Nude News Roundup

I should probably do this more often - I've only done it once before. But I get a newsletter in my email from ClothesFree.com every so often which is a roundup of news articles appearing across the internet with news involving nudity that could be of interest to nudists (which the site ClothesFree.com caters to). I guess it's just kinda fun to chime in on these topics and take a chance to address my opinion/reaction to these articles.

San Francisco Police Chief Spells Out Bay To Breakers Rules: ‘Nudity’s Not Okay’

This is a short article, so I don't know all the context, but this is pretty infuriating. When Scott Wiener (of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors) nuked the last standing public refuge for nudists in this country by ruining San Francisco's long-standing tradition of tolerance for public nudity (in certain areas), it was said that this would not affect special festivals, just everyday nudity. And here we have the police trying to crack down on public nudity in one of the most popular festivals in San Francisco where public nudity (see "Bare To Breakers") has been a tradition. I hope there's a mass protest and scores of naked people show up for the race. I would if I lived in San Francisco - I wish I did live there, so I could join the protest. The police chief's comment is pretty moronic (and confusing) though, because he refers to people who "might not have six packs" seemingly suggesting that they would frighten or traumatize "kids and families". Real paleolithic thinking there...

Stunning Nude Photo Series Will Make You Think Twice About The 'Ideal Body'

This is great, really. There should not be a single ideal, and people of different body types should be able to feel confident, and represented in the media. However, the article has a very obvious anti-skinny slant in its use of words like "skeletal" to describe mainstream models, and its references to "plastic surgery" and "eating disorders". I support acceptance of differing body types, but body acceptance entails acceptance of skinny bodies just as much as the more full-figured varieties. I'd like it if we could get rid of this idea that "fat acceptance" has to come at the cost of cutting down skinny people. No, that's not okay. The goal should not be to redirect the abuse in the opposite direction, but to stop the abuse altogether.

I Saw a Penis on Primetime UK Television. So What?

Lol, this kind of sounds like a line I remember Brian using on Family Guy. Not sure if it really counts as news. But then, I guess that's kind of the point. I think it's great that a TV program can show nudity honestly, without getting all in a huff about it. When the subject of nudity comes up, and you have to bend over backwards to avoid showing specific parts of the body, it just feels really fake and contrived. I can imagine the reaction that people living in this never-nude society for long enough would have if they visited a nudist resort - they'd be like, "oh my god, I've been looking at naked people on TV for years, but I never knew about those parts!"

Well, except for the fact that porn is so ubiquitous these days. I think it's unfortunate, though, that we associate honest nudity solely with pornography - and we really do. The solution is TV programs like this one, who are willing to show honest, unflinching nudity in a non-sexual context, wherever it comes up in the course of a show, and without shying away from it. Nudity is a natural part of life. Everybody gets naked to change their clothes sometimes. Everybody showers in the nude. (Well, barring an extremely neurotic minority). Let's get over it, already. Naked bodies are not some huge secret that nobody should be allowed to see!

"Advocates...believe nudity reflects a decline in standards...in society as a whole."

Typical conservative hogwash. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oh my god, people actually get naked on TV! Oh noes!!!1 Except the irony is that there is very little actual nudity on TV in America.

"...sex drives every atom of western culture in the modern world."

This is a separate issue (and it's a shame we have to bring it up in a discussion of non-sexual nudity), but so what? Sex is pervasive. Sex is ubiquitous. Sex is kind of a big deal. And that's the way it's supposed to be. It's only centuries of religious fundamentalists and moral conservatives preaching about the purity of our divine souls and how we have to reject the pleasures of the flesh to gain a seat in an imaginary heaven that have made sex this bad thing. That sex is more visible than ever now is not an indication that our civilization is in decline, but rather that we're becoming evolved. Unfortunately, though, I would argue that our attitudes toward sexuality are diseased. We don't need less sex. We just need a healthier relationship with sex. One that wouldn't encroach on the ability to display a human being's unclothed body without causing people to get in a fit because the only thing they can think about is sex (and gawd, how horrible that is!).

