General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPublic nudity ban eyed in fed-up San Francisco
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) San Francisco may be getting ready to shed its image as a city where anything goes, including clothing.
City lawmakers are scheduled to vote Tuesday on an ordinance that would prohibit nudity in most public places, a blanket ban that represents an escalation of a two-year tiff between a devoted group of men who strut their stuff through the city's famously gay Castro District and the supervisor who represents the area.
Supervisor Scott Wiener's proposal would make it illegal for a person over the age of 5 to "expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, sidewalk, street median, parklet or plaza" or while using public transit.
http://news.yahoo.com/public-nudity-ban-eyed-fed-san-francisco-191355793.html
I think they should ban public nudity. If you want to be a nudest do it on your own property or find a nudist park, I really don't want to see your "business" swinging around when I'm eating out with my family. Thats just my opinion, I'm not afraid of nudity or the human body but there is a time and place for everything and getting gas down as the local shell is not the place to be nude.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)I think too many do it simply for shock value
sorry but in our society, we put clothes on if we're going out in public
stay naked in your own home or a nudist only setting
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:42 PM - Edit history (1)
we shouldn't need a law for them, but if that's what it takes then SF should deal with them and the problem.
they are a nuisance. they put themselves in obvious places to shock and get noticed by being in the way.
we have all kinds of rules in SF, where you can park, noise ordinances, littering laws, etc.
we seem to need one --though we shouldn't.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)these people are a nuisance and it's unfortunate that the board of supervisors have to get involved with this but what can they do; they've been ignoring it for too long and people are pissed off about it
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)How, exactly? Are they following you around? Getting in your way? Are you tripping over them in any way, shape or form? (Heh... )
johnq45
(33 posts)Wants people to stop showing their genitals in public. The last guy named Weiner was sending pictures of his junk on Twitter! You just can't make this shit up!
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)A very Beavis and Butthead moment: "huh huh, he said weiner, huh"
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)you don't threaten my bunghole, we'll be fine
trof
(54,256 posts)Kennah
(14,339 posts)Yavin4
(35,450 posts)Can't show Weiner.
marmar
(77,097 posts)Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)good breakfast experience.
Gross.
CAG
(1,820 posts)Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)I does what I can.
Bucky
(54,087 posts)I mean, "in person"
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)demosincebirth
(12,544 posts)and some hairy naked guy plops his ass next to you on the bench that you are eating at...or maybe sits across from you with his whole "pincheria" hanging out, as you're taking your first bite of that good sandwich you were thinking of eating all morning?
marmar
(77,097 posts)I've had lunch in Vondelpark in Amsterdam and the Tiergarten in Berlin with naked people around. Live and let live.
demosincebirth
(12,544 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)fecal matter.
marmar
(77,097 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Also, genitals must be covered up in a retail establishment.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I would ban public country music over public nudity.
marmar
(77,097 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Clothing doesn't contain it.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)wash their hands after using the bathroom? I think they are exposed to a lot of nasty stuff very often. I think we all are.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)We cant's LIVE without our Blake Shelton!
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)If so, then I am confused.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I have written, as opposed to relying on my poor memory. Sorry!
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)Guthrie, Hank Williams, Sr., etc.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)That said, I agree with the ban. Most nudists seem to be the exact people you do NOT want to see naked.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Post 16 or post 18?
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)Post 16 or post 18?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You want hot people nude but then you don't want people nude. Which is it?
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)18. Yeah. Exactly.
16. I agree. nt
Personally I don't care if people walk around nude. We all have bodies and meh.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Apologies.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)exactly
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)If I want to see your junk, I'll ask.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Save it for special occasions!
ToxMarz
(2,169 posts)Walk around in public and ask to see people's junk. Let me know how that works out for you.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I don't want to hear your children swinging around and screaming when I eat.
I'll close my ears if you close your eyes.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Brother Buzz
(36,478 posts)The coolest thing Mark Twain never said.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Anyway, I don't think there is anything inherently shameful about the human body. While I don't particularly want to see--er--stuff, I don't think it ought to be a crime. As far as children go, I don't think it is corrupting for them to see, er, stuff, since they have stuff anyway. And I'd rather deal with a few awkward questions than have them grow up thinking that something about them is shameful.
