San Francisco, Our Opinion

This appeared here on our site back on November 24 of 2012.
Time to bring it back to the front, partly as a reminder that we do have some things in our archives that would benefit us all, or at least stir opinions. You can search our archives in our “Older Thoughts Past Ponderings” selections at the bottom right of our pages.


So, it’s 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 that’s hardly progress. It’s 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 it’s “their right” and “it’s 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 isn’t explicitly illegal, doesn’t mean you should do it.

These people, in this writer’s 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 they’ve 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, it’s obvious to this writer that the law is not an adverse reaction to nudists or nudity. It’s 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 don’t need you. We don’t 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, exists to hopefully dispel some of the misinformation about nudists and nudism. As such you won’t 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. It’s sex. Nudism isn’t sex, but the non-nudist general public doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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.
This entry was posted in Editorial Comment, Informative, Site Buzz. Bookmark the permalink.