Australia’s ABC TV program Hungry Beast interviewed National Classification Board member Greg Scott about the rules regarding nudity in Unrestricted Category publications. Here is the transcript of the interview. It’s very long but worth reading to the end.

______________________________________________

HB: What’s the difference between ‘Unrestricted’, and ‘Restricted Category 1’ categories for magazines?

GS: I’ll start at Category 1. Category 1 Restricted is basically images of explicit nudity and implied sexual activity, and there’s also another few things but basically the nudity is more explicit and the depictions of sex can be more realistically simulated. Unrestricted magazines are a more broad range of material but basically it’s material that’s not unsuitable for a minor to see or read, and in that there’s levels of as well, so we can recommend it for readers above 15 as well. But it’s just a broad range of material – it encompasses all the sorts of magazines, the Cleos, Cosmos and just basically any publication not offensive to the extent that it needs to be restricted to adults.

HB: So when you say ‘more explicit’, what does that exactly mean?

GS: Basically in the unrestricted guidelines there’s specific rules about the levels of nudity that can be accommodated in unrestricted magazines, and if they breach those rules in the guidelines then it will go to Category 1 Restricted. So for instance, frequent and prominent containing images of genitalia are not permitted. Depictions may contain discreet genital detail but there must be no genital emphasis, and things like that. So we just try and look at the individual image in the context of what type of magazine it is and then we assess based on the pose and the angles and different things like that to do with the pose, as to whether it’s sexualised and whether it exceeds a high impact. If it exceeds a high impact then it will go to Category 1, and if there’s genital emphasis then it must go to Category 1 as well.

HB: So what sort of things might increase genital emphasis in a picture?

GS: The main thing that would probably increase it is certainly the angle and the pose of the participant. A lot of the things we look for are where the position of the hands, the angles of the hips, the splaying of the legs, probably that’s the major one. And sort of, the cropping of the image, the position on the page, and the angle of the camera shot as well, so things like that. And a lot of those are usually combined to create an overall impact of the image as well.

HB: Are you generally allowed in an unrestricted magazine to show full-frontal male genitalia?

GS: You can show full-frontal male genitalia but it must not be erect. One of the rules in the unrestricted guidelines is that no depictions of sexual excitement are permitted. Unless of the image has the emphasising techniques upon it then it is usually permitted.

HB: And are you generally allowed to show female genitalia in unrestricted magazines?

GS: You can show female genitalia, and again I say that without the emphasis. The magazines can contain discreet genital detail, but there must be no emphasis. And also with that frequent, prominent depictions of genitalia are not permitted, so when you weigh those two things up you can have genital, genitals in there.

HB: So how generally is the term about ‘genital detail’ applied to female nudity?

GS: I guess that combines with the emphasis, so obviously if the legs are splayed or the angle’s from underneath, etc, there’s more detail which will create an overall impact which is higher. But generally, if a woman is just in a naturalistic pose and she has various anatomy that’s not usually a reason to put it into a different category.

HB: How does the Board reach its decisions about how a publication should be classified?

GS; A publication is programmed to a panel of the Board. So it can vary from one person who will view it, and then it gets checked by other people. Basically the process is a panel of the Board will review the magazine, read the articles, look at all the depictions in the context of what type of magazine it is, and then ascertain individual elements out of that magazine that may breach it to a higher point, and if we find items like that we’ll ask a few other people what their opinions are on those images, and the way the Board works it’s a majority decision, so three of us are on the magazine and two people think it’s unrestricted and one person thinks it’s Category 1 it will go Unrestricted.

HB: How many people are involved – say you have an edition of Penthouse, how many people are involved in deciding what that should be classified as?

GS: Basically it’s a case-by-case basis, but basically if it’s fairly straightforward one person or more could be on the magazine, but saying that there’s always a few people sort of looking at images to confirm the same classification that they think they are. So probably two or three most of the time.

HB: Just going back to the clause about genital detail, there’s nothing in the guidelines that would specify that a particular part of anatomy is not acceptable?

