Conflict of the commons... again

That is how to explain the conflict reported in Sunday News between street prostitutes and “The Papatoetoe Community Patrol”. It is as simple as that.

You see, the streets are owned by Manukau City Council, paid for by all ratepayers and by motorists. "The Papatoetoe Community Patrol" does not own them, neither do the street prostitutes, so whilst the streets and footpaths remain in “public ownership”, neither has any less right to be there.

From the perspective of private property rights, I do not have a problem with the street prostitutes plying their trade, but also not "The Papatoetoe Community Patrol" using persuasion to discourage people from being customers or sex workers. As long as no violence or threats of violence, against people or property as used, then let it be.

Now I find taking number plates to make use of the lack of privacy in the Motor Vehicle Registry to send letters to customers is rather nasty, a nosy finger pointing judgmentalism that some people don’t live their lives the way a “holier than thou” group does – or thinks it does. After all, far too often are groups of judgmental people populated by those with their own embarrassing secrets. It smacks of the Stasi in East Germany, snooping who pry on everything everyone does, but it can go both ways – prostitutes and their customers could always take photos of the patrol, or find ways to thwart them. Each to their own of course.

Nevertheless my point is simple. Privately owned footpaths would offer the opportunity to resolve this. For example, if you owned the footpath outside your property you could ban or allow any legal activity. A body corporate owning a whole street could do the same.

However, whilst it remains “public”, this sort of problem will remain. Different members of the public want to do different things in public places that do not involve initiation of force.

You can be certain that an extrem großen stadt for Auckland wouldn’t dare think of allowing property owners to take responsibility for their footpaths, in exchange for a reduction in rates. If all of the footpaths of a shopping district were owned by a body corporate they could happily ban street prostitution, or allow it. However, given what little interest this government has shown so far in protecting private property rights, I don't hold great hope for any significant change.

The Pope's reckless stupidity

Following on from the Pope's pre-Christmas statement that humanity needs "saving" from homosexuals because "a blurring of the distinction between male and female could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race" (which apparently hasn't happened for countless other species where homosexual behaviour is observed). The "God given" variations in hormones and behaviour of human beings apparently should mean a whole segment of humanity should deny who they are because of a powerful celibate self sacrificing man.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the Pope is now saying HIV "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

The absence of logic is astonishing.

You may as well say that using condoms makes the likelihood of pregnancy higher.

The simple mathematical truth is that near universal condom use would dramatically contain the spread of HIV. It would NOT eliminate it, but by dramatically cutting the rate of transmission it will reduce it. After all, this is in part what happened among homosexual men in the Western world. Partly promiscuity reduced, but predominantly condom use became the norm - the rate of transmission reduced significantly.

To say it aggravate the problem is an utter lie, a reckless misnomer that will result in people having unprotected sex because they'll say "condoms make it worse".

He, no doubt thinks, that it is better people abstain from sex, with the threat of HIV being the incentive to abstain. He also probably thinks that the existence of condoms makes it more likely people will have sex, and more likely HIV will be transmitted.

So let's look at the scenarios behind his statement. Assume there are 100,000 in a country who are sexually mature and unmarried, let's assume 15% of those have HIV, so 15,000 are already infected (about the rate in South Africa). Of them, one third are undiagnosed. The scenarios below are rough mathematically, as I haven't exponentially included the chain effect of passing on the virus, but you should get the idea:

Scenario 1: Pope's ideal: All abstain from sex, except after marriage. Assume over 5 years half marry. So 50,000 marry. Of them 15% of the people in those marriages have HIV, of whom one third don't know. It takes 14 acts of intercourse for ALL those married to someone with HIV to be statistically certain of infection. The odds are that married couples will achieve this in 2-3 weeks and may produce children, also infected.

Scenario 2: Pope's policy, promiscuous lifestyle: All have sex with 5 partners over this period, on average 20 times with each person (sex once a fortnight). Those knowingly with HIV restrict this to 2. Odds are that over half of the population have sex with an infected person, and that there is a near certain chance of infection. Around 40,000 get infected. This is given that the rate of HIV infection for unprotected sex is 7%.

Scenario 3: 100% condom use, promiscuous lifestyle: As scenario 2, but all encounters involve a condom. According to a report by the National Institutes of Health (USA) condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 87% (to 0.9%). As a result, while over half the population STILL has sex with an infected person, the odds of infection have dropped from virtually 100% (20 encounters with 7% chance each time), to 18%. Around 15,300 get infected.

Scenario 4: 100% condom use, half marry rest abstain: As scenario 1, but all who are married use condoms. 50,000 married, 15% married to people infected, but it takes them to have sex 111 times in that period before they statistically are all infected, a period of perhaps 6 months, during which HIV testing would have been available to them both easily.

My point is simple. Condoms reduce the incidence of HIV transmission. It works for people who are promiscuous and those who are not. Unless, the Pope wants everyone with HIV to remain unmarried.

It is sheer reckless stupidity, which barely shields the suffering Augustine ascetism of the Vatican. The Pope is either ignorant or would rather more Africans caught HIV as "punishment" for not following the church's teachings than they use simple proven technology to prevent disease transmission.

My problem is, it isn't clear which one it is, or whether it is actually both.

(As an aside, what I'd really like to know is why the church remains obsessed with sex (I can make some psychological assumptions) provisions in the Old Testament, but not those related to shellfish, hair and the like. My first guess is that if we all treated shellfish eating as a hedonistic pleasure, and sex as mundane and uninteresting as breathing, it may be different - it's about sacrifice, denial and suffering).

Kids having kids?

The Press is reporting that more boys under 15 are becoming dads.

That means either:
- There is a bubble of boys of the pubescent-15 demographic, so it is a statistical blip; OR
- Boys are hornier and more capable of seduction than they used to be; AND
- Girls are hornier and more willing now than they used to be; AND
- Both are getting more stupid and irresponsible.

However while Social Development Minister Paula Bennett expresses concern that:

“Children having sex under the age of 16 aren't emotionally or physically ready, and they certainly aren't emotionally or physically ready to be having babies”

She's half wrong. While not being emotionally ready is in most cases correct, if they weren't physically ready there presumably wouldn't be a problem would there?

It's just that the creation of childhood and education in the past century and a half (and the vast extension of life expectancy) has delayed when it is generally seen as best to have children. However, the physical capability to breed hasn't been delayed. If anything, improvements in nutrition have been accelerating it!

Sluttiest land in the west?

Yep I'm in it. The UK according to an AAP report in the NZ Herald.

The study by Bradley University Illinois reports:

"An international index measuring one-night stands, total numbers of partners and attitudes to casual sex also put Britain ahead of second-placed Germany, with the Netherlands third, the Czech Republic fourth and the US sixth.

Researchers behind the study say high scores such as Britain's may be linked to society's increasing willingness to accept sexual promiscuity among women as well as men."

So when your son or daughter embarks on the great kiwi OE to the UK they may be in for a a bit more than sightseeing, although perhaps if they could throw together some rude phrases in Finnish going there could have more success on that front as:

"The country with the highest average score was Finland, while Taiwan had the lowest." in terms of how sexually liberal people are in thought and behaviour.

That itself is telling. If there is some truth to this, is Finland swimming in a morass of social problems any worse than many others? It has the third highest per capita reported crime figures in the world (don't be cocky, New Zealand is second) according to the UN, which of course shows that Yemen, South Africa and Zimbabwe are all safer - which of course may simply reflect that most in those countries never bother reporting. It does top suicide stats, which is interesting and sad (but may also reflect the latitude, with very long dark winters). Its high stats for rape may reflect higher levels of reporting (who can know) in a culture that is quite liberal towards women.

and Taiwan the most conservative? Hmmm.

Catholic school apparently bans cervical cancer vaccine

A Roman Catholic high school in Bury, Greater Manchester, has decided to not permit its students to be vaccinated against the papilloma virus on its premises. Now the report (from the Manchester Evening News) is purely about a letter, not yet sent to parents, about the decision, and nobody from the school has commented directly on the report, so it is only preliminary.