Stunning Nude Photos Explore The True Power Of Stereotypes And Labels

This is actually a very fascinating photo project. I wish I could do projects like this, that combine nude portraiture with some intriguing, thought-provoking, socially-conscious theme. I guess I do sometimes, with my own self-portraiture, but it'd be nice if I could find the opportunity to photograph other people nude.

But, to submit my own experience, I've been called a "slut" (lovingly), a "faggot" (not so lovingly), a "woman without breasts and with penis - small one" (by a person whose mind was even smaller), and a "guy/girl/thingy". I've also been called "beautiful" and "sexy" more times than I can count, and "smart" by people for as long as I can remember. My peers in school saw me as "quiet", and my asocial demeanor has sometimes led people to read me as "aloof". One of the things I get called a lot that delights me the most is "ladies" (usually when I'm out with my BFF), since it indicates that either a) I am passing, or b) the person speaking to me is open-minded enough to accept me as the gender I'm presenting as (either one works for me). I've also been called "butthead" a lot, mostly by my older brother, but the last time was probably about twenty years ago.

Woman naked for 50 years

Neat little human interest story. It's interesting to see how a very different culture reacts to someone who in this culture might have discovered they are a nudist. But without a "nudist community" to join, and other nudists to associate with, it's just this weird condition. On the other hand, social standards are so much different that she seems to have been able to get away with just simply not wearing clothes for such a long time, even about the village. Although, attitudes about her "condition" are not necessarily ideal, even in this culture. And for someone who hates wearing clothes, it's unfortunate that she still feels self-conscious around strangers.

But it's worthwhile to note that even she puts on clothes to climb trees (because they are scratchy), but then takes them off when she is done - which is to show that nudists are not pathological about never wearing clothes, and that clothes can be used as a tool to accomplish a job. But that for some people they're just not comfortable to wear for extended periods of time, and in most contexts, where they're really not that necessary. I can totally identify with the feeling of just not being comfortable in clothing sometimes, and I wish my community would accept me that way - at the very least in reasonable situations, like in the rain, or outdoors on super hot days, or at the pool...

We Tried It: NYC's Naked Yoga Class

This is actually a great little article about the experience of someone not accustomed to social nudity trying out a naked yoga class. And she discovers that the "elephant" in the room - the fact that everyone is naked - turns out to be smaller than a mouse, because it's really not that big of a deal. People who are used to this are not judgmental, and it's not a sexually charged atmosphere - it's just a regular yoga class where people get to practice in the nude.

Why avoiding sunshine could kill you [broken link]

Good advice, I guess, but it's presented rather sensationally. Not that news outlets don't do it that way as a rule, but I really don't think it's that healthy to exaggerate the facts in order to motivate somebody to do (or believe) something (especially when the facts are not actually all that well understood). And besides, while it's clear that sunshine is healthy (hello, we didn't evolve from cave trolls), this kind of advice might have the effect of under-representing the potential hazards of too much sun exposure (which is a concern I think that some nudists don't give proper weight to). Of course, it's pretty confusing when one research reports that too much skin exposure causes melanoma, and another indicates that staying out of the sun causes melanoma. What's a person to believe? At any rate, it makes sense that some sun exposure is probably healthy, and too much could plausibly be dangerous, so a smart plan would be to try to strike a balance and go for the middle-ground. Duh?

The naked and the living [broken link]

Another neat little story, about an artist working with nude life models. I found two things of particular interest in this short interview. One was how much people are socialized to react with outrage to the idea of doing anything related to nudity, but that when they really sit down to think about it, they realize they're actually interested.

"The response changed from incredulity to outrage to curiosity. ... The first person to agree was a writer in her 20s. At first, she was appalled with the suggestion and didn't even finish her coffee and left my apartment. But a few days later she called to say she was ready to pose."

Now if we could just get past the initial incredulity and outrage stage, and go straight to the curiosity. The other interesting tidbit is how the artist first got the idea to work with nude models while hanging out with friends in a clothing optional setting, but when he asked those friends to model for him, they got uncomfortable and refused.

