Hubbard gets 100,000 to boob parade
Steve Crow will be sending some free erotica to Dick Hubbard this morning. Thanks to the Mayor’s stupidity in trying to close down a legal parade, there were record numbers in Queen Street – 100,000 or more. An own goal of historic proportions.
The NZ Herald has a story on the parade, Whale Oil has photos here and here.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Local Body Politics
August 24th, 2006 at 7:22 am
How sad we have so pathetically borring people in NZ where the only kicks they can get have is by viewing degradation of women..actually David 100,000 observers!!! ..the biggest crowd I saw in the media suggest was 20,000 a big difference ..
I just hope someone has the courage to sue the promoter or his friends those poor silly women who obviously are publicity junkies under the obscenity laws we still have in NZ.
Good on Dick Hubbard for his courage of convictions …
NZ needs more people with his courage of conviction like him as our leaders
Aucklanders you are So lucky ..I just wish we had one the same down her in Invercargill..ah well we can all look forward to next years local body elections for more people of Hubbards kind to come out of the wood work as our leaders of our community.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:25 am
100,000???? It’s obvious you weren’t there!!! Perhaps 20,000. But it was worth speaking up against. Council can now toughen up the bylaws so we don’t see the parade again. And don’t forget that half the crowd was rent-a-crowd from the Unions – great timing for them!!
August 24th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Hubbard would have supported it if they made it a lesbian parade.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:30 am
What is all this incessant busybodying? Doesn’t the bloody Mayor and his council have better things to worry about, like the whopping great rates bill they just inflicted on homeowners across Auckland? How about they concern themselves with planning for RWC2011 instead of moralising over what appears to have been a popular parade? If the above parade is anything to go by, the biggest boob in Auckland is the Mayor himself.
If Pauline’s wish comes true and more people of Hubbard’s kind come out of the woodwork as leaders for our communities, then I predict a civil war.
The 100,000 comment comes from the Herald, who obviously were there, and probably have experience at judging these sorts of things.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Hubbard is not a boobie, he’s a Dick.
Calling him a boobie is an insult to a useful (and attractive) appendage. In my opinion, Dick is quite the opposite.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Tim makes the good point that it seems that gay semi-nudity in Auckland is fine, but straight semi-nudity is not.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Just plain sad that the sight of a few boobs brings this many people out onto the streets of Auckland.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:59 am
What was interesting was the carnival atmosphere, there were certainly tens of thousands there, Q street was closed down just by the mass of people.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Did you feel like you were in Babylon?
August 24th, 2006 at 9:07 am
I didn’t bother going for a look. I don’t care if they want to run around the streets naked – doesn’t worry me. I just don’t understand the bizarre attitudes so many people have to the human body. We all have them.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:17 am
So there were a lot of people there.. So what..?? Jerry Springer gets a big audience. A lot of people in NZ apparently enjoy porn and are unashamed to admit this. The debate from my perspective is not about what NZ culture IS. (a sad little crime ridden island nation with a corrupt government, a democracy perverted by vote buying, and a large section of its population following the immoral religion of Marxism/ socialism and Hollywood style social liberalism ) That’s always been apparent. That thousands of its citizens were in Queen St cheering on a bunch of vulgar and tacky porn stars is nothing for NZ to rejoice in, but its hardly surprising that such an event occurred..
August 24th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Can we have a collection to get RB a plane ticket?
The poor dear seems so unhappy being stuck here.
However I do wonder what country he would be happy in now that Apartheid is gone.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:22 am
I prefer Zutroy’s call for a civil war…
August 24th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Oh very Christian AJ. Even in jest. Very Christ like. Oh no, you follow Paul not Christ.All that associating with tax collectors and prostitutes not acceptable. Practice what JC preached (love and peace) not Paul (condemnation and judgement).
August 24th, 2006 at 9:38 am
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees [Secular Humanists], you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to…”
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin [You pay your taxes]. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel…”
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean…”
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness…”
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation…”
MATTHEW 23
Oh yes, the words of Jesus, always so meek and mild…
August 24th, 2006 at 9:38 am
I’s like to modify that final sentence. It would be more accurate to say-
“That thousands of its citizens are seen in the main street mindlessly cheering on a bunch of vulgar and tacky porn starts is nothing that any civilized country should rejoice in, but its no surprise that such an event occurred in NZ.”
August 24th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Maybe he was God son after all and saw you guys making up laws (like Paul) after he had gone. I love the “Jesus came to full fill the word.” The full stop to God’s grace” on one side and the “Ah well he sort have got it wrong so he sent Paul to sort it all out” arguments.
Wow.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:47 am
RB, what countries do you consider “civilised”?
Mongolia under Ghengis Khan?
August 24th, 2006 at 9:50 am
What is vanzylnz going on about?
August 24th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Hey Pauline, I bet you wish you had something similar down in Invercargill…not much chance of that tho…actually what is there for entertainment down that way? Ice? Swandris? Maybe the aluminium smelter lol
August 24th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Hey Pauline, I bet you wish you had something similar down in Invercargill…not much chance of that tho…actually what is there for entertainment down that way? Ice? Swandris? Maybe the aluminium smelter lol
August 24th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Hey Pauline, I bet you wish you had something similar down in Invercargill…not much chance of that tho…actually what is there for entertainment down that way? Ice? Swandris? Maybe the aluminium smelter lol
August 24th, 2006 at 10:26 am
AJ, no it doesn’t look like Babylon because there weren’t scared american soldiers shooting anyone with their hands in their pockets (which appears to be a lot of people
). Oh, and in Babylon if you go out without lots of clothes on you’re liable to be assaulted. Thankfully, people aren’t like that here, except for a few wierd nuts.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:52 am
And how many of those were men? About 99.9%, judging by pictures of the crowd. There are surely some sad men out there, so bewildered by female breasts that they have to go searching for them (and take photos of them!). I’m guesing that there wasn’t too much blood circulating in their big heads, all of it going into their little heads.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:53 am
And how many of those were men? About 99.9%, judging by pictures of the crowd. There are surely some sad men out there, so bewildered by female breasts that they have to go searching for them (and take photos of them!). I’m guesing that there wasn’t too much blood circulating in their big heads, all of it going into their little heads.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:53 am
And how many of those were men?
I’d say 60-40 male female.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:55 am
And how many of those were men? About 99.9%, judging by pictures of the crowd. There are surely some sad men out there, so bewildered by female breasts that they have to go searching for them (and take photos of them!). I’m guesing that there wasn’t too much blood circulating in their big heads, all of it going into their little heads.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:57 am
And how many of those were men? About 99.9%, judging by pictures of the crowd. There are surely some sad men out there, so bewildered by female breasts that they have to go searching for them (and take photos of them!). I’m guesing that there wasn’t too much blood circulating in their big heads, all of it going into their little heads.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Around where I was standing approx 1 in 3 were female and under 30.
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Well, given my experience on some recent posts I think I’ll trust photos taken by the media (and they’re just as biased) rather than trust the word and memories of SB & his mates…
August 24th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Never trust anyone that was actually there eh.
Where I was it was about 60% male 40% female
August 24th, 2006 at 11:41 am
I actually hate Dick Hubbard a lot, but you have to give it to him for standing up. And I cannot beleive that 100 000 people were there. Whereabouts did this info come from?
And also, in reply to the whole gay/straight thing, most people who were against this parade would be against it if it were gay too. It wasn’t anything to do with porn or the industry, it was more to do with the fact that decent, everyday-queen st walkers were forced either to watch or go somewhere else.
I dont mind if people want to go to the Erotic Expo (like that guy said who owned Strip Clubs etc-I forget his name) but its another thing to physically force people to watch bare-breasted women. It was offensive to some people and it shouldnt have been flaunted.
Also, the reason it gained so much publicity is because it was controversial, and was from the beginning. The Mayor cried out against it but the story was already there
Go Dick and its a shame about the Police. Although I doubt this will happen again.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:47 am
And to futher my rant, i agree with ross. Most of the people (most of whom look like dodgey middleaged men) look pathetic and sad. They probably went up to K Rd and got themselves a hooker afterwards. People like that need to get laid by complete stranger in order to feel like theyve contributed to society.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:49 am
it was more to do with the fact that decent, everyday-queen st walkers were forced either to watch or go somewhere else.
Ah well… at least we covered off all bases.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Julian:
“And I cannot beleive that 100 000 people were there. Whereabouts did this info come from?”
Most sources have said at least 20,000 I was there I think 100K is to high but I would easily accept 20,000. However I was in Krd which clearly had less people than Q street.
“but its another thing to physically force people to watch bare-breasted women” – get real nobody was Physically forced to watch!
“It was offensive to some people and it shouldnt have been flaunted” using you logic we would never get any parades as all parades upset somebody! yesterday there were 20K+ people in Q street having a party and a laugh, the only think that upset me was having to go back to work.
The city has spoken – numbers count!
I expect the mayor will give up and hide next year.
“Most of the people (most of whom look like dodgey middleaged men) look pathetic and sad” sorry there were 20K+ people there – what do you not understand about that if you have that many people then you have some of everytype of person there. And the women did not look like men at all!
“They probably went up to K Rd and got themselves a hooker afterwards” everybody knows there are no decent hookers on Krd – what a strange thing to say.
How does getting laid contribute to society?
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
it was more to do with the fact that decent, everyday-queen st walkers were forced either to watch or go somewhere else.
Julian assumes that a person – any person, but certainly Julian – has a right to walk down Queen Street without being offended.
Leaving aside the obvious point that a person walking down Queen Street might be offended for any number of reasons, not least of which might be a topless brigade, let’s take this line of reasoning for a test drive:
Say, hypothetically, a person has an objection to being in the same room with a certain person by the name of Julian. That person is forced to either stay in the room with Julian or go somewhere else. Good God – whatever happened to that illusory right to be in the room without being offended?
