# Small Breasts lead to pedophilia, Aussie Senator claims.



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2010)

*Aussie censor balks at bijou boobs*
Gets confused about other female bits also
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/australian_censors/



> Breasts came under the spotlight a year ago, as Senators Barnaby Joyce  and Guy Barnett commenced a campaign  against publicly available porn. Rounding up magazines from corner shops  and filling stations, *Senator Joyce claimed that publications featuring  small-breasted women were encouraging paedophilia.*





> According to Fiona Patten, Convenor of the Australian Sex Party: "We are  starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned  because they have an A cup size.


Also, female orgasms are to be banned.



> At the same time, the Australian Sex Party claims, Federal government  censors are directing Customs officials to confiscate depictions of the  female orgasm when it is accompanied with an ejaculation, as the  Classification Board is also starting to classify films that feature  female ejaculation as RC. 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_.
> The films are being banned on one of two grounds:
> 1) That the depictions are a form of urination which is banned under  the label of golden showers in the Classification Guidelines or
> 2) Female ejaculation is an abhorrent depiction


Then there's Germany


> Both issues have featured recently in Europe. Back in November 2008,  Hustler Europe filed a constitutional complaint against a section of  German law that criminalises sales and distribution of content depicting  "adult actors who show a youthful appearance".


So much for cute little farm girls in shorty shorts, pigtails and a tied shirt.... Mary Ann!!!!!!!!!! (think Kirk screaming Kahn in ST2) lol.


----------



## Drac (Jan 28, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So much for cute little farm girls in shorty shorts, pigtails and a tied shirt.... Mary Ann!!!!!!!!!! (think Kirk screaming Kahn in ST2) lol.


 
Good visual....


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 28, 2010)

Does one have to be Australian to join the Sex Party?


I was nearly Australian, my parents applied for the £10 emigration but changed their minds at the last minute.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Jan 28, 2010)

"2) Female ejaculation is an abhorrent depiction "

Many people have never heard of female ejaculation, and think it has something to do with urinating during sex. This is the basis upon which it is being banned. People are willfully ignorant about this subject, preferring to rely upon what they assume to be true rather than upon the anatomical, physiological and experiential evidence.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2010)

I'm all for outlawing legit problems like pedophilia, but sometimes I honestly wonder if we elect people with brains.


----------



## Flea (Jan 28, 2010)

They're right you know.

Consider the chilling aftermath of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction:



> "By the time CBS cut to an aerial view of the stadium, the damage was done," said Wasserbaum, who has also worked extensively with orphaned and amputee children in Third World war zones. "I've found that children can be amazingly resilient, but this event was too much for many of them to take. The horrible image of that breast is likely to haunt them for the rest of their lives."
> According to the 500-page report filed by the FCC, more than 90 percent of the children who saw the exposed breast said they were "confused and afraid."
> "Mommy has dirty chest bumps," said a 5-year-old boy quoted in one of the thousands of case studies compiled by the FCC. "She's like the bad lady on TV. I'm afraid Mommy will take off her shirt and scare everyone. I hate Mommy."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2010)

I've seen thousands of breasts over the years and I am here to tell you that I have not been effected at all.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 28, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I've seen thousands of breasts over the years and I am here to tell you that I have not been effected at all.


 
Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 28, 2010)

Pedophilia is wrong, but anything between consenting adults should be left to the consenting adults. 

I can't stand others trying to ram their beliefs down everybody elses' throat. Let them go and be stupid by themselves. Leave me the hell alone. 

If female ejaculation seems somehow "bad" to you... then that's your hang up. Keep it to yourself or seek therapy for it. A woman having an orgasm doesn't hurt anyone or jeopardize anyone's health or well-being. 

Some people need to get over themselves... and can you believe my friends consider me a prude!?!?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 28, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I've seen thousands of breasts over the years and I am here to tell you that I have not been effected at all.


Well, that's because you're not a child Bob. :uhyeah: 



> The films are being banned on one of two grounds:
> 1) That the depictions are a form of urination which is banned under the label of golden showers in the Classification Guidelines or
> 2) Female ejaculation is an abhorrent depiction


Definitely a quotation from the ignorant. Definitely one who doesn't understand the female body and what it's _capable_ of doing. Definitely a guy who needs to get out more. 

