Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

San Fran votes 6 to 5 to not allow public nudity....The real question in my mind is why was there even a need to vote on this issue...and furthermore why was it so close.

So apparently quite a few people in San Francisco believe there is nothing wrong with walking around naked in public.

The end is truly Nigh...........

http://news.msn.com/us/sf-lawmakers-pass-vote-to-ban-public-nudity?gt1=51501

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF lawmakers pass vote to ban public nudity
IMAGE: San Francisco has voted to ban public nudity in most places.
AP 5 hr ago

In a close 6 to 5 vote, the approval means that exposed genitals will not be allowed in most public places.

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco lawmakers on Tuesday narrowly approved a proposal to ban public nakedness, rejecting arguments that the measure would eat away at a reputation for tolerance enjoyed by a city known for flouting convention and flaunting its counter-culture image.

The 6-5 Board of Supervisors vote means that exposed genitals will be prohibited in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit.

Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the measure in response to escalating complaints about a group of men whose lack of clothing was an almost daily occurrence in the city's predominantly gay Castro District.

"The Castro and San Francisco in general, is a place of freedom, expression and acceptance. But freedom, expression and acceptance does not mean anything goes under any circumstances," Wiener said Tuesday. "Our public spaces are for everyone and as a result it's appropriate to have some minimal standards of behavior."

Wiener's opponents on the board said a citywide ban would draw police officers' attention away from more critical problems and eat away at city's reputation for tolerance.

"I'm concerned about civil liberties, about free speech, about changing San Francisco's style and how we are as a city," Supervisor John Avalos said.

Under Wiener's proposal, a first offense would carry a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail.

Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.

A federal lawsuit claiming the ban would violate the free speech rights of people who prefer to make a statement by going au naturel was filed last week in case the ordinance passes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GG

The fact that the supervisor's last name is Wiener makes this article all the more hilarious.

^This, so very much this.

Its San Francisco... How is this shocking XD

Thank god. The human body is truly disgusting.

 Coolyo294 wrote:
The fact that the supervisor's last name is Wiener makes this article all the more hilarious.

Wooaahh...totally missed that!!


GG

 generalgrog wrote:
The real question in my mind is why was there even a need to vote on this issue...

You're right. It's pretty sad that people think that being naked in public matters at all, and spent tax money on voting on this ban.

So apparently quite a few people in San Francisco believe there is nothing wrong with walking around naked in public.

So what exactly IS wrong with it?

The end is truly Nigh...........

Yep. The End Times are here. The Beast has arisen, and Jesus will soon bring the fires of heaven down upon this cursed world and send the flaming corpses of the unbelievers straight to hell. Repent now or burn with them! REPENT!

 Peregrine wrote:
So what exactly IS wrong with it?

You really want to see this when walking down the street?



The friendly office is clearly less than pleased. At least be a hot chick if your going to be a nudist. Or even a hot guy. Just saying.

 LordofHats wrote:
You really want to see this when walking down the street?

Since when do my aesthetic preferences matter to what is legal? There are a lot of things I don't want to see, does that mean that I get to make them illegal?

I was kind of disappointed when I was in San Francisco and there wasn't a single weirdo walking around nude. It was kind of cold, I guess, and we never went to The Castro because we forgot, but still.

Indeed, true tolerance is great. But this something that is not appropriate.

Its really just a bunch of perverts trying to get free reign to do their thing.

It's worth pointing out that while the idea that we should not go around with our genitals on view is just a taboo with no real basis in sense or reason... but that's basically what all taboos are. And every society has them, and that's just how it is.

Now maybe the idea that taboos like this offend people's idea that we should get to do whatever we want as long we don't hurt anyone, but just learn to deal with the fact that human society's don't actually think like that, and probably never will. Even when a taboo doesn't hurt anyone they will enforce it.

I mean, this thing reminds me of this stupid conversation I once had with a girl who set about trying to convince me that, if there was no chance of children, there wasn't anything immoral about her sleeping with her brother (hypothetically, she didn't actually have a brother). It went on for what seemed like hours, and she used all kinds of clever reason to point out that no-one was hurt in the hypothetical incest, until I eventually said 'this is all good and well but just don't feth your brother. It isn't that much of a sacrifice.'

And it's the same thing here. It really isn't that much of a hardship for these people to just put some pants on, so just do it.

 sebster wrote:
Now maybe the idea that taboos like this offend people's idea that we should get to do whatever we want as long we don't hurt anyone, but just learn to deal with the fact that human society's don't actually think like that, and probably never will. Even when a taboo doesn't hurt anyone they will enforce it.

I'd say it's being enforced pretty well right now, since only a tiny minority of people ever go around naked in public. The question here is whether it should be illegal, not whether we should approve or disapprove of their actions.

