|
|
|
|
February 03, 2010
"It can't happen here"
Did you know that if you like small breasts on women, you're likely a "pedophile"? I didn't, but today I learned that some people think that, and they're just the kind of people who enjoy career censorship. In Australia, they're behind an effort to insist on large-breasted women in porn. No really. (I couldn't make this up if I tried.) A reader writes, "Australian Classification Board (ACB) is now banning depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. They banned mainstream pornography from showing women with A-cup breasts, apparently on the grounds that they encourage paedophilia, and in spite of the fact this is a normal breast size for many adult women. Presumably small breasted women taking photographs of themselves will now be guilty of creating simulated child pornography, to say nothing of the message this sends to women with modestly sized chests or those who favour them. Australia has also banned pornographic depictions of female ejaculation, a normal orgasmic sexual response in many women, with censors branding it as 'abhorrent.'"A sharp increase in breast size! Talk about government-dictated tastes! The war on sex can take many twisted turns. Fortunately, I have yet to see an equivalent effort like this in the United States. But ideas spread, don't they? I'm surprised that no one has picked up on the possible latent homophobia displayed by the censors. It is well known that small-breasted women (and the men who find them attractive) have long been ridiculed as "gay," with the women being called "boys" or "boyish" in a direct attempt to impute homosexual pedophilia. A classic example of this was the reaction of Frank Sinatra's ex to his marriage to Mia Farrow: Ava Gardner on Frank Sinatra's marriage with Mia Farrow: 'I always knew Frank would end up with a boy.'By any standard that was certainly an insulting thing to say. As one of Ace's, um "small-breast phobic" (is there a word for that?) commenters put it, the "best bitchslap ever." But at least here in the United States, we don't enforce breast size tastes with government commissions. Nor do we bar men from having allegedly latent homosexual tastes. In women. (?) In practice, what this amounts to is a ban on androgynous porn. I suppose that if they were "fair," they would also ban male porn models who lacked sufficient muscle definition, or who were deemed insufficiently hirsute. People are of course free to criticize or condemn the sexual tastes of others, but Australia is a good lesson in what happens when the government gets into the business of setting sexual tastes. And if you don't think there are organized activists in this country who are just chomping at the bit to get into regulating porn, why, there are plenty of sites like this where you can go have yourself a scroll. I keep telling myself that people like that are few in number and only represent the lunatic fringes of cultural conservatism. But I've also seen similar activism on the left, so I worry. MORE: A commenter to the above worries about the size issue in the context of men: Next they will ban porn with men with smaller penises because it may promote pedophilia.I'd say we should have seen it coming, but somehow that doesn't sound right. posted by Eric on 02.03.10 at 10:12 AM |
|
February 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"Internet addiction" -- latest growth industry in a highly competitive field
Pulling Economics "It can't happen here" How Did The T Party Do Last Night In Illinois? It takes guts to demand "body blows" Added Risk Evidently There Was A Lack of Evidence ITER Gets Clipped About Half "can we call them 'gay'?" (Beats me! I didn't write the narrative!)
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Hetero guys are used to having any preference more specific than "women" be held up by women (and men in protector roles) as evidence of some dangerous psychological or social problem, Oedipal damage, or a neurotic failure of manliness, like secret gayness.
Asian women who avoid guys who find Asian women on average more attractive (because that's "creepy"), and non-Asian women who condemn men with that same preference as "afraid of strong women" or as repressed gays (because Asian women seldom have huge boobs and butts), are the internet standards, I think.
Women's consistent condemnation of men who vary from stereotypically broad taste—calling them fetishists, fixated, etc.—might be the strongest enforcer of that stereotype. And we'll get laws that reflect that, too, someday, as law becomes increasingly a form of female (and female-protective) self-expression.