Of course, there are all sorts of individual and cultural variations involved, but as gung ho as nudists are about hanging out in the all together, there's a certain subset of them who get totally antsy when it comes to making any kind of visual documentation of that hanging out. I know some nudists have to worry about how their friends, family, and coworkers would react if they "found out" about their hobby, and some of them are ultra paranoid about "what if somebody thinks sexy thoughts about me?" But really, nudism shouldn't be a secret - how is it ever going to gain wider acceptance if individual nudists insist on remaining invisible? And who gives a flying fuck if somebody sees your body and gets turned on? Big deal. Especially if you're not even in the same room (or hell, even country) when it happens...

Michigan Town Moves 'Blue Human Condition' Sculpture After Backlash

This is ridiculous, but not uncommon. Still, some people need to get a grip on reality. Yeah, I can see how the sculpture could be interpreted as being "sexually suggestive", but I doubt that's its intention, and it's not like it's explicit or anything. Do we really need to police society to the extent that we can't have anything in public that might carry the risk that it could make somebody think a sexual thought? So what if that does happen? This would be a scary move, but given how much sexual suggestion permeates the media anyway, it just seems stupid instead. And watch how the detractors play the "children" card. God forbid somebody's child should see a representation of human sexuality. Doomsday scenario right there, right? Sheesh...

Sodom & Gomorrah

One argument I've encountered against San Francisco's (formerly, regrettably) lax restrictions on public nudity, and its (threatened) cultural heritage of sexual liberation is the fear that it may become (or already be) a modern day Sodom or Gomorrah. I shall respond to that argument in this post.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the most infamous stories in the Bible, located in the book of Genesis. As the story goes, these cities were so wicked that God felt it necessary to utterly destroy them and all their inhabitants in a rain of fire and brimstone (classic Old Testament stuff, here).

All their inhabitants, I say - save the devout Lot, that is, who nevertheless offered up his own daughters' virginities to satiate the carnal hunger of an angry mob of Sodomites. Curiously, for all their wickedness, the mob didn't take the bait, preferring instead the angels disguised as men that Lot was harboring in his home.

After fleeing the city just moments before its destruction, Lot's wife was transformed into a pillar of salt for having the gall to look back and witness God executing his wrath on the hordes of unrepentant sinners (you know what they say about the cat and its curiosity).

Then, mistaking this act of divine vengeance for another apocalypse on the scale of Noah's Flood (apparently not being aware of God's covenant with Noah - symbolized by the rainbow - never to wipe out humanity on such a scale again), Lot's apparently not-too-bright daughters take it upon themselves to ply their father with wine until he passes out, so that they may "lie with him" in order to pass on his seed.

There's got to be some twisted moral in there about trying to control your daughter's sex life - if you value your daughter's virginity, offer it up for the taking. If she gives it to you, then it was yours all along. Actually, I include this part of the story because it makes for a deliciously perverted tale, and also because it places God's condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah on largely sexual grounds in a critical light.

There is not a lot of description about just what it is that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (and a few other nearby cities) were engaging in to warrant the brunt of God's wrath, but the two clearest interpretations involve inhospitality and homosexuality. As for the latter, we can see why the term "sodomy" has entered the popular lexicon as a euphemism for anal sex, or sometimes other 'perverted' sexual practices.

Obviously, if we interpret the Sodomites as truly wicked beings - ones that would willingly engage in the rape of nonconsenting individuals - then there's not much room for sympathy; this is exactly what people do who hold up Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of sexual perversion turned abhorrent.

But, it could also be interpreted as an example of a civilization engaged in alternative sexual mores, who are wrongfully punished by a judgmental and vindictive higher power. This is my preferred interpretation, loose though it may be, as it most properly parallels the way that religious conservatives disparage the freedom of citizens to engage in sexual practices that they don't personally condone.

This is, in fact, the perfect context within which to throw around the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah - cities which were actively condemned to destruction by God - to illustrate the perceived danger that sexual licentiousness will inevitably lead to not just sinful but criminal and abhorrent practices that must be stopped before it goes too far.

