I thought this was a spoof/satirical article when I read it this morning. Now it has been reproduced here.
The proposed Australian Government clampdown on smut just got a whole lot broader, as news emerged of a ban on small breasts and female ejaculation in adult material. The end result of this widening of the censor’s net could be the addition of millions of websites to the internet filter now being proposed. Breasts came under …
I thought this was a spoof/satirical article when I read it this morning. Now it has been reproduced here.
Because i am completly speechless !!!
I was considering emmigrating to Oz when I finish my degree, but I can see you Ozzies are fast falling in to a Stalin-ist state, where you will have to confirm that your prospective partner has breasts of sufficient size in order to avoid being accused of imagining she was 12.
Banning small breasts? What's next, banning small cocks because they promote paedophilia.
What a load of *$*$*$**$*!
WTF? - For obvious reasons.
This will never be a problem for me, my wife is an ample G cup :D
I know they say more than a handful is a waste... but it really isn't ;)
On a more serious note, surely banning pictures of women with small breasts would be illegal because it would prevent these models from getting work.
Is this a (bizarre/backward) form of discrimination against the less well endowed female? Or at least an insult to their femininity by these politicians?
Some men like smaller breasted women. Does that make them all paedos?
(Me, I like 'em all :)
Paris, as she might be banned under this legislation.
If I marry a woman with small breasts, does that also make me a paedophile, even if she's 34?
I doubt such a law could stand in Europe, if seriously challenged, as it would be seen as restricting a persons right to work or, at the very least, discrimination against the differently abled.
Asian women have traditionally had smaller breasts than their occidental counterparts. I'd have thought the Ozies would have been more sensitive to their nabours.
34A or 34DD ?
you know your readership. Of all the non-IT can-u-believe it stories out there, you offer us the information that the Australian censors require their population to look at large breasts and avoid squirties. Thanks for the heads-up on this
... where the only por allowed would be doing it / seing it done with kangaroos in the bushes (as dangerous as that may be, if the roo's not in the mood...)
what else would you expect it to do?
That will be all.
I doubt it, perhaps you missed the other meaning of the prefix "lol"
Does this mean women less than a certain size will be banned from disrobing on the beaches ?
Is there going to be a "Police" check to ensure only women above a certain cup size can take their tops off?
Where do I apply ?
big shock, I expect similar legislation over here in the UK, no small boobs and no shaved vagoo! That'll be my j-pronz collection out the window! I remember jocking about drawn porn 3 years ago, oh how I laugh at myself now for my magical powers!
Soon no girls on tv unless they have massive baps, all woman with flat chest will require boob jobs and all children and teenagers will need to wear sacks so we can't be perverted by their obsenity!
The whole campaign of the two senators seems kind of like a Freudian slip to me.
That's what I rated the news item. Pretty appropriate. :-)
I too was thinking about going to Oz. Not changed my mind since they rest of country and it's attitudes are still way better than here in the UK. It's only the sexual attitudes and the rise of the Australian moral minority is probably down their hangups about being descendants of convicts and therefore they have to show that they are better than that by being goody goodies.
The problem about attacking such stupid laws is that you are then attacked in return as promoting pornography or paedophilia. However the best way is to go with the flow, but raise the stakes to the ridiculous. Campaign that since small breasts aren't allowed in film, then boob jobs should be state funded to ensure that small breasted women aren't thought as teenagers, and such like.
The alternative is to embrace Islam and ask that all women must wear a Chadoor (or even a Burka) even in hardcore pornography so that men aren't led down the wrong path.
I was also contemplating decamping to the land of the rising beach-barbie should blighty get a little _too_ 1984, but now I'm not sure where really is left.
Anyone want to join me in setting up a raffle for the chance to join the first crew riding SpaceShip Three across the gulf of the stars to set up a libertarian Mars colony?
I don't know, I thought it was a myth until I managed to get the wife to do it :-)
Bye bye Google-Oz
Is there a link for further reading on this that is on a URL less likely to get me sacked than melonfarmers ? :)
I like that you're an amazing stud but are far too modest to tell the internet about it.
"Amazing stud" is not a prerequisite. Just knowing what you're doing down there helps.
And, of course there's no substitute for practice.
"I like that you're an amazing stud but are far too modest to tell the internet about it."
Wow!!! That's all it takes to be considered an amazing stud? I thought it was par for the course, and to be honest, what you were both doing it for.
