lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Austrailia bans porn with small breasts
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-11-2010, 01:03 AM   #41
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Assuming that pornography in general is acceptable, if Australia's governing body wants to be responsible about this then they should commission a study that covers whether small breasts in pornography affect pedophilia rates. If they do in a statistically significant manner, then they can use that as a legitimate reason to place restrictions on it. Otherwise, I think it would show two things: 1. that they have no interest in the facts of the matter; and 2. that they have no respect for the freedom of their citizens to do as they like.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2010, 01:31 AM   #42
Lynk Former
internet hate machine
 
Lynk Former's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,979
10 year veteran! The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer LF Jester 
You guys are looking at this as a US issue, which it obviously isn't. It's an Australian issue and this makes a HUGE difference.

Australia's population is TINY compared to the US. We also don't really have a porn industry down here... everything we get is from the internet. We do have porn down here but it is HEAVILY regulated anyway and this new law won't actually make a difference. Trust me on this, it won't make a difference at all.

As I said in my previous post, to enforce this and anything else they have planned past,present or future, they'd have to shut down the Internet.

Also, this isn't the only issue in Australia. As I've mentioned before there is an Internet censorship filter on the boards and also, recently customs has been enabled to check peoples laptops and other devices for porn.

This issue is actually the least ...threatening... of what's going on.


Honestly, the Australian government can make all the laws it wants, but they're not going to be able to enforce them where it counts since they've already cut off certain things back in the mid to late 20th century anyway. We've already adapted to operate outside of the governments influence.

Lynk Former is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2010, 01:41 AM   #43
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,322
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Wouldn't it be sufficient to show that this type of porn appeals to those with pedophilic attractions?

Nobody is saying "small breast porn causes pedophilia" (as if non-pedophiles will watch it and then turn into pedophiles) they're assuming that it appeals and is marketed to attract with such attractions. In much the same way with people who are attracted to rape porn are turned on by rape. Doesn't mean that every person will act out those fantasies, but again, we're dealing with people who are psychologically disturbed, mentally ill.

On the other hand, officially tolerating such material sends the message that such actions (underage sexual exploitation) are tolerated by society. That's why when we talk about keeping stuff that some find offensive legal, we're saying that its only a few bad apples that spoil it for everyone else... the crazies who can't tell that what they see on screen is unacceptable behavior (and it's not like video game violence, because video game characters aren't real people being acted upon, while we're talking about real people engaged in sexual situations marketed for purposes of lust/gratification).

The point isn't that makers of "small breast porn" are having their free speech censored if this stuff is banned in Australia (never mind the slippery slope fallacy that this a conspiracy to ban all porn and censor all free speech). It's the question of whether the purpose of this material is to market to those with pedophilic tendencies, since, logically speaking, they would be those primarily interested in the stuff.

The "increases pedophilia" thing would really only apply to the fact that if there was a demand for it and it was permitted, that might increase the number of persons applying for the job of "acting" in flat chested porn, increasing the likelihood that minors would be exploited (whether they lie about their age or the producers look the other way), making it harder to prosecute crimes.

They could "shut down the internet" I suppose (is internet access defined as a human right?), but that's not even the issue. It's not a matter of being able to stop the practice 100% or else they can't make laws regarding it to restrict most of it. A law is not a law simply because it is never broken (or unbreakable).

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that pedophilia or underage exploitation will INCREASE if these laws are passed or attempted to be enforced. Again, see other laws against things that people have done and will always do. The goal of a law is not necessarily to eliminate something by preventing it from ever happening, it's to send the message that the society will not tolerate it, and to punish (and seek to rehabilitate, where possible) those who violate those standards deemed by the society (or by the lawmakers with the consent of the society at large) within the bounds of reason and justice (in the always imperfect human way, of course).

Theoretically, we could make murder legal. It would mean theoretically there would be more murders, but it would mean that murder would no longer be punished. Since punishment CAN (but does not always, obviously) deter a crime (vs. reward or non-punishment making it more accessible or even promoting it), that's how it would go. Anyway, that's the logic of law as I see it.

