Nudity outlawed in San Francisco

Replies

• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Nov 21, 2012

  If decent honest genuine nudists don't do something to stop these naked freaks, then there will soon be no public nudity allowed anywhere.
  
  True nudism is suffering, because of sexual exhibitionists, maskerading in the name of freedom.

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  marko167

  Nov 21, 2012

  Totally agree MoW.
  
  Will this ban cover the nudist beaches as well, or just the city?
  

  ReactReply
• CD

  

  Cheri Donna Dawson

  Nov 21, 2012

  [quote]Totally agree MoW.
  
  Will this ban cover the nudist beaches as well, or just the city?
  [/quote]Just the city as the city does not mandate the regulations/laws outside of the city limits.  As I've said, overt sexuality can and does curtail simple nudity, ie. nudist/naturist activities.
  

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Nov 21, 2012

  San Francisco's nudist beaches are within the city limits, Baker Beach being the best-established of them.
  

  ReactReply
• CD

  

  Cheri Donna Dawson

  Nov 22, 2012

  [quote]However, woman can go topless. The new law they want only bans the exposure of genitals, perineum and anus. Luckily, Baker Beach is on federal land.[/quote]Did the feds turn it over to the municipality for regulation?
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Nov 22, 2012

  Said the blank profile.

  ReactReply
• HA

  

  Hawk

  Nov 22, 2012

  [quote]
  
  It is not law yet.  It has to be approved by several other bodies.  And if it's a haven for perverts, why aren't you there NiMA?
  
  That was uncalled for :-([/quote]

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Nov 22, 2012

  It's uncalled for to call San Francisco a haven for perverts.  It's a great city.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Nov 24, 2012

  The triggering things were that some people were nude on the streets of SF with cockrings and other attention-grabbing stuff, some were going nude on buses without a towel to sit on, and some were spending a bit too much time in front of elementary schools. Of course, specific laws or rules could have been made to cover these circumstances, or the city's tolerance stretched even further, but put-some-clothes-on is a simpler rule.
  

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Nov 24, 2012

  [img src="http://bosguydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/san-francisco-giants-world-series-parade-sports-ecards-someecards.png">

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Nov 24, 2012

  [img src="http://s3.vidimg.popscreen.com/original/14/N0hzQWFZYlE3UHcx_o_funny-gay-cat-commercial-banned.jpg">

  ReactReply
• CO

  

  Curt, or Cowboy

  Nov 24, 2012

  With permission from SimplyNudist.com
  
  San Francisco, Our Opinion
  Posted on November 24, 2012 by Thor
  
  So, it’s happened.
  
  The Supervisors in San Fran voted to ban nudity in the city.
  
  Thanks, George !
  
  One of our members here predicted near two years ago now, that George Davis and his ilk would more likely have nudity banned altogether than to gain any kind of acceptance, due to their in-your-face confrontational attitudes and methods.
  
  Oh, sure, the new law provides exceptions for Bare to Breakers, and the Folsom Street thing, but that’s hardly progress. It’s moving backwards.
  
  San Francisco *was* one of the few cities in this country where a person could walk nude through the streets on occasion, when and where appropriate, and experience no repercussions. Not any more !
  
  In their justifications/reasons/statements, the Supervisors specifically mentioned the gay male contingent with their cock rings.
  
  Are cock rings bad ? Not necessarily, in their sexual enhancement purpose, they are just a bit of hardware. But as part of an in-your-face look-at-my-penis confrontational “promotion” of “wholesome” nudity they are a very bad thing. Cock rings and gatherings of obviously gay male activists in the Jane Warner Plaza, to the point of repeatedly offending the general public, because it’s “their right” and “it’s not illegal” according to them and their ilk.
  
  As a nudist, a real one, I too am offended by cock rings and that whole look-at-my-penis mindset that goes with wearing them in public. They are not acceptable in a nudist environment, and certainly not acceptable for showing on the clothed public streets of any city. San Francisco was more tolerant than most, but not any more. Just because something isn’t explicitly illegal, doesn’t mean you should do it.
  
  These people, in this writer’s opinion, are not there to promote wholesome natural normal nudity or naturism, but to promote, nay demand, their “rights” to offend just about any and everyone. To them, nudity is simply the means they’ve chosen to shock and offend others in their pitiful attempt to draw attention to themselves, the well being of others be damned.
  
