The Chron's war on nudity

|
(108)

Poor Scott Wiener. He tries to do something practical -- telling naked guys to sit on a towel or something when they occupy public benches -- and all of a sudden the Chron launches a war on nudity. First there's this shit from Chuck Nevius, who suggests that anyone who isn't wearing clothes is some sort of a pervert:

Why? If these guys were opening a trench coat and exposing themselves to bystanders in a supermarket parking lot we'd call them creeps. But if they sit on public chairs and expose themselves to bystanders, they're defenders of free speech. Here's some free speech - when moms and dads walk their kids to school, they don't want to see you naked. This isn't a civil rights issue, it's just obnoxious.

Actually, I've often walked my daughter to school along Castro Street, and I don't care whether people are naked or not. Neither does she. My kids are San Francisco city kids; it's all a big Whatever. And the naked guys in the Castro, mostly middle-aged men, aren't "exposing themselves" in the way of a sex offender who gets off on it; they don't confront anyone, or jump in front of anyone, or try to force anyone to look at them. They aren't fucking in the streets. They're just walking around (and sitting down) without clothes on.

Whatever.

But then the Chron decides this is all worth a scathing editorial:

Here's an idea, San Franciscans: Keep your pants on - at least in public. Most people don't want to see that much of you. And even in a city known for tolerance of unusual behavior, inflicting nudity on an unsuspecting public can scare youngsters and offend adults. ... People who insist on walking down Market Street without clothes should be cited.

Now there's going to be pressure on the cops to find a way to bust the nudists (some of whom will love the attention), and the city will either waste a lot of money prosecuting and defending them when there's no actual law that's been broken -- or the supervisors will be under pressure to outlaw public nudity, which will create another big fuss and waste a lot of all of our time.

Besides, the Chron ought to love the Wiener law. If I ran that paper, I'd put a couple of new racks at Castro and Market. The guys who forget their towels are going to need something to sit on.

PS: If nudity doesn't offend you, check out our hottest butt in SF contest here.

Comments

I love seeing Tim Redmond, in defending male exhibitionism, use the famous statue of the death of Laocoon and his sons to bolster (so he thinks) his point.

This famous statue of Laocoon and his sons is by Agesander, Polydorus, and Athenodorus. It commemorates an equally famous story by the poet Virgil.

Both the poet and the sculptors use the story to depict the destruction of raw male energy by an image of phallic power, sent after Laocoon and sons offended the goddess Athena.

First moral of the story:

Restrain yourselves, guys.

Second moral:

When you allude to Greek mythology, know what you're talking about.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 1:04 pm

Irony?

How about the irony of the most unjustifiably arrogant and mind numbingly pedantic, narcissistic 'philosopher' whose only actual contribution to public discourse is to make himself *the* most over-engorged in your face disgusting phallus personified in San Francisco (and internet) history (*not* an easy trick); who then takes it upon his twink self to cartoonishly lecture others on classical mythological symbology; which, after decades of study, he still does not in the slightest measure, personally comprehend. Truly, truly, the biggest and most obnoxious and objectionable horse's ass who ever walked the face of the Earth...

Posted by vigilante on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 2:02 pm

vigilante: WHY do YOU keep giving this piece of work attention? Nothing (NOTHING) that anyone says to him has any effect, affect or bearing on him whatsoever. Nothing short of banning will have any effect on him. Period. He is sick. Period. Anyone with half a brain who comes on here and reads enough of his demented bile will see him for who and what he is. You've said in the past that one cannot ignore him. Bull shit. One CAN ignore anyone if one so chooses.

That mental case has made this site unreadable. Even when one scrolls all the way down to the bottom of the page as I do and then slowly back up to read who wrote what one sees: Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans and the other 2-3 trolls. As someone else said, the BG is more concerned with Evans' constitutional rights than the quality and credibility of their site. That would appear to be true. But no one needs to respond to any of the bile that mental case writes. "We" all know he has a vicious right-wing agenda, his hobby is arguing with people (anyone who will take his bait) 24/7, and "we" know his smug/arrogant style. Nothing new there.

