Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/14/2012 8:05:05 PM   
absolutchocolat


Posts: 1392
Status: offline
"When people overcome their fears and go naked, why do most people feel so good about it?" wrote Dalchow in a release. "The issue of personal freedom is important to me. In San Francisco, all aspects of freedom are present, including the issues of sexual identity and body freedom. This proposed law wants to protect the 'freedom to not see an unclothed person,' which is a strange concept."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/san-francisco-nudists_n_2119999.html

what do folks think about this? i'm curious.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/14/2012 8:40:51 PM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
*Sigh*...

I remember when Gandhi practiced civil disobedience and was willing to go to jail to fight oppression. Here we have a bunch of people doing the same thing to overturn clothing laws. Weird that it would mean so much to them.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to absolutchocolat)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/14/2012 8:42:05 PM   
littlewonder


Posts: 15659
Status: offline
.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Nothing has changed
Everything has changed

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/14/2012 8:55:51 PM   
poise


Posts: 9509
Joined: 7/3/2010
Status: offline
Next thing you know, someone will argue that urinating is a normal bodily function
and people should have the right to do so in public.

< Message edited by poise -- 11/14/2012 8:56:07 PM >


_____________________________

When the path ignites a soul, there’s no remaining in place.

(in reply to absolutchocolat)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/14/2012 9:47:26 PM   
absolutchocolat


Posts: 1392
Status: offline
right! you have to wonder about the sanity of these folks.

(in reply to poise)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/14/2012 9:52:48 PM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline
All I can think of is that this can't be the best time of year to do this. There must be warmer months.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to absolutchocolat)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 2:14:36 AM   
JstAnotherSub


Posts: 6174
Status: offline
I think she went over the top, and did no good for her cause. That said, I was happy to see pubic hair that was natural!

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to absolutchocolat)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 2:17:38 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: poise
Next thing you know, someone will argue that urinating is a normal bodily function
and people should have the right to do so in public.


We're not supposed to urinate in public? Ooooooops!

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to poise)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 2:53:28 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: poise

Next thing you know, someone will argue that urinating is a normal bodily function
and people should have the right to do so in public.


Actually, an ancient by-law over here that hasn't been repealled actually allows you to do that

Apparently, you can stand at the rear wheel of your carriage (dunno why it has to be the 'rear' wheel tho) or on the town hall steps and you are allowed to relieve yourself if you shout "Relief" before you start.


Odd or what??

< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 11/15/2012 2:54:26 AM >

(in reply to poise)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 7:00:02 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat

what do folks think about this? i'm curious.


Wagging, yes, wanking, no.

It's just bodies; why force clothing?

The whole idea of the "freedom to not see an unclothed person" is an absurd dance around the fact that we're talking about the "duty to be clothed" being imposed for no particular reason (it demonstrably works well enough in any place that's warm enough for it).

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to absolutchocolat)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 12:16:12 PM   
absolutchocolat


Posts: 1392
Status: offline
the problem with the nudists is not that they don't want to wear clothes. they want the right to impose their nakedness on others. it's san francisco -- there are plenty of places and times to be naked in public. hell, when i went to san francisco pride last year, all i saw were naked people.

the nudists themselves offer no logical reasoning for the nude-in or any real reasons for opposing the ordinance. all you hear is "free our bodies", "it's my right", blah, blah, blah. it all seems very selfish to me.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 12:27:38 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat

the problem with the nudists is not that they don't want to wear clothes. they want the right to impose their nakedness on others.


«the problem with the clothists is not that they don't want to drop clothes. they want the right to impose their clothedness on others.»

It's all a matter of perspective, really.

quote:

the nudists themselves offer no logical reasoning for the nude-in or any real reasons for opposing the ordinance.


I saw some very logical reasons, specifically that one shouldn't restrict other people's freedoms without a good reason, and that there's no good reason to restrict the freedom to choose what (if anything) to wear.

quote:

it all seems very selfish to me.


How is it selfish?