Now I would defend, vehemently, the right of the school to make this decision. It is the school's property, and parents have the choice whether or not to send their daughters to the school. Furthermore, as the vaccine is taxpayer funded, there should be other options to obtain the vaccination if parents so choose. I do not object to the right to withhold it. This is a libertarian stance - asserting private property rights.

However, as an objectivist, I find the stance itself based on irrational and immoral grounds. It has been reported that the letter announcing the reasons for withholding permission
"points out that the vaccine protects against only 70 per cent of cervical cancers, and gives details of possible side-effects to the jab".

Only 70%!! As opposed to all those vaccinations derived from the Vatican, which has done wonders in fighting cancer over the years. Now the side effects are logical to advise about, but that should then be a question of rational trade off.

The real problem the school has is with sex. "Morally it seems to be a sticking plaster response. Parents must consider the knock-on effect of encouraging sexual promiscuity. Instead of taking it for granted that teenagers will engage in sexual activity, we can offer a vision of a full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage".

So dramatically reducing the risk of a cancer that at best could mean a lengthy period of medical treatment, at worse death, is "encouraging sexual promiscuity". Well then by extension there should be NO vaccinations, indeed there shouldn't even be any drugs or treatment for people with STDs or HIV should there? The threat of cancer discourages sexual promiscuity.

So presumably the school and the church regards those girls who get cervical cancer as sinful, and deserving of their fate - because after all, they should have not sinned because, somehow, that protects you completely from the papilloma virus and cervical cancer. As usual, the wisdom of celibate men on these matters

Is anyone delivering the message that "get this vaccine and you can shag without protection happily"? Of course not. The message is more a case of, here is a vaccine that could possibly save your life. Nobody is saying that the risk of pregnancy has gone or the risk of HIV or other STDs. Who thinks that girls go "hold it, I might get the papilloma virus, I will wait till I'm married". Most who do wait do so for a host of reasons which are emotional and rational, none of which celibate men are really in a place to understand well. Much as they understand a "full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage" - an ideal I think is rather lovely, if it is sustained genuinely rather than by altruistic sacrifice.

However it is more serious than that. Women can get cervical cancer from the papilloma virus without having been sexually promiscuous. Indeed people can get HIV without having been sexually promiscious as well. Yet the school, and by implication the Roman Catholic Church cares not about that. Death apparently isn't so important that the achievements of medical science should be as widely available as possible to delay it.

Moral? Hardly. It is one thing to frighten young girls into fearing an eternity of agony and damnation if they dare wander off a certain path, it is another to deliberately deny them a means to prevent the onset of a fatal disease, so that the threat of that disease can be hanging over them if they wander off that path. So not only do they risk being punished in this life, but having that life shortened as well.

The school has every right to do this, but that does not make it immune from criticism for its apparent motives.

Oral sex speculation

What do you do when you want to make up a story - find a paper at a Sexual Health Congress (obvious joke for the more well read in that phrase) about oral sex.

However, it has never been "the exclusive domain of sex workers".

Most survey results are rather what people are willing to say rather than what happens, and moreso who knows what happened in the past?

It has never been illegal in New Zealand between women and between women and men. It is naturally a matter of personal choice and taste, very intimate, with one less obvious danger for women.

Thankfully politics can stay well out of it, but it is remarkable how it has become de riguer culturally. I can only hope that it is indulged in out of desire and passion rather than a sense of "I'm expected to do this".

Why the Family Party is just so wrong

From a press release:

"Family Party Candidate for Northland, Melanie Taylor, is concerned over The Edge FM competition being held nationwide at 4.30pm today.

The station is encouraging girls to publicly kiss for about 20 seconds, with one girl/girl couple winning a trip to Melbourne to see Katy Perry, singer of the hit song "I kissed a girl and I liked it."

This follows this report in the Press about the contest.

Shouldn't the Family Party care about actions where people really get hurt?

