Just who's morals are important, anyway?

Last month, there was an odd news bit from New Zealand as an Auckland City judge ruled to allow a Boobs on Bikes rally which would be allowing topless pornstars to ride motorbikes in a parade.

But the reason that the judge had to make the ruling is because there are groups that sought to ban it as a publicly offensive event. The Erotica Expo was attended last year by over 80,000 attendees and so the judge said that a significant number of people did not find the idea of naked people on motorbikes offensive.

So that's interesting, but what I have to ask is this: For decades, people have been claiming it's strange that you can see a man being murdered on TV, but you'll never see a woman giving birth or breastfeeding. That certain acts such as murder, drug use, or other crimes are liberally if not violently depicted in entertainment as a whole while sex is strongly edited in almost every instance. There are people that find it odd that watching two (or more) people who care about each other have sex is forbidden, while a cocaine induced shooting spree is censored much less. So if that is true, then how many people does it take before it becomes 'significant'?

Exactly how many people does it take to stand up and say that watching sex is entertaining before it gets on equal standing with blood, gore and gasoline explosions? Because I'm willing to bet that if you go to most people and ask them if they occasionally like to see a nice set of breasts, a nice masculine sex organ, or a well shaped ass...I'm willing to guess that if you asked the average person if they liked to see those things the answer would be yes.

So then why is a in intimate scene censored more than one where a guy is sawing off his own leg?