Small breast causing pedophilia... gee I guess I'm a perv because my gf who is 22 years younger than me (she's 26 yrs old btw) and has a small b cup size falls under this ignoramus' criteria.  

Love to hear the jokes created by Aussie's over this particular censor. 

BTW Flea, your Janet Jackson article is by the Onion... not to be taken seriously... ever!  but I guess you knew that and your sarcasm is noted. 

Haven't people got better things to do?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 28, 2010)

Glad to see they're doing a scientific study and consulting experts before they make an ignorant decision. Oh wait.....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 28, 2010)

The Senator is probably making a common mistake.  He is confusing pedophilia with hebephilia and ephebophilia.  Pedophiles have a sexual preference for pre-pubescent children of either sex.  Hebephiles prefer pubescent children, and ephebophiles are what is commonly terms 'dirty old men' for holding a preference to post-pubescent but young people of either sex.

Besides the mistake in labeling, he has the problem backwards.  Most men in western society are ephebophiles, and advertisers know it.  They cater to that predilection with advertising designed to appeal to their target demographic - in this case, middle-aged men, by providing images of teenage girls.  The fact that Hustler used to publish a successful magazine called "Barely Legal" is proof of this.

Western society condemns such predilections at the same time, so few men will freely admit they are ephebophiles, and most exhibit strong angry responses towards those who accuse them of it.  Society also tends to react harshly to true pedophiles and hebophiles, who are often considered the worst of the worst.  For example, in the USA, men who are convicted of the most heinous murders or rapes are released at the very latest when their sentences are completely served.  Those called 'sexual predators', who are often pedophiles or hebophiles, can be held for life using a term called 'civil commitment' which imprisons them for life no matter how much of their original term is served.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009350910_websexpredator17m.html


> Under Washington state law, sex offenders can be confined indefinitely if it's determined they're a danger to the public.



I'm not saying such confinement is wrong - I'm just pointing out that we don't even give such harsh treatment to murderers.  If they serve their time, we release them, no matter how terrible their crimes were.  This shows how much we are revolted by pedophiles, while many of us are attracted to young people ourselves - just not quite THAT young.

Food for thought.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not saying such confinement is wrong - I'm just pointing out that we don't even give such harsh treatment to murderers. If they serve their time, we release them, no matter how terrible their crimes were. This shows how much we are revolted by pedophiles, while many of us are attracted to young people ourselves - just not quite THAT young.


 
Really? You guys dont have a way of keeping people in?

Weve got Dangerous Offender Status. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_offender#United_States

Not perfect but it keeps some of them in for a very long time.


----------



## Carol (Jan 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> . For example, in the USA, men who are convicted of the most heinous murders or rapes are released at the very latest when their sentences are completely served. Those called 'sexual predators', who are often pedophiles or hebophiles, can be held for life using a term called 'civil commitment' which imprisons them for life no matter how much of their original term is served.
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009350910_websexpredator17m.html
> 
> ...



In the U.S. we do absolutely nothing with people that are *attracted *to other people regardless of what their age is.  A person can potentially be as attracted as they want to a child, a teen, or an adult.  Society and the law only gets involved that action is expressed.   Simple attraction is not enough to cause trouble, there must be *actions *involved.

I suspect the majority of sex offenders in the U.S. are not paedophiles.  I have no doubt that many are, but I think the majority are not.  My understanding that the strong punitive measures against sex offenders are more of a testament as to how they largely cannot be rehabilitated, not out of revulsion for who they are attracted to.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 28, 2010)

Carol said:


> In the U.S. we do absolutely nothing with people that are *attracted *to other people regardless of what their age is.  A person can potentially be as attracted as they want to a child, a teen, or an adult.  Society and the law only gets involved that action is expressed.   Simple attraction is not enough to cause trouble, there must be *actions *involved.



Some of those 'actions' can be 'possession of child pornography'.  Before you say that child pornography itself is a crime, current US law defines child pornography as any depiction of a person as a child - that includes adult women made up to look like children (without the accompanying disclaimer that all models are indeed 18, etc) and drawings of children.



> I suspect the majority of sex offenders in the U.S. are not paedophiles.  I have no doubt that many are, but I think the majority are not.  My understanding that the strong punitive measures against sex offenders are more of a testament as to how they largely cannot be rehabilitated, not out of revulsion for who they are attracted to.