As for the naked guys, I support them and most of them already sit on a towel or something because those chairs and cement planters they sit or lean on are COLD to one's butt, I would imagine. As for that Wiener guy, he's just being his usual opportunist-politician self (so stop with the "poor Scott Wiener" bull shit). Wiener is working for the right-wing ("conservatives") to help shift the city to the right. As for those who say they want to "protect the children from the nudist"....oh give it a rest. Why did one move to the Castro in the first place when one supposedly knew the reputation of the Castro?...or did one blindly move there without researching the area? The children wouldn't think anything about nudity if the adult children (called "parents") weren't the ones having a problem with it. THEY are the ones with the issues and merely passing along their dysfunctional parenting "skills" they learned from their dysfunctional parents/guardians. The body is a natural being. One is not born with clothes on. If one's body is so ugly in one's eyes that one couldn't think of being naked, don't take it out on people who do feel fine with themselves, their body image and being naked. They are not the ones with issues. The people with a naked phobia have the issues and need to get help.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 2:50 pm

Trust me, there is method to my madness.

If you look carefully, you will see that I actually almost never respond to what Arthur writes (except to place a short link warning others, that a post in the list is from him so they can avoid clicking on it, and/or to bump his link off the list).

The times that I do respond with something substantial, I indeed have a purpose. But I'm not going to hint at what it is, because then even someone as stupid as Arthur would figure it out and avoid the tactic.

Posted by vigilante on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 3:38 pm

Gotta agree. Over-gorged bile, right wing hatred. Stupidity from Arthur and his reactionary, righty ilk!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 4:00 pm

Yeah, right-on, say it again! Applause, applause.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 6:17 pm

"Nothing short of banning will have any effect on him. Period."

Let me tell you a story. I used to debate the equivalent of ten or twenty Arthur Evans’s on the topic of immigration (all pro-migrant sites). These sites are frequently highjacked by an absurd number of anti-immigrant trolls. Trust me, SFBG is positively tame by comparison. You really haven’t lived until you’ve tested your mettle on these sites.

Anyway, there was one troll in particular who was just about the worst of the lot. His name was Richard. He liked to boast that he was a white nationalist, and saw nothing wrong with being racist. And he was also really good at spreading disinformation. He would quote from books like The Bell Curve to prove that minorities and women are intellectually inferior. So you can imagine how I felt about him.

The blog moderator was an immigration lawyer name Dave Bennion, a very thoughtful man. So, I did my damndest to convince Dave to ban Richard from the site. In fact, I spent some time trying to come up with the most compelling arguments I could think of to banish him. But then Dave asked me a question that caused me to re-evaluate my position and ultimately to change my stance. He said, "…it's an interesting question for those of us who believe in softening the lines that people erect between themselves and outsiders out of fear: Who merits exclusion from a community the organizing principle of which is inclusion?"

I sad to say that I forgot this lesson. But today is the anniversary of Sept. 11. And I was just thinking.. We may feel afraid or threatened by certain people, so we decide to clamp down on them. We may go so far as to exile them from our community. But is this really consistent with our values as progressives? Aren't we supposed to be the ones who represent tolerance and inclusion?

Trust me, if you ban Arthur, ten others will arrive to take his place. In the end, perhaps the only one we can work on is oursleves. Just a thought.

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 6:19 pm

No offense Lisa but Dave's contention is just nonsense.

The trolls on your pro-immigration site, and the trolls here, are seeking to purposely cause harm and disruption. Some of them even do it with the -intent- to undermine progressive voices.

There are posters who contributed a lot here in the past, who do not do so any more because they got sick of being constantly attacked.

So the trolls have managed to -exclude- others, have they not?

If we were having in-person community meetings in an actual place, would anyone tolerate what these assholes do if they were doing it to our faces?

Hell no. We would call the police and have them hauled away for abusive and disorderly conduct, and spewing hate speech at people (the latter which is very much illegal as well).

If you were in a commune, where everyone needed to get along in order to live, would you tolerate someone who behaves like Arthur?

No way in hell. The entire group would ask him to leave.

A blog is no different.

It is not a failure to -include- that we would be engaging in if we banned Arthur, it is simply the honest right that each of us has to live in a community in which we are treated with some basic respect.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 7:02 pm

No offense taken, Eric. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, Arthur's rhetoric reminds me of the "communications strategy" of the now defunct "public advocacy group" SFSOS, whose ringleader was Wade Randlett. Perhaps you recall the nasty campaign targeting Sup. Chris Daly, Jake McGoldrick and Gerardo Sandoval. That was instigated by SFSOS. The group's tactics were so sleasy that Feinstein and Hellman eventually pulled out.

