Aussie censors ban small breast and female ejaculation porn

[Kyrn]

but people buying fake underage porn are low on my list of people who's rights need defending.

The problem with pedophilia is the potential to hurt children. Adults pretending to be children aren't children, so here we have someone finding an outlet for what must be a pretty terrible sexual preference to have, in a way that doesn't hurt anyone. So I'm sorry if I don't lump those folks in with, you know, people who *actually* rape kids...

Neither do I. But as I said, furnishing people with fake child porn is not something I'm about to make a freaky stand about. I'd guess (and it's only a guess, not an argument) that pervasively available fake child porn would also tend to normalise desires for young partners in those for whom such thoughts are a fleeting occurance which they might otherwise reject as unwelcome. It would certainly help those who need an outlet for a sexuality they are aware is damaging to its victims (where they exist). But there is therapy, psychiatry and support groups, or there should be, to help with that too. I don't see much need to add fake child porn. It's not child porn methadone.

Alternatively, I would like to make a distinction between people who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, and people who can't. Just because material is available doesn't mean the desire will be normalized, just as people who read superhero comics don't necessarily believe in vigilante justice, or people who play violent videogames don't necessarily think violence is the solution to everything. Those who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, have deeper issues.

[Plasma Man]

Or, you know, maybe some people just prefer slender women?

[gmalivuk]

Well yeah, which I believe has already been mentioned in the thread a couple times. That current bit of discussion is, in my understanding, specifically about the simulation of child pornography by adult participants.

[Plasma Man]

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was trying to make the point that there is nothing to suggest that small breasts / "barely legal" sites / whatever is "fake child porn".

In the UK, simulated child pornography already has a definition. A "pseudo-photograph" of child pornography is illegal, supposedly covering things like photoshopping a child's head onto an adult body that is in a pornographic display, or creating realistic CGI images of child pornography. To my mind, that covers it. If someone is over 18, that means it's not child pornography, regardless of how they look, act or dress.

[Dream]

To my mind, that covers it. If someone is over 18, that means it's not child pornography, regardless of how they look, act or dress.

Would you be comfortable seeing a hardcore image of a perfectly simulated twelve-year-old? If not, why not? It's not child pornography, in that it doesn't involve children. That doesn't mean it's necessarily OK. There is a category of abuser who imagines, and believes that their victim is a willing participant, and enjoys and is fulfilled by their abuse. I'd say that these images are dangerous in the hands of such people, in that they provide a normalisation and legitimisation for their desires. And if you don't think there's a connection between pornography and sexual tastes, try reading any of the threads that touch on issues like pubic hair. It's fairly well accepted, in my experience, that consistent exposure to particular imagery in a sexual context will influence sexual preference.

[General_Norris]

It's fairly well accepted, in my experience, that consistent exposure to particular imagery in a sexual context will influence sexual preference.

Yes, small-breasted women. Not people who can't consent. It's different.

Also citation needed because if that were so I would be very, very gay.

[thc]

Bunny-Proof Fence.

Very apt analogy You would think them Aussies would have learned.

[Dream]

It's fairly well accepted, in my experience, that consistent exposure to particular imagery in a sexual context will influence sexual preference.

Yes, small-breasted women. Not people who can't consent. It's different.

The idea is that they're trying to ban faked child porn, not small breasts in porn. I'd have to see both specific wording of legislation, and precedence, before I'd believe they're going to ban obviously adult models based on subjective bust measurement assessment. So yeah, I'd say if there are people out there (and there almost certainly are) who are consistently getting off to images of children posed by adults, I'd say they're probably affecting their sexual preferences or habits. Breast size is just the vector by which the government are attempting preventive action.

[Princess Marzipan]

Breast size is just the vector by which the government are attempting preventive action.

That doesn't seem wholly fucked up to you in every fashion imaginable?

[GhostWolfe]

Would you be comfortable seeing a hardcore image of a perfectly simulated twelve-year-old?

