The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Australian Government to impose mandatory nationalwide internet filtering
"And it's squalid stuff -- and only squalid stuff -- that is being talked about. Child porn, bestiality, rape fantasies, women being beaten up; the sort of stuff that you'd think any self-respecting left-winger should be actively campaigning against."
OK, child porn and bestiality I understand, they're already illegal under Australian law I believe.
Rape fantasies is a fetish, no women were actually more harmed than during a perfectly legal BDSM movie? I mean, if it is real rape or snuff movies then there's something I wouldn't mind being non-existent, but these fantasies are just that: fantasy, not real.
Women being beaten up sounds weird, how is that different from men being beaten up? Are movies with one-sided violence also banned in Australia? How about kick boxing?
The quip that "self-respecting left-wingers" should protest against all those things instead is a shoddy ad hom: who says "left-wingers" (read: anyone who dares disagree with the author) do not care about these issues as well? You can have more than one ideal.
Plus it isn't ONLY squalid stuff. That's half the fucking argument. They have 2 lists, the mandatory one (child porn etc) and the opt-outable one (but who knows what fucking list you get put on if you opt out, personally that whole idea would make me paranoid they now have you're internet use under surveillance or some other orwellian shit). The Opt-Outable one is stuff the government considers "unwanted" (and who the fuck decides that?) such as:
- A site debating the merits of euthanasia in which some participants exchanged information about actual euthanasia practices.
- A site set up by a community organisation to promote harm minimisation in recreational drug use.
- A site providing a safe space for young gay and lesbians to discuss their sexuality.
- A site that includes dialogue and excerpts from literary classics such as Nabokov's Lolita or sociological studies into sexual experiences, such as Dr Alfred Kinsey's famous Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male.
- A site devoted to discussing the geopolitical causes of terrorism that published material outlining the views of terrorist organisations as reference material.
And this is just a handful of examples of stuff they're blocking at the trial stages.
I guess politicians are retarded even in Australia.
Welcome to the country!
And you have just managed to come at a pretty shitty time as far as politics goes. Rudd has done a pretty decent job on most matters, and for all his wishy-washiness and even besides the fact that I can't stand him as a person, he's done a pretty goddamn decent job of running the joint. Be glad you weren't here when Howard was in power.
For anyone interested in a more concise rundown of what's going on in terms of the filtering debate, the whirlpool forums are by far the biggest and most well-respected IT / Internet based web forums in Australia, so head on down to http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/100?g=175 and check up on some of the threads there to work out which politicians are taking which views and etc.
Plus every time I've heard someone from the federal police talking about the issue websites very rarely enter into the equation. They're easy to get shut down and are a very very small portion of the problem. From what the police have commented about it the vast majority of the distribution of this stuff takes place over peer to peer networks or chat networks. None of which this system addresses whatsoever.
They seem to be pushing the "protecting the children" aspect of the filter nowdays though. But I don't get that. How large a problem is kids inadvertently finding this stuff? How widespread an issue is it? Are parents clamouring at the government constantly to do something about this? It seems like a massively disproportionate solution to the problem, so I'm interested to know how widespread an issue it actually is that kids accidentally, with no intention, stumble upon hardcore illegal content.
With parent supervision and a properly installed net nanny style filter (like the ones the government USED to give out for free) I don't see how this is an issue at all. Certainly not an issue that would warrant a nationwide mandatory filter that costs us 44 million dollars. Certainly not an issue of large enough concern that it warrants turning their backs on their election promises to improve the speed and cost of Australian internet and instead give us slower and more expensive internet. Certainly not an issue of large enough concern for our nation to bear the burden of lost revenue and business from the further decline of our already lackluster communications network, especially as we try to recover from the economic crisis.
And as a "protect the children" project it seems misguided. Most of the issues kids have with internet these days seem to be related to facebook bullying or online stalker creeps. Neither of which this system addresses or could address in any feasible way. Maybe it's all just smokescreen so they look like they're making an effort since they can't actually do anything effective to solve the actual problems. Which is fine, but don't fuck it up for everyone else in the process. I'm used to the government wasting my money on bullshit, but don't spend my money making something that already sucks WORSE.