And this is, indeed, the exact context within which the example of Sodom and Gomorrah is raised in comparison to the sexual liberties that are practiced (or were, until just recently) in San Francisco. Acceptance of homosexuality? Naked people gathering in city parks? Street festivals celebrating sexual fetishism?

Surely, to a sexual conservative, this all must sound pretty frightening. Gay men in leather with their genitals exposed whipping each other while jacking off out on the streets!? Heavens! If God won't strike this city down himself, then we must act in accordance with his divine will, as set out by precedent in the Book of Genesis!

But the truth is, these are just people proudly celebrating their sexual identity. They are not raping innocent bystanders, nor are they particularly unwelcome to tourists and strangers. If they were engaging in actual criminal behavior, then neither the city board nor the neighborhoods would tolerate their festivities.

And if they were, that would be a matter for the police, to serve and protect the public in the course of upholding the laws (against ethically-based crimes like rape) that are already on the books. That this community permits public activities that other communities may deem 'morally hazardous' is irrelevant.

Who does it harm to let them celebrate? If you are offended by it, you are welcome to steer clear. If you think it pollutes the purity of the human soul, then that's your belief, and you're entitled to live your own life in accordance with it, but it is not your responsibility (nor your right) to impose those beliefs on the lives of others, like some classical missionary.

After all, doing so would violate the principles upon which a fair and just society is constructed, which is exactly what the concept of a single righteous God attempts to accomplish. Who is to say that your God is superior to any others, when you don't have any proof whatsoever (other than blind, empty faith - which your opponents may also have, by the way)?

The founders of American democracy understood this, as can be interpreted from their inclusion of the principle of free exercise of religion in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and what is sexual morality if not an establishment of religious beliefs about purity and carnal hunger?

As a free and enlightened society, it may be our duty, by some perspectives, to prevail upon other establishments of civilization that are not so humanistically enlightened as us. But, in the process of doing so, we must be extremely careful not to presuppose the supremacy of our own moral standards over others.

Thus, if there is a situation in which someone is in need of assistance to combat an abuse of power that violates the fundamental rights of the individual, it is a just and honorable act to step in and offer a hand. But this is not the same as forcing heathens to adopt alternative standards of morality against their will.

If, for example, a group of citizens desires to establish a community (within our jurisdiction or without) that is characterized by beliefs and behaviors that some other group deem morally contentious, there is no justice in oppressing that group and denying its freedoms, for the sake of normalizing the standards of the country or the world.

Now if, by chance, some member of that community expresses distress for one reason or another, then it is justified to examine the circumstances and determine whether the group actually is engaged in criminal acts. (Which, incidentally, may well have been the purpose of the investigating angels who were visiting Lot in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Alas, their suspicions were realized.)

But so long as the people involved in any questionable practices are consenting to do so, then we have absolutely no right to intervene. Even if, perhaps, we think they are harming themselves, for ultimately, it is their choice what to do with their minds and bodies, just as it is every individual's choice whether or not to "sin". After all, even by religious arguments, it is not man's duty to pass judgment, but God's.

If we think they are being criminally misinformed ("brainwashed" in cult language), then it is prudent for us to attempt to better educate them. And if they are in danger of severe and irreparable harm, then it is only natural to expect some sort of explanation for why they are doing this. But so long as those activities are conducted only upon those who have given their express consent, then the ultimate choice is theirs.

But San Francisco is no secretive cult, and even the consensual BDSM practices you might witness during the Folsom Street Fair are becoming mainstream, thanks to the recent popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey. When people complain about the sexual liberties in San Francisco, it's never about acts that are legitimately crimes - like people being raped, robbed, and attacked.

No, it's always framed in terms of decency and perversion. I think those prudes are terrified - that in any place in this country, perverts might have the courage to take to the streets in broad daylight. Well, if you ask me, I think we're due for another sexual revolution.