Drale
(7,932 posts)it would be a ticketable offense like urinating in public.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,020 posts)I was going to say part-- kinda took me aback. Showing it would take a bit of effort.
As long as people behave themselves, nudity isn't so bad. Silly at times.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)'Taint one thing and 'taint the other.
Oldie but a goodie
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)In any case, all this is about housing prices in the Castro. Some people who bought cheap in the 70's want to sell, and the buyers at those prices are rich yuppies with broods. The ironic part about all of this is that it's coming precisely from the old guard in the Castro itself. Some people wanna move to Sausalito, I guess, and if you want to move to Sausalito, you want less sausage on Cumberland.
ismnotwasm
(42,020 posts)Are endless.
I wouldn't put people in the process of exposing their perineum as " behaving themselves" myself.
anarch
(6,535 posts)Dammit, I can't afford new pants.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)And I'm still not sure what exactly I'm looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perineum
ismnotwasm
(42,020 posts)It includes the area below the mon pubis, around and behind the vagina and utethra, around and behind the testicles and penis, reaching all the way to the anus. It's delicate, easlily irritated tissue.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Yet another design flaw!
ismnotwasm
(42,020 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)I want all nudity banned always, even in the bath tub!
I need the brain bleach!
Behind the Aegis
(54,014 posts)(If you don't get the joke, PM me.)
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Just ask Elmo.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,380 posts)To those of you on this thread who are worried someone (including yourselves) might be offended by seeing a naked man;
It's like going to Bourbon street and being shocked to find drunk people.
Who the fuck goes to the Castro district for a family night out dining?
Beaverhausen
(24,472 posts)I wasn't intending to go there, but it was on the way to where I was going. My 3 year old Grandson was in the car.
I saw those guys. I'm not a prude but it was really not a pretty sight. And no, I don't have to look at drunk people genitals when I go to Bourbon Street.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Seems easier than passing a law.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)regularly. The Castro is also where we live and shop. That said, neither my family nor any other family that I know minds the nudity. The straight newbie wealthy families that are moving in don't appreciate the neighborhood... warts and all.
dem4ward
(323 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)dem4ward
(323 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)One of the reasons is sanitary. People walking around naked are exposing everyone else to that...there is a reason why you wash your hands when you use the restroom.
Everyone else shouldn't have to be exposed to your germs.
This is just stupid...I have nothing against nude beaches, nude resorts, whatever...but just walking around in public in general naked is silly. These people are just rationalizing their exhibitionism with their excuses about "breaking down barriers" and "I just gotta be me."
Grow up.
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)I think once you go past the statement "then they become culturally ingrained", You are the one rationalizing.
Practical reasons for clothing are things like protection from the elements. I don't think sanitation has much to do with anything. Whether I wear cloths has nothing to do with whether I wash my hands. I doubt nudists are inherently less sanitary than anyone else. Clothing is not some sort of germ impermeable barrier. If anything, I would guess the opposite. They have lots of nooks and crannies to hide and hold anything that might want to grow, and unlike your hands, they do not get washed through the day. People sneeze on their sleeve, grubby kid hands grab handfuls of cloth, your rear end drips sweat on them. And you just drag them on from one activity to the next without sanitizing them at all.
I don't happen to be a nudist. I don't really want to be one. But your argument bothers me, as it seems to be scientific, yet on reflection, i would guess it is pseudo science, and contrary to actual facts, owing almost purely to cultural bias.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I'm sure I've got a cultural taboo floating in my viewpoint somewhere, but I'm not "morally" opposed to nudity. I am opposed to squeezing in an elevator with someone with their sex and excretion pathways uncovered, or sitting on a chair recently vacated by the same. I've seen the job most people do trying to use a public toilet without depositing waste all over the landscape, and nudists wouldn't have to be less clean than anyone else for this to be a problem -- they'd have to be VASTLY cleaner for it not to be.
Do you think this concern is invalid? I'm taking the scenario out to people who would want to be nude in public full-time, of course, not objecting to a bit of flesh in a parade or something.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I'm not going much further down this road, because the I'm not willing to describe in much further detail what you'd be sitting in if you followed a sweaty nude person on a bus seat, but it'd be the same things you see on a public toilet seat or the inside of undergarments. Are we okay with "skid marks" on public seating areas?