GS: No. The only thing that it says is that prominent and frequent depictions containing genitalia overall are not permitted. But other than the ‘no emphasis’, or um, and the other thing, there’s no rules. But saying that’s only in Unrestricted classification. Category 1 you can show genitalia in its explicit form. Without any restrictions at all, and you can realistically simulate sex, which includes touching of genitals and things like that, so that’s permitted at Category 1 but Unrestricted it’s a bit tighter I guess because it’s not restricted to anybody, so anybody of any age can have a magazine that’s Unrestricted.

HB: So would the Board not allow in an Unrestricted publication an image of a woman who had protruding inner labia?

GS: Not necessarily. But saying that too, maybe, depending on the pose and the genital – if the photograph is emphasized. The more sexualized the pose as well maybe create a higher impact but it’s a case-by-case basis and it’s hard to say without seeing an individual picture.

HB: We’ve actually spoken to a number of people who work at these magazines, I’m talking soft-porn like Penthouse, Picture, People – including publishers, editors, art directors and graphic designers, and they all say that images of women that have visible, or protruding labia minora are not permitted in Unrestricted magazines. Is that true?

GS: It’s not necessarily true. We apply the rules and the guidelines and it’s quite clear I think the clients have copies of the guidelines, and it’s quite clear to say if the image is emphasized then we would not allow it. But otherwise I think, which is a case-by-case basis again. If a client wants a certain image in unrestricted, they all have the opportunity to have the decisions we make reviewed, and they also have the opportunity to not put a particular image in a magazine if, or they can take the Category 1 restricted classification if that’s what it gets classified.

HB: They say that for Unrestricted magazines they are essentially forced to Photoshop images of women who have vaginas with protruding inner lips, even if they’re in say a closed-legged standing pose. In the industry this practice is known as ‘healing it to a single crease’. Why would they feel the need to do this if there’s no requirement for them to do so by the Board?

GS: I think that um – a lot of those images – again it’s hard, it’s a case-by-case basis without seeing one in particular it’s hard to say. But I guess, it’s their commercial decision to try and fit a particular image into a magazine that isn’t restricted to adults. And the guidelines are quite clear as to what is allowed in unrestricted and what is not. And I guess, like, all I can say is I think it must be to do with in cases where they feel they need to airbrush it must be also to do with other parts of the pose where the hips are forward or the legs are splayed. But just because a woman has larger labia, I don’t think that is necessarily the only reason why an image would be Category 1.

HB: We actually took a series of photographs of women which show the full range of female anatomy and how it can be expressed, and as it can look if a woman is standing straight up with her legs together in a non-sexualised, non-explicit pose. And we showed these images to a graphic designer. He told us that out of the 26 examples we had, only one or two wouldn’t need to be Photoshopped to pass in the Unrestricted category. He said that only those examples of women whose outer lips closed completely over the inner lips would be acceptable. So why do you think he would have that impression of the way the guidelines are applied?

GS: I just think, it’s a lot to do with the commercial decisions of the applicants. We can only apply the guidelines to our best, and to what we’re permitted. We’re not given a full range of powers under the Act. We’re given a quite specific set of framework that we can work in. And I think that, it’s a lot to do with, again it’s a lot to do with a pose, and a case-by-case basis. We don’t only take into account the individual image, but we take into account the image in the context of the magazine in entirety over the magazine, and one of the rules like I said before is the frequency of depictions containing genitalia, which cumulatively may add up to Category 1 Restricted classification, but without seeing individual images it’s hard to really comment.

HB: They insist that it is actually not to do with the pose, because they have examples of women posed exactly the same way, but one woman’s anatomy is quite different to another woman’s, who may have a closed, single-crease vagina. And that the women with kind of ‘outie’ anatomy are not allowed.

GS Yeah well its, well I guess, if that’s their opinion then I sort of, I disagree with that. We, I view the magazines quite frequently and it’s rare – we don’t instruct clients how to edit their magazines, it’s their commercial decision, if they want a particular image in a particular classification that’s their commercial decision. I think there’s a misapprehension that we’re the censorship board, we’re the classification board, and we make decisions based on what is submitted to us, we don’t make recommendations for cuts or recommendations to airbrush in films or magazines or anything. So it’s their commercial decision to submit photographs to the Board. We have nothing to do with that.

HB: Sure, but would you appreciate that if they are constantly failing images and the only difference they can see between the images that are failing and the images that are deemed acceptable is the fact that the women in the images that are failing have vaginas where the labia minora is visible, can you understand that –

GS I can understand that could be confusing, but I think, and again, it’s a case-by-case basis and we have to take it in context of the whole magazine. So it’s, it’s a difficult question to pin down on a particular yes or no answer.

