saying that free speech should have limits. Sounds reasonable but my concern is where that line should be drawn. Because inevitably, pro-censorship activists like yourself and Julie Gale and the Australian Christian Lobby will keep pushing it, trying to ban things that you yourself think are wrong and trampling over the rights of others in the process.

    I’m reacting because I see censorship increasing in this country, often justified by “protecting the children” and I find that to be a very worrying trend. Questions need to be asked as to whether censorship actually achieves any of its goals.

    My approach is: show me the harm. REALLY show me the harm. Don’t just make a logical sounding argument like you’ve done in this thread. Give me the actual research. I am willing to change my view if you can convince me of harm.

    The problem is – as Michael Flood’s recent report showed – the research is all over the place. There’s no “magic bullet” study that proves that reading a magazine like Barely Legal then prompts someone to commit crime. Sure, a thousand other factors come into play and yes environment is part of that. But correlation is not causality.

    By the way, I’m not aware that Barely Legal features the school uniforms, finger puppets etc that you talk about. I don’t normally even look at that magazine but a search on the internet shows the issues seem to feature 18 year old women and the text constantly re-iterates that fact. I would still argue that that magazine caters to a virginity fetish and the desire of older men to have sex with younger women (*women*, not children). And remember, the age of consent is 16.

    I also want to point out that I really don’t enjoy defending Barely Legal or similar magazines because, as I’ve said, I find them distasteful. I find a lot of porn to be very problematic but as someone who believes in free speech I have to defend it because if I don’t, the line will move. And then you’ll be arguing that artistic photographic images of adolescents taken by a well-known artist are wrong…. Oh wait. We’ve already been there.

    Julie Gale has already illustrated the delightful scope creep inherent in pro-censorship moves. It seems that the panic caused by allegedly seeing incest magazines in petrol stations has morphed into a push for ALL adult magazines to only be sold in adult shops. Not just Barely Legal. Penthouse and AO too.

    I used to write for and regularly read Australian women’s Forum. That magazine promoted feminist ideals, realistic body image and positive depictions of sexuality. Its demise was partly due to increasing censorship. It was once forced to black out the “before and after” photos illustrating a story on the increasing amount of labiaplasty because it showed “too much genital detail.” Even though that story was talking about how the censorship guidelines preventing photos showing inner labia meant that women were getting a false idea of how vulvas actually looked.

    I mention that because it’s all connected. The line gets drawn but that’s never enough for those who want censorship.

    I do also find it interesting that there’s a sense of intellectual superiority involved in advocating censorship. Julie Gale and the Australian Censorship board are able to regularly look at the incest magazines they describe but they’re fine. They’re able to discern the difference between fantasy and reality, they’re not turning into pedophiles just by viewing them. But other people MIGHT! We can’t trust them, they’re too stupid, too animalistic, too base. They must be protected from themselves. It’s dangerous for them to even see such images. They might get turned on. They might start masturbating. They might think awful things… Somebody DO something!

    Also “The idea that porn prevents rape and sex offending in general is based on popular myth.” Kendall’s study is not a myth. http://www.toddkendall.net/internetcrime.pdf
    Yes, correllation, not causality, but the idea should not be dismissed as a myth.

  85. Julie Gale

    Grebo you are wrong and illinformed on a number of accounts.

    Grebo says: Strange, one would think this looks a lot like a press release; http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=18055 .

    I clicked on the link and it seems the ACL has taken the information straight from the Kf2bk website – which anyone is welcome to do at any stage…and which you can easily check for yourself. It is not a press release and as I’ve already stated I have no control over who agrees with or doesn’t agree with KF2BK. Kf2bK is known worldwide and we do not ‘associate’ with any specific groups other than The Australian Council on Children and the Media who we are in alliance with. (Formerly known as Young Media Australia).

    The information you got from the CB website shows only magazines that have been submitted to the board for classification. One would assume these magazines have indeed been given the correct classification – and that would mean if they are Cat 1 – then they would have stickers over any content that might warrant a Cat 2 or RC or any acts of penetration. (Which are not allowed in Cat 1) Sometimes a magazines is submitted for serial classification. That means only one magazine from a series has to be classified – then for the next 2 years no other magazines in that same series has to be submitted to the board. It is a trust system and means that the distributor is trusted to stick to the parameters of the original classification. Unfortunately most distributors flout the law and do not stick to the parameters.
    The Eros Foundation agree that only approx 5% of adult publications are submitted to be classified – so most of what is on the shelf is unclassified and illegal.
    Grebo said : the majority of which I have previously demonstrated ARE being sold legally and rated correctly in this country.
    Your statement is incorrect.
    No more from me – you can all go for it…. but I suggest…do some homework – ring the board and ask some questions.
    In the meantime you can all enjoy the assumption that those who care to speak out about issues like illegal porn MUST be rightwing christian moralising prude wowsers. Hilarious!

  86. Venise Alstergren

    A psychiatrist once informed me that the mental turmoil that propels people to force their pro-censorship views onto the rest of us; is caused by these same people getting a sexual thrill out of an image, or ten images, immediately followed by a terrible feeling of guilt that they had been aroused.

    To atone for their ‘guilty’ thrill they were impelled to force the ‘sin’ and the concomitant ‘guilt’ down everyone else’s throats. And what better way of excusing their behaviour than to tell everyone that he or she is only doing it for the sake of our children.

    Clearly he was misinformed?

  87. Venise Alstergren

    A previous comment asked the readers if they would be in favour of rape scenes being shown on bill boards?

    Oh how low do people determined to impose censorship on us sink? It is the ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ argument.

    However, the really interesting part of the comment is where the writer assumes that all rape is instantly observable! Why should a couple of people making love be automatically declared to be in the middle of a rape scene? What kind of a mind could see the act of love as an act of rape? To make such an image of rape credible would take an army of photographers and an army of actors, at extortionate prices.

    It would seem that the depiction of rape could, like art, fifth, disgust, repugnance, lie in the eye of the person looking at it.

  88. Julie Gale

    It’s interesting that exposing flaws in an existing system and attempting to get the classification scheme working efficiently so that illegal porn is not sold widely in the public arena is seen as ‘anti censorship’. It’s a good phrase to use to deflect the actual issue.

  89. Julie Gale

    Yes …I did say I wouldn’t post anymore but really it’s so amusing.

  90. Grebo

    Julie Gale; “The information you got from the CB website shows only magazines that have been submitted to the board for classification. One would assume these magazines have indeed been given the correct classification – and that would mean if they are Cat 1 -[…] Sometimes a magazines is submitted for serial classification. That means only one magazine from a series has to be classified – then for the next 2 years no other magazines in that same series has to be submitted to the board. It is a trust system and means that the distributor is trusted to stick to the parameters of the original classification. Unfortunately most distributors flout the law and do not stick to the parameters.”

