Comments on: Classification Board squirms over vagina censorship in this Hungry Beast interview

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 17 May 2011 09:26:26 +0000

Typical of women, venting their insecurities onto their society and crying oppression. If censorship laws state that the inner labia is too much to show in MA15+ then women with larger labia will of course have more difficulty in showing the same depicted poses. There should be more mediums for people to see what a vagina really looks like agreed, but don’t expect to look like a model in a magazine, whether it’s a porn or fashion mag. I certainly wouldn’t expect people to listen to me whinge about not having a six pack or foot long penis. These magazines show us fantasy, and I’m sorry girls but for many men a neat vagina is ideal, of course we won’t turn away from one with more protrusion but small labia/clitoris look nicer. This is like listening to a fat person complain about not seeing fat people in modelling shoots and blaming censorship for it. I hope the Australian censorship board change many things about their prehistoric standards, but I don’t want to see fat people or ugly genitals in my porn. Good day!

By: NudeMuse

NudeMuse — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 04:44:19 +0000

I think it is very wrong to censor the human body. Any censorship of the human body sends a clear signal that our bodies (the very thing we live in our entire life) is wrong.

No bureaucrat or government body can tell me or anyone else for that matter, that their bodies are vile, disgusting or wrong. If it is law, then it is an unjust law and must be changed or removed.

As a photographer who specialises in photographing the nude, I know the power of letting people see how beautiful they are, just by being themselves. No matter their size, race, age (or even labia size), everyone is beautiful and everyone is perfect as they were born.

We are in the 21st century, but still feels like the 1800′s so many ways for women’s issues. Then there is the whole “women can’t be without their tops in public like men can” issue. Apparently just being a woman is obscene in the eyes of the law, censorship boards and their ilk.

By: damien

damien — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:49:42 +0000

Why is it that penis’s (both erect and flaccid) can get shown on PG, yet vagina’s or labia majora’s can’t even be shown with a R rating. It’s no wonder women in Australia have hangups about their bodies. It’s because we bow to the femininazi’s and tell all women that their beavers are evil.

By: phil

phil — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:45:25 +0000

Wow, no wonder this is such a confusing issue. The guy being interviewed is completely clueless as to what can be approved. What a drip.

Overall this is so disturbing. What on earth is wrong with our bodies? Nothing!

By: James

James — Thu, 27 May 2010 03:18:30 +0000

>>Womyn

Agreed, the first instance of this term being used resulted in me failing to take the author seriously.

‘Man’ was originally designated as a gender neutral term for a human being, with ‘werman’ and ‘wifman’ being the masculine and feminine versions of this word (Old Germanic)

Over time, the ‘were’ was dropped out of linguistic evolution but the ‘wif’ was kept. Given the twists and turns the English language has miraculously taken over its long and colorful history, I have no doubt that this had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with overarching misogynistic conspiracy, but was just a thing of chance.

Ironically, to change “man” into “myn” you are only removing the term “human” from the word, not the masculine connotation which in this context is already absent from the linguistic structure.

Ergo, the word “womyn” as an alternative to “woman” is about as ill-conceived as the very censorship policies this article was set up to criticise. Way to score an own goal.

On a more relevant note, this video was very moving and im surprised its taken me this long to find it. Thanks for sharing!

By: Erin

Erin — Sat, 15 May 2010 09:42:51 +0000

As a woman and a bisexual woman i feel really strongly about this as i have had first hand experience with how damaging this can be on how woman feel about their bodies. When i started sleeping with women i realised how uncomfortable they were with their anatomy because of the depictions they come face to face with in daily life.
When women are seeing these pictures and the anatomy looks like designer vagina’s they start to worry about why theirs don’t look like that and it can damage their own sexual self esteem.
They don’t realise that before airbrushing a lot of these women would’ve looked like them.

I also know there is a lot of talk about whats a “right” vagina and whats a “wrong” vagina and whether people have “innies” or “outties” and i think all this stems from these sorts of photographs.
All vagina’s are normal no matter what they look like, sure some people may have preferences but my school of thought on that is if you don’t like it don’t look at it! Because someone out there will think that women is beautiful even when she isn’t airbrushed.

By: Allan Burn

Allan Burn — Tue, 04 May 2010 08:48:35 +0000

This sort of censorship has can a very damaging effect on woman.

Since many of the magazines are busy trying to keep the censors happy, they deliberately choose models with small and neat labia, which is not too visible and “offensive”. As a result, it has created a fashion, which has, as a consequence, lead a lot of woman to have unnecessary surgery.

So the censors are, by their actions promoting plastic surgery.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:32:57 +0000

>Womyn.

Stopped reading right there. The moment THAT term comes into play is when all your arguments go down the drain.

By: European

European — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:57:43 +0000

It’s clear enough to me that this ill-conceived government policy is discriminatory against women with anything other than picture perfect, child-like genitalia. While it’s unlikely that many women will base their judgement on magazines like this, you can be sure that many/most men do. I would not be surprised if this policy generates serious mental trauma “down under”.

By: AileenWuornosistoolazytologin

AileenWuornosistoolazytologin — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:11:27 +0000

“I’ve posed the question before to those who want R18+ magazines banned; how in hell are young people supposed to know what female genitalia is supposed to look like?”

Uh, maybe education, maybe learning to treat womyn like human beings and maybe pornographic materials aren’t a good place to learn about womyn?

Still though, it fucking pisses me off how fucking inconsistent with this shit they are. How the fuck did this government get in? Oh wait, they were the lesser of two evils.