HB: For many people, soft porn magazines are the main place they’re exposed to images of vaginas. How much impact do you think this practice could have on public perception of what a normal vagina can look like?

GS Um, well, personally, which I don’t think it would make that much difference today. Media’s pretty broad and there’s a lot of things on the internet that people can look up. They don’t necessarily need to buy soft porn magazines to discover the human anatomy. I think the decisions, the decisions we make, made, for, to protect minors from unsolicited material that they, may harm or disturb them. And that’s basically, one of the basic rules for why images in the soft porn magazines are so, have such a stringent set of guidelines to adhere to.

HB: The Board actually suggested in my initial enquiry that we compare editions of Penthouse with Penthouse Max, to get a really good idea of what’s OK for a restricted category and unrestricted. I noticed that Penthouse use exactly the same models and exactly the same photo shoots for both editions, but you can see if you compare these that in the Restricted Category 1 editions of the magazine their models quite often have vaginas where the inner lips protrude outside of the outer lips. If you compare the exact same photographs in the Unrestricted magazine those women’s vaginas have been photoshopped so that they’re just ‘healed to a single crease’. Why would they need to do that?

GS Ah well again it’s hard to say without seeing their individual image, but I think – I would imagine that the pose, off the top of my head without seeing the image, would have to play a major part in it. Cos the guidelines does say discreet genital detail so, is permitted at unrestricted, so, I guess that combined with a pose can create an impact that exceeds what’s accommodatable in an Unrestricted magazine.

HB: I actually did quite a bit of porn magazine reading doing the research for this story just to really try to get across what the difference was between unrestricted and restricted, and what’s acceptable and what’s not. And I notice that in all of the examples of unrestricted magazines, the M15 rated ones, that none of the women had visible labia minora. Now, whether that’s because they were naturally like that or because they’d been photoshopped to look like that I’m not sure, but statistically speaking, that’s pretty much impossible. And when we speak to the people who work at the magazines they say that more than half of their models require photoshopping for their genitals to be acceptable in an unrestricted magazine. So, is the way – do you think it’s possible that the way these guidelines are being applied are effectively deeming some women to have more explicit anatomy than others?

GS: No, I don’t think so, I think that these magazines are what they’re called, soft core, or even less magazines, they’re pretty tame and like I said there’s no restriction on them legally for anyone under 18 which means a 10-year-old can get this magazine. If people want to see depictions of genitals then they’re well within their rights to Google something or at least buy a Category 1 magazine that’s restricted to adults. I, without again seeing images it’s hard to say why or why not, but I think that unrestricted is a special category that has restrictions on who can see it. No, there’s no restrictions on who can see it.

HB: Do you think so that it’s important for people of all ages to understand the wide range of how genitals can look?

GS: I agree and there’s plenty of other ways to do that without looking up in pornographic magazine.

HB: But if you’re under 18, and you only have access to say, soft porn, how are you going to understand that there are some women where the inner lips protrude quite a way out of the outer lips?

GS: I’m sure there’s plenty of textbooks and if you type ‘vagina’ in Google I imagine you’ll see what you’re after, but I think that these magazines in the context of a sex magazine, they have reader stories about sexual activity, their first sexual experience, pictures of, rude jokes, funny jokes, all sorts of different news articles. It’s not necessarily I’d say the most, the best resource of information on human anatomy.

HB: We’ve spoken to a few plastic surgeons who perform labiaplasty and they’ve told us that they have some women who do come in thinking that they’re abnormal, although they have perfectly normal vaginas, and when they’re shown images to demonstrate the full spectrum of anatomy and realise that they actually fall well within to that realm of what’s normal, some of them do decide against the surgery and some of them go ahead with it, but wouldn’t allowing the true range of female anatomy to be shown in this unrestricted category go a long way toward addressing women’s insecurity about their bodies?

GS Um, oh possibly oh look it’s sort of out of our powers I think. We’re just not here, I don’t think soft core magazines are here to inform about human anatomy I think that there’s a particular reason for these soft core magazines and I don’t think it’s an educational purpose.

