Or, so it seems. It's kind of hard to get the story straight,and I don't entirely understand Australia's classification system for porn, so please correct me if I'm wrong. However, it would appear, from everything I've read on the subject (here, here and here), if you're a young-ish looking woman who has small boobs, you're out of luck if you want to be a nude model or be in adult films -- because you look like a child and naked images/video of you promote pedophilia.
If the concern is really over pedophilia, does anything say "this is probably not a child" like pubic hair does? I'm surprised they haven't banned pubic hair shaving for young-looking women. To me, a bald vagina is more "child-like" than any boob size. Maybe that's just me. (And yes, I know children have pubic hair post-puberty. But I think you know what I'm saying. There are also 15-year-olds in this world with D-cups, so ...)
And where is the ban on young-looking men? Just because men don't have something measurable like a cup size doesn't mean there aren't numerous men in adult industries who don't look 18. So, Australia, what's up with that?
Here's another thing banned from adult films in Australia: female ejaculation. The classification board seems to think it's either fake (so why ban it?), or that it's urine (all urine-fetish videos are already banned in Australia), or that female ejaculation doesn't exist. Actually I guess you have to believe the latter to come up with first two. Male ejaculation is just fine though.
Thanks for the sexism, Australian Classification Board.
By the way, while on the subject of porn, a study came out recently that "found that boys who see porn are more likely to believe there is nothing wrong with sexually harassing a girl or pinning her down," and that "boys who see porn also have more difficulty carrying on successful relationships when they’re older." Read more about that at The Frisky.