No it shows itself to be oppressed, shame filled and judgmental.

Some simple points:

1. It is not a crime for two girls to kiss in New Zealand, never had been. It is not sex. It is not dirty, it is an expression of affection and love.

2. Most men (especially when you exclude gay men) and quite a few women like it. If you don't, then look away.

3. Why do you think it is acceptable for young children to be smacked in public but not for young women to kiss in public?

4. Many families believe that kissing is acceptable and positive, just because you teach that it is shameful and that children should grow up feeling shame about their bodies, doesn't mean the rest of us should buy into this abusive philosophy.

Leave peaceful people alone, let women snog in public and get concerned about something that hurts people you busybody ayatallohs!

Bravery from gay pupils

The Dominion Post has reported how some gay high school pupils are being prohibited from attending school balls, unless they "unless they sign contracts confirming they are homosexual" according to an organisation called Rainbow Youth.

Frankly the mere fact that there are some gay high school pupils willing to be "out" in the media is itself an act of bravery, and a significant step forward from a generation ago. That should be a reason for all lovers of freedom to celebrate - young people should not be scared to be who they are.

Now the article itself is lazy journalism (and some journalists think bloggers are "light") as it interviews not one school principal about its policies, so there hasn't been a chance to determine what school policies actually are - simply what a lobby group says (it may be right or wrong, but it is wrong to not check with some schools as to what their views are). However it is wrong for the Human Rights Commission to be involved. This should be a matter between pupils, schools, parents and others who wish to make their points of view heard.

My view is schools should be open, and frankly let pupils bring whoever they wish as long as they do not pose a risk to others. The sex of a partner should be irrelevant. Independent schools have the choice to make their own decisions on this - as any private institutions should. That doesn't mean that they would be right in being bigoted on this, but it should be their choice. State schools should not have that choice at all - the state should not be bigoted.

So I offer my support to pupils who seek to end such bigotry, good for you. I'm not gay, but I remember chillingly the bigotry in the mid 1980s when the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was being put through Parliament. Those who opposed that were nasty vile filthy bigots. Teenage years are difficult ones as it is, without people threatening or judging you for what are harmless feelings.

Promiscuous Girlz lucky?

Has any brothel had so much publicity before its opening? Well the appropriately white trash sounding "Promiscuous Girlz" brothel in Dannevirke can hardly say it hasn't had enough publicity. According to the Dominion Post it is now open for those who care to pay for carnal stimulation.

My view on this is fairly straightforward. It isn't up to the state to judge those who choose to sell services using their bodies and those who choose to purchase such services. It is up to the state to protect those forced into providing such services - less of a problem in NZ than in Europe, where trafficking in women is serious and tragic. The film Lilya 4-ever is a tragic story of a girl trafficked from Russia to Sweden and forced to be a prostitute. This is where the criminal justice system and those concerned about prostitution should focus their top priority - underage girls being forced into this trade, which of course remains illegal.

However, one cannot help but wonder what brings women (and men) to enter into this business. For many of us it seems inconceivable to be paid to have sex with strangers that, otherwise, you wouldn't go near. For many it is undoubtedly the attraction of being relatively well paid, that becomes the focus. For some this is seen to be necessary to support a drug habit, which itself is perhaps more expensive and risky that it may otherwise be if it were not illegal, but I digress. A few may well enjoy it, Xavier Hollander has written extensively about how she enjoyed being a prostitute - she's not the only one. There are genuine concerns that it is a business that seriously affects ones own esteem and sense of life. The truth is that it varies - I can't say, nor can you, nor the Police, nor the state, nor a church. That is why this profession will always be a choice for some.

It is perhaps better instead of judging all prostitutes, to not judge, but to consider those who DO ask for help, who are in need. The best way those who despise prostitution can help is to be active in helping women (and men) who are prostitutes out of desperation and abuse. Sadly I see precious little of that from the noisy opponents who would prefer them to be incarcerated.