...simulated child pornography already has a definition [including] creating realistic CGI images of child pornography. To my mind, that covers it. If someone is over 18, that means it's not child pornography, regardless of how they look, act or dress.

I intepreted the bolded statement as the answer to Dream's question.

/angell

[JayDee]

Breast size is just the vector by which the government are attempting preventive action.

I'm not even sure that's true. The guidelines use language like "appear to be under 18", which is judged on a case by case basis.

A spokesperson for the Board said the overall appearance of persons in publications in conjunction with the context in which they are depicted, including text, props and poses were considered when making their decisions.

However, the Director of the Australian Classification Board, Donald McDonald, refused to answer repeated questions from this blog about the specifics of breast size in deciding on a person’s apparent age. Asked whether breast size was considered by the Board when determining age, McDonald said he had no further comment to make.

Donand McDonald? What a name.

[Kyrn]

To my mind, that covers it. If someone is over 18, that means it's not child pornography, regardless of how they look, act or dress.

Would you be comfortable seeing a hardcore image of a perfectly simulated twelve-year-old? If not, why not? It's not child pornography, in that it doesn't involve children. That doesn't mean it's necessarily OK. There is a category of abuser who imagines, and believes that their victim is a willing participant, and enjoys and is fulfilled by their abuse. I'd say that these images are dangerous in the hands of such people, in that they provide a normalisation and legitimisation for their desires. And if you don't think there's a connection between pornography and sexual tastes, try reading any of the threads that touch on issues like pubic hair. It's fairly well accepted, in my experience, that consistent exposure to particular imagery in a sexual context will influence sexual preference.

0) Just first noting that we are talking about adults, whom by implication are supposed to be able to respond in a mature, rational manner.
1) I would say that I am comfortable, but that's beside the point.
2) Fictional imagery doesn't normalize or legitimize reality. They do however allow an outlet for fantasies.
3) Those who think that fictional imagery does normalize or legitimize reality, has deeper issues.
4) It is NOT fairly well accepted, that consistent exposure to particular imagery in a sexual context will influence sexual preference. Do note again that we're talking about adults, not children, here.
5) Threads that touch on issues such as pubic hair, inherently forms a selection bias.

[Le1bn1z]

Honest question: what defines 'small breasts'?

And I still don't see how this has *anything* to do with pedophilia, because I've known 15 year olds with DD cups and 18 year olds who literally don't need to wear a bra.

Thing is though, I can't see how this won't get contested as unfair discrimination by a small-breasted woman upon passing.

Hahahaha.

Someone should bring a court case to force a judge to rule on what defines "small breasts." They'd have to admit public exhibits. There's got to be some lawyer out there who'd love the opportunity to expound before a court on the virtues of small boobies in mature women.

[TheKrikkitWars]

Someone needs to project a picture of a small breasted woman ejaculating onto the side of the aussie parliment, or some other national building (in the style of FHM putting gail porters arse on the houses of parliment, but with a political point this time).

[Admiral Valdemar]

Hahahaha.

Someone should bring a court case to force a judge to rule on what defines "small breasts." They'd have to admit public exhibits. There's got to be some lawyer out there who'd love the opportunity to expound before a court on the virtues of small boobies in mature women.

Good luck with that. It's a totally nebulous definition, as all the best bullshit laws have, which means until someone actually gets taken to court and challenges this, we'll never know what constitutes "small breasts". Maybe a judge loves everything over a G only. That'd be fun.

[Bakemaster]

What. The. FUCK?

PONIES!

Hey, has the board banned ponies?

(Should I refer to them as pornies?)

[Dream]

Breast size is just the vector by which the government are attempting preventive action.

That doesn't seem wholly fucked up to you in every fashion imaginable?

I think it's stupid. I don't think it's wholly fucked up in every way imaginable unless they interpret and enforce the law in such a way that that is so. If this is used only as a legal backing for prosecuting child pornographers who attempt to defend themselves by demanding that the authorities prove the age of the models in their material, when those models are untraceable by any means (like because they were being abused in being photographed, and are in fact a child), I can't see this as a bad thing. If it is used to morally police the nation, then of course it is terrible.