Bacteria is ubiquitous, yes, but the physical materials and fluids that would directly transfer from exposed organs are not the same. There would be odor, and solid and fluid waste in volumes vastly different from the microscopic levels on doorhandles, and vastly more bacteria as well. We wear undergarments because the things that happen beneath them would often ruin a suit of clothes. How would a restaurant booth, bar stool, or taxicab fair better?
I don't see how that can be reasonably disputed.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)the City hasn't acted sooner. I have no issue with nudity but it should be relegated to nudist camps because people sign up knowing of the risks.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)I understand radiation is everywhere, but I don't want uranium in my back yard.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Banning nudity won't change that.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)CaliforniaHiker
(63 posts)Some people don't wash their hands well after using the bathroom, that is an unfortunate fact. Once they have touched an object the bacteria continue to multiply. Unfortunate fact. However, how many people wash their nether regions with antibacterial soap every time they use the restroom? I imagine the number is very low. Therefore, the average rear end has more fecal bacteria than the average set of hands. I know that I can wipe down a cart handle with an antibacterial wipe, which many stores even provide for free. I don't feel that I should have to wipe down every surface I sit on because somebody's bare behind may have sat on it.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)half mile by half mile section of one city is not the problem. You may wipe down that cart handle but you are not wiping down that door handle (even in your own house) or the booth at Denny's or that bowling ball, or that coffee lid, or the electronic pen at the grocery store, or the buttons at your ATM, or the money dispensed. Naked people aren't rubbing their rear ends on any of these things. And you have no evidence that their rear ends aren't as clean as a whistle. It is fully clothed people who are day in and day out, wiping their poop on everything that you touch. Even the simple act of pooping in your own bathroom exposes fecal bacteria to all the members of your family via their toothbrush.
Clothing does not protect you from the "threat" of fecal bacteria. You've been exposed to it nearly every day of your life on restaurant chairs and tables, take out containers, public park benches, airplane and bus seats, amusement park trams, at home, at the grocery store, the money that you handle... every single surface that the public has access to may be contaminated with fecal bacteria. Day in and day out, you are wallowing in it. It is the norm, not the exception.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)It'll damage the children.
Or something...
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)I don't suspect that its much different than sitting there any other time. If basic clothing is going to protect me, then mine will do just fine. And if, as I suspect, it doesn't, then it makes no difference anyway.
I also suspect that most nudists do a better job being clean.. seeing as they don't happen to have any clothing to hide what they haven't taken care of.
Clothing is bacteria and virus permeable, to the best of my knowledge. I really don't think there is a scientific difference between a bus seat of a nudist and anyone else, except perhaps a cultural yuck factor. I could be wrong, If this goes much further I might just have to see if anyones done actual research on the issue.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)the law requires people to wear underwear when trying on clothes in a store. That's reasonable and a good thing. Similarly, it would be reasonable and a good thing to make it illegal for people's naked asses to directly contact any public seating, walls, railings, etc.
Science Geek
(161 posts)... that one may NOT sit naked on a bench, chair, or any other surface. One must put down a towel.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Exposure to air and light might eliminate the germs.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)defecating on the sidewalk or street?
No? then I don't see what is "unsanitary" about it.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Iggy
(1,418 posts)the whining about this being "unsanitary" is balony.. thanks for clearing it up.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)dried up crusted faeces will be flaking off all around town.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)kstewart33
(6,551 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)sellitman
(11,608 posts)Really.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I don't even like to see men without shirts unless it's at the beach, especially if you are in an eating place. People who like to be naked otherwise should do it in the privacy of their homes.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)I mean, do they wear clothes to their day job? to the grocery store? It must be awkward trying to carry a wallet with no pants.
Drale
(7,932 posts)it was a girlfriends idea and it was very awkward for me, but a ton of people walk around with fanny-packs, so they are not 100% nude.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Penthouse Forum lied to me. The only naked people were either eight or eighty. Either way, no one I wanted to see naked.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)i opened my eyes to find an ugly old married man videotaping me. Yuck.