San Francisco Proposes Ban on Public Nudity

"while the Castro’s reputation for promoting free expression is part of the neighborhood’s character, some nudists have taken matters too far."
- sfexaminer.com [broken link]

Here's what I have to say about the people who are upset about having to encounter naked people in (a very localized part of) San Francisco. Like it or loathe it, public nudity is part of San Francisco's heritage. If you're not used to it by now, maybe you're living in the wrong city. Why push through legislation to normalize San Francisco, making it conform to the cultural standards of other cities?

Consider this: if you're uncomfortable seeing naked people on public streets on a regular basis, you have MILLIONS of other cities in the world to choose from! The fact that this is becoming an issue demonstrates that there is a demand for cities with relaxed public nudity regulations. What about the people who want to go nude? Far from forcing their strange and offensive lifestyle on others, they have nowhere else to go to lead the life they want to live.

Do these people deserve to be marginalized out of existence? Nudist resorts/beaches are nice places to visit, but for people who are into the nudist lifestyle, they're not enough. Entrance fees (not to mention membership dues) add up over time, and many people have to go out of their way to get there. For those of us - though a minority we may be - who want to live where reasonable nudity is a protected right and not a marginalized privilege, there are very few places in the world we can go. San Francisco is, to go by its reputation, one of the best places in this country for that - and even there, it's far from a nudist paradise.

And you're going to take that away from us? You're going to force San Francisco to be like every other city in the nation - just about every city in the world! - and leave us one less place (indeed, perhaps no other place) to go, to live the way we want to? I think that in the interest of freedom and choice, at least one large city in this country ought to be welcoming to nudists, and it seems very likely that San Francisco is the best bet. Why would you ruin that by cracking down on public nudity when there are already countless other cities that do that already? What alternative are you prepared to give us instead?

I believe that if you can't handle public nudity, then you ought to stay away from San Francisco. Either get used to it, or get out. And that's not me being rude - that's me returning the sentiment that people like you have been giving people like me all over the country on truly countless occasions. I'm not asking the whole world to adopt my stance on public nudity - the way you're asking the whole world to adopt your stance against it, by stamping it out wherever it crops up - I'm merely asking you to give us at least one city! Is that really too much to ask?

Public Nudity in the News

According to a recent news article, there is currently some debate over the status of public nudity in San Francisco - specifically in the neighborhood known as the Castro. They are discussing drafting a new law requiring nudists to put a towel down on seats before sitting down, and to put some clothes on before entering restaurants. While the issue stirs up the usual intolerant attitudes about public nudity, it's kind of exciting to hear that the city actually recognizes a person's right to be nude in public - even if it does so reluctantly, and potentially only in this specific location.

But about those intolerant attitudes...

"They are unabashed in their brazenness, setting off a robust debate about how far San Francisco's legendary penchant for tolerance should be stretched."

I hate this sort of thinking. The idea that public nudity stretches the boundaries of reasonable tolerance. Oh lordy, lordy, of all things, we cannot allow naked people to roam our streets! There are much harder things to tolerate. Drugs, prostitution, hate groups picketing in the streets. In what twisted world view is public nudity a cardinal sin? The only thing offensive about naked people in public is that we're conditioned to view the naked body as disgusting (except when it's sexy). But the naked body is natural, and our aversion to it is what is sick. Luckily, there's a cure: exposure.

"the city's elected leaders have largely stayed out of the debate over public nudity, not wanting to run counter to San Francisco's storied reputation as an anything-goes culture where individual rights and freedom of expression are embraced."

This is just an extension of those beliefs. I'm bothered by the idea that embracing individual rights and freedoms is tied to this notion that "anything-goes". People seem inclined to believe that if we give people one freedom (that they deserve), then they will go off and take every liberty they want. If we let people roam the streets naked, they're not going to initiate public orgies. And if we celebrate people's freedom to roam the streets naked, we don't have to also celebrate their right to initiate public orgies (a right they haven't been given, whether you think they deserve it or not).

This sort of "anything-goes" language is just a form of scare-mongering that conservative-minded folk use to scare us out of giving people any more freedoms than they already have - not just the freedoms that would be detrimental to civilized society (which they cite to prop up their argument), but also the freedoms they deserve, that would contribute to a more civilized society. Make no mistake, this is exactly the same kind of thinking that conceptualizes gay pride as a threat to the social order, and evidence of the decline of modern civilization.