    Uh, no, Julie I only counted single issues that have been classified ONLY. Not “serial classifications”. I can tell the difference and weeded them out when I counted. You can’t tell me that Barley Legal has 130 serial classifications lasting two years each for a 15 year period. That doesn’t quite add up.

    Julie Gale; “The Eros Foundation agree that only approx 5% of adult publications are submitted to be classified – so most of what is on the shelf is unclassified and illegal”

    I think you might find that they were referring to magazines sold in porn shops, not in newsagents. Newsagents and the like are doing the right thing. Or are going to tell me that companies like Gordon and Gotch are operating illegally? Going to my newsagent today, I only noticed one “teen” title, from the UK which has tougher restrictions than the US. Most were mainstream titles and the Over 30, Over 40, Over 60 etc titles seemed to be the most abundant. Also no porn next the comics or women’s magazines. Just like it has been for the last 36 years of my life in evrey single newsagent I have been in across the country!

    I note that out of the 405 titles of the magazines I listed, only 10 were RC, and of those a couple were resubmitted to get R18+ Cat 1 classifications. You honestly can’t tell me that most mainstream outlets are selling titles illegally. Porn shops (well the ones that still do sell magazines, only one shop in Canberra were I live sells them now) are the ones not doing the right thing, mostly because they can’t afford the fees.

    I’m also rather miffed that you think it’s OK to force ALL R18+ magazines into porn shops, which includes novels such as “American Psycho” and the comic “Heavy Metal Magazine” as well as all of the softcore stuff like some of the US Playboy titles, Australian Penthouse, The Picture and British softcore stuff like “Mayfair” and “Club”. I mean why? They’ve been in newsagents and bookshops at least since the early 1980’s and these titles don’t have the focus on “teen” models. Why are you restricting what adults can buy? A porn shop is not going to stock “American Psycho”, they aren’t going to stock “Heavy Metal Magazine”, hell, most of them don’t even stock magazines anymore, and when they do it’s hardcore stuff.

  91. Ms Naughty

    Julie Gale, are you seriously claiming that your stance is not pro-censorship? Even though your lobby group pushed Coles and BP to stop selling Category 1 magazines? Even though you seem to be advocating that restricted publications only be sold in adult shops, severely restricting their distribution?

    There are flaws in the existing Classification system all right. They include incredibly vague definitions as to what is “offensive” and allow subjective definitions of what constitutes child porn (the “appears under 18” guideline that started this whole argument in the first place). You seem to be pushing the Classification Board to take a much more restrictive position when it comes to those wishy-washy guidelines.

    That sounds an awful lot like advocating censorship to me.

    By all means, state your case, answer my questions (please!) but don’t say that you’re not in favour of increasing censorship because your actions up to this point prove otherwise.

  92. Julie Gale

    Ok – correction on my previous post – I said ‘anti censorship’ – actually I meant pro censorship – either way – the issue here is illegal porn in the public arena.

    Grebo says: Uh, no, Julie I only counted single issues that have been classified ONLY. Not “serial classifications”. I can tell the difference and weeded them out when I counted. You can’t tell me that Barley Legal has 130 serial classifications lasting two years each for a 15 year period. That doesn’t quite add up.

    This is tiring Grebo – I was referring to single issues and also decided to mention serial classification in case you weren’t aware of it.
    Once again …and I have stated this numerous times – those listed are only those which have been submitted – and I repeat, despite what you think…only a limited number of cat 1 magazines in the public arena have ‘actually’ been classified.
    Good for you if you haven’t found any displayed near or next to daily newspapers or womens weekly or comics. That means some changes are occuring. I am also aware that the CB Liaison scheme officers have been working hard to educate retailers about this..and there has been some publicity about it over the past 12 months.

    Grebo says: I’m also rather miffed that you think it’s OK to force ALL R18+ magazines into porn shops

    If the current system continues to fail – and if distibutors continue to flout the law, then changes need to be made. Why don’t you get on the blower to the distributors who have ignored the Classification Board ‘Call In’ notices to explain why they are not complying with the guidelines. None that have been issued ‘call in notices’ have replied. (this information is available in the senate estimates)
    If they comply with the guidelines and retailers display cat 1 adult magazines out of childrens view and easy access – then perhaps we can all move on and The Australian Sex Party won’t have to fabricate absurd press releases to get attention and try to discredit individuals and groups who want existing guidelines adhered to .

  93. Lydia Jade Turner

    Hi Ms Naughty

    I’m glad that you agree that the notion that “free speech should have limits” sounds “reasonable.”

    If you are reacting to what you believe to be a greater plot by Christians to ban pornography altogether then I can’t argue with your convictions. I don’t have anything to do with this larger scheme that you claim is happening. I am not aware of such a scheme, but either way, let me be clear that I have no part in that.

    However, why does my perspective automatically lump me in with the “pro-censorship” group and totally invalidate my view? Are you opposed to any idea that happens to overlap with what you deem part of a wider Christian agenda? Because that doesn’t sound like a reasonable argument to me.

    It feels to me that anyone that challenges where the line is currently drawn is immediately labelled part of this “pro-censorship” movement, and that is unjust. Like the Japanese videogame I recalled earlier, where players were rewarded for raping a mother and her two daughters – are you saying that when new games pop up we can’t contest them on a case by case basis, because that would be “pro-censorship”? Once the line is re-drawn, the floodgates will open?

    You have requested “evidence” that viewing such materials “causes” sex offending towards children. The mantra that “correlation is not causation” is widely recognised by scientists and academics the world over. While I agree that correlation is not causation, what you are asking for is an impossibility. It is not possible to tease apart nature and nurture completely, as I mentioned in a previous post. But the fact that we currently do not possess the methods to test such things is not evidence of harmlessness. Even tobacco has never truly been shown beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt to “cause” cancer- despite what is labelled on cigarette packets. At least they had the advantage of testing on lab rats under controlled conditions.

    There are other areas of science that would indicate that the environment does shape our sexual desires/attraction to a significant extent. This doesn’t mean that some people aren’t born ‘gay’ – I am aware of recent animal studies that support the idea that homosexuality may actually be biologically ’caused.’ However this doesn’t mean that there is no room for the shaping of that person’s preferences in terms of race, body size and shape, dress sense etc- you know, things that make up a ‘type.’ The shaping of sexual desire/attraction is highly complex but this does not negate the significant role the environment plays in orienting people towards certain preferences. Blurring the line between adult and childified women is a dangerous line to walk.

