Classification Board inundated by bodily fluids controversy
The Australian Classification Board is under fire for allegedly refusing classification of adult films featuring female ejaculation.
Is it time the Board reconsiders its criteria for the adult film industry and sexual depictions on film?
The Australian Sex Party’s leader Fiona Patten issued a press release on Thursday, claiming that the Board has decided to censor female ejaculation, because they consider it “abhorrent” and a depiction of urination. The ASP added that there are more than one million sites featuring female ejaculation, and “for Australia to be banning depictions and discussion of this important issue, takes us back into the Victorian era where they didn’t even believe that women could have orgasms.”
A spokesperson for the Board told The Sydney Morning Herald’s National Times that their guidelines do not specify female ejaculation, but they do mention that ‘golden showers’ (considered a fetish, which they define as ‘an object, an action or a non-sexual part of the body which gives sexual gratification’) will be refused classification (RC).
The Board claims that all classification assessments are done on a case-by-case basis, but the classification guidelines can be a little too vague at times. This is part of the criteria for refusing classification for a film (RC)
Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
(i) activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent;
(ii) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.
Perhaps the ASP and Patten are just making waves (no pun intended) to get some publicity for the party, but it is a good opportunity to initiate a debate about the Classification Board’s criteria for depictions of human sexuality and how those can affect a film – pornographic or not – and its classification.
if people want to watch this type of porn or any thing else that should be there choice and nobody else,we have to many laws in australia thanks to the do gooders and bleeding hearts!.
User ID not verified.
Such matters will remain “under the carpet” and many people will remain ignorant if in due context you censor such an issue. There is a world of difference between feminine ejaculation and
urination !!! Even this discussion, for those females who do not know that they are able to and are entitled to ejaculate is some step. But please do not broadbrush issues.
User ID not verified.
It’s best to get this type of discussion out of the way before Rudd and Conroy bing in Australia’s own version of the Bamboo Firewall – ie mandatory filtering of RC and ‘offensive’ material.
One person’s ‘trash’ is anoher person’s ‘treasure’.
User ID not verified.
None of this really matters. As a permanent inhabitant of the intertubes, I know there is no effective way to enforce censorship. In my life I have never seen anything that was censored that I couldn’t get anyway.
Even the Chinese realise this. You can only hide information away from those who dont look. If you look, you will find. The real problem is that, on average, we are far too stupid to even know what is good for us. It is only the luddites – like my daft baby boomer parents – whom this affects.
We of Generation X have effectively implemented a technological meritocracy. If knowledge is power, then technological merit is power. There is nothing anyone can do to change this. It is even beyond the reaches of your “democracy”. Censor or outlaw whatever technologies or information you want – it makes no difference to us.
User ID not verified.
Longtime, while it’s true that there is no effective way to fully enforce censorhip, the point remains. Should we even try to censor sexuality on film/television, and what criteria should we (or the Board of Classification) follow to ensure that our filmmakers can legally express those sexual expressions?
Hey guys,
Do you want to watch the green hornet online? It is not released yet but you can watch it online already!
Click here to watch the green hornet online free
User ID not verified.
And somehow the censorship morons missed this film Bitter Moon by Roman Polanski in 1994:
The world of Bitter Moon is precisely the kind of world from which Cobain wanted to escape: cruel, sadistic, and predatory, a place where sensitive souls are treated like wounded animals on the savanna. Throughout his life and career, Polanski has witnessed—and yes, perpetrated—some deplorable things, and in Bitter Moon, his cynicism about human nature curdles into very dark comedy. When it was first released, many critics were inclined to treat the film as a Basic Instinct knock-off, another in a long line of po-faced thrillers like Body Of Evidence that mixed kinky sexual acrobatics with deadly power plays. Seen in that context, the film does indeed look ridiculous, as anything would featuring Peter Coyote in silk underwear, crawling on all fours while wearing a pig mask. Somewhere behind the camera, Polanski is flashing a malevolent smile, but the comedic gamesmanship in Bitter Moon isn’t entirely a joke. Beyond the golden showers and humiliating S&M rituals lies a nasty thesis: Love is the ultimate form of degradation.
http://www.avclub.com/articles.....oon,23168/
what’s wrong with a bit of Aqua Vita?
User ID not verified.