As much as I absolutely (and almost christianly) despise porn, I am shocked that Dick Hubbard is literally raining down on this parade, with the support of 13 other city councillors.
If Erotica's permit is revoked, they're going have a march down Queen St anyway, as they have in the past. It makes sense to allow them to do it and ensure it takes place safely, with the help of a few police officers.
And what I don't get is how ignorant our city council is being. At least half (and we all know which half) of the population looks at pornography; as voters and ratepayers, their views should be taken into account when the mayor decides exactly what are the 'right' kind of marches for this city. How in touch is this council with the people? Should a bunch of people past their motorbike days (with the exception of the lovely Leila Boyle) have the right to decide what is 'moral' for this city when it comes to Erotica expos? And hello, how long has pornography been around, are they going to try and outlaw it altogether? (By the way I'm not a council hater, I think on the whole Auckland City is doing a great job)
And will the public complain... Or is a love of pornography everyone's guilty little secret?
50 comments:
'If Erotica's permit is revoked, they're going have a march down Queen St anyway, as they have in the past. It makes sense to allow them to do it and ensure it takes place safely, with the help of a few police officers.'
Just because they did it in the past, doesnt mean it 'makes sense to allow them to do it.' The man running it is a total wanker. Imagine if you had your 4 year old with you on queen st. THe fact that ratepayers may or may not look at porn is irrelvant - your premise is that people who look at porn automatically want porn down queen street, which is somewhat of a stretch.
'And hello, how long has pornography been around, are they going to try and outlaw it altogether? '
what has this got to do with anything?? racism has been around a long time. so has slavery. so has gender imbalance. who said anything about outlawing altogether?? its not outlawed, its just R18. do you think porn should be R18? if you do, then how can you support this march??
actually porn should be R16 :-)
Its funny how you can legally have sex at the age of 16, but cant look at porn till the age of 18. I guess you're supposed to have sex with your eyes closed untill the age of 18 ;)
Oh and porn is good :)
yeah, fair enough. i agree. but some people dont- sex is still an private thing for some people, not every dude is up for getting pissed and going to strip club. its not just religious people, of whom there are many in auckland. so the point is, really, that pam's argument is a disaster, and we shouldn't impose nudity and the promotion of sex to the general public without their consent - sure, go to erotica, its widely advertised - but why should this one fucktard with a huge economic agenda be dictating the events in the centre of town. what a dick.
Sigh, I'm just disappointed they don't have Daniel Carter walking down Queen St naked.
ALSO: Check out this: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0608/S00086.htm
Although, I must say I can't support this parade at all.
THe fact that ratepayers may or may not look at porn is irrelvant - your premise is that people who look at porn automatically want porn down queen street, which is somewhat of a stretch.
I don't think it's a stretch at all, if people like looking at naked bodies they like looking at naked bodies.
ok - well think of the environment people look at porn in. The r18 section in a video store. Not too many people approve of pornography, and those that do dont run down queen street rejoicing in the fact. so for some dick to simply insist he is going to have his parade, irregardless of the views of the public to whom he will present it, is totally unreasonable. Personally, if I'm walking down queen street with my girlfriend, or me mum, I dont want porn stars waving at me. Thats my right - because i find it offensive. and so do many other people. yet i love naked bodies - just not on queen street.
hows about we broadcast a porn movie at the bottom of queen street on a big screen. is that acceptable? if i like looking at porn, why cant i look at porn on queen street? why might people object to that??
If people like porn, it should be celebrated and they should be open about it... God I'm liberal.
hookers are the worldest oldest profession, still around for a reason.
brian - that has nothing to do with naked women on queen street. for one, they're not hookers, they're porn stars.
pam - i appreciate this is your blog, but thats a totally fucking appalling argument.
Rick:
Bullshit. I have not forgotten my password! What's with Blogger today?
And will the public complain... Or is a love of pornography everyone's guilty little secret?
Yes, it is.
The fabric of our culure is largely based on hypocrasy. Works not too badly, actually. But in order for it not to fly apart we need to not admit it, we need to blank out the contradictions. This is such a time and it is far from isolated.
We're not grown up enough to do without our silly little taboos on things like this.
Someone should do something about that.
errr, well thats total bollocks. I know many people who dont entertain pornography, and even if they did, you don't seem to understand the concept of hypocrasy [sic.] It would by hypocritical to tell people 'you cant watch porn in your homes' when in fact the teller does watch porn. Its a totally different situation when its parading down the main street of the city. Because the public can choose not to pay to go to erotica, but they should not be forced out of a public space on moral grounds.
