Austrailia bans porn with small breasts

[kipperthefrog]

they'll have their excuses to ban more things, wait and see.

[Totenkopf]

Still doesn't explain your citation of chilling effect.

[kipperthefrog]

even if it don t lead down a slippery slope, what is the Empirical data that drew them to the conclusion that small breast porno will encourage pedophilia like they claim. it's just an excuse.

[Totenkopf]

So, outside of saying porno is degrading to women or that it somehow leads to the objectification of and subsequent violence toward women, what can they come up with to justify banning the rest of it? And even if they do go that route, sans empirical data to back it up......so what. Don't move to Oz. Don't know about you, but I've never heard a saying that goes anything remotely like "as goes Austrailia, so goes the world".

[kipperthefrog]

So, outside of saying porno is degrading to women or that it somehow leads to the objectification of and subsequent violence toward women, what can they come up with to justify banning the rest of it?

 

 

 

where will they draw the line between a and b size? when people get in trouble, they woill probably use it as an excuse to ban nude women all together.

 

Don't move to Oz. Don't know about you, but I've never heard a saying that goes anything remotely like "as goes Austrailia, so goes the world".

 

ever hear of the bandwagon effect?

 

also, i still have yet to see proof that A size chests will encourage pedophilia.

[Totenkopf]

where will they draw the line between a and b size? when people get in trouble, they woill probably use it as an excuse to ban nude women all together.

ever hear of the bandwagon effect?

 

 

The larger the chest/cup size of the model, the more difficult it will become to justify banning under the color of preventing/not abetting pedophilia. So, you might see fewer "flat" models, but it's a helluva stretch to claim ALL nudes will be affected w/o changing the justification as is. And your bandwagon effect is about as empty as slippery slope. Just b/c something is done in one country does not mean a cascading effect of all the other countries falling in line w/that policy.

 

also, i still have yet to see proof that A size chests will encourage pedophilia.

 

So, small chested porn is a fetish of yours?

[kipperthefrog]

 

So, small chested porn is a fetish of yours?

no, i just say that consenting adults know what they are doing regardless of bodyshape. there is no evidence that it does harm, and there is no absolute definition of "too small".

 

your argument above is fallacious in 2 ways: 1st its an ad homineim: attack the person rather than the argument. 2nd, it s a red herring. you can't compete with the argument at hand and can't provide evidence that it encourages pedophilia, so you create a distraction argument.

 

 

they will ban other things. all they need is an excuse. it doesnt have to be the same excuse. they can use whatever excuse they find.

[Totenkopf]

First, kip, you need to lighten up a little. It was a joke, as indicated by the smiley. Second, your argument is basically nothing but conjecture. I already stated that they would need an "excuse" other than working vs pedophilia to ban fuller figured porn. But you've already ceaselessly engaged in your slippery slope fallacy throughout this discussion. You've yet to prove anything other than that small chested porn faces a stumbling block in Australia (nowhere else). Your argument, such as it is, is fraught w/little more than alarmism. They can already ban/try to ban these things now. Big deal. Your implied contention that even C to D cup sized porn is imperiled by "too small" is not credible enough to be taken seriously.

 

As to your red herring charge, I never contended that it encouraged pedophilia, thus had nothing to prove. If your bandwagon affect had any real weight to it, there are already countries that ban porn or certain aspects of porn (Japan for instance, where pubic hair in a pic has been/is verboten), yet there's a wealth of it to be found elsewhere.

[edlib]

History shows that prohibition of any kind rarely has the intended effect. It drives the people who want the banned item(s) underground. There it's controlled (and brings profit to) criminal elements, who have zero qualms about providing to their customers exactly what they want.

 

In the history of porn, the most deviant stuff was/ is always produced in the most restrictive societies. If you want to control porn and protect your society, the banning it is pretty much the very worst thing you could ever hope to do.

 

But as long as there are human beings, there will be porn. I'm not worried that it's going away any time soon, anywhere.

[Kurgan]

I see your point, but still, legalization also has the effect of increasing (often) participation, since a lot of people who wouldn't do something, because of the risk of getting caught (or attached stigma of "breaking the law") is gone. So like for the "drug legalization" argument, basically a lot more people will "try it at least once" if it's legal, vs. if it's not (even with the "naughty" factor).

