http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/10/supervisor_scott_wiener_to_pas.php
QuoteThe debate over public nudity has finally come to a head.
Supervisor Scott Wiener says he plans to introduce legislation later today that will seriously restrict public nudity in San Francisco. According to the plan, naked men (and women, if there are any) would no longer be allowed to flap freely in city plazas, parklets, sidewalks, streets, and public transit.
So basically everywhere.
Nudity would be allowed at places and events where you go to see naked people -- Folsom Street Fair, Bay to Breakers, Pride parade, or your own backyard.
See also: Here's How S.F. Nudists Would Dress, if They Did Wear Clothes.
Wiener blames his draconian move on one too many wieners walking around. According to the District 8 supervisor, there's been a "sharp increase in public nudity in the Castro, including an almost-daily ad-hoc nudist colony at Jane Warner Plaza."
Per Wiener:
QuoteWhile most people in San Francisco, myself included, have no problem with occasional public nudity, we've seen a shift in public attitude because of the over-the-top situation at Jane Warner Plaza and elsewhere in the Castro. Until recently, public nudity in our city was mostly limited to various street festivals and beaches as well as the occasional naked person wandering the streets. What's happening now is different. Jane Warner Plaza is the only usable public space in the Castro and serves as the neighborhood's town square. Use of this small but important space as a near-daily nudist colony, while fun for the nudists, is anything but for the neighborhood as a whole. This plaza and this neighborhood are for everyone, and the current situation alienates both residents and visitors. We are a tolerant neighborhood and city, but there are limits.
Wiener swears he wasn't out to get nudists; he tried to allow the exhibitionism to run its course, but instead, the situation "has gotten more extreme. Many in the community have reached the end of their rope," Wiener says.
If the legislation passes, anyone busted without clothes on in public will be subjected to a $100 fine -- the first time. That penalty will double if they're spotted sans clothing again in the same one-year period. If that still isn't reason enough to get dressed, a third offense will amount to either a $500 fine or a misdemeanor citation. But here's the silver lining: If convicted, you won't have to register as a sex offender, Wiener says.
"The goal here isn't to punish people, but rather to get them to put their clothes on," Wiener explains.
Oh, and don't worry Noe Valley moms, this legislation won't apply to children under 5.
I've been reading messaging board bits put together by groups of nudists themselves and its interesting to hear how they really feel as though this is a major issue / a question of key personal rights. Additionally it is interesting to see how they are thinking of some sort of self-policing (I guess in the last few days there was a nudist acting particularly obscene and they are concerned about how that will impact this issue) as well as trying to form a core nucleus of them that will actually step forwards to make sure their voice is heard at public meetings and via letter writing campaigns. It sort of seems like a small-scale version of the buddings of OWS but on a much less important issue.
Do they not understand how lucky they are compared to the rest of the country? :huh:
Whilst I find the public display of genitalia somewhat yuck and can see how older people might take genuine offence, I think this minor issue, less important than dog poo in public places and littering, is best not solved with 'legislation' like that used by the Ayatollahs and Saudis.
QuoteSupervisor Scott Wiener
:)
Quote from: mongers on October 02, 2012, 01:13:00 PM
Whilst I find the public display of genitalia somewhat yuck and can see how older people might take genuine offence, I think this minor issue, less important than dog poo in public places and littering, is best not solved with 'legislation' like that used by the Ayatollahs and Saudis.
There's a big difference between making you cover your dick and making you cover your face.
Quote from: mongers on October 02, 2012, 01:13:00 PM
Whilst I find the public display of genitalia somewhat yuck and can see how older people might take genuine offence, I think this minor issue, less important than dog poo in public places and littering, is best not solved with 'legislation' like that used by the Ayatollahs and Saudis.
I think the issue is that as SF gets more known about being open to nudity - there has been an increase in nudist flocking to places like Castro & Market from all over the country. Many of those aren't so well behaved and flaunt their genitals about somewhat lewdly.
Quote from: merithyn on October 02, 2012, 01:08:25 PM
Do they not understand how lucky they are compared to the rest of the country? :huh:
That's the part that is so fascinating to me - as even within conditions in SF - there are so much more pressing issues than the ability to walk around naked as a jaybird. They seem rather out of touch to me.
That said, Scott Wiener says that he's taken a stand against this as complaints about the nudists have outstripped(!) complaints about homeless in his district.
Journalist missed a title opportunity: "Wiener stands firm on nudity". :P
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2012, 02:00:37 PM
That's the part that is so fascinating to me - as even within conditions in SF - there are so much more pressing issues than the ability to walk around naked as a jaybird. They seem rather out of touch to me.
That said, Scott Wiener says that he's taken a stand against this as complaints about the nudists have outstripped(!) complaints about homeless in his district.
The "there have to be more important issue" question is an interesting one.
Yes, you can argue that poverty, homelessness, health care, the environment, are all 'more important'. However, on a day to day basis, the kinds of issues that actually affect people more significantly are questions like this - public nudity, grafitti, littering. It really goes into how safe and secure does the entire community feel.
