Naked muchachos in San Francisco – Page 2


Naked muchachos in San Francisco – Page 1 here…

Update to this article:
El 7 de febrero de 2013. Hola. At least at this time, the city-wide San Francisco Nudity Ban is being enforced, I think. I’ve not seen any naked muchachos lately although it has been rather cold out. “what is is” of the pink barrio saw a muchacho yesterday in the Warner Plaza wearing a “nude” outfit/costume. He looked nude from a distance until you got up close to him and saw that he actually wasn’t nude. It was his costume. He was “fucking with the cops” by wearing this costume. That’s very good. Muy bien. There was a street cop approaching and the muchacho took off on his roller skates before the cop got there. I’d like to also point out that in the Warner Plaza there is a ban/law against smoking, but people smoke there. That law is not enforced. Isn’t it good that the smoking ban is not enforced but the nudity ban is enforced (at least at this time). Because we all know that nudity kills but second-hand smoke doesn’t. (sarcasm intended). Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article:
El 1 de febrero de 2013. Hola. The city-wide San Francisco Nudity Ban went into effect today and as expected (by me) it was enforced by la policía. I think it’s wonderful there were no crimes taking place anywhere in the city so la policía had the luxury and financial resources of enforcing this insane nudity ban at a protest against it at City Hall. A video of the protest is immediately below. If this were the San Francisco of the past (and for which we have an international reputation for being) there would have been thousands and thousands of protesters today. Instead, there were….well, you’ll see in the video. That’s what this city has really become. San Francisco once had a reputation for protests. That’s now a thing of the past, unfortunately. That’s partly because there is a muchacho pretending to be a “Democrat” in La Casa Blanca and of course the mentality of the partisans is, “you can’t protest your own team” (which is a pathetic way of thinking). As I’ve said before, Democrats stand for nothing but party allegiance. Republicans (whom I can’t stand) at least seem to stand for “principles.” Here’s the video:

