Being publicly naked in San Francisco could be banned if city Supervisor Scott Weiner gets his way. He's introduced a law that would rule out bare buttocks and genitals in all public spaces, except at special events like Folsom Street Fair and the Naked Bike Ride.
Nudists would be fined $100 for a first offense, and get a misdemeanor or $500 fine for a third. The law is targeted especially at the Castro neighborhood, of which Weiner said, "our town square [is] becoming an ad-hoc nudist colony."
Ardent nudists are planning a naked protest in Jane Warner Plaza, San Francisco for October 20.
The official protest invite explains some of the motives for resisting the anti-nudity law:
The bill is to get rid of the nudists who walk around Castro, but we have to consider several things. A) People are and should be entitled to live their lives the way they want. B) San Francisco has always been the city where you can let your freak flag fly without any judgement. C) Nudity is not something that should be covered up and the human body is not something that we should take shame in.
@Party-Cults that's not nudity. it's fantasy costumed people dressed up for the pride parade, and the fulsom st. festival. so what?
and no, i wasn't there. were you? what i would call a pervert is someone who ogles the folks at the festival.
tell me, what about all the straight nudists? how about all the beautiful women who go to nude and topless beaches? what about the straight nudists who walk through the cities, also? are they all perverts?
@sylehrman I live in Maryland, and the inhabitants of 'Frisco are literally breaking down the door constantly, forcing me to join them in their nudist romps. In my experience nudists most like hanging out with people who do not want to join them which is why they're a notoriously overt and oppressive bunch. I think that's why people like me don't live in San Francisco; so they can be hounded by Frisconauts at all hours of the day and night and why the Castro is full of people who hate the mentality there.
The legislation was introduced by Scott Weiner (no pun intended) who also co-chaired the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, the San Francisco LGBT Community Center and the Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom. Now explain to me how "fundies" ruined it?
@TeamAmerica fundamentalism is no more derogatory a term than is pentecostal. they're simply the opposite ends of the right continuum. it is the r.r. and the so called 'moralists' that are insisting that there is something wrong with nudity, therefore, they are the ones who are destroying the culture. that's all. it really has nothing to do with your personal opinion.
@dances-weebles That is such an idiotic reply. In what world do you live in that you find it perfectly normal for an adult family member to walk around children naked (WTF?!)? An even if they did, which is totally effed to do past them being a baby anyway, in your small mind that would make seeing other adults naked acceptable?
@oreos7580 i live in the real world, not some plasticine place where people's bodies should be locked away from sight.
um... it doesn't matter. y'all act as though there's something horrid about the human body. kids go to the beach where women are wearing butt floss bikinis, don't they? is there a lot of difference between that and completely naked?
do you really think that it hurts the children more than having them get some screwed up notion that if they see a body they'll go straight to hell? give it a rest.
I personally think children should be exposed to these kinds of things very early. For so many parents, sex is such a taboo that not discussing these things causes them to act out in the exact opposite direction. If your child sees nudists in the street (and I don't live anywhere near SF), use it as a way to open a discussion on the human body and being comfortable and proud of their own body image.
@culinary the problem is that, until folks can discuss their children's bodies, their bodies and sex openly with their children and each other, we are doomed as a society to put some sort of taboo on everything human. most parents can't discuss things like masturbation with their children (or even each other, openly without getting all embarrassed, so how should they be able to walk around in a street with naked people without getting all bunged up in the head?
Yes, the Castro District is seeing a drastic increase of MRSA....due to primarily gay nude men sitting on public chairs, etc. It is very contagious and in some cases is resistant to anti -biotics and can be fatal. I've never seen a nudist yet who wasn't fat, flabby and hairy. Yuk ! Keep those clothes ON.
i used to work as a service tech with propane,i was called out to cedar waters nudist colony,it was brutal,fat,flabby and hairy and that was the women,that was 15+ years ago and i'm still having nightmares
@MongoAPillager You poor thing! Why are all or most nudists disqusting to look at...It's like... I'm a nudist, so therefore people want to see what I've got. Really?..Those are always the ones you DON'T want to see. LOL They should do an independent study on that, no, then again we'd have to pay for it.
It's just nudity. You can burn a flag in public and that's not only legal it's a constitutional right. It's even been ruled a constitutional right to swear in public. If precedence is any indication you can't ban a form of expression just because some people find it offensive. Take it to the Supreme Court, there is no sound reason to treat "nudity" as special or different from these other cases.
@bsking I'm sorry that you feel that way about her...And just think---she speaks so glowingly about you!!! I think she told me that she met you at one of those festivals in San Francisco, last year....
If people want to be nude it should be in designated areas where other nudist or people who approve are located. Not everyone wants to see or have their children exposed to naked people. We can make mothers cover up to nurse their babies, which shows nothing and is natural, but it's okay to go around rump naked in public. I say ban it in public places but allow them freedoms within their own communities.
Well, it's hard to define which areas of the city would have people that approve of public nudity. Even Haight-Ashbury and the Castro are more socially conservative than they were 15 years ago. I suppose a ban in the suburbs would work, since they tend to have far more families than the famous neighborhoods.
I think a time limit on nudity would be fine. Perhaps 9pm-4am. This would be when kids are usually at home. And the nudity at Folsom and other events is going to have to stay if SF is going to maintain it's importance as a tourist area.
again, it seems that some folks are acting as though children never see naked bodies. most families walk around the house totally naked quite a lot. i know that there's never a closed door in our house, and that when it's bath time we all take our clothes off in our bedroom and walk down the hall to the bathroom naked. nobody has a problem with it.
if you act as though there's something wither wrong or mysterious about the human body, then you end up with a generation of people who keep trying to figure out what it is and sexual offenders.