HB: Would you agree though that many young men probably refer to-

GS: Oh possibly yeah, they possibly do, yeah or like most young blokes you have a flick through but I think that most people are smart enough to realise that you’re not reading an encyclopedia.

HB: Sure, but would you also agree that possibly many of the people who read this magazines aren’t aware that a lot of these photos have been Photoshopped?

GS: I guess so, but that’s the applicant’s commercial decision to put those photos in an unrestricted classification.

HB: Despite everyone we spoke to within the industry confirming that they feel forced to ‘heal to a single crease’ images of vaginas for Unrestricted magazines, none of them were willing to go on the record and be named for fear of consequences in future classification decisions. Why do you think there’s such a strained relationship between magazine publishers and the Classification Board?

GS: Well I don’t think there is, personally I think we provide a service to them and they submit publications for classification. I don’t think, we’re not a vindictive Board, we’re not the censors who ban things willy-nilly, we have to fit our decisions in a tight framework. And we can only make decisions, we’re a community-based board, we’re not like anatomy experts, we represent a broad range of Australians from all walks of life from all around the country. I think that we try to make the best decisions that we do, but we have to fit our decisions in a tight set of guidelines which, um, if we don’t it’s not a lawful decision. So again I think it comes down to their commercial decision to wanting to have specific images and a lack of understanding of the Classification Guidelines that we have to adhere to.

HB: Do you think it’s possible that the level of understanding across Board members of female anatomy could be affecting the way that the clause about ‘genital detail’ is applied?

GS: I don’t think so, there’s a large range of women and men on the Board, from ages of 25 to 60 so everyone has, I imagine a broad life experience and I’d say that we see a lot of more of these images than the average person in Australia so I think that our decision adequately represents the community standard on these issues.

>>>

HB: With regard to the recent decision banning the portrayal of female ejaculation in pornography in Australia, how did the Board reach its decision?

GS: I don’t think there’s any decision where we banned female ejaculation in pornography. The rule in the Classification Guidelines for the X classification says there must be no depictions of golden showers, there’s, we allow depictions of female ejaculation in films and we have. There’s probably some debate about female ejaculation and whether it exists or not but the Board, the Guidelines don’t specifically mention female ejaculation at all. They only mention golden showers, so there might be a misapprehension with a decision that a golden shower film has been classified RC recently I suppose.

HB: So does the Board take into account medical and scientific research which proves that female ejaculation is a separate thing to urination?

GS: We haven’t really discussed that in depth but we take each depiction on its individual merit, and then from our own personal experience decide what the image is. Yeah, they’re very rare, we probably have done, in my time here, four years, I’ve seen two or three films with this sort of content.

HB: With regard to recent accusation that the Board is banning images of women with small breasts on the basis that they appear under-developed, is it true that in a recent training session the classification board cited a woman’s small breasts as a reason for the publication being refused classification?

GS: I find that very hard to believe. I think that it’s a political stunt. But I basically think that may have been a contributing factor to an overall image. Most of the magazines that go RC for depictions who are or appear to be a child under 18, they may have small breasts but we combine that with the girl may have braces, pigtails in her hair, on a bed with a little backpack, little bobby socks and 17 teddy bears on her bed so she’s clearly trying to portray a girl or a person who’s under the age of 18 years. And physical development can play a role in that but it’s not the only contributing factor to a decision. It’s a ridiculous statement. Women have breasts of all different sizes so it’s a pretty ridiculous statement.

HB: Would you agree though that if the size of a woman’s breasts were to be used as a measure that could set a dangerous precedent?

GS: Yeah, but that would never be. Only in conjunction with a raft of other things.

HB: We actually spoke to somebody who was present at that training session and she said that the image in question, none of those other factors were apparent and that it was the woman’s small breasts that were given as a reason.

GS: Well it’s hard to comment on something I haven’t seen and a third hand story of what may have happened.

HB: I guess just a clear explanation of what genital detail means? Cos while I mean, there’s clear guidelines for you guys some of the words used are quite vague-

GS: Yeah yeah, well they’re vague for us too sometimes.

HB: Yeah, so I guess if they’re vague it means that there’s quite a lot of the Board members’ discretion –

GS: Yeah – yeah well I guess genital detail’s that, we can have discreet genital detail in unrestricted and I guess that means genital, well, detail is pretty straightforward, so discreete means little or no or very little detail or not prominent, so it’s sort of quite clear on what is not allowed, if that makes sense.