Update to this article:
El 31 de enero de 2013. Hola. Several things going on. There was a nude-in in the Jane Warner Plaza in the Castro this afternoon. From a distance, I saw 3 muchachos with their shirts off—it was warmer today—and then I saw maybe 4 naked muchachos. There may have been more. That’s very good! Muy bien. I assumed they were enjoying the final day before the city-wide nudity ban goes into effect, not that they won’t be there tomorrow nude regardless of some silly and ridiculous ban. There was a protest against the nudity ban at San Francisco City Hall yesterday. It was covered locally by Telemundo. Members of PETA were protesting the nudity ban today at City Hall. Some nudists say they are going to test this nudity ban bull shit tomorrow (the day it’s supposed to be enforced) to see if it is enforced. And one of the nudists is announcing his candidacy for supervisor to run against the corporatist conservative politician (who shall remain nameless) who dreamed up this prudish, Victorian nudity ban nonsense to begin with (to pacify his conservative/right-wing supporters and for his long-term politician agenda). This piece of work politician is up for re-election in 2 years. You can read details about all of this here. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article:
El 29 de enero de 2013. Hola. Malas noticias/Some bad news. Today, in the Estados Unidos/U.S., a federal judge upheld San Francisco’s reactionary and divisive city-wide nudity ban. I had expected this would be the case because it’s extremely rare for something to go in the correct direction (as far as I’m concerned) these days. Most things these days seem to move to the “right” (or backwards in the direction towards the Dark Ages). And as expected the right-wing/conservatives are delighted to have another victory here in San Francisco as the City moves to the right (although the conservatives of course deny that is the case to continue to hide their agenda). Will the few naked muchachos in the Castro disappear? I suspect not. I suspect nothing may change if this city-wide ban goes the same way as other useless bans in this City. Many laws/bans here are ignored and they were nothing but feel-good, right-wing/funded-by-the-wealthy reactionary bans at the time they were put in place. Some bicycle cops have been stationed in the Jane Warner Plaza in the Castro recently. They may or may not give citations to any nudists who show up. After the ban goes into effect, all any nudist has to do is to quickly put on some shorts when any la policía are seen from a distance, then the nudist is no longer nude. One rabid troll on a site I was on earlier today was hiding behind their computer keyboard and making Bully-type threats saying that “people would take matters into their own hands” if the cops didn’t cite the naked muchachos. “Enough is enough,” the person screamed. (Get a Grip.) Yes, I’ve read such bile before from the right-wing and it’s just empty words and of course no sane person would do as they wrote! That’s the talk from some deranged nut sitting anonymously behind a keyboard making empty threats, I think. Also, there’s currently a no-smoking ban in the Warner Plaza but that ban is ignored as people smoke there and around there. They may enforce the nudity ban and not the no-smoking ban because we all know that nudity kills and secondhand smoke doesn’t. Correct? (Sarcasm intended). On another local website which pretends to be “progressive,” (they’re not…they are party-line pro-Establishment Democrats) they have now featured a 7-page article (it’s really a promotional ad) for the conservative supervisor who came up with this San Francisco nudity ban nonsense. I read a couple of paragraphs of the article/ad but had to click off. It was too much for me. I no longer have any respect for that site and I only go there occasionally to see headlines of local noticias/news that I might not have seen somewhere else. But writing a 7-page promotional article/ad about one conservative, corporatist politician with a faux D behind his name—whom that publication seems to fall for to a degree just like they fall for their Obama—seems a bit much to me. I’m sure that conservative supervisor will love/appreciate the attention, since that muchacho craves attention. That’s the latest on the city-wide San Francisco nudity ban. I guess it goes into effect on el 1 de febrero de 2013, if any of the naked muchachos intend to honour it. The naked muchachos could just put on bikini underwear and go about being their usual selves. But then the right-wing/conservatives—still not being satisfied—will have to come up with another ban: “NO SHORTS AND NO BARE CHESTS ALLOWED IN THE CASTRO OR IN SAN FRANCISCO.” No one allowed to wear shorts, and shirts are required. (You think it can’t happen at the rate things are going?) The city-wide nudity ban may be enforced initially by la policía, but like many other bans here, it might just sort of fade away. We’ll see. If I see any naked muchachos after the ban goes into effect, I’ll update here. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article:
El 27 de enero de 2013. Hola. Just a short update. A local (San Francisco) queer activist—and who has spoken in support of the naked muchachos/nudists—is in legal trouble because of a photograph he took in a San Francisco City Hall public bathroom. You can read more about it here. Also, here is the latest court document on the challenge to the San Francisco Nudity Ban ordinance. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article.
El 19 de enero de 2012. Hola. I just spoke with “what is is” of the pink barrio and he had just been in the Castro. It’s Sábado/Saturday afternoon. I asked him, “how was the Castro by percentage.” He knew what I meant by that. He said, “mostly straight.” I said: you mean the “straight” couples holding hands (which seems to be a requirement for them)? He said, “yes.” I’ve noticed for some time that the weekends are especially “straight” in the Castro. It’s warmer today and there were about 6 naked muchachos/guys in the Warner Plaza and in general there were mostly muchachos hanging out in the Warner Plaza, which is often the case. I asked: Was anyone hating on the naked muchachos? He said, “not that I saw.” Regarding the ridiculous city-wide nudity ban, I have a feeling that if it goes into effect, it will be ignored by the nudists (just like other reactionary, regressive, feel-good bans are fortunately ignored). And of course la policía will have nothing better to do with their time than to race over to the Castro to write nudist tickets after some busy-body prude whines about the nudists. Loco. If the ban goes into effect that will take place on el 1 de febrero de 2013. La abogada (the attorney) for the nudist has stated in her court documents that the City is trying to enforce the ban before that date. You can read about that in “Section H” of this legal document. La abogada for the nudists seems to be very thorough. “what is is” saw no policía in the area. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article. El 11 de enero de 2012. Hola. The legal action against the San Francisco nudity ban has begun. This past Martes/Tuesday, it was somewhat warmer out in San Francisco and there were 2-3 naked muchachos in the Warner Plaza in the middle part of the afternoon. Yesterday, there was one naked muchacho walking down Market Street towards Church. I was glad to see him. And then yesterday, I saw one of the usual naked muchachos in el barrio, but he was wearing clothes, unfortunately. It was rather cold out. He was just standing clothed listening to a live music performance in the Harvey Milk Plaza. I thought to myself how fucked up things are: This muchacho is not hated on if he has fabric (clothes) on him. But the moment he takes off the fabric—even though he’s the same person—then the hate begins from those who have a problem seeing a naked muchacho. Loco. What fucked up people! Of course during the most heated part of this naked muchachos issue, the haters claimed that these naked muchachos did not or don’t live in el barrio (as if that was supposed to make a difference). I still see most of the naked muchachos these days but they are wearing clothes because it’s colder now. So it’s quite clear to me at least that most (or all of them) do live in el barrio. But the haters claimed that the naked muchachos drove to the Castro to be naked and parked in el barrio. Even if that were the case, there’s no law against that YET. I guess that’s another useless ban that the haters want imposed. Maybe that will be the next thing to be addressed with some useless ban: One cannot go from one barrio to another barrio during the day. You must stay where you live. And you can’t work in another barrio either. And you must show your papers to prove that you are from that barrio. That wouldn’t surprise me at all considering the direction things are going in los Estados Unidos/the U.S. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article. El 9 de diciembre de 2012. Hola. I was talking with “what is is” of the pink barrio earlier today and he had just been in the Castro district of San Francisco. He said it was “straight day,” in the Castro barrio which seems to be the way Saturdays and Sundays especially are now in the Castro. He said that the usual “straight” drinking crowd was there. All he heard while in the Castro was people talking about the last party they had been to and how drunk they got, and about the next party they’re going to. Partying is all that anyone talks about it seems in the Castro (aside for the hating on the occasional 1-2 naked guys). There was one naked guy in the Warner Plaza at that time and he was unfortunately getting nothing but sneers, jeers and nasty looks from the “straights” and the queers in the area. And one local GLBTQueer publication has the gall/nerve to talk about how “tolerant” the Castro is (yeah sure it is!…continue to live in your Denial, and it should be pointed out that that publication endorsed the city-wide nudity ban while spewing the “tolerant” newspeak…oh the hypocrisy of that conservative, pro-Establishment publication). “what is is” said that he heard some of the “straights” and queers say, “I thought they banned that,” (referring to the one naked guy in the Plaza). Sigh. Do some people ever read anything more than a headline? Apparently not, otherwise the willfully-ignorant would know that the city-wide nudity ban doesn’t go into effect until febrero/February 2013 and that’s dependent upon the effect of the legal case against it. But I guess that when one’s life is obsessed with nonstop partying one can’t be bothered with the details of the nudity ban. As “what is is” said, if the so-called “gay community” of just 10 years ago were to see what the Castro has become today, they would not recognize the place. I agree and added: It’s nothing like it was when I moved here in the late 1970. That Castro of the “Gay Mecca” is gone. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article. El 8 de diciembre de 2012. Hola. FYI:
Protest Posters Comparing Dan White and that conservative politician for the Castro district Irk San Francisco City Officials.
Note: I have removed that current supervisor’s name from the following quoted text as that name will not appear on this website (out of respect for our site), but I especially like what la Abogada/Attorney Christina DiEdoardo said: “The signs accurately stated quotes from both former Supervisor Dan White and [current supervisor name] regarding their agreement about how free expression such as nudity needed to be suppressed. The flame of the First Amendment–and liberty more generally–will only burn as long as there are brave San Franciscans like Mr. Hightower who are willing to tend and build it through the kindle of public debate like this. If [current supervisor's name] can’t stand the heat of being held accountable for his ongoing efforts to restrict the freedom and civil rights of San Franciscans, he should change his behavior or get out of the supervisorial kitchen….If we have learned nothing else from a panoply of Republican sex scandals through the years, it is that politicians with a secret to keep frequently come down the hardest on those who openly embrace behaviors they abhor. [Current supervisor's name] may be ‘out of the closet’ (ed: barely), but in my view he remains dangerous to freedom for residents of the Castro and of San Francisco more generally based on his belief that he has the right to ban behavior protected by both the federal and state constitutions because he personally finds it ‘inappropriate’.” Absolutely and Muchísimas Gracias, Dra DiEdoardo. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article. El 6 de diciembre de 2012. Hola. Someone asked a question at the bottom of this page and I thought I’d put their question up here: “What do you think will be the outcome of the court action against the nudity ban?” My answer: Unfortunately, I think the ban will go into effect and this is no reflection on la abogoda (Dra Christina DiEdoardo) representing the nudists. I have little confidence in our INjustice system here in the Estados Unidos. I expect “The System”/the judge in the case to maintain the city-wide nudity ban status-quo because this country (the Estados Unidos/U.S.) and this City can’t seem to move to the right fast enough. Maybe I’ll be surprised (by the ban being overturned), but I doubt it. Gracias. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article. El 4 de diciembre de 2012.
The corporatist San Francisco Board of Supervisors today had their final vote in favour of the city-wide nudity ban. Not surprising. Some people were hoping that the Board president who shall remain nameless would change his vote (he was the deciding vote) since he’s often been labeled a “progressive.” Ha! I’ve never seen him as such, but some gullible people have. And as I have said before, these political labels (i.e. liberal, progressive, Democrat, middle-left, etc) have become meaningless. He’s an opportunist with other ambitions and in my opinion that was reflected in his vote in favour of the nudity ban. I’m assuming that the legal challenge begins immediately and you can read about that in the update below dated el 26 de Noviembre de 2012. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article. El 26 de noviembre de 2012.
Hola. Regarding the city-wide nudity ban in San Francisco: La Abogada, Dra Christina DiEdoardo, is the attorney for the nudists. She has a document repository on her website: Hightower v. City of S.F. (Challenge to Nudity Ordinance). You can view all of the court documents that are a matter of public record pertaining to the nudity ban case at that link and you can also make a donation, if you’re able to at this link: Raising funds to offset the legal expenses to fight the San Francisco public nudity ban.. From my understanding, Dra DiEdoardo has taken this case on a pro bono público basis (reduced-fee). Her plaintiffs could use some help paying the legal expenses. Chau.—rosa barrio
Related: nude-in.blogspot.com