Paris, because, well, come on, surely?
While I'm not going to get involved in the argument on the difference between female ejaculation and urination, I would have though the difference between a child and an adult woman with small breasts would be clear and obvious, at least in legislative terms.
Personally, I'd find a woman with naturally small breasts far less "offensive" than one with giant, bulging implants.
AC, because apparently the above statement would make me a paedophile in Australia.
Next you'll be telling me that drawing a picture of a child-like figure in a compromising position constitutes "child exploitation". Oh, wait...
Plainly anything that *might* be construed as possibly enabling someone to imagine that someone or something else might be a child should be banned.
On this basis I demand that the makers of Star Trek: Voyager all be put on a nonce-register for titillating the pervs by saying that the plainly-adult-pretend-alien-female was in fact under 10 and sexually active. It's sickening when you think about what some pervs were thinking about when they were thinking about it.
Ban this filthy filth.
Oh, and rabbits are at it like rabbits when they're one ! *puke*
There's a huge difference between 'small' and 'immature', unless we're talking about politicians' brains, it seems.
What next, a new law about "height of consent" ?
"...possibly enabling someone to imagine that someone or something else might be a child..."
Notwithstanding the sarcasm of your post, I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. The real "crime" we're talking about here is the crime of *thinking about* inappropriate conduct with a child. Young children should be protected, but when a government starts telling you what you can and can't think, something has gone very, very wrong.
If a paedophile finds they can get their kicks by looking at adult women with small breasts and pretending they're little girls, then I'm all for it. Better that than having them pursuing actual children.
what about depictions of depilated pubic areas? Small women? Women with ponytails? Women in knee-high white socks? All images guaranteed to trigger the downward spiral of attraction to children, oh yes.
And not just the depictions, but the actual women themselves, parading about with their small breasts and seducing me into a life of paedophilia? This is entrapment, and I will not stand for it!
I have perused films including female ejaculation in the interest of science, and that shit's fucking grim. Especially when they get it all on the lens, it's like sitting in the car when it's being washed with syrup. Plus small tits are a major disappointment, wonderbras are false advertising. They should drive the small norked ones off the telly, I'm not interested in your boring "news". Out of interest, are you allowed to see people weeing on each other?
"Out of interest, are you allowed to see people weeing on each other?"
Well so far, Australia's finest export - Wet Set Magazine - hasn't been affected by any of this censorship nonsense, and it's been around a fair while now...
There's an iPad for that.
"Senator Joyce claimed that publications featuring small-breasted women were encouraging paedophilia."
...or is it just that such images induce this senator to imagine naked little girls? I think I can guess where the problem lies here.
Surely that (tenuous) anaology could be extended to models with shaven lady bits? Yet no mention of this!
What a bunch of messed up freaks!
Large mammaries might also be banned as they could be belonging to lactating women and that means there could be pictures of babies as well.
So, no pictures of anything other than the - yet to be displayed - ideal Aussie female. Everyone else must leave the cuntry as they may stir up the menfolk.
It's just so bloody two-faced, like most religions I guess.
Men are strong and tough, women are weak and need protection.
Big tough strong men are unable to have any self-control near women and are unable to have any discourse with women unless it's of the 'inter' type.
The usual result -- it's all the fault of women and in this case the boobs are too big, too small, too whatever and it all seems to be led by the personal fantasies of a few blokes who get a stiffy even looking at pics of Mother Theresa.
No more looking at pictures of the original Aussies, either as thier baps will be out - unless we can get back to the old colonial ways and go all National Geographic.
Major fail for deffo
"Everyone else must leave the cuntry "
This ejaculation issue strikes me as one that is not being fought as well as it might. The censors have been playing the grown-up science card.
That is, they have managed to sideline this into a debate about whether or not the thing actually happens...and the pro-ejaculation lobby have walked into that particular trap without a second thought.
But hang on. Superman does NOT fly. Half the feats we see in mainstream films are impossible. And no censor steps in going...if its not possible, it is not allowed.
Same with sex. How many men can actually cum several times in an hour? (No...i won't believe it even if i get half a dozen positive responses from this comment page!).
But apparently men doing impossible things in the name of porn is ok...presumably because it seals a pact with the audience that that fiction is at least believable within the bounds of a porn film.
So...ask an audience of women watching porn made for women whether they believe women can ejaculate and...if the answer is that they believe, then striking ejaculation out from the film-makers vocabulary is a denial of their sexuality.
