Cav's Place

As they’re constantly moving further down the path of censorship, the Australian authorities have recently decided that people also need to be told exactly what kind of pornographic materials they should want to watch or get off on. For that purpose, they decided to refuse classification for depictions of female ejaculation or of women with small breasts, which means that such depictions are now banned.
This has attracted the anger of certain individuals who don’t care to be “better” than the ones they fight against, but just want to make a point. I even saw a long message that Akismet caught last evening, which included the reasons behind the plan, links to information about the methods that should be used, the URLs that would be targeted and contact information for various government officials. I didn’t pay attention to the date it was supposed to happen on, but I see that the appropriately-called “Operation: Titstorm” started today, bringing down some government servers. I personally find the other part of the plan, involving flooding officials’ inboxes with exactly the kind of pornography they’re banning, to be much more amusing and appropriate, but I guess such attacks are too much of a staple for such groups not to be included in this kind of operations.
But let me return to the matter at hand and see how do the Australian officials justify these measures.

When it comes to banning depictions of female ejaculation, they argue that it’s either urination, depictions of which are already banned, or simply that it’s abhorrent. They also don’t really seem to believe that it could sometimes actually happen in pretty “normal” scenarios, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, which makes me once again wonder why are people who obviously don’t know much about a certain subject allowed to create the laws governing it?
I find it interesting that female ejaculation is abhorrent, but there’s nothing wrong with male ejaculation. I for one find facials, which are the industry standard, to be quite gross, but I don’t see anything about those in this decision. Though, before they get any ideas, I must stress that there shouldn’t be anything censored when it comes to any of this, so even the ban on “golden showers” that was mentioned and whatever others I’m sure are already in place are wrong. It’s all right to require warnings to be included, so people will know what to expect and be able to avoid looking at something that’d bother them, but there’s no excuse for banning such things, even if they would be abhorrent! If nobody’d want to watch them, such depictions wouldn’t exist. But since certain people want to watch them, they should have every right to do so, which automatically implies that people should also have the right to produce them. And nobody’s making the rest watch, so it should be very simple: If watching something would bother you, don’t watch it!
Another issue is that likely a significant portion of the depictions of female ejaculation seen in pornographic productions are fake. In which case, one has to wonder what exactly are they banning? If it’s just water being held inside the vagina and then pushed out to somehow mimic ejaculation, why would you ban it? I mean, it’s just water!
And let’s not forget the kind of message this sends to those women who do ejaculate a significant amount at least sometimes, if not most or all of the time, few as they may be. Seems like the Australian government decided that people didn’t already have enough reasons to feel bad about their own bodies and their natural physiological processes and meant to make sure that one more group will have a reason to be disgusted with themselves. That’s what I understand from sticking the label of “abhorrent” to it, at least.

As for the issue of small breasts, it has been clarified as not specifically targeting women with small breasts, though this is what has apparently been banned under this rule so far, but as a ban on offensive depictions of persons who appear to be under 18, whether or not they are involved in sexual activity and despite making absolutely certain that all models are indeed at least 18. That’s something like banning movies that feature actors appearing dead, or sick, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Actually, I wonder if this couldn’t also apply to non-pornographic movies that feature certain scenes involving characters who are supposed to be under 18, since it says that being involved in explicit sexual activity is not required.
Sure, the usual excuse of fighting against child pornography is used to justify this silly measure, but it has absolutely nothing to do with that. For one, I still say there’s a difference of at least six years between being a child and being underage according to current laws, but I’ll let this pass until a method of judging a person’s maturity level that actually makes any sense will be implemented. The problem here is that they’re banning offensive depictions of persons who appear to be under 18, even though they most certainly are not. That makes me wonder who has the job of looking through it all and determining who appears to be under 18 and who doesn’t? What kind of criteria are used? Small breasts seem to be one, but what about those who shave or wax their pubes, making it seem like they have no hair there at all? Or what about small penises? Or being short?
There’s also the matter of defining an offensive depiction. What exactly falls under this category, seeing as they say it’s not limited to explicit sexual activity? Not that I’d find explicit sexual activity to be offensive, but if they’re talking about even more than that, what is it? And, again, who gets to make that call?
Plus that, as in the matter of female ejaculation, it seems like the Australian government really wants to make people hate their own bodies even more. What kind of message does this send to women with small breasts or any other legal adults who exhibit the features deemed as belonging to underage individuals? And, though perhaps this could be a stretch, what implications could it have on the physical features that Australians will be looking for in each other if they won’t be allowed to see pornographic materials depicting some of them? Couldn’t that increase the unhappiness of those who exhibit those features even further?

Once again, as long as nobody is doing anything against their will, why would a government need to tell people what they should and should not enjoy? As long as the actors or models are fully willing to take part, the movies or pictures in question should be produced. And as long as they are produced, those who wish to see them should be allowed to do so. To my mind, it’s really as simple as that.
When something is permitted, people can choose not to take part in it, so simply allowing something doesn’t equal encouraging it in any way, but only grants people the right to choose for themselves. Forbidding something, on the other hand, is similar to making something compulsory, because it takes away people’s right to choose for themselves and attempts to force them to conform to the will of the authorities.