Thursday, August 14, 2008

Breasts offensive?

It will be a fine day in New Zealand when city councillors find their own enthusiastic willingness to makes other people pay for projects that people wouldn’t choose to pay out of their own pocket more offensive than women showing their breasts in public.

Trying to prosecute women exposing a part of their body which should not be seen as offensive (they feed children and please many men, and some women) is simply fascist. It is curious that the feminist left (in the form of the bizarre councillor Cathy Casey) and the conservative right both think womens' breasts are so appalling that it should be a crime to show them - like the Taliban and Iranian mullahs think of breasts.

The NZ Herald reports: Ms Casey is also threatening to lie across Queen St with friends to stop the parade.

I don't want to see this parade, but Ms. Casey? Get a real job - who gives a rat's arse if you are offended by breasts, how can you possibly bathe everyday seeing such offensive parts of your body? Leave peaceful people alone.

Family First National director Bob McCoskrie not to be outdone says it is "sexualised nudity in a public street that is offensive to many people and completely inappropriate for young people and children to view"

What this means is that it risks turning him on. Bob, your organisation is offensive to many people too, should we ban it? Breasts seem to be ok to feed babies from, but you don't want to explain to young people that there are part of women's bodies and what their purpose is?

Of course, it's the best publicity Steve Crow could ask for, it makes it far more interesting to people than it would be otherwise. After all if bare breasts were not an issue in New Zealand culture, then it wouldn't have the potency that it currently does. My suggestion to those who find it offensive is simple - don't go.

10 comments:

Sus said...

"My suggestion to those who find it offensive is simple ... don't go."

But it's not that simple, Scott.

What of those who are required to be in the area, eg their workplace, and don't like it?

What of those who have, say, young children attend school in the area and don't wish to have them exposed to the parade?

As ratepayers, they are having their rights ignored.

I know the solution of property rights' implementation would immediately address the problem; (that's a given & I know that you know that); but we're miles away from that.

The thought of having to be near gross, salivating old guys .. especially those from repressive countries who'd use force against their female relatives for a fraction of the exposition .. turns my stomach.

Fortunately, I'll be an hour away from it so it won't be my problem. But theoretically, under our current system, why should somebody opposed have *their* wishes overridden?

The ex-expat said...

As a hetroxsexual woman, my objection to the parade isn't the breasts on display but the lack of man candy for me to perve at since the guys driving the bikes are always old and ugly.

Sus said...

Love it! :)

James said...

How come its nearly always Women and the odd girly man that gets all haughty about Women CHOSSING to bear their breasts? What happened to Womens lib?

As already mentioned its the absense of private property rights that cause this sort of conflict."Public" lands are just a timebomb waiting to go off....over and over again.

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

I have to say it is good of the Auckland Council to continue their support of the Boobs on Bikes parade with all the free advertising.

When Hubbard first raised a stink in 2006 the streets were packed with red blooded males keen to express their eager support for "Freedom of Expression" (and Boobs). The crowd turnout was great because I thought Helen Clark had managed to kill off the New Zealand male's ability to demonstrate any kind of masculine trait whatsoever. That day I realised the sisterhood wasn't as powerful as I had previously perceived. It was a rare ray of sunshine in an otherwise blighted land.

Sus said...

James's second paragraph says it all.

But my three questions remain unanswered.

SimonNZ said...

Steve Crow is a tool but a wonderful publicist. It always makes me smile that the hand-wringing, moral guardian PC police of both the 'lezzo' left and the child molesting Christian right (Graham Capill take bow)do all his promotional work for free, every year.

I personally am not that interested in going to watch a bunch of 'D'grade porn stars getting their 'plastic fantastics' out, but will still be able to sleep OK knowing the damage they'll do to the moral fabric of New Zealand society will be fairly minimal.

Please, please can Cathy Casey and her mates come good on their promise to lie across the road. That would be too good too miss! The cherry on top would be if the bikes just kept on going sending Cathy & Co to martyrdom and saving the ratepayers of Auckland City the cost of another useless councillor's salary......

ZenTiger said...

How come its nearly always Women and the odd girly man that gets all haughty about Women CHOSSING to bear their breasts? What happened to Womens lib?

Women with Big Breasts might have to bear them James, but that's not important right now. I thought we were talking about those that wanted to bare them?

I don't accept the comment that it's best not to protest so that publicity is avoided, because that's just another way of shutting down peaceful disagreement. The point is to raise awareness in the public, even if the event gets more publicity because the issue might become more important to those prepared to watch standards subside.

Given that many of the same people protesting about Boobs on Bikes also support breast feeding in public, maybe you could acknowledge that this is a different issue to mere wowserism.

Whilst a parade of dirty old men in raincoats that hung open in the worst possible way probably wouldn't get a large crowd, there might be agreement that such behaviour was not ideal in a public place.

James suggests the issue is that we have public places to begin with. That is a very warped way of looking at it. The BOB parade is only to advertise porn product, and advertising it in non public places wasn't getting the attention they needed, so they deliberately sought public places to run their campaign.

This is not an issue of freedom, its an issue of advertising standards.

Removing freedoms by selling public land is not a solution.

Sus said...

"Removing freedoms by selling public land is not a solution".

?

Wrong way round, don't you think, Zen? By placing public land in private hands, thereby returning monies paid (many times over in fact) to ratepayers and getting rid of council nazis in one deliciously fell swoop, it becomes a property rights issue.

Which body corporates the civilised world over deal successfully with every day.

Stop doing the Greenie trick of automatically thinking the worst of everybody, Zen! Heavens .. you're guilty of sounding like an interfering old .. well, "do as I say because I know best" conservative/Bradford cross! Urghh! :)

Have faith, Zen! The Queen St body corporate might just share your views & vote *against* a BOB parade!

Property rights: *always* the solution.

ZenTiger said...

Property rights are only a solution for protecting existing property from others. That doesn't mean its without its flaws.

Given that the State doesn't pay much attention to its citizens, why not imagine that it actually owns and controls public lands, and the taxes it charges and the rules it sets are your condition of entry to the "public lands".

Now, you should just sit back and let them exercise their rights to dictate the costs of providing you with limited access.

That's property rights for you. Enjoy!