August 24th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
So you want to have the argument about offensiveness over here now Graham. Julian takes REASONABLE offence to the parade, because he respects women, modesty and the privacy of sexuality. That’s called reasonableness. It is not reasonable to take offence at someone because they have the name Julian…
Btu that’s obvious… some people just need things spelled out…
August 24th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Or another way of puting it…
Julian takes UNREASONABLE offence to the parade, because he unable to understand that other people have different ideas to him of what it means to respect women, the concept of modesty and the privacy of sexuality.
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
“because he unable to understand that other people have different ideas to him of what it means to respect women, the concept of modesty and the privacy of sexuality”
Because those who have other ideas aren’t willing to explain how they can support a topless porn parade while respecting women, modesty and the privacy of sexuality…
Go on, explain it for us Mr SB… If you cannot then our suspicions that you have no respect for women, or even your own dignity, will be confirmed, and we’ll continue to believe the parade was an IMMORAL act…
August 24th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
AJ – I was engaging in logical reasoning, by analogy, to illustrate a point.
Gee… some people just need things spelled out…
August 24th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Because those who have other ideas aren’t willing to explain how they can support a topless porn parade while respecting women, modesty and the privacy of sexuality…
So you want to shift the goalpost again?
First, THE moral code, then human dignity and justice, and now… this?
August 24th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Poor AJ,
You are unable to explain why it is an IMMORAL act so you are forced yet again to fall back into pretending that the default state of this is IMMORAL until proved otherwise.
I could explain why it is not IMMORAL however given your posts over the last week I think you would be unable to understand.
The women on the bikes made a choice – I respect that. Unlike you I dont hate women, I respect them, I threat them a peers not property.
The women were lovely, they agreed to show off in order to promote the event. I understand why that would upset some people but I don’t beleive that that was enough to stop the event.
That site that pretends to talk for NZ familys has what 300 members nationwide, well 20k+ said it was OK yesterday.
Of course you and the other 299 could be right and we could be wrong…………
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
“physically force people to watch bare-breasted women’
Unless they turn their backs, go into a cafe, walk 5 yards into another street….
August 24th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I have explained why it’s immoral – degrades women, the privacy of sexuality, offends countless people… for what benefit? For you to say “the women were lovely”, the same man who says “You need to lighten up when dealing with women otherwise you are never going to get laid”. So what was the moral benefit of the parade to our country again? That a group of people could offend another group of people without being oppressed by the desire of that group o stop them? Gee what a beautifully moral act…
August 24th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
No AJ you have not explained anything you have just repeated some words you said earlier but you have still failed to explain.
You said “degrades women” without showing how it degraded women, just a statement no proof or reasoning, I was there you were not, I saw nothing degrading.
“the privacy of sexuality” that provokes a what? response – There is nothing private about a womans sexuality she wears it with pride (well most do) there you go again owning women, are they only allowed out with a black sheet over them.
“So what was the moral benefit of the parade to our country again” why does a parade have to have moral benefit? why can it not be complete in its self. It was to promote a show – its done its job – so what? why is it a big deal.
They were lovely and you do need to lighten up with woman.
You need to reword the last bit what you wrote does not make sense.
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Look at it this way. If those women had simply strolled down Queen Street in beautiful dresses, their hair blowing in the wind, but with all of their bits covered, would 20 000 men have turned up to gawk at them? We are not living in tribal Africa, boobs are an integral part of sexuality in this country. If they weren’t, then they wouldn’t have drawn the crowd.
The reason the parade drew those people was because it offered those men cheap exposure to something that should otherwise cost them a lot more. Those guys came not to ponder how lovely the ladies looked, they came to get themselves all excited hot under the collar. Yet all it did was arouse their desire only to leave them hanging (for want of a better term). As was alluded K-Road was probably quite busy for the rest of the afternoon…
Again, I reiterate, a woman’s sexuality is sacred, and the sane and sensible woman only reveals it when she knows a man has done the hard yards, cares for who she actually is as a person, and makes weds her in holy matrimony. Every other woman quite simply cheapens herself. The “slut” simply gives up on thinking she has anything to offer in her character and personality, and starts flashing her boobs like there’s no tomorrow.
“Boobs on Bikes”, Steve Crow, and pornography in general is a shallow, hollow, tasteless, filthy, perverse act of IMMORALITY…
August 24th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Funny how when you scrape the surface of these “sanctity of womanhood types” you find a rather horrible darkness.
Women who have sex before being wedded are now “sluts” it seems.
Does that make you all hot an bothered AJ?
August 24th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Look at it this way. If those women had simply strolled down Queen Street in beautiful dresses, their hair blowing in the wind, but with all of their bits covered, would 20 000 men have turned up to gawk at them?
Wearable Arts Award anyone? Karen Walker expo anyone? Maybe not 20,000… but the Wearable Arts Award, at least, has sold out in previous years.
Oh wait! I sense you’re about to shift the goalpost again…
August 24th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
“beautiful dresses, their hair blowing in the wind, but with all of their bits covered”
I’ve seen pics from the wearable arts awards, and I don’t think that description really applies… Bits hang out all over the place at those things!!! Sure, there’s a bit more coverage, but the ration of men to women in the crowd is probably the opposite too!
Goalposts still in the same place, just had to get rid of your ping-pong ball and back to the real thing…
August 24th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
I thought people with AJ problem only existed in text books. I have never come across such a Madonna and Whore complex before. Seriously you need to get threatment for that AJ.
AJ you talk about following Jesus and respecting women and YOU are the one that brings the word slut into this blog. You should be hanging your head in shame, you say I don’t respect women yet I have never called one a slut.
“As was alluded K-Road was probably quite busy for the rest of the afternoon…” and yet again you show you have not got the slightest idea what you are talking about! everybody went back to work or on with their lives. It was a show AJ it would not have turned anybody on!(except perhaps you I suppose) Also for you future information despite Krd reputation its only got one brothel (never been in it. seen the sign).
There is nothing sacred about a womans sexuality in anybodys mind other than yours.
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
What the heck is a “Madonna and Whore complex” SB? And what’s wrong with using the word slut? Isn’t that what you call a woman who “sleeps around”? Maybe the reason you use the term isn’t cos you’re moral, but because you’re PC.
“It was a show AJ it would not have turned anybody on!(except perhaps you I suppose)”
Well I think it is a shame that a man could be so sexually saturated he would no longer be turned on by the sight of a woman’s breasts. I stand by my statement, though, that if they weren’t topless there would have been pretty much no crowd.
“There is nothing sacred about a womans sexuality in anybodys mind other than yours.”
How many people agree with SB on this? How many people agree that a woman’s (and a man’s) sexuality is sacred? Also, while you’re at it, how many think that human life in general is sacred? Would be great to have people other than DPF’s frothie-mouthed pseudo-macho liberal mates commenting on this post. Or are they the only reason his blog is so popular? They hit it every 20 seconds?
August 24th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
AJ – heard of Karen Walker?
Women who model her fashion wares don’t go topless down the catwalk. Oh, but the people sitting in the audience are still immoral, aren’t they?
And the Wearable Arts Awards was a demonstrable case in point that you’re talking nonsense. What do you do? Once again, deflect and shift the goalposts.
If I read the Bible out of context in the same way that you read our comments out of context, I should think the holy book would turn black.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
really – I am suprised you don’t know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna-whore_complex
“And what’s wrong with using the word slut? Isn’t that what you call a woman who “sleeps around”" Slut is a deeply offensive word to almost all women. Its is deeply immoral to label a woman that – Your “THE Moral code’ must be a very strange place if you can call woman that yet still say you respect them. Perhaps that why you are so unable to define your moral code because it has so many contridictions in it.
Poor AJ always looking for your Madonna only finding whores.
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Why is slut a deeply offensive word for women SB? The fact is, there are people who sleep around and there are people who wait. If you can give me another word for a person who sleeps around I will happily use it. But it will probably be equally offensive.
Why? Because it is wrong to use it? No, because the immoral, the adulterer and the fornicator are ashamed of what they really are…
August 24th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
“what’s wrong with using the word slut”
Where do you start with someone like this?
August 24th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
The only reason the word slut has been banned by people liek you is because the concept morality has also been banned. Both words scare the living heck out of you, and when they’re mentioned you, quite literally, go mad…
August 24th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Sonic, a dictionary’s a good start. Of course it’s a pagan dictionary, full of evil, but it may keep him occupied.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
I think we should consider making Steve Crowe mayor. After all, the earnest fundys have had the run of the place for the last couple of decades and they’ve right royally fucked the place up; Time to give the godless pornographers a fair suck at the civic sav I say.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
The fact is, there are people who sleep around and there are people who wait. If you can give me another word for a person who sleeps around I will happily use it.
I have grave concerns that the word “promiscuous” will be too much of a mouthful for you… but it’s certainly less offensive.
Keep digging – just for fun, are you able to share more bigotted and prejudiced pearls of wisdom with us, since you’re apparently in the mood?
August 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
As you say sonic – where do you start…………
You want a less offensive word that means a similar thing then try
promiscuous.
Its nowhere near as offensive as your word.
AJ have you ever actually met a woman?
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
OK had a quick read of the M-W-C. Definitely not me. A woman should be capable of sexual expression without having to hand it out to every bloke she meets…
And by the way the fundies have been powerless the last 2 decades…
August 24th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Quite mad.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Please, A.J. We’ve had this argument before. Many of us don’t equate respecting women with not fucking them. But we do equate respecting women with not calling them rude names for having a sex life. It’s no less moral a viewpoint than yours.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
A woman should be capable of sexual expression without having to hand it out to every bloke she meets.
Presumably one form of sexual expression is a public display of topless nudity. Ah, but that’d be IMMORAL under THE moral code (AKA AJ’s pretension at moral righteousness).
August 24th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
It doesn’t matter whether you “don’t equate respecting women with not fucking them”. Morality does not depend on you, but on the nature of women and what they are wired to prefer…
I didn’t call anyone a rude name. I just preferred to use that particular word because its very power reveals an underlying morality that nobody can shake. If we could it wouldn’t bother us to use the word slut. It would just be considered another “sexual identity” (lol it’s all so mad!)
August 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
“but on the nature of women and what they are wired to prefer…”
The problem with that statement AJ is that you have indicated that you have no understanding of the nature of woman and you certainly have no understanding of how they are wired.
