Give "folks" an inch, they'll try to take a mile.

I would think a law "Exempting" things like the pride fest would work

If for no other reason - - - with the hope - - - Nancy Pelosi would NEVER disrobe while in her hometown!! :-)

Sodom annd Gomorah, is there anything you folks can do right down there?

If it's big enough to be called an 'anal region' I probably don't want to see it. An area would be ok, but something the size of a territory is out.

The problem with 99% of nudists is they are NOT the kind of people you want to look at naked.

How about the San Francisco City Council ban San Francisco from being a SANCTUARY CITY which is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Progressives = Liberals = Democrats = Land of Oz = San Francisco = Mrs. Peloski

I am proud to call myself a progressive, liberal Democrat. I want nothing to do with taking a seat vacated by another's naked butt. I want nothing to do with naked adults parading in public in front of my kids. I appreciate that going au naturel is preferred by many people. I place no judgement on them nor wish to infringe on them as long as they bare their privates only on private property.

Any type of freedom must have boundaries to prevent depriving others of their freedom. "Citizens United" and this issue cross those boundaries into dangerous territory that mocks the very concept of freedom itself.

eh. Whatever. Easy enough to avoid if you don't want to see it. I mean it's not like everybody that visits SF takes a tour of the Castro and really, if you live in SF you know what you're getting yourself into. This is small potatoes compared to some of the things you see on the street.

Not sure why anyone would want to wander around SF naked unless they needed some serious attention, but it's pretty harmless. I mean it gets cold in SF. It doesn't always show people in their best light.

I think we, including SF, have more pressing issues. I do get why people don't want to sit down after a naked person but in NYC people don't want to sit down after a street person leaves either but once the memory has left the vicinity people sit...

Any type of freedom must have boundaries to prevent depriving others of their freedom

So a nudist's freedom to not wear clothes in public deprives your freedom in what way? You liberals and conservatives have strange ideas about freedom. Your idea of freedom is antithetical to liberty itself. In a truly free society people could wear whatever they wanted in public. What the hell does it matter what people choose to wear or not wear?

This may create jobs. Some of these people might get paid to keep their clothes on.

Is Sanctuary getting, out of hand!

Maybe they should make it a true "meatless" monday, tuesday, wednesday , , , ,

And, you can only get a happy meal if you pay for it.

I thought prostitution was illegal?

Lord its tough enough to look at fat ass Amercians fully clothed who in their right mind wants to see those folks in broad day in a public place? Are we not already confronted with enough ugliness in our lives?

I don't give a damn about what people wear or don't wear. I do appreciate respecting the wishes of others to not behave offensively in public. If I were to spend weeks in the Congo where the natives wear little or no clothing, I would do the same or leave lest I offend their culture with my many layers of clothing.

I have passed on many invitations to formal affairs where a suit and tie are customary in my tropical home state of Florida other than offend those attending with my normal warm weather attire. We have rules here to respect others in our dining establishments. No shoes, no shirts, no service.

We have laws in this nation against public drunkenness, disorderly conduct and lewd behavior. These are laws that curb the freedom of the few to assure the freedom of the majority in public places.

I have two sons that I used to walk to the park when they displayed pent up energy that would delay their normal bed-time. Now imagine a drunk pissing on the sidewalk as we walk past him. Two blocks further, senile old Mrs. McDonald is dragging her trash cans to the curb in the buff. Just as we enter the park to their beloved teeter-totters and swings, a naked young couple is busily making the two-backed beast on a park bench. Is the type of community you desire in pursuit of individual freedom?

Every society must establish social perimeters. If you prefer a society where public nudity is within those perimeters, you might want to start saving for an island that you can call your own.

If an individual were to disrobe in front of a school in order to flash a child, her would be arrested for endangering the welfare of a minor. Yet if a nudist were to take a stroll in front of an elementary school in his birthday suit we're all supposed to be fine and dandy with that. Why? What's the difference? Those in favor of public nudity will likely say it's all in the intent, yet the child knows nothing of the intent. In both cases the child was not physically touched. In both cases the child was exposed to the genitalia of an adult person. So how does it cause harm in one case and not in the other. You say if you don't want to see nudity then don't visit the Castro, OK but there is no law that says nudity MUST be limited to the Castro. And apparently enough people DO visit areas where it's common enough to have complained. I honestly don't think it's too much to ask people to cover their taint and balls in the presence of children. And before you all shout out that it's been limited to the gay neighborhoods yada yada yada... remember gay people have kids too. And I'm sure they don't want their children to see Chester's hairy ball sack any more than straight parents do.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Oliver Wendell Homes

For once, I have no opinion on the issue. Really, I could care less one way or the other.

