October 28, 2011
Wiener’s Proposed Public Weiner (And Ass) Ordinance
On the agenda for San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors next week, a vote on the Supervisor Wiener’s proposed ordinance regulating public nudity in restaurants and public seating areas.
As proposed, the ordinance would amend San Francisco Police Code Section 1071.1 to:
1) prohibit public nudity in restaurants; and
2) prohibit sitting on public benches or public seating areas without clothing or some other separate material between the person's genitals, buttocks, or anal region and the seating surface.
If nothing else, it’s something to consider before you grab a parklet seat at lunch.
First Published: October 28, 2011 7:45 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
heh heh, he said wiener.
Posted by: J at October 28, 2011 8:47 AM
So the classic "No shoes, no shirt, no service" rule will be adding "pants" to the list of kit required to dine. Sounds fair and reasonable.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at October 28, 2011 9:13 AM
Wait a minute, women can walk around topless but men can't sit around bottomless? Unfair! Wait a minute . . . I'm good with that.
Posted by: A.T. at October 28, 2011 9:32 AM
Love the humor here.............but I will be the one to do it and be very SF un-PC.
I am all for the right to hang out naked in your home, nude resorts and specific areas for nude beaches etc. but why does the city allow these guys,(they are gay and straight and they are only in the Castro as far as I can tell), to adorn their genitals and parade around, acting out their exhibitionism fetish and burning my retinas as I walk down the street ? What about the kids who may not be mature enough to deal with it ?
I am gay and know that I am setting myself up here for a lot of criticism but there are many as myself who feel this way. Why is it always men and where are the ladies ?....they have more class I believe.
At least Sup. Weiner has enacted this arse law.
Posted by: radar at October 28, 2011 10:06 AM
I hope there will be a special amendment prohibiting bag walking. This is a practise common at Cal in the early 1980's involving, obviously, walking down the street or at parties with the scrotum visible, but not any other part of the equipment showing. Usually done with a facial expression that suggests there is nothing out of the ordinary.
Posted by: unwarrantedinlaw at October 28, 2011 10:12 AM
I agree with radar. Why do people feel the need to act out their fetishes/exhibitionist tendencies in public? Keep it at home or in appropriate venues (nudist colonies, etc.). And if it matters, I am a 32-year old caucasian woman who lives in the Inner Richmond. Sometimes SF really makes me shake my head...
Posted by: nancydrew99 at October 28, 2011 10:51 AM
Count me as part of the anti-nudity camp. What galls me is that supporters of this practice claiming the naked body is a beautiful thing. Well, that's their opinion - just as my opinion differs. I have no desire to see your naked, sagging, wrinkled body parading down the street.
Remember what Elaine said on Seinfeld when the topic of male nudity was brought up: "A man's body is utilitarian....it's for getting around. It's like a jeep!"
Posted by: Fishchum at October 28, 2011 12:04 PM
I am with you radar.
And so are a lot of people I know
Posted by: asiagoSF at October 28, 2011 12:30 PM
"burning my retinas as I walk down the street"
"I have no desire to see your naked, sagging, wrinkled body parading down the street."
Why do I have to have the sight of homeless people burning my retinas and having to smell them when I walk down the street? Why do we let those kooks walk around carrying signs that talk about crazy things like twelve galaxies or jesus? Damnit, why I do I have to see things I don't like, there should be laws that prevent me from having to see anything I don't like or agree with!
Posted by: Rillion at October 28, 2011 2:32 PM
FYI I fully support this proposed ordinance as I don't want to have sit in someone's ass or ball sweat. That's a completely different matter then just being offended by seeing something.
Posted by: Rillion at October 28, 2011 2:35 PM
In view the average SF temperature, I am not sure there's much ball sweat happening. More like shrinkage if you ask me.
I live in the vicinity of the place where these dudes hang out (pun intended). They seem to have a very strict etiquette. The issue will come when this will go more mainstream with less manscaping and more exhibitionism.
As a straight guy, I wish there were more females. Apart from the Folsom Street Fair and such, not much action on that level. Sigh... Come one, don't be shy!
Posted by: lol at October 28, 2011 3:47 PM
Apples and oranges Rillion...........I have no problem with the homeless,the political sign carriers, ( I support Occupy the country )the doomsday sayers, Jesus freaks et all. I just don't want to see them naked !
Posted by: radar at October 28, 2011 5:49 PM
I always tell the nudes to put on some clothes. To their faces. And I live in the Castro.