    I think it is also important for you to be aware that within any population there are pockets of vulnerability, for example, young age may make a person’s brain more malleable to the shaping of a particular sexual preference. My research into body image and eating disorders, for example, shows that within the Australian population young age, female gender, low self-esteem, and early puberty are risk factors for those more likely to internalise the need to conform to an extremely thin-ideal. This is not to ignore the great complexity of contributing factors – eating disorders are not solely nor directly caused by media images, indeed family, genetics, early childhood experiences etc play a role. However this does not negate the significance of the reiteration of particular images that significantly contribute to the the development of eating disorders in those who are already vulnerable.

    What I am highlighting here is the variability in susceptibility within any population. To assume that we are all equal in our resiliencies towards anything is misguided. I therefore disagree with your statement (as it was written with sarcasm):

    “They’re able to discern the difference between fantasy and reality, they’re not turning into pedophiles just by viewing them. But other people MIGHT! We can’t trust them, they’re too stupid, too animalistic, too…”

    It’s not that people are too stupid etc -we are all vulnerable in different ways, and the majority of sex offenders happen to be male.

    I had a look at the reference you cited and I am surprised that what you have cited is a non-peer-reviewed article. It looks more like it has been written by a 3rd yr undergraduate, and no direct measures of pornography consumption were drawn. In fact several significant limitations are apparent throughout this study, despite the author’s attempt to minimise these significant limitations. For example, the fact that this study only tests the effects of pornography within the scope of 1 year – when the author admits himself that the effects may only be measurable years later, or it may have accumulative effect. The author himself states: “To the extent that the effect of pornography on rape might differ across these categories of rape, one should be extremely careful in extrapolating the results reported here to understand rape generally.” This is actually a really poorly researched article, Ms Naughty. I realise somebody cited this in an earlier post but I would encourage you not to cite it again.

    Interestingly the author references numerous peer-reviewed journal articles that suggest that some types of pornography are actually harmful.

  94. Venise Alstergren

    Perhaps it is my imagination but the fascist and/or extreme right-wingers manage to extrude so many words that the decent elements just give up.

  95. Lydia Jade Turner

    Venis, you really need to stop labelling me ‘right-wing’ because I am not. It seems to be the kneejerk catch cry for many of you on this site for anyone who disagrees with your opinions.

  96. Julie Gale

    Lydia – I found your post very interesting…seems to Venise that an intelligent and articulate post deems you fascist and right wing. Gotta love that!
    Better make your posts a bit shorter tho – apparently that many words is a bit challenging!

  97. gerard

    The dilemma of labyrinthine complexities seems to have arisen in the debate. How does one balance the censorship of magazines against the freedom of expression?

    The crossing of streets can result in deaths. Do we ban crossing the street? The evidence of pedophylia as a result of staring at underage sex magazines is scant but we do know that child abuse and conviction of people of pedophile acts is rampant within the church: Do we ban the church?

    Here some scant information of sexual abuse against children; 113 out of 5000. That is 2.26 +- 0.21 %: the fraction of priests who served in the Los Angeles area between 1940 and 2003 and were accused or convicted of pedophile acts.

    Now, how far would banning sex oriented magazines be away from banning Nabokov’s Lolita?

    http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

  98. b1_

    Julie Gale “In the meantime you can all enjoy the assumption that those who care to speak out about issues like illegal porn MUST be rightwing christian moralising prude wowsers. Hilarious!”

    And you can enjoy the assumption that those who care to defend this issue are nothing but immoral paedophiles and pornographers, that are bound to lose because they just won’t “think of the children” (personally I think I’m more for the children than you are, as without men getting it up there would be no children).

    Lydia Jane Turner “This discussion has nothing to do with thought control. Would you support billboards in plain view depicting rape scenes? If not, why? You’re the ones who argue censorship is always bad?”

    Lydia, that’s a strawman argument. We are not talking about public billboards, we’re talking about banning publication material that is covered up in the shop, and read in the privacy of your own home. And it is thought control. There are no victims here; the government is essentially saying to the people who buy this material “The way you think is wrong and we’re going to deny you access to it”. Thought control.

    I only support censorship if you can prove there will be harm without it. In general I consider censorship worse that paedophilia.

    Brian X McCallister “#3. Pedophiles came because of the children, not the adults as kids which is an entirely different fantasy altogether. ”
    Lydia Jade Turner “I disagree. The man masturbating to the image of an 18 year old who looks 12 and is surrounded by materials symbolising childhood is not thinking about having sex with an adult – he’s fantasising that this girl is underaged and getting off to the discourse that surrounds that. It’s ridiculous to suggest that a man would get off to the idea of a ‘childified’ adult minus the ‘childified’ side, the symbols of childhood are a significant part of that fantasy.”

    Not ridiculous at all actually. Many sexual fantasies are not enjoyed for their literal depiction. The man-raping-woman-who-eventually-comes-to-like-it fantasy has nothing to do with a fetish for rape.

    Without seeing this image I cannot comment on it, but I do find it funny that you believe you know what sexual thoughts a man would be thinking looking at it – so far you have shown no understanding of the male sexual mind whatsoever as far as I’m concerned.

    Lydia Jade Turner “What I have argued is that the environment can intensify and shape certain preferences. And if one is prone to sex offending – then shaping their preference and normalising a discourse around sex with children – is dangerous.”

    We don’t live in a society where we punish the whole population for a misguided few.

  99. Grebo

    Julie Gale, first you say that most of the teen magazines are unclassified, then I showed that hundreds of them have been classified as I actually went to Classification Board website and fond them. Single issues too, not serial classifications. But then you claim that the “depictions that did not comply with guidelines and often case RC”, I could only find 10 that were RC.

    You keep saying that these magazines are illegal (which they are not, they are RC, it is quite legal for someone to own an RC publication as long is it not deemed illegal by the courts) and RC, yet the Classification Board’s online database CLEARLY says otherwise. The titles are there for all to see, classified R18+ category 1 or 2. So either the Classification Board are putting fake classification decisions in their database, or you are being a little loose with the truth.

    As for newsagents putting adult magazines next to comics or women’s magazines, that’s complete nonsense. Never seen it happen. As I said before even if did happen it’s an issue you need to take up with the proprietor of the newsagent. Why does everyone have to suffer because one or two do this?

    Again I as ask you, why is OK to force ALL R18+ publications into porn shops. Why should Bret Easton Ellis’ novel “American Psycho” be forced out of bookshops into porn shops? Why should the comic series “Heavy Metal Magazine” be forced out of comic book shops and newsagents into porn shops? You know perfectly well that porn shops don’t stock these items, so it’s effectively a ban for both. Also an increasing number of porn shops don’t stock any kind of magazine AT ALL, so this whole thing is just a really sneaky way of you banning all R18+ publications, is it not?

