Somehow this one slipped by the morning news show I religiously tune into. The big news circulating the blogs this morning is that Australia is going to ban small breasts from pornography allegedly because of its paedophilic implications.

According to the rumour, the ban is the result of a campaign by senators Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett who claimed that publications featuring small-breasted women were encouraging paedophilia.

More accurately, though, the rumour has been traced to the Australian Sex Party, who on Wednesday issued a press release claiming that the Australian Classification Board is refusing to classify any rudey films featuring women ejaculating. The ASP suggests that the Board is banning these films on the grounds that these are depictions of urination (I’m not kidding) and furthermore that the depiction of female ejaculation is “abhorrent”. Furthermore, according to Fiona Patten, Convenor of the Australian Sex Party:

“We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size. It may be an unintended consequence of the Senator’s actions but they are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in Australian adult magazines of late.”

Apparently, the ban is going to be included in the ludicrous internet censorship filter that the Australian government has gone ahead with.

However, it appears the panic is somewhat overblown. A spokesperson for the Australian Classification Board clarified that:

Publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC.

They said the Board classifies publications on a case by case basis, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, the Code and the Classification Act and that the Publications Guidelines do not specify breast size.

Okay, here are my problems with this story. Firstly, through an intention to keep child pornography illegal, the government is regulating anything that could “appear to be” a person under the age of 18. But on what basis do they judge a person’s age? Fiona Patten says she attended a ACB training session late last year where they showed examples of publications that had been Refused Classification due to the size of the woman’s breasts.

While it is clearly not a hard and fast rule, it is problematic that the Board apparently judges age based on breast size. Does it also imply that if a man likes small-breasted women, he’s by implication a paedophile? What this classification suggests is that small breasts are, in fact, obscene at worst, and at best simply juvenile.

Mostly, though, my issue is with a classifications of obscenity with pornography that limits women’s sexuality. I am anti-porn and I think the entire industry is violent and offensive to women. But what is worse than its pervasiveness in every day life is that the government makes decisions on what is and isn’t acceptable depiction of women’s degradation and somehow double anal makes the cut but female ejaculation doesn’t?

As Ms. Naughty succinctly sums up:

adult companies are already narrowing down the range of “acceptable” body types they can display. Add in the requirement to Photoshop out any glimpses of inner labia and you’ve got a delightful recipe for distorted body images.

Indeed, these new rules are pretty much saying: normal women should have nice large fake tits and never emit any kind of liquid when they orgasm. Actually, it might even be less obscene if the women don’t have orgasms at all. Much easier that way. Just stick to the facials and the bukkake, thanks very much.

God, I hate the porn industry and the conservative government structures that support it.