Posted on 09/15/2011 5:48:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
There is a line between being tolerant and having no standards whatsoever, and that's a line that San Francisco passed a long time ago. Public nudity has become the costume de rigueur in certain corners of the Special City. Twice in the past year, I've seen groups of nude adults walking or biking around the Embarcadero -- to the delight of some tourists and the disgust of others.
"Clothing-optional" could be the city's new motto, along with "age-inappropriate."
In a well-meaning -- dare I say modest? -- attempt to address the Special City's new normal, Supervisor Scott Wiener has proposed a measure to require that nudists not sit or eat in public without "clothing or other separate material as a barrier between his or her genitals, buttocks, or anal region and the public seating." The ordinance language -- like its targets -- commits the offense of exposing too much information.
"San Francisco is a liberal and tolerant city, and we pride ourselves on that fact," Wiener said in a statement. "Yet, while we have a variety of views about public nudity, we can all agree that when you sit down naked, you should cover the seat, and that you should cover up when you go into a food establishment."
In other words, people who walk around naked somehow are supposed to exhibit taste and consideration.
Wiener represents the Castro, where a number of nudists like to congregate and digest. And a number of constituents don't like it one bit. "Let me tell you, this is an issue," Wiener told me.
Wiener is especially unhappy that he is "the first politician who has touched this issue in any respect" -- yet he believes that the media have slammed him for not going far enough in not pushing for an all-out ban on public nudity itself.
Why not an all-out ban? The state penal code prohibits a person from exposing private parts publicly "where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed," but some judge decided that police can't decide what's offensive except for outright lewd acts.
City Hall follows a strict interpretation of state law, so the city prohibits police arrests for public nudity absent a citizen's arrest.
Other cities have ordinances that explicitly ban nudity in public, but SFPD public information officer Albie Esparza explained, "We don't have that in San Francisco."
Or as former district attorney spokeswoman Debbie Mesloh told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2004, "being naked in San Francisco is not a crime unless the gentleman had lewd conduct or was obstructing traffic."
Now, I've seen worse things in this town than a gaggle of sagging nudists. To wit: public defecation, panhandlers yelling at passers-by and substance abusers who hate themselves so much that they want to foul up the whole neighborhood.
And I think the human body is a beautiful thing -- but not for everybody, not always and not everywhere.
Public nudity involves a lack of privacy so blatant that it invades the privacy of others. It is inappropriate in front of children. It has become a quality-of-life issue -- another in-your-face assault on the city's (there's a reason for this language) social fabric.
Sadly, the city is so paralyzed with political correctness that solons can only go after public nudity when it's unhygienic.
How far can a City go in it’s sickness. Nudity as a right.
yay more Wiener jokes!
It’s never the hot chicks that walk around naked. Just old saggy liberal guys and gals. Yick.
It’s never the hot chicks that walk around naked. Just old saggy liberal guys and gals. Yick.
“How far can a City go in it’s sickness”
don’t ask, please don’t ask...
“Now, I’ve seen worse things in this town than a gaggle of sagging nudists.”
from the waist down. ew ew ew
But of course. *shakes head*
The jokes just write themselves. I swear, you can't even make this stuff up.
Castro, named after an unfortunate incident involving a nudist, a lot of liquor and a very sharp knife.
My wife and I were in San Francisco a couple of years ago and we saw three women pull down their pants and take pictures of each other. Buck naked. It was gross. They were, well..very ugly and disgusting looking.
The idea of allowing all the crazies to move to one city is brilliant. Let them sit in restaurants and stink up the chairs. Let them pass on whatever they have growing in them and on them to other like minded stinky butts. The bugs and fly population will thrive on exposed areas. This is a liberal moment for them to celebrate. The nation laughs at that city and the catering to the odd and amoral. Look at who they place in public offfice.
The irony is they consider it "their" city.
An argument that has constantly been used by the left-wing (and libertarians) in regards to ‘gay marriage’ and homosexuality is to demand an answer to the question ‘how is hurting you if two homosexuals get married?”.
Of course there is no direct harm that could be proven and then these left-wing activists would point out that it is just your morality that causes you to not accept homosexuality.
I have always argued that the same exact argument could be used in regards to public nudity. I would ask ‘how is it hurting you if people are having sex out on their front lawn?” or “if they walk around in a public area nude?” The fact is that there is no way to prove direct harm and that it is the same exact question of morality that causes people to object to such ‘nudists’ and ‘naturalists’ or whatever these perverts want to call themselves.
The fact is though…. If we lose our ‘right to representation’ in making law against homosexuality then the fact is that we endanger this right as well in regards to making any laws dealing with public decency, including laws against public nudity and sex acts in public.
“If you do not like then look away” will be the argument. “If you want to teach your children that it is bad then go ahead but don’t tell others what morality that they should have “ will also be the answer.
Either people fight for their ‘right to representation’ on ALL issues of how sexuality is dealt with in the public sphere or else we will be headed to leaving our children a legacy of complete moral corruption that will result in a complete loss of their freedom.
But a city that cannot find a reason to forbid homosexual sex in public other than it might cost tourist dollars or shock the horses will have difficulty making an argument against public nudity in any case.
Political correctness? No, just the old amorality.
.
Aside from a few toned and lovely young female models...this is not a good look for most of us.
I don’t see any difference. Both are equally weirdos
San Francisco the city of it’s all about me.They have passed the point of being mad now they have gone wild,
back to the trees and caves.
Yep, that’s SinFreakSicko.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.