 

Now I'm speaking generally and I know the topic, but you can't really argue that something should be legal simply because banning it will "only drive it under ground." For example I'm sure few folks here would advocate legalizing actual child porn, but the fact is that you could still use the "it'll only be underground and people will still do it" argument. So it's not a perfect argument, because it could lead to simply saying everything should be legal, regardless (and anarchism has its own problems).

 

I think the point here is that the sort of people who are attracted to underage porn (even "fake" child porn) in the first place have some psychological issues to begin with. Is there really going to suddenly open up a huge "underground" market for porn with 18+ women with "small breasts" to appeal to this market if it is banned?

[edlib]

No idea.

 

I was primarily addressing the "slippery slope" idea that this could lead to the removal of ALL adult entertainment from a society... which is impossible, knowing human nature for what it is.

 

If it isn't street legal... then it will still be readily available for those who really wish to get it.

 

I was mainly just putting it out there that many have tried... and failed... to enact "total" bans on things they deem morally objectionable.

 

I really don't believe for a second that enacting this particular ban will eventually lead to a ban of all legally available porn down under (or anywhere.) But even if it did, porn really wouldn't go away.

 

What would remain in the underground might actually morph into something far more extreme and disturbing, having the complete opposite effect of what the ban was there to originally do away with, as is often evidenced by the history of sexually repressive societies.

[Kurgan]

The other thing is, I don't see how banning one type or "genre" (if you will) of porn will make a society "sexually repressive" (what does that even mean?).

 

Certainly if you're talking about child molestation, prostitution, incest and rape, those things occur in even the most "liberal" and "open" societies.

 

The slippery slope claim indicates that IF we allow this small ban, it will lead to bigger bans, and eventually freedom itself will be threatened.

 

The other slippery slope emerging here is that if we ban it, it will lead to increased problems as it is driven further and further underground.

 

This "history" would be interesting to see, because every society is different, and we can't necessarily predict how a law would affect one society vs. a totally different one in a different time period. Many societies have similar laws and totally different proportions of these problems (or different ones).

 

On a related subject, it would be interesting to see what would happen if all porn was replaced with computer generated porn (so it wouldn't be "live" anymore with real people having sex). We have the technology know so such a thing would be possible. Would it be as objectionable? Obviously it would to many people, but at the same time a big part of the objection to it is not just the effect it may have on people or the comodification of sex, but perpetuation of exploitation victimization deeply rooted in the system, where any "line" between it and prostitution is imaginary. I mean, people get mad about the plight of people in other dangerous professions or sweat shops, but porn isn't bad because it's about sex (capitalist sex?).

 

I realize that's branching off into what could be other topics and debates, but I just wanted to throw that in there.

 

IF your reason for objecting to this is because you think it will lead to loss of freedom, that's falling prey to the slippery slope fallacy. Ditto if you think banning something will just make it fester underground (so we shouldn't ban it, because it will be worse to do so, as if this is some kind of guarantee). The "how small is too small" thing is a much better argument. Not everyone develops at the same rate. However generally speaking, a nude female lacking pubic hair and possessing a "flat" chest combined with a petite figure would appear child-like, even if she's over age. The selection of such actresses for porn would imply a conscious desire to appeal to those with pedophilia attractions. One might compare this to marketing brands of alcohol directly to alcoholics (but worse). Maybe like marketing violent video games directly to sociopaths. Allowing such loose standards might make it harder to prosecute actual cases of underage porn, too.

 

I think it's bad enough that women in society are pressured to get breast implants and other radical elective surgery to meet some (male) standard of beauty, and I'm not saying I'd be happy to hear that there would be an increase in porn actors getting implants. But at the same time, an increased demand for flat chested models would imply they're appealing to sinister, psychologically unstable demographics. Is the ability to profit from such people really such an important thing? I think that's really what's at stake rather than some principle of "freedom." I think kids should be free from sexual predators. I don't think there's any research to show that such people will offend less because they have access to porn (even fantasy porn) projecting their deviant desires.

[Lynk Former]

*is Australian*

 

The internet makes all of what they're trying to do completely pointless.,, and the whole internet filter thing they're trying to implement won't stop any of this either.