What you are saying with those words is that you have no idea at all about what you are talking about!
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Lucky AJ was not around when Jesus stopped the prostitute being stoned, he would probably have hurled a brick anyway.
As for Mary Magdelen…….
August 24th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Aucklander -we are so mentally stimulated
we dont need to be entertained I guess only Aucklanders find life so dull and borring they need a boobs on bike parade… as our welcome sign says Welcome to Invercargill as far away from Auckland as you can get 
August 24th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Invercargill, further away than you thought, not as far as you hoped.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Yeah but when he met the women at the well he reminded her she was seeing 5 different blokes and none of them were her husband. He didn’t through rocks but he was pretty straight up…
Well SB, the women I know tend to be confident, well-adjusted, sane and healthy young women, and when pushed on the subject will happily admit they prefer sex to be in marriage. Maybe that’s why almost every religion and cultural tradition in the world say the same thing.
It’s not some abstract moral code. Just think about it, if there’s a chance she’s going to bring a baby into the world as a result, then it makes a heck of a lot of sense she’s biologically and psychologically wired to prefer the context of marriage…
aaahh logic and reason, I love it
August 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Hey AJ – what’s the matter? Karen Walker got your tongue?
August 24th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
“AJ – heard of Karen Walker?
Women who model her fashion wares don’t go topless down the catwalk. Oh, but the people sitting in the audience are still immoral, aren’t they?”
No, they’re not.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
If those women had simply strolled down Queen Street in beautiful dresses, their hair blowing in the wind, but with all of their bits covered, would 20 000 men have turned up to gawk at them?
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 24, 2006 1:44 PM
“Women who model her fashion wares don’t go topless down the catwalk. Oh, but the people sitting in the audience are still immoral, aren’t they?”
No, they’re not.
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 24, 2006 3:21 PM
Thank you for proving my point – selective morality.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Fail to see your point Graham. As far as I can tell those are very different cases.
One is a case of men perving at an aspect of a woman’s private sexuality, in the spirit of pornographer which is all about getting the juices flowing without a proper and sacred context.
The other is a case of appreciating the beauty and creativity of human design in the form of clothing and its APPLICATION TO (rather than elimination from) the human body…
August 24th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
The point is very simple: you claimed that a clothed parade down Queen Street wouldn’t be a drawcard. I’ve already given you at least two reasons why that claim is demonstrably false. Hell, if they could accommodate an audience of 20,000 people for the Wearable Arts Awards, the event would probably *still* be a sell-out. And faced with this truth, what do you do? Oh yes, that’s right, the Wearable Arts Awards are IMMORAL! Why, we might ask? Not because the participants are topless. Oh no. But because they don’t live up to your dress standards. How pathetic – can’t you do better?
August 24th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
OK you you could draw the same number with a more moral event. But I bet you it would be a different group of people that would turn up. It wouldn’t be a bunch of horny immigrants with cameras who’ve never seen a pair of breasts before because they come from a country that isn’t as far down the track of cultural insanity as us…
August 24th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Oh God – is there even more of this pride-and-prejudice commentary where you come from? I can’t help but liken you to an onion: the more we unwrap your ideological baggage, the more bigoted and prejudiced you become.
For the benefit of others, this from AJ’s blog:
Well today David Farrar got my knickers in a twist by supporting “Boobs on Bikes”. I got into a lengthy argument with Phil of whoar.co.nz, which I was clearly winning, but when I went to post my king-hit comment – that morality and ethics are the same thing – I found I was blocked and my comment would have to be considered for approval before being published.
Dream on – if morality and ethics are the same thing, then both qualities have clearly passed you by.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
And your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you probably didn’t realise I was insulting The West above, not the immigrants…
August 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
“It wouldn’t be a bunch of horny immigrants with cameras who’ve never seen a pair of breasts before” – what where on earth did you get that from?
Unlike you I was there, I failed to see anybody matching that description.
Can I have some of whatever it is you are smoking?
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
“I come from India, so obviously I’m quite excited,” said 30-year-old Phani Chevandra as 20 pairs of boobs on bikes passed him in the centre of Auckland yesterday.
“This is my first time to see this type of parade. It’s not at all legal in my country so it is through my curiosity that I am standing here.”
Try the article DPF actually referenced in this post… and have a good look at other photos documenting the event. Guess you weren’t eerywhere all up and down Queen Street all at once SB…
August 24th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Great to see a Christian who has so well absorbed the lessons of Jesus’s life.
Who can forget that he was a outragous bigoted snob with no time for anyone who did not share his beliefs and forgave no-one.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“Who can forget that he was a outragous bigoted snob with no time for anyone who did not share his beliefs and forgave no-one”
I think Jesus would have been happy to be considered outrageous, and by your definition of bigot it’s probably another label he would have worn. Give me some proof to the contrary…
Jesus walked among every and every sinner, despite their arguments against him and the mocking insults they hurled towards him. He had time for anyone and forgave everyone. In like manner I am willing to spend hours of my time engaging with you in these matters of eternal importance, and to forgive you for whatever offence and anguish you may cause me, which is actually suprisingly little…
August 24th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Try the article DPF actually referenced in this post
Yes, let’s quote from the article shall we?
The crowd, predominantly male but with a good smattering of women, clearly enjoyed the parade from Karangahape Rd to the bottom of Queen St that was supposed to last 20 minutes but took 65.
Julia Dowling, a 26-year-old city office worker, thought the parade was a bit of fun that had been taken too seriously by others.
And best of all:
Ingrid Cox 46 Wiltshire, England
“I don’t find it offensive at all, it’s not a problem. It’s a part of life though and wherever you go people will always demonstrate against things like this.”
Are they as immoral in England as we are here then? What IS the world coming to?
August 24th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Oh look – AJ is upset because the crowd was not composed just of white people.
“I can’t help but liken you to an onion: the more we unwrap your ideological baggage, the more bigoted and prejudiced you become”
spot on Graham – here is another example. Here we find out that AJ does not like people who are not the same colour as him.
AJ Auckland is a multi ethnic city that means that if you randomly pick 20,000 of us and take pictures a fair number of us will be non white.
Sad really having to explain that to him eh…………..
Oh and AJ just in case you missed this as well – Jesus was not white like you!
SB
August 24th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Did jesus call women “Sluts” very often?
August 24th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
“Can I have some of whatever it is you are smoking?”
No SB, you can’t have some of AJ’s chop.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Hmmm. I popped out at lunchtime and couldn’t see any crowds of licentious drunks buring property, or lustful couples copulating in doorways, or those dedicated to the devils work ram-raiding the carefully stewarded businesses of prudent christian businessmen.
I DID smell some sulphurous at one stage, but it was false alarm – I had farted.
Safe to say we’ve navigated yet another crisis in our nations history then.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Except, of course, people who weren’t Jewish.
“Go not into the way of the Gentiles….but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel….I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:7, Matthew 15:24)
August 24th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
“Did jesus call women “Sluts” very often?”
His prophets didn’t seem to have a problem with using similar words…
“Wherefore, O HARLOT, hear the word of the LORD:
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them;
Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness.
And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy.
And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare.
They shall also bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords.
And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more.
So will I make my fury toward thee to rest, and my jealousy shall depart from thee, and I will be quiet, and will be no more angry.
Because thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, but hast fretted me in all these things; behold, therefore I also will recompense thy way upon thine head, saith the Lord GOD: and thou shalt not commit this lewdness above all thine abominations.”
- Ezekiel 16:35-43
August 24th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
And to repeat for you, SB;
“And your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you probably didn’t realise I was insulting The West above, not the immigrants”
I am not racist, but I am concerned about the effect of the virus that is Western culture on those more traditional cultures of the world. I hate to think that those consider one of the advantages of moving to this country as being the opportunity to indulge in immoral activity. Imagine what sort of immigrants we will attract if this is what we are known for…
Shame on us…
August 24th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Thank goodness that THE moral code AJ preaches about does not have force of law in New Zealand. Oh but that was SO yesterday.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
“Did jesus call women “Sluts” very often?”
It appears that the answer is no.
You claim to be a christian, may I respectfully suggest that you study the life of Christ rather more closely?
xxx
S
August 24th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Nice one AJ, guess you’ll be heading down to the viaduct this weekend to stone all the “harlots” and stuff…I’ll keep an eye out for you since I’m working doors this weekend…
August 24th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
…Seeking to make the world a better place? Ban religion, women and greed.
Yeah, right!
August 24th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
I haven’t read a great deal of the Bible, but what I have read, most of the start of it, made it pretty clear that God was not bitter on nudity. Quite the opposite, he was very, very bitter on Adam and Eve for covering it up. I seem to recall that was his first sign that they had fallen from grace, pretty much the first thing they did after eating them forbidden apples.
Now I’m sure there’s untold quotes which could be construed in various ways to be bitter on public nudity, but this is the *first* story in the Bible, and one of the most well known. That makes me wonder if AJ’s harping on the Good Lord condemning Boobs on Bikes is really quite wrong.
Any thoughts on that, AJ?
August 24th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Don’t bother, I found out myself. God insisted they wear clothes *after* the Fall.
Speculation is that this was because the sin they had brought upon themselves by eating the apples God so kindly made for them, at the behest of the snake that God also made, made it impossible for them to view nudity ‘purely’.
Other speculation suggests that the clothes were actually some kind of punishment. And further guesswork (the most plausible to me, despite not believing a word of any of it) is that a kind God would give people clothes, otherwise they might catch pneumonia and die, thus ending the human race before it began.
So like all biblical conclusions the answer is inconclusive, both yes and no. The reading I most liked was the one that suggested the apples of knowledge gave Adam and Eve both awareness of just how *good* they looked nude, and they couldn’t handle it. That seems to describe wowserism perfectly.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Hubbard’s comments reminded me of something he said on a documentary about disaster preparation that aired on 17 April 2005 (great memory, eh?).
He noted that soon after her had been sworn in as Mayor he was “shown the grey box.” I immediately emailed him to ask what Bruce Hucker thought about him (Hubbard) making referring to Mrs Hucker in that way.