The whole thing remains utterly absurd and incomprehensible in it's actual goals, which remain unmeasurable as far as I can tell. What is it supposed to achieve? And how is it supposed to achieve this? Why? Why do this at all?
Just as with pretty much all incoming information to a person (such as what he reads, what he sees, etc), all filtering should be done at end user level and no higher.
I'd really like to see some media coverage interviewing businesses (IT or otherwise) of how the 30-80% speed decrease will effect them.
-SPI- on
0
UnluckyThat's not meant to happenRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Honestly, this entire issue makes me so angry I have to just walk away from the computer and do something else whenever it comes up in discussion.
I am seriously interested to know: How long until Stephen can be booted out of his seat? If ever? I thought the Minister for (Yeah, I know this title is wrong) the internet would have to be knowledgeable about that particular facet of his job? Filter's won't work in Australia, period.
Also yes, I am willing to bet good money that a sizeable chunk of businesses' will no longer be able to function with this speed reduction. Or, at the very minimal, will suffer considerable productivity and profit issues.
I'd really like to see some media coverage interviewing businesses (IT or otherwise) of how the 30-80% speed decrease will effect them.
I found a link a few days ago (sorry I can't find it anymore, if anyone really wants it PM me and I'll try trawl it up) that showed what stance all the major ISPs are taking.
I was fucking shocked, and fucking pissed off.
I guess it was one thing for Telstra and maybe Optus to be supporting this thing, but when you consider the Government's policy means that the ISP themselves have to cover the cost of the filtering, you'd think all the smaller ISPs would be trying to stand up for themselves, but they have a fucking pathetic showing. From what I remember, the only ISP who had a flat out negative view on the filter was Internode, and all the other smaller ISPs either took a pro or a 'meh' attitude.
It's that fucking provision in the bill to provide "extra financial incentives" to ISPs who filter content "beyond the government blacklist" that has brought this on. Considering the extremely loose wording on what exactly the "extra financial incentives" are for, it's practically a fucking bribe to keep up and shut up.
I'm with Unlucky on this one, the entire issue makes me so fucking pissed off I need to step away from the computer after a while.
I guess it was one thing for Telstra and maybe Optus to be supporting this thing, but when you consider the Government's policy means that the ISP themselves have to cover the cost of the filtering, you'd think all the smaller ISPs would be trying to stand up for themselves, but they have a fucking pathetic showing. From what I remember, the only ISP who had a flat out negative view on the filter was Internode, and all the other smaller ISPs either took a pro or a 'meh' attitude.
Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that page if you think you can find it again. The cleanfeed wiki on whirlpool says that there are a number of ISPs who don't support the filter (Telstra, iiNet, Internode and Netspace being the biggest among them). Linky. The thing is, it's been a while since the wiki has been updated. I think they've really only been adding to the gargantuan list of threads that the forum discussion has reached. The OCAU wiki about the filter seems to be MIA as well, and the Electronic Freedom Project hasn't seen an update in a while either.
It might be worth noting that the Ausrtalian Web Industry Association are against the filter (they have an up to date page here) and the System Administrators Guild of Australia have been against this for a while as well.
If the industry could object to this any harder they'd be smacking conroy in the face (Except for NetXP, who seem to support it).
Hey Trentus, I just got your PM. I'm trying to backtrace my steps to see if I can find the article I mentioned, but in case I don't I'm taking notes on the individual ISPs as I come across them.
It looks like it isn't quite as bad as I recall, I put a bit of a pessimistic spin on it in my head apparently. I think that because I oppose the filter on a purely theoretical level, before the technical impracticality even comes into it, I kind of write off comments such as Netspace's
"We're obviously very supportive of anything that improves safety and services on the internet," said Netspace's regulatory and carrier affairs manager, Matthew Phillips. "We're a little bit concerned on the implementation."
as weak.
Still, when you look at the full support from Telstra, Optus and iPrimus along with the wishy-washy stances of Exetel, Netspace and M2 I can't help but feel dissapointed. I was (probably naivly) counting on the ISP's to form a bit of a defense against this god-forsaken bill.
