Reader comments · US: Judge tipped to allow San Francisco nudity ban · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


US: Judge tipped to allow San Francisco nudity ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Now anyone who has ever been to Folsom at the end of each September will vouch that the buff, queasily Anglo Saxon bunny depicted in the pic accompanying this item is NOT typical of your typical San Franciscon street fair reveler, which welcomes and embraces LTGB people of ALL shapes, sizes, colours and creeds.

    Titillating, most certainly, but tut tut and slapped wrist for PN for gross misrepresentation of displayed goods.

  2. Christopher in Canada 18 Jan 2013, 8:01pm

    We are the only species on the planet so fucked up as to be ashamed of ourselves nude.

    Damn you, book of Genesis! Time to throw off that idiocy.

  3. The cute bunny in the photo drew my attention to the misleading
    “The ban would hamper the Folsom St fair”

    Recalling the organizers concerns at the time, assurances were given the ban was not a total ban. Exceptions were provisionally being considered and are not reflected accurately if one reads the banner under the photo!

    “While the proposal in San Francisco seeks to ban nudity in the public, home-grown events and festivals would be the only exception. Pink Saturday, Gay Pride Parade, Bay to Breakers run and the Castro Street Fair would be off limits and business as usual”.

    The Golden Gate bridge, and Bakers nude beaches were not included in the list (so here’s hoping they don’t become part of the issue.

    These exclusions how ever are interesting in that they are dollar tourist events which attract huge numbers to San Francisco. So perhaps money influences where nudity will be tolerated.

  4. I think it would be sad to end the traditional freedom of nudity in the Castro. But is it actually the nudity that has provoked the community into objecting or is it people having sex in public that has angered residents?

  5. As a longtime resident of the Castro, I would like to weigh in on this topic.
    Most of the targeted nudity that is being legislated/banned began when a provisional “parklet” was set up at the intersections of Castro, Market and 17th Streets. Before then 17th Street can automobile traffic and it has always been a busy pedestrian crosswalk too. The idea was to close 17th Street to eastbound traffic and to create a safer environment for people using the F-line streetcar and for pedestrians. Many of us weren’t convinced that a park was a good idea because in the late afternoon that intersection is cold and windy and certainly not conducive to lounging in kind of park that would protect people from the guaranteed cold blast of air. There was also a concern that the park would attract vagrants. After about two years people began to lounge there in the buff and it became popular for that, but not exclusively so… to be continued

  6. Cont’d: Yes, nude people are bound to attract attention from tourists who come from places with rigid bans on most anything, but this is after all San Francisco! We residents, who have to run errands, and shop, commute etc., really stopped noticing these guys after a while, and frankly they didn’t stop me from getting my errands done. I have zero interest in being nude in public, but that’s a personal choice, and while many of them are ugly as a mud fence, who cares?!? I’m allergic of the notion that the Castro needs to be sanitized to meet the conservative instincts of the intolerant. Our current supervisor is a closet conservative and he’s using this topic as his cause cèlébre as he carves out his political career. I have an issue with yet another politico using us to further his personal agenda when there so many pressing issues in the district that he purports to represent.
    Fads and fashions come and go, and this milling about a public space will so go the way of the Lambada.

  7. GingerlyColors 19 Jan 2013, 6:27am

    The issue is should people have the right to walk about naked? We have all heard about the militant naturist, Steve Gough AKA the Naked Rambler who feels very strongly about the issue and once walked from Land’s End to John O’Groats to prove his point, visiting one of my regular pubs on the way where he was made welcome.
    Steve Gough’s campaign has divided public opinion and many, including myself feel that he does have a point while others feel that he should cover up in public. He compares his campaign to the civil disobedience practiced by the Suffragettes a hundred years ago. I think that some of our more liberal towns and cities such as Brighton should become naturist-friendly although British society is not ready to embrace public nudity en-mass.

    1. Correct me if I am wrong , public nudity is under review in the UK and it seems that some of the current laws might be relaxed.

  8. MerlynHerne 19 Jan 2013, 2:38pm

    I wonder if the breeders started whining about “the chil-l-l-ldren-n-n-n-n”, or is the Castro still relatively child free?

    1. de Villiers 19 Jan 2013, 11:35pm

      First, to refer to people as breeders is disgusting.

      Second, I have an adopted child and well understand the concern associated with protecting children.

      1. Nudity doesn’t harm children. Sexual misconduct does. Nudity by itself is benign.

      2. Do you live in the Castro?
        If yes, you certainly know that there are thousands of children living here, so many that McKinley School on Castro Street, which was once in danger of closure due to so few children is now one of the most sought after schools in the district. My neighbor, who is now a grandmother, attended McKinley as did her two children and now her grandchildren go there. Frankly, I haven’t seen any damage to her, the children, or the grandchildren due to nudity!
        To those of you who don’t live in the Castro or have never visited, it’s important to note the nudes are NOT strolling every street or standing on every corner of the neighborhood. This is NOT a plague of nakedness, despite the lies that some, including the district supervisor have spread. The core issue here is not nudity, but freedom, particularly against citizens who have known so much repression. I repeat, this entire thing is not as important as the truly pressing issues that need attention and hard work.

  9. I’d rather see a law encouraging ‘hot’ men to get naked in public more often. I think that’s something we would all support.

    1. Hahaha, yeah that would be fun. Probably wouldn’t withstand court scrutiny, but would be fun. Really, some men ought never to wear clothes – it would be a crime against aesthetics. But honestly I believe everyone has the fundamental right to be nude in public if they so choose, no matter how unattractive they may be perceived to be. Yes, even women – and I don’t even like women. XD

      1. That is to say, women are not attractive to me. I do like women as people.

  10. San Francisco has a particular decades-old subculture of its own that embraces nudity as a public way of life. I am not comfortable sitting in judgment of that. We should instead be prohibiting things like sexual harassment, etc. The mere polite appearance of someone’s unclad body is not in and of itself an offense. Not if you’re a Naga Sadhu from India, and not if you’re a nudist from San Francisco.

    Also, the city’s nudity ban very narrowly passed with a vote of 6-5, and the majority of the city’s population opposed the ban. Let’s just call public nudity what it is: our neighbor’s fundamental right.

  11. Christopher 19 Jan 2013, 11:25pm

    I’m all for this.. Keep your clothes on people.

  12. Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 20 Jan 2013, 4:01am

    Typical California for you!

    They are going BACKWARDS on gay rights!

    If Harvey Milk were still alive today he will be OUTRAGED!

    Harvey Milk will be turning over in his grave!

    1. Whatever your views for or against public nudity, I don’t really see what this has to do with gay rights. There is nothing specifically homosexual as opposed to heterosexual about it.

  13. What needs to be banned are people who think they know what is good and appropriate for all of us.

  14. Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 20 Jan 2013, 4:11am

    Then again California is a SOUTHERN state (have a look on the US State map)!

    That explains a lot, even Maryland a “blue and progressive” state (which is a southern state mind you) is light years ahead of California!

    California may have a super-majority of Democrats controlling the Legislature and a Democrat Governor – but that means NOTHING, because when Obama got elected in 2008 and a Congress of both houses having a super-majority of Democrats did NOTHING and passed NOTHING for gay people anyway!

    It was only after the mid term Congress Elections that Obama and Congress actually passed laws for us such as the repeal of laws and regulations on HIV positive people authorisation entry into the US, hate crime laws to include LGBT people and the repeal of the DADT policy!

    Illinois also has a super-majority of Democrats and they are doing NOTHING on the bill to allow SSM!

    There I made my case!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.