San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?

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.

**rubiksnoob**

Cheesecat wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:
The solution would be to have a licensing system where one applies for permit to be naked in public, and is then evaluated for general attractiveness.

Except beauty is subjective so you could have a guy who's into bearded ladies with no legs doing the evaluation.

Sorry. Women must look like Marion Cottillard. Men must look like me.

**scarletsquig**

Something really, really cool about this bill:

They've only banned genitalia.

Women can still walk around topless if they want.

Sounds good to me!

**Ensis Ferrae**

scarletsquig wrote:
Something really, really cool about this bill:

They've only banned genitalia.

Women can still walk around topless if they want.

Sounds good to me!

dude, at least in America, for some reason, many people consider the bewbs to be genitalia.. not sure if this particular bill is this way, but there you have it, even that may not be safe.

**angel of ecstasy**

It's not "San Fran", nor is it "Frisco". It's "The City"

Honestly, ban all nudity. Public and private.

**Relapse**

Frazzled wrote:
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 totaly agree with what you're saying here, Fraz, and exalt. There is an element of common sense that does not seem to be kicking in with the proponents of public nudity. I don't want to be packed into an elevator or publlic transportation with some naked slob and getting their pubs on me and I definitely don't want my kids at eye level with people's exposed junk.

**Kilkrazy**

Everyone should wear clothes like this. It should be a law.

**Cheesecat**

That was genuinely funny.

**InquisitorVaron**

It could turn into this sort of culture.

Suprised no one posted this

**nomsheep**

InquisitorVaron wrote:
It could turn into this sort of culture.

Suprised no one posted this

you mean Canadian?

and prolly cos he's annoying as hell.

**Bromsy**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone should wear clothes like this. It should be a law.

Most Excellent.

**feeder**

nomsheep wrote:

and prolly cos he's annoying as hell.

You have never been more wrong in your life.

**KalashnikovMarine**

nomsheep wrote:
InquisitorVaron wrote:
It could turn into this sort of culture.

Suprised no one posted this

you mean Canadian?

and prolly cos he's annoying as hell.

Let's try that with something better...

**Frazzled**

scarletsquig wrote:
Something really, really cool about this bill:

They've only banned genitalia.

Women can still walk around topless if they want.

Sounds good to me!

In Texas, that is current law. Topless is fine.
Personally, I don't care that much except as a hygienic issue. I have no problem with nude beaches, etc. I Just don't want to sit in the bus post grandpa with clothing and hygiene issues.

**gunslingerpro**

So long as there are boundries, there will be folks who test them.

From a public health level, yes, nudity is an issue. But on a more societal level, I've seen many more protests and sympathy given to the male/female torso nudity equality campaign.

I'm all for equality. Shirtless men and women, all well and good. When you cross the line from expression to helath concern, you've lost me.

**kronk**

Hygene is my concern.

I don't want to sit on a theater seat where someone in the previous movie with crabs or genital warts had his bare butt and testicles. As cold as theaters are, I doubt that would be an issue, though.

**ENOZONE**

kronk wrote:
Hygene is my concern.

I don't want to sit on a theater seat where someone in the previous movie with crabs or genital warts had his bare butt and testicles. As cold as theaters are, I doubt that would be an issue, though.

Hate to break it to you... but theater seats likely already have those undesirables in ample amounts... especially in the back.

**Frazzled**

Thats why its important to never leave home without a full biohazard suit.

**Grey Templar**

I just bring a can of Axe and a Zippo. Quick and easy disinfection wherever you go.

**SilverMK2**

I love that you guys call it Axe rather than Lynx

The image of spraying axes out of a can just entertains me.

**Howard A Treesong**

An axe and a zippo is what John McClane packs from christmas isn't it?

**DutchKillsRambo**

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Yeah, Western religion. That's why there's so many people walking around China and India in the buff. Uh huh, totally a Western religion thing.

I know your probably smarter than me after reading your posts but really? Did you never learn how one of the first thing missionaries did to natives in the Americas and South Pacific was to clothe them and teach them "modesty" aka shame?

