Boobs on Bikes
Dick Hubbard has condemned the Boobs on Bikes parade as “morally repugnant” and “degrading”.
Good God, if that is his reaction to a dozen topless women on motorbikes, what does he think of the Hero Parade?
Me, I’m a supporter of both!
Brian Rudman makes the point that Hubbard and co have guaranteed a record turnout and exposure (heh) for both the parade and the expo. Is Hubbard on Steve Crow’s payroll?
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Local Body Politics
August 16th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Actually DPF, thats a very good point. What’s the difference between the boobs on bikes and the hero parade when it comes to skin exposure? Why is it that one is about “celebrating diversity” and the other one is morally repugnant?
August 16th, 2006 at 8:17 am
They are as morally repugnant as each other. Sexuality is for the bedroom, not for public display. Tell me David, and tell the women of this nation – your mother, your sister, your workmate; why is it you support the degrading of women for private profit in the public arena?
August 16th, 2006 at 8:26 am
I think they’ll be keeping degradation and humiliation inside the expo hall, A. J. The council really would balk at that…
August 16th, 2006 at 8:34 am
The position by the council should be one of consistency. If some left wing local politicians are prepared to champion a Hero Parade down a mainstreet (Ponsonby Rd) which entails public gay nudity then they really ought not to be getting outraged over straight public nudity down a mainstreet. The lack of consistency is hardly surprising when so much meaningless waffle about “diversity” is made in so many speeches and press releases by the Mayor and leading left councillors. At least the C&R Now councillors are being consistent that they don’t like any kind of nudity in public spaces.
As it is, Rudman makes a good point that the outrage (and I concede that its coming from C&R as well as the Mayor and City Vision) is giving wonderful publicity for Steve Crow.
I wonder if the best thing that Auckland City could have done would be to have ignored the whole thing as just another stunt by Mr Crow.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Actually Hubbard said the reason he objects in his role as mayor is becuase it is a purely commercial event. He said although personally he has moral objections to it they pay no part in his objections as mayor.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:21 am
“I wonder if the best thing that Auckland City could have done would be to have ignored the whole thing as just another stunt by Mr Crow.”
No Mr. Bhatnagar, it is always best to speak out. It is because the right have practised self censorship for so long that things have come to this. Do not be intimidated by trendy and gormless mental lightweights who promote the view that such events are some kind of positive to society. Have the courage of your convictions, have an argument that stands up to logical scrutiny, and speak out. Always speak out.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:29 am
No Jono – Hubbard did indeed cast a moral judgment on the boobs on bikes. He said “It’s particularly degrading to women.”
Curiously, he wants “to get to the bottom” of the boobs here:
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=101624
Bottoms, boobs, and one big Dick. This council is the most sexually charged in recent times!
August 16th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Hubbard has certainly made a right tit of himself with this. Only yesterday morning he was crowing on NatRad how his main objection to the Boobs on Bikes was that it was a commercial venture. This argument got blown out of the water rather quickly. Rudman points out the Lion Red undie run, while the only live infomercial I have ever seen was a few years ago and called the Farmers Xmas parade. It featured a 20 foot high Pump bottle among the product placements.
Aaron, the city council is being consistent. The ridiculous Brothels and Commercial Sex Premises Bylaw was instigated under John Banks’ prudish reign. Now the bloody fuddy-duddies on the left seek to keep boobies under wraps for much the same reason. The Jesus freaks of whatever ilk are consistent, if ignorant. God invented boobies as well as reactionary asses.
Way to go, Mr Crow.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Actually it is Crowe who has guaranteed the high level of coverage by playing the council’s process against itself. On morning report Hubbard was actually pretty measured until Crowe called him a religious nutter and said the parade would happen with or without council’s consent. Plunkett made no effort to make him apologise for that crack at all. He came across as a right arrogant wanker and it would appear that porn is the only industry that would have him.
August 16th, 2006 at 10:51 am
“Me, I’m a supporter of both!”
You are a bra and I claim my five pounds!
As far as such public displays are concerned I tend to be put off by them when they are organised as opposed to spontaneous.
It smacks of a faintly Germanic.. “Today ve vill make with ze boobies and luff and have ze good time and shocken ze prudes! Huh, huh, huh!”.
JC
August 16th, 2006 at 11:00 am
It always amuses me when men are willing to tell women what is morally right for them to do as women. Do you know the purpose of the rally? Have you spoken to any of the women involved? Sure it sounds dubious to me, but I’m not willing to lambast people for doing something when it’s harmless and I know nothing about their motives or message. Jees, anyone would think that you guys had been transported here from Victorian Emgland.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Have you checked your own sex lately Phillip? You rebuke us for speaking for women when essentially you’re doing the same thing yourself. Let the ladies speak up if they think we’re out-of-line.
I don’t know a single woman who would support or encourage the porn industry – not one. And I bet you I know a hell of a lot more women than you. That much is obvious if you’re willing to maket the statement that pornography is harmless.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:15 am
“And I bet you I know a hell of a lot more women than you.”
Dubious statement of the year. People who tend to be confident in their female companionship usually don’t have to make such claims.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:17 am
The dull brained mental state of today’s indoctinated left exposed in all its grey idiocy- “I’m not willing to lambast people for doing something when its harmless”, followed up by “Jees, anyone would think you guys etc etc”..
Guess what Phillip, I’m quite ready to make my own mind up about what it right and what is wrong, and whatever I think, I’ll express that opinion, whether brainwashed commies like you appprove or not. Crowe and his brainless birds are free to have their pointless little exercise in exhibitionism and self promotion, and others in this country are free to criticise it if they so wish. Don’t like it, piss off to Cuba.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Can anyone tell me when Multi-Millionaire Dick Hubbard suddenly became the representative of the Left?
August 16th, 2006 at 11:31 am
cheswass…
“..I don’t know a single woman who would support or encourage the porn industry – not one. And I bet you I know a hell of a lot more women than you…”
now..chesswass…you seem to be in denial that a lot of women make money/a (willing)living from the porn/sex industry…
and also that watching porn/sex shows is not just a male perogative/pastime….
(wimmens’ nite-out..anyone..?..)
and (ahem..chesswas..)…given the tone and timbre of your comments i would assume your (self-admitted) ‘stable’ of women would hold..(or at least pretend to hold)..similar reactionary views to yourself….?
in which case….?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 16th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Apparently not long after the council elections when he said that he was
philosophically a little bit more aligned to the centre-left than the centre-right.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:31 am
The parade will happen anyway, whether the spacewasters on Council will happen or not.
And I for one will be stepping out of my Queen Street office to cheer them along.
God Bless hot naked chicks!
August 16th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Phil, your slapper friends who are in the porn industry; I bet their decision to get involved was not a moral decision. Have you heard of things like greed, manipulation, the love of power? Have you heard of things like depression, desperation, depravity, perversity?
Not every decision a person makes is a good decision. People like you, who ask women to satisfy you with their bodies, with no consideration for their mind or their personality; People like you are the reason women accept destructive lies about their identity and get involved with guys like Steve Crowe.
Grow up and get a brain.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Actually all my female freinds are feminists, as is my partner. Telling women what harmless activities they can and can’t do with their bodies, is a wee bit authoritarian don’t you think? By the way, no I don’t think the porn industry and prostitution are harmless, but who am I to tell a women that she can’t have sex for money? Not my body. Female nudity is only such an issue in this society because we’re so uptight about it. If it was a normal occurrance we woulldn’t give it two thoughts. Oneday we might do away with useless Religious morality, until then we’ll keep on having a huge uproar every time we see a boob.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
I didn’t know phil asked women to satisfy him with their bodies without consideration for their personalities – shame on you phil!
Actually, one development since Victorian times is that women want blokes to satisfy them with our bodies. No complaints here…
August 16th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
You’re a fabulously comedic guy, AJ. On the one hand you decry “slappers”, women who’ve made a choice you disagree with, on the other hand you seem to be advocating respect for women for their minds and personalities.
Which is it – are women to live their lives according to your proscribed moral code (i.e: have no mind or personality of their own) do you respect their minds and personalities?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
A.J.Chesswas –
Do you know anyone in the porn industry?
Do you know anyone who is a stripper or prostitute?
Have you ever spoken to any of these people about their lives and why they do it?
If you have answered no to the above then you should drop the whole “i know so much about their motivations” bullshit.
You can be against the industry all you want, but dont pretend that you know about the industry from the comfort of your keyboard.
your comments such as “your slapper friends who are in the porn industry” speaks volumes about your own state of mind in regards to women and their bodies.
but to get back on topic – its just some tits – whoopdy shit
August 16th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
“Not every decision a person makes is a good decision. People like you, who ask women to satisfy you with their bodies, with no consideration for their mind or their personality; People like you are the reason women accept destructive lies about their identity”.