I agree, a four year old girl is probably not grown up enough to deal with her 'silly little taboo.' Have you ever been to a strip club and felt nothing but embarrassment, or can you enjoy the relationship and individual gets from watch a girl strip naked for money? is that what gets you off?
Fine. It doesnt do it for me, and I dont want it in my public space. Go watch it at erotica.
i just cannot believe how naive and badly constructed your argument is pam
If one does not wish to view this festival, then it is their right to NOT attend or to view it. If they are worried about their children watching it, then be an adult about it and NOT let them attend it.
If you are one of the busybodies out there who don't want anybody else to watch this festival, then at least be honest about it and tell us you want to tell us all what we should and should not be allowed to view instead of hiding behind the lame excuse that it is porn and it's offensive.
Bloody hell guys, lets get a bit of a grip don't you think?
Are we looking at one repeat anonymous or a bunch of them here? Fucking annoying. Anyway, one of them seems to think he has a "right" not to be presented with anything he might find offensive - now, that's an extension of the concept of "rights" into a complete new area best labelled "Can-o'-Worms, Giant Economy Size." In short, no you don't have the right not to be offended mate. And just between us, I'm pretty sure we can both be confident your Mum knows what sex is...
ok well you didnt address my points really. its not about a right to be offended. I'm find plenty of things offensive, but this is different. A lot of people find naked women offensive, for various reasons. Obviously none of you do - which is fine. But your not finding it offensive shouldnt mean it is imposed on everybody else, especially at the whim of this fucktard crow who thinks he can just do what he likes. GO watch it at erotica - whats the big deaL?
Heine, you cant watch it anyway. Whats more, and again, its not telling you what YOU cant do, its about what other people may or may not want to do in a shared space. You can watch porn all you like, (which im guessing is a lot), but, you know, you cant go whack off outside farmers can you?
'If one does not wish to view this festival, then it is their right to NOT attend or to view it. If they are worried about their children watching it, then be an adult about it and NOT let them attend it.'
no you've got it totally backwards. What if i set up a boxing match outside your driveway, or a naked wrestling contest, or some such controversial thing. can i simply tell you it is your RIGHT not to watch? dont look out the window? Let us do what we want? But what if you deplore violence, and you (for whatever reason) find sex and nakedness of adults offensive when it's openly displayed in public? As a shared public space, I should have the decency not to impose something I am fine with but other people find immoral, on those other people. I should set up, oh i dont know, a hugely successful erotica festival and you could come along and whack off there.
Rick: It's working again.
It would by [sic] hypocritical to tell people 'you cant watch porn in your homes' when in fact the teller does watch porn.
I'm not having trouble defining hypocrisy at all! It's simply that we disagree with the prevalence of pornography.
I'm with Pam on this. I put it to you that, though subconsciously, sex and sexual relations play a HUGE part in all our lives. Go ahead and refute that.
It follows, therefore, that public denial of private preoccupation is deeply hypocritical.
I should add that the "pornography" I'm refering to is not a monolith but, rather, a very broad concept accross many media- from hand gestures to magazine covers to marketing to tool names to clothing to speech to...
OK. I put this to you - we could probably concede that we would not be comfortable with a women on the back of a motor bike with her legs open, riding down queen street. This is a step further, obviously. But the reasons we would give for it not being acceptable are the same many people (older, religious, young) would give for not wanting topless porn stars parading down queen street.
Sex is increasingly in societies face. Some people enjoy that fact, and some do not. I enjoy sex itself, but that is not to say I would impose sex and nudity on other people, simply because 'sex is a big part of our society.' Thats largely a result of marketing and exploitation, if you realise it or not.
I cannot understand why it is not reasonable to confine this exhibition to a private show grounds. SUrely if you support a parade of naked porn stars forced down the publics throat, you cannot support an age restriction on the Erotica expo? Or is there some line you each choose to draw down open, public sexual activity is to be confined. I bet you do - in which case, have some respect for people who draw that line only a little further back than you do.
Out of interest Rick, do you watch porn with your family? With gran? With little cousin Sarah? Neither do I. But i thought you said sex plays a huge part in all our lives?
Go ahead and refute that :p
'It follows, therefore, that public denial of private preoccupation is deeply hypocritical.'