My whole point is what the hell is wrong with nudity? The vast majority of us are naked everyday for a varying length of time. Why should we be ashamed to be nude? Anyway its way to late to start now as nudity has become sexualized for the attractive and made comedic for the less attractive. Sad but true.

And my point about whats acceptable media in our culture still stands.

"

**Grey Templar**

Clothing tends to be something associated with civilization, not one specific religion over another. Every major civilization has had clothing be a major fixture.

The only thing that changes is what parts of the body a more taboo then others. And then they follow similar patterns. Generally radiating from the genitalia outwards to varying degrees.

Regardless, clothes are a major part of all civilized societies.

**Frazzled**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Yeah, Western religion. That's why there's so many people walking around China and India in the buff. Uh huh, totally a Western religion thing.

I know your probably smarter than me after reading your posts but really? Did you never learn how one of the first thing missionaries did to natives in the Americas and South Pacific was to clothe them and teach them "modesty" aka shame?

My whole point is what the hell is wrong with nudity? The vast majority of us are naked everyday for a varying length of time. Why should we be ashamed to be nude? Anyway its way to late to start now as nudity has become sexualized for the attractive and made comedic for the less attractive. Sad but true.

And my point about whats acceptable media in our culture still stands.

"

All evidence we have is that people wore clothing in the Americas. Depending on the region that clothing was more or less, but everyone wore clothing, even in the Amazon. Not sure what you're getting at.

We know the Mayans (via the few codexes that remain and their sculpture) wore clothing, as did the Aztecs. The Inca definitely had elaborate clothing. Comanche, Apache, Lakotah, Dakotah, and Iroquois were all noted as having clothing, again depending on region and season.

The only one I know that might fit your story is a variant of the Kiowa (or was it Kickapoo) that lived near/on Galveston. And they wore heavy leayers of mud to protect them from horsefly bites.

**SilverMK2**

No matter what you wear you are nekid underneath

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
No matter what you wear you are nekid underneath

I have bad breath too. Whats your point again?

**DutchKillsRambo**

Depending on the region they wore clothing but even now there's Amazonian tribes that wear little to nothing. They wore adornments surely but not everyone covered their breasts and genitals.

Even on Magellans cruise during the first contact with Pacific Islanders his missionaries were abhorred at the nudity of the natives and tried to get them to cover it. Partly because the sailors were getting it on with said natives. Partly because it was immodest to Euroean eyes.

Similar story in Mexico. It's not really news.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clothing and covering specific body parts aren't always the same thing Fraz.

**Grey Templar**

Again, clothing is a part of civilization. The natives in the Amazon are simple hunter gatherers just scrabbling a living out of the jungle.

Any type of Civilization will have clothing. Even the ones in Mexico had clothing covering the dangely bits.

The europeans just requested slightly more coverings. They weren't introducing a completely foriegn concept.

**Frazzled**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Depending on the region they wore clothing but even now there's Amazonian tribes that wear little to nothing. They wore adornments surely but not everyone covered their breasts and genitals.

Even on Magellans cruise during the first contact with Pacific Islanders his missionaries were abhorred at the nudity of the natives and tried to get them to cover it. Partly because the sailors were getting it on with said natives. Partly because it was immodest to Euroean eyes.

Similar story in Mexico. It's not really news.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clothing and covering specific body parts aren't always the same thing Fraz.

Breasts aren't what I'd define as nudity but your mileage may vary. The Amazons may wear little but they generally wear something. If not, hey their Amazons who make Borneo's long house brigade look positively Oxfordesque. I'm not going to judge standards by that of confirmed cannibals. The other native tribes did not dress like that.
I don't know anything about Pacific islanders, and give a hearty meh to them as well. If I lived in paradise I wouldn't care either, now get a job you lazy bums!

San Francisco is no Tahiti on the environmental front.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
No matter what you wear you are nekid underneath

I have bad breath too. Whats your point again?

You are naked and have bad breath. Damn hippy!

**DutchKillsRambo**

Yes, yes they were. They were introducing the concept that exposed genitals and breasts were immoral in the eyes of god.

Its not dissimilar to public nudity in the Greco-Roman era. Or are you under the impression they were wearing swim trunks in the baths?