Lsherm: Supervisor Scott Wiener's proposal would make it illegal for a person over the age of 5 to "expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, sidewalk, street median, parklet or plaza" or while using public transit.Even when trying to be more conservative than usual, San Francisco manages to be all about the dick. Is there really a large enough subset of the Castro district complaining for this to pass?
Lsherm: Is there really a large enough subset of the Castro district complaining for this to pass?
UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: If seeing nekkid people is offensive to you, avert your eyes.
BigNumber12: Hah, this makes Fark, but not covering the cost of gender reassignment surgeries for uninsured transgender residents?
gingerjet: Lsherm: Is there really a large enough subset of the Castro district complaining for this to pass?gayborhoods will find any reason to create lots of drama./which is why i refuse to live in one
theflatline: They don't like hipster twinks who have been reamed in every sling bar in the city.
TheOther: Banning only ugly nekkid people seems more fair and balanced.
TuteTibiImperes: I don't see what the big deal is. Nudity isn't inherently sexual.
Bit'O'Gristle: I remember as a public park police officer in our local big city, we would often receive telephone complaints about guys sucking each other off in the public restrooms in the park, or walking down the trails in the woods and rogering each other. We would get quite a few of these complaints. Not that i can blame the public, nothing like walking into the public restroom and seeing some dude sucking cack, and trying to explain to your little son with you, what he just saw. Not cool.So anyway, we would be forced to dress in plainclothes, and bust these guys. This is how it usually went.We would go in, and act like we are using the urinal, either there would be a gay guy in there already, or one would go in after seeing us go in. Then one of three things would happen. He would make a lewd sexual proposal, reach around and try to grab your junk, or you would turn around and he would be fapping looking at you. Either way, he was getting arrested. This was a ticket for lewd conduct, indecent exposure, or propositioning a police officer. 99 percent of the time they wouldn't show up in court to fight it, as they didn't want to stand there in front of everyone while i say "Yes your Honor, i saw suspect X whipping the bishop when i turned around after using the bathroom". They would just pay the fine. Now, as i said before..i have nothing against gay people, it's not my place to judge them on their sexual preference. However, i do have issue with them doing that shiat in public, where the general public might view them, esp in a park where there are kids present that might walk in on them. All I'm saying is..have some personal pride and class, people that do this shiat make the rest of the gay people easy to stereotype. And the police would rather not have to be bait and see you do that shiat. We would rather be having doughnuts and coffee./thanks..//The police.
TuteTibiImperes: Actually, even if it were sexual I wouldn't really care. Let them get it on doggy style in the middle of the park.
Coco LaFemme: Either you're trolling, or you're really invested in the sexual goings-on of gay men. That's the 2nd verbose post in this thread you've made on the subject of where and when gay men should be gay.
sage37: BigNumber12: Hah, this makes Fark, but not covering the cost of gender reassignment surgeries for uninsured transgender residents?Link
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 17 2017 13:01:16
Runtime: 0.376 sec (376 ms)