    Julie Gale; “Why don’t you get on the blower to the distributors who have ignored the Classification Board ‘Call In’ notices to explain why they are not complying with the guidelines.”

    Which distributors? Name them.

    Julie Gale; “If they comply with the guidelines and retailers display cat 1 adult magazines out of children’s view and easy access […]”

    Sorry Julie, but adult magazines have been in the view of children (by which you mean sealed in plastic with the entire magazine’s cover blacked out except the masthead) and easy accessed (by which you mean available in newsagents to those only over the age of 18) for over 30 years. Julie, you are being dishonest here. I am 37 this year. I can clearly remember adult magazines being “children’s view” and “easily accessible” since I was a small boy. Funny how society hasn’t crumbled nor is there several generations of paedophiles roaming the street.

    Julie, I really don’t understand why now this has to be an issue as adult magazine have been sold in the same way since at least the very early 1980’s. And if the Classification Board’s database is correct (which you think it is not), then titles like Barely Legal have been available quite legally in Australia since at least 1995. So please tell me how Australian society has taken a nose dive due to these magazines and why you didn’t do anything earlier?

  100. b1_

    Lydia Jade Turner “You have requested “evidence” that viewing such materials “causes” sex offending towards children. The mantra that “correlation is not causation” is widely recognised by scientists and academics the world over. While I agree that correlation is not causation, what you are asking for is an impossibility. It is not possible to tease apart nature and nurture completely, as I mentioned in a previous post. But the fact that we currently do not possess the methods to test such things is not evidence of harmlessness. Even tobacco has never truly been shown beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt to “cause” cancer- despite what is labelled on cigarette packets. At least they had the advantage of testing on lab rats under controlled conditions.”

    Did you just use the “won’t you please think of the children” defense? You need evidence, otherwise you open the door for anyone to claim whatever they like is detrimental to children and be listened to. “Car exhaust fumes cause asthma in children, take all the cars off the road”. You’d want that person to prove it before you allowed your car to be conviscated wouldn’t you?

    If people are accusing you of harboring a Christian agenda Lydia it’s because you think remarkably like them, with very little logic.

  101. Lydia Jade Turner

    B1
    You raise a legitimate concern. If we start passing legislation based on “probabilities” or “possibilities” rather than hard “fact”, we could end up censoring just about anything. I get that, I really do.

    The problem is that you are asking for something that science does not have the methods to test for, however many studies do show positive correlations and there are other components of science that would indicate that a shaping of preferences does occur.

    Remember I am not saying that everyone who watches this type of porn will morph into a child sex offender, however what I am arguing is that for someone who is already prone to sex offending, shaping their predilections towards children is dangerous.

    B1 please answer my earlier question regarding the Japanese video game that rewarded players for gang raping a mother and her two daughters aged 10 and 12. Should we wait years for “hard science” to prove that this leads to child sex offending? Because you will never get causation, just correlation -too many confounding variables. Interestingly it has been banned. Or do you believe it should be readily accessible for Australians?

    PS it’s getting pretty tedious being labelled as part of a wider Christian agenda – I’m not affiliated with any organisation (religious or not). I’m an individual on here, expressing an opinion. Unlike you I’ve actually used my full name.

  102. Julie Gale

    Boring now Grebo…the magazines that would receive an RC or should be Cat 2 are the many on the shelves….some of which have passed through auditing by the board – but will NOT be those listed on their database as sumitted and classified magazines.
    This information has been listed in senate estimates – it is not a secret…put some effort in and do your own homework.
    and yes I am saying that those unclassified magazines sitting out there on shelves in the public arena are illegal – because they have not been sumbitted for classification ..and as previously state numerous time..many do not comply with guidelines.
    Yes Grebo – obviously porn has been in the public shperre for a long time – but the problem we are talking about is not magazines which have been submitted and are correctly classified – we are (Yawn) talking about those which haven’t…this has been an issue that has slowly increased in more recent years.
    And actually in the past, porn has been displayed away from kids easy access. This is also an more recent issue – and despite your insistence that it is not displayed near daily newspapers and sometimes womens and teen magazines – you are simply wrong.
    as for the rest – do your own investigations if youre that interested…read some senate estimates and ring the board.

  103. Julie Gale

    B1 says: And you can enjoy the assumption that those who care to defend this issue are nothing but immoral paedophiles and pornographers, that are bound to lose because they just won’t “think of the children” (personally I think I’m more for the children than you are, as without men getting it up there would be no children).

    Well, that is an intersting assumption about my assumption – which I have never stated or suggested. You are off track with this one. Whereas ‘christian’ ‘right wing’ ‘fascist’ etc have been used on this post…and frankly I find that amusing.

    I repeat..once again…The issue at hand is getting distributors to adhere to the guidelines and retailers displaying porn magazines appopriately. If that can’t be achieved then the system needs an overhaul.

  104. Grebo

    Julie, this does not make any sense. Are you seriously suggesting magazines which are sold on newsagents shelves, NOT in porn shops which still stock them, are illegal? Now come on now, you can’t be serious. Having a look at the Classification Board’s database, I’ve noted that they’ve given Gordon and Gotch, who supply almost every single newsagent in the country, Serial Classifications for a number of adult magazines in this country as of January 2010. Are you seriously telling me that Gordon and Gotch are doing this illegally, while the Classification Board is aware they are doing something illegal, yet the CB give them Serial Classifications anyway? (Example; “Mayfair” Classification Number 238334, date: 7/1/10) Please, you can’t be serious.

    I know that it is illegal to sell unclassified adult magazines, and you apparently know who the distributors are (but refuse to tell me who they are), yet the Classification Board has not referred the information to Australian Federal Police so the distributors can be prosecuted, at they ARE breaking the law. Why? Why aren’t the distributors being prosecuted?

    Finally, can you please, please answer this question; why is OK to force ALL R18+ publications into porn shops, which include Bret Easton Ellis’ novel “American Psycho” and the comic series “Heavy Metal Magazine” ? How is that fair? Why is everyone being punished for the actions of an unknown number of publishers which you refuse to name?

  105. Venise Alstergren

    LJT: Did I accuse you of being right wing? Are you the only pro-censorship voice on this panel? Goodness me you appear to have exposed yourself without justification.

    However, now you prompt me I would like to point out that nearly all religions are right-wing and they are enormously keen on pontificating about morality-other people’s morality, their own is sacrosanct. Also I believe you are published on one of the religious web-sites, so it wouldn’t take to long a bow for you to admit-right out of the wild blue yonder-the way you just did, that one could imagine you to be right-wing.