[Kyrn]

Breast size is just the vector by which the government are attempting preventive action.

That doesn't seem wholly fucked up to you in every fashion imaginable?

I think it's stupid. I don't think it's wholly fucked up in every way imaginable unless they interpret and enforce the law in such a way that that is so. If this is used only as a legal backing for prosecuting child pornographers who attempt to defend themselves by demanding that the authorities prove the age of the models in their material, when those models are untraceable by any means (like because they were being abused in being photographed, and are in fact a child), I can't see this as a bad thing. If it is used to morally police the nation, then of course it is terrible.

Of cause, a solution I heard was being implemented elsewhere was to (a) legitimize pornography, and (b) ensure all pornography participants are registered.

[sje46]

To my mind, that covers it. If someone is over 18, that means it's not child pornography, regardless of how they look, act or dress.

Would you be comfortable seeing a hardcore image of a perfectly simulated twelve-year-old? If not, why not? It's not child pornography, in that it doesn't involve children. That doesn't mean it's necessarily OK. There is a category of abuser who imagines, and believes that their victim is a willing participant, and enjoys and is fulfilled by their abuse. I'd say that these images are dangerous in the hands of such people, in that they provide a normalisation and legitimisation for their desires. And if you don't think there's a connection between pornography and sexual tastes, try reading any of the threads that touch on issues like pubic hair. It's fairly well accepted, in my experience, that consistent exposure to particular imagery in a sexual context will influence sexual preference.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't see the harm in letting photons hit your retinas. Looking at child pornography has never hurt anyone. Making child pornography has. This isn't to suggest that it shouldn't be illegal to purchase the crap, because then you're supporting the industry.

Normalization? Legitimization? Pedophiles are the most hated people in the world, regardless of whether they touch children or not. It'll take a long while before people can admit they have this mental disorder and be able to go to a therapist for help without fear of going to jail or having the secret leak out.

We shouldn't pass laws because we are afraid of whether they'd encourage people to do things or not. Instead, we should pass laws that prevent people from hurting other people. Does exposure to pornography effect your tastes? Probably. But we shouldn't ban it just because we are afraid of what certain people choose to do because of that influence. Based off that, we should ban bondage pornography, because it legitimizes rape, and video games because it encourages people to run over others in cars.

So I wouldn't care if someone created a perfectly rendered fake photo of child pornography. That person never hurt a kid, and is only expressing himself. I have no interest in looking at said picture, but he has the right to make it.

Of cause, a solution I heard was being implemented elsewhere was to (a) legitimize pornography, and (b) ensure all pornography participants are registered.

Right, because all those creepy uncles in basements will stop taking naked photos of kids because you add one piece of redtape. All this is doing will regulate an industry that really doesn't need it. Shouldn't a boyfriend and girlfriend be free to make a porn tape without having to register into a government database? Sure, this law may help with 16 and 17 year olds appearing in homemade porn tapes, but excuse me if I don't exactly consider that child porn. All the big porn companies already check the ages anyway. But how will the government know if some random homemade video on Porntube features a 16 year old instead of an 18 year old? Why would they take the effort to track it?

That solution will solve nothing, and will only hinder freedoms.

[Kyrn]

Of cause, a solution I heard was being implemented elsewhere was to (a) legitimize pornography, and (b) ensure all pornography participants are registered.

Right, because all those creepy uncles in basements will stop taking naked photos of kids because you add one piece of redtape. All this is doing will regulate an industry that really doesn't need it. Shouldn't a boyfriend and girlfriend be free to make a porn tape without having to register into a government database? Sure, this law may help with 16 and 17 year olds appearing in homemade porn tapes, but excuse me if I don't exactly consider that child porn. All the big porn companies already check the ages anyway. But how will the government know if some random homemade video on Porntube features a 16 year old instead of an 18 year old? Why would they take the effort to track it?

