Oh, Dear: Australian Censorship Board Demands Porn Contain Only Large-Breasted Women

I actually got this tip a while back, but I didn't really believe it. Then I checked, and it seemed real enough, but I still didn't really believe it.

The theory? That small-breasted women tend to be used for supposed "underage" porn and so "encourage" pedophilia.

So women with A-cups aren't to appear in porn.

The Board has also started to ban depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. This is in response to a campaign led by Kids Free 2 B Kids and promoted by Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett in Senate Estimates late last year. Mainstream companies such as Larry Flint's Hustler produce some of the publications that have been banned. These companies are regulated by the FBI to ensure that only adult performers are featured in their publications. "We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size", she said. "It may be an unintended consequence of the Senator's actions but they are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in Australian adult magazines of late".

Well, thank goodness that large-breasted women will finally start getting their proper due in pornography.

Notice we get ever further away from the thing that we started out prohibiting. First, obviously, sex with kids was illegal -- no objections on that score.

Then pornography featuring kids was illegal -- still no objections on that score.

Then... Okay, they started banning porn featuring adult-but-youngish women pretending to be underage. Okay... yeah, I kinda see what you're doing there, but you're now making it illegal to do legal things on the ground that it "encourages" something illegal. With this step we've now moved from protecting genuine direct victims to speculative indirect victims. Those victims probably exist, true, but we really don't know how many or how strong the "encouragement" is.

And now... adult women with A-cup breasts just flat-out can't be in porn.

It's not like anyone can really throw a big-ass objection to this, because, like, who cares? It affects like 100-200 women, tops, and it doesn't affect them much; women in specialty fetish type videos don't make a lot of videos and don't get paid much so really the porn is just to supplement their actual bills-paying profession of prostitution. This is not a big enough of sympathetic enough group to get some kind of lobby behind them.

But little by little, just because they know no one's going to object, they continue gnawing at the edges of freedom, or, if that seems too lofty a word for this shabby situation, fine -- they gnaw at the limits of legal human action.

And there's a good reason to limit human action, but then, they always have a good reason to limit human action. They have all the time in the world to think of good reasons to limit human action; that's what they're paid to do, in fact. If they're not in some way restricting someone's freedom, they're not doing their jobs, now are they?

But again, you can't really make a big thing of it, because really, who wants to go on record as having a big emotional attachment to kinda-sorta pedophile-ish porn?

But one day, they will come for the Busty Lesbians; and as the old poem goes, when they come for the Busty Lesbians, no one will cry out, because there was no one left.

Thanks to Matt, via The Galley Slaves.

posted by Ace at 02:54 PM

| Access Comments