I find the whole subject perplexing.

On one hand I can't understand why anyone feels the need to expose themselves to people who have no wish to see them naked and at the same time I don't really know how seeing someone naked really hurts someone or deprives them of any rights.

I can see how the law they are trying to pass is discriminatory. If you are going to ban an activity, ban it, don't make exceptions for those who can afford a permit to throw a parade. If it's illegal every other day of the week, it should still be illegal on gay pride day too. Equal protection under the law means equal enforcement of the law too, or at least it should.

So it's OK to walk around with your penis out, but not OK to walk around with a gun on your hip.

No pun intended, but why get into someone's face. If you want to let it all hang out go to Golden Gate park where an area for nudity could be set up. And everybody could be happy, you could take it all off and relax, and the people who would like to be away from where other people air the differences would be happy. It would be gross to ride a bus with a bunch of nude sweaty people.

It's all really very simple. It's all really very simple. Does the government have the right to tell you what to do or not? If they do, then don't complain about anything the government tells you to do. Pay more in taxes? Yup, no problem, you've given them the power to do so. Come into your home to make sure you are eating right? No problem, you've given them permission. That is, if you believe they have the right to tell you what you can and cannot wear. The sooner people understand that it really isn't about whether you agree with what government does, but whether you've given them permission to intrude into your life, then you will understand why the Constitution is so important and how it protects individual liberty. Once you've decided that the government can tell you what you have to cover up, you have just given permission to the government to make you dress like the Taliban. Penis or breast need to be covered? Well, so does knees, ankles, arms, wrists, head, face, etc. After all, what's the difference. Last I checked, they are all parts of the human body.

So it's OK to walk around with your penis out, but not OK to walk around with a gun on your hip.

Ok first, I have to make perfectly clear that I am not in favor of public nudity and I am actually somewhat of a gun enthusiast myself.

BUT! But, I don't for one second understand how you can compare something that creates life to something thats one purpose is to destroy life! It is @!$%#ing ridiculous!

The obviously purposeful obliviousness of your post just gave me a @!$%#ing headache!

If you want to get constitutional about it, there is nothing that protects a person from seeing someone naked but there is a guarantee of life, liberty, and, the pursuit of happiness and this seems to fall under the liberty and pursuit of happiness, at least for these folks.

C'mon witchrunner, as long as the government remains a government for the people and by the people, the answer is yes. You live in a nation, a state, a county, city, township or community of laws agreed upon by the majority of those living at your side. You have no right to live by your own laws as your neighbors live by community laws. That is not freedom or democracy. It is anarchy.

You always have the freedom to leave. There is Cuba and Mexico to the south. There is Canada to the north. You may find your efforts in vain as you discover they also have community laws that you must obey to live among them. There are very remote areas on the continent of North America where you may escape these laws until the taxing authorities find you. Good luck with that.

I think that laws against public nudity are ridiculous, stupid, and an offense against humanity. I mean seriously people, what's to care about? Some cultures think facial veils are necessary. That's idiotic too.

That said, that people promoting 9-11 conspiracy theories are in that bunch. Well, the nuts have a role in society I guess.

"Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures."

Sooo sadomasochism is a day of celebration in this lovely city. That is really classy. Geez what next ?

Well said witchrunner.

Commonsense, what you describe is not government for the people. You describe the people being slaves to the whims of others.

Ah. humans are awesome. Ashamed of our own bodies and scared of sexuality. Thank you religious moral tards!

But, I don't for one second understand how you can compare something that creates life to something thats one purpose is to destroy life! It is @!$%#ing ridiculous!

The obviously purposeful obliviousness of your post just gave me a @!$%#ing headache!

