Supervisor Scott Wiener to Introduce Legislation Forcing Nudists to Wear Clothes

[Adler]

I lived in the Avenue's near Golden Gate Park in the early 90's and would have liked to have had the chance to sun in the park; not legal then. Now I could. But the antics in the Castro are causing concern among non-gay, non-nudist residents. There is a difference between nudity and exhibitionism. Mere nudity should not be illegal but exhibitionist activities can be offensive and should be addressed by current laws just as panhandling is not illegal but aggressive in-your-face panhandling such as I experienced at Union Square is offensive and unacceptable. Use current laws first to address behavior before putting new laws on the books banning simple nudity. The fellow in this photo should consider those around him before he flaunts his wares. Does the lady in the photo have any rights to be on the street without having to look at this fellow? I hope that Supervisor Wiener’s proposed legislation will allow for nude use of Golden Gate Park and beaches.

[Barnard]

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

There's nothing reasonable about banning nudity. As clothes are a from of expression for what a person believes in or likes, nudity is a form of basic human expression. Regardless of how many people don't like it, the majority forcing their lifestyle on the minority is selfish and not ethical.

Penalties can be in place for actual behavior and conduct, but no one should be forced to hide their human bodies.

[NakedGary]

Naked in San Francisco

By Gay Today October 8, 2012Posted in:
Headlines, Jesse's Journal, People





The City of San Francisco, ahead of its time in some many ways, is the most liberal place in America with regard to public nudity. In San Francisco, public nudity is allowed just as long as there is no sexual intent or sexual gratification – in other words, simple nudity is OK but erections are forbidden. There are many clothing optional events in the City by the Bay, including Saint Stupid’s Day Parade on April 1, the Bay to Breakers Race in May, the World Naked Bike Ride and Gay Pride Weekend in June, Dore Alley in July, the Folsom Street Fair in September and, of course, Halloween. For the past few years nudists of all sexual orientations and gender identities have gathered at Jane Warner Plaza in the Castro for the annual Nude In and other events. In fact, nudity at the Plaza has become so common that locals affectionately call it “The Buff Stop.” Gay porn star Marc Dylan brought attention to public nudity in the Castro when he toured that gayborhood wearing nothing but a hat, shoes and socks. Only Seattle has a nude social scene that is anywhere near that of San Francisco.

Alas, even San Francisco has people who do not approve of their city’s “in your face” nude social scene. One of its opponents is City Supervisor Scott Wiener [!], an openly-gay man who coincidentally represents the City’s Castro District. (Harvey Milk must be spinning in his grave.) Last year, Supervisor Wiener pushed a law that requires nudists to place a cloth between their bare buns and public seats. This year Wiener was moved to greater action by the appearance of **** rings on some of the nudes; accouterments that he considers to be erotic. “People can have whatever view they want to have on public nudity in general. But to be walking around with a **** ring on or something similar is just not acceptable [or] responsible behavior,” Wiener told the Bay Area Reporter. Wiener disagrees with naturists who argue that **** rings are jewelry, like bracelets or earrings. “The whole purpose of a **** ring is to draw attention to that area” [the genitals], he said. “People are absolutely repulsed by it.”

It should be noted that public nudity in San Francisco is not an LGBT issue. There are, after all, many straight nudists. Supervisor Wiener himself, as I pointed out, is openly gay. And Wiener was quick to add that many prominent LGBT individuals support increased restrictions on public nudity. “The Castro is not about a group of men exposing themselves every day,” he said. On October 2, Wiener introduced legislation that would severely restrict public nudity in San Francisco. His proposal would expand current bans on nudity in the City’s parks and in the Port of San Francisco to include sidewalks, plazas, “parklets” and public transit. The law would still allow social nudity at parades and major events, which means the World Naked Bike Ride, Bay to Breakers Race, Folsom Street Fair, et al. will continue to bring in the tourist dollars. It would impose a fine of $100 for a first offense and $200 for a second offense within a year.

