<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
	
	<rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
			<title>Whitechapel - The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &amp;quot;Appear To Be&amp;quot; Younger Than 18</title>
			<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 21:06:24 -0700</lastBuildDate>
			<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/</link>
			<description></description>
			<generator>
				Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.4 &amp; Feed Publisher
			</generator>
			<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217285#Comment_217285</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217285#Comment_217285</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:22:07 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Andre Navarro</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ According to the internet -- always a reluctant source that requires some beating before it spits out the Truth along with some teeth -- the Australian Classication Board (ACB) did very stupid things recently. Initially (again, according to The Internet) it seemed they had banned women with A-cup breasts from appearing on adult publications, because regardless of the person's actual age, they think small breasts encourage child pornography, and they have also banned depictions of female orgasms if there is visible ejaculation involved -- i.e. squirting.<br /><br />The thought process behind such a decision is to utterly retarded that even Australia -- a country that refuses to allow any videogames rated above 15+ into its borders -- deserved the benefit of the doubt. The Tumblr post that pointed me to all this, via cjwhite reblogging sneak046 via Templesmith (at least I think that's the correct order), pointed to <a href="http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/01/28/australia-bans-small-breasts-as-child-pornography/" >this article</a>.<br /><br />A little Internet searching allowed me to see where it all stemmed from and how the Internet reacted to it:<br /><br />- Fiona Patten, member of the Australian Sex Party, publishes <a href="http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/press-releases/619-depictions-of-female-orgasm-being-banned-by-classification-board" >this press release</a>.<br /><br />- Michael Meloni of "Somebody Think Of The Children" picked up on this by writing <a href="http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/" >an article with the title "Australia Bans Small Breasts"</a>.<br /><br />- Ruth Brown of Crikey.com.au tried to see through the internet uproar this caused with <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/29/has-australia-really-banned-small-breasts/" >this article</a>. Check the comments section of it -- both Michael Meloni and Fiona Patten add to the discussion.<br /><br />- ACB <a href="http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/classification-board-responds-to-small-breasts-ban/" >finally responds to the small breasts/female ejaculation bans</a> on Michael Meloni's site, "Somebody Think Of The Children".<br /><br />I am no journalist at all, but the latter article apparently confirms that:<br /><br />1) APPEARING TO BE under eighteen is enough to ban any image or video of your nude body, regardless of age. The ACB says the breast size is not specified on this guideline. But it's pretty obvious small breasts can be associated with young age.<br /><br />2) The fetish known as "golden showers" is banned, not orgasmic squirting. Of course, the ACB seems to be a little lost on the difference.<br /><br />Even if it doesn't seem to be as incredibly stupid as initial internet sensationalism depicted - I still find it very, very stupid. Trying to ban "women who appear to be 18" from adult publications and videos regulated by the FBI because it might encourage child pornography? <br /><br />I wonder if their next target against pedophilia will be banning pictures such as:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.redbookmag.com/cm/redbook/images/safeguard-kids-smiles-hl-de.jpg" alt="" ><br /><br />I'd like to see your thoughts on this. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217305#Comment_217305</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217305#Comment_217305</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:38:26 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Lazarus99</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <blockquote >a country that refuses to allow any videogames rated above 15+ into its borders</blockquote><br />Actually, 18+ games will be allowed in soon (apparently)<br /><br /><blockquote >The fetish known as "golden showers" is banned, not orgasmic squirting. Of course, the ACB seems to be a little lost on the difference.</blockquote><br />Don't really have much of a problem with that...the tittilation value of golden showers has always puzzled me...<br /><br />Anyway, yes, our censorship laws are fairly fail-worthy, and apparently we're going to suffer national internet filters, but there are ways around everything...<br /><br /><br />But, considering the party in power is meant to be left-wing (Labour party), they're behaving an awful lot like the conservative Liberal party (confusing, that, isn't it?) when it comes to censorship... ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217307#Comment_217307</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217307#Comment_217307</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:54:07 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Greasemonkey</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ The level of censorship in Australia is something of an embarrassment for most Aussies. Nobody ever seems to get to vote for any of these standards; the government just surreptitiously eases them into place and hopes nobody notices. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217323#Comment_217323</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217323#Comment_217323</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:16:12 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Cat Vincent</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Perhaps Australia might care to take note of the recent <a href="http://annaspansdiary.com/annaspansblog/2009/10/05/first-ever-uk-release-of-a-film-that-contains-female-ejaculation/" >change in UK censorship regarding female ejaculation</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote >Britain’s first female porn director, Anna Span has won a historic victory with the passing of her DVD, ‘Women Love Porn’ which includes a woman clearly ejaculating.