Those morons. Those six idiots will regret this vote. Assimilationists always do in the end. Why is courage the rarest commodity of all in the USA?
SF passes public nudity ban 6-5
|by Anonymous||reply 104||12/05/2012|
Why is it so necessary to be able to be naked in public?
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/21/2012|
R1 why do you care?
Jesus christ, I'm so sick of this "I don't want to be naked so nobody else should ever be allowed to be" attitude. Just go on and vote Republican if that's the way your mind works.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/21/2012|
Have you SEEN the creeps who insist on flapping their saggy cocks and prune asses in public?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/21/2012|
Perhaps they could add a stipulation that only the beautiful are allowed to engage in public nudity.
I would support that.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/21/2012|
[quote]Have you SEEN the creeps who insist on flapping their saggy cocks and prune asses in public?
This reminds me, my gym recently put up a poster of locker room etiquette. On the list: "Always wear a towel in the locker room, including going to the shower and at the sink." It probably has to do with the fact that only the old men were walking around naked and shaving fully nude. But I wonder if the front desk would have gotten complaints had it been young in-shape men? Probably not.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/21/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/21/2012|
Free speech..or something.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/21/2012|
the saggy baggies are revolting!
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/21/2012|
Feast your eyes!
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/21/2012|
"Also, this attack on our freedom has spawned a change.org petition that has nearly 1,200 signees. It needs 23,818 signees.
If we don’t stand up for the rights of nudists like myself, then there will be no limits to government attacks on the freedoms of the people."
Yeah, Mary. You're a regular Anne Frank.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/21/2012|
[quote]Those morons. Those six idiots will regret this vote. Assimilationists always do in the end.
Agreed that it's unfortunate that every place has to be the same. But, I doubt they'll regret it.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/21/2012|
So, Folsom is over? At least in it's usual form?
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/21/2012|
It's never really hot people who partake in their rights to public nudity. I wonder why that is...
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/21/2012|
Screw your freedom, they did a good and reasonable thing
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/21/2012|
Because R14 hot people like to charge.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/21/2012|
[quote]Jesus christ, I'm so sick of this "I don't want to be naked so nobody else should ever be allowed to be" attitude.
I think the attitude is not so much "I don't want to be naked so nobody else should be allowed to be naked" as it is "I don't want to see your nasty-ass body naked, so cover it the hell up."
And y'know, looking at the photos that somebody linked above, I don't blame people for having that attitude!
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/21/2012|
God, so many looksists... it doesn't matter what they look like.
Sure, ban it on public transport. Ban public masturbation even. But to ban streaking and free expression in San Francisco of all places, is just bizarre.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/21/2012|
[quote]I think the attitude is not so much "I don't want to be naked so nobody else should be allowed to be naked" as it is "I don't want to see your nasty-ass body naked, so cover it the hell up."
How is that attitude any different? "I don't want to see two men kissing, so fucking keep it in your bedrooms, and ban it in public!"
Seriously, how is it different?
Are you guys all so fucking stupid?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/21/2012|
This guy is a rarity, and he's at Civic Center, where there's plenty of space to just walk away and avoid him (but who would!)
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/21/2012|
These are the regulars. The excessively tanned guy in a hippie wig (yes, it's a wig) is a chronic masturbating exhibitionist who whacks his oiled up cock anywhere he can.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/21/2012|
If the self-centered exhibitionist freaks had some self restraint, we would not have needed this law.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/21/2012|
Pornstar Marc Dylan sauntering around San Francisco, in the nude. Link NSFW.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/21/2012|
no nude fat people!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/21/2012|
OP is mentally ill.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/21/2012|
R23, it's funny how at the beginning when the camera pans out to reveal him fully naked, a man with his dog walk by and the dog stops suddenly to stare him down. haha
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/21/2012|
It would seem that the only people going starkers in public are the ones that no one would willingly wish to see in private.
Suddenly I feel a twinge of nostalgia.The quaintness and charm of the crowds on the 24 Divisadero at night, back in the 7-Tease. Hotel Utah dykes, the bearded Donna Summer tranny guy, the frotterists in day-glo ties...ahh youth!
So it's down to this, S.F.? Vacuum pump-abuse and Mystery Butt Butter? Please, please, leave something, nay, everything...to the imagination.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/21/2012|
A lot of people sexualize nudity. Like, the only reason to be naked is for sexual intercourse.
It always makes me wonder why we still allow public eating where you are exposed to people opening their mouths and shoveling all sorts of disgusting stuff in their mouths? Really, that's what god inventend kitchens and dinner tables for!
We already banned smoking in most public places. THANK GOD FOR THAT! Nobody needs to see you satisfing your oral fixation by putting a smoking tube stick in your mouth sucking and inhaling its smokey contents.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/21/2012|
What R19 said.