At a Gap luncheon in 2006, Randlett urged his followers to "Frame the debate" as 'Bay Guardian Activists vs. Angry Middle Class,' 'Ideological vs. Practical,' and 'Ideological Values vs. Neighborhood Needs.'" Does that have a familiar ring? Arthur Evans APPEARS to have picked up their messaging and run with it.

If you recall, I was one of those who asked the BG to ban Arthur. The only reason for that is that I strongly suspect that Arthur is being paid or otherwise compensated to push these memes. If that's the case, then the Guardian has every right to ban him...because the aim of the downtown interests is to destroy this paper. So in that sense, I agree with you.

However, the only problem that we can't prove that Arthur is being paid. His constant spamming (24/7) makes me awfully suspicious that someone is running him. But again, no proof. Now, I got my start as an activist with the pro-immigrant movement, so I'm sensitive to the notion that banishment and exile is an extreme (perhaps excessive) punishment. It may be the worst thing any community can do to one of its members.

And for all we know, Arthur could just be some lonely old dude who has been taken in by the messaging of groups like SFSOS. If that's the case, I don't see the point of banning him. Every community -- hell, every family, office or organization -- has its share of disruptive people, black sheep, etc. We think to ourselves, Oh, if we only we got rid of 'so and so', life would be so much better. But, we're fooling ourselves. Life is largely about learning how to deal with all kinds of people, including those we'd prefer to avoid.

Like it or not, Arthur and his merry band are members of this community (SF). They vote and they have an influence on others like them. So our job is to convince people that progressive values are the most intelligent, thoughtful and humane policies out there. We won't be successful at convincing others (SF voters) of this if all we do is battle with the trolls every time we sign on here. Or if we're always pissed off at the world and spend our time snarling at each other (Jorge could use a chill pill, IMHO). When we do that, we are enabling the trolls to disrupt this site by our own actions.

Look, the prudes take offense at a few naked men when they could easily turn their heads. You can deal with the trolls in a similar fashion. Just look away.

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 6:02 pm

Lisa, what you are suggesting simply doesn't work when there is no effective site registration and moderation.

There will always be new readers who, not knowing Arthur and 'matlock', and 'snapples' and PaulT, and Bob, etc, will end up getting sucked in by them.

And Arthur especially, is such a terrible net conflict addict that he doesn't need responses. He hammers on this site with endless waves of hate and spite and will -never- stop it until he is cut off.

I have been a site/list administrator many times. I know a hopeless case when I see one, and Arthur is the -most- hopeless case I have ever seen in my life.

If he is not cut off, no only will it never end, but he will likely keep getting worse and worse. And as others see him getting away with it, -they- will feel empowered to do it too. This dynamic is precisely why this site has become little more than a disgusting joke reminiscent of the Jerry Springer show.

You are absolutely right that it sucks to cause real harm to people by shutting them out of a community, but sometimes a person is so harmful to that community, that it must be done, even if it hurts the person; even if it hurts them badly.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

please feel free to refer to our comments policy, masthead, and original post announcing our change of comment policy (http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/08/18/new-comments-policy) for details.  

I would advise all of you to stick to the topic of this post. 

Posted by marke on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 7:56 pm

Nothing would make me happier than to see posts deleted from this site for trolling and going off topic.

However that will be pretty much physically impossible without tools like log in registration, blocking trolls by their computer addresses, and allowing your site visitors to put specific posters on personal blocking filters so that they don't have to put up with the trolls.

I find it a bit surprising that you are suddenly 'advising' two of the posters who have suffered the most attacks from trolls on this sight to stay on topic.

If you are going moderate, then do it for real, -bigtime- with -all- of posters on this site, not just when you're offended by being referred to in a particular comment.

And if the editors are tying your hands, tell them the truth; that they have to take control of their damned site and let you get serious with the trolls, the flame wars, and off topic threads.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 8:34 pm

According to Michael Petrelis, Arthur Evans passed away this past weekend.

Hopefully he is in a peaceful place now.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 8:47 pm

When I wrote that subject line, I had no inkling that he had passed away (one of life's ironies). Yes, I hope he is in a more peaceful place right now.

