(09) Pornstars to march down Queen St in protest

[cyc]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnews...ection=general

Five foreign porn performers plan to ride topless down Auckland's main street tomorrow in a lunchtime protest against New Zealand's nudity laws.

Protest organisers say the present situation is unfair in that men can bare their chests in public, but exposure of the female breast is deemed objectionable or obscene.

P-B, come up to Auckland and support them!

[Phantom]

Someone digicam and get those biatches on fark

[cyc]

MAKE SURE THEY ARE UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL!

[Deff]

Queen Street? WTF!?!?!?!

Should be marching Great South baby!

[cyc]

Originally posted by Death
Queen Street? WTF!?!?!?!

Should be marching Great South baby!

They know you work around there. Wouldn't want you to grope them!

[Uncle Gus]

Ridiculous. "Women should be allowed to bare their chests because men and women are exactly the same!"

This is why I can't fucken stand political "correctness." People are DIFFERENT. When will people just accept this?

[cyc]

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
Ridiculous. "Women should be allowed to bare their chests because men and women are exactly the same!"

This is why I can't fucken stand political "correctness." People are DIFFERENT. When will people just accept this?

What a load of useless horseshit. Seriously, engage the brain before posting next time. Blindly making "BS PINK THINK" styled mating calls isn't intelligent.

Being different doesn't by itself justify different treatment. The issue really should be whether the fact that women have perky breasts (in general) means that it should be objectionable for a woman to bare her breasts in public?

Put another way, is there any material MORAL difference that justifies holding women exposing their breasts objectionable? Does the fact that "many of us" (apparently) find something objectionable constitute an adequate ground to seriously curtail another's freedom? Heck, "many of us" not too long ago held that any literature which was "against God" to be objectionable and those who wrote such things really copped it. Many people used to believe that women were not persons. Clearly, that "many find this objectionable" or "they are just different" are not good reasons for maintaining the current state of affairs.

Don't forget that such laws against women often have a rather dirty history. Laws like these have their origins in ideas such as "women as chattels" and often postulate rubbish ideas that evil women just love to titillate us good men. Lastly, someone's physical characteristics is an entirely morally arbitrary factor, as it is entirely out of their control. So, why let those with a flat chest (ie men) bare their breasts while denying women such freedom?

[Cookie]

NZ Nudity laws aren't as bad as Melbourne's. They should protest here...
Its illegal to BREASTFEED in public here, incase some poor innocent catches a glimpse of a boob and it scars them for life....

[sidbo]

Pick me up on ya way past...

[Heyzoos]

Originally posted by cyc
What a load of useless horseshit. Seriously, engage the brain before posting next time. Blindly making "BS PINK THINK" styled mating calls isn't intelligent.

Being different doesn't by itself justify different treatment. The issue really should be whether the fact that women have perky breasts (in general) means that it should be objectionable for a woman to bare her breasts in public?

Put another way, is there any material MORAL difference that justifies holding women exposing their breasts objectionable? Does the fact that "many of us" (apparently) find something objectionable constitute an adequate ground to seriously curtail another's freedom? Heck, "many of us" not too long ago held that any literature which was "against God" to be objectionable and those who wrote such things really copped it. Many people used to believe that women were not persons. Clearly, that "many find this objectionable" or "they are just different" are not good reasons for maintaining the current state of affairs.

Don't forget that such laws against women often have a rather dirty history. Laws like these have their origins in ideas such as "women as chattels" and often postulate rubbish ideas that evil women just love to titillate us good men. Lastly, someone's physical characteristics is an entirely morally arbitrary factor, as it is entirely out of their control. So, why let those with a flat chest (ie men) bare their breasts while denying women such freedom?

No offense cyc, but I just read your entire post and not only did I agree with every point, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[?>Superman]

Originally posted by cyc
What a load of useless horseshit. Seriously, engage the brain before posting next time. Blindly making "BS PINK THINK" styled mating calls isn't intelligent.

lol domination!

[Uncle Gus]

Originally posted by cyc
So, why let those with a flat chest (ie men) bare their breasts while denying women such freedom?

Because men are men and women are women. Men don't have breasts, women do. But you know, you're right. Why don't we all just walk around naked? After all, it should be my right to bare my genitals, yes?

[Cookie]

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
After all, it should be my right to bare my genitals, yes?

Especially around food preparation areas!

[Deff]

Originally posted by cyc
They know you work around there. Wouldn't want you to grope them!

You say that like groping is a bad thing?

[Painty]

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
Because men are men and women are women. Men don't have breasts, women do. But you know, you're right. Why don't we all just walk around naked? After all, it should be my right to bare my genitals, yes?

Actually you are wrong. Men do have breasts they just aren't the perky type.

Believe it or not, Guys can and do get breast cancer

[Uncle Gus]

Alright, fine. So maybe no one should bare their chests at all.