I mean, we can say "ban the internet" for a lot of things... because of hate speech, because of piracy, because of medical or other scams, because of terrorists using it, etc. We cannot largely argue that if the "only way" to finally really eliminate it is to "ban the internet" we should just leave it alone. But that's not logical to begin with, because these things happened even without the internet (and would still happen without it). You can also apply restrictions (such as the filtering suggested and compliance from corporations like Google and so forth) without "banning" the internet. Doesn't ensure elimination of the crime, but you'd still see predictable reasonable reductions, logically.

It might be possible to compare it somewhat to smoking bans. You can't stop people from smoking, so why all the bans on smoking in various places? The logic is to reduce the potential harm and by making it harder to smoke, possibly encouraging people to quit and/or discouraging others to start. There are plenty of people who consider that a terrible blow against freedom, but that's the logic of such laws, and I'd argue that smoking is in many ways less harmful to society (and individuals) than sexual exploitation of minors. Alcohol too is restricted in many ways. If you treat porn the way you treat these other things (that have a high demand, but also high potential for abuse and some hidden costs), that isn't so strange, really.


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2010, 01:51 AM   #44
Lynk Former
internet hate machine
 
Lynk Former's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,979
10 year veteran! The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer LF Jester 
Just to make things clear.

Australia has no porn industry as such. The most we have are men's magazines that do end up featuring topless women, but there has never been any instance of flatchested or small breasted women being featured. It's all very standard.

No porn is made in this country and no porn is even allowed to be on any Australian based server.

Which means the most this is TRYING to do is to stop these images from coming from overseas... most of which come from the Internet.

Hence why I'd like to see them actually ENFORCE any of this.

Lynk Former is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2010, 02:25 AM   #45
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
You all keep arguing this from a United States, European law standpoint where this is absolutely not the case.

Last edited by True_Avery; 06-11-2010 at 04:16 AM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2010, 02:56 AM   #46
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Fine, Lynk, I am sure you are correct, nothing will change for Australia. I have mainly just been talking about the principle of the matter. That and I spent so long on this post I'll get irritated if I can't submit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurgan View Post
Wouldn't it be sufficient to show that this type of porn appeals to those with pedophilic attractions?

Nobody is saying "small breast porn causes pedophilia" (as if non-pedophiles will watch it and then turn into pedophiles) they're assuming that it appeals and is marketed to attract with such attractions. In much the same way with people who are attracted to rape porn are turned on by rape. Doesn't mean that every person will act out those fantasies, but again, we're dealing with people who are psychologically disturbed, mentally ill.

On the other hand, officially tolerating such material sends the message that such actions (underage sexual exploitation) are tolerated by society. That's why when we talk about keeping stuff that some find offensive legal, we're saying that its only a few bad apples that spoil it for everyone else... the crazies who can't tell that what they see on screen is unacceptable behavior (and it's not like video game violence, because video game characters aren't real people being acted upon, while we're talking about real people engaged in sexual situations marketed for purposes of lust/gratification).

The point isn't that makers of "small breast porn" are having their free speech censored if this stuff is banned in Australia (never mind the slippery slope fallacy that this a conspiracy to ban all porn and censor all free speech). It's the question of whether the purpose of this material is to market to those with pedophilic tendencies, since, logically speaking, they would be those primarily interested in the stuff.

The "increases pedophilia" thing would really only apply to the fact that if there was a demand for it and it was permitted, that might increase the number of persons applying for the job of "acting" in flat chested porn, increasing the likelihood that minors would be exploited (whether they lie about their age or the producers look the other way), making it harder to prosecute crimes.
I don't think it would be enough to show that it attracts the pedophile segment to consume it, since that (most importantly) would not be trading in anyone or anything nonconsensual. It should be factually established that it does affect rates of actual pedophilia or underage exploitation. Laws, especially ones restricting free adults, shouldn't be made on a whim or to garner votes from parents scared into submission by politicians saying frightening things about how the pedophiles will destroy their country. Especially if they don't bother to find out if it's true or not.

Being a pedophile means you are attracted to the underage population, not that you are necessarily willing to act out your attractions on someone, willing or unwilling. I'm attracted to the female segment, but I'm not going to rape them anytime soon. Hell, at this point in my life I wouldn't even enter a sexual relationship with someone who was willing. I don't think it would be justifiable to assert that all pedophiles are willing to act out their urges any more than it would to make blanket generalizations about men or women with more traditional attractions. So yes, this type of porn would market to the pedophile segment, but the criminal element is only a subset of that segment. I'm really only concerned about the criminal element.

