Skip to content

Is female ejaculation offensive or abhorrent?

16 January, 2010

Apparently female ejaculation is not real. Well at least according to the Classification Board (which includes six women). It appears the thinking is – female ejaculate is urine, this could equate to a golden shower and that is a touch too kinky, so no fetish for you.

From Ms Naughty:

Female Ejaculation Films To Be Banned In Australia

I’ve received a circular from the Eros Association, the advocacy group for the Australian adult industry. Thanks to shit stirring by a fundamentalist Christian group, the rules have been tightened as to what adult films can be imported into Australia.

The Classification Board has explicitly stated that films featuring female ejaculation will now be seized and considered RC – refused classification. Effectively banned. This also means that female ejaculation sites will be considered RC (prohibited) for the purposes of the internet filter planned to be introduced here this year.

Eros says:

Customs have simply reacted here to what the Classification Board has done – that is, they have determined that female ejaculation is not a real event and therefore all issue from a women’s vagina is piss and therefore covered under the parameters in the Guidelines for ‘golden showers’. This means that if the shower happens to land on the body or in the mouth it is determined to be an offensive fetish and goes RC. The Classification Board’s finding that female ejaculation does not exist is something we will contest with them as there is a body of scientific (and personal) evidence that says otherwise. Even last month on the ABC Science Show with Dr Norman Swan, they spent an hour with scientists discussing this phenomenon and how it was not urine.

This decision ignores the research that shows that female ejaculate is not urine and there is some suggestion that all women may ejaculate. Of course, some of us playing at home are well aware of this, so how could this bodily function be considered offensive or abhorrent and refused classification?

Update. Ms Naughty also points out the obvious double standards: It’s fine for a man to ejaculate onto a woman’s face, but if a woman ejaculates onto a man’s face then it’s offensive or abhorrent.

Update II. From The Australian Sex Party:

The Board has also started to ban depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. This is in response to a campaign led by Kids Free 2 B Kids and promoted by Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett in Senate Estimates late last year. Mainstream companies such as Larry Flint’s Hustler produce some of the  publications that have been banned. These companies are regulated by the FBI to ensure that only adult performers are featured in their publications. “We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size”, she said. “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”.

Elsewhere:

Ms Naughty

Somebody think of the children

(H/T @kathoc)

Advertisements
14 Comments leave one →
  1. 17 January, 2010 8:58 pm

    This is really about the fundies who believe that women should not have the same level of sexual satisfaction as men.

    Fundie: Only men ejaculate!!! [beats chest] Women bear children and men have to ejaculate to produce sperm. There is no reason for women to ejaculate. It’s not like men enjoy it or anything. Now get back and help me practice to ejaculate properly.

    I’m sure it’s going to be fully explained in the new conservative version of the bible.

    • 18 January, 2010 7:30 am

      Hi Terry,

      Can’t wait to hear that explanation. Isn’t there something in there about it being evil to spill man seed? Perhaps it depends where…

  2. reb permalink
    18 January, 2010 2:43 pm

    For once. I’m speechless.

  3. naturegirl1 permalink
    18 January, 2010 11:12 pm

    What a load of bollocks! The therory that women don’t ejaculate was dreamed up by some chauvistic pratt with a tiny mind (& probably tinier dick) & sadly propagated by frustated women who couldn’t manage to come themselves so therefore declared that NO women could possibly do so.
    One day, probably not in my lifetime, society will be truly enlightened, until then, I’ll continue to wet my bed with gay abandon.
    For the record, I will happily take a photo of the wet patch straight after I’ve come & again later when it’s dried out, if you can see a yellow stain I’ll drink my own pee!

  4. PhillB permalink
    21 January, 2010 2:25 pm

    My God don’t talk about vagina’s wilst old Reb is here you’ll offend the poor chap.I just hope the females on his favorite site don’t get wind of it, Germain will not be pweased’at all.

  5. 22 January, 2010 6:36 pm

    At least no one has found female ejaculation offensive, Phill.

  6. poail low permalink
    22 January, 2010 10:48 pm

    I think it’s offensive

    • 27 January, 2010 5:34 pm

      How? Why?

      By the way, your comment was stuck in the spam filter. You were not being “censored”.

  7. stormcentre permalink
    29 January, 2010 12:13 am

    Even if female ejaculation wasn’t real, I don’t understand why people think depictions of “golden showers” should be banned. I’m not into it, but then again, I choose not to view it. Why is it legal to piss on someone (with their consent), but not show a video of that to a third party? (Assuming that consent to show to the third party has been granted by the first two parties, and that the third party can consent to view the material).

    Provided everyone involved has provide their consent, I don’t see why any of this should be made illegal (or RC). Classifications are there to warn parents and individuals about the type of content they (or their children) are about to view (so they have the option not to look). Except in extreme cases (i.e. Child Porn where by definition consent cannot be granted), classifications should not be about censorship.

    Personally, I think the problem with our current classification regime is that it assumes that we are a passive audience that will consume whatever is placed in front of us. That, and its been shaped by fundamentalist Christians…

  8. 2 February, 2010 11:26 am

    Damnit, I wanted to go to Australia and become famous having a woman cum on my face, these people are destroying our dreams!

Trackbacks

  1. Conroy’s blacklisted blacklist: Please Explain!? « OzPolitik

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: