Austrailia bans porn with small breasts

[kipperthefrog]

http://theweek.com/article/index/105766/Australias_small_breast_ban

 

their excuse is that women with small breasts can encourage pedophilia. that will be the doorway to banning anything they don't like.Who decides what breasts are big enough? What will be next? one day their will be no nude women at all. they won't stop with just porno. they will want to control movies, comics, books, everything. it seems to me like a way for the government to soften people up for more censorship and "thought crime".

[Achilles]

Shhh....

 

I've recently decide that I love Australia. Please don't ruin it for me.

 

@topic: yeah, seems like a can o' worms to me. I don't see this one holding up for very long.

[kipperthefrog]

Shhh....

 

 

@topic: yeah, seems like a can o' worms to me. I don't see this one holding up for very long.

 

what makes you think so?

[Darth Avlectus]

Another thread like this again...

 

I'm pretty sure even a relatively "flat" adult woman stands out from the under-aged.

 

Just think about why this wouldn't stand:

1) Never underestimate the power of human laziness

2) Banning imported porn and taking the time to go sifting through all that...I mean, really?

3) What is their definition of big and small w.r.t. breast sizes?

 

Also, ridiculous as it sounds, I can picture a few discrimination lawsuits eventually happening based on body size and shape if it really came down to it.

 

FTR: I like those danish babes. No worry about crushing or breaking them.

[kipperthefrog]

1) Never underestimate the power of human laziness

 

whats that got to do with anything?

 

if anything human laziness will allow them to ban more stuff with little resistance.

[Totenkopf]

Just curious, but are small breasts that big a turn-on for you? Or are you engaging in some kind of frantic slippery-slope fallacy?

[kipperthefrog]

Just curious, but are small breasts that big a turn-on for you? Or are you engaging in some kind of frantic slippery-slope fallacy?

 

it is a slippery slope. one they get a foot hold in small breasts, they can say slightly bigger sizes are un acceptable.

[Totenkopf]

You mean the same way it can be argued that if homosexual marriage is allowed that everyone else will want their arrangments validated or that if you restrict one form of abortion that all the others will evaporate or if they take away your guns you'll become slaves to the govt, etc.......

[Darth Avlectus]

whats that got to do with anything?

 

if anything human laziness will allow them to ban more stuff with little resistance.

 

Or being that Aussies are known for being easygoing...for the most part anyhow...their customs agents aren't really going to be wanting to split hairs. Plus where info like precise breast size isn't specified in a porn film, verification is going to be a hassle.

 

What I illustrated earlier: Though ridiculous, stuff like that would pop up everywhere. Stuff that is ridiculous but in a legal sense, not necessarily out of the realm of consideration.

 

Myriads of legal questions and cases to consider possible loopholes and contradictions in the law will arise like mold over woodchips in humid climates (fast and in huge masses--and similarly about as irritating on a day-in-day-out basis).

 

Also...even if statistics show the porn industry is in decline economically and has been for decades, really, it is still a lucrative industry that still rakes in money. Their courts will have to fight the industry as well as its own irritated citizens...a relentless fight.

 

it is a slippery slope. one they get a foot hold in small breasts, they can say slightly bigger sizes are un acceptable.

 

OK. So you may not have any real defenders of flat chested porn, maybe not so many for a or b cups either... at some point it will hit a margin where people aren't going to take it. Unless AU is a dictatorship and so totally different than the USA in terms of citizen power and rights.

 

While I see what you're saying...in the end it would only be a loss of but a few battles. And besides, we haven't even begun to rule in the likelihood of the black market. If there is a demand, the black market would bring the goods. Just my opinion, I personally don't see the AU gov't. getting as uptight about porn contraband as it would over drugs and weapons, etc.

 

Laziness wins out where their gov't workers tire out on their priority targets and not really feel like going after this when all that is done. Measuring the total possible harm, they would likely make the judgment call that porn does less harm than drugs and weapons. Even propaganda and conspiracy media are higher danger, considering all things.

 

I'll clarify whatever you'd like if anything doesn't make sense.

[purifier]

Not that the porn industry itself deserves any "above the law" special treatment, especially when children are concerned in the matter. And the world could probably do without porn in general anyway.......