The flipside is the demand. Why do people (predominantly men) buy sex? Again, the reasons will vary. Many undoubtedly do so out of sheer convenience and because they value that over the two obvious options - seduction of the unpaid and masturbation. The former they may not choose because of time (it takes time to find someone willing), poor self-esteem (which may be based on imagined or a fair perception of their own attractiveness) or their own preferences (may be difficult to find someone to meet their kinks). The latter because it is typically an inferior experience to actually being with someone. It may also be simple loneliness.

Yes many who procure sex are married, or with partners. That's their lie to their partner, it's something they risk, and it is between them. The state doesn't patrol marital fidelity - well outside Saudi Arabia and Iran.

"Promiscuous Girlz" will rise or fall on its customers (yes yes I know!). Those who wish to protest it, boycott it or oppose it can do so. However, if you want to know what workers and clients are motivated by, ask them -you might be told where to stick your nose, but that's the only way you're going to ever know. As long as peaceful people choose to buy and sell sex then it will remain a curiosity, and for some involved it is sad and unfortunate, for others a delight. I haven't ever bought or sold sex, but I'm not so hasty to judge all those who have.

Something rather vile about this "purity"

For some time in the US, there has been a strong campaign by the Christian right to promote sexual abstinence among young people. Naturally, each to their own, and certainly abstinence is an option and choice.

However this report in Time has some rather disturbing overtones, overtones that at best smack of a pre-modern patriarchal ownership of daughter's bodies by their fathers, at worst a suppressed form of incestual slavery.

The Father-Daughter Purity Ball has girls as young as 4 engaging in dinner, dancing and testimony about the "pure life". 4??? What sort of psychological abuse is this that a little girl has to promise to her daddy to be a good girl?

The story of Kylie Miraldi, now 18, tells much of what this is all about:

"When Kylie was 13, her parents took her on a hike in Lake Tahoe, Calif. "We discussed what it means to be a teenager in today's world," she says. They gave her a charm for her bracelet--a lock in the shape of a heart. Her father has the key. "On my wedding day, he'll give it to my husband," she explains. "It's a symbol of my father giving up the covering of my heart, protecting me, since it means my husband is now the protector. He becomes like the shield to my heart, to love me as I'm supposed to be loved.""

So her heart is protected by her father (not mother no, and she can't be trusted herself can she?) until he decides it is ok to give it to her husband. Feminism anywhere? No. Like a piece of property this girl passes from father to husband.

Now I'm never going to decry the importance of fathers for daughters, or mothers for sons and vice versa. That is something sometimes ignored. However, for fathers to promise "before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the areas of purity,"raises many questions:

What if your daughter prefers girls?
What do you do if she disobeys?
Where does she go if dad disobeys?

Yes it is one thing for girls to grow up safe, secure, confident and happy, but another to do so only in the shadow of a parent who implicitly owns their body until authorising it to be offered to another man.

So when you vote Labour will it include him?

Many of us wont forget Labour list MP Ashraf Choudhary having been quoted as saying that it is ok for gay people to be stoned to death in other countries (not New Zealand) according to the Koran. According to the New Zealand Herald, three years ago:

*

"Mr Choudhary was asked: "Are you saying the Koran is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death?" He replied: " No, no. Certainly what the Koran says is correct. "In those societies, not here in New Zealand," he added. "

*

It would be worth asking what his view is today. If he wont address it or change it, then you'll find that voting Labour for your party vote endorses Ashraf Choudhary being in Parliament. I might wonder if Rainbow Labour members like having in the Labour caucus an MP who wont condemn the murder of gay people in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia?

*

Voters deserve clarification from Mr Choudhary - it isn't Islamophobia, it isn't racism, it is whether this man actually believes in what are fundamental values of a liberal Western democracy. If not, Labour should expel him from its list, and if Labour wont, it doesn't deserve a single vote from a gay person or anyone who is appalled by the treatment of gay people in some predominantly Islamic states. Even the Family Party wouldn't be this callous.

Are your kids on Adultfriendfinder?

