Well, I'm a bit suprised by this move by the Sham Phreakpsycho City/County Bored of Stupidvisors--they actually rescinded the law which makes public nudity legal!
They're right, but, they probably don't realize why; at least in the way I'd want them to understand the issue. Epidemiologically speaking, this is a very sound move. When someone goes to the bathroom, and, they hopefully wipe themselves afterwards, there's still going be minute bits of faeces, about a person's backside, wherever they sit. If nude, why that's a very efficient way to spread Cholera, a disease which was only last seen quantitatively in the United States back in the 1860's. Then, a person's perspiration; sebasceous oil/puss secretions; snot/mucous; minute secretions of blood--from skin breaches too tiny for a person to notice; dried traces of urine; and, yes, dried traces of gonadal secretions (semen/"cum" & vaginal secretions), could conceivably transmit anything ranging from Tuberculosis to HIV/AIDS. That's from sitting down in restaurants, and leaving minute amounts of secretions and tissue upon door handles leading into stores, for starters. Typhus and Typhoid Fever. Can you believe, that quite a few would squat where they stood, when their bowels got the urge?! Some had no sense to get out of the cold, and got hyperthermia, when the summer fog rolled in from the Pacific.
Also, a lot of these nudies were blatantly doing their wild things in front of children, and accosting clothed people, which is, in effect, verbal sexual battery, to say the least. A good number of these loonies, in the Hearings in front of the Stupidvisors, a good number of them actually had the temerity and audacity to assert that doing full-on coitus, in front of children, was to teach them how "happy and pretty", sex was for "humans"!!
Where do these malcontents come from, who only happily live to make others as miserable as they possibly can? Can these s-hits actually derive true happiness from making their awfulness, their only missions in life?
It sounds like I'm contradicting myself, from earlier posts, but, I know for sure, that it's not a perfect world--at least for displaying our pretties in public. I'm sure that it will probably take at least 1,000 more years, if at all, before our civilization is morally, psychologically, and physiologically capable of handling conventions, such as these. Probably, most likely, never, sad to say.
That's why Pantie Colonies/Camps, much like Nudist Camps/Colonies, is the perfect way for us to go, for those of you out there, who can/could afford adventures such as these. All possible safeguards, and good protocols could then be in place. Even problems such as hygiene, could be mitigated. I actually have not heard about Pantie/Lingerie Camps/Colonies, though they could be operated on the same guidelines as Nudist stuff. For both guys and gals--gals who do not mind guys, and actually love for guys, to be wearing and experiencing "their" undies--as some of us guys, wouldn't mind seeing gals wearing and experiencing some of "our" especially soft and curvy "guy" undies.
-- Edited by Breeziestroke on Wednesday 21st of November 2012 06:56:24 PM
-- Edited by Breeziestroke on Wednesday 21st of November 2012 07:45:18 PM
I wonder if walking around in your underwear was also legal? Was there a three second rule? If you took pictures, would you be guilty of invasion of privacy? It certainly brings "No shirt, no shoes, no service" to a new light. A man would have to be very careful rubbing on sun screen. Being that it is San Francisco, I don't think anyone would be shocked if we walked around in panties. There ould probably be some females who would be jealous of our finery. As for myself, I would rather see a well built female in bra and panties, than nude. Oh well, I guess I won't be going toSan Franisco now.
Puss, you subconciously seem to be speaking as if The Nudity Sanction still stands, and, that may very well be the case, in the months to come, as the American Criminal/Communist Lover's Union eventually will be successful in restoring the sanction.
I suppose that it would be, and, for when the sanction's restored, for anyone to stroll about in their undies, and, if someone's strolling about, in the "other gender's" undies, it won't raise an eybrow.
Sunscreen? I don't believe that there's any caustic chemicals in that, that would irritate the thin and tender quasi-mucousoidal skin, about a man's groin (Peritoneum, in MedSpeak.); yet a chick might have to be careful about any of that goop seeping beyond her Inner Labia, as that's a zone peculiar to the Female Anatomy that directly communicates with the Body Interior. I think that's why females are so much more prone to Peritonitis and Yeast Infections, than males. Our most direct conduit, as guys, is our Urethras, and those pretty much remain shut, when we're not pissing or cumming. Hurts like hell, though, when Doc wants to run in a catheter to our bladders--YIKES!!