HB: Do you think it would help if there was more specificity in the guidelines? For example, if they said, look in an Unrestricted Category publication you can’t show the entrance to the vagina or the anus, but you can show anything else, do you think that would help in the way these rules were applied?

GS: It may but we’re not the decision makers and we can’t change the guidelines and rules. We can only apply the tools that we’re given. Possibly that would make it more clear, but then I guess it’s applying more restrictions and things on the whole category as well.

HB: Sorry, I still – I still don’t understand what detail means.

GS: Well, genital detail. It’s just the detail of the genitals. Like if it’s not specific in our guidelines we use the Macquarie Dictionary meaning for those terms. And genital detail is details of the genitals. So, I guess in Unrestricted you can have discreet genital detail, and whatever that means, you combine that also with a pose, and with everything. You don’t take things by individual snippets out of the text, you’ve got to combine the whole rules in conjunction.

HB: Would it be fair then, to assume that if you were looking at two pictures of two different women in the exact same pose and context and one of them had a vagina with inner labia which were quite prominent, perhaps quite large, quite folded, you know, a lot of flesh, and the other woman had a vagina with kind of closed outer lips, that you could say of the first woman that she had more genital detail?

GS: I think, well, it’s hard to say without seeing visual images again. But, I think that she could have more genital detail but the pose, combined with the pose and everything will determine whether it’s discreet or not. It’s clearly not discreet if your legs are splayed, even pulling the underpants down, things like that, so it’s hard to pinpoint a definitive yes or no answer without seeing individual depictions. We do some training ourselves, it’s put together by the Classification operations branch and we just get given an array of images which are sort of indicative of images that are accomodatable at certain classifications, and these are just images we feel can fit within certain classifications and some have detail and but it’s all about, you’ve got to combine the detail with discreet as well, which discreet means little, no or very little sort of term, so there’s not much wriggle room in the guidelines for Classification, it’s quite tight.

HB: Is there a danger that could be selecting out women whose anatomy is naturally more detailed regardless of how they’re posed?

GS: I guess, again it’s, like for Unrestricted magazines are a totally different publication and I think that in Category 1 magazines you can show whatever you like, like you can show as much genital detail as you like with legs splayed, the splaying of the labia, it’s quite detailed. But in Unrestricted magazines there’s very little detail can be shown in these magazines.

HB: Can I show you some examples?

[showing both covers of Penthouse and Penthouse Max February edition mags]

Ok so we have here the two latest editions of Penthouse. We’ve got Penthouse the Unrestricted category which is an M15+ one, and we’ve got Penthouse Max which is a Restricted Category 1 which is only available to people over 18.

[opening to page of example of same photo in each edition]

And you’ll notice that they’ve used the same models and the same photo shoot in each edition of these magazines, and in fact here we have an example of the exact same photograph. Now if you have a look at this woman’s vagina you can see here it looks quite different to the way it seems over here. Why do you think that the magazine would have felt that they needed to ‘heal to a single crease’ this image?

GS: Well I think that’s – well it’s unusual because we probably would allow that picture in Unrestricted to an extent, but you can see that the picture also has a fair amount of emphasis. One of the triggers for us is the underpants being pulled down, and it’s framed in the middle of the image, so we take that into account as well, we don’t just look at the individual depiction based on some detail that may be displayed. But you can see her legs are splayed as well. In this one it was just – it was their decision to block that out, I can’t comment on – this is how it was submitted to us for classification. I can’t really comment on why they chose not to put it in there.

HB: In your experience with the Board and that decisions that have been made, do you think this would have passed for an Unrestricted magazine?

GS: Oh, possibly not, but maybe to do, well it’s hard to say – but I think that noting that this one did, it’s the same pose, we felt that it was accommodatable at Unrestricted. But saying that again, we could have a different panel of the Board, and we try to set a standard where the decisions are the same but sometimes they vary from time to time. Again it’s hard to say, but I’d say that quite possible that it would be OK.

HB: Because this is an example where it’s exactly the same photograph, and you can see the only difference is this woman’s anatomy.

GS: I can see that yeah.

