San Francisco shed a vestige of its free-spirited past as local lawmakers narrowly approved a citywide ban on public nudity. Casting aside complaints that forcing people to cover up would undermine San Francisco’s reputation as a city without inhibitions, the Board of Supervisors voted 6-5 on Tuesday in favour of an ordinance that prohibits exposed genitals in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit.
So y’know… that’s too bad I guess. Nudity doesn’t really hurt anyone, although I dare say there are some people whose naked bodies I would prefer not to see if I can avoid it. But so what? I also don’t like ads above the urinals at bars, but I’ve learned to deal. That’s not the funny part of this story. This is:
Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the ban in response to escalating complaints about a group of men whose bare bodies are on display almost daily in the city’s predominantly gay Castro District. He said at Tuesday’s meeting that he resisted for almost two years, but finally felt compelled to act.
There is no larger point to be served here. I just thought it was a funny paragraph.
Like this article? Follow me on Twitter!
Crommunist 
Poor Weiner; he more or less had this issue dropped in his lap.
Even more fun: the SF Chronicle piece about this has this headline:
Crotches are at crux of nudity ban
and you just know that was consciously done.
“Streakers through the cafeteria must wear two hairnets.”
…is that SERIOUSLY his name.
RIGHT?!
What is it with Wieners talking about weiners? Or tweeting pictures of weiners, for that matter…
I couldn’t ( in a 2-minute google search) find the actual text of the ordinance, but if the wording actually specifically prohibits only “genitals,” then I see a nightmare of interpretation for genitals and “exposed.” Are breasts genitals? Only female breasts? How about a penis with an opaque condom? What about pubic hair? What if the hair has been shaved off? How about sheer panty hose with nothing else – are genitalia “exposed” then? What about a slightly darker shade of panty hose? How about a body suit with a detailed, exact image of my nude body printed on it?
The lawyers are definitely going to clean up on this one!
You can find the present text through the meeting agenda for November 20 at the Board of Supervisors website. It’s not in the Legislation passed, Ordinances section yet.
The text of the new Section 154(a) is:
So yeah, I’m not seeing any definitions at all and the rest of the ordinance is boilerplate, exceptions and punishments.
This actually seems pretty clear. Yes, exposing breasts is allowed, always.
It sounds to me like Wiener is trying to be prudent rather than prudish, like he’s more worried about tourism in those parts than turgid body parts.
In the past, I’ve encountered rightwingnuts who are dumb enough to claim that “nudity is unnatural, we’re born with clothes on”. When I ask if they emerged from their mother’s uteruses wearing suits or t-shirts and shorts, their response is, “That’s not what I meant.” If that’s not what it means to born naked, then what is it?
“I’ve encountered rightwingnuts…”
PHRASING!!!
Stuff it in a sock and go for a walk.
They may have a point, if only about bare feet, because walking around barefoot is like saying, “Hello hookworms, get in my feet.”
I can’t wait for next year’s Folsom Street Fair. If they actually try to enforce this, the proverbial fecal matter is going to hit the rotating blades.
And lesson in reading articles before posting:
Oh well, my mordant humor at imagining riot police vs. a horde of people in leather chaps wielding riding crops dies aborning…
Ah, but the memory remains.
Cue Yakkity Sax.
It was good while it lasted. And kudos on the YS reference. 😉
Actually, even without Yakkity Sax, this has just been upgraded from “funny” into “magical” thanks to those exemptions.