For some reason I didn’t get a reply….
August 25th, 2006 at 12:02 am
Would you like me to call you the spawn of Satan Sonic? That would be more Christ-like of me…
Ben, you’re right, Genesis isn’t that helpful on the topic. There’s all sorts of theories floating round, like the Branhamite idea that sexuality was Plan B, the lesser and fallen way, which could only be sanctified by a marital relationship (kind of Medieval Catholic too). The Branhamite emphasis is that when God said “go forth and multiply” they were meant to do it the same way as him – by the power of the spoken word. But then the serpent comes along and tempts Eve into using faculties God had given her, that she wasn’t meant to use (far-fetched I know, I mean why would God give us those faculties and not expect us to use them – hardly fair – I don’t buy it bust just showing how ppl can get creative with the text), and then she shares this new knowledge with Adam and he gets in trouble as well…
and this is why they cover up, because those were the bits they had offended with… and this is why we need to be “born again” – we’re born once of the flesh, but need to be born again of the spirit (The Spirit of Christ – The Word)… you get my drift… all very interesting… prob some truth in it…
What’s more important to understand is that the more we preserve for marriage, then the stronger the bond of marriage, and if we are going to have strong, moral and successful communities then an example of two loving and committed parents who work together to train and equip their children are really important to that…
Then if u want to get really theological and Christian on the matter there’s the fact that marriage is a picture of God’s relationship with his chosen people – a covenant where the two parties tolerate each other through thick and thin. A marriage that works through difficulties is far more inspiring than one that splits over sexual incompatibility…
August 25th, 2006 at 1:43 am
AJ, it certainly sounds very mystical. I can’t see how anyone can realistically be sure of anything in there, so it’s no wonder people rely on the churches. I personally think that’s a cop out and will take what I like out of the Bible. Which is very little, other than a few of the nicer things Jesus suggested, and to treat it as an interesting ancient source text.
So when you tell me what I’m supposed to make of it all, I have to say, sorry, no. I’ll make what I like, mostly for reasons totally outside of the Bible, which hardly purports to be an ‘argument’. If it contains guidance it’s in the form of ‘thou shalt’, which is basically a sermon from the ancient world.
I like to think that human knowledge has moved on from that time, and that constantly looking back to it for guidance is every bit as foolish in moral issues as it is in any other matter of fact. Whatever ‘wisdom of the ancients’ there is, is not wise because it is ancient. It is merely wise, and the reason for that can probably be established by humanity’s second most profound accomplishment after rugby – intellect and reason.
Sure I think the institution of marriage should have strong bonds of love with committed parents. In fact, that’s the only point to it that I can see at all. But that doesn’t mean I swallow your line that the best way to get that is to remain ignorant, until it’s too late, of all matters relating to sex. That’s simply foolish, something from the ancient world, whose purpose is lost in antiquity and may have been a bad purpose even then.
I can think of a few reasons why such an edict may have been created:
1. If you weren’t allowed sex outside of marriage then VD was less likely. This is naturally an anachronism now.
2. It generates a ‘level playing field’ where basically a lottery decides who gets the good sex and who gets the rotten. An ancient form of sexual communism. This could only have been the idea of people who were getting rotten sex and wanted something better. This kind of communism has some arguments for it, but I think it sucks arse. Personally I think people who want good sex should be allowed to seek it, and people who are ambivalent or apathetic like you can take what they get.
3. Taking away people’s fun is one way of getting power over them. I’m not a fan of serving power.
4. Professionally religious people were not allowed sex for some even sillier reason, so they had sour grapes and wanted to make it suck for the rest of us. They had an especially strong power here because they could refuse to allow people to marry. Sucks to them.
5. It gives women who hate sex and guys who are no good at it a chance to have children. For them, that’s actually great, and if you fit into this category, fine. But surely the two groups can just stick to each other without inflicting their misery or ineptitude on the general population.
6. It reduces the chance of pregnancy out of marriage. I’m inclined to think pregnancy inside an unhappy marriage is worse than one outside of marriage altogether, so this is hardly compelling.
7. Women can’t sell sex. Not that I have a problem with prostitution, but making people get married has never stopped them becoming prostitutes.
8. It encourages children. I’m not exactly sure why that should be forced on people who might just want fun, both men and women. Seems wrong to me. Children should be a choice, not something a wowser makes you have just so you can dip your wick. That is a recipe for children to suffer.
9. Stupidity is easy.
10. Tradition – that’s the way it always was. As crappy a reason as it ever was. Tradition can be wrong.
Not an exhaustive list. But a sample of the reasons that sucked then and still suck now.
You’ve certainly got plenty of mystical utterances. Are you a lay preacher (who doesn’t get laid)? Training for the clergy?
August 25th, 2006 at 7:25 am
A.J.:
Like sonic above, I find it rather amusing that you talk about this parade “degrading” Women – while in the next breath you call the participants ‘sluts’ and ‘slappers’. What does Jesus – and THE moral code – have to say about hypocrites?
August 25th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Once again, having read the New Testament recently as an adult instead of having selective bits read out at Sunday School helps to explain the odd Christian attitude towards sex.
It’s clear from the original text that Jesus and Paul (mostly Paul) discouraged people from having sex because they believed the world was about to end. Right then and there. Sex and marriage were distractions and people should be spending their time preparing to be judged by God, whom – Jesus told the disciples – would return in their lifetimes. The reason Jesus tells his disciples not to bother preaching to Gentiles is that there simply wasn’t time – they barely have time to preach to the Jews!
All of this is pretty funny in retropect – clowns like AJ are forcing themselves to live miserable lives based on a demonstrably false prediction made by a Rabbi and a Helenised Jew some two thousand years ago on the other side of the world. Presumably he feels that the world is still ‘about to end’, and the fact that every generation of Christians in the last two millenium have also thought they would see the apocalypse and been utterly wrong doesn’t seem to occur or is explained away with some glib mystical double-think.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:01 am
BEN,
“If you weren’t allowed sex outside of marriage then VD was less likely. This is naturally an anachronism now”
How so (anachronism)?
“An ancient form of sexual communism”
Yeah, that’ll be it!!
“Taking away people’s fun”
Again, you’ll never know how “fun” marital sex without baggage might be. And married people would probably find a better word than “fun” to describe sex!
“Professionally religious people were not allowed sex for some even sillier reason”
Have you ever actually tried fasting Ben? Or denying youself any form of sensual pleasure for a time? If you did so you might just find out you actually have a spirituality as well!!
“It gives women who hate sex and guys who are no good at it a chance to have children”
What sane person hates sex? And how could you be “no good at it”. How could you even make a judgment on how good a person is at it unless you had something to compare it to?
“I’m inclined to think pregnancy inside an unhappy marriage is worse than one outside of marriage altogether”
What does your wife think about this? Would she think the same thing if we didn’t have such a commie, anti-father government?
“Women can’t sell sex”
Didn’t seem to stop them back then.
“Children should be a choice, not something a wowser makes you have just so you can dip your wick. That is a recipe for children to suffer.”
I think you could take up a complaint with your own body Ben. The sperm within your testicles seems to think that the reason you have sex is so it can find an ovary to impregnate. I mean if we’re going to talk about oppression then consider your poor body, which you constantly abuse for your own pleasure without allowing it to express its true intention. And think of your own mind, and what you might be doing to your own psyche by messing with your sexuality in this way. You never know, it won’t be long before you start thinking gay sex is a wonderful idea, and you kiss your wife goodbye and never worry about the “problem” of children again. Unless you join the “gay-rights” adoption movement which has to be the biggest hypocritical farce politics has ever seen…
CRAIG,
I follow the moral code of common sense, not the moral code of Political Correctness. Introducing the terms slut and slapper into the debate helps people understand that promiscuity isn’t just a RELIGIOUS no-no. Their own language carries those underlying values.
The terms are offensive because the behaviour of the slut or slapper is offensive. The reason people don’t want those labels isn’t because they’re unfairly discriminatory (they can be applied to males), but because they are ashamed of what they are. They want to hide. Well, if you want to argue for a position, bring it into the light for all that it is I say. It’s called honesty and integrity. Sorry, but I’m not going to bow to your leftist PoMo commie censorship…
This came through on email today from Non-Christian friends, assuming we will all relate to it and find it funny:
Words with two Meanings
4. COMMITMENT (ko-mit-ment) n.
Female…. A desire to get married and raise a family.
Male…… Trying not to hit on other women while out with this one.
7 MAKING LOVE (may-king luv) n.
Female…… The greatest expression of intimacy a couple can achieve.
Male.. Call it whatever you want, just as long as we do it.
SEND THIS TO A SMART WOMAN WHO NEEDS A LAUGH AND TO THE GUYS YOU THINK CAN HANDLE IT!
Again, I reiterate, it is not me who is out of touch with women. Again, I reiterate, you don’t have to have sex with women to understand them. It might pay for you guys to do other things with women rather than just having sex.
DANYL,
“having read the New Testament recently… It’s clear from the original text that Jesus and Paul (mostly Paul) discouraged people from having sex because they believed the world was about to end. Right then and there. Sex and marriage were distractions…”
Nice exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7. You said, though, that you read the whole New Testament. It’s true, Jesus and Paul discouraged people from marriage for the reasons you give above. But all you’ve shown is why they discouraged people from marriage. You haven’t shown the reasons The Bible require chastity outside of marriage. I’m not sure if it does spell out those reasons. I think they just took them for granted in those days. Just like every other civilized people group and religion in the world.
So, Ben & Danyl, once you’ve explained why The Bible is so conservative on sex, you can then proceed onto Islam, then conservative (majority) Hindu society, then Buddhism… you’ll be nicely surprised with Buddhism, your favourite religion. They’re as straight up about it as any religion… When asked to speak to the debate on gay marriage in California the Buddhist establishment made the statement “it’s wrong because sex is integrally tied to procreation”… flip even the establishment churches aren’t that blunt!!!