Encouraging women to have a sense of responsability for their own bodies, i.e. they use it as they see fit – doesn’t seem dismpowering to me – what do the women here think about this?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
“its just some tits”
Why do you assume that everybody will think of it as you do Fraser? Since when has conformity of thought been compulsory in NZ?? Many people see it as more than that and are quite entitled to such views. You be what you are and allow others to be what they are. In your opinion, its ‘just some tits’. Less shallow NZers who see woman as mothers and daughters and wives and the anchors of the family and ultimately the community and therefore worthy of some respect may think otherwise.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Righto Fraser you give me one good reason or motivation a woman might have to enter the porn industry. And please tell me Phil, when we do away with religious morality what is going to guide us in our lives and our law? Maybe we’ll be able to allow murder, and rape, and child abuse, and we can all live in the comfort of having done away with religious morality.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Where does all this end? Are we going to be seeing sex in the back of floats as part of the parade in the future? Are people that don’t want to see this sort of thing in public going to have to stay indoors until it’s safe to come out?
I don’t know what’s worse, seeing this sort of thing on the streets or having to walk through crowds of gawking, presumably turned on men, if someone needed to get somewhere.
I don’t know if anyone noticed, but in a recent study it showed conservatism is on the rise in NZ. Backlashes tend to swing really hard the other way, so the more the boundaries are pushed, the worse the swing in the future.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
“when we do away with religious morality what is going to guide us in our lives and our law? Maybe we’ll be able to allow murder, and rape, and child abuse, and we can all live in the comfort of having done away with religious morality”.
No, we will be guided by ethics instead of morality. Ethics are pragmatically formed values, guided by what the famous sociologist Max Webber calls “instrumental rationally”. They are values that are good in as far as they are seen to produce desired results.
Morals are codes of values handed to us by hierarchical institutions. They are seen as good regardless of whether they produce favourable results or not. Where as ethics are seen as a means to ends, morals are seen as ends in themselves. They result in punitive punishing practices such as harsh prison sentences. This is why Christian fundamentalist USA has a percentage of prisoners per head of population 6 times the European average. For example: Europeans say, ok you’ve committed a crime, we’ll look at the causes – i.e. Joblessness, poverty, lack of self-esteem, lack of direction in life, and they will attempt to fix those causes. This is because they base their values in the real world, not some book that a few old men dreamt up 2-3 thousand years ago. The US on the other hand will say “AN EYE FOR AN EYE!” and that’s about as far as the thinking goes.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
“Less shallow NZers who see woman as mothers and daughters and wives and the anchors of the family and ultimately the community and therefore worthy of some respect…”
Personally, I see women as fellow humans rather than as a walking set of societal roles, Redbaiter – but maybe I’m just shallow.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
“Morals are codes of values handed to us by hierarchical institutions. They are seen as good regardless of whether they produce favourable results or not. Where as ethics are seen as a means to ends, morals are seen as ends in themselves.”
You got a reference for that definition Phil? The only hierarchical institution I received my morals from was my parents. And that was just a few of them, the rest of got for myself. And guess what – I learnt those morals from experience in the real world. Why? Because that’s where morality works. If it ain’t pragmatic then it ain’t morals.
Redefine “morals” all you like, but the only person you will fool is yourself and other likeminded idiots.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
I see in the Herald someone going on about how this parade “is not teaching wholesome family values.” Well, No one minds a bit of wholesome family values. But like lowest common demoninator television, wholesomeness shouldn’t be a compulsory impost foisted on us all. Some people are quite happy to be the people your parents warned you about. As for it about it degrading or I fully understand the feminist argument, but honestly adults make choices, its only a bad choice if moralising halfwits poke their noses in to preach about it. So what if so and so is a hooker ora porn star? I know some very interesting current and ex sex workers, its impossible not to in this day and age, unless possibly you live in Canterbury, where they have their own woolly perversions… I don’t judge them, I’ve got more important things to worry about than someone elses morality.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
AJ,
Tell you what, buddy. Because I’m a generous guy, I’ll shout you an hour in a decent whorehouse. Once you’ve spent your two minutes porking one of them, you can ask her all about her moral choices.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
What the heck was that supposed to prove IP?
August 16th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
It gives you the perfect opportunity to get their perspective on chicks who flash their noongs in a parade.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
TomS with his usual one dimensional half witted ideas grounded in Marxist propaganda. Nobody is forcing anything on you you twit, go and have a gawk like the fucken lecherous old fool you probably are.. just do not demand that in doing so you should be deemed immune to judgement from others not so indoctrinated as yourself… If I think its a bad idea and if I view the people who want to support it or participate in it are creeps exhibitionists and shallow losers then I will say so. If I want to judge another’s morality I will, and fuck you and your Marxist non judgemental shit…
August 16th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
“but to get back on topic – its just some tits – whoopdy shit”
Not even real ones at that!
August 16th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Lucyna:
This is how staggeringly pointless the killing in Iraq is getting: shepherds in the rural western Baghdad neighborhood of Gazalea have recently been murdered, according to locals, for failing to diaper their goats. Apparently the sexual tension is so high in regions where Sheikhs take a draconian view of Shariah law, that they feel the sight of naked goats poses an unacceptable temptation. They blame the goats.
I’ve spent nearly a year here, on more than a dozen visits since the early days of the war, and that seemed about as preposterous as Iraq could get until I heard about the grocery store in east Baghdad. The grocer and three others were shot to death and the store was firebombed because he suggestively arranged his vegetables.
I didn’t believe it at first. Firebombings of liquor stores are common, and I figured there must’ve been one next door. But an Iraqi colleague explained matter-of-factly that Shiite clerics had recently distributed a flyer directing groceries how to display their food.
Standing up a celery stalk near a couple of tomatoes in a way that might – to the profoundly repressed – suggest an aroused male, is now a capital offense.
John Hendren
NPR Morning Edition
August 7, 2006
August 16th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
A.J.Chesswas, what is your understanding of the differnce between ethics and morals?
August 16th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
DIM, comparing women to goats is very bad taste.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
A definition of morals I found: “Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals
A definition of ethics i found: “A set of principles of right conduct”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
Do you see what I mean now?
August 16th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Yeah sure.. the message is clear Danyl, conservatives who dare to voice any opinion that challenges the views of social liberals are comparable with insane murderers.. pffft.. fucken hopeless pseudo liberal leftists and their smears and propaganda… all they ever have…
August 16th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
A definition of morals I found: “Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals
A definition of ethics i found: “A set of principles of right conduct”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
Do you see what I mean now?
August 16th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Compare and contrast
“TomS with his usual one dimensional half witted ideas grounded in Marxist propaganda. Nobody is forcing anything on you you twit, go and have a gawk like the fucken lecherous old fool you probably are’
Followed by a whine
“conservatives who dare to voice any opinion that challenges the views of social liberals are comparable with insane murderers.. pffft.. fucken hopeless pseudo liberal leftists and their smears and propaganda… all they ever have…”
Truly one could not make it up!
August 16th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
That’s some nice selective reading there Phil. Let me have a go:
A definition of morals I found: “Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character” (yes Point # 1)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals
A definition of ethics i found: “The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
Morals and ethics are the same thing. If it’s not moral, then it’s not ethical. If it’s not ethical, it’s not moral.
According to your definition, putting my seatbelt on when travelling across town (Stratford) this afternoon would have been morals, not ethics. It put it on not because it was practical to – not because I was likely to need it. I put it on because hierarchical institutions have taught me to do so, because to do so is seen as good regardless of whether it produces favourable results or not.
So quit mucking around with semantics and give us an exposition on the benefits of pornography to the human race. Then get down on bended knee and present it to your feminist partner before bed tonight.
August 16th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Poor Sonic, like most leftists, so logically challenged, so politically one dimensional and so indoctrinated with the poison of moral equivalence he can’t distinguish between Redbaiter having the opinion that someone might be a lecherous old fool and Danyl’s suggestion that Conservatives are brutal anti freedom murders..
August 16th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Poor Sonic, like most leftists, so logically challenged, so politically one dimensional and so indoctrinated with the poison of moral equivalence he can’t distinguish between Redbaiter having the opinion that someone might be a lecherous old fool and Danyl’s suggestion that Conservatives are brutal anti freedom murders..
August 16th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
In case some have missed the point, the issue is not about telling women what they can do with their bodies, but merely telling them “where” they can do it.
In the Libertarian tradition, ordinary passers-by have a right not to have a soft-porn show forced on them during their lunch hour in a public place.
Is it going to bring down Western Civilisation at one blow? No. But who makes the decision that 25 topless women is somehow OK but 25 fully naked women is not? Who is the moral arbiter of this when it comes to drawing the line in future?
And if council decides two years hence that fully nude porn stars on bikes are OK…what makes a float with a couple at it like rabbits wrong?
There are likely to be kids in town during the lunch hour. Does Crow really have the right to force his views on them in a public place.
It seems to me we either try and keep primetime on the public streets free of blatant commercial porn advertising for the sake of kids and others whose rights are being infringed, or we throw the whole thing wide open. I can’t see a logical argument to support the view that partial porn is OK but full porn is not.
It’s a commercial stunt…nothing more. SHould every Tom, Dick and Harry have the right to parade topless women up and down Queen St to sell their products?
And please, can someone in favour of Boobs on Bikes answer that question I asked: why shouldn’t a float with people having sex be allowed on a parade up Queen St at lunchtime?