 

(What - the - hell am I saying??? -- "could probably do without porn in general" )

 

.....but seriously, I was kinda of surprised by what I read in the news article. Those little laws that they've already passed, about porn, seem to hint towards a state of Totalitarianism.

 

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but isn't that how it usually starts?

 

Somebody enlighten me on this one.

[Kurgan]

Slippery slope fallacy. Maybe it won't work, but it's not a bad idea to cut into fueling pedophilia. I'm as "free speech" as the next guy, but everybody knows that porn isn't "art."

[kipperthefrog]

Slippery slope fallacy. Maybe it won't work, but it's not a bad idea to cut into fueling pedophilia. I'm as "free speech" as the next guy, but everybody knows that porn isn't "art."

 

can you clarify this? what do you mean "Maybe it won't work, but it's not a bad idea to cut into fueling pedophilia?"

[Kurgan]

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I'll attempt to clarify what I meant:

 

There's obviously a market for porn that portrays characters as very young, with immature sexual characteristics. Logically, this would appeal to people with pedophilic (or the proper term for those attracted to those who haven't finished purberty) tendencies. If you're going to say "don't ban all porn, but the 'bad' kind" then I don't see the issue here.

 

People get porn, not to be too crude here, so they can get off. If people get off on actresses in sexual situations that look like little girls (even if they technically aren't), isn't selling products that appeal to this tendency a dangerous thing? We can already presume that sexual attraction to underage persons is deviance. Catering to such unstable, potentially dangerous individuals is a good thing, how?

 

Giving people this stuff also gives them ideas. It doesn't mean they will go out and molest somebody if they see the porn, but neither is it a good argument that if they don't get the porn, that they'll go rape somebody to fulfill this "need." Another place this kind of thing comes up is in regard to video game violence (a whole 'nother can of worms). We have agreed on this forum that basically video game violence really isn't an issue, except in the hands of people who are already mentally unbalance. The "faux pedo" porn appears designed to appeal directly to these folks, so we're already dealing with a demographic that is potentially the powder keg. A hypothetical parallel would be violent video games that appeal directly to sociopaths.

 

So if they want to ban imported porn (a good idea anyway, because different countries have different age of consent laws), fine. If they want to set up restrictions, great. I don't see the problem here, other than the slippery slope fallacy (if they ban this, then they'll ban that, and that and soon you won't have porn, then you won't have art, or free speech, etc).

 

The whole idea of it "working" or not, is just the point that laws like this would have some impact, even if they wouldn't erase the problem of sexual predation of underage people. Sometimes people will argue that if enough people break a law, you should just repeal the law. I don't think that's a logical argument against some piece of legislation.

[kipperthefrog]

so who is to say what breast size is too small? if a guy gets caught with an old lover' guide movie and an Agent says "her breasts looks too small" , then what? a court decides if the questioned movie is acceptable or not?

 

face it. there are no absolute breast sizes. its a gradient. there is size A for example, Size B and any size in between. before you know it they will arrest people for depictions of B size breasts although it not officially illegal, but they will be deemed too small. everyone else will have to stay away from small breasts porn for fear cops can justify calling it obscene. the bar will get raised up to size b to size C untill no women pics at all.

[Achilles]

I'm as "free speech" as the next guy, but everybody knows that porn isn't "art."

Could you please clarify this? It sure seems as though the argument "free speech is only protected if it's art" is strongly implied here.

[True_Avery]

Another thing that was mentioned that has not been mention here is that in Australia the female orgasm is banned. More precisely, the showing of female ejaculation is banned because it now counts as urine pornography, which is also banned in Australia. The misinformation behind female orgasms aside, the porn industry within Australia has also been dismantled by the previous government.

 

All -THAT- aside, most pornography is banned and blocked by internet filters that will be implemented in Australia soon as well. The slippery slope isn't as fallacious as you might think if you take a look at the censorship board that has been growing in power recently. Hell, games that don't match their rating criteria are illegal to sell in Australia.

 

Giving people this stuff also gives them ideas. It doesn't mean they will go out and molest somebody if they see the porn, but neither is it a good argument that if they don't get the porn, that they'll go rape somebody to fulfill this "need." Another place this kind of thing comes up is in regard to video game violence (a whole 'nother can of worms). We have agreed on this forum that basically video game violence really isn't an issue, except in the hands of people who are already mentally unbalance. The "faux pedo" porn appears designed to appeal directly to these folks, so we're already dealing with a demographic that is potentially the powder keg. A hypothetical parallel would be violent video games that appeal directly to sociopaths.

