Opposition to SF “nudity ban” shows much of what’s wrong w/ modern-day liberalism

Posted by: ST on November 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm

A San Francisco Supervisor has proposed a public nudity ban, with exceptions to be made for sex-themed parades and festivals.  The AP reports:

San Francisco’s lawmakers are voting Tuesday on whether to ban nudity in a  city where anything goes, including clothes.

The ordinance would prohibit nudity in most public places. It represents an  escalation of a two-year fight between a group of men who strut their stuff  through the city’s famously gay Castro District and the supervisor who  represents the area.

Supervisor Scott Wiener’s proposal would make it illegal for a person over  the age of 5 to “expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any  public street, sidewalk, street median, parklet or plaza” or while using public  transit.

“I don’t think having some guys taking their clothes off and hanging out  seven days a week at Castro and Market Street is really what San Francisco is  about. I think it’s a caricature of what San Francisco is about,” Wiener  said.

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 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.

Wiener said he felt compelled to act after constituents complained about the  naked men who gather in a small Castro plaza most days and sometimes walk the  streets au naturel. He persuaded his colleagues last year to pass a law  requiring a cloth to be placed between public seating and bare bottoms, but the  complaints have continued.

The proposed ban predictably has produced outrage, as well as a lawsuit. Last  week, about two dozen people undressed in front of City Hall and marched around  the block to the amusement of gawking tourists.

Stripped down to his sunglasses and hiking boots, McCray Winpsett, 37, said  he understands the disgust of residents who would prefer not to see the body  modifications and sex enhancement devices sported by some of the Castro nudists.  But he thinks Wiener’s prohibition goes too far in undermining a tradition “that  keeps San Francisco weird.”

“A few lewd exhibitionists are really ruining it for the rest of us,” he  said.

No, what’s “ruining” things in San Francisco is the “anything goes” mentality of the far left. Really – these morons think a ban on public nudity infringes on their “free speech rights” and because they believe that, a “federal lawsuit” has been filed to block the ordinance proposed by Wiener (assuming it passes).  They seriously believe their “right” to walk around nude in the Castro district trumps the rights of other people living or touring the area who would like to do so without being exposed to what amounts to cheap exhibitionism from so-called ‘adults” who have never grown up.  From another article on this issue:

Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the proposal to curb undressing after residents complained about a daily gathering of naked men in Jane Warner Plaza, a square in the Castro District. He called the lawsuit a baseless “publicity stunt.”

“There’s always been occasional public nudity in San Francisco. Over the last two years it’s gone from being this quirky, occasional thing to an obnoxious, over-the-top thing,” Wiener said in an interview.

“A lot of people who live in the neighborhood are just sick of the fact that seven days a week there are men taking their pants off and displaying their genitals on our sidewalks and plaza,” he added.

[…]

San Francisco last year began requiring nudists to cover their buttocks in public and to wear clothes in restaurants. Residents say the restrictions only incited the so-called Naked Guys to grow more exhibitionist.

[…]

Dan Glazer, owner of the Hot Cookie, a Castro bakery known for genital-shaped cookies, expressed mixed emotions about the proposed ban.

He said tourists flock to the area to see the Naked Guys and snap pictures, and probably have helped his business. He also said he would hate to see limited police resources used to enforce a nudity ban.

On the other hand, he said, the nudists have crossed the line into an irritating form of exhibitionism, and were “taking advantage of our neighborhood’s openness, of the gay community’s tolerance.”

No sh*t, Sherlock.

There is a reason most of America has laws against public nudity outside of designated “nude beaches.” Why?  Most people who walk around that way in places like Castro and other “free-spirited” parts of America are not trying to express “free speech rights” but instead are doing so to show out, to shock other people out of a perverse sense of narcissism, and ultimately to get laid.   In the process, people who don’t want to be exposed to this nonsense are – and that includes children and women who would prefer to walk down the street window shopping and not be inadverantly flashed by private male body parts, thank you very much.

Not only that, but you have the associated health hazards that come with allowing people to walk around au naturale, especially when they sit down or “bump” into you “by accident.”  I don’t have to explain that in detail to the adults reading this, but it’s obviously something SF itself took into consideration last year, which is why they now require people to wear clothes in restaurants and for their “buttocks to be covered” when sitting down.