Not sure that safety argument applies. I think the odds of a naked guy carrying a concealed weapon are fairly low.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2012, 03:54:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2012, 02:00:37 PM
That's the part that is so fascinating to me - as even within conditions in SF - there are so much more pressing issues than the ability to walk around naked as a jaybird. They seem rather out of touch to me.
That said, Scott Wiener says that he's taken a stand against this as complaints about the nudists have outstripped(!) complaints about homeless in his district.
The "there have to be more important issue" question is an interesting one.
Yes, you can argue that poverty, homelessness, health care, the environment, are all 'more important'. However, on a day to day basis, the kinds of issues that actually affect people more significantly are questions like this - public nudity, grafitti, littering. It really goes into how safe and secure does the entire community feel.
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.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2012, 03:57:27 PM
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.
Way more. Those guys can get aggressive. I've never been harassed by a naked person.
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2012, 03:55:27 PM
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. :yucky:
I mean, who wants to be stabbed with a knife a guy pulled out of his asshole? Even if it had a sheath.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2012, 03:57:27 PM
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.
If the are naked in front of children isn't that some sort of sex crime? :hmm: Like indecent exposure or something?
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2012, 04:29:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2012, 03:57:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2012, 04:30:12 PM
If the are naked in front of children isn't that some sort of sex crime? :hmm: Like indecent exposure or something?
[:frog:/]
Only in America,.. and Britain.
[/:frog:]
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2012, 04:30:12 PM
If the are naked in front of children isn't that some sort of sex crime? :hmm: 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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2012, 03:09:17 PM
Journalist missed a title opportunity: "Wiener stands firm on nudity". :P
He wants to be the only Wiener on display.
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2012, 04:27:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2012, 03:55:27 PM
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. :yucky:
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. :rolleyes:
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?
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2012, 01:34:15 AM
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.
Hiding our naughty bits in public is one of the markers of the difference between civilized people and savages.
Quote from: Tyr on October 04, 2012, 02:45:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2012, 01:34:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2012, 02:53:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2012, 01:31:51 AM
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?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 06:45:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2012, 01:31:51 AM
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. :P
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2012, 06:54:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 06:45:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2012, 01:31:51 AM
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. :P
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2012, 06:54:25 AM
No but I have seen movies from the Folsom Street Faire. :P
Which doesn't take place anywhere near Castro.
Additionally one of the nudist pointed out that while the Castro started collecting gays in the 70s, it was probably only at some point in the 90s that gays actually dominated the neighborhood.
Oh and fashion in Castro? SF gays don't really do fashion - not when it conflicts with comfort.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 07:07:49 AM
It's just like every other neighborhood in any other city on a given work day.
That's not true. It has the nudists walking about. :P
Also, you've a much greater likelihood of running into a rainbow coalition of gays than many parts of many other cities. (Though I do agree with the point that Marti made a mistake on projecting events like Folsom onto the Castro.
Quote from: garbon on October 04, 2012, 07:19:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 07:07:49 AM
It's just like every other neighborhood in any other city on a given work day.
That's not true. It has the nudists walking about. :P
Also, you've a much greater likelihood of running into a rainbow coalition of gays than many parts of many other cities. (Though I do agree with the point that Marti made a mistake on projecting events like Folsom onto the Castro.
Well, maybe it was too early for the nudies when I drove through. :lol: But with the occasional exception to certain storefronts ("Look! A leather shop!"), it seemed like a normal district neighborhood to me. Not much different that the Read Street area of Baltimore, where all the gays coagulate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 07:23:21 AM
Well, maybe it was too early for the nudies when I drove through. :lol: But with the occasional exception to certain storefronts ("Look! A leather shop!"), it seemed like a normal district neighborhood to me. Not much different that the Read Street area of Baltimore, where all the gays coagulate.
But that's just it - gay neighborhoods differ in their populations from "normal district neighborhoods".
Quote from: garbon on October 04, 2012, 07:27:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 07:23:21 AM
Well, maybe it was too early for the nudies when I drove through. :lol: But with the occasional exception to certain storefronts ("Look! A leather shop!"), it seemed like a normal district neighborhood to me. Not much different that the Read Street area of Baltimore, where all the gays coagulate.
But that's just it - gay neighborhoods differ in their populations from "normal district neighborhoods".
Yes they do. They have much nicer properties, well maintained, manicured and they do excellent restoration of old architecture.
But whether it's Castro, Dupont Circle or the Village, I have yet to see leatherdaddies taking their latex gimps for a walk in cock cages at 8:30am on a workday. But hey, maybe I'm just not looking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 07:31:04 AM
But whether it's Castro, Dupont Circle or the Village, I have yet to see leatherdaddies taking their latex gimps for a walk in cock cages at 8:30am on a workday. But hey, maybe I'm just not looking.
I already agreed on that part. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 07:07:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2012, 06:54:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 06:45:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2012, 01:31:51 AM
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. :P
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.
You got some strange looks when you visited then, huh.
:hmm:
So the nudists are going to censor the content of their message forums as they figure it'll now get scrutiny from the media. As part of that, they are changing it to align solely with the promotion of public nudity and removing any posted items of sexual nature. Oddly enough, they posted this plan to the message forum (though I guess they will then pull a Dorsey and delete that as well).
