Cracker: Bare Breasts Key for Important 18-49 Auckland Demographic
125 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
(a Laphroiaig will halt me at zero-)
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
-
my 1/2/3 command,
Never search for Chuck Norris, he finds you.
Chucky dog. -
Chuck Norris hasnt -yet- been sucked to death by an enthusiastic Bichon. Little zero divisions mean nothing to wet pink tongues.
Right. Bed time. Feed the Nepenthe Family, the Axolotyl. and nextdoor's bloody Agapanthi.Nightyra.
Sweetdreams (migh'as well leave at least one thread sweet...)
-
in vaguely related news (and since we somehow share our movie censorship/ratings with the Aussies) - the Aussie censor now appears to require porn stars to have large breasts
-
the Aussie censor now appears to require porn stars to have large breasts
More here: the ACB's response to the original story, and Fiona Patten's response to that response.
“All the publications that have been refused classification adhere to the very strict US laws that enforce model age verification in adult publications and films. These laws are upheld by the FBI. There is no chance that any of the models were under 18.”
-
and since we somehow share our movie censorship/ratings with the Aussies
Not really true.
Films rated as unrestricted in Australia (G, PG, M) can have those ratings applied to their films in New Zealand by the labelling body (and for PG and M a descriptive note can be added: contains coarse langauge, contains violence, adult themes etc.).
The labelling body can decline to adopt the Australian rating and refer the matter to the censor, who rates it in accordance with New Zealand censorship law. People not satisfied with the auto-rating can ask the censor to call it in, and ask him re-make the decision according to NZ censorship law.
This happens quite a bit - you'll notice a fair proportion of DVD packaging has a different rating as part of the cover than on the sticker that covers it. Last year, after complaints from the public, the censor called in the film of Land of the Lost, and upgraded the rating from PG to M. I understand after complaints this year, the censor has called in The Princess and the Frog.
Restricted material (R, R13, R16, R18, etc) is separately classified in each country.
Our laws are somewhat similar (which means that the cross-rating system is usually beneficial), but violence tends to be less restricted in Australia, and sex more restricted. of course, there is also the issue that computer games manufacturers often consider Australia and New Zealand to be part of the same market, and occasionally tailor their releases to Australian requirements (Australia has an R16 rating for games, but no R18, meaning that a game that would earn an R18 is effectively banned in Oz).
-
In respect of the "requirement" that the adult film actresses in Australian pornography should be well-endowed, the laws are largely the same in New Zealand.
Our laws ban material that encourages the sexual exploitation of children. If pornography involving only actresses aged 18+ encourages the sexual exploitation of children (for example, by using actresses that look younger than 18, in situations that suggest they are younger than 18), then it will fall foul of the law.
It's not as simple as "A-cup is banned", but physical development (breasts, pubic hair, etc) of those involved is one factor taken into account.
-
Boobies do the trick, says TV3 boss:
"On the wins they've created this week ... the team will be enjoying a beer or three at our Christmas party," Audsley said.
-
Unfair. They had good stories on the cyclist wars in Chch, the power outage in Auckland, Robin Brooke and the dog massacre. So the HoS characterises their week like this:
on a diet of bare breasts and big American cars.
-
The fast tennis serve story I saw was good too - topical, simple and light-hearted but not sensationalist in any way.
-
For fear of making a tit of oneself, could those in the state sector please remember all emails from work, can be subject to public scrutiny.
-
The discussion along with Crikey's critique of the small-breast-ban story is lively and useful.
Ironically, Australia remains the base of the highy successful Abby Winters (SFW, it's the Wikipedia article), which specialises in young amateur models.
-
those in the state sector
You're not thinking of bitchy emails, by any chance?
More journos writing stories about each other.. -
Unfair. They had good stories on the cyclist wars in Chch, the power outage in Auckland, Robin Brooke and the dog massacre. So the HoS characterises their week like this:
"on a diet of bare breasts and big American cars."
I thought that too. And also that Close Up Mike Valintine tut-tutting over a story about breasts was just a bit rich.
-
Ironically, Australia remains the base of the highy successful Abby Winters (SFW, it's the Wikipedia article), which specialises in young amateur models.
Abby Winters was raided last year, and not for the first time. (Contrary to initial reports, no-one was actually charged, and no equipment seized.) They are subject to intense police scrutiny and I'd be very surprised if they'd be dumb enough to risk their business by knowingly having an underage model on their site. Oz doesn't have the intense 2257 system they do in the States, where proof of age is demanded for every performer for every shoot they do.
-
Oh yes those emails will get you.
Richard Freeman makes a statement on vorb (cycle blog) about how he's the victim after threatening to nail cyclist with his Black Hummer.
If he dropped the woe is me, it would have been a good apology.
http://www.vorb.org.nz/beware-the-black-hummer-dyers-pass-road-t102838-570.html -
Speaking of NSFW this is the first thread that has had PA banned by my work filter.
-
What, you've never tried reading any of Emma's ones?
-
Must have been the word "demographic" in the title.
-
Must have been the word "demographic" in the title.
I reckon it's Chuck Norris. He's out there, NSFW!
-
Abby Winters was raided last year, and not for the first time.
In December 2009 CEO Garion Hall was charged by Victoria Police with 54 counts of making objectionable films for gain, and possessing a commercial quantity of objectionable films.
... which implies that the suspicion regarding production of material involving underage models turned out to be unfounded.
-
Uh, couldn't "objectionable films" involve underage models?
-
Uh, couldn't "objectionable films" involve underage models?
Back to Somebody Think of the Children:
What’s an objectionable film in Victoria?
Well that probably comes down to individual opinion more than anything, but the Act defines it as one that:
1. describes, depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; or
2. promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime or violence; or
3. is classified RC or X 18+ or would, if classified, be classified RC or
X 18+ or has been, or would be, refused approval, as the case requiresThere were also allegations that a model had been 17 when she posed for them, but that was a separate issue. See point #4 here:
However, in December 2009 Hall was charged with 54 counts of making objectionable films ... The Herald Sun also reports he has been charged with child pornography offences after police ’seized footage of allegedly illegal sex acts’.
-
What’s an objectionable film in Victoria?
We're not too different, although ours is somewhat more objectively defined:
A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support,—
(a) The exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes; or
(b) The use of violence or coercion to compel any person to participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or
(c) Sexual conduct with or upon the body of a dead person; or
(d) The use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct; or
(e) Bestiality; or
(f) Acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.Other material may also be banned, or restricted:
giving particular weight shall be given to the extent and degree to which, and the manner in which, the publication—
(a) Describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with—
(i) Acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm, or acts of significant cruelty:
(ii) Sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion in association with sexual conduct:
(iii) Other sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature:
(iv) Sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or both:
(v) Physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain:
(b) Exploits the nudity of children, or young persons, or both:
(c) Degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person:
(d) Promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism:
(e) Represents (whether directly or by implication) that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class, being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993.The basic test is not offensiveness to reasonable people, as in Victoria, but the extent to which a publication is injurious to the public good.
-
The Herald Sun also reports he has been charged with child pornography offences after police ’seized footage of allegedly illegal sex acts’.
I was going to say that I couldn't find anything which lends weight to this being anything more than muck-raking by the Herald Sun, that prince among muck-rakers.. but they now report that there has been two charges of possessing child pornography added to the list of charges I mentioned above.
Roll on March 19, I guess.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.