Something unanimously agreed upon by all the ISPs though is the fact that the cost for this filter is going to be passed on to the end comsumer, because we clearly pay way too little for our internet down here.
I just can't get over the fact that the Rudd government ran on a standpoint of faster and cheaper internet for Australia and instead we get slower and more expensive internet. How... what... I...
I just can't get over the fact that the Rudd government ran on a standpoint of faster and cheaper internet for Australia and instead we get slower and more expensive internet. How... what... I...
populism (uncountable)
(philosophy) A political doctrine or philosophy that proposes that the rights and powers of ordinary people are exploited by a privileged elite, and supports their struggle to overcome this.
I hope I'm not the only one being vocal outside Internet forums here. I wrote letters to my local member (ALP), Conroy, Minchin (leader of the opposition in the Senate), Tony Smith (Shadow communications spokesperson), Xenophon and for good measure wrote my ISP to tell them I don't like it and I hope they don't like it either.
The www.nocleanfeed.com/action has a pretty good template. (It's good due to its simplicity. I added to it, took out some things and changed some stuff around).
It seems ridiculous that there are so many end-user devices that can do this better, but nooooooooooo, the guv'mint has to protect the children by slowing the rest of us down with a shoddy expensive ISP-level filter.
I believe that Pell stuck his head into the debate where it wasn't wanted today, and conflated the argument against net censorship with an argument for child abuse imagery. Linky.
I've been keeping up with the Whirlpool thread as well. Some of it is pretty annoying, as there appear to be quite a few (what I would guess to be approximately 16yo) tinfoil hat wearers in there proclaiming the end of times. There's plenty of reasoned debate also, but it goes in circles.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
I've been keeping up with the Whirlpool thread as well. Some of it is pretty annoying, as there appear to be quite a few (what I would guess to be approximately 16yo) tinfoil hat wearers in there proclaiming the end of times. There's plenty of reasoned debate also, but it goes in circles.
The whirlpool thread is both the best and the worst of man. I am so sick of reading about how Abbot will liberate us from communist Rudd of how the Greens are never worth voting for because of Hamilton. At the same time they're pretty much the center of the Australian IT / Internet community (certainly the most accessible venue for discussion) and are worth visiting.
I think that because I oppose the filter on a purely theoretical level, before the technical impracticality even comes into it, I kind of write off comments such as Netspace's.
Cheers for the link, though it makes me sad . I kind of expected a stronger response from iiNet, given the comments they were making when the trial was announced. Something along the lines of "They can take their filter and go roger themselves" would've sufficed. Maybe if they'd asked Michael Malone for a comment instead of that dude...
I am curious about what Netspace mean when they say they worry about the implementation. That could mean just about anything. Are they saying the filters are just shit, or are they saying there should be a review process for sites on the blacklist? Or that there should be a true opt out mode? It's probably purely technical...
I've been keeping up with the Whirlpool thread as well. Some of it is pretty annoying, as there appear to be quite a few (what I would guess to be approximately 16yo) tinfoil hat wearers in there proclaiming the end of times. There's plenty of reasoned debate also, but it goes in circles.
I used to follow it closely when Mark Newton was making a lot of noise, but after a while I just couldn't do it anymore. It got to the point where anything worth reading got lost in all the noise and the whole thing just made me angry. Gotta wonder what the signal to noise ratio is like now that they're up to their 64th thread...
Any pretense from the Australian Government that its proposed internet filter will not extend to millions of sites has died with news that the Government has banned small breasts and female ejaculation in adult material.
The ban (RC) on small breasted women in adult publications has been made by the Australian Classification Board allegedly on the grounds that such images could be construed as child pornography, even where those publications comply with American law and keep certification that performers are over 18.
Female ejaculation has been banned on the incredible grounds that “the depictions are a form of urination which is banned under the label of ‘golden showers’ in the Classification Guidelines” and/or “Female ejaculation is an ‘abhorrent’ depiction.” Notably here male ejaculation is completely legal under the same guidelines, attracting an X rating in Australia.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. And not just at the comically bad spelling in the article title.