Asshole had the nerve to ask where I was staying. Creepy shit.
Their were fewer when all they could do was gawk, so it was only the creepy guys. Now everybody has a camera phone, so you get tons of them, and you cover the boobs and flip them off. It gets tired.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)in a grocery store where people were shopping nude. That has to be some sort of health violation.
I agree with you though, I would think they'd dress for work, shopping, doctors appt--well maybe not doctors appt you'd only have to get undressed once you're there --but most daily activities require clothing. Not too mention, would you really want to ride public transportation in the nude.
DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)Those idiots are merely exhibitionists who foul the City's brand.
People here say, "It is only the Castro", but a large chunk of our tourists go there.
I've seen those guys and they just look silly.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Right. got it.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)for the tourists! Let's be one giant Fisherman's Wharf and Union Square! The Castro is a neighborhood where residents live, work, and shop. The Castro is not a tourist attraction.
If the sensibilities of the tourists is the issue, our neighborhood should do what the rich people in Sea Cliff have done, ban tourist buses.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)Nearly everyone loves them. I've seen families excitedly pointing them out to their kids even.
It's fun because it's a little transgressive and not something you see every day. I don't think I'd like seeing naked bicyclists every day. I'm glad the city allows it and doesn't stop them.
GoneOffShore
(17,342 posts)Mid October - the Philly Naked Bike Ride. Almost all the riders are nude though most of them wear crash hats and shoes (I refrained from saying the "h" word).
It goes right past my house and all the neighbors and their kids come out to watch.
It's a hoot.
I wouldn't do it, because of that whole bicycle and bits thing.
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)if not- they may want to consider it.
lotta...different...kinds of people out there.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)That's funny
grantcart
(53,061 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Raine
(30,541 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)in some type of art grant.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)NMDemDist2
(49,313 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Holy shit, I don't wanna see wrinkly, hairy butts! I didn't know SF had naked beaches. Ewwwwww...
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)I frankly, don't get how anyone can go without clothing in this city. Its not like the tropics here. In fact with cold damp moist chilly fog, it makes it down right cold in the Summer and the Winter it rains a lot. It got to the point the city had to ban people from using their fireplaces for heating, as it spewed lots of junk into the air. But you have to know, that if people are using their fire places to stay warm, its gotta be cold enough to want to have clothes on.
Someone once pointed out to me the difference between people from Northern California and Southern California. It was the color clothes they wore, they said... Northern Californians tend to wear darker clothing, lots of sweatshirts and sweaters in grey, brown, black and Navy Blue.. where as, in Southern California people wore White, yellows, reds, orange and bright colors.
I wear a sweater nearly every day of the year when I go out..or at least bring one. You learn to bring clothing with you as you may take things off or put things on as the day goes about...
Also to note, those years I worked at Fisherman's Wharf, the hottest selling items were Sweat Hoodies.. because people came thinking our climate was like FLORIDA... its not, and as I type this... I have my space heater on.
Its crazy to go naked outside in this city.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)May - October, we have more pleasant days than not. I manage to grow tomatoes and peppers - notorious heat and sun lovers. In the Castro, it is late afternoon when the wind kicks up and the fog manages to make it over Twin Peaks when it starts getting chilly.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)As I write this now, my legs are freezing... and my space heater is on. I have heard people say that its warmer in the Mission district which is close to the Castro area. The hills of Twin Peaks seems to hold back the fog.. and I have seen it very foggy in the Sunset district as well as the outer Richmond.
This is very typical ...
Maybe you guys don't get as much of this as we do... but having lived in the Haight Asbury for a few years..it did seem warmer there..
(ugh! hated the cockroaches though in those old buildings!)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)it would be 10 degrees cooler (and foggy) at work than at home and rarely warmed up. FYI, I love the Richmond district, without a car, I don't get out there enough. Why oh why is the Richmond not connected to the MUNI train and trolley system?
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)But you could take the Masonic bus over there..or if you are down by Market and Van Ness, take the bus and get off at Geary or Offarrell street and catch the Geary bus. There are a dozen ways to get up to Japantown... my favorite "to go" spot.
IF you like sushi, may I suggest Kushi Tsuru..
great food and very lovely people work there!