Taking pix; I don't think the subjects minded. Some probably demanded money as "models", if they thought you were using professional's photography outfits! They invariably posed in as lewd a pose as they could affect, if they suspected their picture was being taken, unlike in Nudist Colonies. Of course, when the "media" was shooting footage, they used lots of digital "fuzz-out", to put their stories on-air.
If the sanction is restored, and I believe that the handiwork on one of my custom long-legged bloomie/onesie/pantalette creations, made from extremely sheer (see-through) Miss Elaine, Shadowline, Van Raalte, and-or Vanity Fair long nightgowns passes muster, I could try that, if I believe that I'm walking through a neighborhood with more admiring, rather than jealous chicks might congregate. That is--more chicks than dudes. And I wouldn't be going to any restaurants, either, as I wouldn't want to practice bad hygiene. Find the right neighborhood, park my car close to a good spot to hide my keys, then go a-strollin'! If the fog roll-in's not deathly cold, the windage could be a trip, as well! I might even carry a spare onesie in a back-tote, if an admiring chick wanted to try one on! Why, then we could take a fun stroll together, that way, tripping on each other's sheer-to-windage effects!!
Among some of the recent Punk/Goth subculture in the Bay Area, chicks have often worn lingerie as outerwear. When I used to work, using public transit, going to work in the morning, and seeing cuties wearing Tricot Trippies as outerwear, was murder on me, as I couldn't do a damn thing about it, during the balance of my shift!! Usually nothing more than a "distressed" fuzzie Angora sweater over a diaphanous print slip or pettiepanties!
The best that ever happened, was that I gave, I risked/channced, a chick, so clad, a short knowing smile, trying so hard not to let it be interpreted as a perv's stare. She momentarily blushed, and gave me a broad ear-to-ear grin. Then she was gone, as I waved to her, so it wasn't all that bad.
Forgive me for being such a turnip-truck babe-in-the-woods naif, Puss, but what's the "three second rule"? I have never heard that term before.
But, for a myriad of reasons, other than nudity, whenever I drive into Sham Phreakpsycho on the Bay Bridge's Suspension Span--hopefully only passing through to The Airport, or such--I always heavily imagine so strongly, so strongly that I may actually see it--a blackish cloud enveloping an otherwise physically beautiful city. So, so sad--and that cloud didn't start covering the city, until, say, about the late '80's.
Most of the more visible and strident Nude Proponents, probably aren't that interested in Nudity, in itself. They are Camp Ruckus Anarchist Agitators, practicing Classic Communist Class Warfare. And they usually don't look very pretty or handsome, especially in the nude--downright ugly as sin!! Either obese; scarecrow skinny; open sores, zits, moles, tags, & blemishes; and-or a dirt-dirty look about themselves--YECHH!!
-- Edited by Breeziestroke on Thursday 22nd of November 2012 12:20:28 AM
I wonder if walking around in your underwear was also legal? Was there a three second rule? If you took pictures, would you be guilty of invasion of privacy? It certainly brings "No shirt, no shoes, no service" to a new light. A man would have to be very careful rubbing on sun screen. Being that it is San Francisco, I don't think anyone would be shocked if we walked around in panties. There ould probably be some females who would be jealous of our finery. As for myself, I would rather see a well built female in bra and panties, than nude. Oh well, I guess I won't be going toSan Franisco now.
I wonder if walking around in your underwear was also legal? Was there a three second rule? If you took pictures, would you be guilty of invasion of privacy? It certainly brings "No shirt, no shoes, no service" to a new light. A man would have to be very careful rubbing on sun screen. Being that it is San Francisco, I don't think anyone would be shocked if we walked around in panties. There ould probably be some females who would be jealous of our finery. As for myself, I would rather see a well built female in bra and panties, than nude. Oh well, I guess I won't be going toSan Franisco now.