Update to this article. El 24 de noviembre de 2012.

Hola. I was in the Castro this afternoon. It was rather busy with people, babies in strollers and dog walkers (many of them busy with their gadget addiction and staring at their screens and oblivious that anyone else was on the sidewalk with them). I was pleased to see three naked muchachos playing accordions and singing on the south side east corner of 18th Street/Castro near that totalitarian merchants’ group’s gaudy holiday tree and right below the group’s advertizement sign (this useless, conservative merchants’ group is for the city-wide nudity ban). The three muchachos were singing, “Open your mind and your ass will follow.” There’s a lot of truth in that. A very appropriate song for the neighbourhood. I watched people’s facial expressions as I stood there listening to their singing. If I didn’t know where I was, I would have thought I was in a “fly-over” state. Most of the facial expressions from people I would expect to see in Oklahoma or Topeka, Kansas. Not in San Francisco. Some people (probably about 10 people at the most) smiled in approval of the 3 naked guys, but most showed disapproval by their stone-cold or glaring facial expressions. I didn’t hear any hate, but hate was written on many people’s faces by their expressions. I thought to myself while standing there: This place is more conservative than I thought it was and the queers are just as conservative/prudish as the “straights” are acting. Is there something in the water? We have a lot of fucked-up people in our society with body-image issues. This barrio is nothing like the Castro I moved to in the late 1970s. I would never have seen such prudish/stone-cold faces and facial responses to these three naked guys in the former “Gay Mecca.” The Castro is nothing like it was. That’s what I concluded. I’ve not said this before, but many of the locals have aged and chosen to be “old,” (regardless of their chronological age) and with that often comes prudish-conservative-right-wing thinking in many people, unfortunately. I’ve known some local residents where that is the case, which left me asking: What happened to him/her? S/he has done a “180″ politically. I suspect these three naked muchachos (whom I’ve not seen before; these are new naked muchachos) were protesting the city-wide nudity ban which I don’t think is in effect yet since the final vote is supposedly this coming week and then there’s the legal action against it which presumably begins immediately. I suppose some of the local prudes got on their mobile phones to call the policía after I left. I’m glad these naked muchachos were there. They were very friendly and seemed to be ignoring what I unfortunately observed from many of the locals. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article. El 22 de Noviembre de 2012.
Hola. This past Martes/Tuesday (el 20 de Noviembre de 2012) by a 6-5 vote the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted in favour of banning public nudity city-wide in a preliminary vote. Muchísimas gracias to the 5 supervisors on the Board who voted against this reactionary and divisive ban and displayed sanity. There’s a final vote on this nonsensical ban next week (I suspect a repeat of 6-5, and then it goes on to be signed by this conservative alcalde/mayor). I’m not sure what’s going on with the legal challenge (the Brief has already been filed for 5 of the nudists by their abogada/lawyer). I suspect the legal challenge becomes effective upon the final vote next week. I was in the Castro district (the area where the few naked muchachos hung out on occasion, but not lately) following this vote and heard no one talking about it at all. Nada. The way this issue has been hyped, exaggerated and blown way out of proportion by the right-wing, the corporate media, many of the conservative businesses and their opportunistic/divisive conservative supervisor, one would have thought that talk about this Board vote would have been all one would have heard in the barrio afterwards. But no. I saw no media vehicles in the barrio, which are usually stationed (lined up with one media van behind the other) at Castro/Market with cameras and production gear/people for something involving the Castro and something like this to get “people’s reactions.” But considering what the Castro has become and is becoming (which I talk about extensively in this article: San Francisco’s Fading Gay Mecca), I guess the media thought it was a waste of their time and dinero/$$ to even bother going there! One gets that impression by their absence. Chau.—rosa barrio

