Religious Prudes Hostile Takeover Of San Francisco To Impose Religious Law.

Well what other way is there to view this? As some of you might know, I'm very conservative, but I break ranks when it comes to naturism vs the culture of body shame. Our family are avid naturists, part of naturist organizations, and run a clothing optional home. Moreover, we're well versed in the philosophy of naturism which balks at the idea that the human body is obscene.

And as many might know, up till now, San Francisco has been one of those sprite refuges where public naturism is not a cause for arrest. But the prudes have wrested control of the city and reinstituted the rule of religious law. Hyperbole, you say? What else fuels the agenda to make a shameful thing out of the most beautiful thing on this planet, the human body? As a Catholic I'm reminded of when the prudes stormed the Catholic Church and painted veils over all those naked people on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, an ageless testament to the brilliance of Michelangelo. The restored version that was finished in 1994 removed some of these veils. But this is redolant of a larger struggle between those of closed and illiberal minds and those who have found freedom and confidence in their humanity by embracing the naturist philosophy and lifestyle. So the intolerant San Francisco city council, the majority of which have clearly been planted there by religious churches and organizations, have struck a blow against the Skyclads and turned back the clock closer to the time when people were expected to show up to the beach in swimsuits that covered the whole body, arms and legs too. The Skyclads have staged a demonstration, fighting to restore freedom and tolerance in a city known for its progressive posture.

Time will tell if the imposition of religious law can be turned back again.

 

Lol! Yeah right, as if anything religious could "take over" San Francisco!

 

As a citizen of San Francisco- I am okay with reining in the nudity some.

Mind you- I don't object to nudity- but frankly it was time to rein it in some. We can still get nekid at Baker Beach, or during the Bay to Breakers, but maybe not waving in the wind at Castro and Market.

 

Michael, the requirement of wearing clothes dates back to Adam and Eve. Since you claim to follow the Bible you should know that.

 

As long as its not straight couples with children at odds with public nudity----its a credible endeaver to put a little regulation on it.

 

Straight couples with children have all left San Francisco because who in their right mind would raise a child in such a child-hostile city of perverts and homeless people?

 

And many in San Francisco would disagree with you. Be that as it may, the article says that "gay men" were at the heart of the move to ban public nudity. That's right. The very people that are the most tolerant of differences, least judgemental, and most celebrative of the unique eccentricities of San Francisco were the prudes asking for a ban.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Of course.

I think that those things that distinguish San Francisco as a city, and I've been to that city many times and LOVE IT, should be preserved. Why should San Francisco, the city where you can smoke weed in public and the cops turn a blind eye to it, make a move toward controlling government working for religious special interest groups?

 

Blackrook, nudity being a shameful thing was man's idea, not Gods. When Adam said, "We were afraid and hid ourselves because we were naked" God responded with a terse, "Who told you that you were naked?" And so began the oldest controversy in human history; how we see ourselves vs how God sees us. Being ashamed of nakedness derives from a fallen nature. The reason that small children don't have this shame is because they had yet to be taught to be ashamed. It's a learned behavior and reinforced by a society that works to hide from themselves. Enlisting the Bible to support prudish body shame philosophy is foolhardy at best....

God never had a problem with nakedness.

 

I have a problem with nakedness. If nakedness was limited to good-looking women between 18 and 21, then I'd be all for it. But most people should not be seen naked, and its very important to have laws protecting the rest of us from seeing them naked.

 

It's very important to YOU. And whatever imposition you think naked people are to you, you certainly are imposing your beliefs on them as well. Naturists have learned to find beauty in all of humanity, old, young, fat, thin, male, and female, to see what God sees when he looks at us, made in his image. What you're talking about when you say you just want to see young hard body women is pornography, and pornography is prudishness's scandelous black sheep cousin, because they both work from a perversion of the human body.

 

it's been said that once Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, they no longer wanted God watching them naked and covered up, God was pretty upset about that whole ordeal


.

 

So do you have doors on your bathrooms, or do you just admire each other in the act of TCB?

 

I'm not sure why you're going there. There's certain things that remain discretionary even in a clothing optional home. For instance, I don't have sex with my wife in front of the kids. There's no need to make something weird about this.

 

Were they required to wear clothes in that story? i thought they we ashamed for no explained reason for being naked and god made them some better clothes then their leaf outfits that he made out of animal skin

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,


“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

16 To the woman he said,


“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’


“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

20 Adam[c] named his wife Eve,[d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22

 

i don’t know about the street but i think business should decide on their own clothing policy’s

 

I don't look at pornography. The only person I ever see naked is my wife, and that's the way it should be.

 

You don't have to convince me that you're a religious prude. I got that message. But by your own admission, your wife is going to become less and less attractive to you as she ages. How sad.

 

By your own admission, you expose your private parts to your children. That's illegal.

 

but seeing someone naked is not always porn even enjoying the sight of a naked person may not be sexual is what he’s trying to say

though i disagree that porn is always perversion of the body as it comes in young old fat thin male and female and everything else as well

 

I'm just not understanding why the naked human body is nothing to be ashamed of until it is engaged in certain bodily functions.

Indeed there isn't, because this thread started out weird, thanks to you.

 

Modesty is a good thing. Making yourself the center of attention isn't that good unless a person is on stage or in front of a podium.

 

Wow! You went straight from 'the Bible demands clothing' to 'it's okay if the naked person in question is a hot chick'.

 

Well it looks like you're not a lawyer, so you make do with half assed guesses. Family naturism is not illegal and a lot of families practice it. Context is everything when it comes to the application of laws against lewd and lavicious behavior. Nudity by itself doesn't fit that standard. So you should quit while you're behind.

 

There was all kinds of room for compromise short of an all out ban. What happens in San Francisco is not naturism, strictly speaking. Naturists have a certain ethic to practice naturism in an environment of mutual acquiescence. We don't expose ourselves to non naturists or those who are uncomfortable with it. Naturist gatherings are on beaches, camps, or resorts designated for the practice of naturism. I agree with your idea of allowing private businesses to decide for themselves the level of clothing they require.

 

I find that modesty is more about the way one conducts themself than it is about the level of clothing.