Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Rain on his parade

317 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 13 Newer→ Last

  • Lucy Stewart,

    Grow up, please.

    ....naaaaaah.

    Amherst, MA • Since Nov 2006 • 2093 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I understand your predicament as moderator Russell -- but I'm beginning to look away -- I mean far away -- when GD jumps on a thread. And he seems to be spreading...

    Way to empty the party room by room all right.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16759 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve,

    And my rant (sorry, I'm arriving late to this). The parade is very transparently promotion for Crow's Erotica expo. So what. It isn't explicitly pornographic, the expo is R18 and no one seems to be serious objecting to the expo itself.

    Crow is a sleezy dick, but that's his problem.

    The thing I've found most offensive in this whole thing is the message of the group that held their little counter-protest ahead of the Booby-bikey parade. It was "pornography fuels sexual violence against women and children" - I call bullshit on that, and the whole premise really offends me. It is effectively saying that anyone who views porn will become a rapist.

    They cart out their "well just take for example" of a man in Wanganui who sexual assaulted his handicapped wife (although why her state should make a difference I don't know) after viewing porn with two of his friends. Porn didn't cause that.

    What about the vast vast majority of 'porn users' who have never and will never commit sexual violence? And I'm certain there'll be a case of someone who went out and raped someone after watching Shortland Street, or Fair Go - that is not causation.

    And I wager that almost all people convicted of sexual violence in New Zealand have watched One News, eaten Corn Flakes, and had a delicious hot Milo.

    Sex fuels sexual violence, but even that isn't the whole story, is it.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Grow up, please.

    You mean like this sophisticated offering from yr own blogette, Grunt:

    We need players for the World Cup in 2027. So it is my suggestion that as many people as possible get married and have babies as soon as possible. This obviously necessitates a man marrying a woman and making babies the unassisted way. This would be a good thing. Also it would be a good thing if the marriages lasted for the lifetime of any children produced as to provide the best possible environment for our future All Blacks to grow up in. That would be great. Another big bonus would be to keep the kids out of public school where they would be taught how to lose and sulk because of it. Or even worse, the school might force them to play soccer. Kids should be trained at home by the parents who, by default, are the best teachers of their children.

    If we all start doing all this immediately then the World Cup would be almost guaranteed for the subsequent few decades. Oh. I almost forgot. It would be a really BAD idea if parents were to kill their children. Sorry folks that means no more chemicals. No more contraception. No more state sanctioned murder.

    That's a childishly black and white world you live in. Thank god there is absolutely nothing you can do to make it compulsory for the rest of us.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16759 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve,

    Shit, that is enlightening Sacha. And kinda freaky.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    I haven't seen it and I know it's pornography.

    Well I think I'm done here.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Emma, I'm very interested in hearing your take on today's parade - if you can just ignore the temptation to respond to the way it is being framed by others including our revolting troll.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16759 posts Report Reply

  • Chockasunday,

    I understand your predicament as moderator Russell -- but I'm beginning to look away -- I mean far away -- when GD jumps on a thread. And he seems to be spreading . . .

    In a discussion about freedom of speech, Newsprint argues against it?

    I thought we were here for the debate, not just to say "me too"?

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 62 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Stewart,

    Shit, that is enlightening Sacha. And kinda freaky.

    It gives me the peverse desire to get call off my engagement and become a lesbian. Just because.

    What about the vast vast majority of 'porn users' who have never and will never commit sexual violence? And I'm certain there'll be a case of someone who went out and raped someone after watching Shortland Street, or Fair Go - that is not causation.

    I think you can make a good case that a lot of modern porn reflects and encourages a thread of sexualised violence against women that is present in mainstream areas of society as well (see pretty much all crime dramas). I don't think that simply saying "porn causes violence" is going to solve the problem (any more than banning Grand Theft Auto is going to stop school shootings.)

    Amherst, MA • Since Nov 2006 • 2093 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve,

    Flickr Set of Boobs on Bikes
    I've looked through there - and it you'll excuse the expression - I am not titillated - I don't think it's porn.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Our society regards racism as morally wrong and I think a pro-white skinhead march would be banned. Isn't the same principal involved?

    As Russell said, the National Front and various other bands of bigots have been allowed to march in the past. Yes, it is the same principle: the right to be obnoxious in public, provided you don't actually do anything illegal.

    Is nudity pornography, Grant?

    Unless it's a person changing or bathing (alone, unless they're incapable), or a man and a woman in bed, who are married to each other, and the lights are off, and it's strictly missionary, preferably with no enjoyment (except the requisite degree of physical pleasure required to cause the male to ejaculate) by either party, of course it's pornography!

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3909 posts Report Reply

  • Morgan Nichol,

    And, Morgan, if a city council cannot decide which parades it will allow and which it will not, but must appeal to the law then what possible use does a council have? What issue, if this one must be referred, need not be referred?