Update to this article. El 9 de Noviembre de 2012. Hola. A ban on public nudity in San Francisco has been proposed by the conservative gay supervisor for the district of San Francisco which includes the Castro. The Board of Supervisors’ City Operations and Neighborhood Services committee voted 3-0 in favour of the public nudity ban and to send the ordinance to the full Board for a vote. The city-wide nudity ban legislation goes to the full Board for a vote around 20 de Noviembre, I believe. One of the conservative supervisors on the Board said this nudity ban proposal would “create a space that is comfortable for everybody.”. (roll eyes upward and back down). Translation of what this muchacha (supervisor) said: The conservative prudes who have been whining about the nude guys and making up lies about them for their rabid agenda will now be happy, and that’s all that matters.

But I would like to address what this supervisor said. Her statement is based in ignorance. Why do we have such ignorant people in positions of power? Let me explain: There are some people who are not “comfortable” being around GLBTQueer people, Asians, Latinos/Hispanos/Méxicanos, Blacks, people who are dressed differently than they are or in a certain way, and so forth. Do we accommodate them too with a ban so that they are “comfortable?” One gets into very dangerous territory when creating laws/bans from a position of what “is comfortable for everybody.” This ban will clearly not be “comfortable” for the nudist or their supporters including myself. This ban is not “comfortable” for me because I can’t stand to see people hated on, which is what this ban is intended to do. The ban in itself is based in prejudice, bigotry and hatred of nudity. So we’re supposed to cater to people’s prudish, conservative, sick prejudices, hangups, “issues,” and bigotry? I won’t be surprised when a “straight” couple with children say, “We chose to live in the Castro a number of years ago and we have nothing against gay people (isn’t that often the case with hatred/prejudice!), but we don’t want our child seeing gay people kissing in Jane Warner Plaza. We’re not “comfortable” with that behaviour. We don’t think that’s healthy for our child to see. Other “straight” parents we know agree with us. We’re going to contact our conservative supervisor and demand a ban against gay people kissing in the Jane Warner Plaza and in other public places, but again, we have nothing against gay people. (Uh huh). You think that scenario can’t happen at the rate things are going? Or some nuts are not “comfortable” seeing women’s faces on the street. Are we going to require women to wear veils over their faces on the street so as to make others “comfortable” with not having to see women’s faces? Do we cater to them too? Who’s next to be hated on—that you will support—and banned by ignorant, conservative politicians and their rabid supporters? One can certainly not rely on the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court to correct the sick policies of these conservative corporatist politicians because The Supremes are part of the problem. Do I expect the Board of Supervisors to vote in favour of this nudity ban? Yes, absolutely. Mainly because it seems that anything this piece of conservative work politician from the Castro district wants, the Board gives him. They seem to have their heads firmly planted in his upper colon. Our “savior” has spoken so let’s vote for it seems to be the mentality. It should also be pointed out that this corporatist politician has been running for alcalde/mayor ever since he unfortunately became a supervisor. He has a definite agenda. This is part of his unofficial mayoral campaign. Many locals have complained that he’s all about reactionary divisive issues (typical of his brand of politician) and meanwhile the many serious problems in the Castro and the area are being ignored by this opportunist politician. I just assume the nudity ban will go into effect. Although there is now a legal challenge to this city-wide nudity ban (for information on that read San Francisco’s Fading Gay Mecca article, por favor). I’ve been concerned about this nudity ban from a human rights point of view and on a matter of principle. When something is banned it will not return in the future and as so many people are so quick and willing to give up more and more of their rights these days, that’s where my concern for it lies. And again, I can’t stand to see people hated on and discriminated against. I’m sick of it. Chau.-—rosa barrio

Now on to the original article…

“And before you know it, people will be born naked. Can you image that? Can you image the hate, turmoil, the bullying, the hype, the trama and reactionary bile from the conservatives/right-wing (charading as “moderates”) when that happens?”