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)
And yes, Kushi Tsuru is so good! If you ever find yourself craving sushi in the Castro, I suggest Sushi Time (http://www.sushitime-sf.com/) (tiny tiny tiny) or Eiji (http://www.yelp.com/biz/eiji-san-francisco (the house made tofu dishes are delectable. It is a great place to take vegans.)
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)Someone mentioned "Who would go to the Castro for dinner?" , but there are some great places to go for lunch... I don't recall places off the top of my head, but there are some great little bistros there... and places to eat. I love to go to the Mission too, because where else can you buy a burrito that is inexpensive and the size of a fire place log!!
RandySF
(59,414 posts)But every time we go, our son demands we stop at Sophie's for crepes.
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)I love the fog, and the sun is really warm here at 62-64 degrees (I wouldn't have believed that
when we moved here in August from DC). We have lots of big windows, so the house heats up naturally.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)I am closer to Japantown (Nihonmachi) and it still gets colder here..as it does towards the upper part of the Richmond district.
Outer Richmond District.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)would it be likely that I'd see a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign? Maybe that's just a Midwestern idiosyncrasy, I don't know.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)wear the appropriate clothing. The bar at Castro & 17th with the near floor to ceiling plate glass windows? Perhaps a nudist or 3 wandering in from the public park at their doorstep. Poesia, on the other hand, well-dressed and smelling nice is the norm.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I always thought that it was a health code thing. As it turns out, it was an anti-hippie thing. Who knew?
larocks4552s
(26 posts)Public nudity should be kept to beaches
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I agree with those posting above that this is probably gentrified newcomers with their noses out of joint. This is a silly. I don't know why someone would want to trot around Castro nude, since it's usually quite windy, but hey.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)So obviously a made-up issue about bullshit.
retread
(3,764 posts)solved most of the major problems since I have been gone and now have plenty of free time to devote to public nudity.
bestobdii
(4 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)
If those guys don't wipe their asses properly, I really don't want dried up crusted faeces to be flaking off all around town. And drops of urine when they forget to shake it after peeing.
Public health is more important than their right to show off their schlongs.
Here's a compromise I would support: make them cover up, but allow them to pin a photo of their cock and balls to the front of their pants. No hygiene issues, and they still get to proudly exhibit their genitals.
lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)Besides, there are plenty of nudist beaches, camps, and your own home, for people to go around nude.
It's like religion...do what you like, but please don't force it on me in public.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)It's not the nudity, it's personal hygiene. Putting clothes on people doesn't stop them from being filthy slobs.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2011-03-02-grocerycarts_N.htm
Most where ever you go and whatever you do, you are touching shit.
And FYI, enjoying nudity in any environment rarely involves being an exhibitionist. It is a personal sensual experience to walk around on a beautiful day unencumbered by seams, zippers, and buttons. Most toddlers know this and are ready to rip their clothes off with the slightest of lack of discouragement. They have to be taught shame in order for them to keep their clothes on.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And if they are not wearing underpants, where is that fecal matter going to go?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)in public accessible venues, so their fecal matter is their own personal possession.
Thus, the bogey-man of fecal matter in regards to these naked people has been addressed and handled.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I don't think that entirely puts the hygiene issue to rest.
Science Geek
(161 posts)Viruses and bacterias pass through the openings in in the weave of cotton or cotton-poly cloth like a baseball passes through a 50 foot opening.
Viruses and bacterias are really, really small. Opening in the weave of cloth are really, really big compared to viruses and bacteria.
Typical clothing is absolutely not a barrier to germs. Not at all.
Why do you think that people wear pressurized plastic suits in virus and germ labs? It's because normal clothing doesn't stop germs.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Renew Deal
(81,883 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The proposed SF ordnance is a disgrace. So is this thread.
Shame over the natural human body is your problem, not the nude person's. Save your clothing requirements for Branson, MO.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)whether they want these guys to be allowed to display their hairy asses and penises in full public view? Or do you see this as a fundamental, innate civil right that should not even be brought to a vote?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:23 AM - Edit history (2)
part. Usually 2-4 at any one time. There have been nudes in the Castro for decades. Straight families have, to an increasing level, started buying units here and all of a sudden it's "Ooh the gays!" I once joked to my daughter when she was 7 or younger, "You've seen more naked men in your lifetime than I saw in 30 years (the age I was when I moved to the Castro.)."