I mean, this thing reminds me of this stupid conversation I once had with a girl who set about trying to convince me that, if there was no chance of children, there wasn't anything immoral about her sleeping with her brother (hypothetically, she didn't actually have a brother). It went on for what seemed like hours, and she used all kinds of clever reason to point out that no-one was hurt in the hypothetical incest, until I eventually said 'this is all good and well but just don't feth your brother. It isn't that much of a sacrifice.'

There's a very simple answer here: don't sleep with your brother. However, your personal feelings of disgust don't mean that other people, who don't share those feelings, should be thrown in prison for it.

And it's the same thing here. It really isn't that much of a hardship for these people to just put some pants on, so just do it.

It really isn't that much of a hardship for people to very rarely see someone naked in public, so they should just look the other way and accept the fact that not everyone shares their objection and it's not illegal to be unappealing to someone.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd say it's being enforced pretty well right now, since only a tiny minority of people ever go around naked in public. The question here is whether it should be illegal, not whether we should approve or disapprove of their actions.

No, because enforcing means, you know, like actually using force. Being a thing that very few people want to do, and that most people will back away from isn't force

There's a very simple answer here: don't sleep with your brother. However, your personal feelings of disgust don't mean that other people, who don't share those feelings, should be thrown in prison for it.

No. You've missed the point. It isn't about whether, rationally, there is any pressing social need to not see people's genital in public. There isn't. I'm happy to concede that.

My point is that when faced with that piece of social irrationality, then boo fething hoo, you have to put some pants on. That's it. It really isn't that much of a restriction. Much like having to accept that your hypothetical brother is the one man among 3 billion on this Earth you can't feth, putting some pants on is a trivial discomfort.

So just fething do it. There's actual real things in the world that cause people actual, real problems.

 sebster wrote:
No, because enforcing means, you know, like actually using force. Being a thing that very few people want to do, and that most people will back away from isn't force

Since when is social pressure not force?

My point is that when faced with that piece of social irrationality, then boo fething hoo, you have to put some pants on. That's it. It really isn't that much of a restriction. Much like having to accept that your hypothetical brother is the one man among 3 billion on this Earth you can't feth, putting some pants on is a trivial discomfort.

That's not a reason, it's just a rant. You have yet to say WHY these laws should be accepted and, more importantly, why they need to pass an additional law.

So just fething do it. There's actual real things in the world that cause people actual, real problems.

Oh yes, the classic "there's a worse problem" complaint. I guess we'd better stop trying to solve any problem besides the eventual heat death of the universe, since it's hard to be a bigger problem than that.

Not to mention it's just downright unhygenic. Do you want to sit on a stool or chair that some guy just sat on bare naked? (Toilets are different because thee is a huge hole in the middle of the seat)

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
Not to mention it's just downright unhygenic. Do you want to sit on a stool or chair that some guy just sat on bare naked? (Toilets are different because thee is a huge hole in the middle of the seat)

GG

You sit on toilets that have lots of other people sitting on them?

 generalgrog wrote:
San Fran votes 6 to 5 to not allow public nudity....The real question in my mind is why was there even a need to vote on this issue...and furthermore why was it so close.

So apparently quite a few people in San Francisco believe there is nothing wrong with walking around naked in public.

The end is truly Nigh...........

http://news.msn.com/us/sf-lawmakers-pass-vote-to-ban-public-nudity?gt1=51501

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF lawmakers pass vote to ban public nudity
IMAGE: San Francisco has voted to ban public nudity in most places.
AP 5 hr ago

In a close 6 to 5 vote, the approval means that exposed genitals will not be allowed in most public places.

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco lawmakers on Tuesday narrowly approved a proposal to ban public nakedness, rejecting arguments that the measure would eat away at a reputation for tolerance enjoyed by a city known for flouting convention and flaunting its counter-culture image.

The 6-5 Board of Supervisors vote means that exposed genitals will be prohibited in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit.

Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the measure in response to escalating complaints about a group of men whose lack of clothing was an almost daily occurrence in the city's predominantly gay Castro District.

"The Castro and San Francisco in general, is a place of freedom, expression and acceptance. But freedom, expression and acceptance does not mean anything goes under any circumstances," Wiener said Tuesday. "Our public spaces are for everyone and as a result it's appropriate to have some minimal standards of behavior."

Wiener's opponents on the board said a citywide ban would draw police officers' attention away from more critical problems and eat away at city's reputation for tolerance.

"I'm concerned about civil liberties, about free speech, about changing San Francisco's style and how we are as a city," Supervisor John Avalos said.

Under Wiener's proposal, a first offense would carry a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail.

Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.

A federal lawsuit claiming the ban would violate the free speech rights of people who prefer to make a statement by going au naturel was filed last week in case the ordinance passes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GG

You obviusly know nothing of San Francisco. Weirdoes are celebrated and have rights there.
I say weirdoes because they're never easy on the eyes but ugly pruny white guys. Plus their naked. In San Francisco.
"The coldest winter I ever saw was the summer I spent in San Francisco."

