San Francisco's slippery slope is chafing

|
(71)
Cops, politics, and nudity don't mix well.
SF Newspaper Co.

By Nato Green

This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a ban on public nudity on a party line vote. By “party line,” I mean the Supes voting against nudity are the ones who never go to parties with lines of coke or conga lines. I'm not saying every single one of the progressive supervisors could be found in the naked suntan lotion massage yurt at Burning Man, just that it's conceivable.

The ban was proposed by District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener, and supported by the “moderates,” who are Very Serious about sensible governance. First of all, anyone who ever made fun of Supervisor Eric Mar's happy meal ban owes him an apology. Second, obviously all other problems in the City have been solved, which has freed up the Supes to kowtow to the whims of the gayeoisie.

People are worried about the effects of aggressive nudity on children, but fortunately we've gentrified all the families out of the City. Now we'll have to export nudists to Solano County if we want kids subjected to them. At any rate, during a nippy San Francisco winter it's vitally important for children to learn about shrinkage.

Nudity doesn't necessarily harm children. I grew up in San Francisco. In the '70s. Naked people were everywhere, bare and unshaven. I didn't see a fully-clothed adult until I was nine. I didn't see nakedness as sexual, so much as simply covered in naked. Partly because then, as now, the specific naked people were not easy on the eyes. Not to promote normative body images, but if Christina Hendricks and Ryan Gosling showed up naked, the ensuing celebration by all sexualities would make the Giants Victory Parade look like a tupperware party.

Worst of all, nudity was banned in the Castro. If there's one neighborhood that arguably draws its spirit from the brandishing of genitalia, it's the Castro. Harvey Milk did not march so his grandchildren could sequester the penis. It's almost as if the City wanted to abolish hippies sitting on the sidewalk in the Haight-Ashbury. (Damn you, sit/lie.)

If we're going to ban sitting on the sidewalk in the Haight and nudity in the Castro, here are more options for possible legislation to achieve the goal of draining our neighborhoods of their distinguishing features.

We should also ban:

  1. Bernal Heights—dykes with dogs.

  2. Mission—fixed-gear bicycles, ironic mustaches, and salvadoreños.

  3. Marina—entitlement.

  4. Richmond—Irish pubs with actual Irish people.

  5. Noe Valley—strollers and handmade baby food.

  6. Western Addition—Black people. Whoops. Too late.

Comedian Nato Green (writer for “Totally Biased with W. Kamau Bell” on FX) headlines the San Francisco Punchline December 19 and 20. Tweet him @natogreen

Comments

"Exactly, half a dozen angry old queens are bitter and twisted,"

That's the group that's for the ban on nudity.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 06, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

Not that you care, of course.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 06, 2012 @ 8:17 pm

If that were true, why would you be so concerned about "a handful of people" and urging them to "give it up?" Your post actually speaks otherwise. Or are you just trying to be an ass with your "in your face" trolling?

Are you normally concerned "a handful of people" and their behavior to write a post directed to them? LOL.

Understand? In other words, your post doesn't match its message.

Your problem is that you don't think these things through before you write them, troll. Clearly, critical thinking skills are not part of your repertoire.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 06, 2012 @ 7:19 pm
Posted by Guest on Dec. 06, 2012 @ 8:18 pm

reminds me of my youth reading Mad Magazine, Spy vs. Spy.

I live in the Mission and I oppose the nudity ban. Existing laws against indecent exposure and lewd behavior suffice. This law is just political grandstanding by an ambitious politician trying to position himself as the leader of the moderate (read liberal fascist) wing of the local Democratic Party. And he's doing a good job at it.

Since the ban is citywide, the opinion of any San Francisco resident counts regardless of where he/she lives. I oppose any law that gives the police more power to fuck with the public, and that's what this one does.

As for this Weiner character, he's a bully picking on people weaker than him--unpopular nudists, homeless people hanging out in Harvey Milk Plaza to avoid the draconian sit-lie law, recyclers who use the Safeway recycling center, and this Petrelis fellow, who may have used bad judgement, but shouldn't face arrest--in order to further his political career.

Unfortunately, as San Francisco becomes more exclusive, this is the type of representative we should expect. To think that Weiner is the heir to the seat held by Harvey Milk shows how far we have fallen.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 06, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

Only extremists would have a problem with that. and the Castro gas are mostly affluent white homeowners - why would ypu expect them to be natural left-wingers.

Scott reflects his community - that's all.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 07, 2012 @ 7:56 am

I won't add to anything else of what you wrote, because I agree completely, except to say that mention of Spy vs. Spy reminds me of how subversive that comic was.

As a child I tried to impose my pre-programmed analysis on the two fellows, imagining that White Spy must be more noble, smarter, etc. that the Black Spy... but they were completely interchangeable; only different in surface color.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 07, 2012 @ 5:36 am

Nato Green is following the tradition of SF comedians who aren't funny. He adds witlessness to unfunny. The objections to the militant nudists was never about children. It's adults, gay and straight, who object to allowing exhibitionists to impose their obsession on the rest of us. Hard to believe that Harvey Milk, a practical politician, would have approved of allowing exhibitionists to bully the people of San Francisco.

Posted by Rob Anderson on Dec. 07, 2012 @ 10:41 am

guarantee you that this law would never have garnered support.

But when it's fat, old, bald, self-absorbed, raging queens then, well, you figure it out.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 07, 2012 @ 12:59 pm

The question remains why it is only out of shape old trolls with small penises wrapped in cock rings who are compulsive exhibitionists and what chilling effect that would have had on the un-fugly nudists of all genders?