Puss, you subconciously seem to be speaking as if The Nudity Sanction still stands, and, that may very well be the case, in the months to come, as the American Criminal/Communist Lover's Union eventually will be successful in restoring the sanction.
I suppose that it would be, and, for when the sanction's restored, for anyone to stroll about in their undies, and, if someone's strolling about, in the "other gender's" undies, it won't raise an eybrow.
Sunscreen? I don't believe that there's any caustic chemicals in that, that would irritate the thin and tender quasi-mucousoidal skin, about a man's groin (Peritoneum, in MedSpeak.); yet a chick might have to be careful about any of that goop seeping beyond her Inner Labia, as that's a zone peculiar to the Female Anatomy that directly communicates with the Body Interior. I think that's why females are so much more prone to Peritonitis and Yeast Infections, than males. Our most direct conduit, as guys, is our Urethras, and those pretty much remain shut, when we're not pissing or cumming. Hurts like hell, though, when Doc wants to run in a catheter to our bladders--YIKES!!
Taking pix; I don't think the subjects minded. Some probably demanded money as "models", if they thought you were using professional's photography outfits! They invariably posed in as lewd a pose as they could affect, if they suspected their picture was being taken, unlike in Nudist Colonies. Of course, when the "media" was shooting footage, they used lots of digital "fuzz-out", to put their stories on-air.
If the sanction is restored, and I believe that the handiwork on one of my custom long-legged bloomie/onesie/pantalette creations, made from extremely sheer (see-through) Miss Elaine, Shadowline, Van Raalte, and-or Vanity Fair long nightgowns passes muster, I could try that, if I believe that I'm walking through a neighborhood with more admiring, rather than jealous chicks might congregate. That is--more chicks than dudes. And I wouldn't be going to any restaurants, either, as I wouldn't want to practice bad hygiene. Find the right neighborhood, park my car close to a good spot to hide my keys, then go a-strollin'! If the fog roll-in's not deathly cold, the windage could be a trip, as well! I might even carry a spare onesie in a back-tote, if an admiring chick wanted to try one on! Why, then we could take a fun stroll together, that way, tripping on each other's sheer-to-windage effects!!
Among some of the recent Punk/Goth subculture in the Bay Area, chicks have often worn lingerie as outerwear. When I used to work, using public transit, going to work in the morning, and seeing cuties wearing Tricot Trippies as outerwear, was murder on me, as I couldn't do a damn thing about it, during the balance of my shift!! Usually nothing more than a "distressed" fuzzie Angora sweater over a diaphanous print slip or pettiepanties!
The best that ever happened, was that I gave, I risked/channced, a chick, so clad, a short knowing smile, trying so hard not to let it be interpreted as a perv's stare. She momentarily blushed, and gave me a broad ear-to-ear grin. Then she was gone, as I waved to her, so it wasn't all that bad.
Forgive me for being such a turnip-truck babe-in-the-woods naif, Puss, but what's the "three second rule"? I have never heard that term before.
But, for a myriad of reasons, other than nudity, whenever I drive into Sham Phreakpsycho on the Bay Bridge's Suspension Span--hopefully only passing through to The Airport, or such--I always heavily imagine so strongly, so strongly that I may actually see it--a blackish cloud enveloping an otherwise physically beautiful city. So, so sad--and that cloud didn't start covering the city, until, say, about the late '80's.
Most of the more visible and strident Nude Proponents, probably aren't that interested in Nudity, in itself. They are Camp Ruckus Anarchist Agitators, practicing Classic Communist Class Warfare. And they usually don't look very pretty or handsome, especially in the nude--downright ugly as sin!! Either obese; scarecrow skinny; open sores, zits, moles, tags, & blemishes; and-or a dirt-dirty look about themselves--YECHH!!
-- Edited by Breeziestroke on Thursday 22nd of November 2012 12:20:28 AM
My age is catching up with me. I was reading my post and I can't remember what I meant by the three second rule. I suppose I meant staring at a naked person for more then three seconds would be illegal. I'll give it more thought.