There is an interesting and relevant story from the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19625542

 LordofHats wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what exactly IS wrong with it?

You really want to see this when walking down the street?



The friendly office is clearly less than pleased. At least be a hot chick if your going to be a nudist. Or even a hot guy. Just saying.

Pah. I see worse in the mirror every day. If people wanna be naked, I say let 'em. Seriously we've all seen ourselves naked before, so we shouldn't be running into too many new things. Seriously the worst thing you could run into some 4yr old asking "Why doesn't that lady have a winky" or the like.

I don't really get the appeal of being naked all the time but I don't see any reason to stop people.

I do. Its incredbily unhygienic.

 Frazzled wrote:
I do. Its incredbily unhygienic.

How, exactly? I mean "Incredibly unhygienic" is an extremely strong term here. I suppose if someone is covered in oozing pustules you've got a point, but otherwise I'm not seeing it. Presumably someone with half-decent personal hygenie is going to be taking a shower on a fairly regular basis, and thus isn't going to be introducing any particularly large amount of general uncleanness into the environment. Similarly a gross slob who wouldn't shower, is likely not paying attention to how clean their clothes are either so in either case they're spreading their stank everywhere.

Even then in public spaces everything is already getting touched so many times by so many people, chances are someone's hands have probably already delivered anything some dudes hairy back could deliver to whatever surface is in question. I suppose there is the argument the naked person might be exposed to something they otherwise wouldn't be, but hey that's on their head right?

You're at more risk from people sneezing public than some dude rubbing his ass-rash on a subway seat (especially since you are presumably wearing pants), but you're probably not clamoring for mandatory public surgical masks.

Truth be told I don't particularly care about people having the right to be naked in public, but it seems silly to pretend that it's some kind of health risk out of scale with the many, many things we already readily accept as a part of living with other members of the same species. That and I'm feeling contrary.

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I do. Its incredbily unhygienic.

How, exactly? I mean "Incredibly unhygienic" is an extremely strong term here. I suppose if someone is covered in oozing pustules you've got a point, but otherwise I'm not seeing it. Presumably someone with half-decent personal hygenie is going to be taking a shower on a fairly regular basis, and thus isn't going to be introducing any particularly large amount of general uncleanness into the environment. Similarly a gross slob who wouldn't shower, is likely not paying attention to how clean their clothes are either so in either case they're spreading their stank everywhere.

Even then in public spaces everything is already getting touched so many times by so many people, chances are someone's hands have probably already delivered anything some dudes hairy back could deliver to whatever surface is in question. I suppose there is the argument the naked person might be exposed to something they otherwise wouldn't be, but hey that's on their head right?

You're at more risk from people sneezing public than some dude rubbing his ass-rash on a subway seat (especially since you are presumably wearing pants), but you're probably not clamoring for mandatory public surgical masks.

Truth be told I don't particularly care about people having the right to be naked in public, but it seems silly to pretend that it's some kind of health risk out of scale with the many, many things we already readily accept as a part of living with other members of the same species. That and I'm feeling contrary.

why on earth would I think they have half decent personal hygiene? Dude they're literally rubbing their ass all over the city.
But then again its California so the concept of someone doing that pleases me greatly.

I would never enter a hobby shop again, let alone sit in a chair in a hobby shop!
There is a reason people wear underwear, it keeps your genitals and ass off of your clothes. This puts people's buttholes right onto the furniture.

Not to mention the fact that the first people that go naked are always the last people that should.

Hell, I see people at Walmart I can barely stomach looking at clothed!

While I have little issue with people having the right to dress, or not dress, as they wish in theory... I dont want to sit on a chair of bus seat that has someone else's sweaty prosteria and genetalia rubbed all over them by the previous occupant. There is a genuine hygiene issue here.

A little decency isn't a terrible thing, put some pants on! *waves cane*

Yeah I agree, it's very unhygienic on a bus or something... but I don't see the problem in a park or other open public area....

However, I think there needs to be a law that allows only people of a certain gender, age and body-weight to walk around in the adam-and-eve-costume....

 sebster wrote:
I was kind of disappointed when I was in San Francisco and there wasn't a single weirdo walking around nude. It was kind of cold, I guess, and we never went to The Castro because we forgot, but still.

I did and right off the bus pow! big fat naked guy. I was quite shocked. I thought clothes was the one thing all Americans agreed on.

God bless Western religion for making us ashamed of our own bodies. Of course this is the culture where showing thousands of murders on TV is quite alright while a woman's nipples are deemed off limits and wrong.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
God bless Western religion for making us ashamed of our own bodies. Of course this is the culture where showing thousands of murders on TV is quite alright while a woman's nipples are deemed off limits and wrong.

Damn straight. Violence never hurt anyone, but nipples. Those things are deadly