Duh.

This is what happens when you have predominiantly liberal communities and cities that believe there should be “no boundaries” as “long as you’re not physically hurting anyone else.”  Lines have to be drawn, or otherwise you will eventually have idiots who will take things too far to the point there is no turning back outside of doing a complete reversal – something predicted by opponents of “no boundaries” laws in the first place.   Deep down, liberals who propose such things as striking down bans on public nudity eventually expose themselves, and not just in a physical sense but in emotional and mental senses as well – letting you know that they have the maturity level of a 14 year old. Yet they actually try to pass off such ideas as being “enlightened’ and “progressive.” In reality, it’s a juvenile mindset that is harmful to serious-minded people (adults) who have no problems with people being “free-spirted” as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others to enjoy their towns and cities free from worry over being exposed to too much of their neighbors.

San Francisco’s interior is rotting to the core economically, financially, spiritually, and culturally, and the only difference between it and the more obvious big city liberal failures like Detroit is that the notorious left coast city has an exterior beauty that is – currently – beyond compare to most cities in America.  But for how long?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 Responses to “Opposition to SF “nudity ban” shows much of what’s wrong w/ modern-day liberalism”

Comments

  1. Drew the Infidel says:

    To be charitable one could say they were only showing their “shortcomings”. On the other hand, the Rocky Mountains sit on the west side of the continent causing the country to tilt and everything loose to roll to California.

  2. Kate says:

    I guess they need a law when they have no shame….hate to be living there and “exposed” to their “freedom” on a daily basis. I think I would have to keep a water pistol handy to squirt them if they try it…this is the way I train my cats not to scratch the furniture, etc.

  3. Tex says:

    You would think that Liberals, who believe that government should tell you what to eat and drink in order to protect your health, would be against the unhealthy consequences of having people walk around buck naked in public places. I mean c’mon, would you want to sit in a chair in a restaurant, or in a seat on a public bus, on in a seat in the movie theater that some naked dude’s rear end had just been on? You certainly wouldn’t want to see the microbiology report of a swab of the chairs or seats those guys were sitting on.

  4. Dana says:

    “Supervisor Scott Wiener?” :d

    ‘Nuff said!

  5. Great White Rat says:

    liberal communities and cities that believe there should be “no boundaries” as “long as you’re not physically hurting anyone else.”

    Yet those same liberal communities are the ones that will adopt speech and thought codes that will punish violators severely for “offending” someone. It’s not that liberals believe that anything goes – it’s that anything that they like goes.

    In this case, the jerks that want to shove their private parts in everyone else’s face are doing it to proclaim their hatred and contempt for traditional morality. Try doing something equally stupid that runs counter to their religion – walking around in blackface, for example – and see how long it take for the tolerant liberals to start a protest, demand an arrest, or physically assault the perpetrator.

  6. Carlos says:

    Because of the work I do, I have occasion to travel to that fine sewage center. I have no idea how one can say the place has “exterior beauty… beyond compare…”

    Unless I’m missing something, or my sense of “exterior beauty” is really out of whack, there are several towns/cities even on the left coast I’d rate ahead of Potty Town, including both Seattle and Portland (neither of which is terribly far behind SanFran for being egregiously stupid in their politics.)

  7. Jason says:

    I live in San Francisco and one thing hypocritical in all of this is that they are having people standing around butt naked and rubbing their bare behinds all over restaurant and bar seats and park benches outdoors – but in that same city, if someone fully clothed lights up and smokes a cigarette outdoors in a public park, it is a $500 penalty for committing such an outlandish “crime”. Like ancient pre-Christian pagan cultures, the current liberal-progressive-communist single ruling party and party elite who rule San Francisco do nothing but create false “evils” and false “goodness” and scape-goat the true innocent while protecting and promoting the vile and perverted. It is the world turned upside down – and as it says in the Bible in several places, woe be to those who would make evil good and good evil. That is the gist of what San Francisco’s one political party’s communist ruling elite are doing to preserve their hegemony over the city. Nancy Pelosi is one of them too.