Classification Board responds to small breasts ban
January 28, 2010 – 6:27 pmThe Australian Classification Board (ACB) has responded to accusations by The Australian Sex Party that material with depictions of women with small breasts has been banned. 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.
Female Ejaculation Bans
In response to accusations that films containing female ejaculation would now be banned, the spokesperson said the Film and Games guidelines do not specify female ejaculation, but it does specify that the fetish of ‘golden showers’ will be Refused Classification and have been in the past.
The ACB is yet to answer followup questions about whether it considers female ejaculation to be a golden shower.
The ACB said they do not and could not direct Customs and Border Protection officers to confiscate any material and that Customs and Border Protection have advised that they will only seize material that is Refused Classification or would be Refused Classification if it were to be classified.
What’s Been Banned
Fiona Patten from the Australian Sex Party (ASP) said she attended a ACB training session late last year where they showed examples of publications that had been Refused Classification due to the size of the woman’s breasts.
‘That information is not provided to the applicant when their publication is Refused Classification. When a publication classification is revoked sometimes a little more information is provided’ she said.
According to Patten some of the titles banned included Barely Legal (Hustler), Finally Legal and Purely 18.
‘The general comments on the publications mentioned were that the model appeared under 18′ she said.
However, the titles mentioned are all regulated and records of each model’s age are required to be kept by 18 U.S.C. 2257 and 28 C.F.R. part 75. These regulations are enforced by the FBI.
The ACB’s database of banned publications contains four references of banned copies of Barely Legal, one of Finally Legal, and two of Purely 18.
UPDATE 29/01/10 12:19PM: Fiona Patten has provided additional comment:
“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 three 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.“
Patten also added that the four companies that attended the meeting with her 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.”
42 Responses to “Classification Board responds to small breasts ban”
So… the point remains. Those who “appear under 18″ – despite being of legal age – would have small breasts and a follow-on effect is publishers will avoid depictions of women with small breasts.
And the female ejaculation issue has not been addressed. Never mind what the guidelines say… how is the Board interpreting them?
By Ms Naughty on Jan 28, 2010
@Ms Naughty. Yes, it definitely has not been addressed and I’m awaiting further comment on specific questions.
By Mike on Jan 28, 2010
There are several million google search results for “golden shower” which I don’t believe is defined under classification guidelines.
I believe the word is slang for urination over another person presumably for sexual satisfaction.
This is from YouTube and appears to be satirical – no doubt funny and appears to be staged – water from a bottle no doubt BUT under the guidelines it WOULD be Refused Classification and banned leading possibly to a purge on related YouTube material as I note several others of the same ilk appear in the Google and YouTube search results.
It is arguably non sexual as YouTube prohibit explicit sexual content.
Golden Shower Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owB6SAVo1uI
not marked as offensive or suitable only for adults by the YouTube community over. It has 130,000 views and has been rated 4 stars by 47 people.
It would be blocked and make it’s way to Conroy’s blacklist if the filter legislation goes ahead. It’s obviously not intended to be a pornographic video.
Bob
By Bob Bain on Jan 28, 2010
My housemate wore a 12D (USA 34D) at age 13.
This ‘appears to be under 18′ nonsense can’t possibly have a basis in reality. This is the reason why US porn websites are required to keep a proof of age statement on file for all models.
By weez on Jan 28, 2010
That girl in The Abyss was pretty flat chested and you see her boobs, better ban that film to be safe.
Also that boy in Water World looked sort of like a girl, that should be banned too. After all, if looking underage even when you’re an adult is an offense, then it only stands to reason that guys who look really girly should be a violation as well!
By M on Jan 28, 2010
I find this article to be disingenuous at best. Really. They aren’t banning small boobs. They are banning images/films/etc of adult females dressed up to look far younger i.e. your school girl/lolita pedo crap.
I suppose English comprehension lessons are beyond your budget? Or are you just driving up website hits of 14 year olds looking for bewbs?
By Dread on Jan 28, 2010
Australia Australia what are you all doing over there? First the video games and now this… I remember ya’ll being the land of no law and parties all the time. Why are ya’ll pussifying ya’lls self here lately?
By Aeikozz on Jan 28, 2010
What happened, Australia? You used to be cool.
By The USA on Jan 28, 2010
Dread, I’m assuming you have a sauce to verify your allegations? If so, showing them would be much appreciated.
By Dan on Jan 28, 2010
Dread: “I find this article to be disingenuous at best. Really. They aren’t banning small boobs. They are banning images/films/etc of adult females dressed up to look far younger i.e. your school girl/lolita pedo crap.”
So school girl uniforms are next on the chopping block?
You also seem to thoroughly miss the point of why, “pedo crap”, as you articulated it, is, or at least should be, banned: actual child porn represents a breach of human rights. Namely, the right to consent. It’s also the proliferation of, to put it mildly, ill-gotten goods: material obtained as a result of an egregious crime.