El 18 de Septiembre de 2012. Hola. You might be thinking: So what’s so unusual about naked muchachos/guys in San Francisco considering “anything goes in liberal San Francisco” or that’s what I’ve heard and that’s often the impression the corporate media like to present about San Francisco.

Well, it’s time for a Service Pack (in computer terms) or an update:

Like the rest of the Estados Unidos/U.S., San Francisco is turning to the right and this has been happening for awhile unfortunately, at least since the 2010 election. Following the 2010 election, one local self-described “progressive” publication wrote: It looks like San Francisco has decided to join the nation in its downward spiral. (Meaning a downward spiral to the right or conservative). And the same publication recently wrote that there are now two (out of 11 supervisors on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors) who have remained consistent and uncompromising regarding “progressive” politics. Those two have not moved to the right or tried to remake themselves as so many political la basura do today.

In the 2010 election here in San Francisco, a conservative corporatist muchacho—he charades as a “moderate” using Orwellian newsspeak and he says he’s gay—was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors as the supervisor for the area of San Francisco that includes what used to be known as the “liberal gay mecca” Castro district. Why is it still not the “liberal gay mecca” one might ask? I’ll explain that in a moment. Now assuming the election results were valid in the 2010 election (we do have easily-hackable electronic voting machines in San Francisco which one can learn about in this article), this conservative supervisor who shall remain nameless on this website won election in the “liberal Castro.” A conservative for the “liberal Castro” seems like a contradiction, doesn’t it? During his campaign for supervisor, this muchacho used a door-to-door approach and he wrote little handwritten notes to voters in the district telling them that he had stopped by to meet them and talk with them (about voting for him) and gullible suckers fell for that. They ate it up. I talked with some people at the time who voted for him and they knew virtually nothing about his political views (so typical). All they could tell me was, “he’s a nice guy and I was so impressed that he came to my door and/or left me a handwritten note.” Sigh. So that’s all it takes for some gullible people to vote for a corporatist, conservative politician pretending to be “a moderate” whom they know nothing about. Pathetic. At least in San Francisco, calling oneself a “moderate” is intended to camouflage a politician’s regressive, conservative agenda. There was a “liberal/progressive” candidate in that same election (but he ran from the word “progressive” which turned me off), so what does that tell you about the Castro district these days? Around here and like with the rest of the Estados Unidos/U.S., “liberal” and “progressive” have become negative words as a result of the right-wing’s and corporate media’s agenda.

For those who know some history about San Francisco, district 8 (which includes the Castro) is Harvey Milk’s former district, if that means anything to you. He was the first openly-gay supervisor on the Board of Supervisors and he was assassinated in the late 1970s.

When this conservative muchacho campaigned for district 8 supervisor, part of his campaign was for criminalizing homelessness and street people. The draconian, hateful measure was called Proposition L or sit-lie (related: Sit/Lie Lost In Haight, Won In Pac Heights, Seacliff, West of Twin Peaks and Pacific Heights Moguls Fund Sit/Lie High-tech financiers, not Haight Street merchants, are bankrolling Prop. L ). There is nothing “moderate” about hate and criminalizing homelessness. This muchacho strongly supported sit-lie and he was elected in Noviembre de 2010. The sit-lie measure unfortunately passed in so-called “liberal” San Francisco. Well the “liberal” part is a thing of the past due to gentrification. A truly liberal city would not pass such a hateful measure for criminalizing the homeless and street people. Sit-lie criminalizes sitting and lying on the sidewalks between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. and repeat offenders who ignore police instructions to stand up could be fined up to $500 and sent to jail for up to a month. How “liberal!” How “progressive!” How right-wing/conservative is more like it. Where exactly is a homeless person supposed to get that dinero/money? Many corporatists and the pretentious bourgeois elite can’t bear to see homeless and street people so they like to live in Denial that we have homeless/street people and they want them out of sight (out of mind which caters to their Denial). The Estados Unidos/U.S. is in Denial on so many levels. Fortunately, sit-lie did lose in the Haight district where the measure began.

Then this muchacho after being elected supervisor, as part of his conservative agenda needed a new group to hate on so he decided to hate on the few naked guys (approximately 10 muchachos at the most, at any one time) who for the last year or so sunbathe, hangout and walk around the Castro district. The naked muchachos are harmless, they don’t bother anyone, but they have received a lot of hate directed at them as San Francisco turns to the right and becomes more prudish (in part due to gentrification). For those who haven’t heard, San Francisco is becoming a city for the wealthy – the 1%. It’s becoming a corporatist city. The rents here are outrageous. The City is building condos. Where’s the affordable housing for the non-wealthy? That’s not on the menu these days.

Because the Castro is (and has been) changing (related: Change with a Straight Face Barrels into the Castro), I would say the Castro is no longer the “gay mecca” it has an international reputation for being any more so than West Hollywood (the same thing is happening there from my understanding) or any other major city’s gay area due to the number of GLBTQueer people who have left San Francisco for various reasons, including not being able to afford to live here any longer. Today “straight” people with no shortage of babies and condo-sized strollers (is no one using birth control any longer?) are moving into the Castro neighborhood and seem intent on changing the neighborhood to the way they want it to be. Yes, they move to a traditionally (for decades) “gay” neighborhood and then complain about that gay neighborhood and what they see and don’t like about it, and some behavior they dislike and they try to change the neighborhood accordingly. Translation: They want it sanitized and conservative. For example, the gay sex stores have been required by the prudes to put white stickers over any dick and ass shots on sex video covers in store windows. From talking with one of the store owners awhile back, la policía come in and harass the store employees/owner about this if the store does not comply consistently. From my understanding, the Castro neighborhood prudes (some with babies/children) contact the SFPD about this. And of course the SFPD have nothing better to do with their time—no crimes to be solved anywhere in la Ciudad/the City—than to police gay sex store windows for dick and ass shots on gay video covers in “liberal” San Francisco. One day I was standing outside of Rock Hard (one of the erotic art/sex stores in the Castro) and looking in their display window. Two people were next to me. One said to the other: “Why do they have white stickers all over the video covers, what’s that about?” I leaned over and told him: “From my understanding, it’s so that the few children in the area (the ones not in the sidewalk-wide strollers) can’t see the images on the video covers.” They both looked at each other as if to say, “you’ve got to be joking.” He said to his partner, “I guess they don’t want their little darlings to see where they came from.” Yes. Some people today would have lived most comfortably in the Dark Ages.