Any pretense from the Australian Government that its proposed internet filter will not extend to millions of sites has died with news that the Government has banned small breasts and female ejaculation in adult material.
The ban (RC) on small breasted women in adult publications has been made by the Australian Classification Board allegedly on the grounds that such images could be construed as child pornography, even where those publications comply with American law and keep certification that performers are over 18.
Female ejaculation has been banned on the incredible grounds that “the depictions are a form of urination which is banned under the label of ‘golden showers’ in the Classification Guidelines” and/or “Female ejaculation is an ‘abhorrent’ depiction.” Notably here male ejaculation is completely legal under the same guidelines, attracting an X rating in Australia.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. And not just at the comically bad spelling in the article title.
Next thing to ban: Cumshots and big breasts, because the first is vile and the second is obviously because the viewer has a maternal fixation and THEREFORE should be regarded as incest.
Lord Of The Pants on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
I propose we mandate breast augmentation for all. Let no one have breasts smaller than D-Cups lest they be construed as children.
That is the most absolutely ridiculous thing ever. Seriously, banning it because they are too small? Maybe the government is made of big breast lovers.
Next thing to ban: Cumshots and big breasts, because the first is vile and the second is obviously because the viewer has a maternal fixation and THEREFORE should be regarded as incest.
No next up we have to place everybody who married a woman with small breasts under police surveillance and start tapping their phones. They're clearly just acting out their child molestation fantasies.
Outside of Road Warrior I always wondered what happens to Australia in post apocalyptic scenarios, since presumably you wouldn't be a primary target for anyone.
Turns out you all kill yourselves before the apocalypse because after porn is made completely illegal in 2013, the government eventually bans all sex because a child somewhere might see it, including masturbation - this is enforced with a mandatory chip implant in everyone that displays the hot tub scene with Kathy Bates in your visual cortex every time you see something arousing
So, like, has anyone confirmed this from a legitimate news source? One with a name written in standard english, printed somewhere besides a basement in the suburbs, and founded more than 5 years ago? Not that I'd be surprised, mark you, but still.
So, like, has anyone confirmed this from a legitimate news source? One with a name written in standard english, printed somewhere besides a basement in the suburbs, and founded more than 5 years ago? Not that I'd be surprised, mark you, but still.
Federal government censors are directing Customs officials to confiscate depictions of the female orgasm when it is accompanied with an ejaculation. The Classification Board is also starting to classify films that feature female ejaculation as Refused Classification rather than X. Films that show both male and female ejaculation have routinely been given an X rating since 1983. The new ruling follows a boom in the numbers of adult films featuring female ejaculation since the pioneering research of Professor Emeritus Beverly Whipple was published in her book The G Spot. Recent articles in the New Scientist and on Norman Swan’s Health Report on ABC radio have raised public awareness of this largely hitherto unknown aspects of female orgasm.
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”.
But where did they get it? They're saying customs/classification board officials are being directed; that requires memos. I want to see the source documents from the feds directing this.
Don't get all defensive; if true, I'm as upset about this kind of meddling as anyone. Its just that the story seems to have no solid sources behind it and to my mind, it contains a large number of dogwhistles.
Posts
OK, child porn and bestiality I understand, they're already illegal under Australian law I believe.
Rape fantasies is a fetish, no women were actually more harmed than during a perfectly legal BDSM movie? I mean, if it is real rape or snuff movies then there's something I wouldn't mind being non-existent, but these fantasies are just that: fantasy, not real.
Women being beaten up sounds weird, how is that different from men being beaten up? Are movies with one-sided violence also banned in Australia? How about kick boxing?
The quip that "self-respecting left-wingers" should protest against all those things instead is a shoddy ad hom: who says "left-wingers" (read: anyone who dares disagree with the author) do not care about these issues as well? You can have more than one ideal.
- A site debating the merits of euthanasia in which some participants exchanged information about actual euthanasia practices.
- A site set up by a community organisation to promote harm minimisation in recreational drug use.
- A site providing a safe space for young gay and lesbians to discuss their sexuality.
- A site that includes dialogue and excerpts from literary classics such as Nabokov's Lolita or sociological studies into sexual experiences, such as Dr Alfred Kinsey's famous Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male.