[Heyzoos]

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
Alright, fine. So maybe no one should bare their chests at all.

I take it you're not a fan of 'Girls Gone Wild'?

[cyc]

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
Because men are men and women are women. Men don't have breasts, women do. But you know, you're right. Why don't we all just walk around naked? After all, it should be my right to bare my genitals, yes?

Ha, I KNEW you would go and make the spurrious "So, you approve of public nudity?" move!

Just to make things clear for you, you ain't got a chance to get me with your points. TRY HARDER. The material moral difference between, say, allowing women to bare their breasts and disallowing public nudity can include the following:

(1) There are health risks associated with people who are completely nude having their genitals directly make contact with chairs and benches etc that other members of the public might use and touch;

(2) Complete nudity isn't a very bright idea during the summer, as it exposes the individual to serious health risks; and

(3) The harms produced by allowing people to roam around naked would greatly override the benefits gained.

Few of us would genuinely be interested in being completely naked on Queen St, but quite a few women wouldn't mind sunbathing topless. But the latter group can't do it, because the law said so. Moreover, if we allow nudists to freely roam around, it will likly damage our international reputation and affect tourist numbers. Before you feel tempted to jump uup and down thinking you've got me on something, I ain't actually saying that merely because few of us are interested in something, we are justified in banning it. Read on to see the significance of that point.

Also, you might be tempted to say "Wait, aren't you allowing the tourists' feeling of offence to figure in the calculations, when you had explicitly denouced that as a ground for consideration earlier!"... just wait. The difference here is that the tourists' offence is an indirect factor of consideration. The thing that's really doing the work is the prejudicing of the interest of shops catering to tourists, eating places and coach companies etc that end up losing business because we had to facilitate some minority "concern" which is demonstrably harmful to "innocents". The harm here is measurable, not just some "Euuuuu... I don't like it!" crap.

Ground one here is concerned with not allowing one's actions to harm another, which is perfectly compatible with liberal political theory. Ground two is similar to laws requiring you to wear a seatbelt on paternalist grounds. The final ground, which involves balancing the harm produced (ie prejudicial effect on businesses etc) with gains made by a policy decision, is a classical public policy consideration. So, as you should be able to see, that few of us want to roam around fully naked isn't by itself a prohibitory ground, but a relevant (but not decisive) factor of consideration.

Finally, men do have breasts. And you have yet to tell us why the difference in shape of the female breasts from those belonging to males means that it is morally appropriate to maintain the current state of affairs.

Originally posted by Heyzoos
No offense cyc, but I just read your entire post and not only did I agree with every point, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

WE CANNOT AGREE! OFFENCE TAKEN

Seriously, though, as nasty as I probably sounded in the last post, it wasn't a personal thing against Gus. But I am seriously tired of the "PC BS" line being trudged up whenever someone fails to have something useful to say. More importantly (and I think this is relevant to those Treaty threads also), people need to seriously ask themselves what they consider to be morally relevant and useful grounds for moral deliberation. Crying out loud about people calling for identical treatment, only because the parties happen to be physically different, isn't particularly smart.

[Uncle Gus]

I wasn't bringng up PC as an argument against this on it's own, I was just bitching about PC in general. The whole mindest behind PC is "everyone is the same, no one is different," which is nonsense.

Anyway, back to the topic. The difference between men's breasts and women's breasts? Do men's breasts turn you on? Would you feel up a man's breast? Would you give a guy a foot massage?

There is virtue in modesty, which is why public nudity is not the Done Thing (along with the, in my opinion, trivial factors of public health etc.)

I have a big problem with raising my kids in a country where women can walk around with their boobs out in public. Shit, it's hard enough to avoid seeing tits and ass on your cereal box without having them exposed in public.

Basically, my argument is modesty. Agree or disagree, I won't really come back with much more than that.

[Phantom]

I subscribe to the "people are different" point of view.

If "everyone is the same", as you seem prepared to suggest and "deserving of equal treatment" then men and women should not be segregated in sport (another area where male and female anatomical differences "necessitate" different rule sets), should they?

Seriously, stop subscribing to this BS PC behaviour. Men and women are different, period.

[Uncle Gus]

Ummm, just to clarify.... you aren't talking to me there are you, Phants?

[cyc]

Originally posted by Phantom
I subscribe to the "people are different" point of view.

If "everyone is the same", as you seem prepared to suggest and "deserving of equal treatment" then men and women should not be segregated in sport (another area where male and female anatomical differences "necessitate" different rule sets), should they?

I don't know if you're really being serious in raising this as a point of contention against me. But, just in case, I think I'd better make my point clearer.

Once again: I think that people can and should be treated differently when they are different, but only when the difference is morally relevant and material. What does this mean? I take this to mean that the difference is such that rational and fair-minded people who take equality and respect of persons seriously would not object to the use of such to justify treating people differently.

