E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSGoing bare on the streets of San Francisco could legally become taboo, if a city official's proposal to ban public nudity gains support.
Supervisor Scott Wiener, who represents a district in the city and county of San Francisco, introduced the ordinance Tuesday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Wiener's coverage area includes the Castro District, which is notorious for nudity.
Under the proposed law, nudity would still be allowed at San Francisco's street fairs, festivals, parades and beaches (which are under federal control). The ordinance is instead targeting an increase in daily occurrences of nudists around the district.
"We've always had some public nudity in the Castro," Wiener told NBC on Thursday. But Wiener said there has recently been a significant increase in the neighborhood's Jane Warner Plaza.
"Our town square [is] becoming an ad-hoc nudist colony," Wiener said, adding that on a slow day there are two to four nudists at the plaza, and on a busy day, upward of 10 to 12.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
Since California state law does not ban public nudity outright, but only "lewd" public behavior, these rules are left for cities and counties to decide, according to The San Francisco Examiner. The Examiner noted that San Francisco's parks and port property already ban nudity, but this proposed ordinance would also include public transit, sidewalks, plazas and smaller "parklets."
The proposed ordinance would fine people in the buff up to $100 for a first offense, up to $200 for a second offense within a year, and either a misdemeanor or up to $500 ticket for the third strike.
To pass, the plan has to be approved by a majority of the city's supervisors and signed by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, the Examiner noted.
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
But not everyone in the city is too happy about banning birthday suits in public.
George Davis, a former nude candidate for mayor in San Francisco, told the Chronicle that he believes the proposed ban is "an attack on freedom."
"I walk all over the place nude," Davis told the Chronicle. "The most common reaction is oblivious."
This is not the first time Wiener has targeted the city's public nudity. According to the Examiner, last year he successfully helped encourage a law that stipulates nudists must place a cloth buffer between their body and any public seat they sit on.
Public nudity bans are already in place in the Bay Area cities of San Jose and Berkeley, Calif., the Examiner reported.
NBCBayArea.com's Chris Roberts contributed to this story.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- 7 bears killed in Montana after becoming dependant on humans for food
- Philadelphia student wearing Romney shirt told to 'get out of the class'
- Heated political argument results in Florida husband's arrest
- Cop seen hitting woman on video is suspended
- Nearly 100 dogs found abandoned in Texas, police say
Leave a Comment:
To be fair, you should just have to go down to the city and get a number (1-10 based on how good looking you are) and allow 7s and above to continue to be allowed to be nude. That way everyone wins.
Saftey though, you should have to apply for a new number every two years. (Everyone wins)
Not too much nudity in Buffalo NY, winter or summer.
Chicken5hit nudist
But if you made a requirement that all nudists have to be at least a 7, a nude beach currently frequented by 300 people walking around nude would be reduced to a crowd of 2 or 3 people walking around nude.
Not to mention that there is already too high of a man ratio at those places, such that your chance of seeing an attractive WOMAN at a nude beach would then be next to nothing.
America, your puritan is showing!
Less men with "moobs and little piglets" walking around. 8)
You mean to say if I take my kids on vacation to San Francisco we have to see naked men prancing around?
That's disgusting and they sit on the bus seats? Well, didn't really need to see the bridge and Alcatraz. Scratch Sodom and Gomorrah off the vacation list.
P.S. I get to see all the naked people I need to as a nurse. Most people look better in clothes. Just saying.
what_the_81 - Your junk is showing... and no one wants to see it.
zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=1782
Do you see 7's & above here?
I think they should allow nudism in San Francisco. After all, it's really the best birth control for our seniors.
"Supervisor Scott Wiener, who represents a district in the city and county of San Francisco, introduced the ordinance Tuesday"
What are the odds Wiener introduced a law to do with showing Weiners? Must be some pervert himself...
Just another demonstration that Americans are the biggest prudes in the Western World!
I have to admit though that I don't want to see the average obese American in the nude! Ewwww!
There was a nude beach in Belgrade Yugoslavia. When my crew found out about it they wanted me to take them there (I speak a little slav) It was on an island in the Sava river It was about 4 miles from where the bus dropped us off.That was no problem to these young studs. All I saw was fat old men and fat ugly women.
We would have benefitted immensly if Cris's grading system was in place
Are you sure it's not "Short" Weiner?
