Tuesday, January 10, 2006



Discrimination just isn't cricket

The Dominion-Post had a story this morning about a pair of women who were almost evicted from the cricket match on Sunday after they were filmed kissing. While the relevant cricket association has publicly apologised for the threat and made it clear that the women are welcome back, not everyone feels the same way. A spokesperson for the security firm whose rent-a-thugs had threatened the eviction called same-sex kissing "inflammatory", while

Westpac Stadium Trust chief executive David Gray said if similar behaviour happened in Wellington security staff would be instructed to intervene as a matter of policy. Women kissing in the crowd would not be shown on the big screen.

Unless they're going to take similar action against opposite-sex couples kissing, this is simply outright discrimination, and I'd hope that Cricket New Zealand will make it clear that they do not want their sport associated with such bigoted, outdated attitudes.

20 comments:

Given that families attend cricket matches, it seems perfectly reasonable not to display same-sex kissing. Sexual affection displayed by a man and woman is normal and something children are used to seeing from their mother and father. But strangers don't have the right to force their personal sexual choices onto watching children.

Posted by muerk : 1/10/2006 05:16:00 PM

dear muerk,

What planet do you come from? If it's alright for men and women to kiss in public, why isn't it alright for same sex couples? And why do homophobes like yourself have the right to force their views on the rest of us?

And finally, what's worse for your kids: watching two people kiss? or watching hundreds of people drink themselves stupid? If you are really precious about your children's 'morals' I suggest that you don't take them to cricket matches....

Posted by Terence : 1/10/2006 05:27:00 PM

Actually, Muerk, I think you need to go spend some time in non-wasp catholic south america - I saw more female-female public kissing in my first week there than I ever have in NZ. We victorianised colonials (even the queer ones :-) forget that much of latin europe and the central south american cultures still have the public greeting kiss that our lot discarded in the victorian era. It's to the cheek between strangers, occasionally to the lips between close friends, and usually male-female and female-female, and not much male-male (machismo, there, I guess). However, while in Chile I was regularly expected to kiss complete strangers on meeting and parting, in a similar manner to that we stuck up victorian addled WASPS would shake hands. This did make me realise just how much we've sexualised the kiss, even when it isn't. Besides, if strangers don't have the right to force their personal sexual choices on watching children, surely that means anyone, not just the gay ones, is not allowed to kiss in public.

In otherwords, get off it :-)

Posted by Weekend_Viking : 1/10/2006 06:59:00 PM

WV: There's plenty of non-Protestant Anglo kissing going on. It's quite normal for me to kiss people on greeting them at Church. Certainly it's routine for people I know through the Carmelites. That physical kind of greeting is quite standard, certainly more so than in society in general.

I know that if I see people I know from church in the mall or elsewhere non-churchy we hug and sometimes kiss. Which is nice, but not what I am used to outside KAOS generally.

Anyways, I was talking about sexual kissing, not greeting kissing. Open mouth, tongue kissing in other words. A kiss of greeting is hardly going to become stadium cam fodder is it? And I would pay money that girl on girl snogging is just fine for the young male sports fans, but I dare them to show two men getting it on and watch the reaction.

And Terence, dear sweet innocent Terence. If you think I'm phobic or fearful of homosexulity, well then you just don't know me.

And why shouldn't I be precious about my children's morals? Hmmm.

Posted by muerk : 1/10/2006 07:34:00 PM

One can go to cricket matches and get drunk and make a fool of yourself, irritate others and ruin their whole day, because you don't get kicked out. But two women can't kiss?
Yet another reason to avoid One Day Cricket matches.

Posted by Balach : 1/10/2006 09:10:00 PM

Look guys, this kissing thing... it was NOT a couple - it was two heterosexual individuals. Lets not drag the gay thing into it like everybody seems to be doing lately.Apparently one of the woman's boyfriends approved. BTW I wondered if people wold be so offended by sexual affection - or public kissing - displayed by a married man and an unmarried woman...whats the difference in the disapproval rating in this case if one of these woman had a partner that wasnt the subject of the said affection.