Back to this conservative supervisor. Have you ever known of a corporatist politician to create a law that applies to only 10 people maximum? That’s what this piece of work politician for the Castro district has already done. Does that make any rationale sense to any sensible person? A law for 10 people! This muchacho created a law for the 10 (at the most) naked guys. This law requires them to sit on towels when they sit in the Jane Warner Plaza (corner of 17th and Castro Streets). I think most of the naked guys were already sitting on towels because those chairs in the plaza are not very comfortable. These days the naked guys often stand, lean or walk. One day this past week I saw 4 of the naked guys in the Warner Plaza. Two were sitting reading their books in the sun bothering no one and two were leaning against the cement planters talking with each other. Harmless.

Following the approval of sit-lie/Prop L, the same conservative politician continued his hate campaign for the homeless and street people in—what I call—a second version of sit-lie which was approved by the (mostly corporatist) San Francisco Board of Supervisors, (Ordinance 22-12). The original version of this ordinance authored by this conservative supervisor was anal and draconian. The version that passed the Board of Supervisors was an amended version. This particular repressive law applies to the Harvey Milk Plaza above the muni metro (San Francisco’s subway system) as well as the Jane Warner Plaza. It should be pointed out that Harvey Milk opposed the sit-lie ordinance of his day.

And now this conservative supervisor wants to ban “public nudity” entirely in San Francisco and this City presumably needs such a city-wide law for (up to) 10 nudists (maximum) who can be seen on occasion (and not all at one time) in an area of approximately 3 city blocks. I’m not making this stuff up. That’s worth repeating: Yet another city-wide law for (up to) 10 people who are in an area of roughly 3 city blocks. Loco. What some corporatist piece-of-work politicians will do for their conservative agenda and to appease their rabid supporters. What’s the reason this time for a city-wide law? This time it’s because some of the nudist muchachos wear cock rings as jewelry on occasion. Mi dios! GASP! Not That! Not a cock ring! Oh what are we to do now?! Next, they will be wearing earrings and installing lip rings. GASP! Well, a cock ring is no different than any other body jewelry that one could wear. And this supervisor is making all kinds of outlandish and ridiculous claims to support his conservative-on-the-right-agenda about what the naked guys have supposedly done in public. (His claims are based in hate and are not worth mentioning and they remind me of the foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing and the type of stuff they make up to advance their agenda.) The rabids say this about the occasional cock rings: “It draws attention to that area of the body.” So? What is wrong with that area of the body that you don’t seem able to even speak about, rabids? You don’t seem to have any problem using that area of the body considering there are 3 babies born every second these days. The conservatives/rabids are such pathetic people. They don’t seem to have the ability to not look at something that they find offensive and don’t want to see. Pathetic. If one sees a guy with a cock ring on or even a hard-on and one doesn’t want to see that, there’s a simple solution to that to any rational person: LOOK THE OTHER WAY! But no, the rabids would rather hate on the person and create some symbolic, reactionary ridiculous law to ban nudity entirely. And how exactly would such a law be enforced on a consistent basis?. For example, the other symbolic, meaningless law that this piece of work supervisor campaigned for (Sit-lie) is not enforced, fortunately. It’s only selectively enforced on occasion and I suspect any ban on nudity would be the same way. This would be just more meaningless, reactionary, symbolic bull shit from this corporatist conservative politician who tries to give the impression that he’s harmless, when he’s just the opposite.

This conservative politician claims that people are “repulsed” by the naked guys. Well that’s their problem isn’t it! I am “people” and I’m not repulsed by the naked guys. Many things repulse people but we don’t create a law every time someone is repulsed. Again, pathetic and reactionary. No one requires “repulsed” people to look at the naked guys. One chooses to look at whomever one chooses to look at. If one is repulsed by seeing a naked person, doesn’t your head pivot in the opposite direction? One wonders how these pathetic reactionary right-wing prudes make it through their day seeing all kinds of things that their eyes can’t bear to see and they don’t have the ability to look the other way!

What I have noticed by those who claim to be offended by the naked guys, is that they can’t stop looking at the naked guys. They act quite silly and juvenile. Supposed adults stare and stare and point (like children point at something) and stare and point like they themselves are loco/crazy. I feel like screaming at them, “You’ve never seen a naked person before?” If one is repulsed by a naked guy, why exactly does one keep staring and pointing at a person that one is supposedly repulsed by? I read that some businesses in the Castro said they think the naked guys are good for business and tourism. On occasion, I’ve seen tourists asking to take pictures with a 1-2 of the naked muchachos.