“clowns like AJ are forcing themselves to live miserable lives”
I woke up this morning, chucked on Shawn McDonald signing along, opened my curtains and felt compelled to say “It’s good to be alive”… Oh yeah, miserable… rottenly miserable… mad maybe!!
“based on a demonstrably false prediction made by a Rabbi and a Helenised Jew some two thousand years ago on the other side of the world”
You might think this so-called “demonstrably false prediction” is the basis of my morality, but guess what: it’s not! As I’ve said it has nothing to do with any biblical injunctive, but simply because I respect women, and I respect myself. Human dignity.
“Presumably he feels that the world is still ‘about to end’”
Aah, no. I’m looking forward to carrying on the family farm, and having a tribe of children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc. (oh by the way, love the way conservatives are wrestling demographic power from the liberals for one obvious reason – we’re going to look back on this generation and go wtf??!!) Do I sound like a guy who thinks the world’s going to end tomorrow? Given your understanding of sex and reproduction I would have to say you’re the one living like there’s no tomorrow…
As I’ve said, you’re the one bringing The Bible, and now the Apocalypse into it.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Perhaps the parade degrades women because weird people like Aj call the girls taking part sluts and slappers. A few tits bring out the worst in him. God knows what he would do if he saw a naked woman. As I said earlier if they had branded it a lesbian parade then all the PC brigade would have supported it inclding Dick Hubbard.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Sorry, but I’m not going to bow to your leftist PoMo commie censorship…
Wow – hope Craig doesn’t choke on his cornflakes when he reads that line.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:51 am
I’m still going to be keeping an eye out for some crazy eyed dude lugging around a sack or rocks and a sword menacing all the “harlots” around the viaduct tonight…
And yeah, AJ, you’ll be “Too casualled” if you try getting in my bar lol
August 25th, 2006 at 10:34 am
AJ,
Medical science has taken our ability to avoid VD to heights you are probably completely unaware of. Ever heard of a condom? Antibiotics? Various creams? These cures prevent the spread of disease, and condoms stop almost everything. Sure, there’s AIDS, but you really have to be incredibly unlucky to get that, and these days it’s not quite the life ender it used to be.
“Again, you’ll never know how “fun” marital sex without baggage might be. And married people would probably find a better word than “fun” to describe sex!”
Your blindness knows no limits. I think I’ve mentioned I’m married at least 10 times. Not sure what you mean by baggage. Do you mean sexual proficiency attained from previous relationships? Doesn’t bother me at all. In fact I find the virgin fixation very stupid. Having to teach a virgin all the basics doesn’t do it for me. In your case it will be the blind leading the blind, so expect quite a lot of pain.
“Have you ever actually tried fasting Ben? Or denying youself any form of sensual pleasure for a time? If you did so you might just find out you actually have a spirituality as well!!”
Yes, it was dumb. I got hungry, and horny. There’s no connection between abstinence and godliness whatsoever.
“What sane person hates sex? And how could you be “no good at it”. How could you even make a judgment on how good a person is at it unless you had something to compare it to?”
You appear to hate sex, although you have a point about sanity. And you will find that you are no good at it, in pretty much the same way a baby is no good at using a spoon. You will hurt your woman, yourself, leave her unsatisfied, fail to do dozens of things that could please her more. You’ll probably attempt to stick it in the wrong hole. I do have something to compare to. There are people who are good at sex and people who aren’t, and a lot of it comes down to practice.
“What does your wife think about this? Would she think the same thing if we didn’t have such a commie, anti-father government?”
My marriage is not unhappy, I have a child. So I haven’t had much occasion to ask. As for the government, she’s apolitical, couldn’t care less. I doubt her opinions change when the government does. But she was kind of happy to get some money from the government when our boy was born, and endless free health care for him, on the state. Since he was not well that mattered a great deal, so I think she’d just find your views those of a cold-hearted ignorant fuxor.
I have no complaints with my body. In the arena of sex it provides me with pleasure which is a good. I think if anyone has questions to ask of their body it’s you, because your body seems to lack the evolutionary drive that got humans to where they are. Time is ticking, your fertility is dropping. You’ve already passed your peak and all your seeds have fallen on infertile soil, or kleenex, more like. Get a move on or join the priesthood.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:36 am
“Aah, no. I’m looking forward to carrying on the family farm, and having a tribe of children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc”
So AJ if some of then chose to have sex outside of marrage will you call them sluts?
“What sane person hates sex? And how could you be “no good at it”” and if you did not know that AJ was a virgin before that line should tip you off to it.
SB
August 25th, 2006 at 10:42 am
“You appear to hate sex”
What utter fucken worthless crap. Nothing AJ has written here has conveyed that impression. The claim is just another cowardly smear, of the kind the Stalinist left always use in their attempts to vilify anyone who challenges in anyway, their current social ascendancy.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:45 am
It might pay for you guys to do other things with women rather than just having sex.
And, in a stunning reversal of logic, might it not pay for you, AJ, to do other things with women rather than just talking to them?
Your obsession with other people’s sexual behaviours does rather make me wonder if you woudn’t be better off living in a bygone era, when bedroom activity was regulated in 1984 proportions.
Would you actually *like* to have the power to peer through a bedroom door and say: “sorry folks, I’m administering a cease-and-desist order”? Would you get your jollies from having that power?
August 25th, 2006 at 10:46 am
..and there’s no such thing as “free” health care either you damn dopey leftist drongo..
August 25th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Looks like RB is also on the “Lets stone the Harlots to death!” wing of the libertarian right.
Mind you after reading his comments on NZ women last week it should not really be a surprise.
August 25th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Careful sonic – remember the first rule of the Internet – never feed the trolls – so no feeding RB of he will get even meaner than he already is!
SB
August 25th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Graham:
No, but I’m mildly amused. One would think that ‘common sense’ dictates the last thing you do when confronted with attention-seeking exhibitionists is give them exactly what they’re looking for. If you have the patience, it’s a most effective way of socialising toddlers. I don’t see why adults are much different.
Mr. Chesswas might also like to consider that he’s the one playing the “leftist PoMo commie censorship” game. Does anyone else remember the Just William stories, and Miss Violet Elizabeth Bott who always got her way with the immortal threat, “I’ll scweam and scweam and scweam until I’ll sick!” As I have precisely zero editorial control over this blog or it’s comments facilities, I don’t really see how I’m ‘censoring’ anyone – let alone doing do in a post-modern communist manner.
I will happily stand by my record of supporting the civil liberties of all New Zealanders whithin the rule of law – even when I find them repugnant. That includes you, AJ.
August 25th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Mean????
What a joke that would be, nobody could be much “meaner” than the left, as their ceaeless reasonless personal attacks on AJ (merely for standing against social liberalism) on this thread demonstrate so well.. “tolerant liberals”.. what a sick joke.. they demand a conformity of thought here in NZ that would shame Chairman Mao..
August 25th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Just toying with him SB, but you are right.
August 25th, 2006 at 11:13 am
You will happily allow me to use the terms “slut” and “slapper” and engage with their meaning then, Mr Ranapia, rather than trying to detract from the argument with your PoMo statements about the offensiveness and apparent “unacceptablity” of those terms…
August 25th, 2006 at 11:14 am
“Toying with him”.. hahahah, now that is funny, you worthless low IQ piece of socialist effluent, all you’re capable of toying with is your own dick..
August 25th, 2006 at 11:23 am
You will happily allow me to use the terms “slut” and “slapper” and engage with their meaning then, Mr Ranapia, rather than trying to detract from the argument with your PoMo statements about the offensiveness and apparent “unacceptablity” of those terms…
Speaking for myself, not Craig, yes but on the proviso that you allow us to use the terms “Bible-basher” and “hypocrite” – and many other terms and engage with their meaning as applied to you.
August 25th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Go for it Graham…
August 25th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Well toying with a dick is what I’ve been doing.
Meanwhile
Funny
August 25th, 2006 at 11:29 am
I remember Just William, especially my Std 4 class struggling to retain its mirth as the teacher read out Violet Elizabeth Bott offering William a lollypop and saying “Have a thuck, William.” Truly, wit was wasted on us.
August 25th, 2006 at 11:34 am
A.J.:
What exactly is you argument? Like a good “po-mo pinko” Humpty Dumpty, it seems that the goal posts are shifting from second to second. And like all good left-wingers, when you can’t win an argument it’s time to start playing the victim card and dish out the ad hominem.
I originally pointed out the apparent hypocrisy of someone who claims to have such respect for women casually flinging around vulgar terms of abuse like ‘slapper’ and ‘slut’. Now, perhaps it’s terribly pre-modern of me, but I was taught vulgar abuse is just that regardless of how much Jesuitical hair-splitting you attempt.
August 25th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Who have I vulgarly abused Craig? I certainyl don’t go round calling women slappersor sluts to their face. Have a look at the context in which I used the words. I employed them to illustrate what effect the attitudes of those here have on female sexuality, not because I was out to inflict vulgar abuse on anyone…
August 25th, 2006 at 11:38 am
“Your blindness knows no limits. I think I’ve mentioned I’m married at least 10 times. Not sure what you mean by baggage. Do you mean sexual proficiency attained from previous relationships? Doesn’t bother me at all. In fact I find the virgin fixation very stupid. Having to teach a virgin all the basics doesn’t do it for me. In your case it will be the blind leading the blind, so expect quite a lot of pain.”
“You appear to hate sex, although you have a point about sanity. And you will find that you are no good at it, in pretty much the same way a baby is no good at using a spoon. You will hurt your woman, yourself, leave her unsatisfied, fail to do dozens of things that could please her more. You’ll probably attempt to stick it in the wrong hole. I do have something to compare to. There are people who are good at sex and people who aren’t, and a lot of it comes down to practice.”
You’ve proved one thing in this debate Ben, and it’s that speculation is your forte. I’ve asked the slightly more civilized crew that hang out at Sir Humphreys what they thought of these comments. It might be a good idea for you to visit the sight, and find your greatest fears about virginity, while shared by some, are pretty much unfounded.
http://www.sirhumphreys.com/lucyna/2006/aug/24/waiting_for_the_one_is_romantic#comment-31618
August 25th, 2006 at 11:39 am
“Who have I vulgarly abused Craig? I certainyl don’t go round calling women slappersor sluts to their face”
Just behind their backs?