Ok Stuff reports that a man is in prison for having sex with three underage girls, 2 were 14, 1 was 12. However check this out:
.
"Davidson initiated contact with the girls through internet websites AdultFriend Finder and Bebo, and by using MSN, email, and text messaging after the initial contact."
.
Now the risks of Bebo as a social networking site for young girls are well known, but Adultfriendfinder? What's that then? Well it is a website for adults that want to meet to have a sexual relationship "The World's Largest Sex & Swinger Personals Community" it claims. It asks that all members declare their birthday as it requires that all of its members be 18 or over. Now Adultfriendfinder is free, but as with many such sites you can't do much without having paid membership. For starters you can't see anyone's photos, and you can only send messages to other members if you are very popular or if a paid member has paid to allow standard members to contact them.
.
Hmmm, so presumably at least one of these girls of 14, pretended to be 18 on her profile and while posting her picture online couldn't view others. What's that about? Not so innocent? Adultfriendfinder is a blocked site listed with several well known parental control software suppliers, presumably the girl's parents didn't care where she went online.
.
Does it justify his foolishness? No, although unless she confessed early on about age, he could well have believed she was 18 as, after all, her profile would have to say that. Adultfriendfinder vets profiles before they are posted too, to avoid the "claim 18 but say I'm younger in the profile" problem, so she must have told him at some point after he started contact.

.
So when a 57 year old man find a girl who says she is 18 on an adult contact site, and she's your daughter 14 - you might ask yourself what you did to prevent her going where she shouldn't go, and don't blame the state.
.
UPDATE: It is notable that the NZ Herald never mentioned Adultfriendfinder, but did mention the girls pretended to be 18 and 16 online. However, it is an offence to sexually groom those underage even if you don't know they are (which he did when he met them), interesting thought crime that one is.

Sudan – kinder on bestiality than NZ

Whilst you would question whether women and children get much recognition for individual rights in Sudan, a BBC report suggests there is less question that zoophiles have far superior individual rights there than in New Zealand.

In New Zealand if you did what Mr Tombe did to Mr Alifi’s goat, you’d end up in prison. In Sudan you are made to marry the goat and pay a dowry.

In a case that, to be fair is actually about conversion of property, the man caught fornicating (a word some Christians say with the passion of a pervert) with a goat was told as he used it “like a wife” he should marry it such.

Given the owner was happy with the outcome, there is no reason to take this further. Certainly this is far more enlightened than the NZ way of incarcerating someone because it offends and upsets people. The very same people who in many cases would happily have the milk molested to provide milk for them! Of course getting oral pleasure from the bodily fluids of a goat is acceptable in one sense.

A mate and his girlfriend are having sex

Do you:

a) Watch

b) Not Watch

~

so says an interactive DVD produced for AFL players to improve their attitudes to women according to the NZ Herald. Of course it left out:

~

c) Offer to join in to double team her

d) Ask her if she's bi and you can bring your girlfriend over for an orgy

.

Both being quite legitimate options if they all consent. Similarly with the question:

.

You are called by a mate's girlfriend into her bedroom because she thinks you are her boyfriend.

.

Do you:
a - Go and hop into bed and pretend to be him.
b - Walk away.

.

Well hold on. Why not go, be yourself and see what she says. After all, what the hell are you doing at her house (or his house where she lives) and he isn't around? She might be keen for a shag anyway.

.

Poor lads, you can see them watching all confused, with questions like:

.

You are with a girl who has had too much to drink. Do you:
a - Get her some water.
b - Call her a taxi.
c - Take her back to your place for sex.

.

Watch the heads scratch when they wonder if this is a "place them in the right order" question, and wonder where the "is she hot" question gets answered. However, you can understand why it needs to be done. They are largely men full of testosterone and not a lot else, and surrounded by a culture whereby easy women hang off them, and they are bound to go for what they can.

.

I'm sure this will change things significantly hmmmm. Although is it not just enough to ask for them to not force themselves on women, and not take advantage of women who are unable to consent? Rather than roleplaying situations which are, frankly, not offering the more likely and adventurous options. After all, it is awfully sexist to assume only men have filthy minds, plenty of women I expect would happily consent to be gangbanged by AFL players!