@Patriot Jane - The nudity is in a small section of San Francisco so your kids wouldn't be exposed unless you specifically came to the Castro. Nor is it allowed on public transportation or any other establishment. That said, we wouldn't want your homophobic, hateful, small-minded, uneducated self in our beautiful City by the Bay anyway. Go visit Utah.
"Wiener's coverage area..."
@ Doc Holliday - I was thinkin the same thing. Kinda like that politician dude up in NJ sexting and his name is Wiener. Lol You just can't make that kinda stuff up. Too funny. :)
Why would you think someone is a homophob just because they don't want to see nude people walking around in the streets, sitting on the benches with there nasty bare butts, men or women? Most normal people don't want to see random naked people and most normal people don't feel like they HAVE to show there naked bodies to everyone! People have been covering up for centuries, its nothing new. Perverts also like to expose themselves, you just have a free pass to do it there! Weirdos!
I don't see what is so great about allowing naked people in public places ...why must young children accompanying their parents or young teens on their own or even most adults be subjected to that spectacle ?
Sorry CastroGlen , but I was if S.F. two years ago, on Market St. No where near Castro, and three naked guys with jewelry in a place that I never thought of wearing it, were just walking down the street. The person working at the desk of our hotel said it was not unusual. It was quite the education for my 16 year old daughter and my 11 year old son.
And oh yeah, they were fat. They all had FOD ( fat over d...)
Other than that San Fran was great.
Hey, @CastroGlen from SF, leave Utah out of this! I'm not a native Utahn but I live here now, and you might not want to go naked if there is a foot of snow outside. I'd love to see some naked skiers, though, and sometimes on the last day of skiing they nearly are naked!
It's been a while since I've been to SF but I love the city, have never seen naked people walking around when I was there. Guess I wasn't in the right part of town!
Tucson + naked = burnt weenie sandwich.
I go to a Web Cam site where people sit around naked - nobody even watches the nudists, but those getting their nasty on sure have a fan base...lol.
Except for a nice butt and cute face - the rest of the human anatomy isn't so pleasing to look at. Speaking of nice butts - that testosterone ad here sure has a nice booty.
Yes Patriot Jane, and those bus benches are the recipients of micro-bacterial leakage due to the compromise of the elasticity of you know what.
It has nothing to do with a moral judgment on anyone else, it simply is an inevitable consequence of a particular behavior.
So here we have a situation where one's freedom impinges upon that of another.
There has to be a medium. Logically a line can be drawn where public health....., the greater good, must be the prime consideration.
Children also must be considered and respected. Is one's need to expose oneself really to be given priority of the right of children not to be forced to witness what is "normally..." kept private?
Why should anyone believe that everybody will be satisfied with simple public nudity. For some, the need for attention does not stop there. Nauseatingly, Con-science has personally witnessed men engaging in public sexual acts in Barcelona and Las Vegas, like what happened on that cruise ship.
That really lowers us to the level of animals. No it does not mean that every nudist will sink to that level, but who can argue that it does not pave the way for the eventual fight for acceptance of people's "right........" to perform intercourse in public?.
Predictably, anyone who opposes the ......."needs" of the nudity, public sexual intercourse demographic shall be attacked as haters, bigots, close minded etc etc LoLzZz : P
Those flaccid assaults are played out, if you will.
Hope everyone gets equal consideration under the law, and by all means, please do enjoy yourselves.
just if you could, kindly don't force the rest of us to watch.
Forget banning nudity in Frisco; try banning ignorance and bad taste instead.
Banning nudity in San Francisco ? What a sad day for America. People want to be naked let them.
I guess that means it is at the moment legal to walk around SF in the nude. Pelosi country what do you expect. That will put a damper on the parades like the one I witnessed where many of the guys were wearing chaps but forgot thier jeans and shorts.
@ On the edge - I thought that the beginning of your post was the start of a limerick:
There was a nude beach in Belgrade
So I went there to have a nice wade.
But when I got there
I was filled with despair
'Cuz the women couldn't make Chirs' grade.
As somebody that lives in the Castro, I can tell you that I have never seen a nudist here that was over a 1. I certainly have never seen one that is a 7 or above. I hope Wiener's proposal passes. This is ridiculous. Just because mommy didn't pay enough attention to you as a child doesn't give you the right to get attention this way.
Yep. Some people call it high self-esteem. I call it delusional.
Where nudity is not prevented by law, it should be by common sense, and the mirror in your bedroom.
Who cares if these people walk around naked. It may be a little wierd, but it doesn't hurt anyone.