I'm not a fan of "banning" things anyhow. It just creates resentment, and is 'feel good politics' at its worst.
I've lived in SF most of my life, and while yes, I do see an occasional nudist, and it's always an ugly one, big fucking deal. It's the human body, and it is what it is.
It's also a reminder that we all get old and wrinkly, and it might be good to get an idea of what to expect, lol.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/21/2012|
this ban will mean that you can't walk down the street and catch a bus in chaps in order to get to Folsom
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/21/2012|
[quote]We already banned smoking in most public places. THANK GOD FOR THAT! Nobody needs to see you satisfing your oral fixation by putting a smoking tube stick in your mouth sucking and inhaling its smokey contents.
That's not why smoking was banned in public places. It has to do with second-hand smoke and not at all with the way someone smokes.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/21/2012|
Great day for San Francisco
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/21/2012|
Perhaps ugly people shouldn't be allowed in public even if they are dressed, because Lord knows, no one wants to have to look at them.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/21/2012|
Sf sounds like a hellhole of homeless and sickos
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/21/2012|
too bad. it was one of the quirky characteristics of SF that I loved.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/21/2012|
[quote]Jesus christ, I'm so sick of this "I don't want to be naked so nobody else should ever be allowed to be" attitude. Just go on and vote Republican if that's the way your mind works.
Sort of like the "I don't want to be married, so nobody else should ever be allowed to be" attitude of militant queers, no?
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/21/2012|
As much as I loathe Rudy Giuliano, he is just what this city needs. It is a beautiful city full of so much ugliness that's an assault to people just trying to live their lives....
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/21/2012|
What R1 said. Why is this so important to you? It's the most asinine political cause ever. You have to be mentally ill to need to be nude in public.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/21/2012|
Glad they passed the ban!
Sick of these assholes.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/21/2012|
OP, I can only tell you that from our perspective (Denmark) the American part of the problem is more complex than you're grasping.
We don't have a law against public nudity and people are often nude in public. But we also have a rule in our law that requires people to respect distances and the requests of others.
Americans have a hard time grasping this concept. So many people make this about their "rights" and asserting themselves that you divide so sharply on most everything.
No one cares in Denmark if you step outside naked, or sun naked in most parks or beaches. But sitting on public chairs in restaurants without putting something down, being nude to "make a statement", knowing they're going to create conflict with schools and parents ...
This overreaction to abusing the freedom isn't really a surprise in the US, is it?
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/21/2012|
Good points r40.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||11/21/2012|
The porn star is a little shorty isn't he? Lots of them are and look how huge his cock looks with a one inch pube-do. To me it makes a guy look like an eight year. The only reason anyone walks around naked in public is ego. No where in The Constitution does it state any city has to indulge your chronic need for attention.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/21/2012|
IF there is public nudity allowed I think parks, beaches, areas you sunbathe is perfectly acceptable.
However the Castro nudes and their ridiculous pubic haircuts, cockrings and semi erections were ludicrous and offensive.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||11/21/2012|
Americans tend to be self-absorbed, tunnel-minded egotists. We like to think only of our RIGHTS, and not about our RESPONSIBILITIES.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/21/2012|
Unfortunately, most nudes in San Francisco do not look like Marc Dylan.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/21/2012|
Hanging around outside is not streaking, hello? I am SO glad this passed. Disgusting old prunes. Or of any age. There is so much wrong with SF that this only makes it worse. You ever wonder why mentalities like Dan White (hopefully the youngsters know who this is) spring up?
Now if it were straight guys, nudists, hanging out? THat might seem different - OR if this went on in - other cities? Just comes across to most people, as "goddamn faggots."
This is why they hate us.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/21/2012|
If I'm correct the San Francisco ordinance exempts festivals, fairs and major events, so you will still have the "Bay to Breakers" race, nude bike ride, Pride Fest, Folsom Street, Dore Alley, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/21/2012|
What type of people want to be naked in public? We should not grovel to accommodate people with exhibitionist disorders?
|by Anonymous||reply 49||11/21/2012|
So I guess the World Naked Bike Ride will have to bypass the US entirely now? Even deeply Catholic Mexico allows it.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||11/21/2012|
It's not about being naked.
Go ahead and be naked at home, in your yard, at nude beaches, at the Folsom Street Fair.
It's about a sexual kink, exhibitionism.
I don't want to have to participate your sexual kink when I am walking to the Muni.