    Any parade that includes illegal activity deserves some consideration. For instance the "Smash Every Window on Queen Street" parade would probably expect a good hard look.

    But even some overtly illegal parades need to happen - this isn't such an issue in New Zealand, but in some countries advocating in favour of democracy is considered a terrible crime. I'm in favour of breaking that law - though I'm lucky enough to live in a country where just enough people still believe that freedom is a good thing, that I've never needed to do this.

    The thing about banning things is that it tends to have unintended consequences.

    Your dislike of a certain cartoon version of an authority type has blinded you.

    And your apparent love of "authority" has blinded you to the fact that authority needs to be constantly questioned and watched very carefully indeed.

    I don't need to be told how to live or what to think. Another reason to have a constitution.

    You're jumping up and down insisting that a controversial and pornographic parade be not barred.

    I might be jumping up and down - but only in celebration. Because I won. And you lost. Suck it.

    Now, a few things you need to get into your head:
    Nudity isn't shameful.
    Some kinds of public nudity are legal.
    Nudity isn't pornography . (The 'graphy' in the word, you see it there? That's a hint for people who aren't imbeciles.)

    All of that aside, the vast majority of actual pornography (which, as often as you misuse the word, this parade still ain't) is legal in New Zealand.

    Time to move on and try to fuck up the next petty little thing your ilk consider wrong. How about picking on the fags again? They're always good for a laugh.

    Tell us .. even if the banning of this parade was unfair in some way .. what would we lose if it were banned?

    I work in the city, and didn't go down to watch the parade - I'm simply not interested in the content of the parade.

    What I am interested in why some people think they have the right to stop others from doing completely legal things.

    Lots of stuff offends me, but you know what? I don't have a right to never be offended. The same holds true for mindless wowsers, petty minded wannabe dictators, misguided religionists, and ordinary average every day people on the street.

    You have every right to voice your opinion on this. But you don't have a right to stop it.

    Have your own parade if you like. I'm sure you'll have tens of spectators.

    the opinion of a feminist

    What's the feminist opinion on women having the right to do with their own bodies as they please?

    It's not a group of breast feeding mothers marching for their rights. Don't the bare boobs belong to women who work for erotica/porn maker Crow? Isn't that a heck of a difference?

    So one gets a pass because you agree with their motivations?

    Auckland CBD • Since Nov 2006 • 297 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    Ooh. They've all got pert nipples. I wonder if they had a fluffer standing by?

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3123 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Shit, that is enlightening Sacha. And kinda freaky.

    What's even freakier is that she spent the time to read Grunt's dross and find that shit in the first place!
    She's a braver (or far, far nuttier) woman that I gave her credit for :P

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3909 posts Report Reply

  • Cecelia,

    I think your local dairy is pretty crappy, or you're not look up the top of the magazine shelf.

    South of the Bombays we are dreadfully morally superior.

    But breast, on their own attached to the chest of a woman on the back of a motorcycle are not pornographic, regardless of the occupation of their owner.

    From Oxford University Press Political Dictionary "Female pornography is seen by feminists as a mode of oppression and exercise of power by the stronger sex. The woman's body is sexualized and various parts of her anatomy are used to provide pleasure to the male gaze. Pornography entails sexual exploitation and male violence."

    If those gals sitting astride the bikes with little pants on and boots and bare boobs ain't "sexualised" and geared to "provide pleasure to the male gaze" I'll eat my hat:)

    Okay - the "male violence" thing is OTT but I still sympathise with the feminist marchers because Boobs on Bikes DOES objectify women. someone on Nat Rad said Crowe was a "pimp". Hmmmm.

    Hibiscus Coast • Since Apr 2008 • 523 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Yes. The failure to see that there are women behind the 'boobs' (verging on the comic....) is paramount here. Steve Crow's spurious justifications are just as laughable.

    Whats with the failure? It was obvious the tit is attached to the women, which was evident in the crowd being largely of the male persuasion although lets not forget all the guys who participated with "protecting " everyone involved in what appeared (to me ) to be an occasion worthy of celebration for men, women, and youth . Photos and news items are of 100,000 people enjoying themselves. Protesters used this parade for their own benefit, ( which was not to support any equal rights these women on the bikes had,) so who in the entire crowd, was in the wrong?I heard on 3 news one guy,(with baby) said he was there to support his daughters right and wish to be there to participate in the parade,so, even if the daughter wanted to participate in the protesting side (which she didn't), everyone was entitled. So why say it is wrong? Whose horse is being ridden here?
    Steve Crowe and these women set out to protest an illegal arrest of a woman for baring breasts in public in 2003, and, why do we condemn them for that? I would even suggest that Mr Crowe is probably the best friend many of them have ever had.
    I read further up, "not a good example". Why? Some people choose occupations that parents etc may not want . Happens all the time but all the occupations were legal and because of that, now, alot safer. And yes I know women who love their occupation (and all of their fringe benefits). I guess I like the freedom of choice if it makes 100,000 people smile in Queen St, Auckland. Ok Rant over :)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6267 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve,

    I think you can make a good case that a lot of modern porn reflects and encourages a thread of sexualised violence against women that is present in mainstream areas of society as well (see pretty much all crime dramas). I don't think that simply saying "porn causes violence" is going to solve the problem (any more than banning Grand Theft Auto is going to stop school shootings.)