"'I'm all for live and let live, but this has gotten out of hand,' said Jonathan Mills, who lives in the Castro and has complained to police about the naked guys. 'This is not hip or cool or an asset to San Francisco. These people make other people avoid our neighborhood at a time when it is struggling.'"

Actually, nudism is totally hip and cool - or, it could be, if it weren't for its image being represented by old, lumpy people.

What's more, if you actually advertised the city's tolerance for public nudity, you would get tons of tourists. Imagine the boost to your neighborhood's economy! But you resist this simple solution because either a) you think the shape God created us in is ugly, or b) you have unfounded fears about people having sex in public or something similar. I get that you don't want people having sex on the streets (although I don't understand why that's a problem), but what about that leads you to the conclusion that people shouldn't be naked on the streets either? Are you really equating nudity with sexual activity? I hear about that a lot, but I didn't think anyone was ignorant enough to actually make that mistake.

"Karla Zeitz, who lives in the neighborhood with her children, ages 4 and 5, said she usually avoids the areas where the naked guys congregate. Still, she moved into the Castro knowing it was not Kansas. 'Frankly I'm more disturbed by the meth heads, the drugs and the panhandling than I am by seeing a couple of naked guys,' she said."

Finally, some sense. A couple naked guys (and I wish it weren't restricted only to guys) in the streets is not a serious problem.

But if there is any good in this article, it's that having a law requiring nudists to put a towel down before they sit down, and to dress before entering restaurants, implies pretty directly that it is not against the law to be nude outside, as long as you put a towel down before you sit down (which is pretty standard nudist practice, in my experience).

I'm wondering if there's any affordable property up for sale in that neighborhood. ;-)

Interestingly, the poll attached to the news article, which asks your opinion of what should be done about public nudity in San Francisco, doesn't offer the option, "legalize it explicitly". The most positive choice is to "keep tacitly allowing it". I don't want it to be allowed tacitly. I want it to be allowed EXPLICITLY!

In other news, a body painting artist working in Times Square is advised by police to cover up his topless model. This story caught my attention because, to my understanding, women are allowed to go topless in public in New York City. But apparently, the reason the model was asked to cover up is because she was creating a commotion, and the authorities wanted to nip it in the bud before it "got out of hand".

I wonder, how exactly would it have gotten out of hand? Were they expecting some kind of orgy to break out? Or were they afraid people in the crowd would get into fights for some reason? I don't understand. Unless it's simply a matter of crowding - you know, causing a traffic hazard or something.

But we hide nudity under our clothes, and in seedy strip clubs behind velvet curtains; if you put a nude right out there on the street, of course people are going to be intrigued and want to look. My question is this: if there were more nudes in public, would it be a problem? Would people be as shocked if they'd seen half a dozen nudes on their walk already? Would they stop and crowd around if they knew they would encounter a dozen more nudes if only they would keep on their way?

It bugs me that if a woman takes her top off in public, we, as respectable citizens, can't "handle" it properly. What's more, it's pretty offensive to suggest that a woman's topfreedom can be rescinded if enough men take a prurient (or any) interest in her breasts. I guess men and women aren't equal after all. But I think the solution is not covering the nudity up. The solution is exposing more of it. It's the only way to get over the titillation factor of nudity, on account of it being rare and exciting.

P.S. I just came across a blog written by a guy who lives in the Castro district, who is regularly nude in public. It is fascinating to hear about his experiences, and the kind of reactions he gets from people - some positive, many negative. I suggest you start here [NSFW], where he describes how the neighborhood has changed over the years, and has succumbed to mainstream conformism. But be sure to check out the rest of the blog, too.