I think it's great they passed the ban and the Castro will be a better place.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||11/21/2012|
Sad. I always liked Vermont's law, where nudity is legal but lascivious behavior is not. SO, while you can sunbathe, hike, bike, run or strolla round naked, you can't walk around with a semi or stroke yourself.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||11/21/2012|
Does that mean one can go 5/11ths nude in SF?
|by Anonymous||reply 53||11/21/2012|
I don't think OP understands what assimilation means. And almost no assimilators regret it "in the end."
|by Anonymous||reply 54||11/21/2012|
R40 is EXACTLY RIGHT. It was a right, and certain people abused it, purely because they wanted attention. With rights come responsibilities.
I'm all for the ban.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||11/21/2012|
R40 is one of the best posts on DL in a long time.
I think people tend to have more respect for each other when their is more ethnic, religious and socio-economic cohesion. San Francisco is perhaps the ast place on earth to look for such an environment.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||11/21/2012|
The nudists enjoy hanging out in large groups at the new parklet on Castro street. The city paid a lot of money to design and build the parklet and it has been taken over by these freaks. I've seen them a number of times there and I'm glad the board of supervisors did something about it.
Call me a prude, but I think it's wrong for these exhibitionists to be in full view of children. I don't have kids, but if I did I'd steer clear of these freaks.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||11/21/2012|
R57 = typical asshat American.
ME ME ME ME ME.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||11/21/2012|
[quote]Jesus christ, I'm so sick of this "I don't want to be naked so nobody else should ever be allowed to be" attitude. Just go on and vote Republican if that's the way your mind works.
That doesn't make any sense. You are advocating a Libertarian viewpoint, which is not always anti-Republican these days (look at the South Park creators for proof of that.)
|by Anonymous||reply 60||11/21/2012|
r57 just needs to take a moment, if you all don't mind, as she has her little hissy fit.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||11/21/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 62||11/21/2012|
[quote]You are advocating a Libertarian viewpoint
No, YOU aren't making any sense. I wouldn't advocate a libertarian viewpoint if you paid me to. That there are a very few places where a libertarian might coincidentally agree with what I say, that does not make me either libertarian, or an advocate of their party. Ugh.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||11/21/2012|
R59 it is the anti-nudists who are making all about themselves, or THE CHILDREN because nudity always equals sexual molestation, don't you know, even though most of human history involved no wraps of any kind.
Since all the clothes are made in Haiti or Bangladesh these days, it would help the trade balance if everyone went au naturel.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||11/21/2012|
It will only start with this.
Soon the Mommies will object to PDA.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||11/21/2012|
[quote]it is the anti-nudists who are making all about themselves, or THE CHILDREN because nudity always equals sexual molestation, don't you know, even though most of human history involved no wraps of any kind.
Put words in people's mouths much?
|by Anonymous||reply 66||11/21/2012|
SF would be better off if it banned shitting on sidewalks and pissing on buses. That is one disgusting, fecal laden city. Nudity is the least of its problems.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||11/21/2012|
San Francisco decided a long time ago that it would rather have high-end restaurants than anything else. So it chased out all the less-than-mainstream artists and surrendered every fun public space to foodies. I find the epicureanization of San Francisco way more obscene than some old wrinkly guy. The place sold its soul to software startups not long after AIDS thinned out the "alternative" and "minority" populations. San Francisco is beautiful - beautiful - the loveliest city in the USA, just to look at. But it's empty inside.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||11/21/2012|
Dan White sprung up as a Conservative reaction to changing times, but also, and people won't admit this, as a reaction to corruption in city politics-Harvey Milk included.
Moscone allowed the Peoples Temple legitimacy because he delivered votes; the city ignored the complaints of cult behaviour. Milk used them for election campaigns.
Flame me all you want, I don't give a fuck.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||11/21/2012|
That's just not true. Dan White was a unionized firefighter and quite comfortable with all corruption.
Moscone saw the future as having other centers of power than the public safety unions, so the actual facts are the opposite of what you allege R69. You're probably Angela Alioto.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||11/21/2012|
What about hygiene? Who wants to sit in a chair recently vacated by some naked person and his or her ass juice? I support ban.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||11/21/2012|
Moscone saw the future as whatever or whoever would keep him in power. The city at that time was a vicious shithole politically.
Milk did a lot of good, but he also was a manipulator who enjoyed the spotlight.
People since won't say anything about how either of them operated because of their tragic deaths. It bothers me that the people who could have stopped Jones didn't because of their own agendas.
Read Season of the Witch.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||11/21/2012|
[quote]What about hygiene? Who wants to sit in a chair recently vacated by some naked person and his or her ass juice? I support ban.
They passed a law last year forbidding skin contact on public spaces like benches or seats in a park, so they must have a towel or something with them.
