A Land Far Away

From Nekulor's Nuclear thread, I followed a link to another thread:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24 ... 21,00.html

A SLEAZE crackdown at this year's Gold Coast Indy has been ordered by Premier Anna Bligh, who warned revellers they will face arrest if they "cross the line".

Ms Bligh was offended by "lewd" behaviour, including women flashing their breasts on highrise balconies, during her first visit to Indy as Premier last year and has told organisers to clean up their act.

Is women flashing boobs really lewd behaviour when it isn't for men? Isn't that sexist?

In New Zealand next week, a pornographer has organised an annual parade down the main street in Auckland City. It's called "Boobs on Bikes" and involves a few dozen women riding down the street on the back of motorbikes topless. There are tanks and stuff too, but mostly it's about topless women with large silicon (or is it saline these days?) packed breasts on the back of motorbikes. They always get permission to to the parade, but the city council always objects. This year the council have applied for an injunction to stop it. If the injunction goes through, the pornographer has said it would still go ahead, but it will be a protest rather than a parade, so it would still be legal.

"But won't they get arrested for indecent exposure?" You may well ask. Well, no. Apparently in New Zealand it's against the law to discriminate on the basis of age, race or gender. Therefore it's illegal to say it's OK for men to go topless and it's not OK for women. So a woman could walk down a busy road topless and she wouldn't be doing anything illegal.

I'm a little surprised Australia is so uptight about it.



... Just an observation.

You spelt et wroong!

NEWD ZEALAND!

Imma get nekid and post pictures.

NickD wrote:Is women flashing boobs really lewd behaviour when it isn't for men? Isn't that sexist?

Yes and sorta.

Lewdness is defined socially; society says that breasts on women aught to be covered and breasts on men don't necessarily. It's uneven, to be sure, in that there are different standards for different sexes (men aren't required to cover their secondary sex characteristics, but to be fair, most men don't really take advantage of them, either.) But for it to really count as horribly sexist, it has to present some kind of disadvantage. Women can still present themselves as sexy while covering the breasts; men tend to have to lose their shirts to do so. The only important social action I can think of that is regularly sans-shirt is sex, and hey, lewdness laws only apply to that if you're doing it in public (and get caught).

In essence, removing the restriction would just give the peace of mind to women that they could walk around shirtless if they wanted to. But how many want to?

The concern is having boobies caught on tape and broadcast live around the world and getting sued. Most of the units in question overlook the track itself so most corner cams have a good chance of catching something that the producers might miss... since their focus is what's happening on the track.

The party atmosphere at Gold Coast has been building for years so it's almost tradition and expected behavior so with the IRL going there for the first time it's a perfect opportunity to get it a bit more under control. Watering down the drinks is just foolish though.

Kate

The Premier will be sorely disappointed when she discovers the organizers of the Indy 500 are powerless to stop chicks on balconies that are entirely outside the course from flashing their tits. They have not entered the course, they have not paid for a ticket, so there is little they can do.

Good times

nude behaviour

Zelknolf wrote:Lewdness is defined socially; society says that breasts on women aught to be covered and breasts on men don't necessarily. It's uneven, to be sure, in that there are different standards for different sexes (men aren't required to cover their secondary sex characteristics, but to be fair, most men don't really take advantage of them, either.) But for it to really count as horribly sexist, it has to present some kind of disadvantage. Women can still present themselves as sexy while covering the breasts; men tend to have to lose their shirts to do so. The only important social action I can think of that is regularly sans-shirt is sex, and hey, lewdness laws only apply to that if you're doing it in public (and get caught).

I'm offended! I happen to think I am rather sexy in a suit, so I don't need to show off my baps to be sexy.

And I think women are much sexier with their jugs out.

Other activities I can think of that are sans shirt: Swimming, sunbathing, jogging... mmm jogging topless women ... uh... what were talking about again?



But on a slightly more serious note. As you more or less say, topless women is only taboo because our culture says it should be. Plenty of cultures do not have such taboos and boobs are really not all that big a deal. They're only, excuse the pun, titillating because they're forbidden. If women went around topless all the time then they'd just become background.

Anyway, it's legal in New Zealand and I don't see a lot of topless women parading around outside of strip bars.

Damn... we might visit Aussy but not Bweb Zee-land... sometime in the future, i guess...

Do they call boobs 'Fun Bags' down under?

NickD wrote:I'm offended! I happen to think I am rather sexy in a suit, so I don't need to show off my baps to be sexy.

Society disagrees, for the most part! If you want to be a sexy male, you must work out and show some skin!

And I think women are much sexier with their jugs out.

And I would insist that jugs have more to do with child rearing!

Other activities I can think of that are sans shirt: Swimming, sunbathing, jogging... mmm jogging topless women ... uh... what were talking about again?

Oh c'mon, social functions. That's exercise.

And I know you don't have boobs, but rest assured that bouncing around without having them strapped down gets pretty uncomfortable pretty quick.

But on a slightly more serious note. As you more or less say, topless women is only taboo because our culture says it should be. Plenty of cultures do not have such taboos and boobs are really not all that big a deal. They're only, excuse the pun, titillating because they're forbidden. If women went around topless all the time then they'd just become background.

Right, but the parts of the world whose values have been defined by being invaded/colonized by Europe say they're taboo, so they're taboo. We're not in Mato Grosso; we're not Bushmen. They would become background if they became commonplace, but the only case for it thus far is that we could do that (over the course of a couple generations).

'sides, think about it. Look at breasts you see in cultures where topless women are the norm. They look good at 16; they look alright at 20; they're passable at 24; they get tucked into your pants at 30.

The Zel disapproves.

I'm australian and i'm offended Ms Bligh was offended.

I find the allowance of 40yo 'skimpy' but fat or droopy barmaids but the prosecution of hawt chicks in their early 20s flashing their tits appalling. I find it against logic, against the laws of nature and physics, and against most reasonable non hairypitted-rightwing-cantgetlaidcozimugly-feminist ethics.

Talk about ensuring you only have one term in office.

Dorn wrote:I'm australian and i'm offended Ms Bligh was offended.

I find the allowance of 40yo 'skimpy' but fat or droopy barmaids but the prosecution of hawt chicks in their early 20s flashing their tits appalling. I find it against logic, against the laws of nature and physics, and against most reasonable non hairypitted-rightwing-cantgetlaidcozimugly-feminist ethics.

Talk about ensuring you only have one term in office.

You're ugly, too! Shave, shower, work out, oil up, and lose the shirt!

(and I'm offended that you haven't done this already)

NickD wrote:And I think women are much sexier with their jugs out.

clothing can be much sexier actually