Not to put too fine a point on it, it is pure sexism...demanding a higher standard of "proof" for female sexual fantasy than is demanded for male.
That seems to be the ground to fight this on - the sexual discrimination one - rather than the scientific one.
Nah. Don't think it is actually tied to the male sexual performance at all, Ms moderatrix....just that some women do, some don't.
Somewhere in the middle of all this is an ageing pederast getting the biggest horn of his life off all the drama and the danger he's creating for himself. That, or they've got some kind of self-hate complex going on because of this (other) mental condition and want to get anything that even reminds them of lolitas out of the country so they aren't tempted to sin.... again.
Or maybe the ozzie powers that be just like big boobed Shielas and want to cut down on all the shelf space wasted in newsagents with mags not featuring DD's, and time/bandwidth lost online by search results featuring the smaller boob.
In turn, does this mean we can turn otherwise objectional underage material (photographic or drawn) into legit stuff just by photoshopping an award-winning rack onto the subject's chest?
I wonder if the lawmakers have actually seen a grown woman naked and realise that there's more differences between them and an 8-year-old than just the chesticles. Suppose this also makes porn featuring cancer-mastectomy survivors borderline. Completely taboo if it's bilateral...
I can go either way TBH. More than a handful is a waste, but good fun if you're not using your hands.
these aussies have the right idea. we have to be protected from all this filth and smut on the interweb. can somebody please give me a list of the web sites that have this stuff? that way i can be sure not to visit them. thanks.
paris hilton icon because i think she's got a list of these sites.
"Senator Joyce claimed that publications featuring small-breasted women were encouraging paedophilia." and she thinks female orgasms are 'abhorrent'?
She needs psychiatric treatment or at the very least a better bed partner.
Senator Barnaby Joyce is a guy. Pronouns aside, the rest of your post still stands.
Huh. That makes it worse.
A man who equates small breasts with paedophillia and thinks women having orgasms is abhorrent.
He /really/ needs medical help.
If the problem is confusion with underage women, simply require full-frontal nudity with no shaving allowed to verify that the woman is not prepubescent.
... no shaved pubes either because that makes the woman "look like a child" too and that will obviously encourage paedophilic thoughts.
I just have to wonder, though, in whose minds these thoughts are being created, because it sounds to me like it's those passing the laws who are having them...
I refuse to make any comment regarding the topic at hand as I'm afraid it would probably be a long string of obscenities for such asinine nonsense (and, by the way, WAY to make small-breasted women feel really good about themselves, fscking dumb-ass!)...
...though, I do feel that if we don't watch out, similar nonsense could happen on our side of the planet, lest we not forget http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/930893/American-Apparel-naked-ad-banned-watchdog/ - middle bottom, cute face. But a child? Only if you're out of your mind. Or the ASA.
As someone pointed out in the smutty cartoon thread this morning, are they going to out law the Brittany Spears vid where she parades around as a highly sexualised school girl?
What about just about every fancy dress party in all of Oz, gone raid those too?
Me, I don't want my wife to be forced to have a boob job, I happen to love her the way she is. Even if she doesn't quite score an A in the cup dept.
This absurdity highlights the thin line porn sometimes straddles.
One bona-fide category of porn is schoolgirl, and there are loads of legally classified movies and websites 'dealing' with the topic. They have pig tails and knee highs, and occasionally small boobs, but none are really schoolgirls. As-is, this is legal. Why should that change because of interpretation?
Even if a perv is sat there pretending they are really schoolgirls, so what? This is just another slippery slope that ends up with imagining things being illegal.
What if I take an aspriin and pretend it's ecstasy... same deal?
Last year I was driving along with the top down on my convertable sports-car with the music blaring out. In front of me was a pedestrian kind of vehicle with mom & pop in the front, two teenage girls in the back (estimated to be about 15 - perhaps).
The girls were having a jolly old time flashing their boobs at me whilst I was driving, and let me tell you that they were not A cup, more like D!
What the hell do they feed kids these days? Most of the teenage girls seems to have huge knockers.
Anyway, the point is, should I have reported myself to the police for
a) not crashing
b) not overtaking dangerously to avoid c)
c) being thought a peadophile* by having good laugh at their antics
*don't forget - peadophilia is about PRE-pubescent children, not sexually mature young adults.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017