Posted on August 21, 2008 - by Frank
Sexual Violence (contains audio)
We’ve just had the annual “Boobs on Bikes” parade make its way down Queen St in Auckland central - New Zealand’s busiest street. For those not in the know, it’s the annual main advertising event for Steve Crow’s Erotica Festival where a bunch of ladies (some porn stars) are paraded down the street topless in front of a large crowd of gathered men (mostly) waiting in eager anticipation with cameras… and buckets of drool.
The lead up to the event is always a media dream come true with the Auckland City Council always trying to legally stop it. The media gets a chance to highlight a fight between the biggest producer of porn in NZ and the country’s largest council, and at the same time they get to show some boobs - which is always good for ratings. In the process, morality and freedom of speech get argued about.
The arguments in favour of the parade are generally about free speech and the oft quoted statement “they’re just boobs”. In response to this I must ask, if they’re “just boobs”, why do they attract such a crowd?
Allow me to say that if this parade was about average ladies baring their breasts to promote things such as breast cancer awareness or even sexual health, I would not actually have an issue with it as I do not find breasts (real ones) offensive, but that is not what it is. The event this specific parade promotes and the motivation of the event attracts a certain type of crowd and enhances a certain type of approach that makes these more than “just boobs”. For this reason, there is something that needs to be said, something not generally spoken of.
I want to highlight a point made by the marchers who went in front of the parade this year - the idea that porn fuels violence against women and children. Now if we think about this in extremes (rape etc), then whilst it would not be too hard to highlight some cases where this is evident, many people would scoff at the idea. But let’s take an opportunity to think about what constitutes an act of violence.
One definition offered by Webster’s dictionary is very helpful:
Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
violence. Dictionary.com. Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence (accessed: August 20, 2008).
Clearly we can connect and define an act of violence by associating it with ‘violation’ - where someone feels violated, an act of violence has been committed. This can happen in very overt ways, but also very subtle ways. So now we can ask the question - does porn and the Boobs on Bikes parade lead to/incite offensive activity that would fit the definitions of violence? Does it lead to the violation of groups of people and does it do so on a general level?
The resounding answer is yes. The problem our society has is that there is a level of violence against women that is so normalised in some circles that it is often not recognised as being injurious to that which is entitled to respect and reverence - woman. That level of violence is sexual innuendo that makes light of women on sexual matters and mocks them in a sexual manner.
Sexual innuendo would not be considered violent when directed at women who choose to receive it, such as those who participate in the parade - but if such an event leads men to feeling that they have license to direct such innuendo towards women who have not chosen to receive it, if it leads to men placing women in situations where they feel violated, belittled, demeaned and objectified then it has incited violence and discrimination against women.
The Boobs on Bikes parade should be stopped and spoken against, not because breasts are offensive, they are not, and not because our society has social taboos around breasts, but because the event and the expo it promotes only work to enhance those unhealthy taboos and incites violence and discrimination against women from very subtle levels to very overt levels. When such a thing occurs, the freedom of the expression of those inciting such things is to be questioned and challenged. In this instance, that person is Steve Crow. In his bid to promote his Erotica Expo, he has helped incite violence and discrimination against women in the general populace of New Zealand.
Listen to the following audio of conversations I had with two ladies to hear my point about such violence incited by the Boobs on Bikes parade.
11 Comments
We'd love to hear yours!
Leave a Comment
Here's your chance to speak.
-
-
Stand With Us
Visit My Website
August 21, 2008
Permalink
I realised I was out of touch when I saw how many people showed up. I couldn’t understand why. It makes me feel strangely angry.
The audio here is quite disturbing.
I wonder what the xxx church guys would make of this? They might have a perspective that is helpful.
Visit My Website
August 22, 2008
Permalink
[...] Sexual Violence (contains audio) :: The Humanitarian Chronicle In his bid to promote his Erotica Expo, Steve Crow has helped incite violence and discrimination against women in the general populace of New Zealand. It is legitimate and necessary to question and challenge the "freedom of the expression" of those inciting such things. (tags: sex society) [...]
