Australia bans small boobed chicks in porn

[Winnb]

This is a cause for concern.....

Oh man...

Now I'm hungry. And horny.

 

[reefedjib]

Small tits and big nipples is what does it for me. I only have two hands and one mouth! I do hope the Australians don't think that means I like prepubescent teenagers. Breast size has nothing to do with age.

 

[Antagony]

Patrick Henry and I disagree that protecting freedom is more important than protecting safety. And this isn't just about the right to view or produce such pictures, it is also about the right of an 18 year old woman to appear in them who happens to look young.

Oh yeah, the rights of young women are notoriously upheld diligently by the pornography industry... give me a break!

How can something look younger than it is anyways? If an 18 year old looks 15 to you then you need to update your perception of what 18 year olds look like. The calendar isn't wrong, public perception is.

What a load of crap! First of all, who said anything about a calendar? The pictures I saw were just a bunch of regular photograph-sized prints, and they were a good deal more graphic than any calendar I've ever seen. Secondly, appearances can be extremely deceptive when it comes to age. I should know, as I never had any trouble getting served alcohol from age 16 onward, but my older sister was regularly refused until her mid 20s (the age limit is 18 here in the UK).

Saying it's "perception" that's wrong is just plain ridiculous. The fact is some women look a hell of a lot younger than their age and they are keenly sought after by the seedier side of sex industries, in order to cater to men who have particular tastes. You and your posting buddies can equivocate all you want about whose rights are being abused; or what is the intention of those making this revolting stuff; or whether it's only in the eye of the beholder; the truth is that a great deal of pornography is made with women intentionally made to look under-aged. And I for one applaud the Australian government for at least attempting to address this sick trade.

 

[reefedjib]

the truth is that a great deal of pornography is made with women intentionally made to look under-aged.

That may be the case but it is also true that most women in general have less than average sized breasts.

 

[Winnb]

That may be the case but it is also true that most women in general have less than average sized breasts.

Wait a minute, wouldn't only half the women have breasts under the average size? I mean we're talking "average" here...

I think this is more than I've ever discussed breasts. I said "discussed", not thought about.

 

[Antagony]

That may be the case but it is also true that most women in general have less than average sized breasts.

It's already been established that breast size alone is not the issue. Women can be completely flat chested in porn as long as they don't look under-age.

 

[reefedjib]

Wait a minute, wouldn't only half the women have breasts under the average size? I mean we're talking "average" here...

I think this is more than I've ever discussed breasts. I said "discussed", not thought about.

We have a winner!! Right away as well. Nothing about breasts escape you, do they?

 

[reefedjib]

It's already been established that breast size alone is not the issue. Women can be completely flat chested in porn as long as they don't look under-age.

How the hell are they supposed to figure that out!? A simple ID check is what I propose. We could require state licensing of porn stars!

 

[Winnb]

We have a winner!! Right away as well. Nothing about breasts escape you, do they?

Damn.

And no.

 

[Antagony]

How the hell are they supposed to figure that out!? A simple ID check is what I propose. We could require state licensing of porn stars!

It said in the article that each case is reviewed individually. But in any event, it's not about whether IDs or birth certificates can be produced, it's about whether the material could be mistaken as child porn.

Look, it is really not that difficult to make a skinny, young-looking 18 year-old appear 13 or younger. Are you really comfortable with pornography that is technically legal but featuring girls who could be mistaken for being that young? That's what's at issue here.

 

[reefedjib]

It said in the article that each case is reviewed individually. But in any event, it's not about whether IDs or birth certificates can be produced, it's about whether the material could be mistaken as child porn.

Look, it is really not that difficult to make a skinny, young-looking 18 year-old appear 13 or younger. Are you really comfortable with pornography that is technically legal but featuring girls who could be mistaken for being that young? That's what's at issue here.

I guess all I can say is that while I am not comfortable with it - it is certainly not in my taste - I am not sure it should be illegal.

 

[AgentM]

Did you read the article? It's nothing to do with feminists, it's anti-child porn legislation--which has been in place for over five years BTW--that is now being challenged by an anti-censorship lobby.

Winnb already kindly responded to this for me.

