The nudists file suit

No cockrings here! It's not just old Castro guys, either.

You all know the joke: What did the unsuccessful lawyer who joined a nudist colony never have? (A suit. LOL. Sort of.)

But a successful lawyer just filed a detailed suit trying to stop San Francisco from enforcing a ban on public nudity, and it makes a lot of interesting points. You can read the filing here (pdf). I'll get beyond the fact that a legal argument over nudism uses the terms "prong" and "thrust" and "penal" all in a few short paragraphs, and get to the substance:

Attorney Christina DeEduoardo claims that her clients use nudity as a form of free speech and protest -- and given who they are, it's a pretty good argument. You've got a guy who ran as the nudist candidate for mayor and a woman who took her clothes off at a Board of Supervisors meeting for political reasons, and they contend that they have the right to appear naked in public.

The claim seeks a restraining order prohibiting the Board of Supervisors from enacting the law, but a federal judge already nixed that, according to City Attorney spokesperson Matt Dorsey. Instead, all parties have to wait unitl the supes approve the law, at which point this will become a motion for an injunction against the law taking effect.

So banning a handful of people, mostly older guys, from hanging out naked on Castro Street is going to become a legal battle that will cost the city a bunch of money. Unless sanity prevails and Sup. Scott Wiener, the city attorney and the nudists can reach a deal, which might be pretty simple:

It's cool to get all nekkid (although it won't be happening much in the next few months, way too cold). But maybe the Castro Guys can agree not to wear cockrings that attract attention to their dicks (and seem to be the proximate cause of all the fuss). Just be natural when you go au naturel, and we can all stop fighting over this.

You think?




stadium since you're so deeply concerned about the city spending money to defend itself against lawsuits.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 8:15 pm

On principle the city attorney attaches himself on our dime to things all the time. From the Bay Guardian, not a peep.

Perhaps out there in the non-SFBG world view there might be the suggestion that the fetishists put their clothes on and stop lawsuiting over their fetish?

Posted by matlock on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 8:39 pm

Screw the exhibitionists. Rather the city spend money on this then the myriad of other things we've wasted money defending:
Hand gun ban anyone?
Cell phone radiation notices?

At some point, common sense must prevail... Even in San Francisco

Posted by Greg on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

Considering your front cover back in July 2012 (NUDE BEACHES 2012) issue:

Why do you have the woman in the picture "blacked-out" over her breasts and vagina? Are you going prude too? Or did that Wiener guy order that?

I liked the cover in July. I don't like the above 'blacked-out" censored picture.

And no, I don't think your idea will work. For the prudes, this is about nudity. Period. No matter how much they foam at the mouth about cockrings. All this time, I've only seen 1-2 naked dudes on the rare occasion with a cockring. I'm sure the rabids will exaggerate that to "hundreds of cockrings are invading Jane Warner Plaza" and call it "a cockring invasion" and "we must stop this invasion because the cockrings don't live in the neighborhood," and other such loco thoughts they dream up for their prudish, conservative agenda.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 2:01 am

From: SF Weekly:

The Bay Guardian Finally Drops Trou
Thu., Jul. 19 2012

"After the Examiner brought the San Francisco Bay Guardian earlier this year, the paper's publisher vowed that not only would the city's most progressive paper still be progressive, but it would get "progressively more progressive."

Here's how SFBG Editor Tim Redmond explained the stark change:

Here's the thing: I've been doing this a long time, and we've put a lot of naked people on the cover (nude beaches, sex issue, random stories about public nakedness) -- and when it's just women, nobody peeps. Full frontal, whatever -- it seems in our society that it's perfectly okay to show the unclothed female body. But not a dick. God, not a dick. I've often wondered why a movie that shows tits and (female) asses can get away with a PG-13 rating and even full-frontal female, and lots of it, only gets you an R. But a single glimpse of a male organ, even in its unaroused state, automatically turns a movie into NC-17."

Quoting Tim Redmond:

"it seems in our society that it's perfectly okay to show the unclothed female body. "

Okay. So why then is the female at the top of this page not shown completely?

Also, in October 2012, the BG advertized (up on the right-hand side of the page) a nude-in scheduled for the Jane Warner Plaza in October. The ad showed full-nudity of both men and women. Then today one comes on this site and sees THIS...the censored woman at the top of the page, which makes one question what's going on at the BG?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 5:55 am

The anti-circumcision crazies generated enough heat they began convincing the city that they had some amount of support, although even then polls showed more than 75% of people were against their plans. Then the state stepped in and shut them down - completely. They huffed and puffed and threatened to overturn the measure but in the end they've retreated to their male support groups held in dusty Victorian houses in the Haight where they discuss their trauma next to macrame plant hangers, worn posters of Tania Hearst and the stale memories of better days gone by.

The exhibitionists have followed the same path - attempting to convince people that THEY'RE the victims here, that everyone else is just too bourgeois and uptight to understand the joy of letting it all hang out where everyone can see it. But Wiener's called their bluff and now they're huffing and puffing but in the end they too will be brought in line. The last thing they want is a public vote on this issue - because they know they'll lose. So does Wiener - he doesn't fly blind. He knows what the polling shows.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 11:30 am

I don't want children who are walking down a public street or being strolled down the street see another men or women genitals. In most states, this would be considered indecent exposure, and they would at least be fined. This law should be enforced in San Francisco too. As for the nudist, go to designated beaches or other areas that are for adults only.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

No one has ever been hurt by the obscene.