In the long run, anything that fights for less repressive attitudes to the human body and to human sexuality will reduce the incidence of sexual pathologies, sexual assaults and so forth. Additionally, anything that fights for the idea that we should be able to do anything that doesn't adversely affect others is essentially going to strengthen our collective liberties and collective awareness of how liberty isn't just about doing what we ourselves want and are used to, but about allowing others to do what they want, presumably except insofar as it directly impinges on our own life and liberty.

The usual phrase is "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose", and I don't see them advocating the right to swing their genitals at me.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


< Message edited by Aswad -- 11/15/2012 12:28:00 PM >


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to absolutchocolat)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 12:54:58 PM   
absolutchocolat


Posts: 1392
Status: offline
quote:

In the long run, anything that fights for less repressive attitudes to the human body and to human sexuality will reduce the incidence of sexual pathologies, sexual assaults and so forth. Additionally, anything that fights for the idea that we should be able to do anything that doesn't adversely affect others is essentially going to strengthen our collective liberties and collective awareness of how liberty isn't just about doing what we ourselves want and are used to, but about allowing others to do what they want, presumably except insofar as it directly impinges on our own life and liberty.


i don't think this is an issue of civil rights, or some lofty cause to teach people to love their bodies -- that's a stretch. it's a marginal group of folks who want the right to loiter in san francisco's public parks and neighborhoods with no clothes on.

there are certain places i can't take my nieces and nephews because i know there's going to be random nudists walking around. the folks who live in the castro and have businesses there are complaining about it driving customers away and making the neighborhood less desirable to live in. the liberty the nudists desire does affect others.

< Message edited by absolutchocolat -- 11/15/2012 12:55:31 PM >

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 2:29:15 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat

i don't think this is an issue of civil rights, or some lofty cause to teach people to love their bodies -- that's a stretch.


It's never a civil rights issue, until it's your rights that are impinged on.

quote:

it's a marginal group of folks who want the right to loiter in san francisco's public parks and neighborhoods with no clothes on.


And in some countries, there's marginal groups that want to remove the requirement that one wear a hijab in public. It's in every way equivalent: an arbitrary line is drawn by a majority, constraining the liberties of everyone else; it even retains the gender imbalance (men usually don't need to cover their breasts, women do; men and women are punished to a different extent if caught violating the modesty laws in question).

The objective baseline is this: humans have bodies, all else is tradition, convenience and contrivance.

I've no desire to see a bunch of people wandering around naked, but I'd rather spend ten years seeing GWB's dick every day than have the police waste a single second on issuing fines for those few people that prefer to walk around without covering their bodies according to some arbitrary standard that drifts over time, let alone arresting people for such things. Bear in mind that we can objectively say that it's better to have fewer taboos about the body, and that seeing nudity has never been a cause of trauma (though many have inflicted a lot of trauma on others for seeing or showing nudity).

Sure, for these people, the reason the shoe doesn't fit is cause they want to do this.

The question is: why can't they?

quote:

there are certain places i can't take my nieces and nephews because i know there's going to be random nudists walking around.


Why can't you take them there?

Here's the thing: you can't take them there because you want to hide something from them, much as the s.c. religious right can't let the schools teach science because they want to hide another truth from their kids, even though it works well enough for everyone else that doesn't share their taboos. The source of the problem is either you or the society around you (in which case you're serving as the proxy source of the problem).

I've probably seen more naked bodies as a kid than as an adult.

In what way was my life impoverished by that?

quote:

the folks who live in the castro and have businesses there are complaining about it driving customers away and making the neighborhood less desirable to live in.


Excellent. Then that will eventually become a better neighbourhood. Social selection at work. The taboo ridden people that can't deal with reality end up clustering away from the places where unusual ideas are turned into humanity's future. This is nothing new.

quote:

the liberty the nudists desire does affect others.


Women's suffrage really affected men, badly; is that even a valid reason- in any measure- to deny it?

Ending segregation affected whites, in some cases making neighbourhoods less desireable to live in, for instance, yet I don't for one second support the notion that the prejudices of whites in the past should be sufficient cause to deny blacks equal rights or access to previously predominantly white neighbourhoods. Teaching literacy affected the clergy, and teaching science affects the s.c. religious right, but I still advocate literacy and science education.