    It's an interesting situation I'll grant. I'm no expert, but most of the 'mainstream' porn I've ever come across (and I really am not porn addict) is much beyond what most of us do in our own bedrooms. A little more contrived, and more 'fake' but largely the same.

    But then, of course, I think porn reflects fantasy - from hardcore videos to softcore 'romance novels'. It not really different from the way mainstream entertainment tends to be an exaggerated version of real life. So in the world of porn that extends to power-play issue things, which I believe form the basis of the most common sexual fantasies. Is porn the cause of that, or is it just a reflection of common sexual fantasies, desires and taboos?

    I have no doubt that many sexual offenders are 'porn users' but I don't for a second believe that porn makes them like that. And isn't even responsible for their general heightened sexual stimulation really - I mean I'm pretty sure that in most cases the sexual desire comes first, then the porn. If there porn were totally absent, then the imagination could fill in for sure.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Emma, I'm very interested in hearing your take on today's parade - if you can just ignore the temptation to respond to the way it is being framed by others including our revolting troll.

    I guess I'm not done here, then.

    I'm pissed (and the reason I've been staying out of this is that I get very, very pissy) that nobody, on either side, appears to be interested in what the women on the bikes think. We've legalised prostitution, but not done a lot about, y'know, respecting sex workers. Treating them like individual human beings, and not extensions of Steve Crow.

    And I agree, completely, with Dylan. There is NO causal link between pornography and violence against women. As the availability of porn has increased, violence against women has not only decreased, but also become less acceptable. (I'm not saying, BTW, that A causes B, just that there's no link between them.)

    Sweeping statements about pron are usually made by people who don't watch it. I prefer to listen to the people who are involved in the industry. Just as, when it comes to talking about what sex work is like, I prefer to listen to sex workers.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • Morgan Nichol,

    Claiming that all feminists think alike is OTT as well. Look up third-wave feminism.

    None of the women on the bikes were there because their husbands threatened them with a beating. If they weren't doing what they were, they could freely practice law, or medicine, or web development.

    They are thinking humans who have made the choice to do what they do.

    Auckland CBD • Since Nov 2006 • 297 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve,

    From Oxford University Press Political Dictionary "Female pornography is seen by feminists as a mode of oppression and exercise of power by the stronger sex. The woman's body is sexualized and various parts of her anatomy are used to provide pleasure to the male gaze. Pornography entails sexual exploitation and male violence."

    Oxford... Dictionary...? Pfft. What do those toffs know?

    If those gals sitting astride the bikes with little pants on and boots and bare boobs ain't "sexualised" and geared to "provide pleasure to the male gaze" I'll eat my hat:)

    Sexualised, sure. Provide pleasure, I guess. There is nothing inherently sexual about their simple presence - I find them more aesthetically pleasing than sexually pleasing, they are some genuinely nice looking breasts.

    Okay - the "male violence" thing is OTT but I still sympathise with the feminist marchers because Boobs on Bikes DOES objectify women. someone on Nat Rad said Crowe was a "pimp". Hmmmm.

    Crowe is a pimp, basically. And it does objectify women. Those specific women anyway. Most people in a normal society with normal interaction with actual women however understand that women in general are not objects. Those women have chosen to objectify themselves. In some ways I think they are quite empowered by the whole thing (maybe more so the parade than being in porn generally).

    For what it's worth, women in porn earn quite a bit more than men.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Matthew, I'm not a woman (in case that affects how you read what I'm saying ).

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16759 posts Report Reply

  • Morgan Nichol,

    Most people in a normal society with normal interaction with actual women however understand that women in general are not objects.

    I've got that part down pat, the hard part for me is understanding that objects aren't women.

    By the way, you need to clean your couch. Sorry.

    Auckland CBD • Since Nov 2006 • 297 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve,

    Actually if simple anecdotal shit is good enough for the anti-porn people, then it's good enough for me.

    I've viewed pornographic material on more than one occasion (and just recently looked at pictures of boobs on bikes and tits on tanks) and I not only have never committed any acts of sexual violence, I am unreservedly against any form of it. I think at least two other people I know would be the same.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    You guys are too fast . I can't catch up... Ok here's one.
    GOLD for the yachting!!! :))

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6267 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve,

    I've got that part down pat, the hard part for me is understanding that objects aren't women.

    Mr Treehorn?

    By the way, you need to clean your couch. Sorry.

    Bro! How about you buy me a new couch!

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 257 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 13 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.