  They have succeeded. They have made themselves the focus, and a gross misunderstanding and misinterpretation of nudists to the detriment of nudists everywhere, the means by which they have done so. As such, it’s obvious to this writer that the law is not an adverse reaction to nudists or nudity. It’s an adverse reaction to George Davis and his ilk, and we nudists will all pay the price. They have not helped understanding and harmony, but have hurt both badly.
  
  Thanks, George !
  
  We don’t need you. We don’t want you. You have made things much worse for us, by promoting your own selfishness at our expense. I hope you are happy.
  
  This web site, simplynudist.com exists to hopefully dispel some of the misinformation about nudists and nudism. As such you won’t find any pictures of sexual enhancements here. Some of our members may use such at times, and they might even have photos including such, but will have the good taste to not post them here. Such errors in judgment are why the general public believes, at least in part, though wrongly, that nudists are sex crazed libertines with no morals.
  
  Too many photo sites mix nudist photos with porn. There are some wonderful nudist photos out there, promoted as pornography, and some awful porn, promoted as nudism. In both cases, we, real nudists, we lose. Spread-eagle photos of women, and erections, and a general focus on genitalia is not nudism. It’s sex. Nudism isn’t sex, but the non-nudist general public doesn’t know that. George Davis and his ilk are considered nudists by the general public because of this blurring of the lines. If such photo and photo sites were not so available, Davis could be dismissed more easily as the minority crack pot he is, and not as the main stream nudist he purports to be.
  
  What this writer believes we need to do, if we are to be accepted as normal, is to BE normal ! We are not sex crazed freaks. We are normal people. Men and women, Moms and Dads, parents and children. We hold jobs. We maintain our homes. We school our children. We attend churches and synagogues. Yes, we also enjoy dressing differently, or not at all, but just about everyone has a quirk or two. That alone doesn’t make them bad. What we need to do to gain acceptance, is to be normal. Being some cock ring wearing freak never has, and never will, cause acceptance among non-nudists.
  
  Thanks to some who simply will not see, who refuse moderation, who have no concept of when and where appropriate, we have all lost including them ! Worse, a precedent has been established that if allowed to stand, and likely it will be, can and will be used against us through no fault of our own.
  
  Only with an overwhelming showing that nudists are not evil cock wearing gay activists can we make any progress. We must strive to distance ourselves as far as possible from these fools, and to show that we are nothing like them, as much as they try to show that they are like us when they are not.
  
  We need Cheri Alexander. We do not need George Davis.
  
  
  
  About Thor
  Site administrator, and ultimate arbiter of everything.
  View all posts by Thor →
  This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged [empty]. Bookmark the permalink. Edit
  
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Nov 24, 2012

  How does anyone know if it is gay men wearing the cockrings?  Did they ask?  Another stupid assumption.

  ReactReply
• NO

  

  None

  Nov 24, 2012

  There is a big difference between nudists and exhibitionists these men and I use that term lightly are exhibitionists and they are ruining it for all of us. Don't be nude to be rude. That statement is simple enough.
  

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Nov 25, 2012

  [quote]]It still seems rather bizarre that a group of nudists here can condemn another group of nudists, who they don't know, for being nude in public places in SF, when they had a right to be nude in public places in SF purely and simply because they were nude in public places in SF. I will ask again- were all of these nudists wearing cockrings? If cockrings were the issue then do something about that and not the nudism- otherwise it's just using cockrings as an excuse. [/quote][img src="http://chzlolcats.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/funny-cat-pictures-sorry-there-is-no-cure-i-suggest-you-get-a-career-in-the-sleep-industry.jpg">

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Nov 25, 2012

  [quote]This being a nudist site, matters that affect the public perception of nudism are of paramount importance. Whether or not the SF offenders were queer, whether or not they were wearing genital "jewelry", the point that my hypocritical attackers zealously avoided addressing is that the media identified them as nudists. Is that the kind of PR that nudism needs or desires?
  