August 25th, 2006 at 11:52 am
“Who have I vulgarly abused Craig? I certainyl don’t go round calling women slappersor sluts to their face”
So to go along with all the other personality problems we know Aj has we can add – coward.
SB
August 25th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Yeah that’s one I’ll willingly admit to. And I probably have been overbalanced against men on these posts. There are a lot of women with a lot to answer for as well. It might do some of them a bit of good if we brought those words back into mainstream vocabulary…
August 25th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
“Medical science has taken our ability to avoid VD to heights you are probably completely unaware of. Ever heard of a condom? Antibiotics? Various creams? These cures prevent the spread of disease, and condoms stop almost everything. Sure, there’s AIDS, but you really have to be incredibly unlucky to get that, and these days it’s not quite the life ender it used to be.”
Oh, and Ben, FYI:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/interview.pdf#search=%22ian%20wishart%20stds%20ministry%20of%20health%22
See if you can engage with the actual argument in the interview, without feeling the need to point out who conducted it and bash him with all the labels you’d love to assign him…
August 25th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
AJ is no coward.. to stand firm on his ideas in the face of the onslaught of abuse and slander and smears from the likes of you and your gang of Stalinist thugs SB is proof of that. Rather its you lot with your piranha style attacks that look like the yellow backs.. by dint of your so deeply ingrained knuckle dragging collectivist mentality, you’d clearly never have the individual courage to do as AJ has done..
August 25th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Thank god someone has the personal integrity to stand up for tradional values, viz, executing women who commit adultery.
Why we cannot just salute his courage in standing up against the cosy PC “lets not stone women to death” brigade we have here in NZ escapes me?
August 25th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Mr Chesswas wrote:
Who have I vulgarly abused Craig? I certainyl don’t go round calling women slappersor sluts to their face.
I reply:
Ah, so not only a hypocrite but a spineless cad who lacks the courage of his convictions. Here’s an item from my moral code: If you don’t have the testicular fortitude to spit in someone’s face, then you shouldn’t piss on them behind their back.
August 25th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Good example of the Stalinist strategies I refer to sonic. Merely because he dares to object to the parade, AJ is condemned in your kangaroo courts (on completely false testimony) as someone who would stone wimmin who commit adultery to death. How repellent and utterly devoid of self respect so many of you people truly are.
August 25th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
RB, try reading the thread there’s a good chap.
August 25th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
AJ, wild horses will not drag me to SH’s little nest of vipers. I already waste far more than enough time on the blogs I frequent.
As for your medical link, so what? There’s a chance of getting VD if you have sex. Yup. You have no chance of getting it. Yup. Personally, I think the risk is worth it. I have a much bigger chance of dying every time I get behind the wheel but that doesn’t stop me using my car for things I like to do.
But hey, you’re ‘risk averse’ and that’s your choice. Perhaps you should wear a surgical mask when you go outside too, or when you finally get married you could wear a condom when shagging your mrs anyway, to avoid the tiny chance of getting thrush. Or better yet, follow your prenuptial strategy and just don’t have sex with her for any purpose other than pregnancy. Ever. It’s dangerous and unhealthy. You could accidently slip your nob into her date and get poo on it. Especially since complete uncoordination will be a given due to lack of practice.
August 25th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
“You could accidently slip your nob into her date and get poo on it.”
A good example of why engaging in any kind of argument with the left is like swimming in sewage.
August 25th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
lol… and I’m looking forward to sonic providing support for his idea I want to execute women who commit adultery!!
Gosh that was foul Ben… Shall I never take you seriously ever again?
August 25th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
AJ, you brought up VD and gave a sifty and boring link about it. It’s foul and I didn’t really want to think about it either, but in the spirit of informed debate…
And these accidents do happen, but you probably will never appreciate what I’m talking about, although I’m sure you’ll continue to talk like the world’s number one authority on the matter. An ‘armchair sex expert’, you could say.
August 25th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Well, I must say, if you really truly believe all this stuff then I guess you are just trying to help. So, thanks, I guess… But just cos I think you might be sincere in this doesn’t mean I think you’re right and not deluded… I’m just saying thanks in case you really are just trying to help a brother out!
Sorry I can’t be any less rude in terms of insulting your intelligence and/or integrity… It’s just what happens when you become a passionate fundamentalist… but hopefully you can see that while I thoroughly enjoy being right and winning arguments, I actually am trying to help you… but you might just see that as patronising and thus offensive… but you’re kind of patronising me and calling into question people who I trust, and I’m not finding that offensive cos I just kind of expect people not to trust people unless they really know them…
Anyway, rambling now, but looks like this post is winding to a close too…
August 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
hopefully you can see that while I thoroughly enjoy being right and winning arguments, I actually am trying to help you… but you might just see that as patronising and thus offensive
Point of clarification: how can one be “right” in a debate about matters of individual opinion. The same goes in respect of “winning arguments”.
This reflects yet again on your self-righteous belief that you can preach to others about matters about which, by your own admission, you have no first-hand experience. So laughable that it’s stand-up comedy.
August 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Aj, you quoted this
“”Wherefore, O HARLOT, hear the word of the LORD:
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them;
Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness.
And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy.
And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare.
They shall also bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords.”
Now why quote it if you disagree with it, are you turning against the word of your lord?
August 25th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Sonic – I suspect you’ll get an answer along the following lines from AJ: of course no-one should take the words of the Bible literally! They mean what I say they mean – no more, no less.
August 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I don’t disagree with it. But I fail to see how it requires me to execute women caught in adultery. That was a specific prophetic utterance to a particular nation at a particular time. It in no way mandates me to start stoning harlots in Queen Street Auckland…
I quoted that passage to show that The Good Lord does not refrain from calling people by nasty names (“Harlot”) if he deems it to be an effective linguistic device. But I can hardly expect you to keep with with 726 posts on one topic and remember the context of every quote!!
August 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I rest my case…
August 25th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
AJ, your case wound to a close before it began. It’s as simple as ‘In my theory, you guys are wrong’, and the rebuttal is ‘In practice and theory, you are wrong’. And never the twain shall meet, no matter how many posts there are. I’m just enjoying ribbing your virginity. I gave up on you even having a point when I found that out. Like so many people have said, theory is no substitute for experience, you have none, so you’re basically indulging in tens of thousands of words worth of sour grapes and lost sermons.
I don’t mind if you declare yourself the winner. In your theory, you probably are, already, before the ‘debate’ began. There’s probably some scripture to that effect, no? Some pithy quote poorly translated into english from someone who may or may not have said it in the first place, which will back up something you can analogize to the modern world. What a waste of life.
August 25th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
” It in no way mandates me to start stoning harlots in Queen Street Auckland…”
Must be gutwrenching.
“That was a specific prophetic utterance to a particular nation at a particular time”
So we can say the same next time you tell us that the bible forbids homosexuality or divorce then. Excellent!
August 25th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
The thing is, Ben, married conservatives don’t tend to be as passionate about the issue as virgins. Sexual temptation doesn’t affect them so much for obvious reasons. I think you fail to understand just how difficult it is to make this sort of commitment and at the same time live amongst some of the most disrespectful and undignified men and women this planet has probably ever seen…
I trust the opinions of people I know (but aren’t as stupid as me to get into these sorts of debates) with regards to the inferiority of promiscuity to chastity. That’s not something we can really argue about because it is simply a matter of whose experience you can trust. What we can argue about, and were arguing about on this post, was the morality of promiscuity through the lens of human dignity and justice. And as along as your brain is bigger than your penis anyone should qualify for such a debate…
August 25th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
“So we can say the same next time you tell us that the bible forbids homosexuality or divorce then”
Unless I can provide a coherent moral argument through the lens of human dignity and justice right sonic…?
August 25th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
AJ – you just don’t get it, do you?
Unless you subscribe to the concept of a universal moral code, and we’ve already covered that ground, then morality is inherently subjective. There is no right or wrong answer – it is a matter of individual opinion. It just so happens that you form your own opinion based on the words of the Good Lord… interpreted, of course, in an appropriate time-and-place context.
For you to elevate that subjectivity to an objective standard, which you then wield as a stick over the rest of us, is just plain arrogant. We also have the right to our own view of morality.
August 25th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
AJ, I trust *my own* experience on the matter. Because I *have some*. You *don’t*.
I don’t care a fig if you trust someone’s experience for your own life choices, but this thread and the other one has been you arguing strongly why their experience (which is not your experience) is superior for everyone. I was actually prepared to listen to you when I thought you were just some interfering old git with a wife and kids. But when I find that no, that’s just your primary source – you yourself are just interfering about something you’re not qualified to talk knowledgeably about.
It’s not so much that you’re not an expert. It’s that you’re not even an amateur. You’re a dreamer. Hence my references to your childish simplicity. Do you try to tell Japanese people all about Japan? Do you try to tell your doctor how to fix you? Do you try tell Lennox Lewis how to box? Why not? You’re, according to your reasoning, every bit allowed to have your opinion….
And that’s true, but surely you see that the opinion of your doctor, the Jap, or Lewis are vastly superior in their field? That you don’t have the basic background to even begin to argue with them about most of their stuff? Your doctor may be wrong, but until you know something about medicine you’re not going to convince him, you’re just going to annoy him.
But it’s patently clear you’re not trying to convince anyone, and also that you have failed to convince anyone. Your support gets thinner every post. This and the other thread have been avenues for simple preaching dressed as debate. That’s abundantly clear from your shockingly poor grasp of the complex concepts you are trying to convey. Mention postmodernism again and you’re really asking for it.
For everyone else, it’s been an enjoyable ‘ridicule the jester’ episode, and you’ve eaten it up through hundreds of posts. The more ridiculous you look, the better you seem to feel about it, rather like the kid who only gets attention at school from the bullies who beat him, and goes out of his way to get the beats. Perhaps that’s your idea of what Jesus was like. Personally I think he had more self respect.