<br /><br />On initial submission to the British Board of Film Classification, the board asked for compulsory edits to remove the female ejaculation section, as they believed the woman to be urinating and argued therefore it fell foul of the Obscene Publications Act. Even though most countries worldwide which allow pornography, do not single out female as opposed to male, ejaculation for censoring, the BBFC historically do not believe in the phenomenon. They have refused to pass previous films such as Ben Dover’s Squirt Queens in May 2001, saying that they had not received a convincing enough argument to support the existence of FE.<br /><br />Determined to put the record straight, Anna Span presented the BBFC with irrefutable scientific evidence in support of model DJ’s ability to ‘squirt,’ as it is known in the adult industry. Anna says; ‘I am really proud to have changed this outdated ruling and to have made a difference to women who experience this in their own lives throughout the UK.  It was never fair that the BBFC dismissed their orgasms as urinary incontinence’<br /><br />Initially the BBFC stood their ground and refused to pass the film but when Anna pushed for a hearing with the Video Appeals Committee, they later backed down after taking legal advice. They say that their ‘position remains fundamentally unchanged for future releases’ although it is difficult to see how they can argue against future claims for DVDs which contain FE, now that this precedent has been set.</blockquote><br /><br />But probably not. The prudishness and 'moral' positions of the current OzGov astound me. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217330#Comment_217330</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217330#Comment_217330</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:29:21 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>sneak046</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ This is a yet another case of something being banned because the 'ruling class' finds it either distasteful, or a suitable band-wagon to jump on.<br /><br />Banning porn featuring certain performers based on their appearance is a really, really bad move. And who will make the determination that a model 'appears under 18'?  It's not gonna make a jot of difference to the peddlers of actual child porn at all either. <br /><br />Slightly off-topic, The UK has another grey area within the regulation regarding what can and can't be shown on screen. Someone I know used work in the industry and did quite a few CFNM shoots in a school setting (boys school, women teachers, I think you catch the drift...) - There was no problem in showing models dressed in school-uniform, but one time she was going to introduce a video with the words "Hello boys and girls" but was told she couldn't as this would be against the law.. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217542#Comment_217542</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217542#Comment_217542</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:41:05 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Verissimus</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Jeez...bunch of prudes. <br /><br />And yet a large chunk of pee-and-poo related porn originates from down under. (No I'm not telling you how I know that!)<br /><br />I like the article's name "Australia bans small breasts." ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217544#Comment_217544</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217544#Comment_217544</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:43:17 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Seantaclaus</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ BREAKING NEWS: IF YOU HAVE SMALL BREASTS, YOU MUST GO TO JAIL!<br /><br /><em >(Right, because we all know <strong >that's</strong> a good idea...)</em> ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217577#Comment_217577</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217577#Comment_217577</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:56:45 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>JP Carpenter</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ It's kind of wonderful in a way, but terrible at the same time, that a bunch of people had to sit in a committee room and debate whether to pass female ejaculation films using testimony from scientists. That must have been one fucking <em >surreal </em>meeting, and one which I'd love to have gone to. <br /><br />We are a very fucked up species. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217621#Comment_217621</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217621#Comment_217621</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:47:37 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Jay Kay</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Wow--and I thought we had some fucked-up sex laws here in the States, then Australia took the cake, stuffed it's face in it, shat it out and ate it again. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217640#Comment_217640</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217640#Comment_217640</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:25:42 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>James Cunningham</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ But didn't film it, because that would be illegal.  Also, really gross.<br /><br />Oddly enough, I would have a problem with Australia banning golden shower videos if I lived there.  I mean, never in my life do I care about seeing one, but it's a harmless (if icky) enough kink that it seems weird to ban it.  Allowing in politicians who can alter national policy based on logic best described as "Eeeeewwww!" is never a good idea. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217798#Comment_217798</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217798#Comment_217798</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:33:33 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Andre Navarro</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <blockquote >Actually, 18+ games will be allowed in soon (apparently)</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, shouldn't be long before Michael Atkinson is crushed to death under the waves of hatred of an entire nation.<br /><br /><blockquote >Don't really have much of a problem with that...the tittilation value of golden showers has always puzzled me...</blockquote><br /><br />Well, a lot of people get off on it. What is the Classification Board afraid of, that golden shower videos will encourage urinating? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217809#Comment_217809</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217809#Comment_217809</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:24 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>johnjones</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <blockquote ><br />Don't really have much of a problem with that...the tittilation value of golden showers has always puzzled me...</blockquote><br /><br />Well, the titillation value of anal sex puzzles me, but I don't want it banned because there's quite a few gay guys that rather enjoy it, as I understand things and it's not my place to enforce my beliefs onto their lives. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217814#Comment_217814</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217814#Comment_217814</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:41:03 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>NickDonald</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Hey: pee, poo, cake, sodomy - whatever floats your more buoyant bits. To each his own and all that. Speaking for myself, I come gifting bears.<br /><br />What it boils down to is if you want your porn, you're going to get your porn. Regardless of what the government says. As Lazarus99 - there are ways around everything...<br /><br />As with every other documented case in which the &quot;censorship argument&quot; [you simply cannot justify calling it a debate] reared its fugly head, it all comes down to one thing. <br /><br />The shouty people.<br /><br />They don't like something they shout about it. They're shouty people, it's what they do. Unfortunately, if they don't like it their shouty thinking lump decrees that no one else should either. And much shouting follows. Usually concessions are made just so they'll shut the fuck up. And once the silence settles, whatever was banned is usually un-banned. <br /><br />My fellow Australians: how many films and games has this happened to? Quite a few. In fact, my brother just ordered a game that was just recently un-banned. Our next real concern should be the shouty that's already brewing over 'Kick-Ass' the Movie ... conveniently ignoring that the comic has been easily available since last year. You see, shouty people are stupid people. Don't let them trouble you.<br /><br />At least we didn't ban big breasts too. That would be un-Australian. Now ... about India and that whole &quot;Australians are racist&quot; thing ... <br /><br />Bet they don't have golden showers in their porn. Too busy singing.<br /><br />Hmmm ... ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217863#Comment_217863</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217863#Comment_217863</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:23:15 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Lazarus99</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @johnjones<br /><br />Yeah, that too... ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217866#Comment_217866</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=217866#Comment_217866</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:51:38 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Aurora Borealis</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <blockquote >Well, a lot of people get off on it. What is the Classification Board afraid of, that golden shower videos will encourage urinating?</blockquote><br />No, it's the other way around. They should ban urinating to stop golden showers! Starting from themselves and thus hopefully dying of kidney failure or something and sparing everyone else the grief.<br /><br />There are people who get off to every possible bodily fluid, body part, piece of clothing or any activity. Or equipment. A girl dressed in a maid uniform wearing yellow gloves and washing up dishes while wearing a collar will be hot to people who are into kitchen/gardening/rubber gloves, people who are into maid uniforms, people who are into submission and people who are into maid duty. And will probably make couple of crossdressers quite jealous too. Oh, and if she's wearing heels and fishnets, that adds two more "fetish demographics" to the mix.<br /><br />But yeah, I'm drifting away from the topic, carry on. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219235#Comment_219235</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219235#Comment_219235</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:33:48 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>voyou</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Apparently this has come to the attention of Anonymous, who <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100208/001891.html" >have launched "Operation Titstorm" in response</a>. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219297#Comment_219297</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219297#Comment_219297</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:58:40 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Ben Klumaster</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Just when I think the Hackers on Steroids have passed over and become a lame joke, they surprise me with something wonderful. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219330#Comment_219330</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219330#Comment_219330</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:09:38 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Twist</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Anonymous and 4Chan are actually pretty active, at least in Melbourne. They pretty frequently organise flash mobs and participate in protests. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219579#Comment_219579</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219579#Comment_219579</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:36:53 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>sneak046</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/anonymous-unfurls-operation-titstorm/" >Several Australian government websites were slowly recovering Wednesday hours after the online prankster group Anonymous unleashed a massive distributed denial-of-service attack to protest the country’s evolution toward internet censorship....At one point Thursday, Parliament’s website was felled after getting 7.5 million hits a second. Usually, it receives a few hundred a second.<br /></a><br /><br />Via <a href="http://cjwhite.tumblr.com/post/385243945/operationtitstorm" >CJWhite</a> ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219580#Comment_219580</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219580#Comment_219580</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:59:53 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Exploder</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Ha ha ha ha.<br /><br />To all of it, really.  The initial ha ha was from the DNS, but really, this whole thread gets the rest of the ha ha.<br /><br />Also, this would not be necessary if all Australians weren't pee drinking child fuckers. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219643#Comment_219643</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=219643#Comment_219643</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:13:11 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>m34tb0und</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Does this mean that there is an official Itty Bitty Titty Committee in Australia? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=220067#Comment_220067</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=220067#Comment_220067</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:05:15 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>johnjones</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <img src="http://buzznet-44.vo.llnwd.net/assets/users16/evanlicious/default/Jocko--gallery-msg-117766155274.jpg" alt="" ><br /><br />Jocko says...<br /><br />"Oy!  The first rule of the Itty Bitty Titty Committee is: Don't talk about the Itty Bitty Titty Committee!  Or I'll beat you to death with a sockful of Energizer batteries!  Like this pack I'm holding!" ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=220084#Comment_220084</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=220084#Comment_220084</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:16:30 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>stsparky</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Andre's pitch black comic nailed this. I've not heard of the Itty Bitty Titty Committee since High School. Sure it wasn't new then either. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=226961#Comment_226961</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=226961#Comment_226961</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:27:04 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>Greasemonkey</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/google-spots-holes-in-internet-filter-plans-20100323-qu4b.html" >Governmental attempts at information control continue in Australia</a><br /><br />The Australian government, with the support of ultraconservative religious groups, is still going ahead with plans to censor the internet at the national level. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=226981#Comment_226981</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=226981#Comment_226981</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:19:41 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>glukkake</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I feel that there should be protest where men shouldn't be allowed to shave their pubic hair because it makes them look underaged in the penis.<br /><br />...or I guess fight against censorship, etc etc. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=228202#Comment_228202</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=228202#Comment_228202</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:28:16 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>NickDonald</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I guess the official Itty Bitty Titty Committee is a new one on me, but I be they'd find support here: www.sexparty.org.au/<br /><br />That, boys and girls is the website of <em >The Australian Sex Party</em>. That's right, we have one of those and it's a propper party and everything. Only one problem: how can it be The Australian Sex Party when ther are quite clearly several Australians, me for one, who didn't get an invite?<br /><br />I waded through this shit storm at the time and can unequivocally state three things:<br /><br />1 - It was, as I say, a shit storm. None of the articles that kicked it off had any actual substantiating references, bandying about words like "many" and "some" in place of research [so I ended up doing it] and the word "abhorrent" didn't originate with the government, despite them being quoted as having said it first.<br /><br />2 - The original report from the Australian Sex Party was about the banning of films showing female ejaculation -"a <em >normal</em> orgasmic sexual response in <em >many</em> women, with censors branding it as “abhorrent” [their quotation marks, not mine]" And, allegedly, in the past had banned <em >ONE</em> specific publication stating the model's breast size as <em >A </em> factor [note the singular?]. It was a brain deficient, functionally retarded, blogger who dropped the big P into the mix. That's right: pedophilia. [I mean you, Ms Naughty! Wherever you are, I'm sure your knee's jerking in outrage, you fucking muppet!] <br /><br />3 - There are published studies all over the place that conclude something like 70% of Australian women are wearing their bras one size too small, so odds are the whole shit-fight was probably completely unnecessary because 70% of the A-cups are probably B-cups and it's statistically unlikely that the remaining 30% would encompasses any of the models in question, so we've all wasted our time. Yay.