The aesthetic appeal of California has always been associated with the beauty of nature, wide open vistas, pristine beaches, towering redwoods, balmy weather.... Nothing, and I mean nothing, beautiful or even marginally attractive can be observed or inferred in 99% of the human forms parading in the buff in San Francisco's public areas. What comes to mind is the old axiom about what happens to the human body as it ages: Everything gets uglier, hairier and closer to the ground.
OK, I realize that I'm transmorgifying to the 3rd grade, but should a man named Weiner be anywhere near this football?
Right...
But it's O.K. to garner public attention by attempting to force your 'moral beliefs' on the populace you allegedly represent?
Can't we just get over our collective shame regarding nudity in this country? Nudity does not equal sexual bahavior, and it is our natural state of being. What a nation of prudes we are becoming. I wonder what they think about this in Canada and Europe - oh wait, I DO know - they are amused, and are laughing at us.
As a society, we act so infantile sometimes - let's all grow up.
TiredOf Lies, with all due respect, you seem to be missing the point entirely. The argument here has little if anything to do with shame, insecurity or general disapproval of nudity. It does, however, have everything to do with how it affects your fellow earth travellers in public venues never intended to be showcases for sagging boobs and skin. In much the same way that a smoker has the right and entitlement to practice his/her unhealthy behavior, they are finally and belatedly forbidden in most parts of the country from inflicting the residual hazards of their habit on other people in public areas. I believe that is where the argument finds focus here with the nudity issue. I, my friends, my family, my guests should not be exposed to your "second-hand flesh" when we patronize a restaurant, museum, theatre or shop in an area where custom (or ordinance) has historically dictated some degree of covering for the body. Be naked at home, in your backyard or in the wilderness where no one has to look at you.
dustinmill, I'm suffering PTSDfrom the view on this summers beaches. I'm not a 10 or even a 7 so I'll keep my clothes on for the safety of all. ;-)
Exactly.
Tired I have no shame about nudity. I just have NO desire to see anyone but the person I'm involved in a relationship in...nude. There are nude beaches for people to go around nude. I don't want to have to deal with seeing people I don't know from Adam walking around in the nude while I'm shopping or going about my day. It's not about shame....it's about good taste. Most of these people just make me ill when I see them nude....not ashamed.
@TiredOfLies-3171757
Yes because if you are not actually representing the wishs of those people they will toss you out the next time you are up for election and replace you with someone who will. That's pretty much how it works.
Actually TiredofLies, the whole reason this issue came to a head (no pun intended), was that some of the nudists had started wearing cock rings to enhance their manhood. That's definitely sexual and not something I as a San Franciscan or my kids should have to see. So their goes your whole theory.
I'm ugly. I mean REALLY ugly. My face looks like the last-place finisher in a 2nd grade large boiled potato carving contest. Yet I wear it in public. I know that some look at me and think, "Thank god I'm not going to lunch right now!"
So if I can shamelessly display my pathetic mug in public, why can't I display my large, 50 year-old saggy skinned, beer bellied, scarred, mole-ridden body right along with my train-wreck of a face? What's the difference? If you go to a 'clothing optional' beach and expect to see a bunch of Pitts, Jollies (sp?), and Annistons, I've got some news for you and it's all bad. Those people don't display their bodies for the rest of us to ogle. A naked 5-foot 300 pound body hair factory on a beach is probably the greatest display of positive self-immage and self-confidence that you will ever see. We should celebrate these people, not scorn them!
I think I'm correct in saying that in any major metropolitan area of the United States, with the exception of San Francisco, a male walking around nude in a public area sporting a cock ring would be in imminent danger of being beaten, shot, stabbed or deliberately run over by a car, truck or bus. And I'll just go ahead and admit, for better or worse, that were something like that happening I would not only stay and watch but probably get satisfaction from seeing it go down. There has to be a line somewhere and such behavior in my judgment not only crosses it but takes it to the absolute, sickening extreme.
BigJeff, I laughed so hard I spit water on my keyboard reading your post. Ugly or not, you have comedy down nicely. Excellent post.
This kind of gave me a grin. I just remember a time not too long ago that they said the same thing about all public displays of affection, and an even more recent time they said the same thing about gay displays of affection.
Next they will be going after San Franciscan's ass-less chaps. I bet that would start a riot.