In other news, the nudists are now saying that legislation will make them second-class-citizens. :yeahright:
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2012, 02:45:28 PM
In other news, the nudists are now saying that legislation will make them second-class-citizens. :yeahright:
:lol: I eagerly await panicked headlines about "bathtime costumes."
I mean, it's not as if the state has got compelling reasons to ban public nudity. Nope, not at all.
Well SF is a special case as it does have BaytoBreakers (an event that famously features nudity) and Folsom Street Fair (+Dore Alley - both of which feature nudity and sexually explicit themes) as money makers for the city.
Awesome! :XD:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/san-francisco-nudists_n_2133774.html
QuoteSan Francisco Nudists Sue To Block Proposed Ban
A group of San Francisco residents is suing the city to block a proposed ban on public nudity.
A lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in San Francisco claims an ordinance that city officials are considering would violate the civil rights of people who want to bare their bodies for personal or political reasons.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on the measure next week. It would prohibit nakedness on city streets, sidewalks and plazas at all times except during permitted fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event.
Lawyer Christina DiEdoardo filed the case as a dozen or so of her clients stood outside the courthouse in varying states of undress.
DiEdoardo says the ban is too broad and would inhibit the free speech of nudists who can't afford a permit.
First vote of supervisors has SF becoming an anti-nudity zone.
It hasn't been very clear on this whole thing, garbon, on where you stand. What do you think the board should do?
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 01:45:00 PM
First vote of supervisors has SF becoming an anti-nudity zone.
For some reason I thought all public places were anti-nudity zones.
:( Just to think; next time I whip it out in public, I could be arrested.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2012, 02:08:46 PM
:( Just to think; next time I whip it out in public, I could be arrested.
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 01:45:00 PM
First vote of supervisors has SF becoming an anti-nudity zone.
The news piece I saw this morning exempted the usual Castro District fun days, Gay Pride and the other yearly parade thingy they do.
Heh, "thingy".
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 02:04:40 PM
It hasn't been very clear on this whole thing, garbon, on where you stand. What do you think the board should do?
I don't know. I mean while I'm not so excited about the nudists, I don't know that they really cause any harm. I also think it is rather hypocritical of SF to be like public nudity is going to be a crime unless you're participating in Bay to Breakers, Folsom Street Fair or any other of our cash cows.
Apparently the half-nude beach, Baker Beach also gets an exemption. That all seems strange considering Folsom and Baker Beach are places where public sex actually happens as a result of nudity!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 02:12:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 01:45:00 PM
First vote of supervisors has SF becoming an anti-nudity zone.
The news piece I saw this morning exempted the usual Castro District fun days, Gay Pride and the other yearly parade thingy they do.
Heh, "thingy".
I was actually always disappointed by pride as the amount of nudity was pretty little compared to the rest of the year. :D
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 02:06:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 01:45:00 PM
First vote of supervisors has SF becoming an anti-nudity zone.
For some reason I thought all public places were anti-nudity zones.
Well, that's not true. Even if you exempted out SF, plenty of places have nude parks and beaches.
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 02:15:44 PM
I was actually always disappointed by pride as the amount of nudity was pretty little compared to the rest of the year. :D
But doesn't the Ass Score Potential Factor jump exponentially during Pride?
Oh wait, who am I kidding. These are gays we're talking about. Ass on tap.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 02:19:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 02:15:44 PM
I was actually always disappointed by pride as the amount of nudity was pretty little compared to the rest of the year. :D
But doesn't the Ass Score Potential Factor jump exponentially during Pride?
Oh wait, who am I kidding. These are gays we're talking about. Ass on tap.
I guess so. STD potential probably goes up to so...:x
Besides all it really meant was my hangout spots were invaded by tourists.
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 02:16:22 PM
Well, that's not true. Even if you exempted out SF, plenty of places have nude parks and beaches.
Well yes there are specific nudist zones, but it doesn't sound like SF is messing with those.
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 02:20:34 PM
Besides all it really meant was my hangout spots were invaded by tourists.
I could see how a paunchy, middle-aged tourist from Scottsdale sitting on your favorite bar stool at the local drinkery with his sweaty naked ass would be a tremendous downer.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 02:25:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 02:16:22 PM
Well, that's not true. Even if you exempted out SF, plenty of places have nude parks and beaches.
Well yes there are specific nudist zones, but it doesn't sound like SF is messing with those.
For the most part nudists were only walking about in the Castro/Twin Peaks area and then sometimes in SoMa (as places where nudists are unlikely to get their asses beat). One of the concerns raised on the citywide ban was that it was unnecessary as lewd nudism was really only an issue in the free-wheeling Castro.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 02:27:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 02:20:34 PM
Besides all it really meant was my hangout spots were invaded by tourists.
I could see how a paunchy, middle-aged tourist from Scottsdale sitting on your favorite bar stool at the local drinkery with his sweaty naked ass would be a tremendous downer.
Yes. Such an individual is unlikely to start my apt rent.