Visit My Website
August 23, 2008
Permalink
Frank, you are a legend…
Visit My Website
August 24, 2008
Permalink
Frank, it’s genetics that dictate ALL blokes are stimulated by looking at pornography, so let’s not get all moralistic about this and just accept we males have this as encoded into our DNA and sex is a major biological driver for animals (yes despite what you’ve read in Genesis, humans are animals). Steve Crow is simply taping into this market i.e. 100% of N.Z Males and ‘The Boobs on Bikes’ is merely a promotion of his product, using the guise of ‘freedom of expression’. All this made more popular thanks to all the free publicity given by its detractors. Mate, 100,000 people must say something, not that you’d see me there – too much silicon for my liking. I prefer them small & perky. Crow is a legitimate tax-paying businessman (unlike say The Methodist Church which can sell it’s message tax-free) He should be congratulated for attracting so many into the inner city, the local retailers must love him (even Christian shop owners in the CBD must be willing to turn a blind-eye whilst their tills are ringing)Let’s get this straight - pornography will always be about in one form or another, whether you like it or not .Trying to ban it would be like closing-down pubs because in a small percentage it causes alcoholism, the principal is the same and the idea is just as ludicrous. Just ‘chill’ a bit and ignore the event if it offends you so much. None of those 100,000 in the crowd were forced to go after-all, and to the best of my knowledge ‘sexual attacks’ in Auckland haven’t surged as a result. By the way any male who does not enjoy porn, needs hormone treatment urgently!
Visit My Website
August 24, 2008
Permalink
Paul,
Thank you for your contribution. Allow me to offer some thoughts in response.
I’m not sure what Genesis has to do with this discussion, but I would entirely agree that sex is a “major biological driver for animals” including humanity. But in my view sex and pornography are not the same thing. Pornography is the manipulation of sex for the purpose of entertainment. The two are different though one uses the other.
I’m not sure where I have discussed banning pornography. I think, as you have said, that such an idea is ludicrous. I agree that it is most likely it will always be around. As long as it is, I support censorship and restricting it’s availability to those over 18 and I support the showing of sexually charged material on TV being restricted to later hours. Any view I hold on the parade is consistent with that.
I am assuming you took the time to read the above article. If so, you will notice that I have not expressed offence against the parade. I am not personally offended by a few ladies wanting to bare their breasts to guys desparate to see them. What I have dealt with in the post is the problems this lead to in the lives of a few specific people that I talked to (available to be heard in the audio).
That would depend on your definition of a “sexual attack”. I think I have made a clear argument that there is a level of sexual violence that is often not recognised in our society and such public, non-restricted events help to fuel that.
I would be interested to get your thoughts in response to a question. Have a listen to the two bits of audio available and please tell me how you would respond to the ladies I had the opportunity to talk to?
I used to find pornography stimulating. I do not anymore. I have had to deal with people whose marriages have fallen apart because of it, but the thing that impacted me the most was hearing an ex porn producer (Donny Pauling) talk about the lives of girls who were broken because of it. He talked about what is not seen - the stuff that happens off the camera. He talked about the many girls left vomitting and crying in the corners of rooms after their first porn experience. He talked about how 80% - 90% only do it once and regret it for the rest of their lives, many having to deal with the consequences of being “that girl” for years to come and knowing they have material out there in “the market”. Then there are the girls who are drugged up or foricbly coerced into taking part. The “success” stories are not representative of the majority who engage in the porn industry.
It’s those stories that make up the majority that make this a humanitarian issue for me.
I enjoy sex very very much, but I do not enjoy the exploitation of people simply so some can be entertained - that’s not stimulating. There are far too many stories of broken lives in the industry for me to be supportive of it, let alone supportive of public midday advertising of it that leads to men feeling like they can belittle and degrade other women around them.