I agree that the scenario you describe would absolutely happen in most of the rest of the country. I am not saying it would be right but expect that here in Chicago, something not nice would happen. However, I am always inclined to let Californians do whatever they want. I don't find myself choosing to visit there much anymore and find their choices extremely entertaining.
Ballywyllo, I can see your point of view and accept your inclination "to let Californians do whatever they want". I suppose that would be fine if California was a remote, closed-off, leper-colony-like place where the carefree and hedonistic types were exiled to romp and play and do whatever they liked. But your presumption that "Californians" behave and believe in lockstep is mistaken. All kinds of people live there. Some would like to raise their children, practice their faith, relax or entertain, or hold onto the expectation that customers will frequent their places of business. Individuals who not only take their nudity to its fullest extent but then cross the line of sexual exhibitionism will seldom find themselves welcome.
To everybody who has an issue with others "inflicting their nudity" upon you, I have a question.
Why can't you just avert your gaze?
I honestly can't see the harm in being naked - it's not like these folks are forcing their sexuality on you.
@strange quark:
Sorry, I've never heard of anyone getting cancer from 'second hand titties'.
@tz-numbers:
Wait - good taste can now be legislated? By who's yardstick - yours? Taste is subjective - you don't want to see, don't look.
@ockysays123:
If what you say is true, those individuals are NOT nudists - they are sexual exhibitionists, and this kind of behavior is already covered by existing "lewd behavior" laws. No new legislation is required.
And finally, @Backcountry164:
Sorry, but anyone who claims to represent the "moral majority" and/or who wishes to legislate from a position of "You unwashed masses don't know how to properly behave, so I must force my moral beliefs on you for your own good" are part of the larger problem in this country.
Remember kids, Like Barry Goldwater said: "You can't legislate morality".
And why should I have to?
You don't have to, but you have the right to avert your gaze if you wish.
@strange quark:
Correct - it IS all about you. Thanks for sharing.
But if you're truly offended by LEGAL nudity, why wouldn't you want to?
I'm not singling you out because I do understand your position. However, I think your comments are indicative of the breakdown in tolerance and community in the United States.
Bottom line; other people do things that are disgusting or offensive to each of us and we all should accept this as the price of a free country.
I went to the State Fair this summer and was APPALLED watching fat-bodies line up like cows at a trough to eat chocolate covered bacon, massive cream puffs, disgustingly huge and greasy "heart attack burgers" and gargantuan buckets of beer and soda. Just because it's offensive to me do I try to make it illegal for them to be gluttons? NO, I understand it is their right to act offensively.
Right wing religious nuts that protest American soldiers at their funerals is very offensive to me, but I tolerate it willingly because they have a right to be jerks.
Having to put up with some nudity seems like a small sacrifice for liberty... even if it involves some ugliness.
@TiredOfLies-3171757
Scott Weiner is an openly gay man and a member of the Democratic party. You really think he "claims to represent the moral majority" rather than the wishes of his constituents?? Did you just assume he was another conservative trying to force his beliefs on everyone else? Please don't let any actual facts prevent you from forming an opinion, how silly would that be?
All these ardent supporters of nudity ...all these non-prudes ...i would like their addresses so i can visit them in buff and congratulate them on their stance.
If your so worried about Canada and Europe then maybe you should live there. We are NOT Eruope and proud to say not Canada! I guess you need your own state, we will call it Perv state, wait there already is one named Californication!
@TheOverlord
Everyone has rights, even the people who don't want nudists in their community. If the people don't want nudists around they have a right to ask their representatives to ban it. The best part of our system, and the reason we should avoid Federal "catch all" laws in favor of laws and ordinances at the state and local level, is that if a representative does something that their constituency doesn't want, those people can bring the issue to the ballot and everyone can have their say. If the majority wants it banned, it should be. If the majority has no problem with it, it should not be.
There are many things in SF that I would not approve of (this issue not necessarily one of them) so I can choose not to live there. If the community supports the ban the nudist should have to go somewhere else to be nude. If the community does not support the ban then those who don't want to see someone naked should move somewhere else.
@Backcountry164:
Oops - I seem to have stepped on a talking point here.
When I said "moral majority" I was NOT meaning to imply that Mr. Weiner was a Republican/conservative, (note my non-capital M's) only that those who wish to force their morality on others through legislation are wrong - and this is regardless of political affilliation. My apologies that you inferred otherwise. I stand by the content of my original comments.
Welcome to the two-way street, my friend.