They are hideous, but passing the law makes me sad because it DOES represent the upper class takeover of the Castro. Weiner is looking for votes for a bigger office. Also, I hear that this is the first step to making the case for eventually closing Folsom down.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||11/21/2012|
R71, would you mind if I authenticated with that name? 'Person who doesn't want to sit in ass juice' sounds both modern and Native American. I just love it!
|by Anonymous||reply 74||11/21/2012|
r67 - I totally agree with you. I work in the Civic Center area and see shit on the sidewalks every day. I also have seen homeless men jacking off on MUNI, like someone mentioned earlier in this thread.
I've always thought of myself as a liberal, but I'm starting to think we need a hard ass mayor to enforce laws to get rid of this behavior.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||11/21/2012|
People are innocent until proven guilty R72. I don't think it was some great failure that people were nice to Jim Jones.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||11/21/2012|
Go ahead, R74. Authenticate away.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||11/21/2012|
Actually, I am surprised they didn't go after the public shitting, first.
Obviously considered a freedom more important to defend.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||11/22/2012|
That didn't work, R73. People in the nude were still getting in teams and sitting on bus seats next to someone.
And it doesn't respond to the problems that seem to elude R64. Public spaces are supposed to be shared. We may not like breeders and their kids or their values, but the easiest way for everyone to get along is for people to be respectful of each other.
We have a right to play music and have parties too but if we're too loud we can be considered to be disturbing the peace. If people are making a statement with their nudity and trying to draw attention to themselves, they're going to get into these battles. Too many people were doing that to protest the loss of a gay space and got a reaction they had to foresee - the reminder of being a minority within a minority (nudists and gay nudists) who didn't have the clout to keep the privilege.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||11/22/2012|
"These battles" are caused by the excessive sense of entitlement of these breeders. The nudies don't bother anyone. You're such a twitmeyer. As for public masturbation, first of all it's illegal and it has never not been illegal. Second, it's not the same thing at all. False equivalency, typical right wing bullshit "linkages" trying to distort the argument.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||11/23/2012|
It's the people who passed this ban who are not showing respect for public space but trying to impose their puritan bullshit on it.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||11/23/2012|
This is like a Michfest board.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||11/23/2012|
You're so right, r81. It's such puritan bullshit not to want to see adult men jerking themselves off in the nude on the streets of a major city. How dare they be so repressive. Next thing you'll know, they'll object to people taking a shit in the curb!
It's like "The Crucible" all over again.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||11/23/2012|
Hot young men should be immune from this law.
Everyone else? Fine with me.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||11/23/2012|
It's cruel. I want to mark my territory.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||11/23/2012|
I could honestly care less if it passes or not, but that some of you prudish people get so worked up over fucking nudity, when there are a MILLION MORE SERIOUS PROBLEMS in San Francisco, let alone California, let alone the U.S., shows exactly why Americans are fucked.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||11/23/2012|
And apparently the law still allows for women to go topless. Congrats SF: you can no longer see Tom's dick, but GranolaJane can still flash her saggy tits everywhere.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||11/23/2012|
You mock R83 but it is.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||11/23/2012|
r82, The Castro is really the gay male equivalent of Michfest's The Land.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||11/24/2012|
The shades are gathering. We are living in a new Dark Ages. This is but one more signal.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||11/24/2012|
As my sober-suited elderly lawyer says: society will never be healthy until there is fucking in the streets.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||11/24/2012|
Masturbation in public was already illegal, well before the first nude person started hanging out in the plaza.
This is about "ickiness." The same kind of "ickiness" people used to justify denying gays their rights.
People being naked in the streets or in the parks harms no one.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||11/24/2012|
It was disgusting to see tiny no trimming cocks and raggedy asses around town. No one wants to see that shit!!!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 93||11/24/2012|
I never saw a nice huge cock hanging out in town...so ban that shit!!!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 94||11/24/2012|
I fear R90 is correct. Convict leasing will be the law of the land.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||11/26/2012|
When is SF every warm enough for nudity?
|by Anonymous||reply 96||11/26/2012|
Can we outlaw bikinis on fat chicks while we're at it?
|by Anonymous||reply 97||11/26/2012|
[quote]People being naked in the streets or in the parks harms no one.
...until they sit down on something.
And they ALWAYS do.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||11/26/2012|
Ugly people are usually invisible.
That's why they go naked so people will forced to pay attention to them.
Attractive people aren't the only attention whores in the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||11/26/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 100||11/26/2012|
Actually [R98] seems pretty fucking sane to me.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||11/26/2012|
Please spare me your anatomy! I find it ridiculous that 5 people voted against the ban. I'm not a prude, but really, there should be limits on public behavior.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||11/26/2012|
Here they are responding to the vote: a bunch of gross, ugly drama queens, with canes no less. Link NSFW.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||12/05/2012|
R102, don't fool yourself. You're a prude.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||12/05/2012|