The majority of 'sex offenders' in the US are most likely not pedophiles, I'm sure.  However, civil confinement is almost exclusively confined to what is termed 'Sexually violent predators'.  That is, pedophiles who act on their impulses with children.  Not rapists.

We lock up pedophiles for a long time - which is fine, I certainly have no problems with that.  Then we often refuse to let them out even after they've served their prison terms.  We don't do that to rapists.

Rapists often re-offend too.  I believe my original point stands.  We have a singular revulsion for child molesters (pedophiles who act), and we also punish pedophiles who do not molest, but who indulge in their perversion by looking at porn.

This is primarily because pedophilia is considered a personality disorder - a sickness.  Rapists are not considered to have a personality disorder.  Go figure.


----------



## Carol (Jan 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The majority of 'sex offenders' in the US are most likely not pedophiles, I'm sure.  However, civil confinement is almost exclusively confined to what is termed 'Sexually violent predators'.  That is, pedophiles who act on their impulses with children.  Not rapists.
> 
> We lock up pedophiles for a long time - which is fine, I certainly have no problems with that.  Then we often refuse to let them out even after they've served their prison terms.  We don't do that to rapists.
> 
> ...



It is a sickness, exploiting a child that may not have the tools or the knowledge to understand what is going on is clearly not normal behaviour.  We don't punish paedophiles that look at adult porn.  Rapists do have a personality disorder, the difference being rape of adults as behaviour that falls under sociopathy or psycopathy.

The punishment of sex crimes in general in the U.S. has taken the track it has because of the likelyhood of the offender harming another victim.   I think the reasons for civil confinement and distinctions as sexual violent predators are based on how likely that particular individual is to reoffend, and also reflects how the sentences for such crimes usually aren't life or the death penalty.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 28, 2010)

Flea said:


> They're right you know.
> 
> Consider the chilling aftermath of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction:


 


MA-Caver said:


> Well, that's because you're not a child Bob. :uhyeah:


 
No, its because society is ****** up to here *points to head* 

Its ok for a baby to get nurishment from one, but when they are weaned, they think a child would have screemy meemy nightmares if they laid eyes on one. Actually, no, scratch that, in many places its wrong to breastfeed. like there's something wrong with a mother who dares to do it in public.

Here's where I tell people who think that way to grow up out of it. 




			
				macaver said:
			
		

> Small breast causing pedophilia... gee I guess I'm a perv because my gf who is 22 years younger than me (she's 26 yrs old btw) and has a small b cup size falls under this ignoramus' criteria.
> 
> Love to hear the jokes created by Aussie's over this particular censor.


 
yep, and i guess this is another way to satisfy our weird society's craving for bugger Baywatch looking breasts too.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 28, 2010)

Carol said:


> The punishment of sex crimes in general in the U.S. has taken the track it has because of the likelyhood of the offender harming another victim.   I think the reasons for civil confinement and distinctions as sexual violent predators are based on how likely that particular individual is to reoffend, and also reflects how the sentences for such crimes usually aren't life or the death penalty.



I don't agree.  We let perpetrators of other types of sex crimes, violent ones, go when their sentences are served.  We reserve civil confinement almost exclusively to sex offenders who are child molesters.  The death penalty is very seldom given in the USA, and a life sentence almost always has the possibility of parole, so it's not really 'life' for the most part.  Indefinite sentencing means they are confined until they die, without having been sentenced by a court for a crime (other than the crime they already served the alloted time for).

Imagine being on a jury, and you hear a case of a young man who had sex with an underage girl.  You agree that he broke the law, find him guilty, and he's sentenced to say a couple years in prison.  However, when he is due to be released, the state classifies him as a sexual predator and civilly confines him for the rest of his life.  No parole, no trial.  Just a hearing and then he's gone forever.  Maybe he deserves it.  Maybe not.  But usually in this country, we punish people based on what they did, not on what they might do.