By your logic it is ok to ban religion? It is offensive to many
@TiredOfLies-3171757
Ohhhh, you were NOT using the term that way it normally is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority). How foolish of me not to realize that what you said was not what you meant.
@TheOverlord
Religion is already banned in schools and many other places. That being said, freedom of religion is protected by the Constitution. In order to ban it, first you would need a Constitutional Amendment but the reality is that there is technically nothing to prevent that from happening. So yes, once you've taken all of the necessary steps you could, theoretically, ban religion.
strange quark banned, rereg of multiple accounter Tranquil Nihilist. Try another site.
I basically agree with you except that religion is NOT banned in schools, only public schools and only organized prayer. However, the point I was trying to make isn't that we could, in theory, start banning lots of stuff but rather that if we do will it still be a free country?
The Constitution guarantees "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and thus people should have the liberty to be nude in public if it makes them happy. It's only allowed in a tiny fraction of the country and only in designated areas even when it is legal. So, I just don't see what the big deal is if most of the community supports it.
You are right though that a majority will always be able to impose their view of morality on the minority.
TheOverlord
Good point.
In part you have to trust that people will choose to remain free. And even if they choose not to be it does not prevent laws from changing again. The 18th and 21th Amendments to the Constitution as an example.
I totally agree, if most of this community supports it they should be allowed to have their way. From some of the comments on the board it sounds like a few people have pushed the boundaries of what was generally acceptable. Unfortunately this gives ammo to those who may be in the minority and want an outright ban. The biggest worry we should have today is that people have become so divided that compromise is rarely considered let alone attempted with each side blaming the other for the division.
And yet the oppressed minorities in this country have always managed to overcome most of the imposition using the same system that oppressed them to begin with. It has always been my belief that any change worth making was worth taking the time to do it right. When you try to push change upon people they resist; it is human nature to push back when someone pushes you. Of course the catch-22 is that in the meantime many people go without the freedoms that they deserve.
IF it were up to me, I would retain the present public nudity laws. While there is nothing intrinsically evil in nudity, even for the ugliest human beings on the planet, in our culture, nudity has a variety of emotional, sexual and social meanings which continue to affect all of us.
If this were being discussed in some non-western societies, the the social mores surrounding the failure to surround certain parts of your body with clothes would be different. But we are not in Nairobi, Kenya. This is the United States, and in most parts of America, public nudity, even if everybody looked like Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, has the potential to cause a disturbance.
Is anybody surprised that this story is being reported from San Francisco?
Or, that apparently, the vast majority of those walking about nude are men?
Somehow it is never the women who are walking around naked, particularly the pretty ones.
Au contrere mon ami. LOL There was a recent story about a 'not too shabby looking' young woman walking about in New York City toppless just to make the point that it is legal to do so. Nudity is not totally a guy thing by any means.
I don't want to see myself naked, much less scrawny wino skank.
I don't want to see you naked either.
sounds like you're referring to someone specific since you're more likely to see a fata$$
These people have no respect for anyone, even themselves. Same folks that claim they are offended by public prayer but I'm NOT supposed to be offended by their nudity..... this is truly the land of fruit and nuts!
I am offended by prayer in the public domain but I am willing to tolerate it because I completely support your freedom to believe whatever nonsense you choose.
Is prayer in public illegal? NO.
Why can't you do the same? Oh, that's right, you only tolerate what YOU believe in?
The problem is Christians think this is a "Christian Nation" and you have a god-given right to subject others to your offensive rituals but you don't have to tolerate any non-Christian people. You have a right to be offended but not to prevent people from being free to be nude.
LOL I think it's funny a guy named Mr Wiener is trying to rub out nudity in his district. He must have some serious hang ups regarding his name......
They call him Short Stack behind his back.
I'm reminded of Johnny Carson's remark about a streaker showing off his short comings. Isn't this much ado about nothing?
I don't think my kids need to see it for sure.
Then put your cloths back on PatriotJane.
Ha, that was my first though, too. How can anyone take this article seriously with the name "Wiener" peppered throughout?
I know Scott Wiener. He is the supervisor for the Castro and he is an out, gay man. The problem is that the straights that live in the Castro ( Do they move there NOT knowing that it is a gay area?) have been complaining to him about it. But tourists seem to love it. You can see them having their pictures taken with the nude guys all the time. It is actually a tourist draw for the Castro. I think we should leave well enough alone. If straights are offended by it, they should move to another part of the city or LEAVE SF altogether. It's not a place for everyone anyway. Maybe they should check out moving to Salt Lake City or Tulsa. They might feel more "at home" there.
only in calif...can't wait till it breaks off and floats out to sea...