Flashing for Hillary?

Hillary either hasn't a sense of humour, or didn't find the girl hot, or maybe she knows now this probably just happens to Obama?

Which US Presidential candidate will call THIS ridiculous?

Expelling good students from school for kissing on a bus. Video here of the news article.

The puritanism, the idea there is something immoral about two teenagers kissing in public. The Islamists are closer to how some Americans think than many will admit.

So what about the men?

Now this case of public group sex involving a teenage girl and several men, is likely to be associated with an earlier news item about an occurence of group sex between a teenage girl and several men on a hotel balcony in Christchurch - which still raises the question as to why SHE was charged, but nothing has been mentioned about the men involved.

She was convicted of theft, which is the only real crime here. The drugs were presumably not just about her, whereas the sex charge (indecency in a public place) is what the prurient media have latched onto.

Perhaps the men have been charged and convicted, or perhaps reporters are only interested in the words "teenage girl" and "groupsex" in the same phrase.

and on the name suppression, assuming there aren't two very similar cases, it really should have happened before Stuff published the girl's full name some months ago.

Such high standards.

Why is SHE being charged?

My most popular recent post has been about this woman (warning link from that post is NSFW), who engaged in group sex on a hotel balcony in Latimer Square Christchurch. All consensual of course, but for some reason she has been charged but none of the men involved have been?

^

Now, as I've said before the only crime really is trespass - if the hotel didn't want them all doing this, then they could have told them to leave, it was private property after all. However, it is an outrage that her name is plastered over the media, whilst those men who availed themselves of the openings that she offered are anonymous and don't face legal proceedings? After all "taking part in a 45-minute group-sex session one afternoon" didn't mean masturbation did it?

^

She was arrested last Friday breaching her bail conditions that she not go within 100m of Latimer Square, so what pervy cops were keeping such a close eye on a young woman who, presumably, means nobody any harm (indeed quite the opposite for some)?

^

So:

1. Why was she charged in the first place for doing an "indecent act" which actually is not an offence in and of itself, but is in a public place? Is the balcony of a hotel a private or a public place? Who forced anyone to look?

2. Given she has been charged, what of the the men involved? Are men immune from prosecution if they gangbang a willing teenager?

^

Finally, you might ask why the Police in Christchurch so eagerly jumped upon this case, so to speak, but will be apathetic about burglaries, car conversions and the like when there IS a victim.

^

Nice to know there is so little real crime in Christchurch.

Well I'm not judgmental....

but really, do the Police have nothing better to do than arrest this woman? Surely the hotel should simply have been let to assert its property rights if it was so offended, although it is a backpacker's

^

With such a name ****************** one can imagine that her family are mortified that their princess is such a hedonist, and an exhibitionist one at that. I wonder whocollege produced such an angel? Assuming she wasn't a foreign backpacker, clearly tis time for her to have her OE in England where her name will open doors, as long as her accent is sufficiently refined to not betray her antipodean heritage - and such hedonistic antics are par for the course, although more discreetly undertaken, albeit sometimes in unsavoury places with the suitably titled name of dogging.

^

I wont laugh at her bail condition of being banned from Latimer Square, but you do have to wonder how some of those involved in this case aren't simply jealous they weren't invited to join in (discreetly of course). Bob Jones in his book of around 30 years ago talked of a case whereby a judge and Crown prosecutor called naked photography of a young (legal age) lady obscene - and quite rightly remarked that many (male) judges and virtually all (male) lawyers would jump with both boots at the chance to be involved with such a thing, as long as others, especially wives/partners never found out. A female judge of course has looked after this case and should be suitably lenient. I mean we can't have public gangbangs on verandahs in Christchurch, it wouldn't suit those from FenDALton now would it?