This hate and bullying for the naked guys is mainly coming from the reactionary, conservative businesses and residents (including some homeowners). Of course some of the haters/bullies may label themselves as a “liberal” or “progressive” (probably because they align themselves with the non-liberal and non-progressive pro-war, pro-neocon, pro-corporate misnamed “Democratic” Party in the Estados Unidos). This conservative supervisor has an agenda and that was clear to me when he was running for office. He is bad noticias/news.

Historically speaking, San Francisco has long had a reputation that, “one can see anything in San Francisco.” The same is true for the Castro. That’s why I moved here decades ago. Remember the days of “the Castro Clone” in the late 1970s and early 1980s? (This conservative politician wouldn’t remember those days because he wasn’t born until 1970 and wasn’t living in San Francisco until the late 1990s). Do people not remember seeing muchachos in their “Castro Clone” 501 jeans and on occasion the buttons would be open and dick hanging out and/or with a cock ring on? And on occasion someone would be going down on a chico for a few moments? People don’t remember any of that from past decades? That was not an uncommon thing to see on occasion in the height of the “Gay Mecca”. How about the chicos in their leather chaps showing their ass and anything else they wanted to show? Well the right-wing is trying to change that too. They want this City and the Castro to look like any other place in this nation: Sanitized and sterile. Shut down all fun. So when that becomes reality, why will anyone (including tourists) want to come here? I occasionally see tourists these days at Castro/Market looking towards the Castro Theatre as if they are asking themselves, “What exactly am I supposed to be seeing? What’s all the excitement here that I’ve read about? This just looks like any other place except for the rainbow flags.”

For those who have a problem with nudity, get some psychotherapy (that might help) and with your therapist work on seeing the human body in a positive way, rather than as something negative and to be rejected. Come out of your Denial that you have a problem with nudity. Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step. There’s a disorder called Gymnophobia, a fear of nudity. Some people say they are repulsed by the naked guys. What exactly repulses one about nudity? So-called christians will say that “god made everything” and that includes the human body. So are some people—including so-called “christians”—saying that what their god supposedly made is “repulsive?” That’s exactly what they’re saying but they refuse to admit that.

It should be pointed out that what this busy-bodied supervisor is doing is catering to his conservative base/supporters and business owners who helped put this piece of work in office. It’s all part of moving this City as far to the right as possible, just like this nation (the Estados Unidos) is trying its best to move back into the Dark Ages. And some locals are completely oblivious to any of this. They are still living in the past when San Francisco was a “liberal/progressive City” and this country was not what it has become. And I suspect if one were to show the oblivious people scenes of the 1970s forward in the Castro and compare them to today, they might say: Oh yeah, I guess it has changed. I hadn’t noticed because it happened too gradually, or they would justify the changes and criticize the past decades. Some locals have noticed the changes and say that the Castro is a former museum of its original “gay mecca” self.

We in the pink barrio support the naked guys because we do not like to see people repressed, bullied, oppressed, and hated on because of other people’s disorders, hangups and personal issues. We also don’t have negative views about the human body nor do we have the disorder called gymnophobia.

“But what about the children?” Oh yes, let’s wrap our repressive/backward ideas in the name of, “what about the children?” How typical that is! Drag out the “What about the Children?” card in the name of repressiveness and hate. Hate is often wrapped in many different packages such as: “What about the Children,” and “community standards” and “decency and wholesomeness for our [right-wing sanitized] community.” Yes, use “what about the children?” as the excuse for your hatred of naked people. The pink barrio’s “what is is” was in the Castro recently and he told me about an unfortunate incident he observed: Another example of the “straights” trying to change a traditionally gay neighborhood to the way they want it to be. “what is is” was walking through the Jane Warner Plaza. He said two of the usual naked guys were there sunbathing bothering no one as usual. “what is is” told me that he saw a group of supposedly “straight” parents with their children doing some sort of skit routine in the Warner Plaza and they had a small audience (the audience looked like tourists). At one point, some of the parents and the audience felt the need to bully/hate on the naked guys and harass them (even though the naked guys were there before these prudish people showed up), and one parent felt the need to shout to the naked guys, “Can’t you see there are children here?” ¿Qué?/What? Children have never seen naked people? Well they’re in for a shock when they see themselves naked aren’t they?! What will they think? Gasp! Frankly, a child would likely not even think anything of the naked guys in the Castro if the adult child (the parent) didn’t have a hangup with nudity to make such a big issue out of it. It’s the so-called “adult” that has the hangup (the problem/the issue) with nudity, not the child. And if one does not possess the parenting skills to tell a child that the guy over there is naked should the parent be asked about that by the child, one wonders why the adult is a parent to begin with. Why do many people become prudes after they become a parent? Again, get psychotherapy (preferably psychodynamic and from a credible doctorate level therapist…one will need all the help one can get!) and take some parenting classes (I’m not talking about love here) rather than passing on dysfunctional behavior and dysfunctional parenting “skills” that one was dealt with from one’s own dysfunctional parents/guardians. Hasn’t there been enough of generational dysfunctional parenting brought down over the generations? I think so. In addition, if I am offended by something I see, I have the maturity to leave and move away from it. I don’t act like a bully (which seems to be “in” and common these days with some dysfunctional people). I don’t begin to bully it and hate on it the way some of these “straights” are acting in the Castro. Unfortunately, hate is the agenda of the Estados Unidos/U.S. these days.

