San Francisco - Wiener doesn't want to see weiners

[1bdBagr]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

It seems a bit of a contradiction to say that no one should be naked in public and then say that's what a nude beach is for. Isn't that public? I know the ones in Florida are.

Another point, I think, is the fact that until/unless the proposed ordinance is passed, then what these people are doing is legal. You and I may not like it, but public nudity is not against any laws there and has been tolerated for many years.

People obviously legislated a place where people could be naked and sun themselves, There are signs posting Clothing Optional and if one doesn't want to see naked people, dont proceed any further....
It is NOT a square in the middle of town nor parading down a main boulevard for all to see. In many cities, they accommodated the nudists and basically kept them out of the public eye. Most nude beaches arent just right off the main drag.
Shouldn't have to pass legislation prohibiting public nudity, loud car stereos or even loud pipes, but when people abuse the loopholes or get irresponsible, this is what u get.
Tim

[Tequila SG]

Originally Posted by claytp1

What I'm getting at here is the slow but steady "progress" away from what has been defined as traditional. I do believe whether Michael supports it or not, is that the intention of that crowd as a whole is to continue pushing the boundaries further and further away to legitimize that which they know is deviant and/or out of spite to those who see it that way.



So where does it stop? Public nudity......public sex......how about NAMBLA?

Or perhaps they are trying to convince them self that their sick deviant behavior is normal, and if they convince others then it is so.
The agenda is there just look at ABC, in just about every show you have to explain to your child why are to men in bed kissing,and discussing having a baby when for years they have been told that mom and dad love each other and that's why they kiss, and is how they come to this world....

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by claytp1

I'll venture a guess to try and answer your question. At some point everyone has their level of standards that differentiate between acceptable/innocent and deviant behavior which others find harmful and/or excessively offensive. In this situation I'd guess that either Wiener or his constituency as a whole have said that line has been crossed.

Others here in this thread have thought that line was crossed a long time ago and have been criticized for saying so. Others think there's no problem with it.

So where should that line be drawn? In "progressive" thinking (I use the quotes to distinguish I don't think it's representing progress) that line keeps being re-established further and further away from what would be defined as traditional. Not sure why this is considered progress.

I really don't see why I have to avoid what really is a nice area that the S.F. are is because I really don't want to have to explain to my 9 year old why that man is sucking on that other man's pecker. Am I really a prude because of this? I really don't want others to have to explain to their children what it is I'm doing with my wife out there in the park? I have a bedroom for that and keep it private.

What I'm getting at here is the slow but steady "progress" away from what has been defined as traditional. I do believe whether Michael supports it or not, is that the intention of that crowd as a whole is to continue pushing the boundaries further and further away to legitimize that which they know is deviant and/or out of spite to those who see it that way.

But as I said earlier, at some point everyone has their standards and sooner or later you bump into them. Apparently even in S.F. they have those standards too and there's a clash.

As far as these exhibitionists go, I'd like to know what their motivation is for their public display? If they really want to have their big party where they're free and swinging, well let them have their party. But please do so behind some sort of enclosure where the rest of us do not have to see it. If they insist on being out where those would be offended will see them, then again I question the motive of intentionally offending.

So where does it stop? Public nudity......public sex......how about NAMBLA?

Thanks for that clay and you bring up a good point; the other side of my question which is "what is the motivation of the nudists?".

Its funny that I always hated social studies in school but now I find it very interesting.

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by 1bdBagr

The whole subject of rights and or how they relate to a groups' rights should be one (or a group) can do whatever as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Well, a bunch of nudists should NOT have the right to be naked in public, period. Nor should anybody else. Thats what nudist colonies are for....or legal nude beaches. Furthermore, i'm with the others that having the gay pride parades ought to keep their clothes on as well, i rarely hear of heterosexuals having parades wearing paint or lingerie in public, so why do the gays have to. Oh yeah, its to "further" the gay cause and ram this sh!t publicly down everybody's mouth. Michael, i don't have a problem with gays, its just the way everything is so in your face. Civil rights yes, Public displays such as depicted previously no. You didn't see Rosa Parks or MLK parading around naked to protest or celebrate Black causes, so why should the gay community get to????
Tim

Clearly you have never been to New Orleans at Mardi Gras time.

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

I agree with you completely. I also believe the converse, that just because something is illegal, doesn't automatically make it wrong.

This is an isolated incidence though of a city very well known for a particular image for a very long time that seems to be trying to make a big statement about "breaking" that image. It just seems a bit surprising to me. It's kind of like Milwaukee outlawing beer or St. Petersburg outlawing old people or the state of Idaho outlawing potatoes.

I do believe that this movement in SF is 100% politically driven and not a function of morality at all.

Not 100% politically driven. Add media driven to that, media that wanted a sensational story and created this mess out of a few guys sunbathing in a plaza in the Castro in order that they should make a buck. That's free enterprise. Now the whole cast of weirdos on every side is involved. And the politicians are having a field day thumping their chests. Yuk.