August 16th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
whew..!..redbaiter..you go darling…
(have you thought of forming a duo with murray…
you could call yourselves “..the foam-flecked ones”..and do diatribes in synch…
whaddayareckon…”)
and a.j…(our bearer of the moral standards..eh..?..)
now..a.j..just becaiuse i don’t share your division of the female sex into madonnas and slappers…you shouldn’t really assume no moral standards over here..eh..?
y’see..a.j…from where i’m coming..the addiction you have to eating the flesh of other sentient beings…disgusts me much more than the sight of some un-naturally pneumatic mammmary glands bouncing up and down..(or not) on the back of a motorcycle..going down queen st..eh..?
y’see..aj..there’s no suffering or bleeding with the tits..eh..?
whereas with your visceral addictions to ripping the flesh of animals from their bones..with your teeth..and eating it…
causes bulk suffering..eh..?
(and believe me..to someone who hasn’t done that for decades….it really is disgusting to see or smell..eh..?
your addictions..a.j.. involve the wholesale slaughter and suffering of living creatures..
how does all that hang with your tit hang-up..eh..aj..?
do you think you should maybe give your totally out of whack ‘moral standards’ a bit of a tweak
there…aj..?
and ..by the way..re your assertions of “my life as a trick”..i should tell you..
that the person i’m bedding has to want to be with me for reasons other than a perfuctory cash reward..
‘cos..y’see..for me..de-tumesence is an automatic in those cash-n-carry situations..
(ahem..embarrassing..i know..)
(and possibly more information than you needed a.j..but you do seem to be a singularly uninformed individual….
so every little bit helps..eh..?)
so..aj..i guess in summary what i’m trying to say to you is that ‘morality’ is indeed a slippery beast…
especially when we demand others adhere to ours..or else..!….eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 16th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Clearly, Redbaiter comes from Canterbury. If only we could harness for the national grid the punishing masturbatory friction that this fury over a few nipples is obviously going to generate tonight.
Drop me an email redbaiter, I know an excellent, mid priced dominatrix.
You know you want to.
August 16th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
I wasn’t going to comment on this thread but then Ian Wishart popped up….
“In the Libertarian tradition, ordinary passers-by have a right not to have a soft-porn show forced on them during their lunch hour in a public place.”
Ah ha ha ha. “In the Libertarian tradition”. Priceless.
Still, this will go well along side your Air NZ crotch sniffing stories.
Remind me to buy one of your rags one day, they must be good fun.
August 16th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
That’s a remarkably imaginative interpretation of the Libertarian tradition you make there, Ian. It’s completely arse-about-face, but imaginative nonetheless.
In answer to your question – because no-one wants to see some geezers pimply white buttocks pumping away while they’re eating their lunch, I should think. Otherwise, no particular reason.
August 16th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I’m not in “favour” of boobs on bikes. I don’t like the idea because it’s purpose is to sell human bodies. However, this is an inextricable aspect of capitalism. Any wage earner knows this. Basically, we all make money from selling the services of our bodies to someone else, so why shouldn’t these woman be able to do the same? I would prefer to live and work in a society where people aren’t subjected to the indignity of selling their bodies to a master, but that’s our reality.
As to your question “why shouldn’t a float with people having sex be allowed on a parade up Queen St at lunchtime?”
I suspect that it could be psychologically damaging to children, otherwise I don’t really care.
August 16th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
I’m kind of curious about this myself: public sex is illegal because its considered indecent exposure – why isn’t ‘Boobs on Bikes’ also covered by this legislation?
I know this is a lot to ask, but I’d really prefer an answer from someone who genuinely knows what the law is.
August 16th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
because daryl….they are only (sorta) tits…
(i think they will stay in/on the vehicles…eh daryl…those tits..i dont think those mammaries will be engaging in wild uninhibited behaviour amongst themselves..eh danyl..?
and hey…they won’t bite you…eh..?
(don’t be nervous now..)
and no thanks…that’s to the idea of public screwing during lunchtime..
(could be quite distracting..eh..?..
and would totally put you off your subway..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(b.t.w…this thread is a hoot…eh..?..)
August 16th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
redbaiter
“Why do you assume that everybody will think of it as you do”
umm… i dont – thats why its called an opinion
“Since when has conformity of thought been compulsory in NZ??”
Its not, and where do i even come close to suggesting that?
once again redbaiter – you read into my comment things that arent there.
but to clarify what i was meaning was – its just some breasts (a body part that many women have very little problem with being seen) that are being shown by willing participants. Whats the big deal and why are we getting in such a moral lather about it.
Also just because i dont have a problem with the concept of a visible breast, doesnt mean that im a shallow person who doesnt value women and their myriad roles in society. It just means im not freaked out by the sight of a naked breast. period.
August 16th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
I’m in favour of allowing Boobs on Bikes, but won’t bother attending. Sounds dumb – with the cost of gas these days it would surely be cheaper to buy a Playboy mag if you want to have a tug over titties.
August 16th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Psycho, you wrote:
“In answer to your question – because no-one wants to see some geezers pimply white buttocks pumping away while they’re eating their lunch, I should think. Otherwise, no particular reason.”
Just because you don’t like seeing it, why should everyone else be prevented from seeing 70 year old ‘geezers..pumping away’ in public.
Do you see my point? Everyone has a line at which something becomes offensive. FOr some people the line is higher than for others. Either we operate in a society that is no-holds-barred, or we draw a line appropriately in the sand and say, “don’t care what you do behind closed doors or in your own home, but this is not acceptable in public”.
For a lot of people, that line is being crossed by Boobs on Bikes. Not because these people don’t appreciate the human body, but because they don’t see a need for their kids to be exposed to the sad sight of a bunch of women being pimped by Steve Crow.
It’s an advertisement. Nothing more. He should be told to get lost.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
I do see your point, I just don’t agree with it. As you say – just because I don’t want to see it, why should other people be prevented? I’d simply avoid attending such a spectacle, rather than encouraging the local council to ban it. I can imagine many other people would feel the same way, which would make it a poor advertisement and quite possibly explains why Mr Crow isn’t trying it.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
As much as I think that this is an offensive waste of time, apparently it is not against the law to have women expose their boobs in public. The police don’t seem to have a problem. The only reason why the council got involved is because previous parades became a little out of control, traffic wise. So it would seem that Crow, the so called pimp and exploiter, was simply trying to do the right thing and get council approval for the traffic management.
If the council revokes its consent, the parade will still occur and with police blessing, but without a traffic management plan. So if an accident occurs because of other traffic getting involved, it will be Mayor Dick’s fault for revoking the traffic management plan.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Danyl – I understand Judges have ruled that topless nudity as part of a protest is alloweded under BOR and free speech.
Sex in public is not free speech generally and also involves exposing genitals which are still deemed off limits generally.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Hmmm I couldn’t comment yesterday for some reason. It said my comment had to be approved. I was quite disappointed. So I wrote a post on my blog.
If it was a malfunction on your blog then just let me know, call me paranoid and forgive me. Otherwise I will conclude I was being censored.
By the way, do you have a reference for those rulings you mentioned David?
August 17th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Well hell, it seems like what is “free speech” and what is not is a matter of some speculation. Boobs, genitals, fucking, in the end, what’s the damn difference???
The thing that irritates me is the insufferable air of smug superiority projected by the pro boob camp. In the left that’s understandable, because its their norm on just about every subject. Its disappointing in the so called “right”. A core objective of Marxism is the destruction of the family unit, and social liberalism is an academic trend generated by the hard left to aid them in that goal. If you’re on the right in politics, its not smart to be a social liberal, its dumb.
Fraser- your “clarifications” show I was right. You’re shallow. You just don’t get it.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:47 am
ok – i dont like to get into a tit for tat because they tend to lead nowhere.
but redbaiter – you accuse me of being shallow, fair enough thats your opinion.
You wont find me sending the “leftie thought police” round to your house to arrest you.
But c’mon – back it up.
Why is not being freaked out by a naked breast shallow?
August 17th, 2006 at 8:50 am
They’re not in it for ideological integrity Redbaiter. It’s called populism. They believe the liberazi propaganda that The West is full of frothy-mouthed jocks who are desperate to protect their right to degrade womens’ bodies. This post is a work of sophistry, not ideology.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:00 am
The reason Nzers are getting all worked up about the parade is because NZ has a huge population of wowsers. Honestly, check out how many films and video games get banned by those nutters at the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Who the fuck are these freaks? Oh yeah, they’re morons like redbaiter and chesswass, somehow given almighty powers to stop people from watching what they want. The ONLY censorship should be for child porn, and real violence. Because that shit actually hurts real people or animals.
Censorship combines the worst of the left and the right, interference of the nanny state, and false morality of the religious right.
BTW I beleive the wowsers are actually far out numbered by people who dont get their knickers in a twist by some boobs, but unfortunately the wowserism seems to be a common prereq for politicans and general authoritarian busybodies such as the censors.
ps. I finally agree with Insolent Prick on something!
