98-The Boyz in the Newz

Castro Exhibitionists Force the Hand of SF Supervisors: The Weiner Ban

Well, after years and years of nude freedom on the streets of San Francisco, it is now ILlegal to be naked in public in San Francisco, thanks largely to the very men (many of whom are BWClub members) who were most benefitting from the lack of an anti-nudity ordinance: namely, EXHIBITIONISTS. (They call themselves “nudists”, and insist in public that this is all about the non-sexual freedom from clothes, but within the gay community many, including BWClubbers Rusty Mills of http://www.TheBuffStop.com, ex-porn star Chad James, and Mitch Hightower of http://www.BuckNakedInPublic.com, openly admit to masturbating and cruising for and having sex, which clearly contradicts their public stance.)

There are a number of pertinent web articles on this subject, including Wikipedia’s article on “Social Nudity in San Francisco”, included the following passage, titled “Activists”, which prominently features a picture of Founding BWClubber Nude Woody naked on the sidewalk in The Castro (withOUT a hard-on, it should be noted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_nudity_in_San_Francisco

<< Much of the advances in acceptance of public nudity has been through the activist work of Lloyd Fishback, Rusty Mills, Rocky Angel, George Davis, “Nude Woody”, Tortuga, Gypsy Taub, “Naked Marvin”, Rich & Julie Pasco, Erik, SaraKay, “Bare”, Mickey, Mikal, WNBR San Francisco organizers, Gerry West, C.J., Ross, and many others. In newspaper reports, these people are generally referred to as the “Castro nudists”.

Nudists have been active in many neighborhoods throughout San Francisco besides the Castro, including the Haight-Ashbury, Union Square, Fisherman’s Wharf as well as the Mission. Some nudists who live in San Francisco will go about their daily activities nude no matter where these activities take them. These nudists maintain that the push for body acceptance and body freedom is in no way sexual or prurient. Nudists believe that shame, fear, and the view that the human body is always sexual or obscene are ideas which are socially constructed and learned, just like any other prejudice or bigotry. Nudists assert that simple, healthy, social nudity harms no one. A recent Zogby poll showed the 60% of Californians stated that they were not personally offended by the non-sexual nudity of others.

On Saturday, November 17, 2012, some of the Castro nudists gathered in front of San Francisco City Hall to protest the proposed ban on nudity. The ordinance was passed on November 20, 2012, but it will not go into effect until February 1, 2013 to give a federal judge time to review the ordinance. The Castro nudists are suing because they assert that the ordinance violates what they call their constitutional right to be nude in public.>>

________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________

Cock-Rings are “Engooorging” San Francisco Nudity Debate

Posted on September 9, 2012 16:43 by RJ Pupkin

Never wear a wiener-ring, Or cops may get excited. You may think it’s no big thing, Until you get indicted.

Nudity’s not viewed as rude, If your dong is fully noood, But when you bring a wiener-ring, you may be misconstrued…or screwed!

— Ann O’Nymous 2012

You’ve seen the Naked Guys at Castro & Market in recent months, right? There’s a link to an article about this at the bottom of this post. But this article isn’t just about nudity, it’s about cock-rings. We’ll get back to that in a second.

Certainly any member of the Boyz in the Woodz Club has got to LOVE that there is no law against nudity in SF, and that the SFPD and the SFDA and SF city residents are tolerant and don’t hassle a guy (or a gal) for walkin’ around in the buff. After all, it certainly eliminates the danger in changing from jeans to jockstrap in an alley, or parading around in buttless chaps, or protesting, demonstrating, or partying in SF in the nude, such as at our periodic SF LGBTIQ street fairs and festivals, and the straighter Bay to Breakers, Critical Mass, and war and Occupy protests.

1st VS 2nd Amendment

But I’ve always said that if you push an issue too far, you’re liable to lose a good thing. Just as it’s a bad thing having a select and irresponsible few of my fellow passionate Second Amendment advocates walking around in groups wearing their guns in public places for no other reason than just to PROVE that it IS legal, a select few of my fellow exhibitionists are hangin’ around in SF naked just to PROVE that it’s not ILlegal.

By the way, I should state for the record that while I have been naked on SF streets from time to time (as shown below), I have NOT chosen to “hang out” naked all afternoon in front of passing crowds just to make a point, nor am I a “flasher”, nor would I ever parade around with an erection. Of course, if I were younger… This may also be partially because the point of THAT display would be that nudity for men over 50 is not as much fun for all as for people who still look good naked, but I digress.

In both cases I think the activities of these idiots are gonna force the public and the politicians to try to ruin a good thing. Of course, it would be tough to amend the Second Amendment, but it would be a hell of a lot easier for the SF Supervisors to create an ordinance that makes simple nudity illegal in public.

After all, something that patently IS LEGAL and has been nation-wide for 200+ years is very different from something that has only been noticeably NOT ILLEGAL only in one city and for just a few years. Furthermore, gun ownership is demanded as a Constitutional Right by at least tens of millions of Americans who would die to protect it, while public nudity is only merely tolerated by a few hundred thousand people at best in San Francisco who may well be getting very tired of seeing it on street corners in view of children and tourists.

It’s a shame that literally a handful of NUTS (pun intended) are about to ruin a very unique freedom for us in The City By (and for) The Gays.

Anyway, I think the whole issue is pretty much a no-brainer, so I haven’t commented on it up til now, but there is an interesting take on the issue I saw in a recent article, and I felt that you Boyz (including those on our roster who are actually among the NUTS) would be interested in reading about the issue of COCK-RINGS.

