SF Supervisor to Introduce Legislation Forcing Nudists to Wear Clothes

[garbon]

Actually I'd say that homelessness on a day-to-day basis has more of an effect of the citizens of SF than public nudity.  For the most part, even in Wiener's district, nudity doesn't really have much effect on passerby's besides the ick factor.

Perhaps part of the problem is that many associate public nudity, not with naturist types, but with crazy people.

Perhaps though I'm not sure to what extent that's true for SF.  I mean they have those nude bike riders every so often, Folsom Street Fair/Dore Alley which get beyond just simple nudity, Bay to Breakers were people run/walk nude across the city and then Baker Beach which is a year round half nude beach.  So all in all, nudity isn't really something that only the crazy do in SF.

The only difference between Castro gathering and the rest is that the Castro bit is a rather well-traveled piece of the city to have nude people gathering all year round.

[mongers]

If the are naked in front of children isn't that some sort of sex crime?    Like indecent exposure or something?

[/]

Only in America,.. and Britain.

[/:frog:]

[garbon]

If the are naked in front of children isn't that some sort of sex crime?    Like indecent exposure or something?

Nope. It's okay as long as they aren't acting lewdly.  One of the items in this most recent fight regards the use of cock rings that opponents are stating serves the sole purpose of exhibiting the penis.

[Josquius]

Ban nudity on public streets. Taking your shirt off for longer than 5 minutes is also a lashable offence.
In the countryside do what you will.

[Martinus]

Journalist missed a title opportunity: "Wiener stands firm on nudity". 

He wants to be the only Wiener on display.

[Martinus]

Not sure that safety argument applies.  I think the odds of a naked guy carrying a concealed weapon are fairly low.

But if they are, it is really, really gross. 

I mean, who wants to be stabbed with a knife a guy pulled out of his asshole? Even if it had a sheath.

This being SF, an average guy could probably conceal a bazooka up his ass.

Yes, I went there. 

[Martinus]

I think you guys are coming from a completely different cultural background, so to speak. Castro is a famously gay, sexually open neighbourhood - applying "family friendly suburbia" criteria to it just doesn't cut it.

It's probably a greater crime there to wear pleated pants, yet noone who lives in San Francisco argues that the place where Barrister Boy lives should ban pleated pants - why then does Barrister Boy argue what kind of attires people of Castro should ban in public?

[Martinus]

Besides (the gross factor of ugly nude people aside), aren't we supposed to be progressing in terms of social mores and keep removing restrictions imposed by the society, one by one? This seems like a move in the opposite direction.

[Josquius]

Besides (the gross factor of ugly nude people aside), aren't we supposed to be progressing in terms of social mores and keep removing restrictions imposed by the society, one by one? This seems like a move in the opposite direction.

How about public smoking?
A lot of bans popping up against that these days. Because its harmful to other people.

If people want to be naked then that's fine for them...but nobody wants to see ugly naked people when they're going about their daily lives.

[Eddie Teach]

Hiding our naughty bits in public is one of the markers of the difference between civilized people and savages.

[Martinus]

Besides (the gross factor of ugly nude people aside), aren't we supposed to be progressing in terms of social mores and keep removing restrictions imposed by the society, one by one? This seems like a move in the opposite direction.

How about public smoking?
A lot of bans popping up against that these days. Because its harmful to other people.

If people want to be naked then that's fine for them...but nobody wants to see ugly naked people when they're going about their daily lives.

This is actually a perfect example of a completely wrong analogy.

The key reason for banning public smoking is, as you say, the alleged harmful effect of smoking on the health of others. There is no such harmful effect when it comes to public nudity - the only "negative" effect on others is a potential negative aesthetic experience other people may have while seeing someone nude - this (ultimately, thankfully) is still not considered a valid enough reason to ban something in a pluralistic, free society, or we would be banning the ugly, the morbidly obese etc. from showing themselves in public.

[Martinus]

Hiding our naughty bits in public is one of the markers of the difference between civilized people and savages.

Not really. Especially once you consider that what we consider naughty bits is purely dictated by our culture. For sikhs, their hair is considered "naughty bits" so we are savages to them for not wearing tourbans.

[CountDeMoney]

I think you guys are coming from a completely different cultural background, so to speak. Castro is a famously gay, sexually open neighbourhood - applying "family friendly suburbia" criteria to it just doesn't cut it.

It's probably a greater crime there to wear pleated pants, yet noone who lives in San Francisco argues that the place where Barrister Boy lives should ban pleated pants - why then does Barrister Boy argue what kind of attires people of Castro should ban in public?

Have you ever been to the Castro district?

[Martinus]

I think you guys are coming from a completely different cultural background, so to speak. Castro is a famously gay, sexually open neighbourhood - applying "family friendly suburbia" criteria to it just doesn't cut it.

It's probably a greater crime there to wear pleated pants, yet noone who lives in San Francisco argues that the place where Barrister Boy lives should ban pleated pants - why then does Barrister Boy argue what kind of attires people of Castro should ban in public?

Have you ever been to the Castro district?

No but I have seen movies from the Folsom Street Faire. 

[CountDeMoney]

I think you guys are coming from a completely different cultural background, so to speak. Castro is a famously gay, sexually open neighbourhood - applying "family friendly suburbia" criteria to it just doesn't cut it.

It's probably a greater crime there to wear pleated pants, yet noone who lives in San Francisco argues that the place where Barrister Boy lives should ban pleated pants - why then does Barrister Boy argue what kind of attires people of Castro should ban in public?

Have you ever been to the Castro district?

No but I have seen movies from the Folsom Street Faire. 

Well, contrary to your fevered and feverish fantasies, nobody's walking around in assless leather chaps and stainless CBT devices on your average Tuesday morning.  It's just like every other neighborhood in any other city on a given work day.