And again, I'm not saying that it's wrong to protect ourselves from child molesters.  Of course we must do that.  I'm noting the disparity in how we handle a violent rapist, for example, or a gang-banging murderer, compared to a pedophile child molester.  We as a society consider the child molester the worst.  But we market 'young sex' to adult men - we apparently like the idea.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 28, 2010)

OK, so we set a minimum breast size, say 38DDD, and anyone smaller gets free implants. :ultracool


----------



## Carol (Jan 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't agree.  We let perpetrators of other types of sex crimes, violent ones, go when their sentences are served.  We reserve civil confinement almost exclusively to sex offenders who are child molesters.  The death penalty is very seldom given in the USA, and a life sentence almost always has the possibility of parole, so it's not really 'life' for the most part.  Indefinite sentencing means they are confined until they die, without having been sentenced by a court for a crime (other than the crime they already served the alloted time for).
> 
> Imagine being on a jury, and you hear a case of a young man who had sex with an underage girl.  You agree that he broke the law, find him guilty, and he's sentenced to say a couple years in prison.  However, when he is due to be released, the state classifies him as a sexual predator and civilly confines him for the rest of his life.  No parole, no trial.  Just a hearing and then he's gone forever.  Maybe he deserves it.  Maybe not.  But usually in this country, we punish people based on what they did, not on what they might do.



Your logic is faulty there.   If A Then B only means If A Then B or If !B then !A.   Just because If A Then B is true does not mean If B Then A is true.   I

Therefore if most sexually violent predators are paoedophiles, that dos NOT mean that all paedophiles are sexually violent predators.

In addition, the sex offender registry has different levels that address the criminal's risk to re-offend.  

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopster...ps&b=terminalcontent&f=sorb_levels&csid=Eeops




> And again, I'm not saying that it's wrong to protect ourselves from child molesters.  Of course we must do that.  I'm noting the disparity in how we handle a violent rapist, for example, or a gang-banging murderer, compared to a pedophile child molester.  We as a society consider the child molester the worst.  But we market 'young sex' to adult men - we apparently like the idea.



It's that whole biology thang. :lol:  There is a difference between a child and an adult, and that difference is much greater than the difference between an older adult and a younger adult.  Exploiting a child that may not have the tools or the knowledge to  understand what is going on is clearly not normal behaviour.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> OK, so we set a minimum breast size, say 38DDD, and anyone smaller gets free implants. :ultracool


Is that the Senate or House plan?


----------



## Carol (Jan 28, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Is that the Senate or House plan?



Neither, its Canadian :lol:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 28, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> OK, so we set a minimum breast size, say 38DDD, and anyone smaller gets free implants. :ultracool


 
I'm all for it! Oh and all women must wear white t shirts all year round!

Tell you what, next time I'm at party HQ in Ottawa I'll even bring it up...anyone want to bet how quickly i'll be out on my *** after that discussion?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 28, 2010)

Carol said:


> Therefore if most sexually violent predators are paoedophiles, that dos NOT mean that all paedophiles are sexually violent predators.



I don't think I said that.  If I did, I certainly apologize.  I said that most of the people locked up under civil confinement laws are pedophiles who are sexual predators.  Not rapists, not other 'violent' criminals.



> In addition, the sex offender registry has different levels that address the criminal's risk to re-offend.



And again, we apply this to sexual predators, not bank robbers or murderers.  They have a high risk of re-offending too, but we do not hold them after their sentences are up.
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopster...ps&b=terminalcontent&f=sorb_levels&csid=Eeops


> It's that whole biology thang. :lol:  There is a difference between a child and an adult, and that difference is much greater than the difference between an older adult and a younger adult.  Exploiting a child that may not have the tools or the knowledge to  understand what is going on is clearly not normal behaviour.



I think you're arguing that pedophilia is bad.  I agree, it is bad.

I am saying that IN ADDITION to it being bad, our culture has a definite predilection towards sex with the young - not the underage, but definitely the very young.  It's in our advertising, and it would not be there if it wasn't a selling point.  If the thought of a middle-aged guy getting his freak on with Brittney Spears when she was going through that _"I'm not that innocent"_ routine when she was about 17 or 18 wasn't that, then what was it?  So we place a value on sexual contact with the young in our culture - but we draw a line when it goes too young - and punish those who cross it out of proportion with the way we punish others who commit even more horrific acts of violence.  I agree that an 18 year old is legally an adult, but they don't suddenly grow brains and common sense the day after their birthdays.  We just don't legally protect them from being preyed upon by older adults, is all.

