skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Sorry if the title is a little offensive to some, it's my way of making light of an extremely irritating political view that has arisen in Australia within the last week. Several days ago it was announced by the Australian Sex Party, that the Australian Classification Board will now be refusing classification of small breasted women in adult publications and films.
The National Classification Code dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be a child under the age of 18 will be refused classification. As someone who is small breasted, this has made me feel more than a little insecure about myself. Not that I intend to publish nude photographs of myself on the Internet, however if I were so inclined, they would be deemed illegal.
Why on earth would the Government choose to pass an incredulous law like this? This will not only serve to make women feel more insecure about themselves, but will also continue to shape the notion of "sexy" = "endowed". Not fair I say! What about my hips, the indentation at my waist or my rather large derriere? Will these be my saving grace for my illegally small breasts? Will there be a minimum cup requirement? Or will breasts be stopped at the gate merely by guesstimate? Who is this person who decides what is underdeveloped? Let's just hope little ladies that this person does not have a subscription to Ralph.
Thank you for tuning into this post, we will now return to Lola's regular programming schedule.
Posts
What the? That is SO bizarre and discriminatory!
ReplyDeleteI was cracking up laughing reading your post title though as V and I have this joke that I am president of the Itty Bitty Titty Committee cause I am a bit teeny in that area - small but perfectly formed is how V refers to them.
Seriously, I think this is ridiculous - its bad enough feeling I look like an 8-year old boy when nude due to lack of "womanly" cleavage, but now to say I am illegal and obscene? That's just rude!
Very discriminatory! It's blatant physical discrimination. I do not understand why this is allowed? Very rude indeed Cate!
ReplyDeleteGosh. I am ample in this area - but I feel for you girls whose bust size is now commented on and legislated by political parties.
ReplyDeletethis is RIDICULOUS... 90% of models have itty bitty titays, this is stupendously BAD.
ReplyDeletei wonder if iddy biddy balls will be next... lol...
♥
Thanks for the support Carly!
ReplyDeletehahaha Mez that is hilarious, perhaps that will be next?
Okay...I am a bit confused? Maybe because this is too ridiculous?
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean that the government will be refusing classification? Does that mean that the image/video will be banned? Or?
Sorry if I sound really silly...but I am just a bit confused and wondering if anyone can clear this up?
Refused classification means to be banned bows :( And you are right, this is ridiculous!
ReplyDeleteAs someone who isn't a consumer of pornography I will admit the fuss hasn't concerned me GREATLY (although it should since I too have 'illegally small breasts') but a comment above by Mez made me suddenly realise - not only do most models have 'illegally small breasts' but most of them look super young too.
ReplyDeleteTHE GOVERNMENT IS BANNING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FASHION EDITORALS D: NOW I AM ANGRY!!
Hmmmm...not quite sure how Australian legislation works but I haven't heard of such a thing in New Zealand. It seems strange to deny classification based on boob size. Surely the crietria for classification should be focused on the prohibited/unsavoury context of the publication as a whole rather than just one part of the anatomy?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. An interesting issue to think about, especially for women.
What a bizaar ruling, not only is it offense but it also seems pointless!
ReplyDeleteThanks for drawing attention to this, Lola! I would have no idea that my (lack of) cleavage is to be deemed illegal in some circles.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly does set a dangerous precedent though, and I am really hoping that this doesn't provoke the sentiments in the media that we've been hearing lately - that women who don't look a particular way aren't 'real women'. Ugh.
That is such a good point Alicia, I never thought of fashion models!
ReplyDeleteIt does seem really pointless Stefanie!
It is such a dangerous precedent, and I agree I am so sick of this supposed "real women" rubbish. What is a real women? There is no one example of a "real woman", every woman is different :)
awesome pics. :))
ReplyDeletexoxo.
bloo.
Thanks for leaving a comment @ my blog!
ReplyDeleteI visit u as soon as I can . Follow u
Greetings from Germany.Tzoules K.
Wow, yeah this is pretty odd. I mean, my AA cups would not stand a chance
ReplyDeleteThat is so ridiculous!!! x
ReplyDeleteunbelievable! how do they get away with it?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely ridiculous, I don't know why this passed.
ReplyDeleteProbably nookie! Not sure why this is an issue to them, to me this is blatant physical discrimination :(
ReplyDeletethat girl is so adorable it drives me crazy
ReplyDeletethat is crazy, not that i know anything about pornography, however i would imagine there would still exist some kind of market for smaller breasted women. Personally i am rather well endowed, being a D cup, with a 62 cm waist, i am at the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to bodily insecurities, always trying and failing to cover up without looking like i belong in the convent or in ralph. Beauty should not be determined by cup size, rather an overall image of class and dignity, these being things i do not believe any feature of pornography would have, however they also seem to be qualities that we are leaving behind in society, its hard to be a Hepburn in a Hilton world xx
ReplyDeletePS: love the blog :)