To begin with, why would a “straight” person deliberately move into a traditionally gay area with its well-known reputation when they clearly don’t feel comfortable there and have brought some negative baggage with them? As a queer person, I would not deliberately move into a “straight” area and try to change it into a gay area. In the Castro, with the “straight” couples it’s often the case that the muchacho and muchacha are holding hands (to me they often look like they just met). She’s hanging on to him like a magnet as if he told her, “protect me from all the gay guys here in the Castro who will want me,” (arrogant, delusional, wishful-thinking). Some “straight” guys do indeed have an enormously inflated view of themselves and their attraction to others. They live under the willful-ignorance that any gay guy would be interested in them and after them. That’s not the way it works, muchacho. And are we sure that some of these “straights” who come to the Castro are not gay and in the closet? Some people have suspected that’s what’s going on. Why else would they come to a traditionally gay area?

And for those who have a problem with the naked guys, we have a suggestion for you: MOVE back to where you came from. This IS the Castro and naked people have been in the Castro for decades. This is not new. And STOP THE HATE. And for those who are trying to turn the Castro into a conservative retirement community, move to Sacramento. You’ll blend in beautifully there.

STOP THE HATE.

Stop the bullying of the naked guys.

Chau.—rosa barrio


From the video’s description:
“The debate over public nudity heats up in San Francisco. Several nudists, including a former SF mayoral candidate, celebrating Park(ing) Day by turning a parking space into the Garden of Eden beneath the iconic Castro Theater marquee. The Castro’s livid general manager, Keith Arnold, interrupted interviews by repeatedly striking a news cameraman with a clip board (at 2:25) and forcing the law-biding nudists to move one store front down Castro street. The Reel Gay news cameraman Mike Skiff (who is also a documentary filmmaker covering events during Leather Pride Week is SF) filed a criminal complaint with the SFPD against the theater manager.

Irony abounds as the operator of a movie house, long known in the SF gay community for screening boundary-pushing indie artistic expression, acts intolerantly against a group of nudists who have been creating a mini urban art space, and then assault a working member of the gay press covering the news story in broad daylight on the public street beneath his marquee.

It is legal to be nude in public in San Francisco – within certain limits. The Castro neighborhood has become a daily hangout for urban nudists. The neighborhood itself has seen a shift in demographics over the last five years as more straight-owned businesses and families with children move into the once gay enclave.

Arnold says he’s “tolerant of kids not having cocks in their faces.”
San Francisco, CA – September 21, 2012 Mike Skiff Reporting

[Editorial: I've not seen any cocks in kids' faces in the Castro, nor did I see any kids walking by when this video was being recorded. And kids have seen cocks, especially the kids who have one. Like the right-wing, Arnold likes to make things up for his rabid agenda. And he's way out of line when he's trying to be dictatorial as to what should or should not be on the street in front of the theatre. The street is public property, muchacho. He pulled out the typical/overused, "what about the kids?" Fear Card while acting like a bully to the cameraperson. This bully should not be a manager of anything (he displays no social skills whatsoever and he doesn't know how to talk with people), although from my experience he is quite typical of useless managers on a power trip. I have no intention of going to the Castro Theatre again after seeing this.---rosa barrio.]

Update to this article:

El 5 de Octubre de 2012: Hola. Earlier this week, that conservative supervisor I wrote about in this article—and who shall remain nameless—unfortunately introduced legislation to ban nudity in San Francisco. He introduced a city-wide ban. From my understanding, he received strong encouragement for the ban from the hateful and conservative merchants’ association in the neighborhood. If I had a store in the neighborhood, I would want nothing to do with this mean and hateful merchants’ association clique. They also pushed for sit-lie (criminalizing homelessness) and only had the pro sit-lie side group speak at their meeting and encouraged all merchant members to vote for it according to their website at the time. The anti sit-lie side was not invited to their meeting. That speaks to their hate agenda and the kind of people they are. As I asked in the article, we need a law for up to 10 people/10 nudists? And there’s usually only 2-4 nudists at the most in the area during the warmest part of the day. There was only 1 naked guy today when I walked through the Jane Warner Plaza. It depends upon the day. Sometimes there are no naked guys around. So the Board of Supervisors will have to waste their time on this nonsense and I won’t be surprised if it passes considering the hateful and mean times we’re living in. This supervisor belongs in Walnut Creek, California rather than in San Francisco. He’d fit in beautifully there. Some of the hateful right-wing who write mean things about the naked guys and who “want them out” (their words) are saying that the naked guys don’t live in the neighborhood. I don’t know how they would know that. Have they gone to talk with any of the naked guys (I doubt it) to find out where they live? To my knowledge, they do live in the area. But what does that have to do with anything? Even if they don’t live in the Castro, we don’t have a law YET banning people from coming from one neighborhood to another for the day. Although give it time, that will be the next thing to ban in making this City as mainstream as possible, sanitized, boring, conservative, and irrelevant to anyone but the bourgeois elite 1% and right-wing haters. I’ll update again when the Board votes on this nudity ban and it’s signed by this conservative, corporatist mayor whom we have nothing positive to say about. This mayor says he agrees with the ban which should surprise no one. This mayor also charades as a “moderate.” The use of Orwellian newspeak is on overdrive these days. Also, the ban does not apply to two street fairs (Folsom and Castro Street Fairs) or the Bay to Breakers. Considering the exceptions for nudity are only at those events, how is one supposed to get to those events as a nudist when there’s a city-wide ban? Only by one’s private vehicle? Which does not encourage people to take public transportation. Someone wrote on a message forum: “Some parents don’t want their kids to see naked people. I feel for their kids. Some parents also don’t want their kids to see gay people in public. Do we need to accommodate them too?”
Exactamente. Chau.—rosa barrio