With permission from SimplyNudist.com
San Francisco, Our Opinion
Posted on November 24, 2012 by Thor
So, its happened.
The Supervisors in San Fran voted to ban nudity in the city.
Thanks, George !
One of our members here predicted near two years ago now, that George Davis and his ilk would more likely have nudity banned altogether than to gain any kind of acceptance, due to their in-your-face confrontational attitudes and methods.
Oh, sure, the new law provides exceptions for Bare to Breakers, and the Folsom Street thing, but thats hardly progress. Its moving backwards.
San Francisco *was* one of the few cities in this country where a person could walk nude through the streets on occasion, when and where appropriate, and experience no repercussions. Not any more !
In their justifications/reasons/statements, the Supervisors specifically mentioned the gay male contingent with their cock rings.
Are cock rings bad ? Not necessarily, in their sexual enhancement purpose, they are just a bit of hardware. But as part of an in-your-face look-at-my-penis confrontational promotion of wholesome nudity they are a very bad thing. Cock rings and gatherings of obviously gay male activists in the Jane Warner Plaza, to the point of repeatedly offending the general public, because its their right and its not illegal according to them and their ilk.
As a nudist, a real one, I too am offended by cock rings and that whole look-at-my-penis mindset that goes with wearing them in public. They are not acceptable in a nudist environment, and certainly not acceptable for showing on the clothed public streets of any city. San Francisco was more tolerant than most, but not any more. Just because something isnt explicitly illegal, doesnt mean you should do it.
These people, in this writers opinion, are not there to promote wholesome natural normal nudity or naturism, but to promote, nay demand, their rights to offend just about any and everyone. To them, nudity is simply the means theyve chosen to shock and offend others in their pitiful attempt to draw attention to themselves, the well being of others be damned.
They have succeeded. They have made themselves the focus, and a gross misunderstanding and misinterpretation of nudists to the detriment of nudists everywhere, the means by which they have done so. As such, its obvious to this writer that the law is not an adverse reaction to nudists or nudity. Its an adverse reaction to George Davis and his ilk, and we nudists will all pay the price. They have not helped understanding and harmony, but have hurt both badly.
Thanks, George !
We dont need you. We dont want you. You have made things much worse for us, by promoting your own selfishness at our expense. I hope you are happy.
This web site, simplynudist.com exists to hopefully dispel some of the misinformation about nudists and nudism. As such you wont find any pictures of sexual enhancements here. Some of our members may use such at times, and they might even have photos including such, but will have the good taste to not post them here. Such errors in judgment are why the general public believes, at least in part, though wrongly, that nudists are sex crazed libertines with no morals.
Too many photo sites mix nudist photos with porn. There are some wonderful nudist photos out there, promoted as pornography, and some awful porn, promoted as nudism. In both cases, we, real nudists, we lose. Spread-eagle photos of women, and erections, and a general focus on genitalia is not nudism. Its sex. Nudism isnt sex, but the non-nudist general public doesnt know that. George Davis and his ilk are considered nudists by the general public because of this blurring of the lines. If such photo and photo sites were not so available, Davis could be dismissed more easily as the minority crack pot he is, and not as the main stream nudist he purports to be.
What this writer believes we need to do, if we are to be accepted as normal, is to BE normal ! We are not sex crazed freaks. We are normal people. Men and women, Moms and Dads, parents and children. We hold jobs. We maintain our homes. We school our children. We attend churches and synagogues. Yes, we also enjoy dressing differently, or not at all, but just about everyone has a quirk or two. That alone doesnt make them bad. What we need to do to gain acceptance, is to be normal. Being some cock ring wearing freak never has, and never will, cause acceptance among non-nudists.
Thanks to some who simply will not see, who refuse moderation, who have no concept of when and where appropriate, we have all lost including them ! Worse, a precedent has been established that if allowed to stand, and likely it will be, can and will be used against us through no fault of our own.
Only with an overwhelming showing that nudists are not evil cock wearing gay activists can we make any progress. We must strive to distance ourselves as far as possible from these fools, and to show that we are nothing like them, as much as they try to show that they are like us when they are not.
We need Cheri Alexander. We do not need George Davis.
About Thor
Site administrator, and ultimate arbiter of everything.
View all posts by Thor
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged [empty]. Bookmark the permalink. Edit
]It still seems rather bizarre that a group of nudists here can condemn another group of nudists, who they don't know, for being nude in public places in SF, when they had a right to be nude in public places in SF purely and simply because they were nude in public places in SF.I will ask again- were all of these nudists wearing cockrings? If cockrings were the issue then do something about that and not the nudism- otherwise it's just using cockrings as an excuse.
This being a nudist site, matters that affect the public perception of nudism are of paramount importance. Whether or not the SF offenders were queer, whether or not they were wearing genital "jewelry", the point that my hypocritical attackers zealously avoided addressing is that the media identified them as nudists. Is that the kind of PR that nudism needs or desires? One seriously questions the nudist credentials of the defenders of that gross exhibitionism.
the point that my hypocritical attackers zealously avoided addressing is that the media identified them as nudists.
As point of fact, they identified themselves in various interviews as nudists.:(
( co-opted the title would be more accurate )
The fact that naked people wear cockrings or any other jewellery or adornment should have no bearing on this argument. My stance on nudity is that it is the way we are born and the most natural thing in the world. Genital skin is not much different to any other skin. Fear of nudity is totally illogical. So if you say wearing cockrings is rude then so is wearing earrings because it draws attention to your ears? Stupid argument. It seems that many nudists posting here are still hung up with their own perception that nudity = sex.
The fact that naked people wear cockrings or any other jewellery or adornment should have no bearing on this argument. My stance on nudity is that it is the way we are born and the most natural thing in the world. Genital skin is not much different to any other skin. Fear of nudity is totally illogical. So if you say wearing cockrings is rude then so is wearing earrings because it draws attention to your ears? Stupid argument. It seems that many nudists posting here are still hung up with their own perception that nudity = sex.
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!