And again, look at the situation - we're not talking about longer prison terms for sex offenders, especially pedophiles.  That would be perfectly understandable.  We're talking about people who are tried, found guilty, given prison sentences, serve those sentences, and then are never released for the rest of their lives, under civil commitment laws that we do NOT apply to bank robbers or murderers.  If the problem is that child molestation is the worst of the worst and society needs to be protected from child molesters, then why not just have life sentences with no possibility of parole?  Why have 10  years sentences and then refuse to let them go when they've served their time?  What's up with that?


----------



## Flea (Jan 28, 2010)

Carol said:


> Neither, its Canadian :lol:



Well, that settles it.  I'm breaking out my passport.  See ya, Uncle Sam!


----------



## David43515 (Jan 29, 2010)

Lots of food for thought on this thread.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 29, 2010)

> *Senator Joyce claimed that publications featuring  small-breasted  women were encouraging paedophilia.*



Couple of comments here....

1. Small breasts are normal and natural. 
2. I see a girl with small breasts I don't think "8 yr old", I think small breasts. (I see a girl with large ones, I think large ones, etc. breasts are a body part, not the woman.) 
3. There is nothing "Pedo" here other than the Senator's mind.
4. A small breasted woman dressed up in a school girl outfit, a girl scout uniform, or a cheerleader get up is a nice fantasy. It's not a gateway to hanging out at the local school with a hidden camera or a white van with some duct-tape and a stained mattress inside.

Maybe a bare pubic mound should be outlawed next. Hey, after all, Adult women have furry crotches, and it's only pre-teens that are bare down there.

So all you women who shave it all off....stop making me think you're an 8 yr old when I photograph you au-natural. I'd hate to piss off a prude government type, Aussie, German, Brit or Yank.

Then again, maybe they want to consider outlawing bikini waxing, pigtails for the over 18s, and require all a-cups to be mandatory augmented to at least a c-cup.....


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Really? You guys don&#8217;t have a way of keeping people in?
> 
> We&#8217;ve got &#8220;Dangerous Offender Status&#8221;. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_offender#United_States
> 
> Not perfect but it keeps some of them in for a very long time.


 
yep yep *cough* paul bernardo *cough*

sick piece of douchenozzle who'll not see daylight again (and rightly so) because he was put under our dangerous offender status. its not used often here in canada (should be used more i think sometimes) but sometimes it is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 29, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> yep yep *cough* paul bernardo *cough*
> 
> sick piece of douchenozzle who'll not see daylight again (and rightly so) because he was put under our dangerous offender status. its not used often here in canada (should be used more i think sometimes) but sometimes it is.



Let's not use the ends to justify the means.  Horrible people should be put away for good, or even put to death, right?  I think we can all agree with that.  There are ways to do that - death sentences and natural life sentences that do not offer any possibility of parole.  Civil confinement after a sentence is completed is like asking for a mulligan - oops, we screwed up, we should have put you away forever, but since your prison term is up, we're just going to keep you locked up anyway.  It might seem like a smart move with a dirtbag such as the man you mentioned above, but the problem with such administrative indefinite confinements is that they can theoretically be applied to a wide range of persons, perhaps undeserving.  If they belong in prison for life, sentence them to that.

A prison sentence is a term given as punishment for a crime.  Imposed by either a judge or a jury on a guilty person, it is meant to represent the term that the person will be removed from society.  Why would it be OK to ignore that ruling and keep a person in prison forever without new charges or convictions, just because of what they 'might' do?  If they are that dangerous, sentence them to life and be done with it.  No need to make a mockery of the law.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 29, 2010)

Actually, after giving this further thought, I think further study is required.  I seek the services of 100 small breasted petite women who shave their neither regions. Shorter gals are preferred as is a youthful appearance.  You will be provided with various costumes as listed in a previous post, and spend part of the time in various partial and full states of undress with me.  After 1 week of intense and extreme exposure (pun intended) I will then be transported to St. Teresa's School for Wayward Teen Girls, and left at their mercy's for another whole week.  We can fund this experiment through the US Stimulus programs (aptly named here).

Let us see if such intense exposure to small breasted young looking women turns me into a vile and despicable pedophile or if there is something else at work here, like a defect that doesn't allow someone to tell right from wrong.


----------



## wushuguy (Jan 29, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Does one have to be Australian to join the Sex Party?
> 
> 
> I was nearly Australian, my parents applied for the £10 emigration but changed their minds at the last minute.




