What the Classification Board has taught me #1

This week, the Classification Board has taught me two useful pieces of information:

  • female ejaculation – as opposed to male ejaculation – is an “abhorent” perversion; and

  • adult women who don’t have large breasts aren’t real adult women.

Women with “small” breasts may previously have thought they were entitled to be treated as adults, drink, vote, have sex, etc – well, now they know. As for “female ejaculation” and other matters related to the so-called “female orgasm” – well, I’ve never experienced it AND NEITHER HAS MY WIFE.

What other taxpayer-funded government body would have the balls to impart such controversial social pronouncements so openly, for the good of the nation’s moral health? Whatever we’re paying them, it isn’t enough.

And thank God that nice Mr Conroy, whose filter will block anything refused classification, is going to keep the Australian internet free of such things. Small-breasted women on the nation’s computer screens? SAVE US STEPHEN!

About these ads

19 responses to “What the Classification Board has taught me #1

  1. Oh great! Well done Jeremy.
    I can just see this post being used in the next Jeremy Sear Smear Site.
    Greenswatch must be licking their lips.

    You’re a brave fellow!

    Cheers.

  2. Indeed. Like that recent Tony Abott thing. Shouldn’t be much of a problem.
    1984 anyone?

  3. See Conjob’s spin on Clinton’s “internet freedom” speech?

  4. As for “female ejaculation” and other matters related to the so-called “female orgasm” – well, I’ve never experienced it AND NEITHER HAS MY WIFE.

    Oh sweat heart, that is horrible and it is something you should not make public. If you can’t make your wife orgasm, then you have a real problem.

  5. Female ejaculation is RC?
    Better cut the Song of Solomon out of my bible then.

  6. “Samatha”, I’m not married, and I was being sarcastic. Duh.

  7. Skepticus Autartikus

    Clearly big norks are best, but only if the body’s big enough to buttress such bouncy protrusions. The problem nowadays, with all these stick insect sheilahs, is that they either have matching pancake titties, and look like jail bait, or they get them swollen with silicone and look like trannies.

  8. re the wife business.

    Aren’t you and Keri living in a defacto relationship, therefore isn’t she your defacto wife.

  9. Look! A first-time commenter (well, a first-used pseudonym) fascinated by my personal relationship!

    How not in any way creepy.

    The reference to “wife” and “never experiencing” female orgasm was obviously sarcastic.

    Trolls, eh?

  10. Jeremy: given there are weird attention seekers out there pretending to be you, I really do think you ought to delete personally intrusive comments such as the one above. Responding to them and leaving the comment there simply emboldens and encourages the morons. The thread won’t in any way be affected if that comment were removed.

  11. Confessions may have a point. There are some real arseholes online who play some nasty games with people. I doubt your usual online enemies have the wit or skills to play useful args with you or the readers but you never know.

    Of course anyone who finds women with breasts smaller than 38DD attractive is either a secret rock spider or in the closet so really we should be thanking the classification board for protecting our ideological purity.

    As for female orgasm…

    Well we all know they actually don’t exist (or matter) so again good on the classification board for removing the pointless distractions from our understanding of sex.

  12. Skepticus Autartikus

    Using your missus’ pink-bits – whether dripping or gushing – to score ideological points is beyond gross.

  13. Using your missus’ pink-bits – whether dripping or gushing – to score ideological points is beyond gross.

    Which of course isn’t what has happened here.

    What is wrong with you people that you take such enjoyment from taking pot shots at people’s private relationships? It really does say more about you and your perversions than anyone else. Wanker.

  14. “Using” your missus pink bits is beyond gross full stop.

    Its a big problem in our society that we refer to something that should be about sharing in such exploitative terms all the time. It points to some serious issues within our culture.

    Her sharing them for your mutual pleasure is awesome fun.

  15. Trolls, eh?

    *UPDATE* subsequent obscene troll infestation cleaned up. Sad that some people have nothing better to do on a Sunday than smear their crap all over someone else’s comment threads.

  16. Comment sections are universally dumping grounds.

    Expecting anything above “barbarian horde” level intelligence from comments is like expecting golden eggs from hamsters.

  17. dont even try to make sense of their decisions.

    just accept the censorship board have their own sexual fetishes… especially involving murder (seems to pass censorship immediately)

  18. Bernard Keane in today’s Crikey:

    That brings us to another error by the Minister. I noted that, due to his obsession with having an RC-only filter, we now had multiple enforcement regimes for online content — material was banned under the Crimes Act, material was blocked by ACMA under its flawed and tendentious filtering process, and material was blocked under Conroy’s new RC-only compulsory filter.

    Keane put this to Conroy and was told he was wrong. He persisted:

    This puzzled me. Content does not naturally become “RC” by itself, as if by some rotting process of morally bad material. To get onto Conroy’s filter, which is quite separate from ACMA’s filter of Queensland dentists and tuckshops, the Classification Board has to classify something (or more strictly not classify something) RC. So I asked Conroy’s office to clarify.

    Apparently he was right. I have not seen this reported at all in the mainstream media which is concerning because this takes the filtering to a whole new level, one that far exceeds what people are being asked to believe would be the case with the no-mandate-to-implement compulsory fundie filter.

    When the only journalist doing any kind of investigative reporting on such a serious issue as this is someone who works for an independant media outlet, you know the death of traditional media is imminent.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/02/filtering-the-facts-conroy-slips-up-when-hitting-back/

  19. oh shit! the last 2 paras are my words not Keane’s.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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