    As it is you who are condemning yourself I don’t know what to say. If I had made this accusation and you had replied in the way you did to your own hypothesis, I would ask you to produce- chapter, line, and verse- proof of your liberalism-anything you had written which doesn’t tell other people what to do, a few lines of humour written by you in a carefree spirit of life and laughter. Perhaps even a minor ‘mea culpa’ for the self-justification you have to dictate the terms of life by which other people should live. The desire to wreck other people’s perceptions of life and sex by stigmatising sex.

    Even a suggestion that you know you aren’t entirely motivated by ‘saving innocent children’ rather, an admission that you enjoy telling people how to behave.

    But, as I said, I was not guilty of accusing you as being right-wing, you did it of your own accord! Most odd.

  106. Venise Alstergren

    The Editor: Re: JULIE GALE: The minute I suggest a hint of criticism of the self justification mob, you fly to attack me in person. Yet if I tried the same stunt my comment would be wiped, edited, obliterated. What could it be that makes you so special?

  107. Lydia Jade Turner

    Venise

    In your blind fury you overlooked the fact that a couple of commentators on here have labelled me ‘right wing’ and with a Christian agenda. This article is not all about you. I might also add that you have yourself alluded to “others” who disagree with your views as ‘pro-censorship’ and ‘right wing.’ So please drop the act.

    If I have been published on a religious website, I am unaware of this. Unless you are calling Melinda Tankard Reist’s website religious, which it is not. I am aware that MTR is religious, although I do not identify myself as such. I don’t agree with everything she writes but I do agree that the sexualisation of children is an increasing problem in our society, just as many of the commentators on this site do (regardless of which side of the fence they sit in response to this article).

    I specialise in eating disorders and body image issues, and if people want to publish my articles then they are free to do so. I don’t really care whether they end up on various religious websites, whatever that religion may be, or on pro-atheist websites, because body image and eating disorders are not religious issues.

    This is what it means to be non-partisan, or are you completely unfamiliar with this term?

    Further to this, I think if you looked into my history you would see that I have actually held previous offices for left-wing campaigns. I repeat, I am not, and have never been affiliated with any religious organisation. I am also currently not a member of any particular political party.

    I think it is actually despicable of you to try to tarnish my reputation and discredit me by openly pigeonholing me with an agenda I have no part in, and am not sure even exists. You have also made an accusation that you know full well I am unable to prove nor disprove (how can one ever truly prove they are nonreligious?) I am fairly new to the whole debate surrounding sexualisation of children and am thus not ‘in the know’ with all of the politics that accompanies this.

    Venise I would encourage you to actually address the issues I have raised in my previous post, rather than copping out and saying that they are too long and then launching a misguided personal attack. Thanks.

  108. Julie Gale

    Grebo – time for you to do your own investigations – you keep mixing up the facts and making your own assumptions not based on what is actually happening.
    i don’t have the time to keep trying to explain the system and why it’s not working.
    Best to stay tuned to what the CEWP come out with in April – and your guess is as good as mine as to what that will be.
    For explanation of CEWP – read my previous posts.

    Grebo says: Finally, can you please, please answer this question; why is OK to force ALL R18+ publications into porn shops, which include Bret Easton Ellis’ novel “American Psycho” and the comic series “Heavy Metal Magazine” ? How is that fair? Why is everyone being punished for the actions of an unknown number of publishers which you refuse to name?

    Julie said previously: I repeat..once again…The issue at hand is getting distributors to adhere to the guidelines and retailers displaying porn magazines appopriately. If that can’t be achieved then the system needs an overhaul.
    You make the assumption that an overhaul will mean ‘ALL R18+ publications’ will be forced into adult shops. I’m guessingyou mean Cat 1 publications.
    All I said was :I repeat..once again…The issue at hand is getting distributors to adhere to the guidelines and retailers displaying porn magazines appopriately. If that can’t be achieved then the system needs an overhaul.
    I have never stated what that outcome of an overhaul would be – that is up to the CEWP….but it probably wouldnt even be necessary if: distributors adhere to the guidelines and retailers display porn magazines appopriately.

  109. Grebo

    Julie Gale; “Grebo – time for you to do your own investigations – you keep mixing up the facts and making your own assumptions not based on what is actually happening.”

    I’m not making assumptions. I’m sourcing my information from the Classification Board’s online classification database. I’ve also read the various senate estimates transcripts on Hansard in which Senator Joyce named the magazines in question, and low and behold they were classified on the Classification Board’s database as per my previous posts. Mr McDonald of the Classification Board does not make mention of the distributor’s doing the wrong thing, nor the titles in question in the Hansard transcripts, hence the reason I’m asking you as you seem to know. This information is clearly not in the public domain as far as I’m aware.

    Julie Gale; “i don’t have the time to keep trying to explain the system and why it’s not working. […] I repeat..once again…The issue at hand is getting distributors to adhere to the guidelines and retailers displaying porn magazines appopriately. If that can’t be achieved then the system needs an overhaul.”

    Julie, if you and the Classification Board know who the distributors are who are illegally selling adult magazines without a rating, why is this information not being passed on to the Australian Federal Police so the companies in question can be prosecuted?

    Also can you please tell me if Gordon and Gotch, Australia’s biggest distributor of adult magazines to newsagents (and near monopoly on magazine distribution to newsagents in Australia) has at any time distributed illegally an adult publication to newsagents without a serial classification or single magazine classification that wasn’t R18+ Category 1 or Unclassified M15+?

  110. Elan

    I made the mistake earlier of treating this topic lightly. I was wrong.

    Most of you are putting up long posts, and frankly it takes a while to get through them, BUT:

    They are inevitable; this subject raises the need to espouse views fully.

    However, I will leave it to Julie Gale, and in particular, Lydia Jade Turner to do it for me , because both are doing it better than I ever could.

    VenAl: WHY do you post in cliché? Again the routine condescension ( though I did love the post about the Matron!!).

    WHY the categorising? Why does it have to be completely one way or tuther?

    I have argued this am. against the SA Att/Gen’s censorship law. I also posted that the alternative of complete ‘Freedom of Speech’ is just as bad, and it is.

    It’s the line isn’t it? and where one draws the thing.

    It is absurd to suggest we can do and say any damn thing we like. It is equally absurd to control free choice to a point where it restricts the flow of human freedoms to a degree of ‘cannot say/cannot do’.

    I see no evidence of that, and will come out strongly when it happens;-as I have. And I am on the Left. If you or anyone else were to suggest to me that that cannot possibly be the case,-then we will engage in a protracted and intense discussion..