Creepy is as creepy does.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 07, 2012 @ 1:17 pm

If it were Yunks in the Castro (young nude punks), it would be just as creepy. I'm turning over in my grave just thinking about it.

Posted by The Ghost of Arthur Evans on Dec. 07, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

It is not just the age, it is the entire less than zero package.

The fact is that if those who are easy on the eyes were nude in public all of the time in the Castro, Wiener and the economic conservatives would be trumpeting the economic development potential of such a windfall and would set up structures to monetize it.

But since they are trolls, and since most gay men have experience with the total lack of self consciousness of trolls towards others, then this is an opportunity to nip the trolls in their saggy white butts.

In other words, if they have such a lack of self respect that they treat their own bodies like crap then we shouldn't have to gaze upon them. It is not like there are no older gentlemen who take care of their bodies, who eat healthy and stay active, these people are physically trolls because of their lifestyle choices and they act like trolls because of their inability to take feedback when their sexual advances are unwanted.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 07, 2012 @ 2:01 pm

It's really quite simple. This society, not even SF, is ready for nudism in family shopping area's.

Given that there are plenty of places to legally get naked in Sf, the only people who can really complain about the new law are those whose sole purpose is not to enjoy nudity but merely to shock, nauseate and offend others.

Screw them.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 07, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

i'd like to ban people who don't live in the castro neighborhood behaving in a way in the castro neighborhood that they wouldn't behave in their own neighborhood.
i'd like to ban people ex-stripper hippies who live in the east bay from becoming the poster child of any san francisco ordinance
i'd like to ban people who cite tired canards and silly hyberpole when referring to san francisco history.
i'd like to ban people who come to san francisco looking for "gentle people with flowers in their hair" or the barbery coast
i'd like to ban people who call anyone a "republican" and a "fascist" who doesn't agree with them.
i'd like to ban weird naked men in ersatz wigs and sunglasses wearing "jewerly" and strategic body parts coverered with oil from representing themselves as "nudists" or members of the lgbt community or as "progressive"
i'd like to ban anyone who suggests we should allow public nudity because seeing someone naked doesn't harm anyone, but then says we should public sex.
i'd like to ban anyone who doesn't live in the castro neighborhood from deciding how people should conduct themselves in the castro neighborhood
i'd like to ban anyone financing the present lawsuit against the city who also is a plantiff who has a website that sells porn
i'd like to ban anyone who tries to photograph politicians in the men's room and also says matthew shepard's mother is making herself wealthy from ther son's death from becoming a spokesperson for anyone at any time

Posted by douglas on Dec. 07, 2012 @ 5:49 pm

Is there some reason why we can't just engage in ANY kind of sexual activity on the streets? Really--what actual harm does this do to us? As long as it's consensual and doesn't obstruct the sidewalk or a driveway, what's wrong with it? If an erection doesn't poke you in the eye, if one does not slip on vaginal or testicular fluids, if orgasmic moaning doesn't disturb your sleep, if condoms are disposed of properly, then really, will it warp young minds, cause mass hysteria or restrict merchants' revenue?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 08, 2012 @ 5:51 pm

Only if you dont mind me taking a dump right next to you on the street while you are getting off.
Really, what harms does it do?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 3:05 pm

when are the Supervisors going to deal with the housing crisis - the great exodus of longtime residents who were evicted from their homes of 30 years of more so the rich and young and beautiful can take over the City - this nudity issue is laughable when there are so much more pressing issues to consider -

and, please explain why anyone needs to apologize to progressive Eric Mar - he sold out when he allowed ASTRO TURF in Golden Gate Park - Washington 8 - another profiteering measure for the young and beautiful - PROP C - which, by the way, Ross Mirkarimi fully supported: another grab to balance the budget on workers' backs - and, please explain - WHY DO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE DEEM THESE GUYS THE PROGRESSIVE SALVATION - easy to oppose nudity; much harder to WORK FOR HOUSING and EVICTIONS - have at it - i don't do coke or dance in a conga line - yet i am far more progressive/radical than any of these guys!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 12, 2012 @ 4:24 pm

big deal about some lousy turf on a soccer pitch.

As for housing, nothing can be done about it. SF is a desirable place and so homes here become expensive. That's the way the world is.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 12, 2012 @ 6:31 pm

OH, snarky and smug: you must be one of those new - very new to SF - young rich dudes that dominate the City with their greed with their ignorance of the facts. If you knew anything about astro turf and its toxic effects on the environment, you would not dismiss the issue so easily. As for real estate profiteering that has forced too many of the true San Franciscans to leave, glad to know that you perpetuate the myth of the monied class.

So sorry for your plight - please stay in Silicon Valley. I know too much about "the
way the world is"

Posted by Guest on Dec. 12, 2012 @ 7:45 pm

talk about being in denial and not so smart: if you knew anything at all about the toxic effects of astro turf on the environment - you would not even have mentioned it -
as for housing: i can only assume you approve of Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors selling San Francisco to the highest bidder - and losing the soul of the city in the process -

snarky and smug: "that's the way the world is" well, if you want to remain uninformed and disregard the facts: it is easy to see that you are one of the young and beautiful Republicans that now dominate the City -

I am sorry for your plight - and if nudity is your biggest issue at the moment: what a wonderful world you have - get a grip and stay in silicon valley - SF does not welcome your kind

Posted by Guest on Dec. 12, 2012 @ 7:40 pm

...would have been incentivizing these guys to lounge on Valencia, anywhere between 16th and 24th.

Posted by jj on Dec. 12, 2012 @ 9:01 pm