HB: We’ve got a few other examples if you just want to flick through to –

[shows other example of female model with Photoshopped genitalia]

Now this woman here, there isn’t the exact same photograph, but if we look at her anatomy in the Max edition you can see that this model actually has inner labia which actually protrude outside of her outer lips. But over here, that’s not apparent. Some Photoshopping work has evidently been done. Why do you think they would have felt the need to do that?

GS: Well this pose is probably at the upper end of what can be accommodated in unrestricted, you can see there her hand and the pose is sort of fairly emphasizing of the region. Under the guidelines there’s no genital emphasis required, but I don’t think it would be anything to do with her genitalia.

HB: So you don’t think that if she had inner lips protruding and hanging out that would have been counted as you know, too much detail?

GS: Um, might not, well – it’s a case-by-case basis but the um, it may not – it may exceed discreet, possibly, but I would find it unlikely that would be the only reason. If you combine her pose and the amount of detail, her legs are fairly widely apart splayed, if you combine her pose with the detail that might create that exceeds unrestricted.

HB: But doesn’t that essentially mean that if you’re a woman with outer lips that close over, you’re allowed to pose like that, but if your outer lips don’t you can’t.

GS: We wouldn’t allow a woman – like, this is as high as you can go with the splaying and um, despite, if that woman had um, any different genitals, or the pose was any different. What am I trying to say. Look, no I don’t think so, I don’t think so. I think that we don’t, usually discriminate against body parts in these magazines but we just try and fit each image into the rules that are given to us I suppose, but um it’s hard to say what could be and what couldn’t happen, cos it’s sort of, just hypothesizing.

HB: Yeah, look the graphic designer he kind of showed us what he has to do, he showed us the Photoshopping work that he has to do. And we took him poses that would most definitely have been permitted in an unrestricted soft porn mag, but the woman had labia that hung quite a way out of the outside lips. In a just completely front-on, closed-legged unsexual pose. And he said that there was absolutely no way that that would be permitted in an Unrestricted category, and he showed us how he effectively cuts out the protruding labia.

GS: Well again, it’s their commercial decision, like we don’t profess to be – we’re not trying to discriminate against women with, we’re fitting these publications into the guidelines we’re given, it’s their commercial decision to have particular images in magazines. We don’t tell them to – we’ve never told them they need to airbrush anything. That’s their commercial decision.

HB: But if the way the guidelines are applied are effectively, you know, now allowing a particular type of anatomy they will have to Photoshop.

GS: Um, I guess but again you’ve got to combine that with a pose, I suppose. Just an individual woman, this image here, like her legs are fairly splayed apart, and it’s probably at the higher end of the classification, so um, it’s probably not a good example of

HB: No, but if we go back to that first one which is a really good example of the exact same pose –

GS: Yeah well I don’t think that would go Category 1.

HB: Do you mind if I show you the series of photographs that we took ourselves, which show a really good range of anatomy?

GS: Sure.

HB: So, we’ll start off with this one.

image

Which is pretty much, I think a good representation of what you are ordinarily confronted with in a soft-porn mag, and so that, I don’t think –

GS: Well I’d be Category 1 on that picture.

HB: You would?

GS: Um, it’s a picture with genital emphasis

HB: Oh ok. No um, if this was just – if this vagina was on, say this woman. In this exact pose. Everything else about it the same, but a vagina of this shape, here, would be ok?

GS: Oh, probably. Um, yes.

HB: And, this one?

image

GS Yep.

HB: What about this one?

image

GS Yep.

HB: You think that would be acceptable?

GS: Well it’s hard to say, it’s like um, it doesn’t quite fit on the image, but it’s a lot of – like again it’s a case-by-case basis but it’s probably a futile exercise because its hard to make classifications on decisions of something that’s not there, if you know what I mean

HB: Yeah, oh no I do understand that it’s a cumulative decision and that it’s a group decision, but um, it just seems quite strange that this is perfectly normal, there are many many women who have a vagina that looks like this, yet you never, ever ever see it like that in a soft-porn magazine.

GS: Oh well, I beg to differ, we see quite a few, and you do.

HB: In a soft – in an Unrestricted Category?

GS: I wouldn’t say you see it every day. People make their commercial decisions as to what fit in, so it’s just difficult to give like a straight answer because it’s so, such an unusual case-by-case basis situation.