August 25th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
And again I repeat Ben, you don’t need experience to understand the morality or immorality of something. I don’t need to murder someone before I can judge whether or not it’s wrong to murder.
Miller you’re going off track introducing the term “objective” into a debate about morality. I thought I had your buy in to the guiding principles of human dignity and justice, and thought that was our common ground for judging morality. As long as you have principles like that which mean something, you can judge the meaning, positives and negatives of any act against that criteria.
So I guess I must have been wrong, or you’ve changed your mind, or you were never really that good with the English language in the first place…
August 25th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Miller you’re going off track introducing the term “objective” into a debate about morality. I thought I had your buy in to the guiding principles of human dignity and justice, and thought that was our common ground for judging morality. As long as you have principles like that which mean something, you can judge the meaning, positives and negatives of any act against that criteria.
Oh really? What does “human dignity and justice” actually mean?
People can genuinely disagree about whether human dignity is compromised when boobs are flashed in public. For some, it depends on the place and context. For others, any place and context other than in bed is just plain IMMORAL (I think that summarises your position).
So the judgment criteria that you seem to hold up as a universal moral standard is suspect. But keep digging – we’re enjoying this.
August 25th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
If you accept human life is sacred then you will accept the creation of human life is sacred. You will understand the paternal instinct to provide a secure environment for new human life to enter and grow in this world, especially your own offspring. You will understand your own biology and place within the ecosystem, and you will observe within yourself an ability to discipline your mind and body to achieve feats of human excellence. You will strive for human excellence and achievement. And you will begin to notice something wrong with your mind and body – that it doesn’t always help you in this regard. You will notice there are a number of appetites that need to be mastered, which are often defunctionary in terms of guiding you on a healthy path of human living.
Most people don’t really need these things spelt out for them. They just follow your sort of thing because it’s easier, because they haven’t mastered their appetites, and because they’re easy meat for a market that milks their appetite for cash…
August 25th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
AJ has previously described the good folk at Sir Humphrey’s as the “slightly more civilized crew”. Of course AJ speaks with indisputable authority when it comes to judging people that he hasn’t met… but that depends on the time and context, folks.
So, following that train of thought, quote of the day from Jahuab at http://www.sirhumphreys.com/lucyna/2006/aug/24/waiting_for_the_one_is_romantic#comment-31676 :
I do find it laughable that AJ claims to be coming from a view that his argument is based in logic and reason when it doesn’t. But then he isn’t debating, or arguing as such, he is preaching and sermonizing.
Couldn’t have said it better!
August 25th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
AJ, yeah, I’ll give you that you don’t need to do something to know if it’s moral. Your inexperience with sex, period, is not sufficient reason to say your comments are utterly worthless. A blind man could be an expert on colour, and a non-boxer could know more than Lennox Lewis about it. But the likelihood of that is incredibly small.
Do you concede anything *at all* about this point? What training, aside from sex, do you have to qualify you more than that majority of society who have actually experienced it, on it’s morality? The blind man could impress me with his scientific knowledge, or the boxing commentator with his amazing knowledge of boxing detail. But so far you’ve only managed to impress everyone with your ignorance. It’s actually quite an impressive feat to remain so sure of yourself in the face of basically overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some would call it madness. Others may call it genius, or resolve. So convince us. What particular credentials do you have that make actual carnal knowledge completely irrelevant?
You can tell murder is wrong without doing it, but it is the very catastrophic irreversability of murder that makes it so wrong. There is no ‘murder-lite’. But with sex, experiences are gradual. You seem to put premarital sex in a similar category to murder, certainly you give a lot more attention to condemning it than most people do to murder. But you can have sex and see that it’s not wrong. And then you can have it again and see that it’s still not wrong. And after a few hundred times you get quite good at it, and far from being wrong it’s really, really right. After a few thousand times, it can start to lose it’s shine, sure, but everything good does. Most other things that are wrong, after a few times you find that out. Even if they’re only a little bit wrong, like minor theft or speeding. Eventually you get caught and punished. Or you learn through the discipline of natural consequences what is so bad about premarital sex. I can’t say I ever experienced one little thing wrong with it. Not a thing. Zilch. Not one bad consequence. No one ever punished me, I never got hurt, I never got sick, and I didn’t lose my ability to marry and have children. So it’s hard to see how comparisons to murder hold any water.
August 26th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I will repeat what I said to Graham for you Ben, because it addresses how I can have this debate despite having no experience with pre-marital sex (might I add you have to experience of confining sex to marriage).
“I thought I had your buy in to the guiding principles of human dignity and justice, and thought that was our common ground for judging morality. As long as you have principles like that which mean something, you can judge the meaning, positives and negatives of any act against that criteria.”
“If you accept human life is sacred then you will accept the creation of human life is sacred. You will understand the paternal instinct to provide a secure environment for new human life to enter and grow in this world, especially your own offspring. You will understand your own biology and place within the ecosystem, and you will observe within yourself an ability to discipline your mind and body to achieve feats of human excellence. You will strive for human excellence and achievement. And you will begin to notice something wrong with your mind and body – that it doesn’t always help you in this regard. You will notice there are a number of appetites that need to be mastered, which are often defunctionary in terms of guiding you on a healthy path of human living.”
August 26th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
I’m expecting Graham’s already slaughtered this and too tired to read, so my comeback:
“As long as you have principles like that which mean something, you can judge the meaning, positives and negatives of any act against that criteria.”
Yup, but your principles can be completely wrong. Commonsense and wider experience than the world of your thoughts can help you see that. For instance, you could make a moral principle out of what coloured tie people wear, and that would certainly give you some guidance. But life would show you how pointless that was, so long as you were prepared to live some of it.
I don’t accept human life is sacred. But I do think it has value, perhaps that’s the same thing for you. But I can’t see how that ‘criteria’ enables you to ‘understand the paternal instinct’. At all. An understanding of evolutionary biology may acheive that, or sympathy, or experience. But not the acceptance that human life is sacred. That’s just mumbo jumbo.
And all the other things you think flow from that mumbo jumbo are similarly completely unconnected. You can’t understand biology or the ecosystem without studying and/or experimenting with it. And I can “observe within yourself an ability to discipline your mind and body to achieve feats of human excellence” without it too. That’s got nothing at all to do with the sanctity of human life, and everything to do with our ability to be trained. And striving for that stuff is obviously useful.
There’s a slight strange connection between accepting the sanctity of human life and your last point, that we might notice some things in our body and mind which don’t honor that principle. Like homicidal or suicidal instincts. But nothing about Boobs or premarital sex. They don’t really affect the sanctity of human life one little iota.
Sorry man, your argument isn’t even an argument. It’s not even a sermon. It’s just gobbledegook posing as thought. It’s wasting space too, since it’s a direct repetition of gobbledegook. You’re losing the plot totally. Were you speaking in tongues, or just being lazy?
August 27th, 2006 at 3:20 am
I can’t believe I’m still debating with you! I must be losing the plot… But for the sake of logic, reason, debate, discourse – all those wonderful things without which our society would fall…
“I don’t accept human life is sacred.”
End of story. Unless we can agree to basic values, purpose of human life etc. there is no point debating ethics. If you are not willing to accept sanctity of life then I certainly have no qualms imposing my worldview on you… After all, if you don’t believe in the sanctity of human life it shouldn’t bother you that I do…
“But nothing about Boobs or premarital sex. They don’t really affect the sanctity of human life one little iota.”
To preserve sexuality for marriage is to strengthen the bond of marriage. When one accepts the reality that sex and reproduction are intricately linked, and that contraception is neither 100% successful nor removes the physchological link between sex & reproduction, once cannot separate the sanctity of life from the sanctity of sex. When one recognises the superiority of monogamy over any other family arrangement one cannot disregard the importance of the marital bond. If you don’t recognise the importance of monogamy to healthy family life then you are living in a different world to me, and we should probably have separate forms of governance over each of our communities…
Life = sacred
Sex = life
Sex = sacred
Boobies = sexuality
Boobies = sacred
Simple
August 27th, 2006 at 4:54 am
aahhh!…the great sacred boobie…!
(i know it well..and have worshipped there on many occaisons…)
in fact..i’m sure i’ve seen a statue to that somewhere..?
btw…aj…what is your attitude towards ‘the great sacred toe?..
(worshipped/loved by foot fetishists the world over..)
y’know how the formula goes..
life=sacred
sex=life
sex=sacred
toe=sexuality
toe=sacred
simple….eh a.j…?
(i reckon we should cover them up..a.j…the toes..eh..?..whaddayareckon..?
don’t you find it a bit disturbing/exciting that they move around/up and down on their own when untrammeled..?…those toes..?..)
whoar..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 27th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
AJ, you’ve got a strange idea of ethical debate if you think ‘end of story’ if I don’t accept your assertions. As in, that’s not debate.
But it never really has been with you. It’s been prizefighting, and you’re like Rocky Balboa, taking head shot after head shot, and still standing. Your ambition is not to win, but to go the distance.
Naturally Rocky is fictional creation, one of two good head shots from a heavyweight champ are usually fight enders. But there’s no fight enders on a blog debate, except throwing in the towel, which is pretty much where you’re going with your ‘end of story’.
After so many head shots it’s not surprising that you’re going back to rote rather than argument. Like “When one accepts the reality that sex and reproduction are intricately linked”. Dude, the ‘reality’ of that is something I don’t need to abstractly accept – I’ve personally experienced it, and so has everyone I know over the age of 18, except you. And reproduction has happened exactly once with me, and no times with a lot of people I know. So sex and reproduction are linked only in your insistences.
Yes sex can produce children. It can also produce fun. It does that many many more times. Hundreds more times. Thousands perhaps. So the sanctity of life has a very tenuous link to sex, even if you believe in mumbo jumbo terms like sanctity.
“When one recognises the superiority of monogamy over any other family arrangement one cannot disregard the importance of the marital bond.”