Cause here's what this comes down to: you're using active sanctions to prevent people from passively being offensive to people with contrived taboos that serve no purpose other than to make the world a worse place to be, particularly for women. This is different in degree, and only in degree, from any of a number of other oppressive measures around the world throughout history.

I'm certainly no nudist; some places I've lived hit ÷30°C (÷22°F) in the winter, and nobody in their right mind wants to freeze to death, plus it is damn convenient to have pockets (though I suppose a belt pouch would be a better solution). But who does it hurt if I get into the car, naked, drive to the store, pick up some stuff and drive back home? And, by hurt, I mean "inflict harm on, causally originating with me, not contingent on the beliefs of the victim".

If some fuckwit can tattoo Romney on his forehead, thereby inducing massively traumatic urges to smash my head into a wall over the stupidity of humanity, which is incomprehensibly offensive at times; if someone can burn a Qu'ran in public, thereby inciting such rage as to result in deaths around the world; if someone can say the Holocaust never happened; if Paris Hilton can dye her dog's hair; if people can go around picketing funerals and saying LGBT people should be whatevered... and, if I can put up with those things... well, fuck, then we should all be able to put up with the occasional dick.

You really don't want to go down the "give offense" route, and the only other route that has a problem is the one you really, really don't want to go down.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to absolutchocolat)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 3:31:30 PM   
absolutchocolat


Posts: 1392
Status: offline
the examples you're giving -- segregation, suffrage, religious freedom -- are completely different than having the right to shake your dick in public.

i don't take my nieces and nephews to the castro because i've had nude folks come up to me and make suggestive and inappropriate comments. i'm not a prude, i think nudity is great. i just don't wanna see your junk when i'm taking my babies to the park or getting them ice cream.

the people here just want attention. there are plenty of nudist camps, colonies, and beaches where people can flaunt their assets.


(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 3:59:33 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat

the examples you're giving -- segregation, suffrage, religious freedom -- are completely different than having the right to shake your dick in public.


More important. But not completely different. It all comes down to a dominant group imposing arbitrary restrictions on a minority.

quote:

i don't take my nieces and nephews to the castro because i've had nude folks come up to me and make suggestive and inappropriate comments.


Oh, so you have a sexual harassment problem there, instead of a nudity problem.

Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

I'd have told you it's a red herring.

quote:

i'm not a prude, i think nudity is great.


Nobody's a prude themselves, and nobody's a pervert themselves, it's always other folks.

Reality is a prude is someone else with more taboos, a pervert is someone else with fewer taboos, and normal is oneself.

This is fair enough, but it helps to acknowledge that "Yes, I have some counterproductive taboos I want to impose on others by force." and just take it from there.

quote:

i just don't wanna see your junk when i'm taking my babies to the park or getting them ice cream.


And I don't wanna hear the babies bawling at the park.

Which leaves us three options:
1. Might makes right.
2. I wear clothes, you leave the kids at home.
3. I tolerate the kids, and you tolerate me nekkid.

You're advocating option 1, which is certainly more popular when one is ahead on might.

quote:

the people here just want attention. there are plenty of nudist camps, colonies, and beaches where people can flaunt their assets.


Those people may well be looking for attention. Doesn't change the fact that they have a point, or that their goal is desireable.

Incidentally, flaunting assets doesn't come into it; nudism is about an attitude to the human body.

Plenty of people flaunt other assets. I don't much care about that. I just want all restrictions on liberty to be founded on some well defined notion of need that is reasonably objective. I'd like my neighbours to stay clothed; I don't need them to. In fact, if memory serves, statistics strongly support the need to not restrict this particular liberty. But my reason is strictly that we must have an attitude that restriction cannot be the default position or an automatic entitlement of the majority, or else we'll forever fumble in the dark with regards to liberty in the long run, never actually grasping it in any meaningful way.

Are you familiar with reactance, by the way?