August 17th, 2006 at 9:01 am
The reason Nzers are getting all worked up about the parade is because NZ has a huge population of wowsers. Honestly, check out how many films and video games get banned by those nutters at the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Who the fuck are these freaks? Oh yeah, they’re morons like redbaiter and chesswass, somehow given almighty powers to stop people from watching what they want. The ONLY censorship should be for child porn, and real violence. Because that shit actually hurts real people or animals.
Censorship combines the worst of the left and the right, interference of the nanny state, and false morality of the religious right.
BTW I beleive the wowsers are actually far out numbered by people who dont get their knickers in a twist by some boobs, but unfortunately the wowserism seems to be a common prereq for politicans and general authoritarian busybodies such as the censors.
ps. I finally agree with Insolent Prick on something!
August 17th, 2006 at 9:04 am
OK Fraser, I’ll give it one try- its not about being “freaked out” for God’s sake, or tits or showing them or not showing them or any of that bloody shit. Its about subscribing to a set of social mores cultivated by the hard left. Like for example wimmin being “equal” to men rather than complementary, its part of their long term plan to incrementally make society the way they want it. The core of individual freedom and the biggest obstacle to the left’s totalitarian objectives is the strong family unit. Social liberalism is a big part of the left’s plan to destroy that unit.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Phil- point out where I have advocated the “banning” of this event. Like most insecure trendys who see themselves as the white knights of modern Marxist social mores, you trip over yourself in your anxiety to preserve your skin deep self image.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:15 am
You got it Redbaiter, I certainly don’t get freaked out by the sight of a woman’s breast. A woman’s breast is a powerful sight, but that’s because of what it symbolises. Breasts are sacred… (I can’t believe I’m talking like this – but at least it shows I’m not a “Wowser” lol)
Breasts are scared and powerful because they are a symbol of life, and of intimacy. It is obvious from the way you throw around the term “mammary gland” Phil that you just see them as blobs of flesh meant for your pleasure.
This has nothing to do with wowserism and “false morality”. It is all to do with the messages we are willing to reproduce within our culture. And I am not going to sit back and allow a bunch of retards to pretend it is acceptable to despise the sexual and reproductive identities of women in our nation.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:24 am
So what are you going to do, apart from bitch about it on the internet?
August 17th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Redbaiter says “Boobs, genitals, fucking, in the end, what’s the damn difference???”
Maybe he’ll get lucky one day and find out.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:26 am
“And I am not going to sit back and allow a bunch of retards to pretend it is acceptable to despise the sexual and reproductive identities of women in our nation.”
Yes you are, indeed you appear to despise many possible choices of sexual and reproductive identities on a regular basis.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:41 am
redbaiter – nice try but you didnt answer the question.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Danyl, I was one of the 300 who emailed the mayor, and if I were an Aucklander I would certainly be rallying some sort of opposition for Aug 23.
And Err, I may despise the choices of some women, but it is because I respect and honour their sexuality more than they do themselves.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Well that oughta do it.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:53 am
redbaiter..
“Like for example wimmin being “equal” to men rather than complementary,..”
whoar..!..in your own words..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 17th, 2006 at 10:01 am
“And Err, I may despise the choices of some women, but it is because I respect and honour their sexuality more than they do themselves.”
Oh, I SEE! So, if I despise your choice of lifestyle it’s because I respect and honour your intellect more than you do? Thanks, that’s a good line, I’ll hang onto it for later when I really want to piss somebody off by appearing to secrete sanctimonious slime from every pore.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:04 am
AJ – some bad news for you. The Auckland Mayor is incapable of finding his own arse with his own hands. You would have been better off throwing a nice new 20c piece down a well and “wish” the problem away.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Err, I didn’t say anything about honouring anyone’s intellect. There’s very little intellect to honour in here, and I would imagine much less worth honouring in the mind of a pornstar or a Steve Crow!
August 17th, 2006 at 10:09 am
“hang onto it for later??? hahhaha.. wot a damn laff that would be. You, along with most of your sad mentally crippled bunch of collectivist knomenclatura, self proclaimed intelligentsia, smug pseudo liberals and so many other kinds of lame Marxist groupies have been doing it (secreting sanctimonious slime from every pore) for fucken years you unrealising propaganda spieling leftist fuckwit..
August 17th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Anyone else getting the feeling that Redbaiter is single?
You can imagine the conversation on the first date.
Woman-”Well I think woman should be equal to men”
RB-”you sad mentally crippled, self proclaimed smug pseudo liberal and lame Marxist groupie (secreting sanctimonious slime from every pore) for fucken years you unrealising propaganda spieling leftist fuckwit…..
Fancy popping back to my place for a coffee?”
August 17th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Ian Wishart said:
Do you see my point? Everyone has a line at which something becomes offensive. FOr some people the line is higher than for others. Either we operate in a society that is no-holds-barred, or we draw a line appropriately in the sand and say, “don’t care what you do behind closed doors or in your own home, but this is not acceptable in public”.
So why is the line where you want to draw it? Won’t somebody thing of the muslims. What about those people who would prefer that no flesh were exposed. Why not draw the line where they want it?
Guess what. A line has been drawn, and Boobs are inside the line.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:27 am
I emailed Dick as well. Except I emailed in support of the boobs on bikes so I guess that means I balanced out A.J. then.
Oh and IP – nice one
I find A.J.’s Madonna and Whores approach really interesting!
SB
August 17th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Can someone please show me evidence of Farrar and Wiezguy’s claim that Boobs have been deemed to be inside the line by our country’s judiciary…
August 17th, 2006 at 10:30 am
I note that in todays Herald there as plenty of pro parade letters as well as the anti.
SB
August 17th, 2006 at 10:46 am
This is getting to be like the hysterical Pastor’s wife on the Simpsons:
“Won’t somebody think of the children!”
August 17th, 2006 at 10:57 am
” I may despise the choices of some women, but it is because I respect and honour their sexuality more than they do themselves.”
Put this up for sanctimonious statement of the century.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:09 am
” I may despise the choices of some women, but it is because I respect and honour their sexuality more than they do themselves.”
Knowing that people like this are out there is causing me to rethink my opposition to police tasers.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Wow AJ, you really put a shell thru the “tolerant” veneer of the trendy pseudo liberals with that shot.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:28 am
lol… they crack me up!
oh look I’m allowed to comment again… wierd
August 17th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Thought so, single.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
“Can someone please show me evidence of Farrar and Wiezguy’s claim that Boobs have been deemed to be inside the line by our country’s judiciary…”
You think they’ve been banned?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
“I may despise the choices of some women, but it is because I respect and honour their sexuality more than they do themselves.”
I’m sure all those women are stoked some wowser out there is honouring their sexuality. Personally I don’t even think about it. It’s ‘their’ sexuality, after all. And I don’t care to either get outraged or have a tug (or both) about it.
300 letters in a city of over a million? Hopefully that has no effect whatsoever, but the power of people who want to poke their noses into other people’s lives is surprisingly strong.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
It’s called compassion…
August 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
I’ve refrained from commenting on this somewhat rabid thread but from personal observation over many years I am now inclined to the view that matriarchal societies that accept and celebrate the power of female sexuality, are very much less violent, sexually peverse and psychotic than the common male centered model.
All through history we have seen swings from relative licentiousness to extended periods of puritanical repression. The advent of the Pill triggered a period of relative freedom, and naturally enough we have seen a swing back away from this recently….but this time the world is different, the swing will not recede back to prudish ignorance. Science has for the very first time in human history far more deeply informed us about the true nature of human sexuality on many levels, both physiological and emotional.
Historically our collective ignorance meant that those periods of relative licentiousness would culminate in excesses and abuse. Our modern knowledge about sex gives us the opportunity for the first time in history to combine relative personal liberty with a sane degree of collective order and security. Sex no longer automatically means babies. Sexual diseases will ultimately be managed, the psychic and emotional aspects of sexual relationships are nowadays better understood than ever before….and we can reasonably anticipate our knowledge to improve.
Continuing to try an impose social norms (morals) first derived thousands of years ago to protect women from rape and pillage by means of patriarchal repression is probably a tad less than useful. The future will be different from anything in the past…we are the first generation to entirely de-couple sexuality and the roles of each gender from their ancient yokes.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Good post Logix
August 17th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
What the heck is a “matriarchal society that accepts and celebrates the power of female sexuality”. Can you give us an example of one and explain how one operates; how exactly it goes about celebrating the power of female sexuality.
And how was this spiel meant to inform the debate over the promotion of pornography?
“we are the first generation to entirely de-couple sexuality and the roles of each gender from their ancient yokes”
Hmmm I still seem to be able to identify with my sexuality and sex role in much the same way as has been illustrated traditionally. I know very few people whose sexuality is even substantially decoupled from a traditional understanding. There has been no such revolution. Sex still, biologically, results in babies.
Since when were those traditional social norms designed to protect women from rape and pillage? I thought they were designed out of respect for the institution of marriage. I don’t know how you expect to get away with making such sweeping statements without even a reference, as if you were the God of anthropology – well you’re not.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
AJ, this parade isn’t about pornography. You and Hubbard have it wrong. It is about advertising an erotica expo. Not that I’ve ever been, but from what I’ve heard and read the expo is not at all about pornography. The two are quite distinct.
