{"id":2717,"date":"2012-01-16T18:11:55","date_gmt":"2012-01-16T08:11:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.msnaughty.com\/blog\/?p=2717"},"modified":"2012-01-16T18:11:55","modified_gmt":"2012-01-16T08:11:55","slug":"excessive-genital-detail-photoshopped-vulvas-in-mens-mags","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/msnaughty.com\/blog\/2012\/01\/16\/excessive-genital-detail-photoshopped-vulvas-in-mens-mags\/","title":{"rendered":"“Excessive Genital Detail”: Photoshopped Vulvas In Men’s Mags"},"content":{"rendered":"

A while ago I went to Sexpo and came home with a showbag full of… well, I didn’t bother to look to be honest. I was too busy being interested in my new corsets. The bag got shoved into a corner of my office and ignored until I did some cleaning. Thus I discovered 3 freebie copies of softcore men’s magazines: Zoo Weekly<\/em>, Picture<\/em> and People<\/em>.<\/p>\n

These magazines won’t win any prizes for offering subtle or intelligent journalism. They’re really just soft porn with exclamation marks. Guys like looking at naked women and these magazines cheerfully offer that, albeit with a veneer of hur-hur-hur sexism. In the era of the internet, when you can find any kind of porn at the drop of a hat, these mags still sell. I guess it’s sometimes hard to download porn in a truckstop bathroom.<\/p>\n

In any case, that’s not why I wanted to write a blog post. What caught my eye was the ridiculous photoshopping that these magazines perpetrate. Not just removing blemishes or thinning thighs, either. These magazines heal up vulvas. Thus:<\/p>\n

\"Picture
\n\"A
\n\"Picture
\nThey even “improved” porn star Tera Patrick:
\n\"Picture
\nAnd here the frontbottom has vanished, leaving a worrying gap:
\n\"Picture
\n\"People<\/p>\n

These magazines don’t photoshop vulvas into smooth mounds for fun. They do it so they aren’t penalised by Australia’s censors, the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The existing guidelines say that those kinds of soft porn mags can’t show “excessive genital detail” – i.e. pink bits or inner labia. Pink bits makes it real<\/em> porn, not just a “lad’s mag”. So, to ensure they don’t get into trouble with the government, they get excessively happy with the healing brush, often removing any hint of a vulval slit at all. In other cases, protruding labia are “tidied up” so all that’s left is a “perfect” pussy.<\/p>\n

\"Australian
\nThis situation isn’t new. In 2001, Australian Women’s Forum published an article decrying this type of censorship, arguing that it was encouraging women to have genital surgery to meet the unrealistic bodily standards suggested by men’s magazines. Ironically, their article illustrating the difference between photoshopped and real vulvas was itself censored for having “too much genital detail” (see image above).<\/p>\n

In 2010 the ABC program Hungry Beast discussed this censorship issue. Watch it here:
\n