- A site devoted to discussing the geopolitical causes of terrorism that published material outlining the views of terrorist organisations as reference material.
And this is just a handful of examples of stuff they're blocking at the trial stages.
Kill the children
Save the food
:whistle:
Welcome to the country!
And you have just managed to come at a pretty shitty time as far as politics goes. Rudd has done a pretty decent job on most matters, and for all his wishy-washiness and even besides the fact that I can't stand him as a person, he's done a pretty goddamn decent job of running the joint. Be glad you weren't here when Howard was in power.
For anyone interested in a more concise rundown of what's going on in terms of the filtering debate, the whirlpool forums are by far the biggest and most well-respected IT / Internet based web forums in Australia, so head on down to http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/100?g=175 and check up on some of the threads there to work out which politicians are taking which views and etc.
(And yeah, fuck the children)
They seem to be pushing the "protecting the children" aspect of the filter nowdays though. But I don't get that. How large a problem is kids inadvertently finding this stuff? How widespread an issue is it? Are parents clamouring at the government constantly to do something about this? It seems like a massively disproportionate solution to the problem, so I'm interested to know how widespread an issue it actually is that kids accidentally, with no intention, stumble upon hardcore illegal content.
With parent supervision and a properly installed net nanny style filter (like the ones the government USED to give out for free) I don't see how this is an issue at all. Certainly not an issue that would warrant a nationwide mandatory filter that costs us 44 million dollars. Certainly not an issue of large enough concern that it warrants turning their backs on their election promises to improve the speed and cost of Australian internet and instead give us slower and more expensive internet. Certainly not an issue of large enough concern for our nation to bear the burden of lost revenue and business from the further decline of our already lackluster communications network, especially as we try to recover from the economic crisis.
And as a "protect the children" project it seems misguided. Most of the issues kids have with internet these days seem to be related to facebook bullying or online stalker creeps. Neither of which this system addresses or could address in any feasible way. Maybe it's all just smokescreen so they look like they're making an effort since they can't actually do anything effective to solve the actual problems. Which is fine, but don't fuck it up for everyone else in the process. I'm used to the government wasting my money on bullshit, but don't spend my money making something that already sucks WORSE.
The whole thing remains utterly absurd and incomprehensible in it's actual goals, which remain unmeasurable as far as I can tell. What is it supposed to achieve? And how is it supposed to achieve this? Why? Why do this at all?
Also I found this to be a good analogy for this whole mess.
I am seriously interested to know: How long until Stephen can be booted out of his seat? If ever? I thought the Minister for (Yeah, I know this title is wrong) the internet would have to be knowledgeable about that particular facet of his job? Filter's won't work in Australia, period.
Also yes, I am willing to bet good money that a sizeable chunk of businesses' will no longer be able to function with this speed reduction. Or, at the very minimal, will suffer considerable productivity and profit issues.
I found a link a few days ago (sorry I can't find it anymore, if anyone really wants it PM me and I'll try trawl it up) that showed what stance all the major ISPs are taking.
I was fucking shocked, and fucking pissed off.
I guess it was one thing for Telstra and maybe Optus to be supporting this thing, but when you consider the Government's policy means that the ISP themselves have to cover the cost of the filtering, you'd think all the smaller ISPs would be trying to stand up for themselves, but they have a fucking pathetic showing. From what I remember, the only ISP who had a flat out negative view on the filter was Internode, and all the other smaller ISPs either took a pro or a 'meh' attitude.
It's that fucking provision in the bill to provide "extra financial incentives" to ISPs who filter content "beyond the government blacklist" that has brought this on. Considering the extremely loose wording on what exactly the "extra financial incentives" are for, it's practically a fucking bribe to keep up and shut up.
I'm with Unlucky on this one, the entire issue makes me so fucking pissed off I need to step away from the computer after a while.
Sigh.
Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that page if you think you can find it again. The cleanfeed wiki on whirlpool says that there are a number of ISPs who don't support the filter (Telstra, iiNet, Internode and Netspace being the biggest among them). Linky. The thing is, it's been a while since the wiki has been updated. I think they've really only been adding to the gargantuan list of threads that the forum discussion has reached. The OCAU wiki about the filter seems to be MIA as well, and the Electronic Freedom Project hasn't seen an update in a while either.