Not really. Acknowledging the existence of something is not the same thing as not wanting it paraded in front of you. Not everyone is a teenager watching porn on the internet, but most people are aware this occurs.
And your definition is a little odd - because we are talking about porn stars on queen street, not mini skirts.
Why dont you watch porn with little Sarah? after all, one day, 'sex' will be a big part of her life. It would by deeply hypocritical not to.
i cant afford the $20+ to go to erotica :(
Free tit viewing on queen st sounds good to me :)
Wow. This parade has been awesome free advertising for the expo!
that's a great argument you have there xavier. I'm, like, totally convinced.
What's wrong with tits?
Xavier, you should be getting into this.
'sex is a big part of our society.' Thats largely a result of marketing and exploitation, if you realise it or not.
No it's not. It's human.
I cannot understand why it is not reasonable to confine this exhibition to a private show grounds.
Let me remind you that this is not the aspect being addressed in Pam's post.
We're talking about what social perception of sex, and de facto/de jure disparity thereof.
With little cousin Sarah? Neither do I. But i thought you said sex plays a huge part in all our lives?
There's more to sex than pornography, FYI. And keep the hell away from my little cousin Sarah!
your definition is a little odd - because we are talking about porn stars on queen street, not mini skirts.
Yeah, but I'm talking about the whole bandwagon- including porn stars on queen street.
These attitudes aren't just limited to pornography, they're endemic in all things sexual.
Why dont you watch porn with little Sarah? after all, one day, 'sex' will be a big part of her life. It would by deeply hypocritical not to.
Again you show yourself equating pornography to sex. Sex is far broader and all-pervasive, as I tried to point out above.
To be hypocritical you would have to first embrace this fact. Next one would have to act falsely toward "Sarah" by denying that you do. This denial tends to be that Victorian cone of silence many of our parents are famous for.
'It follows, therefore, that public denial of private preoccupation is deeply hypocritical.'
Not really. Acknowledging the existence of something is not the same thing as not wanting it paraded
It is the same thing when that "something" is a desire and willingness to see sex in society.
We're all going 'round speaking and interpreting the language of sex already. The parade is just an extention of that, not an exception. You can't isolate it, so you can't target it. You can't speak out against it per se without hypocracy unless you also have the same quibble with sex in all forms.
To be honest, the erotica expo is pretty lame. I went last year, and there are so many dildos, vibrators, cock rings and butt plugs that one can seee and then they loose their novelty value. Although, the most impressive thing I did see was this HUGE dildo, that was GIGANTIC, like completely over the top. It was also black.
Hmmm, do you think they were trying to tell us something?
Anywho, I think the problem with the parade is that it is in a public place, and in public, certain standards of decency are required. I myself, If I did not know that the parade was happening might wander down Queen Street and be faced with something I don't really want to see. Obviously, now that I know that the parade is there, I am unlikely to be down on Queen St at that time. I guess people have a right to be in a public place and not be exposed to things that might in some peoples eyes cross some sort of boundary of decency. If you really want to see boobies, hire a porn film, go to erotica or make a trip to Showgirls. It's not that difficult.
And secondly, the parade is pretty much aimed at men, not women. Yes, the parade deals with sex, but from a guy's perspective. What's in the parade for us girls? Maybe if they got Dan Carter in his jockies walking down Queen St I'd be more inclined to go. I am not impressed.
its not spelt with an 'a'.
yes, you can, and you don't seem to see the point. You accurately assess that sex and pornography are two different things. But we are talking about porn stars getting naked on queen street, so i dont see the point in the simantics.
'We're all going 'round speaking and interpreting the language of sex already. '
thats totally untrue. THe fact that it increasingly becomes the norm is a long step from 'we are ALL going round.' Thats why i talk about the (fictional) sarah. We agree probably that 4 year old sarah shouldnt watch pornography, which is as we both know, often degrading.