Posted by Dave : 1/10/2006 09:23:00 PM

Muerk - that goes both ways, I have a bunch of lesbian friends with kids - if you're going to ban sam-sex kissing because it might offend the kids (really parents) of hetero parents you're going to have to ban hetero kissing in case the kids of sam-sex parents are around.

Same rules for everyone - that's what human rights is all about

Posted by Anonymous : 1/10/2006 09:43:00 PM

Actually I think that obvious adultery is more harmful to forming a child's morals than same sex erotic affection. By a country mile.

Anyways, dave is correct. This was nothing to do with a loving, committed same sex couple. It was not a civil unioned pair of monogamous lesbians sharing their care and devotion for one another (whether in front of their own children or not) in an intimate embrace.

It was a couple of hetero women showing off. And I note that the mother of three is unmarried and has a boyfriend. A gentleman who is just fine about his girlfriend getting it on with her 20 year old friend in front of him and the whole stadium. A kiss so obvious "they were distracting the crowd".

Let's be honest, this is more about the soft porn image of two girls "huh, huh, doing it" while men get to watch, than anything gay. See the wild lack of boy on boy in hetero porn, yet women are always falling into their girlfriends laps with perky breasts and legs akimbo.

Actual lesbians are hardly going to be kissing for the leering benefit of a male audience are they?

Posted by muerk : 1/10/2006 10:36:00 PM

So let me get this right Muerk...strangers don't have the right to force their choices on (your) children but you have the right to force your choices on strangers?

You may not have noticed this but the closet door burst open quite some time ago and all the gays and lesbians bolted...they won, you lost, get over it.

Mike

Posted by Anonymous : 1/10/2006 10:54:00 PM

Four points:-
1. The original story said that they were evicted because they were FILMED kissing.

2.Don't watch cricket on TV 'cos you might see something worse than the game.

3.If you do take your children to watch cricket make sure they don't sit in the same place as the cameramen.

4.Do any of you wonder why the TV director allowed the shot to go to air. Get real you guys.

Posted by Anonymous : 1/10/2006 11:07:00 PM

And everyone knows that cameramen at sports matches are the biggest voyeurs, especially at cricket because there's such a lot of down time in between the balls (?). How many times do you see attractive looking women in shot versus attractive looking men?

I agree with the no-kissing: if kissing between two people is not allowed, it is not allowed. Any distinctions are purely bigotry.

And for that matter, 'Rigger' Richardson should kiss all banner winners, not just the attractive girl.

More groping in cricket. Less prudes. Go watch the tennis. Now that's a family game. Except at the end when they shake hands or in the ladies' or mixed doubles' cases, kiss. Ugh...

Posted by Mellie : 1/10/2006 11:42:00 PM

Dave: no, they weren't a couple, but that's also beside the point (as beside the point as pointing out that cricket cameramen are voyeurs). The problem is making a distinction based on the gender of the participants, and allowing some people (of the opposite sex) to snog in public while others are threatened with eviction. This is discriminatory and wrong. If they want to ban public displays of affection, then they should ban them for everyone, rather than only for those who fail to meet their vision of an "ideal" group.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 1/11/2006 12:50:00 AM

Muerk: you're perfectly entitled to be precious about your children's morals. But you also have to accept that other people have a right to lead their lives however they see fit (within the bounds of Mill's law). If you cannot accept this, then you cannot consistently demand to be allowed to live your life the way you want - which really leaves you with no ground to stand on at all.

If you think same-sex RDA is wrong, then you can tell your kids that. But you can't demand that other people censor their public behaviour just to conform to your rather backward views.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 1/11/2006 12:59:00 AM

muerk,

You're trying to push your personal sexual choices onto my kids - to define for them what is "normal" and "acceptable".

If we have a society in which a boy kissing a girl in public is okay, but two girls kissing isn't, then that sends a very strong message to kids about sexuality.

I don't want my daughters growing up in a society that makes them think that boys kissing girls is okay, but girls kissing girls should hide what they are doing in case anyone's watching.