That solution will solve nothing, and will only hinder freedoms.

This is about porn being rejected classification, and it solves the problem they trying to address at least (which is preventing child porn in the porn business). Whether home porn is allowed is a different matter.

Also, for reference, my reply would make a lot more sense when put into context, as a direct reply to Dream:

I think it's stupid. I don't think it's wholly fucked up in every way imaginable unless they interpret and enforce the law in such a way that that is so. If this is used only as a legal backing for prosecuting child pornographers who attempt to defend themselves by demanding that the authorities prove the age of the models in their material, when those models are untraceable by any means (like because they were being abused in being photographed, and are in fact a child), I can't see this as a bad thing. If it is used to morally police the nation, then of course it is terrible.

[Hawknc]

There's a bit of a "look the other way" policy regarding porn production in Australia. AFAIK it's only really legal to produce and distribute X-rated material in the territories (ACT and NT), but in reality it's sold pretty much everywhere. Abby Winters is produced a few suburbs away from where I am right now. The laws are a joke, both in theory and execution.

[MrGee]

So I wouldn't care if someone created a perfectly rendered fake photo of child pornography. That person never hurt a kid, and is only expressing himself. I have no interest in looking at said picture, but he has the right to make it.

And how do you prove that a perfectly rendered fake photo is not in fact a regularly rendered real photo of a child being abused?

[sje46]

So I wouldn't care if someone created a perfectly rendered fake photo of child pornography. That person never hurt a kid, and is only expressing himself. I have no interest in looking at said picture, but he has the right to make it.

And how do you prove that a perfectly rendered fake photo is not in fact a regularly rendered real photo of a child being abused?

Hey if I know. But if they do, the person who made the fake photo shouldn't go to jail for it.

[Amnesiasoft]

And how do you prove that a perfectly rendered fake photo is not in fact a regularly rendered real photo of a child being abused?

Provide a copy of the file used to render the scene?

[Dream]

So I wouldn't care if someone created a perfectly rendered fake photo of child pornography. That person never hurt a kid, and is only expressing himself. I have no interest in looking at said picture, but he has the right to make it.

And how do you prove that a perfectly rendered fake photo is not in fact a regularly rendered real photo of a child being abused?

Hey if I know. But if they do, the person who made the fake photo shouldn't go to jail for it.

Things aren't only banned because they are wrong. Sometimes they are banned because a total ban is the only useful way to police them. If, as is already possible with models, and in the near future will be possible with CGI, child porn can be faked to a degree indistinguishable from the real thing, it makes sense to ban it all wholesale because that's the only way to be sure to get the real stuff. The whole reasonable doubt thing makes it very difficult to convict people when they can just claim it's all unprovable either way. Better to widen the ban than to have it be entirely unworkable.

[Hawknc]

At the same time, though, should that ban cover clearly simulated or illustrated depictions? I'm thinking here of the case in NSW where a man was arrested for possessing cartoon Simpsons porn - obviously not going to be mistaken for the real thing, but a blanket ban on all depictions of child pornography would capture it nonetheless.

[phlip]

Right, but it's hard to figure out where to put the line...

A line between "anything using real children" and "anything drawn" could potentially be problematic, as Dream said, if makers of child porn were able to claim their pictures were faked. And a line between "realistic fake pictures" and "obvious fake pictures" would be just as vague as the small-breasts ban that started this thread.

But a line is needed between those two endpoints, because including obvious fake pictures in the ban is just stupid, but leaving real child porn out, I think it would be generally agreed, would be a bad thing.

I don't have an answer for this.

[Jedidawn]

The whole reasonable doubt thing makes it very difficult to convict people when they can just claim it's all unprovable either way. Better to widen the ban than to have it be entirely unworkable.

Or, y'know, you could just do the sensible thing and ban the production, not the consumption

[Dream]

But a line is needed between those two endpoints, because including obvious fake pictures in the ban is just stupid, but leaving real child porn out, I think it would be generally agreed, would be a bad thing.