... I wonder what  their conventions and gatherings are like...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 29, 2010)

something to think about and I haven't come to definite conclusions myself, is that the two boys who here were recently sentenced for attacking, torturing and nearly killing two other small boys were watching porn films from a very early age, these included some very violent secual acts and also the 'golden showrs' type of thing which they made the boys they attacked act out. I haven't known any child or children before who have sexually abused other children like this. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8473978.stm


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 29, 2010)

Interesting study on sex-offense type and recidivism rates.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 29, 2010)

The problem I have with some of these studies, and expert opinions is, they're often debunked later.  Rock n Roll will turn you evil. Heavy Metal fans are devil worshipers. It was DnD that made Columbine happen. Watch porn and you become a sex fiend and rape puppies.    Not saying the one Arch listed is bad (haven't read it yet), but that I find most of them biased from the start.

I think some people are just "wrong" or defective as it were, and no amount of "good" or "god" will change that.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 29, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I think some people are just "wrong" or defective as it were, and no amount of "good" or "god" will change that.


 
I agree Bob. Which leaves the question...what do we do with these "broken" people?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 29, 2010)

Short drop and a sudden stop. 
Fence off a few hundred acres, toss them in and let them work it out among themselves.  
There's options, not all of which are popular ones.

But criminalizing something that thousands enjoy safely and properly because a small handful screw it up...doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## K-man (Jan 29, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I was nearly Australian, my parents applied for the £10 emigration but changed their minds at the last minute.


Australia's loss!  Bugger!!


----------



## teekin (Jan 30, 2010)

K-man said:


> Australia's loss! Bugger!!


 
From what Tez has posted they* Need* her there, the Aussies are doin fine.
lori


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 30, 2010)

I've always found Aussies to be straight talking common sense people so it's a bit of a surprise to find they have idiots who are concerned in this way about breast size.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 30, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I've always found Aussies to be straight talking common sense people so it's a bit of a surprise to find they have idiots who are concerned in this way about breast size.


 
nutbars are everywhere...... 
 all countries and continents have them. Unfortunately. Sigh.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 30, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> nutbars are everywhere......
> all countries and continents have them. Unfortunately. Sigh.


 

True enough but the national psyche tends to mean that nutters stay where they are more welcome rather than go to places where the majority of people will shout them down.


----------



## K-man (Jan 31, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I've always found Aussies to be straight talking common sense people so it's a bit of a surprise to find they have idiots who are concerned in this way about breast size.


Senator Barnaby Joyce is what many people would call a 'fringe' politition. He has strong views that might be reflective of his electorate, but in many instances are at odds with the general population. At least he adds a little colour to Australian politics.


----------



## zDom (Feb 1, 2010)

What they need to do is go after these "beauty" pageants in which they attempt to make little girls look like full grown women via makeup and clothing.

WTH is that all about anyway?

Little Miss Sunshine was a good film, btw.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Feb 1, 2010)

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a woman and a girl is a first rate fool in my book. When in doubt, check her ID. Do I have to think of everything here?


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 1, 2010)

Carol said:


> In the U.S. we do absolutely nothing with people that are *attracted *to other people regardless of what their age is. A person can potentially be as attracted as they want to a child, a teen, or an adult. Society and the law only gets involved that action is expressed. Simple attraction is not enough to cause trouble, there must be *actions *involved.
> 
> I suspect the majority of sex offenders in the U.S. are not paedophiles. I have no doubt that many are, but I think the majority are not. My understanding that the strong punitive measures against sex offenders are more of a testament as to how they largely cannot be rehabilitated, not out of revulsion for who they are attracted to.


 
Carol,

Here in Texas we have a sex offender database the DPS runs. I've check to see what kind of people are on it near where I live. 80 percent of them are just young men (15 to 16) who slept with an underage girl (and the girls were about their age!!)

Now I'm all for keelhauling pedophiles. I detest them, but yes an awful lot of them just needed a horse whipping and that's that. Not being branded a sex offender for the rest of their life!

And as for the laws against 'attraction', what is wrong with this world? You can't stop that unless you have a 'thought police' like in the book 1984 (or Fahrenheit 451.)

Next thing you know if my wife sees me look at a young woman as she walks by.... ops....ouch! Well I guess there is a form of thought police, right?