R.I.P. Arthur Evans

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 4:00 pm

Right now Arthur is arguing that the Devil should be required to wear pants, and that something needs to be done to prevent all the people sitting around at the edge of the Lake of Fire.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 7:25 pm

First off, I am sick of hearing this "Trust me" basura. It is so patronizing, regardless of who says it. It implies the person using it thinks they know more than someone else when that's not necessarily the case. Everyone's experience is different, including on message forums.

Today is September 11th anniversary? Ugh. I'm SICK of hearing about it. I'm sick of the wall-to-wall corporate media saturation of it. Sheep. That day has been used as the excuse for nearly every despicable and reprehensible policy and action, wars/occupations/dronings, "Patriot Act", torture, rendition, illegal spying (I could go on) since that day by the illegitimate Bush regime and now the Obama regime (with impeachment "off the table" by Pelosi who has a D behind her name). As far as I'm concerned 911 was an inside job and I thought so at the time. So please don't drag out yet another "Boogeyman" and the Fear Card again.

For those with an open mind, check this out:
Solving the Mystery of WTC 7
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://tinyurl.com/43o985m

Also I don't like the "tolerance" word. I prefer the word acceptance, not tolerance because tolerance means having to put up with someone and as a Queer Boy, I've had the words "tolerance" tossed at me for years. I'm sick of it.

I don't remember calling for Evans to be banned. What I said was---for the thick right-wing trolls on here---was that nothing short of banning was going to change his behavior, but I was not saying he should be banned. Instead, I was writing about those who had called for him to be banned. Are some people too illiterate to grasp that? And to the thick right-wing basura: this has nothing to do with opposing views. It has to do with something other than opposing views and if you're into playing games and playing dumb and willful-ignorance on this, then there's no reason to continue talking about this.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 7:34 pm

That really takes the cake.

Trutherism should be a reason for immediate banning - on the grounds of stupidity alone.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 7:59 pm

You don't milk a cow for ten years.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 8:49 pm

Oh I like that, Guest. Thank you for that.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 9:29 pm

Wait, so you're a boy? Like a ten year old? Wow, that explains everything! Carry on!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 8:56 pm

Guest on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 8:56 pm:

Wait, so you're willfully-ignorant on the use of the term Queer Boy? Wait, why am I not surprised?....very typical of the right-wing basura. Wait, might you be showing your prejudices as well? Wait, I would say "carry on" with your plentiful ignorance but there's already ample amount of that as it is, but wait, I'm sure you'll find a way to add more to the septic pile.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

I read Virgil in Latin in High School. You're so caught up with your shit about male energy that you don't have a sense of humor any more, if you ever did. (By the way, the point isn't Laocoon and Athena; the point is that there are all sorts of famous works of art on public display depicting naked men (many of them, I will admit, more buff than the guys in the Castro) and somehow, society has survived.

Posted by tim on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 1:19 pm

"Lighten up, Arthur ... You're so caught up with your shit about male energy that you don't have a sense of humor any more..."

- Tim Redmond

Speaking of humor, check out the letters to the editor in today's Chron about the naked stoners in the Castro (not on line, only in the paper edition).

Enjoy!

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 1:36 pm

Wassup Ruthie. Is it just me or cant you respond to anything substantive, guess constant repetitive trolling is easier.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 9:07 pm

I blogged yesterday afternoon about Scott's silence on the second pedestrian death in his district. My basic point was that he's done nothing that I can see about these fatalities and the crazy Castro traffic, and that I am not aware of any nudists causing a fatality.

You can read my full post here:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2011/09/sup.html

BTW, I still don't hear folks in the Castro or the Mission or down at the Embarcadero YMCA talking about the alleged problems with ballot props. Scott has put more energy and time and resources into the non-issue of amending ballot measures than pedestrian safety in his backyard.

He needs to talk a course in how to be fully engaged as district Supervisor, because right now he quite disengaged on many gayborhood issues.

Also, don't forget about the Sept 24 nude-in at 17th and Castro, the Saturday before the Folsom Fair. More info here:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2011/09/castro-nude-in-on-sept-24-for-fols...