I make no apologies if my standards on this matter irk you.
Visit My Website
August 24, 2008
Permalink
Let’s put this in context Frank, there are 1000 or more Kiwi home’s where alcohol is a problem, to every one where porn has produced an adverse outcome. Go to Queen Street at 3;00 on a Saturday night and see what happens to intoxicated N.Zers. Ask any Police Officer, or Social Worker on the effects of booze versus the ramifications of excess porn and you’ll probably mostly get a blank stare at the later. This is all about banning things, that’s what the paltry 90 odd protesters wanted and doubtless you’d like nothing better to see the back of the porn industry yourself. The City has spoken Frank; 100,000 enjoying some titillation (yes, pun intended) versus the small motley alliance of men-hating feminists & bible-bangers. Both these wowser groups hate the thought of people enjoying sex. The Christian moralists think it’s their right to tell us what we can & can’t do with our reproductive organs (accompanied with a large dollop of hate mongering against homosexuals)& the feminists (many of them of the sexual orientation, so hated by their Christian brothers on the march)look at porn as simply a form of female subjugation and exploitation. Clearly your standards are not shared by the great majority of Kiwi’s who harmlessly enjoy watching a bit of visual stimulation now and again, and can continue doing so thanks to tax-paying business people like Steve Crow (love him of loath him). If you find pornography offensive – simply don’t watch it. Lack of demand is one sure way to destroy any business. The reality is men & women in this country do enjoy watching porn, using adult-toys etc and you hate the thought.
Visit My Website
August 24, 2008
Permalink
Paul,
Clearly we are not going to see eye to eye on this and discussion is probably futile as you have many poorly preconceived ideas about who I am and what I think about this whole issue.
Once again you have injected topics that have nothing to do with this discussion, demonstrating that you have a chip on your shoulder and just wish to vent.
Hopefully you find some rest for that agitation some time in the future.
Peace
Visit My Website
August 25, 2008
Permalink
Paul, you’re a friggin idiot.
Let’s simplify your ranting to one sentence, shall we?
‘I love porn, and anyone else that doesn’t is deluded either by men-hating or religion’
Visit My Website
August 25, 2008
Permalink
The prostitution industry is showing its nasty aggressive streak here. It is determined to turn men’s natural proclivities into a business opportunity which exploits both buyer and seller. It’s a lose-lose proposition for all concerned, except for pimps such as Steve Crow.
The spiritual, physical, and economic costs of this “freedom” are immense, and are characteristically belittled or ignored. The diseases of sexual irresponsibility are regarded as a technological problem and an affront to liberty.
John Minto wrote:
If ever there was justification for defining a male as a life-support system for a penis then Crow would come close. It is degrading and dehumanising to women as a gender, and all women get the backlash from antics such as these. When it comes to nudity context is everything.
Visit My Website
August 25, 2008
Permalink
Jono,
there’s no need to resort to ad-homs, is there?
Visit My Website
September 23, 2008
Permalink
Paul, you have said: “there are 1000 or more Kiwi home’s where alcohol is a problem, to every one where porn has produced an adverse outcome.”
I’m curious to know where you have obtained your information from, since, as I understand it, pornography is a rampant, but commonly hidden, issue for many men (and women). It’s not something that is talked about or admitted to, in the way that alcoholism is. And it is a problem, as it causes relationship breakdowns and unhealthy attitudes towards sex, amongst other issues. I would call these adverse outcomes.
I can also tell you, as someone you would probably choose to categorise as a ‘bible-banger’, that your preconceived notions about the Christian attitude towards sex are somewhat askew. On the contrary, it’s my sincere belief that God created sex, not just for procreation, but for enjoyment. But religious views aside, I would think that most people would agree that sex is not just for making babies, but to increase the level of intimacy in a couple’s relationship. I fail to see how pornography would not hinder this, given that pornography objectifies people and turns them into sexual machines, instead of whole people who have many aspects to their person, their sexuality being only one aspect of that.