I hope this doesn’t pass. Though my chances of getting naked in San Francisco are currently zilch, I like the fact that there is a place in this puritan country where those of us who are nudists can get naked in places other than private homes, nude beaches, nudist camps, guest houses or private clubs. And while Wiener doesn’t say so, I presume that there is more behind his proposal than aversion to **** rings. To a large extent, public nudity in San Francisco is practiced by the homeless, a class of people that is not particularly liked by that City’s establishment. And, unfortunately, not everyone who gets naked in the Castro looks like Marc Dylan. Most of the people who parade in the buff at Jane Warner Plaza and elsewhere are old, fat, bald, ugly, dirty or a combination of the above, qualities that would not endear them to politicians or business owners that seek to attract tourists and investors to the City by the Bay.

Naturist activists, needless to say, are appalled by Wiener’s proposal. One of them is my friend Paul D. Cain, award-winning writer and Mr. CMEN (California Men Enjoying Naturism) 2008: “I came to social nudity fairly late in my life — at about age 35. Nudism enabled me to realize that my body is something in which I can take pride, not shame. I have had the pleasure of being publicly naked in San Francisco several times — at Folsom Street Fair, at Bay to Breakers, and in the Castro with friends. With the sole exception of some drunken rowdies at Bay to Breakers one year, I have always been treated with utmost respect.”

“My nudity,” Cain continues, “is not a threat to anyone. The idea that the wide open town that San Francisco has always been is now considering such nonsensical laws about public nudity baffles and disappoints me. No one is forcing anyone to be naked in public. If someone can do so responsibly (and I have never seen a public nudist in San Francisco act in any other way), I see no need for the unnecessarily restrictive law Supervisor Wiener is proposing. If someone is offended by someone else’s public nudity, then s/he can simply look away. I hope San Francisco’s voters will realize that the proposed anti-nudity ban would unnecessarily remove one of the civic qualities that makes the City the great place that it is.” To which I can only add, amen!

by Jesse Monteagudo

[Stu2630]

Barnard

There's nothing reasonable about banning nudity. As clothes are a from of expression for what a person believes in or likes, nudity is a form of basic human expression. Regardless of how many people don't like it, the majority forcing their lifestyle on the minority is selfish and not ethical.

I don't accept your view of what clothes are for because I consider it an oversimplification. Yes, we can use clothes as expression, but anything which is an expression can also be so offensive that it causes distress to others. On our own turf, we can do as we like. In public places, we owe a responsibility to other people who use those places not to behave in such a way as to make their experience of that place less acceptable or comfortable. If we don't have such consideration, then we look to the authorities to step in.

Penalties can be in place for actual behavior and conduct, but no one should be forced to hide their human bodies.

How we choose to be dressed when we enter a public place is a behaviour in just the same way as if someone enters a public place drunk, or a nudist enters a nudist beach with an open erection.

We are free to expose the vast majority of our bodies - we can already use public places in a state very close to nudity without upsetting anyone. A tiny and unreasonable minority demanding the right to expose the remaining 5% or so, comprising of their primary sex organs, should be brought into line - with penalties if necessary.

Stu

[Barnard]

Barnard



I don't accept your view of what clothes are for because I consider it an oversimplification. Yes, we can use clothes as expression, but anything which is an expression can also be so offensive that it causes distress to others. On our own turf, we can do as we like. In public places, we owe a responsibility to other people who use those places not to behave in such a way as to make their experience of that place less acceptable or comfortable. If we don't have such consideration, then we look to the authorities to step in.



How we choose to be dressed when we enter a public place is a behaviour in just the same way as if someone enters a public place drunk, or a nudist enters a nudist beach with an open erection.

We are free to expose the vast majority of our bodies - we can already use public places in a state very close to nudity without upsetting anyone. A tiny and unreasonable minority demanding the right to expose the remaining 5% or so, comprising of their primary sex organs, should be brought into line - with penalties if necessary.

Stu

But there is nothing really offensive about nudity. It's a delusional perception inflicted by the masses...just like how middleeastern women's education is considered offensive to their people. That is not a rational offense.

It makes no sense to call nudity a behavior. Behavior is an action. It is not rational to say that a clothed man who is standing is not committing a behavior, while a naked man standing is committing a behavior. Nudity is nothing more then existing as you are.

Being naked and being drunk do not compare. One is a state of condition, the other is a state of being. The banning of nudity isn't about preventing offense. There's offensive material everywhere. It's really about the fear of culture shock. Fearing culture shock is bad for society because it limits diversity.