It might be worth noting that the Ausrtalian Web Industry Association are against the filter (they have an up to date page here) and the System Administrators Guild of Australia have been against this for a while as well.
If the industry could object to this any harder they'd be smacking conroy in the face (Except for NetXP, who seem to support it).
EDIT ::
There we go, found it.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/ISPs-on-the-filter-Who-s-for-who-s-against/0,130061791,339300109,00.htm (DEC 18)
It looks like it isn't quite as bad as I recall, I put a bit of a pessimistic spin on it in my head apparently. I think that because I oppose the filter on a purely theoretical level, before the technical impracticality even comes into it, I kind of write off comments such as Netspace's
as weak.
Still, when you look at the full support from Telstra, Optus and iPrimus along with the wishy-washy stances of Exetel, Netspace and M2 I can't help but feel dissapointed. I was (probably naivly) counting on the ISP's to form a bit of a defense against this god-forsaken bill.
Something unanimously agreed upon by all the ISPs though is the fact that the cost for this filter is going to be passed on to the end comsumer, because we clearly pay way too little for our internet down here.
populism (uncountable)
(philosophy) A political doctrine or philosophy that proposes that the rights and powers of ordinary people are exploited by a privileged elite, and supports their struggle to overcome this.
The www.nocleanfeed.com/action has a pretty good template. (It's good due to its simplicity. I added to it, took out some things and changed some stuff around).
It seems ridiculous that there are so many end-user devices that can do this better, but nooooooooooo, the guv'mint has to protect the children by slowing the rest of us down with a shoddy expensive ISP-level filter.
I believe that Pell stuck his head into the debate where it wasn't wanted today, and conflated the argument against net censorship with an argument for child abuse imagery. Linky.
I've been keeping up with the Whirlpool thread as well. Some of it is pretty annoying, as there appear to be quite a few (what I would guess to be approximately 16yo) tinfoil hat wearers in there proclaiming the end of times. There's plenty of reasoned debate also, but it goes in circles.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
The whirlpool thread is both the best and the worst of man. I am so sick of reading about how Abbot will liberate us from communist Rudd of how the Greens are never worth voting for because of Hamilton. At the same time they're pretty much the center of the Australian IT / Internet community (certainly the most accessible venue for discussion) and are worth visiting.
Cheers for the link, though it makes me sad
I am curious about what Netspace mean when they say they worry about the implementation. That could mean just about anything. Are they saying the filters are just shit, or are they saying there should be a review process for sites on the blacklist? Or that there should be a true opt out mode? It's probably purely technical...
I used to follow it closely when Mark Newton was making a lot of noise, but after a while I just couldn't do it anymore. It got to the point where anything worth reading got lost in all the noise and the whole thing just made me angry. Gotta wonder what the signal to noise ratio is like now that they're up to their 64th thread...
Bad news!
http://www.inquisitr.com/59472/millions-of-extra-sites-to-be-censorsed-as-australian-gov-bans-small-breasts-female-ejaculation/
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. And not just at the comically bad spelling in the article title.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Australia, in the hole with you.
And A Cups. Don't forget A Cups.
And does it mean our olympic team can't strip naked before the olympics again!
No next up we have to place everybody who married a woman with small breasts under police surveillance and start tapping their phones. They're clearly just acting out their child molestation fantasies.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Turns out you all kill yourselves before the apocalypse because after porn is made completely illegal in 2013, the government eventually bans all sex because a child somewhere might see it, including masturbation - this is enforced with a mandatory chip implant in everyone that displays the hot tub scene with Kathy Bates in your visual cortex every time you see something arousing
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Go on...
Australian Sex Party good enough?
http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/press-releases/619-depictions-of-female-orgasm-being-banned-by-classification-board
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Don't get all defensive; if true, I'm as upset about this kind of meddling as anyone. Its just that the story seems to have no solid sources behind it and to my mind, it contains a large number of dogwhistles.