Get over yourself. While you are standing on your pedastal and preaching the world is passing you by.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Logix has been reading up about the difference between Jane Goodall’s aggressive male dominated chimps and the bonobo (pygmy) chimp which have sex as readily as many humans shake hands and have a more matriarchial society. To quote one famous madam “like having a cup of tea”.
Not far a away from where the chimps live, women still get around with their boobs hanging alfresco. Men do not oogle because they’re part of the furniture.
As global warming takes a grip, then places like Auckland should be declared ‘voluntary topless zones’. Like bikinis and mini-skirts in the 60′s and lingerie billboards in the 80′s, we’ll soon get used to it. BUT… it will give the Islamo-facists another reason to hate us. Such decadence!
August 17th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Good point, Gooner
The parade is about selling vibrators, lubricants, g-strings, dildos and whatever gets your fancy. Sure pornography is part of it, but the focus is on enhancing people’s sex lives, not exploiting women or men for that matter.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Hook, line and sinker.
In short comments like these it is not easy to give detailed or nuanced replies. Neither the term “patriarchy” nor “matriarchy” have precise definitions. Matriarchy has related concepts such as matrilinearity (eg some Jewish traditions) and matrilocality (ie the husband joins the wife’s family location, not the other way around.) Numerous examples of cultures exhibiting many degrees of matriarchy abound both in history and around the planet. If you want references, do some elementary googling, I really don’t have to do all the work for you.
In loose terms the Abrahamic tradition is the standard model of the Judeao-Christian-Islamic model of the male-centered extended family…in which external political power, property and legal rights where essentially defined only for males…women existed only in relationship to the male power structure. By contrast many cultures outside of the this tradition have historically allocated an independent existence, rights and powers to women, alongside men. The never was of course a mythical tribe of Amazons where females enjoyed total dominance to the degree that males commonly enjoyed over women elsewhere …but the result was always obvious…male centered cultures strongly tended to be territory and possesion oriented, routinely use violence to achieve goals, have higher levels of sexual violence and peversions, exploitative prostitution and mental psychosis.
In very rough terms, the advent of agriculture, intensified resource exploitation and property has also propelled the human race into an extended period of competition, characterised by slavery based econmomies, routine warfare and strict social control by rigid power/class structures. Marriage was primarily a social institution designed to protect the property rights the wealthy.
Patriarchal societies have certainly been the dominant mode for at least the last 7000 odd years, there is no “complete matriarchal people” known today. Every so called matriarchal society lost more or less of their typical life style under patriarchal influence. Yet I do not imagine that the cycle of human evolution will return us to some kind of “matriarchal Eden”. The motif of the modern era is equality (as distinct from equivalence). Unfortunately for the patriarchal possesive model, women have slipped the leash and are never likely to wear it again. Gradually, unevenly…but irresistably…women are now stepping ahead of men throughout the world..into an unknown territory. The combination of new knowledge that we have never known before, the urgent need for humans begin to live in balance with the planet earth, and the blindingly essential need to end warfare as a political tool….will drive humans re-shape society into new more successful models.
Your “traditional male role” is obsolete.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
AJ, you ask:
“Since when were those traditional social norms designed to protect women from rape and pillage? I thought they were designed out of respect for the institution of marriage. I don’t know how you expect to get away with making such sweeping statements without even a reference, as if you were the God of anthropology – well you’re not.”
Logix ‘gets away with’ his opinion on why boobs are hidden away in our society for exactly the same reason you get away with asserting the institution of marriage has anything to do with it. It’s an opinion.
You are not a God of any kind either, nor do you speak for one, even though you appear to think your views represent some kind of godliness. I don’t know what kind of religious nut you are, but if it’s a christian then perhaps you can explain why your God was really dark on Adam and Eve for covering up what it was that he had made, perfect and beautiful? Are you the snake advising mankind to cover up what divinity has created? How do you like them apples?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Ben,
You can always tell when I am supposed to be documenting logic… I get bored and write over-long wordy blog comments instead with crap grammar…. sighs.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Chesswas: I don’t know a single woman who would support or encourage the porn industry – not one. And I bet you I know a hell of a lot more women than you.
ohoho. I bet you do AJ. But … know them … how, exactly? In the ‘biblical’ sense? Or just through church? If the latter, then quelle surprise…
Personally, I know quite a few women who have no problems with porn. And, by god they’re good in bed!
August 17th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Chesswas: I don’t know a single woman who would support or encourage the porn industry – not one. And I bet you I know a hell of a lot more women than you.
ohoho. I bet you do AJ. But … know them … how, exactly? In the ‘biblical’ sense? Or just through church? If the latter, then quelle surprise…
Personally, I know quite a few women who have no problems with porn. And, by god they’re good in bed!
August 17th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
so good, I had to post twice.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Well of the 106 comments on this post, only one of them was from a woman brave enough to blog amonsgt the sorts of guys who will be gawking and playing with their diddles on Queen Street Aug 23. This woman is clearly uncomfortable with the idea of her fellow women being degraded by Logix & Co. She only has more wisdom than me not to persist with people who are so oblivious to the female mind, to a community ethic, and to sense and sensibility.
Isn’t it amazing that a blog that harbours such vermon, who spout such nonsense, can get so many hits. I guess the truly virtuous people don’t bother with faceless and anonymous bloggers and prefer dealing with real people. There’s a lesson to be learnt here.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
“Well of the 106 comments on this post, only one of them was from a woman…”
That’s not a woman, that’s Lucyna. She’s some kind of valkyrie, I think. Possibly a gorgon.
August 18th, 2006 at 12:43 am
So, you want to watch a few brace of hooters go by on bikes in the great cause of selling erotica…go do it. Tell me later you’re a better man [or boy] for this wonderful experience, that it really was enlightening and Auckland is much better for the parade. Get into the spirit of the party and ask your mum, girlfriend, sister to peel off and join in. Get a copy of logix’ reasoning on why ‘this is a good thing’, matriarchs etc;.
yawn
August 18th, 2006 at 12:44 am
So, you want to watch a few brace of hooters go by on bikes in the great cause of selling erotica…go do it. Tell me later you’re a better man [or boy] for this wonderful experience, that it really was enlightening and Auckland is much better for the parade. Get into the spirit of the party and ask your mum, girlfriend, sister to peel off and join in. Get a copy of logix’ reasoning on why ‘this is a good thing’, matriarchs etc;.
yawn
August 18th, 2006 at 1:18 am
AsI see it, the core issue is one of civility and good manners. Mr Steve Crow does not understand the former and has no conception of the latter.
If he chooses to go ahead, the parade should be stopped as it would go ahead in wilful defiance of an offical ruling. We then need to turn our efforts to ensuring that the Police act to prevent the parade occuring. Why? Beacuse as other posters have commented, it is advertising and not a protest. The council should act to prevent such an act of gross commericalism (in both senses of the word).
I am glad the council acted in this manner on the basis of good manners and civility. The Police must have the common sense to act accordingly.
Instead of talking, why don’t objectors disrupt the parade? An outraged Steve Crow attacking a protester would reverse all the positive spin he is getting and would, for his case, be an insidious position.
August 18th, 2006 at 1:21 am
AsI see it, the core issue is one of civility and good manners. Mr Steve Crow does not understand the former and has no conception of the latter.
If he chooses to go ahead, the parade should be stopped as it would go ahead in wilful defiance of an offical ruling. We then need to turn our efforts to ensuring that the Police act to prevent the parade occuring. Why? Beacuse as other posters have commented, it is advertising and not a protest. The council should act to prevent such an act of gross commericalism (in both senses of the word).
I am glad the council acted in this manner on the basis of good manners and civility. The Police must have the common sense to act accordingly.
Instead of talking, why don’t objectors disrupt the parade? An outraged Steve Crow attacking a protester would reverse all the positive spin he is getting and would, for his case, be an insidious position.
August 18th, 2006 at 8:15 am
This woman is clearly uncomfortable with the idea of her fellow women being degraded by Logix & Co.
Isn’t it amazing that a blog that harbours such vermon,
A few weeks back someone quoted Churchhill I think.. “a fanatic is someone who cannot change his mind, and cannot change the subject”. Anyone notice how our friend AJ here really only blogs about one topic? You can always tell when guys like this have lost the argument….they quickly resort to strawmen and ad-hominens. The veneer of Christian civility is pretty thin eh Cheswass?
August 18th, 2006 at 8:36 am
And you can always tell when guys like Logix have lost the argument…
August 18th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Hell, AJ, that Logic and his goons had lost was obvious twenty posts ago, when they went thru their attempted ridicule stage. Leftists are stricken by the curse of uniformity of thought. They have no imagination courage or initiative. Their attempts to promote their cause always follow the same process. They start off with smug tedious and wordy expressions of intellectual and moral superiority, and when that pathetic veneer is punctured, immediately proceed to stage two, which is where they seek to repair their self esteem by reaching for the “majority” defence, which is really just an attempt to marginalize anyone who challenges them- ie I can’t defend my position with logic, but I represent the mainstream and everyone who disagrees with me is an extremist, (and should be sent to a gulag). Then stage three consists of a series of outright false allegations and feeble attempts at ridicule all aimed at discrediting their opponent on a personal level. Same old same old Stalinist strategies that in this isolated little South Pacific isle, have served the left so well over the last fifty years, but are in the new century and with NZ’s ideological isolation under threat by the information onslaught of the internet, just so dinosauric.