 

[Tsunami]

What a load of crap! First of all, who said anything about a calendar? The pictures I saw were just a bunch of regular photograph-sized prints, and they were a good deal more graphic than any calendar I've ever seen. Secondly, appearances can be extremely deceptive when it comes to age. I should know, as I never had any trouble getting served alcohol from age 16 onward, but my older sister was regularly refused until her mid 20s (the age limit is 18 here in the UK).

Saying it's "perception" that's wrong is just plain ridiculous. The fact is some women look a hell of a lot younger than their age and they are keenly sought after by the seedier side of sex industries, in order to cater to men who have particular tastes. You and your posting buddies can equivocate all you want about whose rights are being abused; or what is the intention of those making this revolting stuff; or whether it's only in the eye of the beholder; the truth is that a great deal of pornography is made with women intentionally made to look under-aged. And I for one applaud the Australian government for at least attempting to address this sick trade.

You don't get it. You cannot look younger than your age. Your age doesn't change because you put your hair in pigtails. You're still the same age. You are always your age. If you think someone looks younger than 18 years old, but they are 18 years old, then you are wrong. Your perception needs to change, because you can't argue with the passing of time. If you think a certain style of dress should be restricted to underage girls then make a law against wearing underage clothing, not against a certain body type.

 

[Antagony]

You don't get it. You cannot look younger than your age. Your age doesn't change because you put your hair in pigtails. You're still the same age. You are always your age. If you think someone looks younger than 18 years old, but they are 18 years old, then you are wrong. Your perception needs to change, because you can't argue with the passing of time. If you think a certain style of dress should be restricted to underage girls then make a law against wearing underage clothing, not against a certain body type.

No, I get what you're saying perfectly well, and I say again: it's a load of crap! This is all about appearances and you know it. Some people have medical conditions which prevent them from ageing properly--making them look like children their entire lives--are you going to tell me they don't look any younger than their age? This is so obvious it's almost flabbergasting that you continue to argue against it: the childlike appearance of these women is what sells the materials featuring them; nothing else! And no amount of equivocatory bull**** from the likes of you is going to persuade me that it's my "perception" that's at fault here.

 

[spud_meister]

i think that if they're 18, they should be allowed, if some people get off over a child-like 18 year old, i think it's better than them getting off over someone who is younger than 18

 

[samsmart]

In all seriousness, I think that this is a slippery slope that will eventually lead the Australian government to nationalize the pornography industry because of the subjectivity of their pornography laws.

 

[Tsunami]

No, I get what you're saying perfectly well, and I say again: it's a load of crap! This is all about appearances and you know it. Some people have medical conditions which prevent them from ageing properly--making them look like children their entire lives--are you going to tell me they don't look any younger than their age? This is so obvious it's almost flabbergasting that you continue to argue against it: the childlike appearance of these women is what sells the materials featuring them; nothing else! And no amount of equivocatory bull**** from the likes of you is going to persuade me that it's my "perception" that's at fault here.

There is no medical condition that prevents people from aging. There might be some that prevent puberty or breast development, but the person still gets older. A person's appearance doesn't affect their ability to give informed consent. There is no difference between the mentality of a voluptuous woman or one with a more waif-like figure. The purpose of child pornography laws is to protect children from being exploited. There is no similar danger to these women.

Some men are attracted to flat-chested women, or to midgets, and if they are over the age of consent it would be discriminatory to deny these two groups the right to pose for adult photographs. Furthermore, the government cannot tell a person what is attractive to them. If men like this kind of thing it is a natural inclination that nothing is going to change. Making these images illegal violates the rights of all of these groups and does nothing to protect anyone.

This doesn't prevent actual child pornography. If anything, it makes it more likely to occur. The market for such pictures is still there, but the reason for dressing up an 18 year old as a child is gone. If they are both illegal, you might as well use a real child. And if the people who do get off on these images are unable to satisfy their longing they will be more likely to seek it out in other ways. Pornography doesn't create sexual urges, hormones do. Sexual urges create pornography, not the other way around.

 

[Tashah]

What's banned next? 18 year old shaved vagina's? :shrug:

 

[Gardener]

What's banned next? 18 year old shaved vagina's? :shrug:

and have the backbone of the whole internet collapse?