    I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of hearing that those who DO want some restriction on some forms of ‘art’??, are arch conservatives who want us all bound and gagged,-and who have a High Church view of dirty, filthy people who like looking at innocent bodies…..cos’ really it’s us who REALLY like doing it!

    Bloody stuff and nonsense!

    For the rest; my two sisters are doing fine.

  111. Venise Alstergren

    LJT: See what I mean about self-justification and endless diatribes? Every post you make merely reinforces your total intolerance for anyone who even marginally disagrees with you.

    The last time I looked at the Constitution I think it said something about freedom of speech. If you are free to attempt to tell the rest of us what to think and how to behave and to introduce your pro-censorship edicts, other people are free to disagree with you.

    These same people should not only be be able to state their own views, they should be entitled to without immediately being condemned as being consumed with blind fury, intellectually retarded and a few adjectives I have had sprayed at me.

    I am unable to remember which religious publication you were published in and quite frankly I feel not one scintilla of fury about you. It is my country you are attacking and I think you have no right to impose your mores onto what would be a fine country if people like you allowed it to be.

    The reason I suggested people like you could be fascist, is that the identical language was used by fascist females condemning anyone who criticised the home birthing mob last year. If the cap fits, and all that jazz.

    ELAN: I apologise if my writing standard is slipping but I can forgive anyone who sympathised with my childhood experience.

    Cheers

    Venise

  112. Reg Shoe

    Not to rain on your parade, Venise, but whose Constitution? The Australian one doesn’t have much (if anything) to say about Freedom of Speech.

  113. Ms Naughty

    To reply to Lydia’s post from last night…

    It seems we both agree that porn use is not necessarily a deciding factor when it comes to sexuality or patterns of thinking. We may differ on whether the use of porn inspires negative actions. The lack of concrete evidence either way means that this is a very murky area and I suspect that we will neither of us be easily convinced either way.

    You talk about walking a dangerous line with blurring the line between “childified women” and adults. If for the sake of argument I were to accept that depictions of “childified adults” may incite pedophiles to act on their desires I then need to also accept that:
    1. The pedophile will always automatically act on that desire without any conscious decision making on their part.
    2. The rights of other adults – the majority of adults, I would suspect – must give way in the face of a very small risk that a pedophile will attempt to commit a crime.

    The latter proposition introduces the concept of “acceptable risk” into the argument. Some would argue that there is no acceptable risk, that the rights of adults can easily be sacrificed if it means crime is prevented. Our terrorism and sedition laws showed how easy it is to head down that path.

    I am extremely uneasy about any law that legislates against thinking something, that seeks to engage in “pre-crime” policing. And even if I were to accept all your psychological arguments, it just keeps boiling down to that. Trusting that an adult will be able to discern fantasy from reality and then also make a decision not to commit a crime.

    This position means I’m actually opposed to the decision that banned the pro-Islamist books like Join The Caravan, even though as an atheist and humanist I am vehemently opposed to Islamist philosophy. The ban means that I, as a thinking adult, cannot read them to educate myself about extreme Islamism. The ban automatically assumes that I will read it and become determined to commit a crime. It’s an extremely paternalistic stance that denies my freedom to think and make an ethical decision for myself.

    But I suspect that this is a fundamental divide in this debate. My stance is essentially libertarian. If I were to agree to a line being drawn, I’m aware that it will be based on my own personal opinions as to what I find offensive. So I’d rather base that opinion on the idea of proof of harm.

    Perhaps it doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition. I think the risk of crime can be lowered in other ways that do not involve censorship – especially when there’s no proof that censorship prevents crime and when it is conducted on such subjective guidelines as currently exist in Australia.

    As I’ve mentioned before, education for children is vital. So is a better outcome for men who have pedophilic tendencies. I’m now reduced to arguing for the leper of 21st century society here, but I do honestly believe that until we find better ways to deal with pedophiles other than hatred, ostracisation and jail, everything else is just window dressing. No, I’m not talking about letting them do what they want. I’m talking about real and effective treatment programs and other more positive methods that allow these people to live their lives without committing a crime. Right now I’m not seeing any moves by government in this direction. Our society infinitely prefers the witch hunt.

    This last point is something that puzzles me about Hetty Johnson. She’s been the prime pitchfork-holder in the harrassment of Dennis Ferguson and yet her actions don’t actually achieve any positive outcomes for children. The witch-hunt model of preventing pedophilia involves rejecting these men as utter monsters with no conscience and no chance of redemption. It’s great for ratings on A Current Affair but I don’t think it’s ultimately helpful.

    I wish the child protection lobby groups would consider their stance on this. Because I do feel that calls to ban magazines like Barely Legal do buy into that “witch hunt” model. Moral outrage is always good for garnering support but I do wonder if it also undermines the entire exercise.

    By the way, Lydia and Julie, what’s your opinion on the prosecution of a second person for possessing sexual cartoon images of The Simpsons? Do you equate that with the magazines we have been discussing? No children were harmed in the creation of those images. They were actually emailed around as a joke. And yet, in an extremely disturbing precendent, our courts have ruled that looking at them is a crime.

    Also, let me throw another idea into the mix. I’ve seen adult websites depicting infantilism – adults dressing as babies for sexual pleasure. It’s rather weird but it’s a consensual activity conducted by adults. In theory a pedophile could look at those and get turned on. So what are your thoughts on that kind of porn?

    I should also say… I’m re-reading what I’ve written here and thinking sheesh! This is such a thorny topic and there are some who would put negative labels on my for what I’ve just written. But it’s this hesitation that means this discussion doesn’t happen often and I do think it is useful to talk about such topics.

  114. Venise Alstergren

    REG SHOE: I knew I should have double checked my Constitution before opening my yarp. However, I honestly was under the impression that we, as citizens, did have the right to free speech. I apologise for my many literary crimes.

    You haven’t rained on my parade; I don’t regard an error of my syntax being pointed out to me as an anti-me act. I just don’t happen to like the people who fly into a petulant hissy fit when they are reminded that they too are subject to the rules of moderately free speech and even-handed discourse. They lose so much face by being hysterically rude and hysterically vituperative. Worse, they do their own cause a great disservice.

  115. gerard

    As has been pointed out earlier. People get off on all sorts of images, either real or imaginary. We can ban real images but not those in the mind.

    Even in liberal Holland the Government has passed legislation banning images and videos of bestiality. Hoorah, we can sleep now without having to worry about the safety of our Leghorns or Jack Russells.

    We live in an imperfect world and do our best. The issue of small breasted women and banning magazines has been a huge issue here on Crikey. The for and against still seem to be undecided but it has been a good discussion.