Posted by MPetrelis on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 2:34 pm

Well, the majority of those who voted in D8 voted for this piece of work. They were well warned of what they were voting for, but once again, just like with Bush 3 (Obama), it was a "feel-good" vote. The people I've talked with who voted for Wiener pretty much all said the same thing when I asked why they voted for him. They said, "He's a nice guy," and they were impressed by his little handwritten notes that he left on their door. (Shallow and superficial). When I asked about his politics, I got a blank stare from most. This is a problem with voters. They do not research their candidates....and they aren't about to now so "we" will continue to get the corporatist !@#$!#$ until the sheep learn to research what they are voting for rather than voting for pretty campaign signs and feel-good words.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 3:00 pm

"Well, the majority of those who voted in D8 voted for this piece of work."

That's not true. No candidate had a majority in the first round and in the end Wiener came in at around 54-56% (I forget which and don't have time to look it up). I do remember Dufty saying, "Wiener won with a overwhelming majority of the vote [no he didn't....75% would be overwhelming] and has a covenant with the Castro." A covenant with the Castro? Does he exaggerate often? Get a grip.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

How is Wiener doing in regard to what you apparently see as the burning issue of the next mayoral election: the Rainbow flag at Castro and Market?

Posted by M. Worrall on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 9:10 am

Mayoral candidate Phil Ting says he wants to provide SF politics with a re-start button. But SF progressivism has the same need.

This need is a pressing one. During the next four years, and maybe the next eight years, too, we will likely see a return of the old Willie Brown clique to power at City Hall.

The city will need a progressive presence that is intelligent, articulate, informed, and affable in order to counteract this clique and provide a better vision of politics.

The current, broken-down system of progressivism will not be able to rise to this challenge.

It has become anti-intellectual, foul-mouthed, ill-informed, and lacking in social skills. Having these faults, it will continue to fall in status in the eyes of the voters in general and thinking people in particular.

The task, then, is to find, or create, a re-start button that can rejuvenate SF progressivism.

It is not likely to be found in the vested interests that now weigh down progressivism: the nonprofit political complex, the unions, the cannabis capitalists, and the professional politicians.

Rather, a return to the roots, the people, is required.

The first step is to acknowledge the problem. The second step is to adopt the open-mindedness that is required for all new adventures in both life and politics. The third step is to take practical, good-faith steps in new directions.

Open the windows. Let the fresh air coming streaming in.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

"Another common tactic is the 'a plague on both your houses" approach, where the concern troll tries to convince people that both sides of the ideological divide are doing the same thing, or are just as bad as each other, knowing the site's reason for existing in the first place is to promote one side of the ideological divide. This preys on the sites' willingness to actually debate critics and allow dissenting commentary, since there normally isn't any more to these accusations than the endless repetition of the assertion."

Posted by Guest on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 4:45 pm

incoherent ravings.

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 5:31 pm

This description fits you perfectly.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 7:44 pm

Just wondering here, you did notice that you followed up a post about Arthur using my name?

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 3:57 pm

Duh... Meathead
You're an expert in that department.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 3:11 am

OPEN-MINDEDNESS, did you actually say that Ruthie !!! How droll.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 3:06 am

What the veggie-lante said, times two!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 4:38 pm

Face it...he's been trolling this site for years. I actually think the BG editors are quite fond of him. He's not going anywhere so you might as well get used to him.

He has an agenda, which is to drive home the meme that progressives are disfunctional. So I have to agree with Jorge. When you engage him, you get drawn into his special brand of psychosis. And you just end up proving his point that all progressives are irrational, immature, combative...yada yada

When he attempted to smear Dr. Rupa Marya's reputation, I thought surely they'd act to shut him down. Apparently, he has a constitutional right to say anything he likes, no matter how demeaning or senseless...or boring (his endless repetitions of the same ideas).

The best way to respond to Arthur is not to react or if you must, respond with humor. He's reminds me of the pompous character Malvolio from Twelfth Night. Just picture him in yellow stockings spouting his nonsense, have a laugh and move on. Lighten up, hombres!

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 6:31 pm

H. Brown is right.

Evans is destroying this web blog, and driving everyone worth a damn away from participating in it.

He's probably doing it on purpose.

There is only one way to deal with such a thorny troll problem, and that is to completely block all of his posts.

On a private run blog like this, the blog owners can delete whatever the hell they please and they should.