Again, I'll ask you, would it be acceptable to have a woman on a bike going down queen street with her legs spread? WOuld you endorse that, simply as an extension of sex? Or you would you agree that there is a line that should not be crossed in regards to public displays of sexuality? Maybe that line is a lot further ahead for 18-24 year old males who are 'god, so liberal' or whatever, but there is a bigger picture here. ANd the line is further back for my Grandma, and my neice, and even me mum. So sure, get all liberal with sex and endorse the music industry's farcical slide into sex-not-talent, etc etc. I cant and wouldnt try to stop you do that. I will simply dismiss it. But this apparent liberalisation need not extend so fucking rudely into the publics face - ie, the main street of new zealand. Go to the show grounds if a chick with her tits out is so inspiring to you. But show some respect to the religious/old/young/ and frankly grown up people, who dont need topless porn stars on queen street to demonstrate that they like sex.
thats to rick, Not sophia, who i totally agree with (except for dan carter)
]'It follows, therefore, that public denial of private preoccupation is deeply hypocritical.'
Not really. Acknowledging the existence of something is not the same thing as not wanting it paraded
It is the same thing when that "something" is a desire and willingness to see sex in society.]
your argument makes no sense what so ever. You assume taht everyone has a willingness to see sex in society, and that is exactly the point - they do not. perhaps you do, but I dont. I have sex - it is a private occupation and I'm not denying it. But I wouldnt walk around telling everyone I have sex - why would I? I bet you masturbate an awful lot, Rick - if you refuse to openly display that fact, does that make you a hypocrit? Or would you prefer it was just an unstated truth?
So i think that the fact people have sex, an awful lot, is definately not a reason to openly parade it, in itself. Certainly, if it was decided that it was to be paraded, it is not the duty of Steve Crowe to dictate how this is done. Who gave him that task?
its not spelt with an 'a'.
Yeah whatever kid. And 'whatsoever' is one word, not three.
'We're all going 'round speaking and interpreting the language of sex already. '
thats totally untrue
You'd be surprised.
Again, I'll ask you, would it be acceptable to have a woman on a bike going down queen street with her legs spread?
You're changing the subject.
You assume taht everyone has a willingness to see sex in society, and that is exactly the point - they do not
It's not an assumption.
There are sexual undertones to everything that's social. You can't get away with it.
If I had more time I'd give examples.
yeah i'd fucking say. Its not an assumption it's a fact - I'm telling you I DONT want to see sex, like this, in society - and I'm a liberal, non christian, non married non virgin.
How is that changing the subject??? You fail miserably to address the point I'm making. You would agree with me that it would not be acceptable for a woman to ride a bike down queen street masturbating with a dildo, unless i'm very much mistaken. But a topless porn star is, according to your eternal wisdom, perfectly acceptable. What i'm pointing out is that one thing you find acceptable is not acceptable to a great many people. So keep your sexual fantasies to an arena that is not the main street of our country. Show some respect.
and Kid? who do you think you're talking to bro? I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing and you're doing a piss poor job of it, whereas I'm arguing because I actually want to make a point.
Jesus loves porn! Heres his own site so it must be true....
http://jesuslovesporn.net/main.htm
Well if there's a website about it it must be true.
riveting.
anonymous 1
you guys 0
"yeah i'd fucking say. Its not an assumption it's a fact - I'm telling you I DONT want to see sex, like this, in society - and I'm a liberal, non christian, non married non virgin."
Well tough Anon but there are other people besides you in this society and they have just as much right as you to want things that differ from your wants.Don't like bare boobs on bikes..? Then don't watch them and stay home that day.I don't want socialists,Christians,Muslims,et el in "My" society either but thats tough cheese on me as Im only one person and have no right to dictate to others what they shall and shall not do with wehats theres in public.
And thats the real problem...public land.This parade is happening on "public land"...meaning government monopoly held land supposidly held in trust for all of us.There would be no conflict if this was going to be held on private land as no unconsenting other would feel they are being forced to fund it.Public owership leads to conflict and division...get rid of it and watch conflict like this disappear...and your rates bill drop too!
dude you're out of your mind. You're comparing naked women to moslems? You're making the same point IM making, and you have taken me out of context. Rick implied it was an assumption people didnt want this event - was providing direct proof, namely myself. Same point, as in 'there are people other than me' that find this offensive. AS you say it is ok, many people say it is not ok - there is provision for this type of event, society requests it occur somewhere other than queen street.
'there are other people besides you in this society and they have just as much right as you to want things that differ from your wants'
Again, ill ask, if a woman were to be paraded down queen street masturbating, is that ok with you? on the basis of this? ou say i should just not watch. what if i work on queen street, what if iwant to go to q street on that particular day? what if it was outside my house, on a public street?
Your argument is so ill thought out and reasoned i wonder why you bother having a say at all, to be honest.
get rid of public ownership, of what, roads? where do you get these batshit ideas? I dont think you fully understand the implications of your own stupidity.