What you’re talking about is little more civilised or mature than spite. Over-18 women who consent to appear in pornography are not being abused. The only excuse you could cook up for banning this material, is to spite people we find distasteful. No one is protected. No positive outcome is achieved. No wrong is righted but by-jolly, it feels good! …until we realise that we’ve cut off our nose, to spite our own face, needlessly sexualised all child behaviour and portrayal, and given stead to an archaic and arbitrary censorship regime, to see it well into the 21st century.
By Icaria on Jan 29, 2010
They aren’t banning small boobs. They are banning images/films/etc of adult females dressed up to look far younger i.e. your school girl/lolita pedo crap.
In every normal country with a normal Constitution equally aged adults have equal rights. What you are saying is that if an adult woman aged 18 looks a little bit younger she shouldn’t take photos. This is a basic violation of human rights.
By European on Jan 29, 2010
So why are golden showers RC anyway?
By Анонимныйо on Jan 29, 2010
Dread is obviously one of those who holds the view “If I personally find something objectionable, then it should be prohibited for everyone”. The Schoolgirl/Lolita fetish seems to be one of the more prevalent (as evidenced by the presence of several “Barely Legal” and similarly titled publications at mu local newsagents (I’m an “Over 60″ reader myself, but that a whole other story)). It is purely anecdotal, but it is assumed in some quarters that legitimate child/women (women over 18 years of age who look younger) can, via their appearance in adult publications and within the sex industry, provide a channel for the desires of those whose sexual impulse tend towards that body form. Thus they serve to protect actual children, who, to be perfectly honest, seem to spend a lot of time trying to look older than they actually are and dress like skanks.
By Steve on Jan 29, 2010
Keira Knightley, anyone? She has some of the smallest boobies in Hollywood. Does that mean we can no longer watch her movies?
Yo Kevin Rudd, just because you can speak Manderin doesn’t make this country China.
Did I not hear recently on the news that, in terms of tourism, more people are leaving Australia than they are coming in? I wonder why…
By rage on Jan 29, 2010
Thus they serve to protect actual children, who, to be perfectly honest, seem to spend a lot of time trying to look older than they actually are and dress like skanks.
By Steve on Jan 29, 2010
That’s actually my biggest gripe over the paedophilia issue. When children are trying to look older and dress skanky… and succeed in looking older, is it really the (intentional) paedophile that’s attracted?
I’ve been pointing out the ridiculousness of some of the strips of cloth that’s being worn by under 18s (think Supre outlets) and people don’t wonder…
By Sansha on Jan 29, 2010
Disgusting. So women with small breasts are undeveloped and look like children? This is just outrageous.
Fuck this patriarchal, ignorant government. I’m moving to Europe.
By Esw on Jan 29, 2010
“They are banning images/films/etc of adult females dressed up to look far younger i.e. your school girl/lolita pedo crap.”
Which is, as I have said elsewhere, effectively instituting thought crime.
It doesn’t matter how pure your motives are – you are talking about putting into law a division between thoughts that people are allowed to think and thoughts that people are not allowed to think.
This is, of course, before we get into the fact that the law won’t even help its intended beneficiaries: studies suggest access to pornography decreases sexual assault, and that the less access a given population has to porn, the more rapes are committed.
By moritheil on Jan 29, 2010
Well, my wife is a big time squirter, so if I were to watch porn, that is the only type I would be interested in!
Glad I don’t live in that horrific little former penal colony!
By Lucky Asshole on Jan 29, 2010
Further proof that breast size is irrelevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traci_Lords
By Anon on Jan 29, 2010
I wonder how this will effect the Australian pornographic industries. Will women with smaller breasts lose their jobs simply because they lose Australia as a market?
The really ironic thing I find in all this is the simple fact that women who look young but aren’t, can probably help fulfil a paedophiles fantasy without the need for them to resort to downloading or even producing actual child pornography. So in theory, this action will force paedophiles into a corner resulting in them downloading actually illegal material, which gives more standing to those who support Australian Internet Censorship.
Then there’s the people who just aren’t really into large breasted women.
Between the lack of R ratings for games, unnecessary bans on (although most likely distasteful) legal pornographic fetishes, a proposed internet filter (that really is absurdly pointless if a user knows -anything- about the internet) and completely outrageous prices for even more outrageously capped internet, I seriously wonder how long we can retain any thoughts of actual freedom.
How long until the nation wide curfew banning everyone from being on the streets of a town/city after midnight?
By Tiberath on Jan 30, 2010
As someone that works in the hospitality industry and has to regularly ID people who look like they are possibly underage, I can tell you that it’s next to impossible. 25-year-olds can look sixteen. And this relates to depictions of sexuality how? They’re overage, you give them a drink. They’re overage, they’re allowed to make adult decisions. THEY’RE OVERAGE, STOP MAKING ADULT DECISIONS FOR ADULTS THIS IS A SLIDE TOWARDS NANNY-STATE INITIATIVES. This entire concept is idiotic and overly conservative. If you don’t like the heat, stay off the internet.