And people who are mentally unbalanced are just that: mentally unbalanced. I'm pretty sure a sociopath is a sociopath without porn or video games, and find and kill animals regardless of what media is at hand for them. Same for pedophiles. Porn or not, a pedophile is going to look at children sexually. They have been around before porn and video games, exist now, and will exist after.

 

The real question is why does Australia feel the need to ban violence in video games when they have one of the most violent film industries on the planet. Why? Misinformation, finger pointing, and the hot topic of the month. Parents thought Elvis' hips would turn their girls into sluts, boys into sex addicts, and it turns out it didn't. The trends moved, and the new reasons for humanities problems got put on something else.

 

I'm as "free speech" as the next guy, but everybody knows that porn isn't "art."

Art is in the eye of the beholder, so I disagree.

[Liverandbacon]

I'm pretty sure a sociopath is a sociopath without porn or video games, and find and kill animals regardless of what media is at hand for them. Same for pedophiles.

 

QFE.

 

------

BTW, this is still in no way a reason not to ban actual child pornography, etc., as that still harms the child whether it creates new pedos or not.

 

Honestly, I don't really see why small-breast porn should be banned. It's not going to create new pedos, and hopefully it would keep the existing pedos from getting real CP, or even worse, abusing a child themselves. Doesn't stop me from wanting to exterminate them though (feel free to slippery slope fallacy that statement all you want, if that's how you get your jollies).

 

And slightly less OT: I still love Australia because for some unknown and wonderful reason, almost every single attractive woman I've met from there loves Americans. And running over cane toads intentionally, even if it means driving on the wrong side of the road for a while, is socially acceptable, if not outright encouraged. And the accents. I need to go back there soon...

[kipperthefrog]

Another thing that was mentioned that has not been mention here is that in Australia the female orgasm is banned. More precisely, the showing of female ejaculation is banned because it now counts as urine pornography, which is also banned in Australia. The misinformation behind female orgasms aside, the porn industry within Australia has also been dismantled by the previous government.

 

All -THAT- aside, most pornography is banned and blocked by internet filters that will be implemented in Australia soon as well. The slippery slope isn't as fallacious as you might think if you take a look at the censorship board that has been growing in power recently. Hell, games that don't match their rating criteria are illegal to sell in Australia.

 

 

And people who are mentally unbalanced are just that: mentally unbalanced. I'm pretty sure a sociopath is a sociopath without porn or video games, and find and kill animals regardless of what media is at hand for them. Same for pedophiles. Porn or not, a pedophile is going to look at children sexually. They have been around before porn and video games, exist now, and will exist after.

 

The real question is why does Australia feel the need to ban violence in video games when they have one of the most violent film industries on the planet. Why? Misinformation, finger pointing, and the hot topic of the month. Parents thought Elvis' hips would turn their girls into sluts, boys into sex addicts, and it turns out it didn't. The trends moved, and the new reasons for humanities problems got put on something else.

 

 

Art is in the eye of the beholder, so I disagree.

 

thank you Avery. it appears that most people are in denial. I don't live in Australia, but who knows how many other countries will follow suit? If they can filter the internet, they can filter anything that disagrees with the government. Once we loose our freedom, it is hard to get it back.

[Darth Avlectus]

<brevity>

 

.....but seriously, I was kinda of surprised by what I read in the news article. Those little laws that they've already passed, about porn, seem to hint towards a state of Totalitarianism.

 

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but isn't that how it usually starts?

 

Somebody enlighten me on this one.

 

Well homes, far as I can tell, some are upset at the potential for fueling pedophilia (which I'm on board with), but insofar as banning free speech by banning certain porn...that's kind of tricky.

 

Calling something in advance that progresses by an incremental manner is going to be called slippery slope. What we'd need to examine is if whether the current action taken is really a step towards fascism or if it's just one of those things that tapers off after some time (I want to say a non-economic application/example of "diminishing Marginal Returns"). Is banning a certain kind of porn (which I had no idea people got off into) a step towards banning free speech?...Basically: I don't really know. There are some places that are pretty free but have strict laws about decency, while other free lands don't.