Tying into that, whether this sort of porn sends a message that underage exploitation is acceptable is arguable, since presumably everyone in the media and the consumer of the media are in fact of age (I assume the current laws are enough to ensure that to a reasonable degree). More than that, both parties know that this is true. I understand there are fetishists who enjoy wearing diapers and pretending to be babies, but I doubt they think exploiting babies is a desirable thing. So I think it would boil down to the same as I pointed out above-- unless there was an established connection between this type of porn and crimes committed, then it would be hard to justify discriminating against it in particular save as a visceral reaction or political favor-currying.

Now, supposing we eliminated all "normal" people and the non-predatory pedophile segment, we should be only concerned about the genuine, mentally disturbed, I'm-going-to-steal-me-a-school-bus-full-of-helpless-children type of person, then we should just go after them. We don't restrict the ownership of particularly sharp-looking pens because a small minority of clinically crazy people commit murder with them because it was shown on TV (even if they happen to be prop pens from the show). I don't know why this should be any different. And honestly it would be a hard sell to say that being abused by a pedophile is worse than being murdered.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2010, 03:01 AM   #47
Lynk Former
internet hate machine
 
Lynk Former's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,979
10 year veteran! The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer LF Jester 
There are fines lines which governments shouldn't cross. One such line involves the image of women in society. It is not up to the government to dictate what small breasted women can and cannot do.


Also, speaking a little more about this law in relation to Australia... it seems to be focused more around an issue in Australia that occurred awhile back when one of our most famous and respected artists showed pictures of a nude teen girl at an art gallery... Enough people seemed to have a problem with it even though they don't seem to have a problem with paintings portraying nude children, but anyway... I feel that this "no small breasts" thing has more to do with that than anything else.

Lynk Former is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2010, 10:54 AM   #48
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,322
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Maybe there are some non-rapist men out there that are sexually attracted to mature women who just happen to LOOK like underage women. Presumably then such laws would be restricting the "adult entertainment" options of these men to have their every fantasy fulfilled in consumable, visual form. Maybe there are a lot of female gymnasts out there who have fallen on hard times and want to become adult film stars.

I would question, however, if these men are really devoid of pedophilic attractions, and if they have them, why would consuming such porn legally (or illegally) reduce the risk that they would act on these fantasies. A young woman, I can understand. But a woman who looks like she's pre-pubescent?

I guess I should clarify, I'm speaking more broadly than pictures of naked people here. To be frank, I'm talking about the hardcore stuff, recordings of actual sexual acts.

On another issue, these are automatically in a different category than say violent movies or video games (using violence as the comparison to the sex). Movies where the violence is faked with camera angles, choreography and even CGI.

Your typical porn movie (despite the passing of the 70's heyday of sexualized spoofs of popular films) is just a camera set up while people have sex. The key difference between this and prostitution is the camera.

We don't have to beat up any real people to create the latest "Mortal Kombat" game. We don't need to run over any real hookers or shoot any real cops to create the next GTA. Porn can be "faked" too, but generally speaking, we're talking about the real, even if it is created to cater to someone's "fantasy."

As for the data on the majority of women harboring fantasies about desiring to be raped, or credible studies showing a causal relationship between lax pornography laws (especially relating to porn depicting violation in a positive light) and lower incidences of rape... I'd like to see that.

The argument that rape porn REDUCES rape is another matter altogether. Is there any evidence of such a thing? Where does the demand for such a thing come from in the first place, and would this really function, society-wide as a cathartic measure? Presumably then, rape porn should be mandatory viewing for certain demographics, to reduce rape, if this is true, rather than prevention methods like self defense classes for women, teaching young men and boys that rape is wrong, ethical seminars against sexual harassment, selling pepper sprays, checking your drinks, etc.

Again, I didn't say porn CAUSED extra rapes to occur (say, turning "normal" people into rapists), I merely argued that laws restricting porn that caters to fantasies of criminal deviance involving real sex with people who LOOK underage are sensible. As for "inspiring" psychologically unbalanced people to commit violent crimes like rape (whether statutory or otherwise), of course, you can argue such a person might be set off by seeing an apple, but the most realistic impression that could be left on their mind, would be a depiction of the action itself, even if its staged between persons who are "really" over age.