    Let us not forget that the blowing up of people, including many children in Irag, Afghanistan, Palestine and so many other places is far more damaging than the rather obscure and esoteric issue of possible damage about showing images of our bodies, young or old.

    http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

  116. Lydia Jade Turner

    Venise,

    I really have no idea what you are talking about. “Identical language was used by female fascists last year… homebirthing … if the size fits “…. what ?

    I think I have made my position pretty clear. You can continue making accusations, but they are completely unfounded.

    For example, you accusing me of having an article published on a religious website that you can’t cite-

    I’m not a high profile person. I’ve written a couple of articles on body image & eating disorders. I’m assuming you would not have come across my name before, so if you came on to this website, went googling for me, and found me on some religious website, why wouldn’t you have taken down the organisation’s web address or even just its name?

    I have no control over who re-publishes my articles online. But to be honest, I think you are just making this stuff up. I have openly stated that I am not religious. I doubt any right wing religious zealot would state that on public record.

    For this reason, I am not going to respond to any further accusations you make. Anyone who is interested in what I have actually stated (rather than getting a misrepresentation by what you have posted here) is free to scroll upwards and access my posts.
    ****************************************************

    Ms Naughty

    I think you have raised some really excellent points. I will have a think about them and get back to you on Friday. Thanks.

  117. b1_

    Lydia Jade Turner “The problem is that you are asking for something that science does not have the methods to test for, however many studies do show positive correlations and there are other components of science that would indicate that a shaping of preferences does occur.

    It’s easy enough to observe other societies where this and far worse material is available looking for trends. By your arguments Japan, where child porn mangas are freely available on street corners I believe, should be over-flowing with paedophiles and the child population should be gathering on the beaches trying to escape the debauchery.

    Lydia Jade Turner “Remember I am not saying that everyone who watches this type of porn will morph into a child sex offender, however what I am arguing is that for someone who is already prone to sex offending, shaping their predilections towards children is dangerous.”

    You keep saying this and I’ve given my reply: we do not punish the whole population because of a misguided few. Nature protects children from adult sexual relations, and it’s pretty good at it – it’s had thousands of years to get it right so I think you should give it some respect.

    B1 please answer my earlier question regarding the Japanese video game that rewarded players for gang raping a mother and her two daughters aged 10 and 12. Should we wait years for “hard science” to prove that this leads to child sex offending? Because you will never get causation, just correlation -too many confounding variables. Interestingly it has been banned. Or do you believe it should be readily accessible for Australians?

    It’s simple enough to study those who buy this game if you’re a scientist and want to know whether it incites sexual crime. If the game was a cause for any crimes I assure you we’d hear about it – policeman do question criminals when they arrest them.

    No it should not be ‘readily available’ but in principle I have no problem with it because it’s fantasy and victimless – the mother-daughter-rape scenario (although usually the daughter is older) is another common male fantasy which, again, has nothing to do with rape or incest fetishes (I’d be happy to explain it to you, but in general it’s about the I-want-it feedback thing that is pretty universal in all male porn). Many games are extreme. I know Grand Theft Auto rewards players for murder, running people over in cars, drug deals, pimping, the works – a very popular game. I assure you that the Fight the Devil With Jesus games aren’t that popular.

    It’s possible I would object to the game if I saw it. My mind is not yet made up on 3D virtual reality porn skirting too close to the real thing – I believe there is some debate on this going on, still no victims though.

    PS it’s getting pretty tedious being labelled as part of a wider Christian agenda – I’m not affiliated with any organisation (religious or not). I’m an individual on here, expressing an opinion. Unlike you I’ve actually used my full name.

    Oooh, dig dig. If you have a problem with me being anonymous, I have no problem with you having a problem. It makes no difference to me, this is an internet discussion not a court of law.

    And I said you ‘think’ like a Christian, not that I thought you had anything to do with them. It was a dig at you and at Christians, which you countered with your own dig – touche!

  118. Lydia Jade Turner

    B1: “…which you countered with your own dig – touche!” that is ridiculous. I have done no such thing. You’re incredible when it comes to attaching misinterpretation for the sake of taking a jab.

    “By your own arguments Japan…should be over-flowing with paedophiles and the child population should be gathering on the beaches trying to escape the debauchery.”

    Again, B1, you’re not understanding my argument which I have explained several times. I’m getting tired of having to write a post just to try to get you to understand it. Given that you have actually quoted me verbatim and still misunderstood, I’m not explaining it to you over and over again. It might help you to actually *read* what I have written.

    “Nature protects children from adult sexual relations, and it’s pretty good at it – it’s had thousands of years to get it right so I think you should give it some respect.”

    I disagree. How about the 13 year old girl who was stoned to death in Saudi Arabia after being gang raped by adult men? Several cross cultural examples would provide evidence to the contrary. You can’t leave it all up to nature, as culture plays a significant role. This is not to say that there is on room for cultural relativism, but surely there are shades of gray here.

    “It’s possible I would object to the game if I saw it. My mind is not yet made up on 3D virtual reality porn skirting too close to the real thing – I believe there is some debate on this going on, still no victims though.”

    So you agree that there is a possibility for some movement as to where the line is drawn- isn’t this what I am talking about ? Despite lack of ‘hard evidence’ you are considering it *might* need to be censored due to being “too close to the real thing” – how do we determine what is “too close” ? Perhaps we are both disagreeing as to where the line is to be drawn, but some things, despite lacking in ‘hard evidence’ (as we lack the scientific methods to ‘prove’ causality’) may need to be banned and others not.

    B1, this is my last post to you.

  119. Venise Alstergren

    LJT: OMG: Not only do you rabbit on ad nauseum but you fall into the identical pattern of ninety-nine percent of female preachers. You have to have the last word.

    Lest you attempt to point out that this is what I am doing, a quick check on my collected works will reveal-or ask anyone who reads the political section and they will either 1) Not know me 2) Have read me but tolerate me 3) disagree with everything I say but somehow there is a common bond throughout our heated comments. All will admit that I do not want the last word.

    The only reason I knew you had been printed in a religious publication was because I was looking to see if you had made an intelligent comment in anything under two thousand words, six hundred words, two hundred words? As I was scrolling through Crikey’s comments, it mentioned something about you having written a piece for a religious publication.

    Why are you so terrified of appearing in a religious publication? Why are you so unhappy? You have no life to you just deadening, dreary comments about how the world should be run according to you. You could take a leaf out of the book of the religious editor of the Age-one Barry Schwartz. He had been waffling on about God and I wrote to him offering to do his house cleaning and gardening for the rest of my life if he could prove god existed. Did he go into self-justification? Did he get upset with my levity? Did he lecture me for my Godlessness? Not a bit
    of it.

