Ravens even admitted so at one time.
NEVER...YOU ARE WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!! quit putting words in my mouth Bruce!
Well Ravens, if you didn't censor the entire thread out of existence, I would have been able to refer to it directly. In fact, those words were right at the end of the thread-you had hit your breaking point, exposed your true agenda-you stated that defeating the right was more important than reaching a reasonable solution on Gay "Marriage", I called you on it and the thread was gone shortly thereafter. I don't have to put words in your mouth-I have been able to get you to willingly expose your agenda by sheer force of my will and superior debate & writing skills.
Never said it...you are wrong..I have no agenda. Your arrogance is maddening. As Rene said awhile back...You do like to blow your own horn!
Sorry, I didn't read every post after I saw it turned into a argument over things that weren't part of the topic, especially the wide generalizations and unfounded opinions. Also, there is no actual link to read the article in question.So, I will just say Nude is NOT Lewd: the wearing of cock rings (erections in general) is pretty obviously lewd as defined by most ordinances of most areas I've lived in and investigated nudist laws. So, the government of San Francisco should address the lewd issue and not the nude issue.
Link to article is in post #1 - just checked it; it still works. It is kind of a drag to have the same few people carrying their ongoing brawl from one thread to another.
I wonder how you'd define the sort if genital implement you meant to ban, if you were writing legislation to address the cockring concern without banning nudity outright. "Device encircling the genitals or intended to produce or imitate a state of arousal"? A "call attention to..." ban would end up arguably covering tattoos. A general "device" ban would end up covering piercings.
No one really responded to my query about laws elsewhere. There probably aren't any, along these lines. I suppose the real situation is that the culture has to be relaxed enough about nudity and sexuality that bad behavior is recognized as such, without running afoul of either censorious or transgressive attitudes on the way to a shared judgement. I don't suppose we're there yet.
No one really responded to my query about laws elsewhere. There probably aren't any, along these lines.
And frankly, I'd be surprised if there were !
We don't generally invent a law until there's a clear need.
I do not know many locations, but here in New Jersey, if you expose your private parts, you will pay a penalty. My parents live in Vermont. We have gone skinny dipping in the creek that goes through their 100 acre back yard. I do not know about the state as a whole or if each town has its own laws, but in Brattleboro, VT, you can be nude on the streets, but not lewd.
Bob
I've never been to SF before, but when I found out several months ago that nudity is legal there, I was very pleasantly surprised. I was going to eventually visit and maybe get undressed somewhere were local nudists normally hang out. Too bad I probably won't be able to do so anymore. Then again, if Black Beach stays nude, I'll just go there.
I am not a radical, I don't think every place should be clothing-optional. What I do want we should have is a clothing-optional zone is every town, be it a nude beach or some park.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!