No need to wait - Just stay home
The article doesn't mention that the Castro District is San Francisco's gayest neighborhood of all.
How does it being in a "gay" district change anything? No, I'm straight, but seriously think it's messed up when a someone judges an area just because of the nhabitants private life. (I agree public fornication is crossing the line a little, but that goes for everybody)
It isn't a Private Life when the rest of us have to see it.
so you can tell if someone is gay when you see them naked? Amazing.
Why are Americans so obsessed with sex (porn is the biggest online industry in the USA), yet they are also so obsessed with attaching shame to it, even when "sex" is not even the issue, as is the case here?
I am not aware of anyone ever succumbing to sickness, injury, or death as a result of seeing a naked body. The only damage that is done, is the damage inflicted by our own minds when we freak out over something that is fundamentally harmless.
And please, don't even pull out the Children Card here. Children are born naked of mothers who are at least half naked on the birth table. None of them were stillborn as a result of this nudity, nor did medical professionals come racing into the room to molest them because they were nude.
That being said, I would find it personally distasteful to be eating my lunch in a cafe with a naked body at the next table. I don't object to public nudity on moral grounds, obviously, but there is a time and a place for everything, and we do have to draw the line somewhere regarding when this, that, or the other thing is socially acceptable. Put this one up for a public vote in the district in which nudism is becoming popular; let the People decide whether they want this happening in their neighborhood.
However, over the past couple of decades most complaints about nude beaches etc. have been with regards to 'public sex' -- especially gay sex.
(YUCK!)
To be considered human one is expecting civilized social behavior. Walking around like an animal with yourself exposed is very far from being civilized. It would be no different than passing gas in public or picking your nose in public or even passing a stool in public. In their own home go right ahead and act like an animal. In public we as a society expect civilized behavior.
"Civilized social behavior"?!?! Thank you...that made me laugh...fluffing and mining for mining for nose gold is still legal if I recall correctly, and defecating in public is illegal for saftey reasons. What is dangerous about "hanging out"?
Look out everyone - the token homophobe has arrived.
There is a reason that "lewd behavior" is illegal, and public nudity is not. If you do not understand the difference between the two, please hush up and let the grownups talk, O.K.?
Oh, BTW - do you care to cite from where you obtained the numbers concerning nude beach complaints and the incidence of "'public sex' -- especially gay sex" (as you so eloquently put it) over the past couple of decades? I'd LOVE to read that study.
@Sees Thru Gloss
Which is and always has been illegal. So what was your point?
Well said L.C. Girl!
I am a native San Franciscan who still lives here and I am appalled. I am not a leftist unlike many who live here and I think public nudity is wrong, and in this case, disgusting. These are desperate attention seekers and the bad press they bring embarrasses me. They need to cover up now. Despite what some people think, this is not an "anything goes" city. Some of us still have morals and respect for ourselves and others.
"Some of us still have morals and respect for ourselves and others." I'd say it sounds like they have plenty of respect for themselves, and you don't have much for them. Just sayin. Of course you could argue that they have no respect for your desire to not see them naked, but that just makes it a balanced argument. And what does being naked have to do with morals?
@ Eugenia Syro - One of the best lines to use if you want to have a good time at bars in your native city:
"I'm not gay -- I'm FROM here!"
Seriously though, I can relate to how irritating it has to be living with the huge leftist stereotype out there in the Bay Area.
Mattt
But do they have any respect for anyone else? Many people are offended by public nudity and everyone knows it. Why does their opinion mean any less? And what impact does peoples desire to go nude have on their community and neighbors? How many people avoid those areas where they expect to see nudists? How does that impact on the local businesses?
If the community wants to allow it they should have that right; if the community wants to ban it, they should have that right too.
Two things I take from this discussion, I was in San Francisco last week:
1. Anyone named Wiener complaining about nudity should be impeached immediately.
2. San Francisco is colder than hell and always foggy....nobody can see anything anyway.
3. Where is the Castro district? Missed it last week.
I'm kind of oblivious to the issue, but I do find it funny as another example of a conservative legislating the removal of freedoms because they offend his sensibilities.
Another day in American Politics.