Sixties and seventies style social liberalism is just so yesterday. Steve Crowe and his eighties style exhibitionism is just so boring. Flashing your tits in Queen St. is just so nineties narcissistic. (Its sad too to see so called Libertarians who apparently believe such shallow self indulgence has something to do with freedom) The big picture here is pretty clear. In the new century, with the rise of the internet as the main medium of global communication, leftists and social liberals are trying desperately to defend a status quo that is no longer cool with strategies that are no longer effective and a state of mind that is so out of touch and increasingly isolated. Leftists are television. Rightists are the internet.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:10 am
If it can be argued that the boobs on bikes is pure advertising and not, as in the case of the hero parade a non-profit community activity, then the women in question can be asked to cover up according to advertising standards regulations. Alternatively, a suitable compromise might be to body paint skimpy bikini tops.
Certainly Steve Crowe already has over 100 posts of free promotion..
August 18th, 2006 at 11:17 am
“Certainly Steve Crowe already has over 100 posts of free promotion”
People who oppose the event should shut up then?? No thanks. If I can articulate an argument for or against something I will make that argument. Silence can be perceived as connivance.
This is really just a question of good manners. “Manners” were a social custom that governed personal behaviour in society before the Stalinists arrived and was really just a means of showing a basic and cheerful consideration for your fellow human beings. Crowe if he so wishes, can invade Queen St with his infantile self promoting ideas. Those who enjoy such things can cheer him. Those who don’t can also express their disdain. The problem of course is that those members of the public who don’t wish to participate in such a gratuitous and degrading spectacle but merely enjoy their time in Queens St peacefully and quietly and reflectively are denied that choice by the invasion of the self promoting money grubbing ill mannered Crowe and his gang of self obsessed exhibitionists. I guess that’s just their hard luck right?
Civilized people have manners. Barbarians do not. Crowe might think he has won something with his “parade”, but to many, all he is doing is underlining the point that leftists have destroyed so much of what was good in society. Amongst the chattering classes, the old fashioned concept of manners has been replaced by a mindless sycophantic submission to the social mores of Marxist barbarians.
August 18th, 2006 at 11:27 am
A Libertarian, free choice, personal responsibility attitude to this would be that if you don’t want to be exposed to the boobs, don’t be there at the time of the parade. You have plenty of warning. You can lock yourself in your office. You don’t have to look out the window. You can do your shopping earlier or later. If you have to be on Queen Street at the time due to work commitments then look the other way, or talk to someone on the your cell phone. It’s your choice.
August 18th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Tears of laughter at this end at RedDick’s attempt to lecture us about “good manners”. AJ…ya gotta be so PROUD to have RedDickBater on your team eh?
Redboy…how about seeing if you can manage three posts in a row without an infantile reference to Stalin or Mgabe? Go on I am sure you can do it…just as an exercise in extending the range of your splendid satirical technique if nothing else.
August 18th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Righto New Zeal I’ll turn up at your front gate tonight and start preaching hellfire and brimstone at the top of my voice. You better not complain though, after all you could just go somewhere else tonight. You don’t have to hear me, or listen to me. It’s your choice.
August 18th, 2006 at 11:45 am
A Libertarian, free choice, personal responsibility attitude to this would be that if you don’t want to be exposed to the boobs, don’t be there at the time of the parade. You have plenty of warning. You can lock yourself in your office. You don’t have to look out the window. You can do your shopping earlier or later. If you have to be on Queen Street at the time due to work commitments then look the other way, or talk to someone on the your cell phone. It’s your choice.
Well, OK, I’ll go along with your assumption that you represent the “Libertarian” view for the sake of the argument. However, its kind of mind boggling that one who professes to care about personal liberty should make the statement that those who don’t wish to participate in this infantile exercise in self promotion should absent themselves from the public place that is being used in this manner. Should do their shopping earlier. Should not look out the window. Should look the other way. Should lock themselves in their office. For fuck’s sake. Why the fuck should they??? What superior right to Queen St do crummy little money grubbing Crow and his group of self obsessed tit flashers have?
August 18th, 2006 at 11:56 am
See AJ, Logix is still stuck in phase three of standard leftist behaviour pattern, the ridicule and false allegation part. I’ll always call you Stalinist Logix because its a good objective adjective to describe your political bent and your thinking patterns. As yet, I haven’t made any reference to Mugabe. Not that accuracy or truth has ever mattered one iota to Stalinists searching for a smear…
August 18th, 2006 at 11:59 am
“What superior right to Queen St do crummy little money grubbing Crow and his group of self obsessed tit flashers have?”
Conversely what superior right to Queen Street do puritanical religious conservatives have? The answer to both questions is none. Queen Street is public space, where everyone has equal rights.
With regards to this promotional event, as long as it is not illegal then go ahead, you have no right to try and shut it down. Equally when it comes to council funding/support etc as ratepayers in Auckland you do have a right to ask the council to review any such decision and withdraw support.
I do find it ironic that Religious Right blames the Left for this, when Crow is from the Secular Hard Right (being a bad evil capitalist). And the left defend it!
Me, I am from the secular centre right, and I have no problem with it.
August 18th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
redbait…are you doing a comedy routine…?
white-anting/smearing the right..?
(by association with you..?..)
‘cos you’re doing a ripper job of it..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Phil old man, there’s no right in NZ, just a bunch of lily livered PC cowed ideologically confused wankers who profess to be rightists but have stood by holding their dicks in their hands while NZ has sunk into a suffocating socialist morass. There’s nobody to white ant you dumbarse…
August 18th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
I’ll always call you Stalinist Logix because its a good objective adjective to describe your political bent and your thinking patterns.
This is not the comment of a sane man… It must suck being this bitter all the time. You know where they are big on puritanism? Saudi Arabia. You won’t find any topless chicks there…
August 18th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Chesswas and Redbaiter, I am no Libertarian. I have already said earlier that this parade should probably be covered by advertising standards or at least the boobs covered by body paint.
Oh btw, Steve Crowe (if you’re reading this thread), I’m quite handy with a brush you know, and if not I always enjoyed finger painting!
August 18th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
AJ, your ‘sole female commentator’ is about as convincing as your 300 letters. That is to say she is not statistically representative of women in any way. So when you say Logix & Co are “people who are so oblivious to the female mind, to a community ethic, and to sense and sensibility”, you’re talking out of you nether regions. How did you get to be an expert on ‘the community ethic’? Your ‘sense and sensibility’ just seems to be oversensitivity to divergent opinion.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
redbait…
u said..”..Phil old man, there’s no right in NZ, just a bunch of lily livered PC cowed ideologically confused wankers who profess to be rightists but have stood by holding their dicks in their hands while NZ has sunk into a suffocating socialist morass. There’s nobody to white ant you dumbarse…”
i say..old man/woman…are you the only one who has seen the light…?..and has the vision..?
terribly difficult being a prophet in your own time..eh..?..old man/woman..?
redbait..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Err…, I didn’t realise you were so terrified of me.
Ben Wilson, I’m not statistically representative of women in any way, huh?
I had my first child at age 28 – the statistical norm for women having their first baby at the time. I have 2 children now, a fraction over the statistical norm of 1.9 children per woman in NZ. I am taller than average, I’ll give you that. And more intelligent. And a computer programmer – not many women in that profession. And I’ve done martial arts, been a model, been self-employed in my own business … it must be the right-wing blog that I write for that makes you say I not “statiscally representative of women”. Because the statistically representative woman with 1.9 children would not write for a right-wing blog. Right?
August 18th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Hey Phil, I have to be correct. How else could a bunch of panty waisted milksop commie dicks like you end up running the place???
August 18th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
This is quite a fun post…
August 18th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Benny has switched to phase two Luce, attempted marginalistion
August 18th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
cor..!…
tell me… my little proctologists’ plaything…
what exactly am i running…?
(b.t.w…have you and murray met yet….you really are twin-souls ..y’know…it could be a very happy relationship for you…
(you might even be able to get rid of that pesky virginity…eh redbaiter..?…you never know your luck..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Yup….gorgon….but a statistically representative one mind you
August 18th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Flip Phil, even your sentence structure is sleazy!!
Do you actually expect to be taken seriously?
August 18th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
logix, stand by to receive a gorgon backhand. I dont know if the scores from rings rate as high on the social scale as the old dueling scars did, just remember to keep your head below your shoulders and if you go down assume a foetal position and protect your wedding tackle. And try not to squeal, it’s unmanly.
August 18th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Lucyna, on *this* issue, despite being a self professed Wonder Woman, you haven’t grasped that I’m saying you are not a representative sample. You are one person.
Good on you for having some opinions and posting them here in teen-testosterone-ville, but sorry if I seem slightly cautious in accepting your authority to speak for the entire population. It’s the computer programmer in me that likes numbers rather than anecdotal evidence, however forcefully held.