  One seriously questions the nudist credentials of the defenders of that gross exhibitionism.[/quote][img src="http://www.madtomatoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Facebook-Like-Button-big.jpg">

  ReactReply
• CO

  

  Curt, or Cowboy

  Nov 25, 2012

  [quote]the point that my hypocritical attackers zealously avoided addressing is that the media identified them as nudists. [/quote]
  As point of fact, they identified themselves in various interviews as nudists.:(
  ( co-opted the title would be more accurate )
  

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Nov 26, 2012

  [img src="http://www.toplessrobot.com/10220411A~Garfield-Never-Wrong-Posters.jpg">

  ReactReply
• NU

  

  NudyJay

  Nov 27, 2012

  The fact that naked people wear cockrings or any other jewellery or adornment should have no bearing on this argument. My stance on nudity is that it is the way we are born and the most natural thing in the world. Genital skin is not much different to any other skin. Fear of nudity is totally illogical. So if you say wearing cockrings is rude then so is wearing earrings because it draws attention to your ears? Stupid argument. It seems that many nudists posting here are still hung up with their own perception that nudity = sex.

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Nov 27, 2012

  [quote]The fact that naked people wear cockrings or any other jewellery or adornment should have no bearing on this argument. My stance on nudity is that it is the way we are born and the most natural thing in the world. Genital skin is not much different to any other skin. Fear of nudity is totally illogical. So if you say wearing cockrings is rude then so is wearing earrings because it draws attention to your ears? Stupid argument. It seems that many nudists posting here are still hung up with their own perception that nudity = sex. [/quote]                                                             [img src="http://mononoaware.concretebadger.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/funny-pictures-cat-calls-you-stupid1.jpg">

  ReactReply
• CO

  

  Curt, or Cowboy

  Nov 27, 2012

  [quote]The fact that naked people wear cockrings or any other jewellery or adornment should have no bearing on this argument. My stance on nudity is that it is the way we are born and the most natural thing in the world. Genital skin is not much different to any other skin. Fear of nudity is totally illogical. So if you say wearing cockrings is rude then so is wearing earrings because it draws attention to your ears? Stupid argument. It seems that many nudists posting here are still hung up with their own perception that nudity = sex. [/quote]While I can agree with you in theory, in practice it's not about what *we* think, and our perception, it's about what *they* think, and *their* perception.
  
  One could argue that wearing a Nazi SS uniform into a synagogue is "just clothing" or a white hooded sheet to an NAACP rally, but whether or not it is "just clothing" to the wearer is not the argument.
  The San Fran board of supervisors voted according to their own perceptions, as expected, and as I predicted a few years ago on this very website.

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Nov 27, 2012

  I wouldn't worry about it too much.  With the moderation and flagging now, most of NiMA's profane posts are removed.

  ReactReply
• NU

  

  NudyJay

  Nov 28, 2012

  [quote]It's a public forum where you are grossly outnumbered, yet you deign to conduct an ugly private rant between you as if you are in a private room behind closed doors but, yet, at the same time let it all hang out in all it's unseemly grossness.
  
  I know you simply don't get 'it'. But to me, and I suspect others, both already revealed and hidden, it is all blatantly obvious.
  
  What more can I say?
  [/quote]Totally agree. TN really does require the ability to block others in forums so that we don't even see their posts at all. I stopped visiting the forums some time ago because of these individuals who both seem to be competing to achieve the most number of posts with over 5,000 posts each. Not EVERY post and comment requires their input turning nearly every forum thread ugly.
  Expecting more insulting diatribes.

  ReactReply
• CO

  

  Curt, or Cowboy

  Nov 28, 2012

  [quote]Oh Curt.
  
  Apologies for not responding to your post before now. I didn't realise until reading MoW's latest terse riposte that it was actually MANDATORY.[/quote]The only things mandatory are death and taxes. Apologies, though unwarranted, are accepted.
  //snip// some good stuff. On topic, worthy of thought, and potential comment, until we get to...[quote] And the crunch is that you, MoW, NiMA, and even sort of sweet Cheri are crusaders, evangelists. [/quote]
  and thereafter, at which point I realize where this would likely go.
  Not willing to engage in an additional off-topic flame war ( there's more than way too much of that already ) I slink quietly into nothingness as far as this thread goes.
  Discussion, yes. Debate, sometimes. Personal attacks, insults, flames, pass.
  

  ReactReply