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2010, 11:16 AM   #49
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Right. I don't think that porn is necessarily a good thing. My main contention was that, as I said in my first post, if porn in general is deemed acceptable (including whatever is needed to make it), then it would not make sense to establish a particular ban on this type of small-breast porn without some concrete reasons to back such a ban up. We would have already discarded the moral issue of allowing people to have sex on camera and other general problems with porn.

I just don't think it is acceptable for a governing body to act on what they feel is "sensible" when they are perfectly capable of finding out the truth of the matter. And really, if they don't, I'd say they are failing in their duty to the citizens they supposedly represent. No responsible person should make laws that impact others based on their gut feelings.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-24-2010, 01:45 PM   #50
kipperthefrog
Veteran
 
kipperthefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Blue Hawaii
Posts: 846
@ Lynk Former

I was thinking about how "custom officers" can snoop through laptops at airports and all the censorship goin on. does it worry you any? you think it is likely that they will create more censorship? outlay all nudity eventually? anything like that?


kipperthefrog is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-29-2010, 09:44 PM   #51
Path-x
Rookie
 
Path-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 36
This is ridiculous. Especially if you consider that a large percentage of natural breasts are relative small anyway. Perhaps they are advertising fake breasts and plastic surgery.
Path-x is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-08-2011, 05:38 AM   #52
Qui-Gon Glenn
Necessary Roughneck
 
Qui-Gon Glenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Thessia
Posts: 1,465
Current Game: ME3MP, Arkham Origins
Folder extraordinaire Helpful! Forum Veteran Veteran Modder 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Path-x View Post
This is ridiculous. Especially if you consider that a large percentage of natural breasts are relative small anyway. Perhaps they are advertising fake breasts and plastic surgery.
I know this topic has been still until recently, but I wanted to comment on it then, and now again!

I agree with your post, Path-x. What are they trying to sell us?

The ban also ignores the fact that many young women, younger than the age-of-consent, are given their breasts fully and early. Should we encourage these girls to make porn, for being so busty?

My take on the whole thing - governmental expectation that porn viewing --> pedophilia, which is just silly. Reminds me of "Reefer Madness" or "Don't ask, don't tell" - connections are being made, in this case breast endowment, to sexual proclivities, in a linear manner, that largely ignores the science of human sexuality and what we know about sexual dysfunction.

I personally only want C-cup porn, but that's me.


Want to play a game of ME3MP?
Qui-Gon_Glenn on the software of which we shall not name.... add me and the enemy shall fall in chunks of crimson salsa
Qui-Gon Glenn is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-13-2011, 07:52 PM   #53
Darth Avlectus
If Sunday you're free...
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Why don't you come with me...
Posts: 4,257
Current Game: Poisoning pigeons in the park.
Hey QGG, I like furries. Does that mean I'm into bestiality?


We'll murder them all, amid laughter and merriment...except for the few we take home to experiment!

"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-18-2011, 02:27 PM   #54
Qui-Gon Glenn
Necessary Roughneck
 
Qui-Gon Glenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Thessia
Posts: 1,465
Current Game: ME3MP, Arkham Origins
Folder extraordinaire Helpful! Forum Veteran Veteran Modder 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
Hey QGG, I like furries. Does that mean I'm into bestiality?
Well, if I am to take you seriously, then I need to know what you mean by "like".

If by like you mean that you enter coitus with furry animals, then yes it means you are into bestiality, and I will pass a personal judgment on you and say you are one sick f....

If by like you mean that you like furries, and just like them, are friendly to them, care for them... then no, you are not into bestiality.

That sort of argument is just like the government position, if I understand correctly. Not being there, I do not want to say I know what is going on in Australian process.

Also, I had no idea it was bestiality... thought, where's the A?

My point in general is that because you like something doesn't mean anything necessarily, because you are into something doesn't mean necessarily that you will actually do what you are into. Because the sun rose today does not mean necessarily that it will rise again tomorrow. There are always exceptions, there are cosmic events, there are creeps.

That said, there are plenty of perfectly normal, healthy people who love their porn.

What exactly was your point, if I may?


Want to play a game of ME3MP?
Qui-Gon_Glenn on the software of which we shall not name.... add me and the enemy shall fall in chunks of crimson salsa
Qui-Gon Glenn is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Austrailia bans porn with small breasts

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:54 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.