Boobs on bikes poll

**Bikernereid** · 15th August 2008, 19:51

Originally Posted by gammaguy

possibly because 99.9% of the riders are guys and would feel "queer"

about having a well hung pr0n star.... uh......."hard"..up against his back.

Well then give female riders the opportunity to have said experience. Or would their male counterparts have a problem with this??

**davereid** · 15th August 2008, 19:54

This parade should be banned.

It shamelessly promotes motorcycles, in front of pedestrians, and users of public transport, as well as NORMAL motorists, who find their carparks and footpaths clogged with motorcycles and scooters.

Motorcycles are evil, they are popular with motorcycle gangs, and other anti-social groups.

Motorcyclists cost legitimate road users thousands, even millions a year in hospital costs. NORMAL motorists actually subsidise the motorcycle ACC account.

This is money that could be used for hip operations or herceptin, but instead is squandered indulging a minority their perverted enjoyment.

I urge all free-thinking people to ban this parade, and join together to campaign for the bannng of motorcycles, as they are noisy, unsafe, scare dogs and children and are offensive to all except their perverted riders.

**gammaguy** · 15th August 2008, 19:55

i wouldnt mind it at all,in fact i think it would be cool.what would they call it then?nobs on hogs?

**Bikernereid** · 15th August 2008, 19:57

Originally Posted by gammaguy

i wouldnt mind it at all,in fact i think it would be cool.what would they call it then?nobs on hogs?

Hee hee. Nobs on hogs what is that saying about the riders of hogs?????

On a logistical note I would have thought that to get a better view of boobs the women would be better view if they were perched up on sports bikes.

**Quasievil** · 15th August 2008, 20:03

Originally Posted by Ixion

Never been at all keen on that. Y' start out censoring boobs, it's not a long step to censoring opinions. If Ms Casey is entitled to tell us what we may be permitted to look at, then it's won't be long before she demands the right to tell us what we can say, and think as well. In fact, censorship of politically incorrect thinking usually precedes censorship of sexual content. Look at KB!

As for children, if they are old enough to be free of parental vigilence they are old enough to cope with the facts of life.

Thats stupid, comparing women exposing themselves in a promotion of a porno expo to censoring what we can say.................that is a huge leap and one which I think is a little on the extreme.

Why does the fabric of human decency have to be released for a dropkick to promote a porno show ? whats next after that ?

as for children ....parental vigilence.....facts of life point, thats not a fact of life, its not a fact of life that children should expect to see this kind of behaviour.

The event promoted is R18, please explain why the R18 rating is not applicable on public streets ?
So you are saying that as parents we should encourage our children to see this..................should we be better served protecting them from this?
whats more important a hoes showing thier tits or the moral fabric of our society, and the respect we should hold to women.

Lastly, if it was wangers on wheels would your arguements remain............and the difference is what ??

personally I dont realy care its in Auckland, what happens up there is usually a bit different to the rest of the country, shit you cant get a street race but your good on getting this crap going ffs

**Ixion** · 15th August 2008, 20:15

Originally Posted by Quasievil

...

So you are saying that as parents we should encourage our children to see this..................should we be better served protecting them from this?
whats more important a hoes showing thier tits or the moral fabric of our society, and the respect we should hold to women.

No, actually I didn't say that. In fact I said (or implied) the reverse. Parents certainly should DIScourage their children from sneaking off to see such things (I say "sneaking off" since obviously they could not expect approval to go and see them). Parents set the standards and expectations. Would I want a child of mine , of tender years , going to see such an exhibition? No, and if he (or she) sneaked off to do so, he would expect a clip upside the ehad if caught (she, referred to Mum). But that is not a reason for banning it. It is not being held at a school or othe rcongregation palce of children. It is well signalled in advance. Parents are able to forbid their children to go and look if they see fit

Lastly, if it was wangers on wheels would your arguements remain............and the difference is what ??

Yes. My argument would be the same. Nasty ? Yes. Sleazy ? Yes. Would I go, to look at either tits or wangers ? No. Would I cheer on a Granny who gave Mr Crow and his tittys an umbrella walloping. Yes.

But - I don't elect city councillors to pass laws on morality. If we accept that is a valid function of local politicians, then how long before we end up with Councillor Tamaki? Or the local equivalent of an ayotollah?

Would you accept that the same logic that justifies Ms Casey banning what SHE thinks "offensive" would apply to a female Muslim demanding a ban on all women who are not wearing a burkha? Foillowers of Sharia law find that offensive , too.

Why is Ms Casey's opinion of "offenisve" to be enshrined in law, but not Fatima-binti-Ali's ?

**oldrider** · 15th August 2008, 20:16

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

Another subject that gets murky....

I don't object to boobs. In fact I like boobs. A lot. (Ask my wife!!!) I do have a few reservations about this "parade" though, and I'll try to explain why.

One concern with this so-called "parade" is that it has everything to do with Steve Crow's profit margins, and the more controversy he can generate the bigger his profits get. Nobody could afford the advertising publicity that goes with this "parade" due to the Herald and the TV news cameras following and profiling the event in the name of public interest. Anyone with a publicly expressed objection gets subjected to name-calling to beat them into submission.

Another concern with this "parade" is: would I want my kids to watch it? In other words, is a busy public street at midday an appropriate place for semi-naked women? Personally I don't think it is, regardless of the enthusiasm for it by a relative minority. If a public beach requires signage advising of nudity, and a cinema requires age restrictions, why should this commercially oriented "parade" be allowed? We rationalise it by saying "just stay away if you have a problem with it" or "lighten up man, it's just harmless fun" but guys like Steve Crow will only push the boundaries further if given half an opportunity.

Steve Crow is an astute businessman, with a shrewd marketing mind. The public are being expoited by this "parade" and are all too preoccupied with the boobies to care.

Your obvious problem is "envy" and your obvious option is, to "attend" or not "attend" the parade! Simple really.

Your choice!

Freedom is like that, it lets us make up our own minds and allows us to mind our own business at the same time!

I won't be attending but I enjoyed the freedom to "make my own decision". I hope those that do go, really enjoy it.

I also hope "Steve" gets his money back and/or makes a tidy profit.

Cheers, John.

**jafar** · 15th August 2008, 20:20

Originally Posted by Bikern1mpho

Hee hee. Nobs on hogs what is that saying about the riders of hogs?????

On a logistical note I would have thought that to get a better view of boobs the women would be better view if they were perched up on sports bikes.

Hoes on Hardleys

Slappers on Sprotsbikes

Crumpet on Cruisers

When is the free show on again??

**svr** · 15th August 2008, 20:22

No I don't believe it should be compulsory.
Just strongly reccomended.

**merv** · 15th August 2008, 20:23

Importantly as usual for us Wellington folk who don't get such a parade down here who from Auckland will attend and take the pictures needed to add to this illustrious website?