Australia, Afraid of Gender Ambiguity?

Warning: this article does contain issues pertaining to sex and pornography. If you do not wish to read about these issues, I would advise that you stop reading now.

A friend recently sent me this article: http://www.inquisitr.com/59472/millions-of-extra-sites-to-be-censorsed-as-australian-gov-bans-small-breasts-female-ejaculation/. Apparently the Australian government has banned internet porn sites that show small breasts and female ejaculation.

The article states:

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. (emphasis added)

I know what some of you are thinking: "So what? Porn is derogatory towards women." I'm not disagreeing with that statement, I think it can be derogatory towards women. And honestly, when this person first sent me the article, I thought in my head "Why are you even sending me this article?" However, after thinking about it some, I saw some gender issues in these new bans.

Although the country claims that they are banning small breasts because of child pornography (which would be an acceptable reason for me), coupled with the ban of female ejaculation, these bans suggest a deeper issue here: gender. It seems as if the Australian government is afraid of women being too much like men. Both women with small breasts and women who ejaculate could be a threat to the gender dichotomy which exists in some countries. This dichotomy basically means that females are the opposite of males (and, obviously, vice versa). Therefore, if males do not have breasts and do ejaculate, women must have big breasts and must not ejaculate. Coupled in this way, this new law shows that Australia might not be afraid of child porn and urination after all, instead, they might just be afraid of a breaking down of the gender norm system.

At the same time, this ban seems to be placing value on women with large breasts, while simultaneously devaluing the beauty of women with small breasts. I know we might think that porn doesn't matter and that it is disgusting and whatnot, but it can still be used to reinforce the ideals of the society. These ideals are obviously feminine women and masculine men, and has no room in between for anyone who might do a bit of border crossing. This is not to suggest that Australia is against gay, lesbian, transsexual, transgender, and queer rights. Instead, I'm suggesting that they don't like the possibility of unintentional border crossing by the heterosexual population. They don't want their men who are looking at women to accidentally get turned on by a woman who looks more like a man or acts like a man. This would be a regressive moment for them.

Lastly, I just want to suggest that while the United States does not have these bans, it does have a gender system put into place which is just as dichotomous, if not more so, than Australia's.

Introduction & D.C. Condom Law: Fact or Fiction?

Hello and welcome to my blog! This blog is going to consist of all things women's studies and gender studies. So, let's begin.

I was trying to think of good topics for my first blog post. You know the stuff: real issues, attention grabbers, need to know information. But then I decided that every issue I plan to write about will be real, everything I write will (hopefully) grab your attention (otherwise you'll probably stop coming back), and everything I plan to write will also be information that I think everyone should know. So this blog will just be a compilation of ideas running through my mind.

Let's take a look at the ideas presently running through my mind (in fast forward speed).

D.C. passed a law that says women carrying more than two condoms will be considered prostitutes? The salem witch trials were so sexist, and I can't believe they drown women to see if they were witches. There was just no winning! Who knew that women might use the word "like" more often as a form of apology and as a way of being less direct? Are there really 35 different sexes? Anne Fausto-Sterling claims five, but to add a thirty in front of that!

Actually, a lot of these ideas come from a few of the interesting classes I am in this semester. I imagine these classes might inform some of my posts, but in general, you can look for posts about: culture, news, literature, and whatever else I see as pertaining to this subject.

Since this is my first blog and all, I am going to try to start with an interesting issue: Anti-prostituion laws in D.C. that limit women's rights to safe sex.

D.C. Law: Fact or Fiction?

I am a Digg user, or a Digger, if you will. Recently, while I was surfing Digg to find a topic I could use to go off on a feminist rant about, I found this one: http://digg.com/d31F92J . According to the article, D.C. passed a law which is supposed to restrict prostitution by deeming any woman in possession of more than two condoms a prostitute. There has been a HUGE amount of negative comments pouring in on different sites, even signing petitions to have this "law reversed." However, according to http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/01/13/can-having-three-condoms-in-d-c-get-you-arrested/ this might not be necessary. This blog suggests that all the information was taken out of context and that there is no real law suggesting that women with more than 2 condoms on them will be arrested. It might, however, be grounds for an officer to believe that you are prostituting yourself. (However they are not supposed to arrest anyone for this.) So rest sound tonight women, it is highly doubtful that if you are carrying 3 condoms in the D.C. area that you will get busted by the police for intent to prostitute (as long as you don't "linger" in an area that has been deemed a prostitution-free zone, that is). Therefore, I'm going to chalk this one up to fiction.