Bronze Member
I know I posted about this before. However, this is a new article
The debate over public nudity has finally come to a head.
Supervisor Scott Wienersays 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.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...ner_to_pas.php
Bronze Member
The issue is not public nudity,people going about there daily lives without clothes;but the perverts an deviates ,intent to expose an shock others in public without there consent. Locals are taking back there park,so for the perverts get your own movie house to perform in . Nakenone
Silver Member
It sounds like local naturists need to have a chat with Supervisor Wiener to work out a "code" like Stu was suggesting in another thread, so that principles get preserved and agreed modalities are worked out, rather than just slapping arbitrary fines on people.
Bronze Member
I do believe Nakenone is right, nobody wants to see naked man or women in public acting out the gay agenda with all their rings and what every else they wear in public. This is what kills the nudist movement. I seems men are worst than women in doing this. I have nothing against the gay lifestyle I know a few gays but they keep it private even while nude.
Last edited by Silverback; 10-04-2012 at 07:42 AM. Reason: missakes
I want the government to stay out of my private life and quit stealing my money.
Platinum Member
Gay agenda? Really? So only homosexuals wear jewelry? What kills the nudist movement is narrow minded, intolerant thinking like this. Having an erection and using a c-ring to keep it, no matter the sexual orientation, I could see why you would have a problem with it, but assuming that there is a gay agenda is homophobic.Originally Posted by Silverback
Last edited by nimrod; 10-04-2012 at 12:00 PM.
An opinion shared by many does not make it true.
Silver Member
..er.."acting out" a "gay agenda" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with clothing. Personally, I don't want to see anybody "acting out" a "Romney agenda" either, but I've got to be tolerant...
Platinum Member
Bay Area Reporter -
Issue: Vol. 42 / No. 40 / 4 October 2012 by Matthew S. Bajko m.bajko@ebar.com
For Full Report Go To: http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php...&article=68112
Wiener introduces nudity ban
Nudity will be front and center at San Francisco City Hall now that gay District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener has moved forward with plans to ban nudists from the city's sidewalks and public plazas.
Last month the Bay Area Reporter broke the news that Wiener, who represents the gay Castro district, was looking at outlawing public nudity. At the board's October 2 meeting he introduced an ordinance that would amend the city's police code to require people be clothed on public streets and parklets as well as on transit vehicles and at Muni stations.
Supervisor Scott Wiener has moved forward with plans to ban nudists from the city's sidewalks and public plazas.
Last month the Bay Area Reporter broke the news that Wiener, who represents the gay Castro district, was looking at outlawing public nudity. At the board's October 2 meeting he introduced an ordinance that would amend the city's police code to require people be clothed on public streets and parklets as well as on transit vehicles and at Muni stations.
The increasing number of nudists congregating in the Castro correlated with the rise in complaints about their behavior led Wiener to determine that his proposed nudity ban is warranted, he told the B.A.R. in an interview Tuesday.
"A lot of us have been hoping it would run its course and it hasn't. It has become clear to me it isn't going to any time soon," he said. "It is important for us to have this conversation."
The nudists had already begun to organize prior to Wiener's decision this week. A petition opposing a nudity ban posted in late September to the change.org website had 667 signers as of Tuesday afternoon.
Rather than seek a citywide rule change, the nudists believe the conversation should be focused on resolving the issues that have sprung up at the Castro's Jane Warner Plaza where they congregate.
"What we've got is a localized neighborhood situation that a politician is blowing up into a citywide issue to get more media attention and further his political career," said Mitch Hightower, a gay nudist who runs a website about public nudity and organizes the annual Nude In at the Castro plaza.
"Whether or not you think what is going on in Jane Warner Plaza is specifically a problem or not, finding a solution to it doesn't need to engage the entire city government."
The proposed legislation would allow for exemptions of the policy at "permitted parades, fairs, and festivals." Violating the rule would be considered an infraction and cost $100. The fine would increase to $200 for a second offense within 12 months.
On the third and subsequent violations within one year a person could face either an infraction or a misdemeanor. An infraction would cost $500, while a misdemeanor could land the violator in county jail for up to a year.
Any convictions due to the ordinance would not constitute a sex offense for purposes of the state sex offender registry.
In a press release announcing the new rules, Wiener's office stressed that the legislation "has no impact on nudity at beaches or on private property." Its aim is to "prohibit display of genitals and buttocks in in city plazas, parklets, sidewalks, streets, and public transit."
For full report go to: http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php...&article=68112
Last edited by NakedGary; 10-05-2012 at 11:10 AM.
Platinum Member
Seems reasonable.
I will now tell my wife that she can contact her cousin and we can arrange to visit her in San Francisco.
Stu
Platinum Member
SF Nudity Ban Will Restrict Nudity in City, Only On Beaches and Festivals
Oct 06, 2012 10:55 AM EDT
Naked cyclists negotiate the hairpin turns of Lombard S (Stephen Lam/Reuters)
SF nudity ban may soon force nudists in San Francisco to wear some clothes and not walk around in their birthday suit.
San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener proposed legislation Tuesday banning the exposure of genitals or buttocks on all city sidewalks, plazas, parklets, streets and public transit, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. The Castro District is infamous for having many nudist walking around in the little neighborhood square.
Public nudity is currently legal in San Francisco, as long as the naked person is not sexually aroused. California law doesn't specifically ban nudity, but it does prohibit "lewd acts." Other Bay Area municipalities, like Berkeley and Marin County, have passed their own nudity bans.
The SF nudity ban - which has the support of Mayor Ed Lee - wouldn't apply to public beaches, private property, street fairs, festivals or parades. Violators would be fined $100 for the first offense and $200 for the second in a one-year period. A third offense could warrant either a $500 fine or misdemeanor citation.
"While 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," said Wiener in a statement.
"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," he added. "We are a tolerant neighborhood and city, but there are limits."
Public nudity is currently legal in San Francisco, as long as the naked person is not sexually aroused (although genital coverings are required in city parks). California law doesn't specifically ban nudity, but it does prohibit "lewd acts." Other Bay Area municipalities, like Berkeley and Marin County, have passed their own nudity bans.
Read more at http://www.franchiseherald.com/artic...B65IFxzC2j3.99
Member
It seems that the existing regulations would prevent the offending behavior regarding sexual arousal & lewd conduct. Mere nudity isn't against the law and doesn't seem to be the issue.
Except that those danged nudists have created a 'colony' in the Castro District. I mean, really, they are down here daily! (sic)
What is needed isn't more regulations. Stop the innuendos and misrepresentations. Either genitals are normal, or not! If they are normal, then let them be.
I have a hard time interpreting what 'fun' the statement is referring to, but if the nudity is interfering with the neighborhoods ability to enjoy the town square, then the issue should be investigated. I enjoy many different public spaces; nude and not. I do not see how the presence or absence of fabric takes the 'fun' out of public places. The issue appears to more than mere nudity. It suddenly is taking on a political slant.
Always sunny,
Safebare
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