They should require registration, make it really hard to get away with trolling, and by doing so, bring back the progressive policy oriented discussion that this site should be about.

Posted by vigilante on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

dozens of handles to bypass any lame attempt at the type of censorship you are proposing?

That's what you would do, right?

Posted by Bob on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 4:47 pm

There are plenty of ways to put the kibosh on asinine trolls like you. I of course am not going to spell them out for your perusal. The Guardian editors can explore it independently.

Posted by vigilante on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

I agree with vigipanty. Censorship is required here.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 9:14 pm

And no doubt, as "Guest" feels, elsewhere as well.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 12:55 am

Name: can be anything
Email: can have any number
IP: Changes by wi-fi zones, or use of proxy server
Cookies: easily deleted

Maybe if you put the same effort into trying to refute those who disagree with your politics instead of trying to censor, control and manipulate this forum, you'd have more success AND we'd have some better quality debates here.

Posted by Bob on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 11:56 am

"No, there are in fact very few ways" = TROLL *on* trolling...

Posted by viglilante on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 2:12 pm

Give me a break. No dude walking around naked with a cock ring on is just doing it to be au natural. They do it to be provocative, because while they may not be fully aroused while outdoors naked, they are getting a sexual thrill out of it.
The ring is the clear indicator for this. I am politically progressive, yet i see no point in coddling these guys, or being understanding about their need to express themselves. Participating in society means that we all have to get along - part of that means that not everyone gets to do whatever they feel like.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 7:24 pm

You sound like rabid right-wing to me.

"Participating in society means that we all have to get along - part of that means that not everyone gets to do whatever they feel like."

Wrong! Participating in society does NOT mean that "we all have to get along," because we don't. Lots of people don't "get along." That's dreaming. What BS. It sounds nice to say that but that ain't reality. It also sounds nice to say that IF we all "get along" YOUR WAY. I've seen none of the naked guys with a cock ring on and even if they do have one on, I wouldn't care. It's their business. They don't force me to look at it or them. I've seen none of them with a hard-on either. No one forces YOU to look at them, do they? Turn your "politically progressive" (yeah sure you are!...in your dreams) eyes away, prude.

And while you're here, why don't you try to expand your "politically progressive" (LOL!) mind and check out the BG's best butt contest!

Who's got the HOTTEST ASS in the Bay Area?
http://www.sfbg.com/baybuns2011

That ought to do something for you...but they won't force you to look at the butts either. It's your choice. Then you have the Folsom Street Fair in about 2 weeks. Go check that out with your "politically progressive" mind. Ha!

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 8:01 pm

If he weren't so boring, unimaginative, predictable and preposterous, it might be possible to sympathize with his plight. But he is really now little more than a pathetic, mumbling Pantalone. I just check in occasionally to dump some slop in his trough.
I agree that shunning is the best approach to all the members of "Ruthie and The Hagfish". EG. Meathead; Ruthie; Lucie; Snappy; Mattie: "Guest" etc.
Unless you just wanna give 'em some shit.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 9:28 pm

Scott Wiener's sanitation measure on male exhibitionism will come before the supes for debate before the November election.

Some male exhibitionists will show up in the buff, encouraged by the rhetoric of Tim Redmond and other Guardian enthusiasts. The male exhibitionists will testify during the public-comment period, with the press and the voters watching.

Will Ross Mirkarimi, progressive candidate for sheriff, defend their right to speak before the board in the nude? And will John Avalos, progressive candidate for mayor?

If not, will Redmond and the Guardian enthusiasts accuse Mirkarimi and Avalos of being gymnophobic? If so, will the two have any chance of winning in the election?

This lovely dilemma is brought to the city by Redmond and Co. Stay tuned for future plot developments.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

C'mon Tim,,you just can't be real here. These guys are unreal. Plumbers' crack is bad enough but these guys have no class or respect for anyone elses rights. Clothing is not optional in residential and retail areas. Nude beaches and private clubs are all well and fine for this kind of thing but not out on the street or in someones business Other than in areas designated for it, it's just plain wrong,,,period. I'm not being hateful or advocating violence but I'd be willing to risk arrest excersising my right of free speech by dousing them with cold, soapy water on site. Gee,,,you get fined or arrested for smoking a cig in front of a bar or cafe but it's ok to prance about shedding scrotal hair in public.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 9:38 pm