San Francisco lawmakers vote to ban public nudity


San Francisco lawmakers disappointed committed nudists Tuesday by narrowly approving a ban on public nakedness despite concerns the measure would undermine the city’s reputation as a sanctuary for free expression.
The Board of Supervisors voted 6-5 in favor of a public safety ordinance that prohibits exposed genitals in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit. The law still must pass a final vote and secure Mayor Edwin Lee’s signature to take effect early next year.

San Francisco lawmakers vote to ban public nudity - Yahoo! News

In a city where it seems anything goes even some things become to much. Just as they did with drug shops, the realization is that some things reach a point where it is detrimental to the city and the citizens.

I was reading an article earlier about arrests make there and the likelihood of someone being high on drugs is more prevalent over alcohol.

Public nudity has morphed into displays of sexual behavior and attacks against morals and religion.


It’s San Francisco. It’s a festering, gangrenous pustule on the buttocks of America, and the council wants to dab a bit of ointment on it. It should be lanced and cauterized, then excised.



If anyone were curious about SF events like the “Bay to Breakers” “run”, Gay Pride parade or Folsom Street Fair, this should be an adequate warning or recommendation:

Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city’s annual gay pride event and the Bay-to-Breakers street run, which often draws participants in costumes or various states of undress.

OTOH, I have seen the attendees and participants of the San Francisco Marathon (last year and this year), and they would not be affected by this law or need to take advantage of its exemption.

Earlier this year (or maybe last year) SF had to pass an ordnance requiring the nudies to use a towel under them when they sat in a bar or restaurant - even that bit of minimal common sense was controversial. This recent ordnance passed by just one vote, and it has to be signed by Mayor Lee; I’d give it a 65-35 chance of becoming law. If the nudies try to swamp the jails by mass disobedience, they might be wise to avoid the Chinatown and North Beach areas (not that I have any respect for their wisdom). Business and restaurant owners there may not have the greatest patience and sense of … ummmmm … humor.


Exactly, San Francisco is void of any redeeming value.


[quote=“RET423, post:5, topic:37268”]
Exactly, San Francisco is void of any redeeming value.
[/quote] Hey now, they’ve got a world class zoo and museums, mild weather and some of the best cuisine in the states.


Why is San Francisco like breakfast cereal? Because once you get past the fruits and nuts you still have to deal with the flakes.


[quote=“tperkins, post:7, topic:37268”]
Why is San Francisco like breakfast cereal? Because once you get past the fruits and nuts you still have to deal with the flakes.
[/quote]Good one:coffee_spray:


Back to the topic, They may have voted, but you can bet your bare tush it will be overturned.


But who wants to eat in a city filled with human excrement? (It was last time I was there, at any rate)


[quote=“qixlqatl, post:10, topic:37268”]
But who wants to eat in a city filled with human excrement? (It was last time I was there, at any rate)
[/quote] Thats a lame comment. My daughter and her husband live in Frisco.


OSB, allowing for some hyprbole, qix is being acurate. Homeless people relieve themselves in gutters, doorways, elevators, escalators (some BART escalators are continually having to be repaired because they keep getting jammed by human excrement). Parks near the Ferry Building (i.e. near the start of the Marathon) have homeless people sleeping all over the place. Some parks are hazardous places for children to play, due to needles discarded/lost by druggies.

That there are wonderful places to visit and great places to eat in SF makes the state it has been in the past 20 or 30 years all the more poignantly awful. I don’t think I’ve set foot in The City (as they style themselves) more than 5 or 6 times since 1991, in part because of how awful it has been allowed to become.


They have my sympathies.


The last time that I was there was in 2009. It was all and more of what you described. We were walking as a family and it felt like we had targets on us. Homeless junkies were the most common site.


Nowhere near as bad as Detroit.


Not having been there, I’m willing to concede that, OSB, though they may be different sections of the same metaphoric sewer. BTW, if your daughter and SIL haven’t let you know, SF folk don’t much like “Frisco”. Not sure why, but that is the case.


Thanks for the confirmation, Pete. When I was there, there wasn’t a single place in the city proper I went where the smell of human excrement was not prevalent. Of course, I didn’t cover the entire city: SOMA, the Tenderloin, Haight Ashbury, Castro… I guess the Marina and the Prisisdio wern’t that bad (onshore breezes)… but, truly, (Mod alert, incoming infraction) when I was there, it was a literal shithole.


OSB, I get it (I think?) You seemed to be under the impression that I was refering to the people as human excrement? No, not at all; I meant actual, literal fecal matter.


At this rate I don’t even consider some parts of California to be part of the union anymore.


The Independent Republic of California: Home of Richard Nixon, Charles Manson, John Wayne, the Reverend Jim Jones (of Jonestown, Guyana fame), and last but not least, Governor Moonbeam Jerry Brown. Diversity, I guess, but talk about extremes . . .

I once walked through the Capitol building in Sacramento. There, amid some pretty traditional portraits of Governors like Ronald Reagan, all the way back to Leland Stanford, all standing in their paneled governors office next to a well appointed leather chair, was the portrait of Jerry Brown:


It stuck out, of course, like a sore thumb and seemed to be a sign of Brown’s disrespect for his brethren governors.