 

The only way they're going to have any real control in terms of censorship is if they shut down the internet for the entire country and start mass arresting people who they suspect of... whatever.

 

Not going to happen.

 

All of you are going about this the wrong way. It's not about the curtailing of freedoms or anything like that. They can't make this sort of thing stick in a world where information is exchanged so freely. Nothing they can do will have any effect except for upsetting people who don't like the idea of having their freedoms trampled on.

 

The real issue in Australia ,at the moment, is the government wasting money and resources on silly laws and projects like the internet filter so they can appease Christian groups to get more votes.

 

 

And that's that.

[edlib]

Not just one type... but several people in the thread have hinted that this could be just the tip of the iceberg of a coming future age of Victorianism, where most, if not all porn will be repressed.

 

I don't believe that could ever happen... but it would be an ugly thing if it did. That's the main point I was addressing. The stuff that came out of the Victorian England porn underground often seems pretty twisted, even by today's standards.

 

Either way: small breasted adult actresses will still continue to work, and the products this ban is trying to do away with will still be available after this ban goes into effect... even if they are not legally for sale on the local vid-store shelves.

 

All I'm saying is just to be totally realistic about that.

 

And since it will be an underground product, don't be surprised if the producers of these films don't start taking them to new extremes to satisfy the audience. After all: they will probably get sent to jail for the same duration for making an extreme vid as if they make a tame one. The fans will probably pay much more for an extreme one, however.

 

Or maybe they'll all just get implants and keep working mainstream...

 

I'm not saying to not do the ban... but just don't be surprised if the opposite of what you intended to cure is the result.

[Kurgan]

Victorian England is long gone. Societies in the West have changed drastically since then. So we can't really compare it, now can we?

 

Porn is a commercial industry out for profit. That's the bottom line. The existence of Porn doesn't make a society free or unfree (both types of societies have it). Once that's understood...

 

As for the idea that banning it would be pointless, well no, not really. Maybe there would be people finding it on the internet, but let's see:

 

1) You'd have no porn theaters or peepshows showing it.

 

2) No adult book stores showing it.

 

3) You'd prosecute Australian based websites that sold or showed it, which can be done through ISPs quite easily (wouldn't stop people who got foreign domains to work from clandestinely).

 

4) You could stop it on sites like Amazon and Ebay that have country coded versions that respect local laws anyway.

 

5) No hotels/motels/inns or truck stops could show it.

 

6) No TV channels (again, country coded, including cable and pay-per-view) could show it.

 

7) No video rental/purchase chains could show it or rent/sell it. Ditto for book shops, gas stations or new stands or dealers that do pictorial depictions.

 

8) You couldn't advertise it on billboards or in the back of tabloids or other magazines (and no banner ads for it on Aussie based websites).

 

You could also impose bans on importing the materials in from other places where it was legal.

 

Finally, you could issue rewards for catching those who bring it in illegally.

 

That would cut off a LOT of the supply. Not everything, mind you. But again, the market for this stuff is small in the first place. The idea is to cut down on victimizations in the industry, not encourage sexual deviants by enabling them, and send the message that this stuff isn't acceptable in their society. It's not because people are afraid of sex in general, anti-freedom, anti-woman or anti-porn in general.

 

Doesn't mean they'll eliminate it, but that's a bit like saying rape should be legal because people still rape, even when it's illegal and prosecuted.

 

(Again, projecting the discussion from just "how small is too small" to porn that appeals to people who want to view participants who LOOK underage).

 

Sure, I guess an underage person could use a fake ID and get implants and "work mainstream." That's an argument for doing away with the commercial sex, period, not just for banning (or at least restricting) "looks underage" porn.

[Samuel Dravis]

Assuming that pornography in general is acceptable, if Australia's governing body wants to be responsible about this then they should commission a study that covers whether small breasts in pornography affect pedophilia rates. If they do in a statistically significant manner, then they can use that as a legitimate reason to place restrictions on it. Otherwise, I think it would show two things: 1. that they have no interest in the facts of the matter; and 2. that they have no respect for the freedom of their citizens to do as they like.

[Lynk Former]

You guys are looking at this as a US issue, which it obviously isn't. It's an Australian issue and this makes a HUGE difference.