Posted by: Time for QE3! at October 28, 2011 7:31 PM
my 3 yr old doesn't notice the galaxy sign man - bad example.
if a homeless guy gets within smelling distance of me or my 3 yr old we can cross the street. i don't see smell. bad example
nudity is just a national taboo. you can't be nude in movies or TV without a rating system or on cable. parents can control what their kids see. but with these jerks i have to avoid passing through an entire part of town if I don't want my daughter seeing a naked man and start explaining the facts of life before she can count to 20
Posted by: hangemhi at October 28, 2011 7:44 PM
On nice weather days, I am one of San Francisco's urban nudists. Aside from being more comfortable and realistic about body image, public nudity addresses civil rights issues like non-violent freedom of expression and freedom from censorship.
By the way, children understand public nudity and are not harmed by it. For four years, I have offered $1000 to anyone who can write an intelligent 500 word essay answering the question, "What harm would befall a child who sees a nude adult?" To date, I have received zero responses. Does that mean it can't be written?
The proposed legislation as I last read it seems unnecessary. Nudist resort etiquette is for nudists to sit on a towell or other barrier when sitting on furniture. Do we want to legislate etiquette? As a public health issue the legislation is way, way overrated. Agreed fecal matter is nasty stuff and nudists should use a barrier. However, people routinely share toilet seats at home and work and we do not see people dieing like flies from the practice. According to a nurse and public health worker, people coughing on you or buying poorly regulated factory farmed meat at your local supermarket are way greater public health risks. Yet, we see no proposed legislation requiring people with colds to wear surgical masks or banning meat sales.
Restauranteurs already have the right to require "no shirt, no tie, no service." Let them decide whether or not to invite nudists without legislation.
Women deserve equal rights. Women's breasts are not genitalia. Any place that a man can go topfree, a woman can go topfree.
Posted by: George Davis at October 29, 2011 8:11 AM
As you have recognized the seat towel requirement is a health issue in addition to being good etiquette. Funny you should mention toilet seats because at home the chance of cross contamination is small especially in new homes these days which feature a large number of bathrooms. At work and other shared public facilities seat covers (a.k.a "butt gaskets") are usually available to prevent spread of disease and for exactly the same reason that Wiener's proposal would require towels on public seats.
There's already a PR campaign ongoing to encourage people to cough or sneeze into the crook of their arm.
These rules seem to be fair and easy to comply to. I am surprised that there's any objection at all. Naturalists should be grateful that SF is so relaxed. Other cities are much less accommodating.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at October 29, 2011 10:16 AM
Do we want to legislate etiquette?
Yes. But, frankly, until and unless we enforce the rules about putting ones feet on public seats, I can't say I accept that the real problem people have with these guy is hygiene.
Heck, if anything, seeing them just raises the public's awareness of what might be lurking on that park bench.
This issue illustrates a particularly American trait. We make such an in-your-face deal out of everything. In Berlin you can find nekkid office workers grabbing a lunch-time tanning opportunity in local parks. A German naked on the street? No way!
It's called civility. The civility of allowing public nudity and the civility of engaging in it for reasons beyond just proving to folks that you can just because it annoys them.
Posted by: BobN at October 29, 2011 12:53 PM
The best place to go nude is at a nude beach, preferably where it is warm like Greece. There you are with others who just enjoy the freedom of feeling sun and air on their whole body. The worst place to go nude is in a public place in a city where the only reason you are doing it is because you know you are being gawked at and like to be an exhibitionist. Don't give me the "I just want to feel free" bs. Because that's just what it is, bs.
Posted by: Oceangoer at October 31, 2011 11:24 AM
radar & hangmihi - the point isn't the individual examples but that we don't always get to prevent ourselves from being offended by legislating away everything that offends us. Seeing nude people offends you, so what, get on with your lives.
GD - "Do we want to legislate etiquette?"
Unfortunately in some cases we need too.
Posted by: Rillion at October 31, 2011 11:46 AM
So in general, I'm fairly pro nudity and think the attitude towards the body is much healthier overseas. But in practice?
People object to who chooses to be naked-- in that they would rather see younger, more fit people-- but I don't think that's the issue at all. The issue is that in a clothed society, the people who choose to be naked want to make a scene of it.
The last time I saw this was in the Presidio along the water where about fifteen naked guys was bike riding/parading around the city. There were quite a number of young kids around. The problem is these people want to make a scene. One was upside down doing pretend-yoga. Three had stuff (e.g. for one it was rubber bands), wrapped around their umm, stuff. One had his hands on his hips proudly and was, ummm, uh, twitching.
Get over the over pc-ness SF-- that is just not okay in any way. And the only people who want to be naked in the city are people like this who actively want to make a scene.
Posted by: notokay! at October 31, 2011 3:27 PM