San Francisco barely passes public-nudity ban

Gay Folsom Street Fair exempted
The following was published November 21 on the SFGate website.

Undressing in public will likely no longer go unpunished in San Francisco, as the Board of Supervisors voted by the barest of margins Tuesday to ban public nudity.

Derided by nudity defenders as an attack on personal expression and supported by others who’ve had enough of seeing those who let it all hang out, the legislation bans genital exposure on all city sidewalks, plazas, parklets, streets and public transit.

Supervisors Scott Wiener, David Chiu, Mark Farrell, Sean Elsbernd, Carmen Chu and Malia Cohen voted in favor of the measure while Supervisors Christina Olague, Jane Kim, John Avalos, David Campos and Eric Mar opposed it. If the proposal passes a second reading and is signed into law by Mayor Ed Lee, a supporter, it will take effect Feb 1.

Wiener, the sponsor of the proposal, admits he was reluctant to take the step of banning public nudity, but that the issue has evolved beyond the presence of a few naked guys in the Castro and is a growing problem that generates more complaints from his constituents than homelessness or Muni.

“It’s no longer a quirky part of San Francisco, it’s seven days a week,” said Wiener, who represents the Castro. “Many people in the neighborhoods are over it and want to take action.”

Yet some supervisors argued that since the nudity problem was primarily contained to the Castro, a citywide ban wasn’t needed.

“I question whether this rises to the level that it should be a priority,” said Campos, who worried about police resources being diverted from violent crime to naked men and women.

Olague and Avalos said they were concerned about the restriction of personal freedom.

“Sometimes there’s a little weirdness about how we express ourselves, but that’s a great thing about San Francisco,” Avalos said.

But Wiener said the slippery slope argument shouldn’t apply.

“I don’t agree that having yellow hair is the same as exposing your penis at a busy street corner for hours and hours,” he said.

The legislation exempts nudity at private beaches, private property and permitted special events – like Bay to Breakers or the Folsom Street Fair – and doesn’t apply to children under 5 years old.

Violators would be fined $100 for the first offense and $200 for the second in a 12-month period. Convictions under the proposed law wouldn’t result in a sex offense, but a third offense could bring a $500 fine or a misdemeanor.

To read entire article, click here.

Buffer
To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. Abeca Christian says:

    Wow why is this news on a Catholic website..??.

    • Perhaps to show people like us that “people like that” ( i.e., homosexuals in San Francisco) don’t like weirdos running around in their neighborhood butt naked.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Anon LOL, I doubt it was the homosexuals who wanted the ban…ha ha ha

        • Au contraire, ma chere.

          The (gay) people living in the Castro got sick and tired of seeing these flabby old men ruining their view.

          That’s why they asked their District Supervisor, Mr. Wiener, to ban this nonsense.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            So are you saying that families with Children didn’t even try to ask for the ban. I’m sure it was a joined effort….come on. Just think back….it was the homosexuals who first imposed that nude law…maybe now they have gotten so old, that the new young gay men are sick of old flabby skin….hee hee

  2. Laurette Elsberry says:

    It’s too bad we can’t just call it what it is: Obscene exhibitionism. This is a further vice in the Culture Wars.

    • Laurette, in a civilized society it is called obscene exhibitionism. In San Francisco nudity is what passes for sophisticated avant-garde. Little do they know that to people of sense and traditon, they’re little more than barbaric pagans harkening back to the Goths sacking Rome. They seem to think their sociopathic hedonism is somehow counter-cultural and hip when in reality they’re headed down the big fat highway to hell, barebottoms bobbling with detritus and fruit flies in their wake.

  3. How about the Dore Alley fair wherein men crowd around one another in open view in the street giving oral sex, and more? Nudity is just the beginning.

  4. Hooray for the Wiener Ammendment! :-)

    It’s ridiculous for people – such as old folks, families, etc. – to have to see these sagging exhibitionists on our city streets.

    I have been surprised and happy to read over the past several months that gay people in The Castro were fully in favor of this ban.