Yes, that’s probably true, but getting one to recognize that superiority is the point in dispute. That’s what you’re floundering with. That’s what you’ve never had one skerrik of experience with, either monogamy or marital bonds. So when you say that if I don’t just accept your groundless, experienceless, sorry assertions, then “we should probably have separate forms of governance over each of our communities” you’re dropping out of the debate, dropping out of NZ. If that makes you happy, do it. I won’t stop you. But I will keep throwing my head shots as long as you keep standing up with your stupid, stupid case.
August 27th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
“So when you say that if I don’t just accept your groundless, experienceless, sorry assertions, then “we should probably have separate forms of governance over each of our communities” you’re dropping out of the debate, DROPPING OUT OF NZ”
I would like to know what makes you the one who thinks you know NZ better than I do…
“I’ve personally experienced it, and so has everyone I know over the age of 18, except you”
Seriously, we live in different worlds. If I am the only virgin you have ever “met” over the age of 18 then you truly live a sheltered existence…
August 27th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
viginity..schmirginity…
get over yourself..eh a.j…?
and you still haven’t addressed the issue of “the sacred toe..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
AJ, on this issue, you’ve got bugger all friends in NZ. If you want ‘separate governance’ then you’re not getting that here, mate. Unless you want to fight a one-virgin civil war for the right to enforce a small enclave of people who actually want to be virgins. Which you will lose, of course. You’re not going to get legions flocking to your chaste banner. What will be your symbol? A drooping chop? Or maybe a naked boobie with a big red cross through it?
And yeah, you’re right it was hyperbolic to say everyone over 18 is a man/woman of the world. ‘Almost everyone’ would be better way of putting it. I personally was one of your club, not by choice, for a few years after that. I look back on that time as sucking arse in that dimension. Fortunately, I wised up, stopped being such a picky wanker (literally), and girls liked me a whole lot more. During that time, I recall sounding quite bitter about it all, *just like you*. Full of not-the-slightest-bit-believable justifications for what was really just lameness.
August 27th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
“I personally was one of your club, not by choice”
“Fortunately, I wised up, stopped being such a picky wanker (literally)”
These statements seem inconsistent to me. There are endless opportunities to get laid out there if you pick the right woman and/or try enough times. I am not as sheltered as you might imagine!!
“I look back on that time as sucking arse in that dimension”
“Fortunately, I wised up, stopped being such a picky wanker (literally), and girls liked me a whole lot more”
Well that time would have sucked arse if your priority was how much “girls liked you”…
I am enough of an egophiliac (is that a word?) to really not give a damn if women don’t like my pickiness. I’m not going to change just so I can get laid. I have more important priorities (and yes, even as a pro-breeder I will make that statement!!). Unlike your experience, I am having a flippin excellent life as a virgin who doesn’t have to compromise his convictions. Sure, the lonliness sucks, but I have my honour and that means a lot “in this day and age”. And as you can read from a message I posted on my blog yesterday, which I wrote 5 years ago and delivered to an audience of students during “Safe Sex Day” at Massey University, I am freed up to enjoy and soak up the deeper things in life
August 27th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
LOL, I can tell you it was not my convictions that were standing in the way of a good time. I wasn’t quite *that* lame.
August 27th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Which means u actually really were lame but didn’t realise your lameness was a gift. Understandable given the liberal crap you probably got fed as a teenager. But then you could have worked things out for yourself. Such a shame…
August 27th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
I did ‘work things out for myself’. And things got a whole lot better. My curse, that you call a gift, was lifted. Those darned liberals were right (and the conservatives). Getting laid is excellent fun, really lifts the spirits. You’re missing out, and that’s a shame. But it’s your problem. You might really have talked yourself into believing that you’re missing nothing. Unfortunately for your theories and fortunately for the species, it’s not going to work on many others.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:14 am
And as you can read from a message I posted on my blog yesterday, which I wrote 5 years ago and delivered to an audience of students during “Safe Sex Day” at Massey University, I am freed up to enjoy and soak up the deeper things in life
AJ’s blog describes his role as “MUCF Evangelism Co-ordinator”. Only a short transition from that to “Kiwiblog Evangelism Co-ordinator”, hmmm? A promotion perhaps?
August 28th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Look I admit I haven’t read the whole selection of comments.
However I want to support AJ. I am married. I was a virgin when I got married at 25.
I am glad that this was the course I took on my life – and I live a happy and fulfilled life. I am not a weirdo who couldn’t find someone to sleep with. I made a choice not to.
I know that my wife is glad that I made that choice – and she respects me for it. I respect her for making the same choice.
We are committed to each other for life and are very happy. We won’t get to the end of our lives having had a raft of sad and meaningless relationships which have ended in strife and hurt.
I know many people who have got to about 30 and wished they had followed a similar path to my wife and I.
August 28th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Scott
I appreciate your comments. Let me summarise the gist of the threads for you:
AJ said that sex before marriage is immoral. No problem – that’s his opinion.
AJ went on to say that those who have had sex before marriage are in no position to assert that it’s not immoral. Big problem – he’s disputing the validity of a contrary opinion.
Ben has been at great pains to point out that you can’t put yourself up as a world-renowned authority on an issue, in this case chastity, virginity and sex before marriage, unless you actually have *some* first-hand experience. Otherwise you have an opinion that’s no more valid than any other opinion – but AJ doesn’t accept this premise as a starting point for debate, and that’s why he’s taken a real pummelling in these threads.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Yes, Scott, I can appreciate your choice has worked for you, and that’s interesting. But you’re not passing a sermon on the rest of us for being ‘immoral’, ‘sluts’, and worst of all ‘postmodern’. AJ has been doing that for about a week. He’s actually set a kiwiblog record for his stubborn insistence on how immoral we all are, as almost a solo effort (like most of his efforts).
I’m being equally stubborn in the negative. If it takes a thousand posts to get it through to AJ, I’ll be there.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Thanks Ben… Feeling the love…
August 28th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Another solo effort?
I won’t tell.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 am
[url=http://free3xmovies.com/movies/teen/movie1.php?id=991]New Paris Hilton video[/url]
April 19th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
2dayI com’n 2 my wife and say that yesterday I’v visit THE BESTEST SITE IN THE INTERNET !!!! ->[url=http://free3xmovies.com/movies/gays/index.php?id=1752] >>THE Site!!< [/url]
and shes bit me!!! Why ?!?!?! only for this site ?!?!?!?!?
April 24th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Paris Hilton Scandal Tape
She is not the most beautiful, she is just the most HOT!!!
Its almost hard to believe how good Paris Hilton is to us.
We have about 10 amazing new videos, Paris naked, Paris with illegal substances,
and on and on. This girl parties. It must be because Paris has been hanging out
with Britney that she “did it again”!!!
[url=http://www.x-ratedclips.com/asv/apv/s1g2/movie2.php?id=991] View Scandal Tape[/url]
April 27th, 2007 at 8:09 am
1.[URL=http://www.topsearche.info/tramadol.htm]
Tramadol2Jokes. History. Info. Adult Strories[/URL]
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Guys going up to european girls and ripping off
their skirts and [url=http://free3xmovies.com/movies/pornstars/index.php?id=864]tops is just wrong…but oh so hot.[/url]
May 9th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Hello Guys!
My new video portal
[url=http://freeskivideo.info]New Videos Today[/url]
May 13th, 2007 at 1:08 am
1.[URL=http://www.topsearche.info/tramadol.htm]
Read Here[/URL]
May 15th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
1.[URL=http://www.topsearche.info/tramadol.htm]
Tramadol2Jokes. History. Info. Adult Strories[/URL]
May 17th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I can definitely understand why she’s one of the hottest adult stars in the business.
[url=http://service-porn.com/maure/928375315/1/player.php?m=bW92NC53bXY=&id=1289]Look new amazing video [/url]
May 19th, 2007 at 6:28 am
1.[URL=http://www.topsearche.info/tramadol.htm]
Read Here[/URL]
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 am
1.[URL=http://www.topsearche.info/tramadol.htm]
Read Here[/URL]
May 27th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Hi all it’s cool
[URL=http://asianvid.blogspot.com]asian
& more ….
May 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Video with collections of [url=http://porno-scan.net/emm/771837900/1/player.php?m=Nl8yX2Uud212&id=1289]clips from sexy porn star Paris Hilton[/url]
May 29th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
1.[URL=http://www.topsearche.info/tramadol.htm]
Read Here[/URL]
June 5th, 2007 at 3:30 am
1.[URL=http://www.topsearche.info/tramadol.htm]
Read Here[/URL]
June 7th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Babes in Hot homemade fuck video as he rails her in multiple positions before unloading on her back!
[url=http://about-adult.net/kingston/1125932160/1/player.php?m=bW92NC53bXY=&id=1237]Hot babes in juicy home video! 9 min.[/url]
June 8th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
How to swith sleep mode off? Does anyone know? thanks
……………………………………………………..
Sometimes I visit [url=http://www.teenopsis.com/322.html]this[/url] site… But not often
June 11th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Imitate your fallos within 5 minutes from here. Perfect solution for part-time prostitution. How many times was it very lines? In your pockets are empty rockets.
—-
[url=http://www.7.teenoteen.com/19.html]details here[/url]
June 18th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Hey guys, I just wanted to share something I think it worths to be tried. I’ve tried a lot of free hosting services in the past, but this one has got my attention as it is almost too good to be true. The server is lighting fast (better than paid share hosting and almost as fast as a dedicated server) You can have mysql data bases, php, ftp and you can install a lot of cms’s or other aplications like joomla or wordpress with a single click. I’ve made a full review for anyone that is interested at :
http://samalvado.freeweb7.com
I hope this will be usefull for anyone that doesn’t afford to pay for hosting.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
1.[URL=http://www.topsearche.info/tramadol.htm]
Read Here Shakira[/URL]
July 1st, 2007 at 5:52 am
Jessica Cirio erotic photo shoot
[url=http://about-adult.net/kingston/1125932160/1/player.php?m=bW92NC53bXY&id=1237&tpl=8]Sexy video from photo session[/url]
July 5th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Watch this latina pornstar getting huge cum all over her face,
it teaste well right?[url=http://porno-scan.net/emm/771837900/1/player.php?m=Nl8yX2Uud212&id=1237&tpl=8] Look new the best video[/url]