<br /><br />This is one link that'll back me up: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/07/11/1120934188721.html?from=top5<br /><br />@Exploder<br /><em >Also, this would not be necessary if all Australians weren't pee drinking child fuckers</em><br /><br />Sadly, we are. Every last one of us wee-guzzling, infant-fans. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=232007#Comment_232007</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=232007#Comment_232007</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:23:48 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>zomgmouse</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ What worries me more than porn being blocked (it takes a lot for something to worry me more, but yes, "other means" &c) is that they're going to be filtering out sites that involve discussion of "illegal stuff". Euthanasia. Abortion. Drugs. Graffiti. Satire's on the line. Anything controversial. Anything they fucking well like. Here you go, lookit kitteh! Go on back to the television. Stop thinking, ra ra ra ra, we provide the news... with interpretive dance. Fuck this.<br />I don't want to seem like the conspiracy-shouter (or maybe I do) but two facts bother me: firstly, the filter itself, and secondly, that <i >nobody pays attention</i>. Absolutely no space is given to this issue anywhere, so there's nobody who knows anything. Even those who do focus on the porn. Which is how they want it, the slimy arses. Goddamn me, I'm in a Spider Jerusalem mood. Fuck you all. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239612#Comment_239612</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239612#Comment_239612</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 17:52:27 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>DC</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ How to rise the f*ck up level of a f*cked up law?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/travellers-to-be-searched-for-porn-20100520-vh09.html" ><em >Australian customs officers have been given new powers to search incoming travellers' laptops and mobile phones for pornography, a spokeswoman for the Australian sex industry says.</em></a> ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239616#Comment_239616</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239616#Comment_239616</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 18:23:14 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>Rootfireember</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ That would make things really slow if they search every laptop and phone for porn. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239619#Comment_239619</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239619#Comment_239619</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 19:09:32 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>JaredRules</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I wonder what percentage of computers in the world are totally porn-free? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239701#Comment_239701</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239701#Comment_239701</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 04:18:13 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>Verissimus</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Where is this coming from? is it some extremist Christian group which is pushing for this kind of censorship, or is it something which is supported by a large part of the population? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239705#Comment_239705</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239705#Comment_239705</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 04:37:26 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>Twist</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ A large percentage of the voting population would like to know what the fuck our government is doing... ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239716#Comment_239716</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239716#Comment_239716</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 05:03:45 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>Paladine</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ If the government asked, I'd gladly give them a copy of my best porn. They wouldn't have to search for it. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239762#Comment_239762</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239762#Comment_239762</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 07:58:59 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>William Joseph Dunn</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <em >"I wonder what percentage of computers in the world are totally porn-free? "</em><br /><br />I'm going to say three. not three percent, but three computers. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239869#Comment_239869</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=239869#Comment_239869</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 13:31:22 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>Rootfireember</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @William Joseph Dunn<br />- Yeh, and I own those three!<br />Hahaha. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=245427#Comment_245427</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=245427#Comment_245427</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:02:20 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>Greasemonkey</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html" >Even scarier Big Brother shit </a>is going down in Australia. Fuck this, it's time to emigrate.<br /><br />"<em >The federal government is hiding controversial plans to force ISPs to store internet activity of all Australian internet users - regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing - for law-enforcement agencies to access.<br /><br />Political opponents and other critics of the scheme have described the draft policy as "alarming" and accused the government of going "on a fishing expedition for as much data on the public as they can get". One ISP executive has described the plan as "a nanny state gone totally insane".