I think if you wanted to put the line somewhere that maximised freedom to make images of children in sexual settings that did not involve child abuse, you'd have to have a very strong argument as to why that freedom needs to be protected. It seems to me that that exercising that freedom creates tangible difficulties in the protection of the rights of other members of society, which is what makes it a good candidate for restriction. Bearing in mind that every almost single restrictive law involves a curtailment of something that in certain circumstances is an acceptable practice, I really don't see how this is much different from something like prescription drugs or speed limits. An individual might be doing nothing wrong by indulging in either of those, but it's good for society to limit them.

The urination thing is just some politicians going "ewww", and others not wanting to look like perverts for standing against them.

[yoni45]

Or, y'know, you could just do the sensible thing and ban the production, not the consumption

That really depends on what definition of 'sensible' you're going by -- you're trying to get to a particular goal by banning production, which can also be furthered by banning consumption (no demand means no incentive to supply).

[MrGee]

Right, but it's hard to figure out where to put the line...

A line between "anything using real children" and "anything drawn" could potentially be problematic, as Dream said, if makers of child porn were able to claim their pictures were faked. And a line between "realistic fake pictures" and "obvious fake pictures" would be just as vague as the small-breasts ban that started this thread.

But a line is needed between those two endpoints, because including obvious fake pictures in the ban is just stupid, but leaving real child porn out, I think it would be generally agreed, would be a bad thing.

I don't have an answer for this.

Other than legalizing the consumption half, you could require an artist to maintain some sort of intermediate files that clearly show the production of the photo, such as a wireframe model. Of course, if you draw your pictures pixel by pixel instead of using programmatic features, there wouldn't be any convincing evidence.

[Dream]

That only covers the illegality of production. Ownership is a different matter. Would you have it be legal for people to own such generated images, and therefore risk consumers of child porn passing off the product of child abuse as legal artistic expression? I can imagine "the real thing" being a selling point to many child porn users, and can easily imagine a real scene having a "faked" provenance attached to it.

[General_Norris]

Compare to violence.

Killing is bad. Filiming a guy killing someone is bad. Are videos where people are killed bad even if no people were really killed?

An example. Saw. Ultra violent film. Nobody was harmed doing it (AFAIK).

[MrGee]

Compare to violence.

Killing is bad. Filiming a guy killing someone is bad. Are videos where people are killed bad even if no people were really killed?

An example. Saw. Ultra violent film. Nobody was harmed doing it (AFAIK).

I think the more extreme a movie is, the less dangerous. What lesson do you take from 28 Days Later? Real men kill zombies? It is obviously fantasy. But when you have so called "reality" programs that are scripted or at best just highly skewed, you run a much higher risk of harmful corruption of the viewer. The supposedly accurate news is another example.

[EmptySet]

But a line is needed between those two endpoints, because including obvious fake pictures in the ban is just stupid, but leaving real child porn out, I think it would be generally agreed, would be a bad thing.

I think if you wanted to put the line somewhere that maximised freedom to make images of children in sexual settings that did not involve child abuse, you'd have to have a very strong argument as to why that freedom needs to be protected. It seems to me that that exercising that freedom creates tangible difficulties in the protection of the rights of other members of society, which is what makes it a good candidate for restriction. Bearing in mind that every almost single restrictive law involves a curtailment of something that in certain circumstances is an acceptable practice, I really don't see how this is much different from something like prescription drugs or speed limits. An individual might be doing nothing wrong by indulging in either of those, but it's good for society to limit them.

The urination thing is just some politicians going "ewww", and others not wanting to look like perverts for standing against them.

Well, the urination thing kind of demonstrates the problem of collateral damage when you ban stuff that doesn't actually involve hurting people: someone, somewhere, thinks a lot of things are "ewww". If that person happens to be a judge or a cop or a lawyer, you could find yourself in real trouble for publishing - or even owning - something which you thought had artistic merit, even if it was not designed for titillation, because somebody has decided that we need to be protected from BDSM, or homosexuality, or even the use of contraception (it encourages teen sex, yerhonour! It's disgustin'!). See these two blog posts from Neil Gaiman, this one from Ursula Vernon, and this news article for some discussion of this and other problems with this kind of censorship.