August 18th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Ben, unless some other woman comments on this thread, statistically my opinion is in the majority.
August 18th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
He-he… women singularly lacking in flooding to Steve Crow’s defence. Should be a salutary reminder for us all commenting here, I guess.
August 18th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Lucyna, I couldn’t care less if your opinion is in a majority, as a woman, on this blog. I’m saying that’s no evidence of any kind, whatsoever, period, at all, for a general trend in the population. Furthermore, the opinions of the men and boys posting here are not in any way clearly representative of the male population. As an argument for any particular point of view, the number of people posting on DPF’s blog about it means absolutely nothing.
If you had some good quality arguments for your point of view other than ‘I’m offended by that’, or some statistics about how offensive women find this kind of thing then I might give a damn about your testimony, but the fact that you may or may not also have boobs actually doesn’t impress me, I’m sorry.
August 18th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Last time I popped into DVice in Willis St, I was outnumbered 8:1 by a HORDE of women. And not giggly teenagers out for a thrill either.
Go to this Sexpo event and you will likely find at least 30% women in the crowds. Video shops report women as signficant renters of explicit porn. Every women I have ever “known” (yes in the Biblical sense) enjoyed being topless or nude when they felt in the mood to be so. At least half of them had substantially more adventurous and diverse sexual appetites than me…and I am no prude trust me.
Newsflash dudes…women enjoy sex. And they will go on enjoying it on their own terms in their own way. And less and less will they give a flying-fig what us testosterone poisoned retard males say or do about it.
August 18th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Ok, Ben. I really don’t care whether or not *you* are impressed. Really. Get over yourself.
The thing is, if the other women of the blogosphere felt that they are being misrepresented, they would be here like a ton of bricks. Or they’d post on their own blogs. So far, nothing. The fact that you don’t know that says a lot about you.
I would not have even commented on this thread had there not been a desire for someone further up to know what women thought.
But go on, have the last word. Prove what a big man you are. Say “boobs” again.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Newsflash??
Its not news you pompous cross wired dumbfuck, and its got nothing to do with the issue either..
August 18th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Just a few posts ago you were piffling on about “good manners” being the mark of civilisation. Draw your own conclusions buddy.
On reflection and all standard blog insults aside…I think are not well. Your obsessive mono-mania has become alarmingly florid. Personally I am going to ignore anything you post henceforth because the attention is just aggravating your condition. In my opinion others should do the same. For your own good you should stop blogging.
See a doctor.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
We have advertising standards for TV. No boobs before 9pm or something like that. And if they offended you, you can always change channels.
A public place is different.
Some-one said there is a line drawn, and obviously, that line is going to be tested time and time again.
I’m surprised the line seems to be below the navel for public places. Or are the police being lazy, or fear they will be considered party poopers?
Seems to me they could satisfy the “norks for dorks” brigade by advertising that topless women will be parading about the interior of the Expo handing out T-Shirts saying “I’ve seen breasts exposed by willing women”.
They don’t need to be on Queen street to bring in the studs and their wallets.
Liberalism used to justify commercialism smacks of self-absorption to me.
August 18th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Logix, perhaps Redbaiter is just mixing in with the natives. Relating on the same cultural norms brought about by a patriarchal society and all that?
But as Dr Zen, panic not. I find him mentally fit and sound of mind.
Of course, you are entitled to a second opinion.
So, having thought about it. He’s still OK.
August 18th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
I just want to edge this toward 150. It’s like a telethon.
“Thank you very much for your kind comments, thank you very much, thank you very very very very much”.
New total, new total: 148!
August 19th, 2006 at 6:32 am
yeah..in his/her defence…redbaiter is just getting down with that humph ‘vibe’…..
y’know ..following on from the likes of murray..that cheesy guy…kumble…the van…(y’know who they are..)
(he/she does seem particularly excitable tho..eh..?.)
d’ya think he/she might be currently burdened with p.m.t…?
y’know..the mood swings..thew over-reactions…the screaming..the total absence of any logic..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 19th, 2006 at 7:06 am
Well then this is 150!
We are a long way from where we started its seems only the right wing have resorted to insults though.
Sb
August 19th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Logix, I’ve long since given up even reading Redbaiter, let alone responding. Let the kids play amongst themselves.
August 19th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Lucyna, since you addressed your profound statistical observation directly to me, that implies you do actually care.
Your extrapolations about the small subset of women who inhabit the blogosphere and their reasons for being absent from this thread are complete speculation.
That could well have been my last word 2 posts ago if you hadn’t kept chiming in to make generalizations from one example, yourself. I might very well be the only person on this thread in my entire suburb, but that doesn’t mean I claim to speak for my suburb, or to conclude from their absence that they all agree with me. That really would require getting over myself.
And I’ve noticed you do that a lot, on other threads – because you exhibit the rare quality of being a woman who posts here, you claim to speak for your entire sex. You do not, and that really is my last word. If people haven’t got my point by now, they never will.
August 19th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Ben, I read Lucyna’s statistical observation reply to you as a tongue-in-cheek comeback to your “reliance” on statistics.
I don’t see where Lucyna claims to speak for all women, she’s just putting forward her theory. That’s different.
“It’s the computer programmer in me that likes numbers rather than anecdotal evidence, however forcefully held.”
I guess you don’t do Help Desk then?
“I’d like to consider your problem, but anecdotal evidence doesn’t wash with me. I’ll wait until more people phone in with the same problem, and see if we can establish a trend. Have a nice day.”
I think anecdotal evidence does have its place.
August 19th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Ben, I read Lucyna’s statistical observation reply to you as a tongue-in-cheek comeback to your “reliance” on statistics.
I don’t see where Lucyna claims to speak for all women, she’s just putting forward her theory. That’s different.
“It’s the computer programmer in me that likes numbers rather than anecdotal evidence, however forcefully held.”
I guess you don’t do Help Desk then?
“I’d like to consider your problem, but anecdotal evidence doesn’t wash with me. I’ll wait until more people phone in with the same problem, and see if we can establish a trend. Have a nice day.”
I think anecdotal evidence does have its place.
August 19th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
ZenTiger, yeah I’ve done my fair share of support, and your point doesn’t relate to what we’re talking about. I only rely on statistics for questions which make statistical claims, like ‘most women feel this way’. If Lucyna said she was having x support issue, it doesn’t follow from that, that most women are also having x issue. But I would try to solve her problem, if that was my job, which it isn’t.
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:47 pm
New Zealanders have become a bunch of whinging self rightgeous busy bodies.
I have no problem with the Hero Parade, nor with Destiny Church having their marches/parades/day in the sun. I respect their choices and beliefs, even if I do not follow them myself.
If I don’t want to see their parades, I don’t watch them. Simple.
Get a grip everyone, there are more important things going on in this country and in the world than some female breasts on display.
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:48 pm
New Zealanders have become a bunch of whinging self rightgeous busy bodies.
I have no problem with the Hero Parade, nor with Destiny Church having their marches/parades/day in the sun. I respect their choices and beliefs, even if I do not follow them myself.
If I don’t want to see their parades, I don’t watch them. Simple.
Get a grip everyone, there are more important things going on in this country and in the world than some female breasts on display.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:06 pm
It’s all about money. Why do these woman degrade themselves and the rest of us? Get a real job and keep sex where it should be… in a loving relationship, not on the street. How very sad that they value themselves so little that they to have to resort to this sort of exhibitionism, and all for money, they’re not even doing it for a good reason or to make a good point, I question the world that I am bringing my unborn child into at times like this.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Tricia, for these women it’s their livelihood. They have a right to advertise. That’s a good reason and a good a point all in itself.
And it’s actually a pretty easy job, suited quite well to pretty, lazy women. It’s their call if they feel ‘degraded’. Personally I felt degraded working for McDonalds, but I don’t think McDonalds shouldn’t be allowed to advertise.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I’m a woman, and I think other women have the right to bare their breasts if they want to. I went to Boobs on Bikes today, got bored of waiting, took photos of the thousands of men looking despondent and gave up, the only boobs I saw today were my own. I love porn and I love sex, as many women do. However, I don’t want everyone and their ass advertising their wares semi naked down Queen St every day though, the traffic sux enough as it is. I went along cos Dick Hubbard made me curious.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I’m a woman, and I think other women have the right to bare their breasts if they want to. I went to Boobs on Bikes today, got bored of waiting, took photos of the thousands of men looking despondent and gave up, the only boobs I saw today were my own. I love porn and I love sex, as many women do. However, I don’t want everyone and their ass advertising their wares semi naked down Queen St every day though, the traffic sux enough as it is. I went along cos Dick Hubbard made me curious.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:16 pm
The thing is, I don’t accept that just because someone is “offended” by something that this is a valid reason for stopping that thing. Your “offence” is purely manufactured in your own mind, and you have to deal with it, not anyone else.
E.g: I could say I’m offended by the wearing of red shirts, so does that mean I’m entitled to stop people from wearing red shirts? Obviously not.