 

Australia's population is TINY compared to the US. We also don't really have a porn industry down here... everything we get is from the internet. We do have porn down here but it is HEAVILY regulated anyway and this new law won't actually make a difference. Trust me on this, it won't make a difference at all.

 

As I said in my previous post, to enforce this and anything else they have planned past,present or future, they'd have to shut down the Internet.

 

Also, this isn't the only issue in Australia. As I've mentioned before there is an Internet censorship filter on the boards and also, recently customs has been enabled to check peoples laptops and other devices for porn.

 

This issue is actually the least ...threatening... of what's going on.

 

 

Honestly, the Australian government can make all the laws it wants, but they're not going to be able to enforce them where it counts since they've already cut off certain things back in the mid to late 20th century anyway. We've already adapted to operate outside of the governments influence.

[Kurgan]

Wouldn't it be sufficient to show that this type of porn appeals to those with pedophilic attractions?

 

Nobody is saying "small breast porn causes pedophilia" (as if non-pedophiles will watch it and then turn into pedophiles) they're assuming that it appeals and is marketed to attract with such attractions. In much the same way with people who are attracted to rape porn are turned on by rape. Doesn't mean that every person will act out those fantasies, but again, we're dealing with people who are psychologically disturbed, mentally ill.

 

On the other hand, officially tolerating such material sends the message that such actions (underage sexual exploitation) are tolerated by society. That's why when we talk about keeping stuff that some find offensive legal, we're saying that its only a few bad apples that spoil it for everyone else... the crazies who can't tell that what they see on screen is unacceptable behavior (and it's not like video game violence, because video game characters aren't real people being acted upon, while we're talking about real people engaged in sexual situations marketed for purposes of lust/gratification).

 

The point isn't that makers of "small breast porn" are having their free speech censored if this stuff is banned in Australia (never mind the slippery slope fallacy that this a conspiracy to ban all porn and censor all free speech). It's the question of whether the purpose of this material is to market to those with pedophilic tendencies, since, logically speaking, they would be those primarily interested in the stuff.

 

The "increases pedophilia" thing would really only apply to the fact that if there was a demand for it and it was permitted, that might increase the number of persons applying for the job of "acting" in flat chested porn, increasing the likelihood that minors would be exploited (whether they lie about their age or the producers look the other way), making it harder to prosecute crimes.

 

They could "shut down the internet" I suppose (is internet access defined as a human right?), but that's not even the issue. It's not a matter of being able to stop the practice 100% or else they can't make laws regarding it to restrict most of it. A law is not a law simply because it is never broken (or unbreakable).

 

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that pedophilia or underage exploitation will INCREASE if these laws are passed or attempted to be enforced. Again, see other laws against things that people have done and will always do. The goal of a law is not necessarily to eliminate something by preventing it from ever happening, it's to send the message that the society will not tolerate it, and to punish (and seek to rehabilitate, where possible) those who violate those standards deemed by the society (or by the lawmakers with the consent of the society at large) within the bounds of reason and justice (in the always imperfect human way, of course).

 

Theoretically, we could make murder legal. It would mean theoretically there would be more murders, but it would mean that murder would no longer be punished. Since punishment CAN (but does not always, obviously) deter a crime (vs. reward or non-punishment making it more accessible or even promoting it), that's how it would go. Anyway, that's the logic of law as I see it.

 

I mean, we can say "ban the internet" for a lot of things... because of hate speech, because of piracy, because of medical or other scams, because of terrorists using it, etc. We cannot largely argue that if the "only way" to finally really eliminate it is to "ban the internet" we should just leave it alone. But that's not logical to begin with, because these things happened even without the internet (and would still happen without it). You can also apply restrictions (such as the filtering suggested and compliance from corporations like Google and so forth) without "banning" the internet. Doesn't ensure elimination of the crime, but you'd still see predictable reasonable reductions, logically.

 

It might be possible to compare it somewhat to smoking bans. You can't stop people from smoking, so why all the bans on smoking in various places? The logic is to reduce the potential harm and by making it harder to smoke, possibly encouraging people to quit and/or discouraging others to start. There are plenty of people who consider that a terrible blow against freedom, but that's the logic of such laws, and I'd argue that smoking is in many ways less harmful to society (and individuals) than sexual exploitation of minors. Alcohol too is restricted in many ways. If you treat porn the way you treat these other things (that have a high demand, but also high potential for abuse and some hidden costs), that isn't so strange, really.