As for me, I would have no problem arguing with a cop in the street, or with a lawyer in a courtroom, that a cock-ring is NOT just a stimulus device, but is actually, more frequently, and more importantly, a form of JEWELRY, self-adornment, and self-expression (such as tattoos and piercings), and should not, therefore, be legislated against in the absence of an erection. Of course, in the PRESENCE of an erection I would say it certainly SHOULD be considered an obvious stimulus tool, and, therefore, should make THAT specific display of nudity NOT tolerable under SF’s current lack of a law against “simple” nudity. It should also be clear to all in such a situation that the ERECTION, and NOT the cock-ring itself OR the nudity, should be considered illegal.

Here is the article, for your perusal:

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/09/sfpd_cock_ring.php

________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________

NAKED MEN IN TREES

Sometimes The Boyz attract the attention of the media in their quest for the bare essentials in life.  Such was the case from 8-10am on Sunday, October 30, 2005 when we got naked in the trees in San Francisco.

RJ and The Boyz participated in one of photographer Jack Gescheidt’s infamous http://TreeSpiritProject.com photo shoots in San Francisco’s North Beach.  We posed au naturel in the ficus trees on the south sidewalk fronting the north side of Joe DiMaggio Playground (in the 600 block of Lombard Street between Powell & Mason), and KRON-4’s Chris Murphy came by to cover the story.  The photo above was taken between 830-9am as RJ was interviewed by, and then chatted at length with, Murphy.

See the page about the shoot at:

http://treespiritproject.com/portfolio/ficus-friends/

Or view the YouTube video direct at:

http://youtu.be/6WKaSQv01qE

Or view the clip directly from RJ’s tiny appearance which made the final cut:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6WKaSQv01qE#t=208s

And, the finished product:

That’s RJ, second tree from the left, tanned leg hanging down the trunk surrounded by the red banner in the background.

After the shoot, we had breakfast at nearby Fisherman’s Wharf, and then, at noon, began our BWClub Nude Sunday Hike through The Presidio to Golden Gate Bridge Beach, where we soaked up the glorious October sun in 70 degree temperatures ’til after 4pm.

Then, that evening, we went up to RJ’s house in Petaluma where RJ & Juan and Ron & Chris had pizza and watched Guess Who with Ashton Crutcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_Who_(film), a weak (but interesting raccial role reversal) re-make of the classic 1967 American drama film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner starring Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier and Katharine Hepburn, and featuring Hepburn’s niece Katharine Houghton.

Still, a very enjoyable Sunday for The Boyz in the Woodz. . . . . . . . BATTLE CRY 2007

In 2006 and 2007 Battle Cry came to San Francisco, and on March 9, 2007 RJ Pupkin and the Boyz in the Woodz demonstrated against the campaign, and their intrusion into “our town”.

On Friday, March 9, RJ and BWClubbers Brian, Jim, and Kernan went to AT&T Park and demonstrated outside the ball park; Brian used the bullhorn, Kernan was all in leather, and RJ was carrying the leather flag…all four were handing out condoms and lube and getting laughs from the passing crowd of sympathetic San Franciscans and tourists.

RJ was interviewed by two TV news crews, one of which was the crew of reporter Tomas Roman of KGO-7…the interview was clipped down to the following soundbyte, which, nonetheless, had some bite (click on the words below, above the picture, to see the video):

RJ Pupkin outside Battle Cry in SF on 3/9/07

We were also photographed by Deanne Fitzmaurice of the SF Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Christian-teens-hit-city-for-2571118.php#photo-2712232

Another article that is still online on ABC-7’s website doesn’t mention The Boyz in the Woodz:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=5109832

The evening ended with The Boyz having dinner together in The Castro, before joining the weekly Friday Night Skate.

RJ’s SF Cacophony Society pals, who were made because they missed the fun, asked why he wasn’t wearing buttless chaps, as usual…RJ’s answer:

<< >Jeans? Apparently non-crotchless jeans? A hat? RJ, where’s the rest of you? You look, dare I say it, almost elegant.<

Weak moment.

The buttless chaps were for City Hall…to taunt Gavin. At the ballpark in the evening it was too cold for buttless chaps. I wore what I wear every day.

Actually, it was quite funny. None of the Christian fanatics recognized the Leather Flag I was carrying as a symbol of SMBD and/or queer sex. I’d get into a conversation with them, asking about their beliefs, and at some point I’d say “Oh, my husband wouldn’t go for THAT” (e.g., when they asked why I don’t go to church), and they’d start…wide-eyed, and say “YOU’RE gay???”

They’re still living in the 50s, when only lilting panty-waste queens were queer. It was insulting to their own self-images that this 6′, 200#, cigar-chomping DUDE that they were chatting with on a friendly basis was queer, TOO. Like, “Jesus Christ, if ‘it’ could happen to HIM…maybe it’s OK to admit I’m just spouting all this propaganda so no one will know that ‘it’ happened to ME, too!”

Hopefully it’s a lesson to them. The old “don’t judge a book by its cover” adage is true in this case. ‘Course, it’s ALSO very NOT true in the case of a lot of effeminate men and butch women who insist they ARE “straight”, even though those of us with gaydar recognize them for what they are…people convincing the straight people not to judge them as queer just ‘cuz they look or act like it…and even though they ARE but don’t want to admit it.>>



Comments are closed.