The Freedom of Diversity

It occurs to me, that in the spirit of freedom that these United States of America were built on, and the celebrated diversity that makes up our constitution (lowercase "c") as a nation, there should be at least one city in this country that permits reasonable nudity in public. And by reasonable I don't mean everybody goes naked all the time. I don't mean that all the business establishments have to serve naked people (or employ naked people). I mean that if somebody decides to walk down the middle of main street, in the center of downtown, completely bare-ass naked, that this particular city would defend that. People might look, even stare, some might like it, and others might not - but the bottom line is that the local police would defend that person's right to be naked on communal public property, and the majority of the people living there would be of an understanding that that's the way that city was, and would tolerate it if not enthusiastically support it. The people who really didn't like it would move elsewhere. You would think, as free and as diverse as this country is, there'd be at least one medium to large sized city located somewhere between the shining seas, where this kind of thing was accepted.

[description: a naked woman crossing a busy street downtown]
This kind of thing.

I say this because, jealous of the naked people that turn up in pictures and videos of various events (particularly the Bay To Breakers race) in San Francisco, I've tried to find out what kind of rules there are about public nudity in downtown SF - which, of all places, you would think would be the one major city where this might fly - and results are inconclusive, but not entirely encouraging. I've heard anything from, "there's no law against public nudity", to, "it's just like anyplace else", and I'm not quite sure what's correct.* But in most places, there doesn't have to be a specific law against public nudity; it's a sort of unspoken community standard - that people don't go naked in public - which is covered under other vague laws like "indecent exposure" or "public lewdness". SF may be more lenient/forgiving/accepting of public nudity than other places (maybe - and I doubt the city council would want to promote that image), but as long as it's not strictly protected, there's always that risk. That knowledge that you can try to get away with it, but if you're caught, you have noone to blame but yourself.

[description: a naked woman walking in a park with traffic and city buildings in the background]
Lewd? Indecent? Or decent and proper?

And some people like the risk - let them have it. But my point is that there should be at least one place where that risk is absent. At least one place where the community standards include public nudity. Of all the people in this country, of all the settlements we've settled, there should be at least one for people who like to go naked in public. I've heard of a naked city in France, but even worldwide, places like that are rare. Most of the best places do not explicitly defend nudity, but merely tacitly tolerate it. There are, of course, isolated resorts and beaches all over the world where this kind of thing is celebrated - but a resort is a resort. A beach is a beach. (And with all due respect to the nudist community, they are far too uptight about photography in this nation). You'd think there'd be at least one city - and again, I'm not saying everybody would be nude all the time, they would just not consider the people who are naked to be out of the ordinary. At least one place. Just one. Is that asking too much? Am I dreaming?

[description: a naked woman browsing the wares on a table outside a city storefront]
A place where this would not raise alarms.

Of course, you could argue, that a city like that would attract all sorts of freaks and weirdos. But unless they're hurting people, so what? The existence of a city like this would not be a demonstration that the world has gone down the moral shithole. People walking around naked in public is not comparable to a city of sin where sadomasochistic strangers rape each other all day long, everywhere you go. Would you argue that mankind does not have the ability to endure the sight of naked flesh without transforming into unthinking predators with an insatiable physical hunger?

[description: a naked woman lying on a park bench, beside a trash receptacle]
If this sight gives you an uncontrollable urge to rape, you need serious help.
(Being turned on, on the other hand, is not a public health crisis)

Even though naked people do tend to gather a lot of attention (either of the negative kind, or - if they're attractive - of the positive kind), this would lessen if it became more of a normal occurrence. Wouldn't you be less distracted by naked people if you could see them at anytime - if it wasn't a rare opportunity to make the most of? And the people who would complain about being desensitized to nudity - they would either find their predictions proven wrong, or otherwise, they could live somewhere else where nudity is not tolerated in public. The bottom line is diversity - freedom of choice. Maybe there are people out there who couldn't handle living in a public nudity-tolerant city without losing their civility, but why should that fact prevent the ones who are from indulging in it? We can't let the bad seeds ruin it for the rest of us.

All photos by nudeinsf.com [NSFW]. I would have loved to have illustrated this post with my own photography, but I am not much of a risk-taker. You can blame society's intolerance of public nudity.

* If anyone reading this happens to live or has spent some time in San Francisco, I would appreciate your insider's insight on how public nudity is dealt with in the city.