HB: I’ll show you a few others?

GS: Yeah sure.

image

HB: This is another example, and these women were all posed the exact same way, you can see that they’re just standing, still, straight up and down with their legs together and this is just a front-on shot, so these are in no way sort of explicit, splayed leg poses and this is front on and

GS: Well that would possibly be allowed. I think.

HB: Ok. And how about this:

image

GS: Possibly.

HB: And this?

image

GS: Possibly.

HB: And this one?

image

GS: Um possibly but you quite a – [hesitates]. I’d say possibly but it’s hard to say again without the um

HB: So why do you hesitate a little more on this one?

GS: Clearly there’s more genital detail in that depiction, um the guidelines are quite clear

HB: But that’s –

GS: But I know what you’re saying, I know what you’re saying where, but I think, um, we wouldn’t expect it to be airbrushed out but that pose is not sexualised, if the woman is just standing there, and if she had her legs splayed like that, if all these women had their legs splayed like that to an extent, it possibly wouldn’t be allowed in Unrestricted. But the majority of poses, like normal poses that we get are things like this in Unrestricted magazines where there’s no posing. And so you quite often don’t see genitals at all in an unrestricted magazine so as you can see there’s not that many images that have splayed legs at all.

HB: No, but see that’s sort of what I’m getting at. Because they don’t have splayed legs, but this woman, without splayed legs, clearly has quite a lot more detail –

GS: I know that’s what you’re trying to get at it’s hard to say again but probably the most, I would say if she was standing there like that I think it would be Unrestricted.

HB: Well, the magazines beg to differ. They say there is no way that that would pass. Just by virtue of this woman’s anatomy.

GS: Well it wouldn’t pass like that, but in a magazine depending on the size and everything, of the image, whether it was prominent or not, it may affect it, but if she was standing there with just her hands by her sides looking at the camera, again I’m hypothesizing, it may or may not.

HB: I’ll show you a couple more, so this one?

image

GS: Yeah I think it would be ok.

HB: And this one?

image

GS: Yep [hesitates] it’s again, same image, it’s a case-by-case basis but.

HB: It seems though that you are hesitating a little more when we show you ones with the…

GS: Well this woman has her legs splayed a bit further as well but, so it’s hard to, it’s hard again to say.

HB: I don’t know that that really is splayed legs.

GS: But you can take into account the whole thing, but I know what you’re saying.

HB: We actually took those photos with everyone with their feet in the same position.

GS: Ok, well it’s, well there’s no feet.

HB: So I mean, their legs were the same distance apart, they stood on a marker. [long silence]

It’s just interesting that –

GS: I know it’s just hard, I guess we’re just trying

HB: We’ve actually seen, the graphic designers we speak to say more than half the models have anatomies somewhat similar to this yet that’s never shown in soft porn, I mean there’s gotta be an explanation.

GS: Well I guess it’s just their commercial decision. We, I guess it’s hard, you’re trying to pinpoint the Classification Board for women’s insecurities about their vagina, but I don’t think that it’s a, I think there’s an unrestricted magazine and frequent and prominent depictions aren’t allowed like if you look at the guidelines: “Realistic depictions of sexualized nudity shouldn’t be high in impact. They may contain discreet genital detail but there should be no genital emphasis. Prominent and or frequent depictions of sexualized nudity containing genitalia are not permitted.”

HB: Do you reckon though that considering what we’ve seen here, which is that some women have genitals which are far more detailed than others, that this is perhaps a dangerous guideline to use?

GS: Um, I wouldn’t say dangerous but I think that um, I guess it just comes down to the term discreet. We have discussions about this all the time, whether it’s discreet or not. But we combine just the individual image, we combine it with all the other rules about emphasis, obviously sexual – the impact of the sexualised nudity in the overall image, so we don’t just take into account, we don’t just look at that word discreet, we don’t just look at the genitals and go ‘that’s out, totally’. It’s a case-by-case situation, that may be allowed in an unrestricted, but in other cases it might not be ok, and I can see how it’s confusing for the clients, but it’s just a case-by-case situation, every magazine is different, and no two pictures of vaginas, or poses, or women in these magazines are exactly the same so it’s a very hard thing to quantify and to be able to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to just individual depictions.