By tsholl on Jan 30, 2010
Australia delivers a great GB2KITCHEN. You women better learn how to have giant breasts (and cook) or you’ll lose your shoe privileges and have to walk to the market barefoot.
By Anon1893 on Jan 30, 2010
I don’t think they’ve gone far enough. How dare anyone start wanting such things. They need to start censoring real life too. Any personal ads or escorts that might offer these services or have small breasts to consenting adults must be blocked, and we also need police finding people who might want to sleep with women who look under 18 anywhere just in case. Can’t be too careful.
By illhp on Jan 30, 2010
Holy shit! Am I allowed to say that? Or does that make my comment RC?
So I started a website about how the sex hysteria in the U.S. has gotten completely out of hand, but now I’m finding that the U.S. is the definition of freedom compared to Australia. This is just plain scary because, if Australia goes the way of China, Iran, and North Korea, the U,S, will think it’s ok to follow in your footsteps (“See, other western democracies are filtering the internet, so it must be ok!”).
Good luck guys. I feel your pain.
By Dave Krueger on Jan 31, 2010
Government and other groups are naive if they think they can control our thoughts and change instinctive behaviour, it’s just not gonna happen. Next all men will be lining up for shock treatment.
Small breasts to a man means youth, youth means healthy, healthy means a greater chance to bare children successfully. This thinking is hard-wired into the brain (a biological necessity) and should not be a cause for arrest, otherwise arrest all men, ban them from sex and watch the human race die out.
The laws in place are already going out of their way to protect our young. They are not natural (puberty starts around 13), or historically proven, nor do all countries adhere to the 18 year old threshold, but they are accepted here, with no real proof they benefit society (they create inhibited, masterbation-loving adults AFAIK), but we err on the side of caution, and that’s perfectly acceptable to most men.
I think some people have forgotten this in their push to further control porn in this country. If an adult molests a child, arrest him and prosecute, but if he jerks off to a small breast 18 year old, leave him alone – are you kidding me!
Here’s a sample debate on the issue of lowering the age of consent – make up your own mind: http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=299 . Personally I think this country is in desperate need of this debate, or at least a seminar on why the emergence of the internet is not an excuse to circumvent due process and basic human rights.
By b1_ on Feb 1, 2010
Whooooooooo boy… I’m looking forward to hearing the answer to that one! I don’t think even gynaecologists can decide if female ejaculate is acually pee or not
)
By progcunt on Feb 1, 2010
Well, damn. My dreams of becoming a small-breasted porn star have been crushed…I guess I’d better waste a few thou on implants, instead of appreciating my present body type. Breast cancer risks be damned.
COME ON, Australia.
I guess shaved pubes will be banned, too. Oh, and there probably won’t be any more short porn stars, either. Nope. And none of these women should be enjoying themselves, either–female ejaculation? What? Women are supposed to be demure, quiet creatures who make their husbands sandwiches on demand!
In FACT, women shouldn’t even be given a right to their own opinions!
Get back into the kitchen, wench!
By EmKay on Feb 1, 2010
They should also have a height restriction, because surely porn actors who have a hight comparable to that of children will only serve to turn all people into child rapists!
and hey, this is as much of an insult to men as it is to women, they must think we’re just sheep that follow our own cocks if they honestly think seeing a flat chested woman is going to make us want to assault those underage, or support those actions through viewing such material.
ugh…
By I live in Australia (feels bad man) on Feb 2, 2010
“Sorry, miss. I realize your birth certificate says you’re 18, but you have highly underdeveloped breasts. I’m afraid you’re not allowed to vote.”
By Immi on Feb 11, 2010
This whole ‘appears to be’ clause has big implications because once it is established, where will it stop?
For one, it could go through all roleplay or ‘dressing up’ scenes. Nuns uniform? Appears to be disrespectful and offensive to those of a religious view. Police uniform? Appears to be undermining positions of authority. Overweight? Appears to be encouraging obesity.
Sounds ridiculous? Well, so does discrimination of a woman based on her breast size. Once one campaign by deluded individuals takes a hold, watch all the other campaigns start.
Sart
By Sart on Feb 14, 2010
Does australia have a supreme court that can overturn this crap?
By kyo on Feb 28, 2010
Another daft thing with the small brests law is that most women with small breasts over 18 clearly look different to pre-teens, and to be honest it doesn’t matter how much you dress them up and try and make them look younger it’s still easy to tell. Same goes for shaved girls, although that would be quite an issue as it’s so common in porn. Telling if a girl is over 18 or a few years under is another issue, but has nothing to do with breasts or hairyness or anything like that. There are as many under 18s with big breasts as there are over 18s with small breasts. I’m sure the vast majority of men who like girls with small breasts would never consider having sex with a child, just legal girls with small breasts. They also would be no more likely to have sex with a 15 year old with small breasts than someone who likes big breasts would be to have sex with a 15 year old with big breasts (or make advances on a 15 year old with smaller breasts but wearing a padded bra).
By Chris on Jul 19, 2010