 

So, beats the hell outta me.

[kipperthefrog]

I noticed that their clasification board made vague comments about what constitutes "too small". seems like they are using the "chilling effect" to make people afraid to get porno since cops can say anything is "too small".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28term%29

[Totenkopf]

I'm pretty sure they'll have a hard time claiming that D+ cupsize is too small.

[purifier]

Well homes, far as I can tell, some are upset at the potential for fueling pedophilia (which I'm on board with), but insofar as banning free speech by banning certain porn...that's kind of tricky.

 

Calling something in advance that progresses by an incremental manner is going to be called slippery slope. What we'd need to examine is if whether the current action taken is really a step towards fascism or if it's just one of those things that tapers off after some time (I want to say a non-economic application/example of "diminishing Marginal Returns"). Is banning a certain kind of porn (which I had no idea people got off into) a step towards banning free speech?...Basically: I don't really know. There are some places that are pretty free but have strict laws about decency, while other free lands don't.

 

So, beats the hell outta me.

 

Well I see, thanks for giving me a little more clarity on this.

 

As a artist, more like aspiring - not really self proclaimed yet, I guess I was wondering if it would be a violation of freedom of expression specifically, under freedom of speech more than anything. But what it really seems like to me, is that the Austrailian government is just trying to control people's unclean thoughts over there; with a hint of religious zeal behind it, I might add. Lol!

 

I guess it's too soon to really tell at this point.

 

So for now, I'm in much agreement with what you and a few others here are saying; especially it being a slippery slope.

[kipperthefrog]

I'm pretty sure they'll have a hard time claiming that D+ cupsize is too small.

 

yea, but where will they draw the line? they will use the chilling effect I sited above.

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^If common sense is any indication, I'd think it'd taper off long before D+ cups. Then again, I don't know that, I'm just estimating what is reasonable in most people's eyes in either case.

 

Is banning a certain kind of porn (which I had no idea people got off into) a step towards banning free speech?

 

Slight correction: I forgot, "MILF" and "cougar" porn is pretty popular. Guess I'm not keeping up on it.

 

Well I see, thanks for giving me a little more clarity on this.

 

As a artist, more like aspiring - not really self proclaimed yet, I guess I was wondering if it would be a violation of freedom of expression specifically, under freedom of speech more than anything. But what it really seems like to me, is that the Austrailian government is just trying to control people's unclean thoughts over there; with a hint of religious zeal behind it, I might add. Lol!

 

I guess it's too soon to really tell at this point.

 

So for now, I'm in much agreement with what you and a few others here are saying; especially it being a slippery slope.

 

Well, but that's the thing is there is a slippery slope either way we can't really say 100% for sure. Both sides arguably have it going on:

 

One side says don't implement it b/c it won't stop here.

Refutation: it'll taper off.

 

The other side says if you don't that it necessarily feeds pedophilia.

Refutation: Sure it does, but so does anything else.

 

Most of us have a decidedly "bleh, whatever" attitude about it anyways, so.......err yeah.....

[Totenkopf]

yea, but where will they draw the line? they will use the chilling effect I sited above.

 

You feel they'll use it. But assume (as you obviously do) that that actually happens IN Australia. You don't live there, so big deal. Get your porn in the good ole US of A where there doesn't seem to be any such prohibition. Question remains, though, of how they'll justify banning even B cup porn when that clearly doesn't really look like kiddie porn either. What rationale are you claiming they'll bring forth to ban the rest of it? They claim to be focusing primarily on "flat-chested" porn (of young subjects, presumably, as an older woman with a small chest CLEARLY can't be confused for kiddie porn), so how will chilling effect actually work on anything other than small breasts? Do you really believe porn merchants are going to refrain from publishing and circulating product w/ even B or C cups, where the model clealy looks above the age of consent, b/c the law is aimed at clamping down on kiddie porn (where most of the subjects clearly look like children)? The only area I see your chilling effect having an impact is on porn that features teens or extremely young looking girls in their 20s. Unless the law is expanded beyond the kiddie porn rationale, say to porn in general, I don't see chilling effect having much impact.