You obviously want your kids sent that message. But I don't.

Regards the soft porn - well, there I agree. I don't think the cameras at cricket matches should be focussing on titillation instead of cricket. But it seems obvious to me from their behaviour that the cricket grounds don't really want a family event - they'd prefer to appeal to the young blokes drinking in the stands. Their call.

Posted by Icehawk : 1/11/2006 01:05:00 PM

Bunch of bloody political paedophiles, using yr kids as human shields for yr knuckle-dragging knee-jerk urge to regulate the behaviour of others.

Posted by woppo : 1/11/2006 04:07:00 PM

Icehawk:

Given that I encourage my boys to give each other kisses, or kiss their dad, I think you're wrong. I have no issue with love and affection being expressed between people of the same gender.

What I object to is (as I said at first) sexual - thus explicit - same sex acts where children can see.

You are welcome to expose your children to sexual gay kissing. You can do this in private where you decide what they see and how they see it.

Likewise I'd like to have the same control over what my children see and how they see it.

Given the "family friendly" nature of a public sports event, I see no harm done by people holding back their sexual acts for a bit.

In the Press today they quoted that the kiss caused unwanted male attention for women sitting near the couple, as well as for the women themselves. This is hardly appropriate. As I said this is not about gay discrimination, it's about the Bevis and Butthead mentality of watching two women.

I'm not offended or annoyed by two women kissing, I just think that the harm of children being exposed to it on the camera screen, while it disrupts the match, is greater than asking people to stop.

Posted by muerk : 1/11/2006 04:32:00 PM

This would not have been an issue IMO if the voyeurestic cameraman (male?) had not decided to focus in on the 'couple' kissing. Isn't this just another showing of the male fascination with lesbian erotica manifesting itself in a way that is getting blown out of proportion.

Would love to see a stadium trying and enforce a no kissing rule, would be a good laugh. Spose it would mean I could go to the cricket without heterosexuals flaunting their sexuality or shoving it in my face all day

Posted by Anonymous : 1/11/2006 07:12:00 PM

As a same-sex parent myself, hey, not too fussed about public displays of affection. I am, however, concerned about the message that copious adolescent and twentysomething booze consumption and antisocial behaviour present to kids, regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents.

Craig Y.

Posted by Anonymous : 1/14/2006 11:31:00 AM

Many years (um...decades ago?)ago, as a varsity student I was watching cricket from the Eden Park 'Stands'. It was a lovely afternoon and everyone there was fairly inebriated. A gorgeous young girl flipped her T-shirt off baring her breasts and the crowd went into hysterical rapture.The drunken roar was so incredibly loud that it briefly stopped the guys in the field who all stared towards the 'Stands' in bewildered confusion(NZ vs. Pakistan if I recall correctly).

She flashed her boobs again ten minutes later, which led to a young lad going up for a closer view. The upshot of this story is that soon there was a drunken punch up between the girl's boyfriend and the guy insisting on a closer look.

Booze and blatantly showing off distracts from the game - plain and simple. Maybe there should be an on-the-spot shrink at the stadium to attend to the needs of these desperate attention-seekers.

Anyhow, sad part of the story was that it was the boyfriend who was dragged off by the boys in blue, leaving the gorgeous boob-barer in a weepy mess of tears.

Moral of the Story: (at least my version of it) blatant and inconsiderate attention-seekers that cause a scene thereby disrupting the game for everyone else - be they hetero, same sex or bloody martians - get what they deserve.

Posted by Onlooker : 1/17/2006 06:59:00 AM

Im with muerk on this one. I dont think same sex public affection should be encouraged. In the natural order of things and the way it's been for many thousands of years is that people are attracted to the opposite sex (hence the presence of two sexes on planet Earth and not one or three).
In fact the vast majority of us would not be here if it were not for opposite sex relationships.

So in this view, same sex affection is unnatural but(like anal sex)this does not stop it happening. It therefore should not be encouraged in public. People need to think why they are two different sexes on planet Earth in the first place.

Posted by MrClix : 6/03/2007 03:02:00 AM