Nude-friendly San Francisco considers covering up

Demonstrators gather outside of City Hall in San Francisco for a protest against a proposed city-wide nudity ban, Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2012. / AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez

SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco may be getting ready to shed its image as a city where anything goes, including clothing.

City lawmakers are scheduled to vote Tuesday on an ordinance that would prohibit nudity in most public places, a blanket ban that represents an escalation of a two-year tiff between a devoted group of men who strut their stuff through the city's famously gay Castro District and the supervisor who represents the area.

• Nudist crackdown ahead for San Francisco?

Supervisor Scott Wiener's proposal would make it illegal for a person over the age of 5 to "expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, sidewalk, street median, parklet or plaza" or while using public transit.

A first offense would carry a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail. Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.

Wiener said he resisted introducing the ordinance, but felt compelled to act after constituents complained about the naked men who gather in a small Castro plaza most days and sometimes walk the streets au naturel. He persuaded his colleagues last year to pass a law requiring a cloth to be placed between public seating and bare rears, yet the complaints have continued.

"I don't think having some guys taking their clothes off and hanging out seven days a week at Castro and Market Street is really what San Francisco is about. I think it's a caricature of what San Francisco is about," Wiener said.

The proposed ban predictably has produced outrage, as well as a lawsuit. Last week, about two dozen people disrobed in front of City Hall and marched around the block to the amusement of gawking tourists and high school students on a field trip.

Stripped down to his sunglasses and hiking boots, McCray Winpsett, 37, said he understands the disgust of residents who would prefer not to see the body modifications and sex enhancement devices sported by some of the Castro nudists. But he thinks Wiener's prohibition goes too far in undermining a tradition "that keeps San Francisco weird."

"A few lewd exhibitionists are really ruining it for the rest of us," he said. "It's my time to come out now to present myself in a light and show what true nudity is all about so people can separate the difference between what a nudist is and an exhibitionist is."

Because clothes are required to enter City Hall itself, demonstrators who try to disrobe at the Board of Supervisors meeting will be escorted out by sheriff's deputies. That is what happened last Monday when Gypsy Taub removed her dress at a committee hearing where the ban had its first public hearing. Taub, a mother of two, said she got her start as a nudist while hosting a local cable TV program devoted to the theory that the government was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"I thought if I take my clothes off, I bet they are going to listen," she said.

San Francisco lawyer Christina DiEdoardo filed a federal lawsuit last week on behalf of Taub and three men that seeks to block Weiner's ordinance, if it passes and is signed by Mayor Edwin Lee. The complaint alleges that the ban infringes on the free speech rights of nudists and discriminates against those who cannot afford to obtain a city permit.

While it may seem strange that going out in the buff is not already illegal in San Francisco, most California cities do not have local nudity laws, Wiener said. Instead, they are adequately covered by state indecent exposure laws and societal mores. But indecent exposure technically only applies to lewd behavior, so city officials have had to craft a local solution, he said, adding that the cities of Berkeley and San Jose already have done so.

"I suspect there are a lot of places that maybe don't currently have a local law (and) that if people started getting naked every day would quickly see a local law," Wiener said.

[propiation100]

These men and women are in outright rebellion. Their minds are as removed from reality and as compartmentalized as the average garden variety serial killer. They are manifesting their sin-sickness and mental illness.

[rightontarget]

I see nothing wrong with having DESIGNATED places for those who wish to disrobe to go. Nude beaches for example. How about nude restaurants where they can disrobe AFTER then enter and cover up when they come out. As long as signs are posted so those who do NOT wish to see it can be advised not to go there. I have no problem with people having the "freedom" to take their clothing off. My problem is when they are TAKING AWAY other people's "freedom" FROM Having to look at it in a public place. It shouldn't be forced on anybody to have to see that so give them specific places to go do their thing.

[OmegaWolf747]

All restrictions on self-expression are evil, whether it's conservatives who want to stop people from going naked in the streets or atheists who want to ban Nativity displays at Christmas.

[AOCGUY]

I am at a loss as to why anyone would want to walk around city streets in the buff. Where would you put your car keys?

[Walter L. Johnson]

A problem happens with this kind of law not specifically including nudity visible to neighborhood children. A friend of mine lived across the street from either a church or fraternal society and people can from the building and neighbors with two story homes that he heads to his hot tube in the nude. He also had clear glass in the bathrooms. Yet, cities in the Wurban Western USA generally prohibit fences no higher than 4 feet in front of a home and six feet behind a home. That isn't even high enough to block the view of a a professional basketball player in a level neighborhood.

If anyone knows the common standard in Western Europe it would be interesting to know if San Francisco is becoming more or less conservative compared to often very liberal Europeans, as far as sex and/or nudity.

[nohater]

if these nudists would go naked 24/7, all year, even at work then maybe they should be allowed the freedom. wonder if they would risk losing their job for their nude freedom. nude 100% of the time and if not, ban it all.

[Lukaslion]

I support Nudism. It is our Body Freedom.

For Example, Best Nudism: www.domai.com

yours sincerely,
Lukas Lion

[iamkadosh]

"And Yahweh Elohim made coats of skin for the man and his wife and dressed them" Genesis 3:21
From the Scripture we see that this couple was ashamed of being naked.
If we look at the nation of Israel through the Scripture, we clearly see that Elohim (God) had a a dress code for them. They were not allowed to walk naked, and I don't think people had the desire to go naked.
I would not want to see a person walk naked in the street. That is gross!

[Walter L. Johnson]

Complete nudity without Sun Stop is also obviously a very bad idea, if a person wants to avoid skin cancer, which can be an extremely painful cause of death if not treated early. Of course always protecting your skin with sunstop also may result in Vitamin D deficiency, which is seriously bad for health if the deficit is not correct with Vitamin D supplements.

[sickofwhiners]

One more person wishing to force everyone to follow their religious beliefs. Sigh.......

[MrsHippy]

With a housing crisis, an unemployment crisis, a health care crisis.......all these people care about is wandering about the city naked. Could somebody tell me what these people do for a living?

[anonymous010]

Does anybody else see the irony in a man named Wiener advocating for a no-nudity law?

There, I've made the obligatory ***** joke so nobody else has to.

[podboq]

can't make this stuff up!