    Did I have a hissy fit when Elan criticised me? Of course not. Why should I? Only children and dictators carry on like this.

    Dare I suggest the name of Barry Schwartz will be remembered long after you have been forgotten.

    My patience has been exhausted, by all means trundle another two thousand words at me. But I wont read them; no more than I could hack the collected works of Mao Zedong, or Mein Kamph by Adolf Hitler.

  120. Venise Alstergren

    PS: The name may be Barney Schwartz and he is not a stiff.

  121. Elan

    ……………..do shut up Venal!

    ‘Last word’! Sweet little digs about ‘children and dictators’! (But of course you are not offended!! Perish the thought. Sheesh).

    YOU are a childish dictator!!

    We all have views that are variations on a theme. You and I agree about the great JC methinks, and we certainly agree about sadistic Matrons! But it’s the puffed up peacockery (yes I know it’s not a bloody word!), that is so hard to take from you.

    I mean truly;-how can YOU take potshots at someone for long posts? And to go to such lengths to try to discredit someone personally? ‘…was because I was looking to see…..’ ??

    BUT,but,:………’All will admit that I do not want the last word’.

    Well?

  122. SBH

    Lydia, I think Venise is alluding to me (and my ironically ample bosom) and Elan. We caused a similar huff-n-puff last year. and for some reason I was decried as a home birther. Yippee, last word to the ample one!

  123. Venise Alstergren

    ELAN: I have the right to criticise LJT’s comments because she glories with self-satisfaction in her efforts to dictate to us.

    Someone has to speak out against the PC rubbish which has turned Oz people into submissive copy-cats of the Americans. Our Free to air TV has become un-watchable thanks to PC ism. If you have a problem with this go hu-p yourself.

    SBH: I don’t remember having a stoush with you, I remember the piteous comments from the home birthers, but, not from you or ELAN.

    Does logic come into your agenda? How the f/uck would I know what you look like; let alone the size of your tits?

  124. Freda

    Let’s turn this argument away from ad hominem fallacies and back to the facts. I’m attempting to be fair here and consider all the long waffling that’s gone on.

    At Lydia stated

    1. Masturbation is a strong reinforcer for whatever is you were looking at the the time. Doesn’t matter if it’s a can of fizz, or a puppy dog, or a woman with norks the size of basketballs. It’s a biological fact, it has neuroscientific support I won’t bore you with, because it involves a lot of jargon.

    As others have stated

    2. Wanking does not guarantee sexual contact with others. Full stop.

    However, it does make the person more attracted to whatever they were wanking to at the time.

    Lydia calmly pointed out the environmental factors impinging at this point. As a person dealing with eating disorders, she’d be familar with the idea that anxiety can be caused by strict upbringings and this has been floated as a contributing factor to eating disorders.

    Well, it also has with pedophilia. But what people need to realise is that it’s not the only other issue. Low empathy, lack of self control, distorted thinking, and heaps of other crap come into it as well. And not always porn.

    My conclusion from this is that we do need to be ultra careful about ‘barely legal’ categories and frankly the teddy bears being there is sick and people predisposed to violent behavior will be more likely to take it the wrong way.

    But at the end of the day pedophilia IS NOT a sexual orientation. It’s violence against children, bruises or not. It’s about control, it’s about the adult getting a fix, and not always a sexual one. Sex is the means, not the end.

    With 1/5 girls being molested (and from what I hear it’s their step dads more than often, not just priests) and 1/9 boys, there is no hard and fast solution.

    Censorship will not fix this problem. Lots of things need to change.

    Personally, I think my accidental exposure to Post at 9 years was less damaging than my exposure to an article in Girlfriend about a pornographer I read at age 15.

    But that’s just me. I didn’t see any vaginas in Post, for one thing.

  125. Freda

    *anxiety is correlated but there is empirical support that it tends to follow from overly critical behaviour (which may include emotional abuse or bullying) that is a feature of strict upbringing

  126. Elan

    Seeking instruction on how to hu-p myself Venal?

    PC: awww gawd!! not that again.

    What in the hell did we use to justify attacking others before the “PC” excuse became popular!

    What hollow lives we led.

  127. Ben

    While perpetrators of sexual abuse may consume high amounts of pornography, a variety of other factors including socialisation, family, culture and psychology have a huge impact on any inclination to cause a sexual offense.

    These issues have way more to do with causing sexually abusive behavior than watching some people getting off in a classroom.

    http://www.unnamer.com/

  128. gerard

    What about if one watches while squinting or through a bottle top?. Put vaseline on spectacles, or,or eh, just with one eye and under a waning moon?. Would that be OK?

    It’s all so difficult and yet; we live in hope!

    http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

  129. Venise Alstergren

    ELAN:

    PCism is the great blot-imposed by those who get their jollys in telling others what to do-of modern times. I don’t give a rats what you prefer to call it.

    Surely you have run through your little black book of insults by now. Run along darling and if you are flying somewhere, go and play outside.

  130. Elan

    Yoo hoo Venal? Hallooooooo?

    I didn’t ask what it was (I do know..). I lamented its use as a fallback. Knock! knock!? Are you there Venal??

    Ha!! More clichés! ‘Little black book of insults’. ‘Run along darling’.

    ….and if I were flying somewhere… go outside and play??

    Flying somewhere??, or going outside to play??…or OR…, flying somewhere outside to play??

    Whaaaaaaat?

    I’m still puzzling over the hu-p thing.

    Fair go Venal, you really are lousy at this.

  131. SBH

    Well not wishing to reopen old wounds Venise but your memory is fading. Not surpising at your age. Check back to your posts of last year when you laid about with the shillelagh and in the process gifted me with an “ample bosom”.

  132. Venise Alstergren

    [Edit] Please focus on the issues

  133. Venise Alstergren

    BTW SBH and ELAN. Please could you tell the rest of you leather loving friends. They are giving hypocrisy a whole new dimension. Hundreds of words slamming me while informing their limited audience it is a sin to resort to ad hominem remarks.

  134. SBH

    ” ask and you shall receive”…….. I wonder who said that?

  135. Elan

    We’ve been told to can it.

    OK by me; I’ve got the bloody flu!!

    See youse.

    (Let it go Venal, because if you don’t, I’ll be back/I shall return…..((Good ole Termy and Macca)),….and at the mo’ my main focus is sneezing, coughing, and feeling damn sorry for myself ).

    ……………….when I was ‘in the prime’ as it were,…I had a leather outfit………….God! it was fun!!!!

Leave a comment

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/29/has-australia-really-banned-small-breasts/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.