The Chron's war on nudity


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.


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.


According to a post at Michael Petrelis' blog, the nemesis of this particular forum has left this earthly plain. Never liked the guy, thought his opinions were almost the definition of reactionary, but it's strange to have him gone.

All blessings upon you Arthur as you pass into the next world.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 10:09 pm

The passing of anyone is a a sad thing. Arthur will be remembered for his early involvement in the GLBT liberation movement and his voluminous writings. Hopefully in a positive light - as everyone deserves in death.

This makes me sad, even though I didn't know him.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 10:15 pm

About Arthur Evans up and dying on us.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 9:10 am

Seemed to have latched onto the liberation movement circa 1970 and never changed in that area. He was a bit narrow in that respect. It was interesting to see how it all interacted with the kids. A guy who was probably self righteous and outraged in 1970, getting a chuckle out of the second and third generation. It made me laugh.

Posted by matclock on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

But there was a letter in the Examiner today claiming that one of the nudists was a registered sex offender.

Granted a letter is not up to regular journalistic found in reputable outlets such as the Bay Guardian, but is it a surprise if true? Which it probably is.

Posted by matclock on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

...that one of the clothed people walking around this city is a registered sex offender. Maybe even more than one. Clearly, the solution is to ban walking around with clothes on.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 10:33 pm

So much for the just folks wanting to do their own thing, as opposed to trying to forcing me into their fetish life. Do you want to be the unwilling participant in the sex lives of others in every area? You would be cool with getting leashed and kicked in the balls by a dom as you went about your business?

Also you will believe pretty much anything written as long as it sounds good, or agrees with your biases, so I suppose I should not have made it that easy for you. I should have relayed it as fact straight out of the paper stated, you would have been stuck.

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 11:12 pm

Matlock Meatlock is a coprophiliac.

Granted a letter is not up to regular journalistic found in reputable outlets such as the Bay Guardian, but is it a surprise if true? Which it probably is.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 7:36 am