Two things I find interesting about this story (and I was in San Francisco last week):
1. Anyone named Wiener that complains about nudity should be impeached immediately.
2. San Francisco is cold and foggy. Not sure how anyone could see anything.
3. Where is this Castro (could add some comments on this as well) district? Missed it last week, but will be going back with warmer clothes soon.
I seriously don't see the issue here...people should be allowed to express themselves however they see fit so long as they aren't harming someone else. If you have "morals" and find it offensive, don't look. Some people find church offensive, so they don't go. Others find TV programmes or billboards offensive, they turn off the TV or don't look at the sign. Your morality should not dictate another's freedom.
In my opinion, it's more of a hygiene issue. I don't want to park myself where someone had their butt crack a few minutes ago. BFD on the nudity..... don't like it? Don't look. I think they should be required to have a towel or some other "barrier" when sitting.
It's nice to see a common sense reply. I agree, there should be some barrier when they sit in a public area. That falls into the safety realm....
They started wearing cock rings for crying out loud. That's why even the residents of the Castro, who previously didn't care, started complaining. I'm sorry, but you have to draw the line somewhere and I think wearing male enhancement jewelry is definitely crossing the line into lewd. I mean the ordinance still allows them to go naked and parades and festivals and everything else. But it also protects the rights of other citizens who don't want to see their erect weiners walking around.
Chewtoy, got to agree, this is more about sanitation than esoterics.
If you come to San Francisco,
Be sure to er not wear some flowers in your hair.
If you come to San Francisco,
You're gonna meet some jiggly people there
I am certain, anyone in SF standing around Nude in Public, arent worth looking at, Fat, Old, Schriveled up Nut sacs and sagging boobies arent exactly a turn on. but it would be a good chuckle at the same time! March On Naked People!
The nudist are not there for YOU to "look at". They are just doing their thing.
Ok, Walt, and the second-hand smoke is not there for YOU to "breathe in". The smoker is just doing his thing.
Strange- That makes no sense. How is looking at a naked person detrimental to anyone's health?
Good they are cracking down. Why was it tolerated in the first place?
Cracking down....on the CRACK!
Ya, pubic nudity makes me a little uncomfortable
to Doug 950479 comment #18
Yes.........I'm sure public nudity makes you "uncomfortable". Just like when gays started coming out made you "uncomfortable" or when blacks could eat at the same lunch counter as you made you "uncomfortable" or when a catholic was elected president made you "uncomfortable" or when a black became president made you "uncomfortable" ect. ect.......Here's a news flash for you Doug...we're not here to make you comfortable!
Grow up, you live in a diverse world where you are going to be exposed to all kinds of things that you wouldn't want to do yourself, but you have no right to try and prevent others from doing them, especially when it doesn't actually harm you.
Mike-364920 - best post yet!!!
Man I miss my home... SF should never change
Thats gonna really mess up the parade.
What I don't get is with the exception of a couple of days a year, it's always so cold in San Francisco, so who'd want to go nude anyway?!
If they want to be nude let them be nude. Does the human body bother you that much?????? Don't look if your offended!
I wish I was an Oscar Myer WEINER.
Anyone remember that song?
the press is portraying this as an issue of puritanical values versus free speech over the issue of public nudity. nothing could be farther than the truth. the castro community is a tolerant, historic and dynamic community but we are not going to be raped culturally, economically and socially bythis small group of attention-seeking males displaying the worst form of white, male privilege by waving their genitals in everyone's face twenty-four hours a day. enough is enough. who is this hurting? me. everyday i am made a non-consentual partner in these guy's sexual fantasies. every day family and friends of mine make excuses for not visiting me. these exhibitionists are changing the dynamics of my neighborhood. there are less children, less tourists, less variety... just more, old, white, confrontational naked men. I am so upset over this situation that I am seriously considering voting for Mitt Romney - and I am a lifelong liberal. Give me back my neighborhood, please. I beg you.
and and for the people that live here as myself or associated with this community in days gone before, we are not going to
don't leave us hanging here!
Hey liberals heard bunny obama has hired tread mark removers to lower his jobs numbers..
Hey MissionCreekMan...
From your rant, it sounds like you don't like white people or gays. What did you expect when you moved into the Castro? If you moved to ChinaTown, would expect all the Chinese to leave just because you are there?
The Weiner supervisor is cracking down.
You have to wonder what motivates these people's desire to walk around nude in public.
It facilitates and accomodates their desire to spontaneously and readily engage in an impromptu game of "hide the sausage".