Australia [theaustralian.news.com]- WHEN seven members of the federal Government's Classification Review Board watched a 98-minute pornographic film titled Viva Erotica, they deemed it could not fairly be called a film.
"The movie had no plot," the board would later say in its official report. "The persons are not given names. There were no discernible themes of any note."
It was six separate sex scenes run together "solely for the sexual stimulation and arousal of the audience". In five of the scenes, men and women were having sex; in the sixth scene, two women perform sexual acts on each other.
There was no violence or drug use. There was some - but not much - coarse language. There was oral sex, masturbation, ejaculation and, according to the review board, "camera angles were designed to accentuate and focus on the explicit sexual activity". There were no fetishes. Indeed, in its final report on the film, the classification board was careful to say the "detailed and somewhat prolonged scenes of toe sucking" in the first of six vignettes could not be considered a fetish (the dripping of candle wax, by comparison, is considered a fetish, but there was none of that) and neither could a scene in which a man playfully slapped his own penis, since slapping oneself was not considered "spanking".
After watching the film, the seven members of the review board took submissions from various lawyers, including Brian Walters SC, who acted for AdultShop.com, which has been trying for several years to have pornographic films reclassified as R-rated, rather than X-rated. The distinction is crucial. If pornographic films of this type - consensual sex between adults with no violence - were rated R, they could be sold in video shops across the country. They could even be able to be shown at the local cinema.
But if such films are X-rated, they can be sold only in the ACT and the NT, and shown only in licensed premises in those territories. (When you see an XXX sign above an adult cinema, it's a con as legally, they can show only R-rated films, which means simulated sex, not X-rated films, which show real sex.)
The review board decided Viva Erotica was X-rated. The decision so enraged AdultShop.com boss Malcolm Day, he's taking the case to the Federal Court in Sydney tomorrow.
In what is likely to prove a lively case, the court may be asked to decide whether the average Australian is offended by the sale of videos depicting non-violent sexual acts.
"We simply say the decision of the classification review board is wrong," says Day. "The reasonable adult would not be offended by this film, or by films showing people having sex. We don't say everybody wants to buy them. But community standards have changed."
If the action succeeds, the X-rating would essentially disappear.
"Explicit erotic films will no longer be given the X18+ rating," Day says. "Such films will be more freely available for purchase by all adults, bringing this nation into line with most other Western countries."
Films with sexual violence, rape, child pornography and bestiality would still be banned or refused classification.
Day admits the motive behind his Federal Court challenge is money. If adult films could be sold across the nation and shown more easily in cinemas, his business would expand.
Day estimates the potential market at $400million a year. He is the majority shareholder in AdultShop.com and shares are 3c, making the company worth about $9million. But if he could get sex films into mainstream shops, he would soon be worth far more.
"But that's not really the point," says Day. "The reason we are going to court is that we just don't believe that films that show real sex are offensive to the reasonable adult."
Sheila Jeffries, associate professor of political science at the University of Melbourne, disagrees vehemently. "When people discuss pornography, what they forget is that they are watching the abuse of women," she says.
"Do you know how long it takes to make one of these apparently non-violent films? It can take 12 hours.
"Women have to take double and triple penetration, they take pain killers and muscle relaxants, drugs, alcohol to disassociate, to help them cope. So what you are watching is not pornography. It is the abuse and prostitution of women. I would ask: do we want to make a big industry out of this in Australia?"
The issue will also be thrashed out in public tonight, at a University of Sydney symposium titled: Sex, Censorship and Community Standards. Symposium moderator, associate professor Catharine Lumby, notes that non-violent sex films have been banned in all Australian states since 1984 "but there is a growing body of evidence the great majority of Australians believe such material should be available for sale or rental in appropriate venues to people over the age of 18".
Lumby cites a three-year, Australian Research Council study which sought to answer such questions as: who uses pornography? And why? "The stereotypical consumer would be a man in a raincoat," says Lumby. "The other idea is that there's an appetite for violent, misogynist pornography. In fact, the most popular type of pornography is not violent. It's consensual sex between adults. Users are evenly split between Liberal and Labor voters; 20 per cent of viewers are women; most people use it for masturbation, but there is widespread use by couples."
Melinda Tankard Reist of the Women's Forum Australia says pornography is essentially the abuse of women, and says tonight's "so-called debate" has been stacked with pornography supporters. "They set these things up to make it look like only right-wing, Christian, conservative, pro-family groups have any opposition to pornography," she says. "They ignore the voices of ordinary women who are opposed to the degradation of women in these films, for the pleasure primarily of men.
"There are women who could have been invited but weren't - the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, for example, which works for women who are coerced into pornography. They are not invited to speak.
"Our own group - Women's Forum Australia - we're a broad group of women, quite normal women with very strong views because we've seen the toxic culture of this industry, we were not invited to speak."
Tankard Reist says horrific tragedies, such as the death of Diane Brimble on a cruise ship, and the abuse of young girls in advertising "are all fuelled by an attitude that sees women as just pieces of meat. We are living in a brutal, over-sexualised culture, and excuse me, but some of us are trying to raise daughters in this environment, and the last thing we need is more pornography."
Australian Family Association state president Angela Conway believes she's the only conservative, anti-pornography campaigner on the panel.
Conway says: "I certainly have concerns about the impact of pornography on perceptions of women's bodies, and women as people, and on relationships as a result.
"But let's make no mistake about what AdultShop is trying to do with its court case. They are trying to pull the X-rated classification, saying these tapes should be available to everyone in every state.
"But X-rated material is already available and anybody in Australia who wants to get it can legally obtain that material by mail order.
"This is not an issue of availability. It's about lumping adult films into the R category, so how long before they are in ordinary shops and cinemas?" Another of the speakers at the forum, lecturer in gender and cultural studies at the University of Sydney Kath Albury, says community attitudes have changed "and there does not seem to be any evidence that the average Australian is offended by non-violent, consensual sex".
Day cites an ACNielsen survey undertaken for his organisation in 2006, which found 30 per cent of Australian adults may be offended by these types of films "but that means 70 per cent - an overwhelming majority - are not offended". Day says the Office of Film and Literature Classification has done "no qualitative research, none whatsoever, on what the community finds offensive". He also notes that a black market in X-rated films thrives.
Police last month raided seven adult book shops in Sydney's Kings Cross and seized 60,000 "illegal" DVDs (which were either X-rated and therefore banned in NSW, or unclassified). Seven people are expected to face a Sydney District Court on March 7.
"Because these films are illegal, organised crime gets involved, most are pirated, and who knows what is in them?" says Day. "What we are asking a judge to decide is to compel the classification board to apply the law properly.
"We want a judge to determine what the current community standards are, and to apply those community standards when classification is given."
It is not clear whether the judge will have to watch Viva Erotica, but Day says it hardly matters. "The point is, this shouldn't be subjective," he says. "We don't say people have to watch these films. We say the average Australian wouldn't be offended if they knew these films could be legally purchased."
But if the judge does watch it? "Well," says Day. "I'd say it would probably have to be in his chambers."