</em>"<br /><br /><em >"Some commentators have said the copyright lobby would inevitably try to use the scheme to hunt down and prosecute illegal file sharers, but Sabiene Heindl, head of the music industry's anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations, said: "We have no present intention to do that.""</em> ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=245429#Comment_245429</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=245429#Comment_245429</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:05:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>JiveKitty</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ "present intention" being important words.<br /><br />Ahh, Kevin Rudd, you're a piece of shit and the world would be better without you. The purpose of government is not to control every aspect of the lives of the people within its borders. It is to facilitate and improve aspects of their lives by doing that which would not otherwise arise outside government infrastructure on a significant enough level. I wish politicians would understand that. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=245439#Comment_245439</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=245439#Comment_245439</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:01:32 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>Greasemonkey</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ The scariest thing is that there's no public outrage about this crap. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=245444#Comment_245444</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=245444#Comment_245444</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:49:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>JiveKitty</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Outrage requires too much effort. Sit back and have another beer. The government is a monolith. Little people can't do anything about it.<br /><br />Well, that's the theory anyway. It was borne out to a degree in the UK, with the Lib-Dems failing to get enough support to viably be able to go with Labour, for example, which meant they weren't really the spoilers predicted. Of course, with the system rigged as it is, it's not all that surprising. Even in New Zealand, with MMP, we've clung to the staid old parties thus far, and there's a disappointing lack of political accountability -- as embodied by the recent credit card scandal (Ministers using the Ministerial Credit Cards inappropriately): sanctions have been minimal, and despite being a pig in the trough one particular MP who's done nothing useful in his fucking career and who seems to have that Ruddesque desire to regulate, tax and control anything he doesn't like is still odds on to become mayor of a major city at present.<br /><br />I think the people who do care are just incredibly disillusioned. Look at the choices you've got in Australia, if that's where you are: Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd. It's nearly always the lesser of two evils. There doesn't tend to be a lot of integrity, character or ability going. People just figure they're going to be fucked regardless. The glimmer of hope here is that it's hard to implement such a policy, and techies are going to be working out how to dismantle it from word-go, and they'll probably have inside help to do it.<br /><br />Of course, the irony is that if the people worked up enough outrage, the plan would be stymied -- for now. Rudd would either put it on the backburner and wait until after the election (if he wins), or he'd be sneaky about implementing it very quietly, ostensibly with changed provisions, or even under a different name as a different policy. There's already that tenuous link to terrorism. I can see it being put in an anti-terror bill. I can even see certain events occurring due to a more relaxed attitude to terrorism, then a new anti-terror bill with harsh measures being drafted. Maybe that's the paranoia. I'm not saying they'd set out for such events to occur, just that policies might be put in place which increase the likelihood. Rudd, at his heart, is a political animal whose only goal is power, but I'm not sure he's that much of an animal and his party probably wouldn't allow it. His actions over the past few months reek of fear, desperation and pure vindictiveness though. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=245664#Comment_245664</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=245664#Comment_245664</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:04:26 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>Greasemonkey</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ The government continues to pass terrifying new laws, and nobody here seems to give a shit. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=251072#Comment_251072</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=251072#Comment_251072</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:44:57 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>JiveKitty</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Also this: <a href="http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2010/07/did-you-know-abby-winters-broke-up-with-australia.html" >Abby Winters is gone from Australia</a>. (NSFW - it's Violet Blue's site and the adverts and other images on the page will probably get a person in trouble.) Basically, Abby Winters ("the flagship site for what is seen as sex-positive pro-female porn"?) has shut up shop in Australia because of the increasing prudishness of the legislature and the whack-arse anti-porn laws they're enforcing or trying to bring in. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Australian Classification Board vs. Golden Showers, Women Who &quot;Appear To Be&quot; Younger Than 18</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=251081#Comment_251081</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7673&amp;Focus=251081#Comment_251081</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:17:14 -0700</pubDate>
		<author>D.J.</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <blockquote >"the flagship site for what is seen as sex-positive pro-female porn"</blockquote><br />I'm not entirely sure what this is suppose to mean, but it sounds very dumb. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	
		</channel>
	</rss>