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by rgraham

The only real reason these old fat naked guys are being called out is because they have become yesterdays news. They are also bad for business. Not everyone thinks that it's cool to have to sit on a chair that some sweaty, hairy ass, that you don't know where it's been, just sat there. Consider it a hygienic reality.

Yes, then there is that.

Originally Posted by 1bdBagr

People obviously legislated a place where people could be naked and sun themselves, There are signs posting Clothing Optional and if one doesn't want to see naked people, dont proceed any further....
It is NOT a square in the middle of town nor parading down a main boulevard for all to see. In many cities, they accommodated the nudists and basically kept them out of the public eye. Most nude beaches arent just right off the main drag.
Shouldn't have to pass legislation prohibiting public nudity, loud car stereos or even loud pipes, but when people abuse the loopholes or get irresponsible, this is what u get.
Tim

Good parallel with the noise issues. We who cannot police ourselves will be policed.

Originally Posted by Tequila SG

Or perhaps they are trying to convince them self that their sick deviant behavior is normal, and if they convince others then it is so.
The agenda is there just look at ABC, in just about every show you have to explain to your child why are to men in bed kissing,and discussing having a baby when for years they have been told that mom and dad love each other and that's why they kiss, and is how they come to this world....

Man, I guess I just don't watch that much TV. There has been a definite gradual shift as you point out. I remember when Ellen was kicked off of TV because society "wasn't ready for that", but since then it is not too uncommon for homosexuality to be a part of a TV show. I think that is what intrigues me about this story. It seems to be a move in the other direction. A turning point?

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

Not 100% politically driven. Add media driven to that, media that wanted a sensational story and created this mess out of a few guys sunbathing in a plaza in the Castro in order that they should make a buck. That's free enterprise. Now the whole cast of weirdos on every side is involved. And the politicians are having a field day thumping their chests. Yuk.

Unfortunately, peoeple respond more to sensationalism than anything else.

Do you think this thread would have gotten the same number of views with a title like "new city ordinance proposed"?

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

Unfortunately, peoeple respond more to sensationalism than anything else.

Do you think this thread would have gotten the same number of views with a title like "new city ordinance proposed"?

The sensationalism has a lot to do with how repressed so many people are about their natural sexual impulses and much they need some outlet for all that pent up energy. If there were a saner approach to human sexuality and the human body, those guys sunning themselves in the Castro would have been a non issue.

I may not be quoting him exactly but Freud said regarding matters like this that "Beneath every disgust is a desire". That applies to a lot of what we are seeing here.

[Scotykid]

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

I for one have stated that I do not support this proposed legislation. I do not believe this is something the government should be involved in. As for implications, it has and will lessen my respect for Scott Weiner who is generally a fine supervisor (the SF term for a member of our city council). The next time he sends me a fund raising letter, it will go right into the recycle bin. I am just surprised at how many posters who are against big government totally support this proposed ordinance.

Uh Oh. I think I agree with Micheal here. Let the people handle this. Lets all who oppose, go down there and shoot rubber bands at their penises until they put them away

[<G Man>]

I notice not one complaint about the nude women. Am I sensing a double-standard here?

[RGRider]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

I notice not one complaint about the nude women. Am I sensing a double-standard here?

http://www.v-twinforum.com/forums/re...ml#post2197779

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by Scotykid

Uh Oh. I think I agree with Micheal here. Let the people handle this. Lets all who oppose, go down there and shoot rubber bands at their penises until they put them away

That would be going too far. People can hold protest signs, yell what they want, etc. And other can counter protest the protesters. Not too long ago several of the nudists in the plaza were close to being physically harassed by the protesters (the circus to which I have previously referred). The police officer on duty went up to the nudists and told them that if anyone touched them or stepped over the line he wanted to be told as those who did that would be subject to arrest. He also told the protesters that the nudists were not breaking any law and if they physically harassed the nudists they would be arrested.

The neighborhood handled it well up to now. Now we have a circus going on thanks to the media and the politicians.

[webco2]

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

I may not be quoting him exactly but Freud said regarding matters like this that "Beneath every disgust is a desire".

Michael my friend, Freud has been exposed, as the drug addicted perverted whore he was, several decades ago. To quote him or Brown, either one, is to not understand modern psychology.

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by RGRider

http://www.v-twinforum.com/forums/re...ml#post2197779

I stand corrected. Thanks RG.

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by webco2

Michael my friend, Freud has been exposed, as the drug addicted perverted whore he was, several decades ago. To quote him or Brown, either one, is to not understand modern psychology.

To which "Brown" are you referring?

And to discount everything Freud ever said is only to show your ignorance. If you ever use the term "unconscious", you are quoting Freud and being a hypocrite. There was no concept of the unconscious until Freud wrote about it. It is so widely accepted now that no one questions the concept of an unconscious. Yet you would throw that away and say it has no validity because you don't like Freud. I guess it is all or nothing for you.