[Lynk Former]

Just to make things clear.

 

Australia has no porn industry as such. The most we have are men's magazines that do end up featuring topless women, but there has never been any instance of flatchested or small breasted women being featured. It's all very standard.

 

No porn is made in this country and no porn is even allowed to be on any Australian based server.

 

Which means the most this is TRYING to do is to stop these images from coming from overseas... most of which come from the Internet.

 

Hence why I'd like to see them actually ENFORCE any of this.

[True_Avery]

You all keep arguing this from a United States, European law standpoint where this is absolutely not the case.

[Samuel Dravis]

Fine, Lynk, I am sure you are correct, nothing will change for Australia. I have mainly just been talking about the principle of the matter. That and I spent so long on this post I'll get irritated if I can't submit it.

 

Wouldn't it be sufficient to show that this type of porn appeals to those with pedophilic attractions?

 

Nobody is saying "small breast porn causes pedophilia" (as if non-pedophiles will watch it and then turn into pedophiles) they're assuming that it appeals and is marketed to attract with such attractions. In much the same way with people who are attracted to rape porn are turned on by rape. Doesn't mean that every person will act out those fantasies, but again, we're dealing with people who are psychologically disturbed, mentally ill.

 

On the other hand, officially tolerating such material sends the message that such actions (underage sexual exploitation) are tolerated by society. That's why when we talk about keeping stuff that some find offensive legal, we're saying that its only a few bad apples that spoil it for everyone else... the crazies who can't tell that what they see on screen is unacceptable behavior (and it's not like video game violence, because video game characters aren't real people being acted upon, while we're talking about real people engaged in sexual situations marketed for purposes of lust/gratification).

 

The point isn't that makers of "small breast porn" are having their free speech censored if this stuff is banned in Australia (never mind the slippery slope fallacy that this a conspiracy to ban all porn and censor all free speech). It's the question of whether the purpose of this material is to market to those with pedophilic tendencies, since, logically speaking, they would be those primarily interested in the stuff.

 

The "increases pedophilia" thing would really only apply to the fact that if there was a demand for it and it was permitted, that might increase the number of persons applying for the job of "acting" in flat chested porn, increasing the likelihood that minors would be exploited (whether they lie about their age or the producers look the other way), making it harder to prosecute crimes.

 

I don't think it would be enough to show that it attracts the pedophile segment to consume it, since that (most importantly) would not be trading in anyone or anything nonconsensual. It should be factually established that it does affect rates of actual pedophilia or underage exploitation. Laws, especially ones restricting free adults, shouldn't be made on a whim or to garner votes from parents scared into submission by politicians saying frightening things about how the pedophiles will destroy their country. Especially if they don't bother to find out if it's true or not.

 

Being a pedophile means you are attracted to the underage population, not that you are necessarily willing to act out your attractions on someone, willing or unwilling. I'm attracted to the female segment, but I'm not going to rape them anytime soon. Hell, at this point in my life I wouldn't even enter a sexual relationship with someone who was willing. I don't think it would be justifiable to assert that all pedophiles are willing to act out their urges any more than it would to make blanket generalizations about men or women with more traditional attractions. So yes, this type of porn would market to the pedophile segment, but the criminal element is only a subset of that segment. I'm really only concerned about the criminal element.

 

Tying into that, whether this sort of porn sends a message that underage exploitation is acceptable is arguable, since presumably everyone in the media and the consumer of the media are in fact of age (I assume the current laws are enough to ensure that to a reasonable degree). More than that, both parties know that this is true. I understand there are fetishists who enjoy wearing diapers and pretending to be babies, but I doubt they think exploiting babies is a desirable thing. So I think it would boil down to the same as I pointed out above-- unless there was an established connection between this type of porn and crimes committed, then it would be hard to justify discriminating against it in particular save as a visceral reaction or political favor-currying.