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to absolutchocolat)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 4:25:43 PM   
absolutchocolat


Posts: 1392
Status: offline
reactance is a term i'd use to describe this protest -- the nudists feel that public nudity bans are restricting their behavioral freedom to be nude. i happen to think their nudity is for shock value rather than having some educational or political purpose. in different articles and interviews i've read quoting these folks, that seems to be the case.

i wouldn't call restrictions on nudity arbitrary. there are health concerns (clothes keep bodily fluids and germs contained), and there are concerns about public indecency (how would public urination or masturbation laws hold up if public nudity is approved?). unfortunately, majority opinion prevails in situations like these. that's how democracy works.

as a minority group, they still have equal protection under the law, and are still allowed to be nude on beaches and at several city-wide events (i.e. folsom street fair, pride weekend). from what i've seen, and from what is reported, people with clothes on don't harass or physically attack them. police don't even give them a hard time, which is why residents and businesses are complaining in the first place.

as for me being a prude or being "intolerant", i think that's a matter of your perspective. there are plenty of ways to be body-positive without being nude in public.


(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 5:22:58 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat

reactance is a term i'd use to describe this protest


It's a term I'd use to describe the instinct for freedom, which is notably weaker in women than in men (hey, I was as surprised as anyone). To me, it matters if something is restricted or not, regardless of whether I want to pursue it. To you, not so.

quote:

i wouldn't call restrictions on nudity arbitrary.


Ah, but nobody calls their restrictions arbitrary, yet none are able to produce an objective set of criterion that don't come down to what happens to be the prevailing notions of "decency" in their own culture.

quote:

there are health concerns (clothes keep bodily fluids and germs contained),


I see nothing about gloves, which are far more relevant, and no laws about properly covering a sneeze.

And if bodily fluids are leaking, it seems appropriate to do something about that, and I suspect a nudist with oozing genitals would cover them until the problem was dealt with.

Again, though, the laws aren't defined in terms of this, and I suspect you won't be satisfied if I walk around in a transparent biohazard suit.

quote:

and there are concerns about public indecency


But the human body isn't in itself indecent. Also, you're not demonstrating a benefit to restrictions in the name of decency.

quote:

(how would public urination or masturbation laws hold up if public nudity is approved?).


If they're only contingent on decency, they should go.

Me, I would pin those two on littering, which is a matter of terms of use for shared ground. If we built it together, and use it together, we should maintain it together, and a part of that is to keep it clean together. I don't wank or urinate in the park, your kids don't drop their ice cream cones there, and people pick up whatever their dogs leave behind. That seems perfectly reasonable.

quote:

unfortunately, majority opinion prevails in situations like these. that's how democracy works.


Which is why, when a majority feels that blacks and women shouldn't vote, or that jews belong in a furnace, that carries the day.

quote:

as for me being a prude or being "intolerant", i think that's a matter of your perspective.


That's what I said.

The terms are used in a relative sense, most of the time.

In a relative sense, I'm more perverted than you, and you're more prudish than me.

If we want to use the terms in an absolute sense, we need to redefine them, in which case prudery might be redefined to mean having taboos about the human body and human sexuality that are superfluous, and I think we would both probably classify as prudes by that definition, as I have a couple of taboos that the TOS prohibit mentioning that are quite possibly superfluous (going by the evidence, but the evidence is scant).

quote:

there are plenty of ways to be body-positive without being nude in public.


And there are plenty of ways you could've been politics-positive, even politically active and concerned with women's issues, without actually having suffrage. But, really, no, if you take away the core right to live a certain way, then those that wish to do so aren't quite there yet. It doesn't suffice for it to be okay not to hide yourself on designated days. If you want to be able to be you, fully and openly, then you need to be free of persecution for expressing yourself, etc.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to absolutchocolat)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 5:54:45 PM   
kitkat105


Posts: 1690
Joined: 11/29/2011
From: Eating dutch crunch in the Silicon Valley
Status: offline
People in the City... are interesting.



_____________________________

"WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS!"

Odeen's spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down

Charter member: Lance's Fag Hags

Secretary - ProSubs"R"Us

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 11/15/2012 6:00:43 PM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

it demonstrably works well enough in any place that's warm enough for it.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Mark Twain's comment re this was that the coldest winter he ever spent was a summer in San Francisco. This isn't Key West and it isn't warm enough.

As far as pragmatic reasons not to, how about the fact that anyplace a naked person sits is likely to then be contaminated with e coli.

Do you want to sit on a seat on the bus or in a movie theater that someone else has spread bodily fluids and solids on? I don't.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.525