Another example: Most reasonable people are offended by churches and other religious imagery, because of the association of religion with war, oppression, and violence. But does that mean we should be able to force all churches to be shut down? Just because we’re offended by seeing a church?
I know what you’re saying: “but Dave, they’re so obnoxious, surely we should be able to do something?”, and I hear you, but remember, that offence hasn’t actually changed your life in any tangible way. We just have to ignore it, and get on with our lives.
It’s hard, but these are the crosses we bear in a free society…
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:18 pm
The thing is, I don’t accept that just because someone is “offended” by something that this is a valid reason for stopping that thing. Your “offence” is purely manufactured in your own mind, and you have to deal with it, not anyone else.
E.g: I could say I’m offended by the wearing of red shirts, so does that mean I’m entitled to stop people from wearing red shirts? Obviously not.
Another example: Most reasonable people are offended by churches and other religious imagery, because of the association of religion with war, oppression, and violence. But does that mean we should be able to force all churches to be shut down? Just because we’re offended by seeing a church?
I know what you’re saying: “but Dave, they’re so obnoxious, surely we should be able to do something?”, and I hear you, but remember, that offence hasn’t actually changed your life in any tangible way. We just have to ignore it, and get on with our lives.
It’s hard, but these are the crosses we bear in a free society…
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Oh, and just in case you missed out on your cross, here’s a link to some documentary evidence of all of our shame – Boobs on Bikes:
http://www.eroticaexpo.co.nz/subpages/gallery/bob_2006_chr.html
I’m feeling more than usually virtuous now, I’d better go and have a lie down, and perhaps a nice cup of moral tea (you have to pretend you don’t enjoy it).
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Who would be offended by church? I dont understand that. No one is sad to harri-chrishners or bhudists whats significant about the christian church?
People seem to like calling people a homo or gay jokes and basicly taking the micky out of gay people. But when it comes to the hero parade nobody dares say anything negative about them expressing them selves. –
personaly its a bit of a shame the boobs on bikes went ahead, I know that they were allowed but I mean theres a High school basicly on queenstreet, and how children were on queenstreet that day? :S not good.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Gareth,
I see what you mean – I can’t imagine the impact seeing a set of breasts might have on a young lad at high school. Probably ruin the poor blighter for life. Certainly make their handwriting a bit shaky for the rest of the afternoon, at the very least.
And as for the children, well, obviously we wouldn’t want them to realise that those lumps on mum’s chest aren’t actually a convenient storage area for small to medium sized fruit. I remember Dad telling us that. I grew up thinking that you had to test your fruit on a disturbingly regular basis, to make sure it was “fresh”. Of course, us kids weren’t allowed to do the “testing”, at least not once we had gotten a bit older, you know, over 21 or something like that. Funny, now I come to think about it, that’s about the time Mum stopped bathing us, too… Ah, those were the days.
Where was I? Oh yes, the children. Better if they go home and watch some good old-fashioned killing and maiming on the TV, don’t you think?. Much healthier.
And no one has mentioned the safety issues either – I for one certainly hope they had their headlights on. Mind you, being winter, one would have to assume they did.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Dave, I seem to remember finding out at an even younger age, that breasts were something you suck and fondle. I didn’t need Dad to tell me that one, I’d been doing it for years.
But yes, the children will be scarred, I’m sure, if during a moment of truancy they copped a peek at something they’ve probably seen a lot more of in the magazines that circulate high schools.
Tell me one kid who’s never seen naked female breasts on display? Seriously. And then show me the kid who was actually scarred by the sight!
August 24th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Has anyone heard of the “Bay to Breakers” fun run in San Fransisco every 3rd week of May? People are completely naked in sight of excess of 100,000. The parade starts in the heart of the ciy and winds through to the beach. An 11km walk. There are tens of thousands of spectators and thousands of “runners”, yes some completely in the buff. The question is not morality, as if it were where does that stop or start? the Talian? The issue is freedom what is it? In Europe and SF generally sleaking nakedness is not an issue, and I think that this parade being permitted and the bulk of the pro comments here signal our likeness. One opinion is not important, but many form our society.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Has anyone heard of the “Bay to Breakers” fun run in San Fransisco every 3rd week of May? People are completely naked in sight of excess of 100,000. The parade starts in the heart of the ciy and winds through to the beach. An 11km walk. There are tens of thousands of spectators and thousands of “runners”, yes some completely in the buff. The question is not morality, as if it were where does that stop or start? the Talian? The issue is freedom what is it? In Europe and SF generally speaking nakedness is not an issue, and I think that this parade being permitted and the bulk of the pro comments here signal our likeness. One opinion is not important, but many form our society.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Has anyone heard of the “Bay to Breakers” fun run in San Fransisco every 3rd week of May? People are completely naked in sight of excess of 100,000. The parade starts in the heart of the ciy and winds through to the beach. An 11km walk. There are tens of thousands of spectators and thousands of “runners”, yes some completely in the buff. The question is not morality, as if it were where does that stop or start? the Taliban? The issue is freedom what is it? In Europe and SF generally speaking nakedness is not an issue, and I think that this parade being permitted and the bulk of the pro comments here signal our likeness. One opinion is not important, but many form our society.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
We are lucky we live in a country that permits such freedom of expression in public display, and even our internet use. The issue is about freedom, one opinion is not important as such, but the total of opinions form our so called society. In San Fransisco, for ex there is a parade held annually in May, called “Bay to Breakers Fun Run”. There are in excess of 150,000 participtants and spectators. Some participants are completely in the “buff”. the run starts downtown and ends at the beach, an 11km walk-run. In Europe such questions also are not an issue, I think this parade allowance overall speaking is our likeness overall of tolerance. Nakedness is not sex, and the allowance in NZ, therefore is acknowledgement, of this. Public nudity is common in more than a few western coutnries, but public sex is taboo just like here. Thats it really.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
We are lucky we live in a country that permits such freedom of expression in public display, and even our internet use. The issue is about freedom, one opinion is not important as such, but the total of opinions form our so called society. In San Fransisco, for ex there is a parade held annually in May, called “Bay to Breakers Fun Run”. There are in excess of 150,000 participtants and spectators. Some participants are completely in the “buff”. the run starts downtown and ends at the beach, an 11km walk-run. In Europe such questions also are not an issue, I think this parade allowance overall speaking is our likeness overall of tolerance. Nakedness is not sex, and the allowance in NZ, therefore is acknowledgement, of this. Public nudity is common in more than a few western coutnries, but public sex is taboo just like here. Thats it really.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
We are lucky we live in a country that permits such freedom of expression in public display, and even our internet use. The issue is about freedom, one opinion is not important as such, but the total of opinions form our so called society. In San Fransisco, for ex there is a parade held annually in May, called “Bay to Breakers Fun Run”. There are in excess of 150,000 participtants and spectators. Some participants are completely in the “buff”. the run starts downtown and ends at the beach, an 11km walk-run. In Europe such questions also are not an issue, I think this parade allowance overall speaking is our likeness overall of tolerance. Nakedness is not sex, and the allowance in NZ, therefore is acknowledgement, of this. Public nudity is common in more than a few western coutnries, but public sex is taboo just like here. Thats it really.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
hh
August 24th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
hh
August 24th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Some people have raised the issue of legality of being naked in public. The matter was determined in case law Ceramalus Appeal 1990, heard in the High Court, by Justice Tompkins J. Ceramalus has been convicted of offensive behaviour in the district court. Tompkins J, agreed (interestingly), that a charge of indecent exposure should not apply to persons of naturist beliefs (hence the police charge of O/B). The appeal was upheld, and the conviction overturned. The outcome of this is that if a person is naked in public (completely), it depends on the time place and circumstances. Sunbathing naked on a beach the public may come across someone who is doing that, and providing no indecent act is made, the issue is not illegal. But walking down Queen St, in the same nude mode and it is illegal as it would fail on the “place” portion of the judgement. This addresses the full nudity aspect. However woman being simply topless is legal anywhere as reflected in the police attitude to the parade.
September 10th, 2006 at 11:11 am
In my opinion – and thats just it – its my opinion…..I think that the problem is not the fact that women are topless, it is what Mr Crowe is advertising. If women were to walk topless down Queen Street to promote breast awareness day or breast feeding etc I would not have a problem with it as I think most women wouldnt. But because boobs on bikes is a sordid display promoting the degradation of women, because it is encouraging men to objectify women – I think that is where the problem has arisen. Being a victim of sexually violation, when I see parades like this, it gives me that sick feeling at the pit of my stomach again. To see men looking at women like they are a piece of meat to be used and discarded disgusts me. Im not saying ban this kind of parade, if that is what you get off on then thats your perogative BUT I do think that this kind of thing should be held at more appropriate times, in more appropriate places. Perhaps 10pm on K Road, at least the local school kids shouldn’t be wondering around looking for somewhere to have lunch at that time…..
September 10th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Being a victim of sexually violation, when I see parades like this, it gives me that sick feeling at the pit of my stomach again. To see men looking at women like they are a piece of meat to be used and discarded disgusts me.
You know, and I mean this kindly, maybe when you and I look at a naked woman, maybe we see different things.