 

Now, supposing we eliminated all "normal" people and the non-predatory pedophile segment, we should be only concerned about the genuine, mentally disturbed, I'm-going-to-steal-me-a-school-bus-full-of-helpless-children type of person, then we should just go after them. We don't restrict the ownership of particularly sharp-looking pens because a small minority of clinically crazy people commit murder with them because it was shown on TV (even if they happen to be prop pens from the show). I don't know why this should be any different. And honestly it would be a hard sell to say that being abused by a pedophile is worse than being murdered.

[Lynk Former]

There are fines lines which governments shouldn't cross. One such line involves the image of women in society. It is not up to the government to dictate what small breasted women can and cannot do.

 

 

Also, speaking a little more about this law in relation to Australia... it seems to be focused more around an issue in Australia that occurred awhile back when one of our most famous and respected artists showed pictures of a nude teen girl at an art gallery... Enough people seemed to have a problem with it even though they don't seem to have a problem with paintings portraying nude children, but anyway... I feel that this "no small breasts" thing has more to do with that than anything else.

[Kurgan]

Maybe there are some non-rapist men out there that are sexually attracted to mature women who just happen to LOOK like underage women. Presumably then such laws would be restricting the "adult entertainment" options of these men to have their every fantasy fulfilled in consumable, visual form. Maybe there are a lot of female gymnasts out there who have fallen on hard times and want to become adult film stars.

 

I would question, however, if these men are really devoid of pedophilic attractions, and if they have them, why would consuming such porn legally (or illegally) reduce the risk that they would act on these fantasies. A young woman, I can understand. But a woman who looks like she's pre-pubescent?

 

I guess I should clarify, I'm speaking more broadly than pictures of naked people here. To be frank, I'm talking about the hardcore stuff, recordings of actual sexual acts.

 

On another issue, these are automatically in a different category than say violent movies or video games (using violence as the comparison to the sex). Movies where the violence is faked with camera angles, choreography and even CGI.

 

Your typical porn movie (despite the passing of the 70's heyday of sexualized spoofs of popular films) is just a camera set up while people have sex. The key difference between this and prostitution is the camera.

 

We don't have to beat up any real people to create the latest "Mortal Kombat" game. We don't need to run over any real hookers or shoot any real cops to create the next GTA. Porn can be "faked" too, but generally speaking, we're talking about the real, even if it is created to cater to someone's "fantasy."

 

As for the data on the majority of women harboring fantasies about desiring to be raped, or credible studies showing a causal relationship between lax pornography laws (especially relating to porn depicting violation in a positive light) and lower incidences of rape... I'd like to see that.

 

The argument that rape porn REDUCES rape is another matter altogether. Is there any evidence of such a thing? Where does the demand for such a thing come from in the first place, and would this really function, society-wide as a cathartic measure? Presumably then, rape porn should be mandatory viewing for certain demographics, to reduce rape, if this is true, rather than prevention methods like self defense classes for women, teaching young men and boys that rape is wrong, ethical seminars against sexual harassment, selling pepper sprays, checking your drinks, etc.

 

Again, I didn't say porn CAUSED extra rapes to occur (say, turning "normal" people into rapists), I merely argued that laws restricting porn that caters to fantasies of criminal deviance involving real sex with people who LOOK underage are sensible. As for "inspiring" psychologically unbalanced people to commit violent crimes like rape (whether statutory or otherwise), of course, you can argue such a person might be set off by seeing an apple, but the most realistic impression that could be left on their mind, would be a depiction of the action itself, even if its staged between persons who are "really" over age.

[Samuel Dravis]

Right. I don't think that porn is necessarily a good thing. My main contention was that, as I said in my first post, if porn in general is deemed acceptable (including whatever is needed to make it), then it would not make sense to establish a particular ban on this type of small-breast porn without some concrete reasons to back such a ban up. We would have already discarded the moral issue of allowing people to have sex on camera and other general problems with porn.

 

I just don't think it is acceptable for a governing body to act on what they feel is "sensible" when they are perfectly capable of finding out the truth of the matter. And really, if they don't, I'd say they are failing in their duty to the citizens they supposedly represent. No responsible person should make laws that impact others based on their gut feelings.

[kipperthefrog]

@ Lynk Former

 

I was thinking about how "custom officers" can snoop through laptops at airports and all the censorship goin on. does it worry you any? you think it is likely that they will create more censorship? outlay all nudity eventually? anything like that?