The problem isn't naked people, the problem is newcomers having no respect for a subculture of our neighborhood. Body freedom. Pantless chaps. Topiary of naked men with large schlongs. Sexy Jesus. Pantless Santa. The Sisters (who, by the way, have an amazing Halloween party for kids).
Scott Weiner has designs for higher office... his campaign was backed by corporate and commercial interests. He understands that taking action on "sexy" issues gets him more press and gives the appearance that he is taking charge. I could call his office tomorrow about the naked guys and I would get a response. On the other hand, I have called his office about services for homeless gay youth, the illegal evictions of elderly and often sick residents in his district, the loss of locally owned businesses due to gross rent increases that open the door for corporate franchises (and landlords sit on those empty properties then funding campaigns for candidates, like Weiner, in order to open that door) and it is crickets. He has nothing to say in regards the poor to middle income that are struggling to stay in this neighborhood.
It's always some idiot issue that is "f-o-o-o-r-r-r-r the ch-i-i-i-l-l-l-l-dren.
Well, every family that I know that raised their children in the Castro (and 23 years ago, there was only a handful of us) and every family that I know that has lived here and started a family within the last 10 years, we have a message for the interlopers... Take a flying fuck at the mooooon. Your corporate pet, Weiner, may try to build a national reputation on an easy issue (OMG! Naked people! In public! Ban them Weiner! Ban them!) and have little doubt he'll succeed - shiny things are appealing to the general public - but it's going to take another couple of decades until you take over and, in the meantime, there will be (gasp) blatant not main street Missouri standards in your face.
So, the naked people will be banned. And next it will be the naked mannequin window displays. (Already complaints.) And next it will be the sexual suggestive window displays. (Already complaints.) And next it will be sexually suggestive text.
FreeState
(10,585 posts)And that's really what is going on here.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)"Save your clothing requirements for Branson"
...'cause no one but a bunch of awful PRUDES would prefer clothing!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)when I grow tired of seeing exposed penises and perinea in public places.
Perhaps Branson could use this as the basis of a new marketing campaign?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)You know what I think is a "disgrace"?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)or any person for that matter LOL
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Exhibitionism is awesome when all the participants are willing. It's decidedly non-awesome when the onlookers aren't.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)That we have reached the second decade of the 21st century and there are still people that, presumably, identify themselves as liberal who are in favor of criminalizing the exposure of the human body in a city that supposedly epitomizes liberalism just speaks volumes about how little we have progressed.
Bunch of sexless, puritanical, repressed, authoritarian prudes.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I see where you're going here.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)That's how I see public nudity.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)Festival. That would be wrong. But, on the other hand, I'm with those who don't care for the public nudity being described here. Still, in this case, I don't agree with banning it, especially if it's true that most of those complaining are newcomers who want to change the character of the area they moved into. They should have moved somewhere else, imo.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)it's alright to criminalize anyone that a majority, or a vocal minority, don't like. It's literally un-American.
tedzbear
(1,963 posts)Hey, I'm gay with a capital G and I still don't like nudity in my face unless I ask for it.
eyewall
(674 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Won't somebody PLEEEEASE think of the shopping carts?
NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)hey, that ordinance obviously must include new interpretations on breast feeding.
are breasts related to genitals?
are breasts a strange special class unto itself (just like gay people who married before prop H8te are special class of citizens still legally married regardless of the prop because of Federal Constitution's no ex post facto clause)?
if breasts aren't genitals, can women now walk around without the band-aids on their nipples?
time for the court to decide!
ah ha ha ha! the second you accidentally split your pants in SF, it'll be a crime! ah ha ha ha ha! so stupid! people will be mandated to wear underwear to prevent a wardrobe malfunction!
do it! totally do it! i fucking dare you! ah ha ha ha ha! this might be an awesome fight to watch! think how tied up the courts and police will be, how much money the city would hemorrhage. DO IT! I'm across the bay, ENTERTAIN ME!