Obscenity laws are one of the biggest injustices in the world, and it's a crime people support having someone locked up or fined, simply because of personal hangups.

Ideally, the only law a Government should pass, are laws that prevent or punish immediate acts of harm. Nudity harms no one...

But the majority has always insisted on controlling the minority for petty reasons.. It's why the same sex couples are only now, recently, gaining ground on their quest to live their lives the way they want to, because society thinks they have a say in how people live..

Posted by Doc on Jan. 04, 2013 @ 9:32 am

gratuitous public nudity is a stretch.

And who are you to decide what offends or hurts others?

The law has passed. Get over it.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 04, 2013 @ 9:55 am

People should leave the naked guys alone and not be so afraid of nudity. Nudity is quite natural and "the norm" in Europe and much of the planet. Then one comes to the U.S., and one would think that this country is going back to the Dark Ages. Children have no problem with nudity, especially when they see themselves nude. It's their parents who have the problem with nudity. Some people become prudes after they become a parent.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

This argument has been debunked all over the internet. People are not wandering around naked on the streets in any major European city.
Nudity in Europe is tolerated in specific venues.

Posted by Dedicated_local on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 8:52 am

google this:

In Europe, strip off all your inhibitions
Americans may be taken aback, but Europeans think nothing for shedding their clothes at the beach or in a public bath. Nudity is the norm.

By Rick Steves,Tribune Media Services
Chicago Tribune

(I wasted about 15 minutes trying to get a link to this article past the spam filter. It wouldn't do it. This experience makes me not want to post on here because it's too much work and takes too much time, and I sense the BG doesn't care because I've read other comments about this in the past and nothing is ever done about it. Screw it).

Posted by Guest on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 3:17 pm

Yes, as I said. In specific venues. It's not like Europeans are walking around in banks and on the street naked.

Posted by Dedicated_local on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 3:57 pm

This is just a reactionary, divisive issue created by an opportunistic politician with other goals.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

Like cyclists with Critical Mass, the nudists are trying to bully the people of San Francisco.

Posted by Rob Anderson on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 10:29 am

Anyone who does not comport with the dominant ideology is a bully? Why is the dominant ideology of clothes are cars not considered a bully given the array of power behind it and the relative powerlessness of nudists and cyclists?

Posted by marcos on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 10:40 am

I am not surprised that you cannot understand why the vast majority of SF'ers do not want their kids to see fat, ugly, balding old men strutting around naked on the streets.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 11:10 am

I'm grossed out by the urban nudists myself but is it bullying, do words no longer have semantics and Anderson gets to fling words around as chimpanzees hurl their feces?

Posted by marcos on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 11:14 am

(Thanks Jennifer Stone.)

Guest, you may not realize this, but tossing out the term paradigm does not prove anything -- unless your underlying paradigmatic beleif is that the minority should *always* either conform to the majority or perish.

Humans are not ants... quite.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 11:18 am

Being in a minority isn't always a hint that you've got it wrong, but it helps.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 11:59 am

population you are sampling -- think Catholic priests, for instance -- but in any case by making such a comment you have identified yourself as an intellectually dishonest piker; just the sort who was likening Ross Mirkarimi to Jerry Sandusky a few months ago.

Mention of such is highly indicative of your own profound lack of creativity.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

Could he sink any lower?

We live in a democracy and, as such, you cannot expect your values to be represented by government unless a critical mass of the voters support that.

And that's the problem SF progressives are having. They're noisey but cannot gain traction with the moderate majority.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 12:44 pm


Troll II? Is that you?

I mean, Troll II has a reason to (falsely) accuse me of being a bad person, because of my posting this link just to remind people of what racist trolls there are here on SFBG:

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 1:24 pm

garnered you more credibility that the backpeddling lamentation that was evidently the best you could come up with.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 1:42 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 4:25 pm

You might as well, having started down that road.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

the car vs. bicyclist haff -- but the nudity observation is a perfect match!

Reminds me of hearing objections to bare feet claiming that them who were barefooted were somehow being "aggressive."

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 11:12 am
Posted by Guest on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 11:57 am

Americans used to freak out at dungarees and long hair too, one day genitalia will similarly be "no big deal" for everyone as is now for the creepy unhung urban nudists in the winter's chill.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

public nudity, I deem your prediction ot have a negligible probability of coming to fruition. Unlike, say, civil rights, there is no constituency for allowing public nudity outside of a few fringe elements.

At least pick a battle worth winning.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

Everything was going fine, the balance between lack of prohibition and lack of exhibition held, until the urban nudists decided that they had to be a routine spectacle, compulsively naked every sunny day in the Castro.

A handful of selfish individuals did not think rationally through the consequences of their choices, picked this fight and they've ended up losing politically, empowering the most reactionary elements in San Francisco politics, all while putting their own cause and the broader cause of casual nudity back decades.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 10:09 pm

@Rob Anderson - Trusty, rusty ol' Rob Anderson, always willing to blame bicycles for the downfall of humanity.

You know what's truly obscene? All those cars with their exhaust pipes sticking out. Some of them get all vajazzled with chrome glass-pack mufflers and other lewd exhibitionist accoutrements. Nobody wants to see (or breathe) that.

Posted by Jym Dyer on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 9:14 pm