I have absolutely no problem with women going topless in public. There is no reason a woman’s nipple should be a secret. At the very least, men should be subject to the same restrictions; if local ordinance requires shirts, it should require them for everyone.
And San Francisco is now just a little bit more like every other city in the US. While I’ve personally got no interest in going nude in public, I like San Francisco’s reputation for general hedonism, and I’m sad to see it being eroded. Soon enough, the city’s personality is going to be gone, and San Francisco will be just another anonymous urban center.
There is something odd about a gay man describing tits as the thing that distinguish San Francisco from other urban centers, but I can’t put my finger on what exactly.
As assumptions go, it *is *a good one. It also happens to be an incorrect one.
More incorrect on the “segregated by sex” part, but also occasionally incorrect on the “screened from public view” part. Never underestimate the unabashedness of nudist hippies and the laziness with which they approach stall building. I’ve been in many a bathroom where the custom is to avert one’s eyes, because as you walk in you can see right over the “wall”. Only when you’re sitting do you feel screened from view, but you know you’re really not.
Actually, the recent ban was on total nudity, not just toplessness. I very rarely saw any women taking advantage of it, but naked men were not a terribly uncommon sight along Castro street.
“Tits I don’t want to see” is a category I’m not familiar with.
Sir, may I suggest that the state which you describe is a long damn way off in my estimation? The last time I was in SF I only saw a bare smattering of nudity in the Castro (the quality of which rendered it unappealing to practically anyone), but it would not be confused with “just another anonymous urban center” by any stretch of the imagination.
On the other hand, the gradual replacement of the entire city with condominiums has already robbed the place of much of its character; the saddest urban sight I ever viewed was the plaza in the Fillmore memorializing all the clubs that the city condemned in the name of gentrification. If SF wants to keep its unique personality, fighting the nudity ordinance may not be the most effective way to do so.
Did you ever know your grandmother?
Right, because the only thing keeping San Francisco unique was naked men walking around :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=StusBlues]
On the other hand, the gradual replacement of the entire city with condominiums has already robbed the place of much of its character; the saddest urban sight I ever viewed was the plaza in the Fillmore memorializing all the clubs that the city condemned in the name of gentrification.
[/QUOTE]
We are moving into new-thread territory, but housing desperately needs to be built here. We have a 3% vacancy rate and prices for both rentals & purchases are going through the roof. My wife & I - both full time professionals - really want to stay in the city but are getting priced out. So if you can solve that problem without building condos please run for mayor.
I know this isn’t directed at me, but yes. My girlfriends and I visited a local nude beach (we usually just went topless) weekly the whole time I was in college. Gawking dudes were unwelcome and got run off. I’ve also gone topless at the topless pools in Vegas (though, they require pasties) and the same etiquette applied - no gawking dudes. It’s pathetic.
As far as in general public, I don’t know. I think I would be personally uncomfortable because I would not want to be stared at. At least at a nude beach or topless pool generally everyone is in the same state of disrobe and the rules of etiquette are generally followed. If some creep violates the rules then someone will politely inform the creep they are being a creep or a group will band together and run the creep off.
As it is, clothing optional beaches and topless pools are usually segregated from regular pools and beaches which is fine by me. Oodles of kids are generally not found in clothing optional venues and while I expect a grown men to be able to control themselves enough to not stare like a creep, a pubescent boy? Hmm. Sure, I would love it if people would raise their kids to be desensitized to nudity, but many don’t and having an 11 year old boy get a visible boner in my presence is just gross.
As for in the general public? I agree with this:
It should be the same for both men and women. I don’t think women will be as likely to go topless in some instances, like beach volleyball or working construction due to the whole bouncing issue which would be physically uncomfortable. Then again, nude men still play volleyball at nude beaches :dubious: so who can say?
There are a couple of comments about my comment.
My point was that Comfest isn’t a parade of hot topless women. That’s all. It’s fairly mild really.
That’s not particularly remarkable, IMHO. My wife and I have been accustomed to each other’s nudity for going on a quarter-century, but we still keep our excretory functions private from each other. (And from the rest of the world as well.)
I’ve seen women who’ve painted shirts on, usually at sporting events.
Do you really want to see someone taking a shit? There’s a reason why people who don’t flush are considered to be douchebags.
‘Urine is sterile’ is such a misused, bullshit argument. It’s usually sterile when it comes out, whereupon it promptly provides a source of nutrients for microorganisms. At best, peeing in public is equivalent to littering.
And urine is stinky. Really, HoboStew, you need to come up with an analogy that doesn’t involve leaving a physical mess, and only involves a temporary sight you’d rather not see. The fact you have to this point persistently not done so suggests you using analogies that don’t really work because if you use an analogy that does, your position is fundamentally pissweak.
I used to think that these things were a one way progression but now I’m older and have seen more and I don’t think that’s the case. Prudery in certain areas is increasing not decreasing. For example, topless women on Australian beaches are becoming far less common, not more common.
Plenty of dudes were looking just as hard, just not gawking. They are the dudes who know how to do it subtly. Every man is looking at you and thinking about having sex with you. Most just don’t let you know. But now you know.
Okay. that’s how it works in the clothed world too though.
Well, that’s interesting. Some people think a flaccid penis is “just gross” and that’s why they oppose nudity, even without boners. So it’s a matter of degree. Some people simply think nudity = sex, all the time.
[/QUOTE]
Well! I now know I will never be a nudist. One of my recurring nightmares is the “toilet” dream, where there are lines and lines of toilets and no privacy between men and women. Horror.
What does this mean exactly? Are there other western nations that are not prudish when it comes to public nudity? If so, what marks the distinction? In what way do they behave differently regarding public nudity? For example, if I walk around nude in Paris, will this draw no stares?
Not sure about Paris, but my old Croatian professor came back from a visit home postively raving about the ubiquity of exposed breasts in Dubrovnik. Living in the states as long as she had, it really was an eye-opener. So to speak.
Yes, I meant relative to some other Western nations.
It’s all relative. Some people are covered up to their eyeballs in public and others are walking around naked.
The fact that staring is a potential problem is, for me, a giveaway that punchy nudity is a significantly different thing from the norm in the west. If there’s a guy with purple hair, it’s only a little rude for me to stare. If it’s a girl with purple hair, staring might be a bit creepy. If I’m staring at the exposed breaststroke of a woman, it’s a problem.
Therefore, exposed breasts are not just another thing, in the specific context of public places where they are not already expected. This is only a social constructed, but not one that will change overnight just because the law does.