@Poseur you know what? i was just thinking about something. every year during the week surrounding the gay pride parade here all the stores, restaurants and hotels within several blocks of the parade venue encourage all of their employees who have contact with the public to go to work either topless or completely naked. the festivities surrounding the parade are also televised 24/7 for the week on all local television channels. schools close for the week so that parents, teachers, and students can attend the parade and the street parties and dances.
churches charter tour buses to transport their congregations back and forth to the parade venue free of charge 24 hours a day, and pastors, catholic priests, nuns, and parishioners march in the parade in support of equality. not only that, but people come from all over the country and from all over the world. this year the total number of participants almost hit 5 million people.
pride parades aside, during carnival many, many people dance the samba naked in the streets, and dance in the parades and on the floats naked as well.
many billboards along city streets here have photos of naked people on them and nobody really gives a wet slap...
and do you know what? all that nudity doesn't 'pervert' anybody or incite anyone to run out and rape someone. the fact is that we have an extremely low rate of sex related crimes and virtually no sex crimes against children.
Well to paraphrase what the man in that great movie, "Casablanca" once said....."I'm shocked, shocked that there is nudity in San Francisco".!!!..LOL....We ll if that fact offended your sensibilities---Then don't ever go to certain places in Nevada---or to Madi Gras, in the "Big Easy"....I'm certain that your eyes would burn and fall out of your head...LOL!
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, San Francisco is known for it's permissive and slightly kooky culture. So much of what makes the city unique has been eroded in the last decade and a half as gentrification has resulted in large numbers of wealthy citizens moving into the traditionally liberal areas of the city.
But at the same time I do understand that even progressive parents may not want their kids seeing naked people out in the streets. Perhaps, rather than a full ban that would further diminish SF culture, they could allow it only after dark.
A few things: 1. If you don't want to see naked people or don't want your children to see naked people and it's legal where you live you have the option of moving to another town. 2. What is different between nudity, swearing in public, and burning a flag? The latter two have been ruled constitutional rights, yet we get to ban nudity because it offends some people. There is no fundamental difference here, and an easy argument could be made that public nudity is protected by the first amendment. I hope if this law gets passed someone challenges it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Do you live in San Francisco and if not why is it any of your business or concern if you won't personally have to see that everyday? Maybe the people of San Francisco don't feel the same way you do about nudity. Would you rather all the San Francisco nudists move to your town and vote in people to legalize nudity?
@CommonSense No I do not live in San Fran, but OBVIOUSLY some of the people that do, also do not agree with public nudity, or else there would be no issue of it being endanger of being banned. Now to why I commented. Well I assume when something is put out there, for public to read, about nudity or whatever, then the public has every right to give an opinion, or to lend support for one side or the other. I think the bigger question is why you feel the need to police this subject, or be overly concerned with my opinion. Fact is if people are out in plain view where any member of the public MAY see them, then they should be clothed, or got to jail for public nudity and or indecent exposure, even in their own home standing in front of a uncovered window in plan view. Again this is the opinion of someone that does not live in San Fran but does understand basic common decency and respect for others.
@Thegrif concepts of decency and respect are culturally relative. If the majority in a community decides that it likes nudity what's wrong with that? How is nudity indecent for any reason other than people considering it to be indecent? May the San Francisco nudists all move to your community and vote in laws legalizing it if this passes.
@CommonSense If the majority want it they will probably get it. Good for them, but the minute their public nudity infringes on the right of a mother to walk her 2 children down the sidewalk with out seeing some guys unit hanging out or a female breast, then a law has been broken. Even if a law says its ok to be nude, it will not change the law saying what is indecent or lude behavior. And, this little town aint San Fran but if they do wanna come here, great, and the minute they are exposed to a child or any single person that objects, in a public place. I will be happy to theow the cuffs on them and take them to jail, no problem. What is wrong with nudity in public is, it serves no purpose but to draw attention, to rock the boat. Why do people think the public wants to see it. Mind you, if just one person doesnt want to see it, thats all it takes. And I am sure there is a bit more than one there.
@Thegrif So if just one person wants us all the wear burqas then when we should all wear burqas?
But then what if I am offended by burqas? What if I find the sight of clothing offensive? Purpose? Some people just like being naked. It's not always about attention. And that's not how democracies work, one person does not make the laws, the majority does. And nudity is non-violent so why do you feel it's OK to use physical violence (handcuffs) against it? Violence should only ever be used when truly necessary.
What's liberal about being anti-cigarette? Political labels have devolved to the point where "liberal" means "supports those things people who call themselves liberal support" and "conservative" means "supports those things people who call themselves conservative support". It's ruining political discourse. We should insist upon more objective definitions of the terms and then insist that even if most liberals support something and call it liberal that it's not really liberal because it doesn't fit the definition. Same for conservatives. I am a "liberal" and I support lifestyle freedom, since the most important thing in a person's life is their identity and living their life according to their own preferences. So I support the right to smoke cigarettes. I'm even against taxing it more because there was a study that showed that smokers are saving us money by dying younger and not ratcheting up medical expenses when they are older. Nobody has a duty to do that but it's their choice and if I will ultimately benefit from that choice who am I to complain about it? I also support universal health care and hate it when people say "but then they'll be dictating everything about our lifestyles so we won't drive up health care costs". That's called "did not do the research". Seriously people, actually do some research and you'll realize that the truism that unhealthy things automatically means more costs in healthcare is just a truism. It only looks that way when you don't take into consideration savings from people dying younger.