Men are stronger simply by nature of their anatomy, which would give them completely morally arbitrary (i.e. undeserved and unearned) advantages in most sports against their female counterparts. Therefore, segregating men and women competitors is pretty unobjectionable, especially in light of most sporting bodies' concern with competitors generally starting on footing that is as equitable as possible.

In the case of breasts, I don't dispute that the breasts of females and males are different in appearance. But why should this matter in deciding whether women can bare their chest in public?

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by cyc
...post about moral bollocks...

Is it wrong for a starving parent to eat their starving babies who will die anyway?


In our society a womans breasts are considered far more then bumpy chests.
The social requirement of women covering their breasts isn't one of "just because".
You are way over simplifying the whole issue cyc.

If your freedom restricts the freedom of others, then you possibly should be denied that freedom.

If many women walked around topless our society may loose the ability to appreciate the sexual nature of a womans breasts.

Sure, in some countries it works fine. In some countries it's okay to drink alcohol at any age and that works for them.
I doubt it would work for us. Why? Because that's not the way our society has developed.

You are taking a far too simplified look at a complex social issue and it seems like you're taking a stand against something that you percieve as a PC issue for the sake of being anti-PC.

[sv]

Originally posted by Lightspeed
If many women walked around topless our society may loose the ability to appreciate the sexual nature of a womans breasts.

LOLOLOL

No really, I lolled at the above.

a) the sentiment
b) the typo

A wee slip of the freuds eh Lighty?

[Torka]

If your freedom restricts the freedom of others, then you possibly should be denied that freedom.

If many women walked around topless our society may loose the ability to appreciate the sexual nature of a womans breasts.

Lightspeed, that may be the single most offensive post you've ever made to this board.

[Perfk]

Originally posted by Phantom
I subscribe to the "people are different" point of view.

If "everyone is the same", as you seem prepared to suggest and "deserving of equal treatment" then men and women should not be segregated in sport (another area where male and female anatomical differences "necessitate" different rule sets), should they?

Seriously, stop subscribing to this BS PC behaviour. Men and women are different, period.

I don't think males & females should be segregated in sport at all. What we may lack in physical strength we should learn to make up for in other ways on the sports field.
But that's just my opinion on the matter
(perhaps a little biased as I spent almost 20 years of my life dedicated to one of the few sports where men & women of all ages are on equal footing).

[GRiM ReeFer]

mullah Lightspeed has spoken

[catharsis]

It's disgusting.
I hope they get arrested & beaten to the full extent of the law.

[Torka]

Originally posted by catharsis
I hope they get arrested & beaten to the full extent of the law.

So, not beaten at all then?

[DeepThroat]

The people demand pictures in order to make an informed decision

[Deepee]

females have only ever had one trait over men throughout the course of history, that is, they are sexy. The equal concept cant really be done in sport , considering that men are naturally stronger and faster than women. Its just like having equal quantities of males and females in porn, its just not as entertaining.

[::Shocker]

Originally posted by DeepThroat
The people demand pictures in order to make an informed decision

The judge will now retire to his chambers to examine the evidence...

[ChaosWulf]

Originally posted by Lightspeed
If many women walked around topless our society may loose the ability to appreciate the sexual nature of a womans breasts.

I honestly can't see what the big deal is - the obsession with hiding breasts now will probably be seen in a more enlightened future as quite akin to the Victorian trend of covering up table legs with material so they weren't "exposed".

Most of you posting here are fine, but a few of you REALLY need to get over your sexual hangups and mother issues.

[*seldom]

Originally posted by cyc
...

In the case of breasts, I don't dispute that the breasts of females and males are different in appearance. But why should this matter in deciding whether women can bare their chest in public?

i'm afraid your whole argument rather does fall down when you claim that "men have breasts". they are different in rather more ways than just their appearance. but then you've never been bothered by letting simple facts or consistency get in the way of showing off your 2nd year law essay crafting skills have you?

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by Torka
Lightspeed, that may be the single most offensive post you've ever made to this board.

Why?

[ChaosWulf]

[GRiM ReeFer]

*cough*..... best get yourself some learning there *Seldom, before you make a fool of yourself, d'oh too late.

[Farmer Joe]

so, erm, anyone get any pics?

[DaveDash]

I think it's absolutely ridiculous.

If this law ever passed (and fortunately it won't) women will be just asking for more sexual abuse/rape/whatever.

You can preach all you like about how "women's breasts are just more perky than males breasts", but when was the last time you got turned on by a set of man breasts cyc?

Let's also be completely ignorant and selfish to the fact it actually offends some religions, cultures, and peoples morals to do such things.

Besides, I don't see what you're all getting so excited about - if it DID pass, it would just end up like National Nude day where only the fat desperate ugly hoes run around with their breasts exposed.

[Lightspeed]

It's really a non-issue.

How many women do you know and how many of them are complaining that they don't get to walk around topless?

I'm uneducated CW, what's the picture about?