Your lack of comprehension is your own failing, not mine. The analogy I offered is that they are two things that are usually concealed (and when concealed do no harm), but have a tendency to offend people when they are exposed. Hope that helps.

Only in San Francisco do they need anti-nudity laws .... or exemptions for street fairs.

I think they should make absolutely no exemption. Folsom Street Fair can be over the top... even for some of the gays who participate in it!!!

They might take it more serious if the councilmans name wasn't Wiener.

She already got a free shot

Fastest thing on two feet...ETHEL! You shameless hussy!

That is @!$%#ing hilarious! My wife has that song as a ringtone. Everytime she gets a text, "Don't Look Ethel!"

The fact that, that song was once very popular amongst country western music fans is a sad example of how increasingly prudish we have become. Nowadays, a country song can't make it unless it revolves around religion, 911, or hating Obama. Sad Sad Sad...

No, actually, it doesn't. You can't afford to live here, so why worry about it?

As a former resident of SF, I can tell you we hardly ever even thought of you unless you were trying to pass some whacked out Fundie law that might infringe on our rights.

The rest of the country does? Huh. 'Fraid I never did. I've only been to the airport once but it seemed a fairly normal place. Jmilk, did you maybe mean 'everyone at the bar' or 'everyone in your living room"? Now if you can convince me the people who make those Target commercials are from San Francisco you might have a case. Now THOSE people, IMHO, are some fools. Kinda funny, I was talking to a guy from New York once who thought Californians were weird. This is a guy from a city where people talking to lamp posts isn't even noticed calling California weird. Go figure.

San Francisco is in Northern California

Same difference, same level of insanity, north or south!

Bob,

"Same level of insanity, north or south!"

This from someone who lives in Missouri????

MISSOURI????

TODD AKIN LAND????????

Or are you across the border living with Toto?

Sorry, but limited public nudity is far less offensive than rampant cultural hypocrisy any day of the week and twice on....wait for it........Sunday's.

Bob in KC-545426, Missouri = Tod Akin, Kansas = Westboro "Baptist Church" Yep no crazies in either state.

Same difference, same level of insanity, north or south!

Nope, not even close. Lived in both. Hate LA, love SF.

" limited public nudity " What the heck is limited. public. nudity.?

You are only partial clothed? Only some bits are hanging out? Would you want your children exposed to these people?

Nope, no thank you.

I've always wondered why if a man can go topless on a beach a woman can't so, yeah, limited public nudity. Having said that I've spent TOO much time in Texas and Oklahoma and can certainly understand why people there don't want nudity. Seriously. Feel free to stay dressed.

There is a strong case for allowing 'public' nudity on the beach. Europe has many nude beaches, their children aren't growing up traumatized and/or perverted.

But then there is nudity on main street. Which would be pretty disruptive. I can see car wrecks, food sanitation issues, ect...

So here is my resolution:

Public Nudity is only allowed in defined areas where it is deemed to be undisruptive to the general functioning of society. IE certain beaches and parks.

@ Satanick;

A first offense would carry a maximum penalty of a $100 fine,

That would be worth a once in a lifetime streak.Thats if they catch me! boogada, boogada!

There goes Free ball Friday.

Rice a Roni the San Francisco treat! Just don't show your meat! lol

The issue is really not nudity but the fact that many need to hide their true selves behind their clothing. Let's face it, it is not the body that makes the person but the heart.

TM - What moon rock did you crawl out from under?

TM from Oregon

The issue is really not nudity but the fact that many need to hide their true selves behind their clothing. Let's face it, it is not the body that makes the person but the heart.

I think I understand why the mind doesn't figure in your calculations.

Speak for your own self.

@Morlack - please explain how seeing naked people harms children.

I am curious about this too Morlack, just what is it about seeing the human body that harms children?

@morlack;

Many children are raised at nudist camps and come out fine. I have known a few that have had this experience. The human body is natural, there is nothing harmful about it. The minds of some people, this is what can be harmfull.

Many times the parent implants the complex at too early an age, when all would of been fine just left alone.

Actually as a parent, I believe one should try to instill, that the human body should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. It is not something to be put on display for the whole world to stare at. You need to treat it with compassion, modesty and do nothing which might bring risk to it. For it is the only body you will ever have and it needs to last you a life time.