 

[Rassales]

No, I get what you're saying perfectly well, and I say again: it's a load of crap! This is all about appearances and you know it. Some people have medical conditions which prevent them from ageing properly--making them look like children their entire lives--are you going to tell me they don't look any younger than their age? This is so obvious it's almost flabbergasting that you continue to argue against it: the childlike appearance of these women is what sells the materials featuring them; nothing else! And no amount of equivocatory bull**** from the likes of you is going to persuade me that it's my "perception" that's at fault here.

I don't think it's perception but reasoning that makes this difference of opinion. The question is really about the reasoning behind the proscription of people under 18 from appearing in pornography. One side suggests its because we don't want to encourage the (mostly) men who are attracted to under 18s. The other says the reason is to prevent under 18s from being exploited.

The problem I have with the first argument is that its logical extension is the prohibition of ALL pornography. After all, if its legal for an adult to allow herself to be photographed naked for money, then restrictions about WHICH adults are allowed to do this doesn't make sense.

If the problem is the image itself, the next question becomes "Why is image X harmful?" If the harm isn't to the person in the photo, what IS the harm? I think that whatever harm comes from the depiction of woman "A" in a photo must also come from the depiction of ANY woman. The opponents of pornography generally make the same arguments--that pornography degrades women in the eyes of those who look at it and therefore harms all women.

I don't really see the difference between objecting to small-breasted women in pornographic photos and objecting to ALL women in pornographic photos.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The purpose of child pornography laws is to protect children from being exploited. There is no similar danger to these women.

The purpose of child pornography laws is, as you say, to protect children from being exploited. The law that we are discussing here also serves that purpose, because it stops commercial pornographers from normalizing and thus encouraging sexual attraction to girls without secondary sex characteristics. There's no danger to the actresses in these films, but there is still a danger to society.

The market for such pictures is still there, but the reason for dressing up an 18 year old as a child is gone. If they are both illegal, you might as well use a real child.

The market for such pictures was never people attracted to children in the first place-- because if a person is attracted to prepubescent children, pictures of an 18 year old dressed up to look 13 aren't suitable. The market for those pictures is people of relatively normal sexuality who are looking for forbidden fruit. Catering to those desires only encourages them and helps convince consumers that they are normal and acceptable.

Pornography doesn't create sexual urges, hormones do. Sexual urges create pornography, not the other way around.

Hormones may create sexual urges, but pornography conditions their expression. People can only learn to crave what they have already been exposed to.

 

[Rassales]

The purpose of child pornography laws is, as you say, to protect children from being exploited. The law that we are discussing here also serves that purpose, because it stops commercial pornographers from normalizing and thus encouraging sexual attraction to girls without secondary sex characteristics. There's no danger to the actresses in these films, but there is still a danger to society.



The market for such pictures was never people attracted to children in the first place-- because if a person is attracted to prepubescent children, pictures of an 18 year old dressed up to look 13 aren't suitable. The market for those pictures is people of relatively normal sexuality who are looking for forbidden fruit. Catering to those desires only encourages them and helps convince consumers that they are normal and acceptable.



Hormones may create sexual urges, but pornography conditions their expression. People can only learn to crave what they have already been exposed to.

Again, I would suggest this is an argument against pornography generally, since by your argument pornography conditions its viewers to all kind of sexual expression that have nothing whatever to do with healthy interpersonal relationships. There is, I suppose, pornography that encourages warmth, humor, interdependence and intimacy, but it doesn't sell well.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

What's wit hthe Autrailian government and sex?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Again, I would suggest this is an argument against pornography generally, since by your argument pornography conditions its viewers to all kind of sexual expression that have nothing whatever to do with healthy interpersonal relationships.

That would follow, since I do make similar arguments against pornography generally.

What's wit hthe Autrailian government and sex?

Pornography isn't sex.

 

[jamesrage]

Australia's 'small breast' ban - THE WEEK

:rofl

Ha ha ha Its a good thing I am not into itty bitty titty chicks. But seriously this is the stupidest idea I have ever heard for combating child porn. What next ban over developed minors from ever modeling?