^

UPDATE: Bloody 'ell, this post is so incredibly popular, so many of you dirty buggers out there wanting news about a public teenage gangbang in Christchurch. Of course she should be left alone, as should the men involved - up to her if she wants to be a horny hedonist. However, if you're all looking for something prurient then go to (NSFW, R18) here. Sheesh.

Or indeed, that this may be her career...

Those disgusted by sex are fascinated by it

It started with David Farrar's largely agreeable post about the Department of Internal Affairs supplying lists of known child porn websites to NZ ISPs so they can block access to them. In and of itself this is fine, although the law as it is makes it illegal for anyone to check what this covers - as you risk prosecution yourself. Indeed, censorship laws are strict liability - you can break them without even intending to do so, but I digress.

^

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (it even has a blog) has for many many years been at the forefront of advocating the prohibition of any form of publications that depict sexuality or nudity. It is dominated by fundamentalist Christians, has a clear anti-homosexual bent (having waged a campaign against Chief Censor Bill Hastings because of his sexuality showing not the slightest respect for his privacy), and responded to the Kiwiblog post. Not only does it want all "objectionable" content blocked on the internet (which given that NZ bans content which is legal in the USA, most of Europe and Japan, would be an enormous and almost futile task), but it called for:

^

"all New Zealand ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to block ALL overseas based websites that host child pornography AND hard core pornography (NZ-based websites containing “objectionable content” including child porn are illegal under NZ censorship laws)."

^

Hardcore pornography is more than that of course. Material depicting BDSM, groupsex and all sorts of adult consensual fetishes is clearly hardcore. However, objectionable content includes urophilia under the law - which is not an illegal practice. It is not a crime to use urine for sexual purposes, but inexplicably it is a crime to photograph or own a photograph of people doing so.

^

Of course SPCS has a curious view of those who reject this. We're all perverts, but check out the language used - it's almost rabid in a certain obsession about homosexuality:

^

"Gay rights activists, paedophiles, homosexuals wanting to ‘hook up’ with underage school boys or view ‘bare-backing’ films, those addicted to hardcore pornography and all those who make a living from marketing such moral filth, have rubbished the Society’s call for the implementation of such controls to prevent injury to the “public good”."

^

I'm none of those.

^

Libertarianz presented a submission on the censorship laws calling for, at the very least, the laws to only prohibit material which was produced through the commission of a criminal act. In other words, if someone was being murdered, raped, sexually abused and being filmed in the act, then it would be an objectionable publication. However, if people were engaging in consentual legal acts, it is absolutely absurd for it to be a crime to film them or even write an account of what they were doing.

^

You see, it is crime to even possess an erotic story about watersports in New Zealand. It is not in the USA, and it would take little for anyone to find hundreds of such stories. I don't care for watersports myself, but there is something inherently vile about people risking police action because they read a story about something they can legally do!

^

So I responded to the SPCS response with my own concern that proposing child porn sites to be banned is one thing, but extending to all objectionable categories is another - and that SPCS has another agenda. It frankly finds any depictions of nudity and sexuality to be offensive. I simply believe that it is absurd that NZ censorship law bans publications of acts that are legal for adults to participate in. That's my point pure and simple.

^

So SPCS went on its long tirade, talking about "rimming" and "So-called “sexual fetish material” (DVDs, videos etc) involving urination (referred to as “water sports in hardcore porn publications) is imported into New Zealand by homosexuals and other sexual pervets (many heterosexual) via the internet." SPCS knows a lot about pornography, odd for a group which hates it so much. Check out the descriptions in this post. SPCS wondered at my motivation, implying that i might sell porn or get off on watersports. Sorry to disappoint guys, I'm not as obsessed with it as you are - I don't sell porn, and watersports aren't my thing, and I'm not gay. I believe in freedom - you know, leaving peaceful adults to get on with their lives, and not having a psychotic obsession with what other people do with their bodies?

^

SPCS, with some cheerleading from NZ First, would probably imprison homosexuals, would probably cheerlead on the banning of all erotic material visual and written, and would encourage the spread of their own bigotry against those who have a different view of how they want to use their own bodies sexually. I simply want consenting adults to have freedom.