Australia Bans Small Breasts In Porn (52)

The words silver lining and cloud spring to mind, maybe not for me but at least for you

Seems it's to 'prevent' pedophiles from getting a glimpse?

"The supposedly free country of Australia bans porn with small-breasted women in it out of fear that pedophiles would watch it."

Mind blowing, insensative, stupid - etc etc

A bit like blowing a whistle one minute before a suprise attack.

Doh - am lost for (polite) words actually.

:o

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Bloody Satnav
A strictly mathematic god marks out the universe with rule and line, but I, myself, am bloody odd and cannot fit to His design. (std disclaimer)

Sorry, I wasn't too clear about the connection. It seems to me that more and more people are embracing irrationality, whether it be fundamentalist religion, conspiracy theories or predictions about the end of the world. I do agree with you about liberal Anglicanism; it is probably the most rational of the Christian religions.

titchfield wrote: FatAlbert wrote: visualize wrote: Fuck. The world has truly gone mad I used to think that Australia looked a nice place to live, but it seems their government is going insane even faster than the American and British ones. I am running out of English speaking countries where I would rather live, which, although it saves on emigration costs, is not a good thing. There's an english-speaking land just over the North Sea where tolerance and diversity are celebrated - Holland. Sadly, no mountains.... Except that they've got Gert van Wilders on trial at the moment thus impinging his right to free speech.

There's free speech and there's going a bit too far. Like suggesting a tax on headscarves (WTF? what about the catholic nuns...) But yeah, overall tolerance and diversity is celebrated the same as in the UK. We have rows about pedo pro/con websites, PC gone mad brigades, extremely religious people who insist on having an archaeology report amended because it claims its findings are from a time before the world existed according to them.

Just because a large proportion of Dutch people have learned more than one language to a reasonable standard, allows certain forms of brothels to exist (and they're being clamped down on rather badly) and we have relative relaxed attitudes to the use of cannabis (again, rules are tightened all the time and coffee shops closed down) doesn't make it quite as liberal or tolerant as you make out. We too have youths attacking busdrivers or random shootings in city centres, it's just not as bad (yet?) as it seems to be in some UK cities.

By the way, his name is Geert Wilders, no 'van' there.

ETA banning small tits in porn is ridiculous IMO - although I appreciate some people perceive there to be a link between small breasted underage looking 'teen' porn and pedo porn. In other words, the women should look like they are women/adults and not borderline teens.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” - George Orwell

Edited 30 Jan 10, 1:40 PM by MissKimberley

People over 18 are still being banned based on their appearance, and that still includes a judgement on their breast size.

---

I also think there's (another) slippery slope here. Pedophilia means an attraction towards preadolescences. We set the age of consent at 16-18 (I think 18 is unnecessarily high myself, and it's also mad to have 18 for an image, but 16 for the real thing, but that's another matter) not because all such acts are necessarily pedophilia, but to make sure that all borderline cases are caught. So there's already more than enough room for uncertainty.

But now we have people saying "Well, this person might look like someone who's 17 years old". And so we get the law made even more broader.

If we are going to concern ourselves with appearances (which I generally disagree with anyway), then for heaven's sake, the criterion should be whether they look like a _child_ in the proper sense of the word, i.e., preadolescent.

Furthermore, the reason we pick a fixed age for age of consent is because, despite the drawbacks, it is an objective thing you can test and prove. But you can't test "How old does someone look like", so a test on whether someone looks over a fixed age is a poor test. (This is even more true with unrealistic images, so will be a problem for the UK's new law that now criminalises all such images.) If the Government is worried about whether they look like preadolescent children, rather than whether they are under a certain age, why is it worried about someone who looks under 17? Indeed, if we accepted the claim that people will be attracted to things if they see porn of it, surely it's good if pedophiles become attracted to people who look 16-17, and young women with small breasts, rather than children?

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Edited 30 Jan 10, 2:03 PM by emark

I think I'll be staying away from Australia.

You can control her only as well as you can read her

Let's all take some personal responsibility around here...

Society either needs to man up or give up...

Rxx

to those that understand, no explaination is needed, to those that dont understand, no explaination is possible