    After all THEY are the main ones who have to view such nonsense each day.

  5. Oh for the days when indecent exposure would send you to jail!

    • Abeca Christian says:

      well isn’t it any wonder why San Fran has made a name for itself….

      • And yet the tourists have the good sense to bundle up in sweat shirts!

        Have these nudists never heard of San Francisco fog?!?

        My mother would rush over and tell them all they’re going to catch pneumonia, gallivanting around like that. We should tell their moms…

    • Amen!

    • A surefire way to bring this wanton, licentious city into the realm of what passes for normalacy these days is to avoid going there and spending money. They make big bucks from conventions and tourism, and if people would just stop spending money there , this so-called liberal city would show its true nature which is greedy self-interest. Self-denial based on economic hardship is the greatest threat to people who do not fear God.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Dana I agree but I think that many people that go there are OK with the gay stuff, I don’t think anyone in California is gonna make that stand after all if there was such a group who would avoid giving that city business, it would be small and one that would not make a big difference….it is the big groups that make a huge difference.

      • Excellent post Dana!

  6. Hypocrosy from the liberal SF elite again……the Board of Supervisors bans public nudity, but last mnth voted to give sheriff Murikami his job back after he had pleaded guilty to beating up his wife….she sutanied bruises and cuts in the atttack and the Sheriff was put on leave for 8 months.

    So you can’t show your genitals in SF, but wife beaters are OK guys. What’s wrong with this picture? Where is Feinstein, Pelosi, and Boxer when there’s a women’s issue at stake here? Oh, I forgot, silly me, all the parties in this scandal are Democrats so they get a free pass on being held accountable.

  7. Just noticed the sense of humor behind this headline:

    BAREly passes NUDITY ban.

    • Abeca Christian says:

      yes, but when you think about it, it is said that it barely did…that means that many still didn’t want the ban…gross!

      • Abeca, but I was just out the macabre humor of the headline, which used “bare” and nudity together.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          Yes I know what you meant…LOL you are right there is some humor to it too….the only thing is I don’t want to imagine it…somethings are just too gross for words or for the imagination, I prefer not to go there…hee hee

  8. Mbûkû Kanyau Mbithûka says:

    In the devils world, nothing makes sense, everything is upside down.

  9. Silly me, one of a handful of times visiting the City by the Bay ( which can be really pretty when there is no fog ) well I had no idea “where” we were and as I was with a neighbor she was a new to the surroundings as I was.
    Having lived and/or worked in areas such as West Hollywood, Belmont Shores, and Laguna Beach I could tell we were entering a predominantly gay part of town. I heard loud music and look at my friend and realizing we had to cross through that section of town I complained, “oh no, what if it’s one of those Pride Parades?” yet we pressed on until…
    until turning the corner and literally stepping into the second coming of the Sodom and Gomorrah. I’ll admit, though I consider myself prudish, I thought I knew what to expect, but holy cow; it has taken years to try and erase the level of human depravity that took place right out in the open, there was even a wonder scurrying along with a babystroller! Men were doing things that I just never heard of or thought possible and the biggest question was why??? That someone could enjoy that? I would have felt more at ease being in an area with crackheads or heroine addicts! Plus anyone else wonder why it is that the only people desiring to walk around nude in public are always the LAST people anyone would care to see nude?! God truly made us in his image, but I think with some, he tinkered a bit resulting in some highly unlikely resemblances to his image! Kind of a trial and error, and perhaps those accidentally got loose somehow! Ick!!!!
    God save those souls, they really are caught up in the devils grip.

  10. What … no blaming any of this on Most Holy Redeemer? You people are getting mellower in your (obviously) old age.

    • No nudity is allowed at MHR Church – one must have clothing, after all, to bring envelopes for the collection basket.

      This is Catholicism 101…

  11. Juergensen says:

    As long as sodomy is rampant, Satan is all right with a ban on public nudity.

  12. put those creeps in burqas!

    i’m trying to enjoy my lunch!

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 250 words, and should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Post your comment

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 250 words, and should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.