I think the point Gaiman makes about his almost getting his publisher sent to prison based on an illustration of a Biblical passage really drives home some of the problems. Keeping in mind that in some parts of Australia, it's not just sexual situations but any depiction of "child abuse" that is banned - remember when that YouTube video of a parent swinging their kid around was declared illegal? - you could wipe out a lot of classic works of art and literature in the name of sanitising everything. The Bible: Full of rape, child abuse, incest, and underage sex. Sandman: Depictions of child abuse. Oliver Twist: More child abuse, including child slavery. Romeo and Juliet: Underage sex. Those cherub statues, along with any painting with cherubs: Naked kids. Do you ban them all? What about biographies which include descriptions of child abuse? Documentaries and history books which depict child slavery or child abuse? Is there are possibly that banning all depictions of abuse would actually make it difficult for people to speak out against it?

[Dream]

There is a world of difference between a depiction of a child naked, or in a fictional situation, and a depiction of an actual act of real life child abuse. What we're discussing here is the real, and the faking of the real. Not all depictions in all art forms of all underage children.

[phlip]

There is a world of difference between a depiction of a child naked, or in a fictional situation, and a depiction of an actual act of real life child abuse.

Sure, but you were the one saying that banning some of the former is acceptable if it means we ban all of the latter. And I'm not arguing with that in principle, but I'm wondering where you would draw the line, or whether you'd ban all of the former, in order to get the latter.

[kernelpanic]

So now governments are doing whatever they want with the excuse of "To prevent pedophiles raping children" and "To catch terrorists". I want a free car so I can catch terrorists. I also want to take away your rights so a kid is not raped. Excuse me, I'll go watch some small breast porn. Just to piss off the censors.

[Dream]

There is a world of difference between a depiction of a child naked, or in a fictional situation, and a depiction of an actual act of real life child abuse.

Sure, but you were the one saying that banning some of the former is acceptable if it means we ban all of the latter. And I'm not arguing with that in principle, but I'm wondering where you would draw the line, or whether you'd ban all of the former, in order to get the latter.

I'd draw a distinction between images intended to be seen as being real, and those that are clearly and obviously staged. I would draw this line so that literature, illustration and dramatic (as opposed to pornographic) cinema are all very clearly outside the ban. No banning Lolita, as it's self evident that no children were harmed in writing it. No banning Taxi Driver, as it's clear that the underage prostitutes were acted, and were played by adults. I would allow images of a pornographic nature so long as they were billed as being adult participants in an adult situation or if they were borderline, as being played by adults intended to be seen as such.

In order to make such a line workable, it would have to be the pornographic imagery that was curtailed where not strictly necessary, because it is where the harm could be done were it not. I think it would be a rather extreme libertarian viewpoint that would argue that the rights of pornography consumers to see whatever they want where that is a depiction of an illegal act, real or imagined, trumps the need of the state to police such things in a workable manner. In short, yes, some porn would be banned unnecessarily. But I just don't see that as being a problem, unless a person believes in proverbially removing all road speed limits and gun licensing.

[cephalopod9]

I really don't get the reasoning behind the emphasis on breast size; it just seems needlessly objectifying and not all that correlated to age.

think it would be a rather extreme libertarian viewpoint that would argue that the rights of pornography consumers to see whatever they want where that is a depiction of an illegal act, real or imagined, trumps the need of the state to police such things in a workable manner.

I would say that depends on whether the need to police such things correlates to social needs.
Aside from the encroachment on creative freedom and privacy, my biggest problem with restriction on simulated imagery is that it makes fake and imaginary victims harder to access relative to real ones.
Regardless of how it "works", we don't ever want real children to be more accessible than drawn ones.