Anyway, Australian has some kind of sexual hang-up for their weird laws they are trying to push. But don't think they are the worst, go look at the Muslim countries. You guys here about the Pushtun tribes and their going both ways..:

http://www.bi101.org/essays/Kinsey%20and%20the%20Pashtun.pdf


The amazing thing is the Pustun tribes rationalize it as not being, uh, sex but real sex among unmarried heterosexual couples can lead to being killed by the tribe!

Or here this one on 'Risks of female masturbation according to Islam'.






 

And they put the blame on the woman for any accusations made.

And we all know they practice female genital mutilation in places over there.


Or how in Iran they quite literally hang gay men? And the way they hang them is not a humane way of doing it. Or how they rape virgins before execution so they can 'legally' be executed according to their religion.
 
Now you see guys, I'm a John Wayne type guy. I'm pretty conservative in my thoughts and I'm religious, but sometimes I wonder how the world gets so twisted to where they do so many awful things to others.

And I kind of wonder if it starts with 'thought police' and making all kinds of laws well beyond the minimum needed to keep order in society. Laws on things they should just keep their noses out of. It&#8217;s a sort of mission creep as they add laws upon laws and legislate all kinds of things that should be left alone. 
 
Deaf


----------



## K-man (Feb 2, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Anyway, Australian has some kind of sexual hang-up for their weird laws they are trying to push.


Easy on Deaf! Most of us down here are fine.  It's the guys that live up North in the heat that can be a little strange at times.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 2, 2010)

Flea said:


> They're right you know.
> 
> Consider the chilling aftermath of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction:



Most people here are still laughing about that one. JJ succeeded on a level that al qaeda could only dream of 
Those people best never visit Europe because they'll get a stroke just from walking down the street.

Btw, we have 1 bathroom in the house, and we usually are in there with more than one. My daughters see me and my wife naked if we happen to take a shower or get dressed while they are in bath / brushing their teeth or whatever. We (like most here) figure that if you don't want people to have weird notions or obsessions about bodies, they should learn that there is nothing bad about having one or seeing one.

Oh and when my daughter has swimming lessons, girls and boys (the kids up to 6 years or so before they can change and dry themselves properly) are sometimes in the same changing room, together with the moms and dads who change their clothes before and afterwards. Honestly, noone cares.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 2, 2010)

K-man said:


> Easy on Deaf! Most of us down here are fine. It's the guys that live up North in the heat that can be a little strange at times.


 
My apologies K-man. I don't mean all Australians are like that. We have plenty of strange people here to, even in Texas. Just drive to Austin....

Deaf


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Feb 2, 2010)

zDom said:


> What they need to do is go after these "beauty" pageants in which they attempt to make little girls look like full grown women via makeup and clothing.
> 
> WTH is that all about anyway?
> 
> Little Miss Sunshine was a good film, btw.


 
OMG, yes, those absolutely disgust me. And the reality shows on television about the pageants are even worse! I've watched part of one or two, just to see what the deal was, and it was so disgusting I had to throw my remote on the ground.


----------



## Stac3y (Feb 3, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> My apologies K-man. I don't mean all Australians are like that. We have plenty of strange people here to, even in Texas. Just drive to Austin....
> 
> Deaf


 
I resemble that remark.


----------



## Stac3y (Feb 3, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> OMG, yes, those absolutely disgust me. And the reality shows on television about the pageants are even worse! I've watched part of one or two, just to see what the deal was, and it was so disgusting I had to throw my remote on the ground.


 
"Toddlers in Tiaras?" I've heard of it, but haven't seen it. My scary sister-in-law (the one with 2 daughters) watches it. <shudder>


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 3, 2010)

i twitch at the thought of that, because i have an aunt who i have no doubt would have hadher own daughters and granddaughters in that if it was around here 'toddlers in tiara's'


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Feb 3, 2010)

My father would have literally strangled my mother to death before he would have let her put me or my sister in a pageant.  Of course, my mother would have strangled _herself_ to death before putting us in a pageant. Intelligence, education, personal acheivement, force of will...these were the traits valued in our family. With what sort of values are these little girls being inculcated?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 4, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I've seen thousands of breasts over the years and I am here to tell you that I have not been effected at all.


That is just the sort of thing an affected person might say!
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 4, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> That is just the sort of thing an affected person might say!
> Sean


Still say I'm up for that test I mentioned a ways back.


----------