Certain behaviors run the risk of exposing your body to undue harm and should be avoided like the plague. Teaching your children about such behaviors helps them understand the guidelines they need to help them navigate the road in life ahead safely. That way, they won't get hangups about themselves, while still understanding the need to be modest, with revealing their bodies eventually completely to those they marry. As well as being comfortable in appropriate environments such as locker rooms, etc.

One also needs to help them understand, unlike what society would have them believe,their body is not just an animal or creature form. Man is much more, as a human being.By treating it at all times with respect and dignity which houses ones spirit, one remembers that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity.

Therefore the clothing one chooses to wear is a constant reminder, we are civilized and more is expected of us, than animals. And the clothing becomes a direct reflection of how we feel about ourselves, shown to the world as well. So in truth, one can learn much about a person by how they dress themselves, or the lack thereof.

Science and research has backed this up. Those who seek out nudist colonies are a particular lot who fall into a specific group of personality types.With exhibition inclinations,those who don't follow laws as much, or care about how others feel. It is a strange world indeed.

If a man unzips his pants and exposes himself in front of children he is arrested,, but if that same man walks around naked in front of children, he is not arrested. Go Figure . . . . .

Windancersong-1494878,

Sorry, but that's a complete load. If you want to treat the human body with the "utmost respect and dignity", then you should not take offense at seeing it in it's natural state.

It is not something to be put on display for the whole world to stare at.

The whole world doesn't stare at it, just people with prurient interest or those unaccustomed to clothing optional reality.

....while still understanding the need to be modest, with revealing their bodies eventually completely to those they marry.

Perhaps you could explain to us the rationale behind that need for modesty. Perhaps you could indicate how that applies to various tribes worldwide who find no need for such modesty and live quite enlightened and wholesome lives without the cultural requirement to cover up or hide their bodies from public view.

Therefore the clothing one chooses to wear is a constant reminder, we are civilized and more is expected of us, than animals.

I hope you are not inferring that those cultures who do without clothing are somehow less than civilized or animals.

And the clothing becomes a direct reflection of how we feel about ourselves, shown to the world as well. So in truth, one can learn much about a person by how they dress themselves, or the lack thereof.

I agree to a degree with that insofar as I think it says a lot about someone who finds nudity repulsive or uncivilized and that clothing "makes the person".

--------------------------

Frank James

If a man unzips his pants and exposes himself in front of children he is arrested,, but if that same man walks around naked in front of children, he is not arrested. Go Figure ...

It's called "intent". In the first instance it's being sexually provocative, in the second it's not.

@culhealth - why does it matter what the intent is if you guys are arguing that it doesn't harm children to see a nude body?

Because an intentionally exposed penis on an otherwise clothed person is kind of like the beauty of a human hand being ruined by finding one on a battle field.

It's contextual.

@Windancersong-1494878 - I made a concerted effort to get through your entire post, but I didn't see where it explains how children are harmed by by seeing naked people. Or what exactly it is that science and research back up. Or why you conclude that nudists don't care about how others feel.

@Ryan-1773892 - in case I have the privilege of being included in "you guys": Please note that I haven't actually advanced an argument. I've just stated that I'd like an explanation of how seeing naked people harms children. My own children seem to have become productive, well-adjusted adults, yet I suspect they didn't make it through their childhood without ever seeing a naked person.

This says somethings about America. A naked person walking around can harm a child, but hours and hours of bloody and violent video games and movies causes no harm? Remember all the shooters in the schools and movies had there clothes on!!

I played violent video games my whole life and I'm not violent. As I've gotten older my taste for violence has really soured. I just play mmo's and military shooters, definitely not those games that deliberately try to be as gory and/or anti-social as possible. *Rock Star Games I'm looking at you*

"Only thing worse then a feminist, is a masculinist." - Me

You "beat" me to it.

Why yes I do feel that is funny, but I've learned to not laugh about anything that happens in San Francisco. Those folks are way too serious and easily offended.

They not only have smog alerts in San Fran, they also have smug alerts.

The talking "Weiner", I really don't want to see that!

Your hair might be on fire.