Dorian Gray
(13,503 posts)this thread, before breakfast, on a Monday morning is not for the faint of heart.
All the talk of fecal matter and bacteria and sweaty hairy nakedness on public busses. Yum..
Heywood J
(2,515 posts)The responses are far more comedy gold than the original article. When someone posts the first ticket for "fragrant taint exposure", we're all set.
Lightbulb_on
(315 posts)... than by nudity last time I was in San Francisco.
Decent enough city but we won't be back until they address that issue.
underoath
(269 posts)Javaman
(62,534 posts)I have come to the conclusion that whether not someone walks around in the castro district nude isn't the issue. Since, apparently, they have been doing this for a very long time and contrary to some who have commented in this thread, there hasn't been a massive outbreak of fecal matter in food or anything of the like otherwise it would have been all over fox news as a banner headline for years.
No, the issue is peoples personal beliefs and concepts as to how other people should live.
It's amusing really, considering how often we complain about how the republicans wish to limit our personal freedoms. Now, here in our very midst, many posters are doing just that same thing. Until this item was in the headlines, honestly, how many of you actually gave a rats ass about this issue? I would bet none. Zero. Nada. Zip and Zilch.
But since it's the new "outrage du jour" the moral contempt writ large on some DU'ers sleeves comes out in a fury of indignation.
You crack me up. LOL
Get over yourselves and have a good laugh at your knee jerk need to comment on something that didn't matter to you a week ago.
So amusing.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)People smoked in bars, that they went to by personal choice, for years. No one forced them to be there anymore than anyone forces someone to go to san fran.
People displayed christmas decorations in town squares since before I was born.
They didn't wear seat belts if they didn't want to back when I was a kid.
Personal freedoms are often taken away by the very people I see here saying that having people wear clothing is wrong.
The site of naked people wandering the city streets may be just as terrifying to some as seeing a christmas tree at city hall. To some it is just a symbol of their culture and they have 'always done' it.
Javaman
(62,534 posts)Cheers!
Throd
(7,208 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)And this is from a parent of kids in the SF Bay Area
My son saw a nude dude in SF, and asked me about it.
I told him "He has a penis, just like you."
End of questions
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Didn't this used to be called "flashing"?
Taverner
(55,476 posts)or boobs? or a vagina?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It's not like they are scary or anything. Think of it as an anatomy lesson for 10-year olds.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)The reason most of these men are walking around naked now is because the media is busy clutching their pearls over this one. Stop making it an issue and it will go away. SF can get downright cold this time of year.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The one your son saw probably enjoyed the expression on your son's face.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)But I disagree.
You must not know any naturists, do you?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I am not aware of the sexual orientation of these nudists and do not see it as relevant.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)"The one your son saw probably enjoyed the expression on your son's face."
You inferred that the man enjoyed exposing himself to a boy.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)(and, by the way, adults are not allowed on playgrounds in SF unless accompanied by children), are pedophiles and their actions would be perceived as a crime.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)They can legally remove their pants and underwear on a street.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I was all set to drive down to the Castro to work up a righteous froth-based anger over the TWO WHOLE NAKED GUYS out of a city of 700,000 for which this "emergency ordinance" was written, but upon being totally unable To find an open Parking space, I circled around for two hours, and after my car died on a hill in Noe Valley, I gave up.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)If kids see nudity they might think their bodies are OK or something, instead of "vessels for gawd"
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But I just dont see what the big fucking deal is.
http://pdxpipeline.com/2012/06/11/portland-naked-bike-ride-pictures-info/
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)lyingsackofmitt
(105 posts)Why does the human body have to be offensive to some people. Nudity doesn't have to equal sex. You don't masturbate every time you go to the bathroom do you? This country has a body image problem, leading young women and men to want an unattainable physique that ultimately leads them to low self esteem and depression.
booley
(3,855 posts)The more one is exposed to nudity, the less prurient it becomes.
This isn't about being sanitary. It's about how most people see nudity as "EWWWW" and get shocked when they see it.
The thing about shock though.. eventually it stops being shocking.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,390 posts)Be sure to wear some clothes on pubic hair...
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)Come on, people. You HAVE to allow nudity at the Folsom Street Fair, otherwise, what's the point?