HB: Mmm. Just a few more.

image

GS: Yep I think that would be OK.

image

GS: I think that would be OK too. Cos it’s mainly to do with the pose, you can see the legs are closed, and standing, that’s probably the image, but

image

GS: – that would be ok, but if all these were side by side it would probably, would go against [referring to guidelines] prominent or frequent realistic depictions of sexualized nudity containing genitalia –

HB: Sure, if this, if this was the only framing and I understand that that would be genital emphasis, but um, for the sake of the argument I’m suggesting that these are on women who you can see their whole body.

Now, I mean, until I started researching this story myself, I actually didn’t understand that this is perfectly normal. And I didn’t appreciate the full range of what a normal vagina can look like. And because of, because the only images that I’d really come across were in soft porn, I sort of imagined that it was only normal to have closed outer lips, and that if anything did protrude that it was perhaps a bit abnormal. Do you appreciate that this is probably a misunderstanding that many more people other than me might have?

GS: Um, I’m no sure, I think that, I can’t speak for your experience or what you’ve read or what you’ve looked up, but I think that – I don’t think that these magazines are the best guides for anatomy. All the women – all their legs, their breasts, their waists have been airbrushed too, so I don’t think their vaginas being airbrushed is any different to any other part of their body being airbrushed for the purpose of these magazines. These magazines are about beautiful women, they’re not about, um, they’re about I guess the exception rather than the rule, I suppose, they’re not about every day women and they’re not designed as an anatomy guide, I think that if you are concerned about your own anatomy, you should probably do some research in some text books or research on the internet because you can see much more explicit depictions on the internet and I think that if this is the way that you discover about yourself then I think you might need to ask for some help.

HB: But I mean that’s certainly an introduction to a sexual awakening for a lot of people –

GS: It is, it is I suppose but, I guess so –

HB: But I mean the reality is that more people learn about the female body through those magazines than they do through a science textbook.

GS: Oh, I probably would say that they would learn through the internet before these magazines nowadays, but each individual’s experience or what they learn I don’t think is a matter for the Classification Board.

HB: Um, see I would argue that airbrushing the vaginas is actually a different thing to airbrushing the breasts and the skin tone and everything else, I mean people understand that that goes on and that they take out freckles and blemishes, but we are actually talking about removing a part of the body here, it’s not like you remove breasts and then people get a misunderstanding about whether they should have breasts or not, we’re talking about actually removing a part of the body.

GS: Oh, well I ah, it’s, again, it’s not our, we don’t instruct anybody to airbrush anything, but I still think that it’s, that these magazines airbrush every picture within an inch of its life so for me to comment on whether they airbrush or not is something that the Board we like, that’s their commercial decisions.

HB: I mean, I put it to the magazines that they’re doing it for commercial reasons, and they vigorously deny that. They say they resent having to ‘heal things to a single crease’ and that they’re certainly not doing it, for the taste, to suit the taste of their readership. As far as they’re concerned this is absolutely a Classification issue.

GS: Well, that’s their opinion.

HB: Ok.

[end formal interview]

HB: We were really quite surprised when we took these photographs at the range that we got.

GS: Yeah well we see and it’s all for a broad range of different things, so it’s no surprise that you’ve brought in images like this really because, the scope, but I just think it all comes down to the clients’ interpretation of the guidelines rather than the Board trying to heal women’s vaginas to a slit.

HB: And you know, the graphic designer that we showed these pictures to – this is only 12 out of the 26, but this is a good example, and out of the entire 26 there were only I think two that he said wouldn’t need to be airbrushed.

GS; Well that’s, well that’s, like I can’t comment on that. That’s his, his opinion or advice.

by Kirsten Drysdale March 3, 2010

Text

Dec 30, 2012 4:24 pm

14 Notes

LABIA

LABIA MINORA

INTERVIEW

RESEARCH

toomuchonmyplatethingsicantface reblogged this from largelabiaproject

girl-in-the-radiator likes this

kinkerotic reblogged this from largelabiaproject

secret-icecream-empress likes this

futons likes this

lulu-fleur likes this

notpumpkin likes this

h-feather likes this

jyinx likes this

kamododragon likes this

troublicious likes this

largelabiaproject posted this