Well, public nudity has been banned in San Francisco. The debate on this issue, which would certainly not have taken place anywhere else, ended when the city council here, known as the board of supervisors, passed the ban by six votes to five. The San Francisco Chronicle immediately rowed in with talk of the barest of margins.
The whole controversy has been a gift to the newspaper industry in these straitened times. For example, the immediate result of the vote was that half a dozen men and women stripped naked in the chamber where the debate had taken place and were escorted away by officers of the law.
There have been quite a lot of nude-ins at City Hall. For example, the man who proposed the citywide ban on public nudity is called Scott Wiener. In the wake of his victory in the vote he told the Chronicle the new legislation would not concern itself greatly with the exposure of buttocks, being chiefly concerned with outlawing the exposure of genitalia. But, the newspaper asked, what would the city authorities do when confronted with what it called plumber’s crack? Wiener replied that should the city authorities find themselves in that situation they would then try to find “the middle way”.
Poor Wiener: he didn’t ask for any of this. He represents the Castro district, where nudity has been becoming more of an issue over the past couple of years. Wiener says constituents complain to him about this matter more than any other.
The Castro is the gay heartland of San Francisco, and a pretty relaxed place. But the fact that a few men stand around naked in its streets and parks has not been welcomed by the parents of young children, or indeed by too many other San Francisco citizens. San Francisco liberals felt pushed too far by this latest development in the Castro.
“It’s no longer a quirky part of San Francisco, it’s seven days a weeks. Many people in the neighbourhoods are over it and want to take action,” said Wiener.
The nude men, who wear baseball hats and runners – perhaps understandably – have argued that they have a right to self-expression, and that this is a gay rights issue. This cuts little ice with Wiener, who is himself gay, and he has replied to that argument somewhat sharply by saying gay rights is about more than exposing yourself in public parks and in the streets. Gay men canvassed on the issue shake their heads sadly and say: “It’s never the pretty ones.”
The Irish Times, after its latest trip to the Castro to investigate the opening times for the Sound of Music Singalong can confirm that this is certainly true. The nude men look like earnest exhibitionists of the most uninteresting type, whose dearest wish is to be arrested. Part of the argument against banning nudity was that arresting naked people would take police officers away from fighting real crime.
Informally, people said they don’t want to give the naked men the satisfaction of being arrested. But there seems to have been worry on the board of supervisors that San Francisco should ban anything at all – although California’s ban on foie gras kicked in last July, and of course it’s always open season on smokers. The rest of the country has been enjoying San Francisco’s discomfort immensely.
“Sometimes there’s a little weirdness about how we express ourselves, but that’s the great thing about San Francisco,” said supervisor John Avalos, who opposed the ban. Supervisor Christina Olague, another supporter of the nudity, said: “When we start sanctioning these basic rights I wonder what’s next. Piercing or tattoos or yellow hair?” To which Wiener, as the voice of sanity, replied: “I don’t agree that having yellow hair is the same as exposing your penis at a busy street corner for hours and hours.”
The new legislation is citywide but it exempts nudity at special events and on private beaches. It does not apply to children under five years of age. The penalties seem pretty minor – $100 fine for a first offence and $200 for the second, if it occurs within 12 months of the first. And all of this depends on the legislation making it through a second reading and being signed into law by mayor Ed Lee, who supports it. It is due to come into effect on February 1st next.
Meanwhile, a court case that has been brought by opponents of the ban is due to be heard on January 17th. The attorney acting for the people opposed to the ban has already pointed out that they need only one supervisor to change his or her mind – and vote – before the second reading of the Bill.
“I’m going to be happy when this is over,” Wiener has said. “It’s important, and it’s a real issue, but it’s never been the issue I wanted to work on.”
But, as he surely knows, in all likelihood the protests are only beginning. Last Thursday a small marching band wended its way through the Castro, stark naked and playing polkas.