Public ownership is at the root of the fuss on this issue...its you who hasn't thought this out.If this event was going to take place on private property would you really care? You would not be funding anything and so your rights are intact.
But because its going to be held on a State monopoly street (public) you are forced to fund it and so are pissed off.I don't belive you should have to fund that which you disagree with so solidarity brother! ;-)
But because this is on public land,ie that which we all own and therefore none of us actually do there is a conflict.Why the suprise? Why does there even need to be such a thing as "public land"? Whats government doing owning land supposedly on our behalf thats got nothing to do with its legit function which is rights protection...? And government don't do anything for free so this public land is bleeding us dry in taxes to maintain despite us maybe wanting nothing to do with it.
If a woman was paraded along whilst mastabating I would probably not like it but then whats that got to do with it? That womans a member of the public same as me...she can do what she wants because I have no private ownership right in that road or over her body...but Im forced to help pay for the road.
I equated Muslims with naked woman as an example because the former I dislike and want nothing to do with in private.Naked woman I have much less of a problem with...;-)
So you don't like boobs on bikes Anon....well all the while we have a public owenership of land you will just have to lump it...stay at home and make kitsets or something.
Whoops...typos, my bad.
How is that changing the subject??? You fail miserably to address the point I'm making
And intentionally. Because the post I read and responded to is talking about public perception of sex- not the shoulds and shouldn'ts of the parade going ahead.
I'm not going to be drawn into talking about something new when you wont even deal with the issue at hand.
and Kid? who do you think you're talking to bro?
I got a pretty good profile thanks love, and probably a positive ID although I don't care enough to check.
rick i have never met you and i doubt i would enjoy the experience. I guarantee you don't know who I am.
I am dealing with the issue at hand. Did you not read Pam's post dude? How many times would you like me to make the comparison regarding the subjective selection of 'reasonable' public activities, before you can understand it sufficiently to discuss this issue?
James, lets not get childish. Actually, perhaps you should. Maybe we could find a reason to at least understand your open racism
Racism as defined by Anon...disliking the values and intentions of others based on their religion dogma while taking no consideration of the skin color of said others...sigh!
Racism...objectionaly defined:
""Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men."
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man's convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman's version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science."
Ayn Rand.
Sums it up to a tee.
Socialists are on very thin ground throwing out charges of Racism when their own history is taken into account....See South Africa.USSR,Nazi Germany etc...
People that quote Ayn Rand deserve to die.
And answer this question Anon....should people be forced to associate with those they do not want to..? Yes or no? Would you be happy being forced to have me come to your house or place of work and stay as long as I liked? No I thought not....Jamesist! ;-)
'And answer this question Anon....should people be forced to associate with those they do not want to..? Yes or no?'
ahahahahahahahahahahahahah...haha you're running round in circles brother. If this is what you believe, then you must concede that people who find nudity in the context of pornography should not be 'forced' to observe it on the main street of the biggest city in this country- where people live, work and congregate, especially at lunch hour.
It should be confined to a private area, like, oh i dont know, the show grounds. And you're bizarre arguments about privatising the roading network, or in fact all public space (as ridiculous and ignorant as they may be) are an irrelevant proposition to the here and now problem of this event occuring on public land.
You have all missed the point remarkably. If you are all so inflamed about it, then please at least allow those who wish to view it to also enjoy their freedom.
As it seems now, the event was pretty average and the publicity from all the ranting just added to the crowd numbers.
How sad, all this crying wolf when there are bigger and more important issues facing the world and you are all trying to stop a few people watching some tits.
No one was forced to watch anything on Queen st yesterday Anon so empty post.Its public land so theres the problem.Pornographers are rate payers too and therefore an equal right to "public" land.
And what was all the fuss about? On the news it showed plenty of consenting adults enjoying the show and no ones rights being vilolated.The sexually insecure protesting the event got their eyeful too no doubt to "enjoy at home" once alone and out of sight of their pious friends.
James mate, anons impression of private land is that whatever he believes in rather than commonsense.
I didn't see anyone forced to view or participate in this show. Again I ask - why the fuss?
way to address my points heine. High five.
I didnt know you associated with racists? Interesting...
Anal...are you still at it?....geez! ;-) When I get my white sheet back from the cleaners theres gonna be a burning cross in your front yard yessirre!!! LOL.
Post a Comment