The San Francisco Chronicle apparently draws the line at public sex tents for the Folsom Street Fair. Would the fairgoers even use them? Isn’t the whole point to draw attention and to shock people?
10 thoughts on “Brave for a San Francisco Paper”
Comments are closed.
…this is an awesome idea.
I’d do it.
Sick and wrong. Perverted to say the least.
somewhere chaz the hippie is crying…
no “free love” for you twits…
Wow, good to see the newspapers of today taking a tough stance against sex in public.
Next up, maybe they’ll work up the courage to speak out against against something REALLY controversial…
Hehehe… for San Francisco, public sex is controversial, though.
Read the comments on the editorial. That was a VERY courageous editorial for San Francisco. Any of you who wonder how I turned into such a fuddy-duddy about homosexuality, it was living too close to San Francisco.
I’m in the group that can tell the difference between “gay people” and “gay people who try to shock at Folsom” (it’s just like the difference between “gun owners” and “gun-waving idiots on YouTube”), and don’t use Folsomites as an excuse to generalize about gay Americans.
I’m in the group that thinks it’s stupid that we’re still arguing about whether gay people should have equal representation under the law.
I’m _also_ in the group that thinks the perverted stuff that goes on at Folsom is a _good_ thing.
… But even I know it should be done in appropriate venues, not out on the street. Guys, when you’re offending a long-haired polyamorous libertarian from New Jersey, it’s time to start considering that just maybe all the criticism _isn’t_ just because of stuck-up sexual repression.
oh, now they draw a line.
http://zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
I’m in the group that can tell the difference between “gay people†and “gay people who try to shock at Folsom†(it’s just like the difference between “gun owners†and “gun-waving idiots on YouTubeâ€), and don’t use Folsomites as an excuse to generalize about gay Americans.
If support for this behavior was 1% of gay San Franciscans (so about .07% of the population), the supervisors wouldn’t be working so hard to satisfy this crowd. Pretty clearly, support for this behavior is a significant fraction of S.F.’s population, or the supervisors wouldn’t be so willing.
San Francisco’s a city extremely tolerant of alternative sexuality in general, so it stands to reason that a large proportion of gay San Franciscans would support Folsom. Even 100% of gay people in San Francisco is only a tiny, tiny fraction of all the gay Americans discriminated against by marriage laws across the country.
Drawing a conclusion about how we as a society treat gay citizens based on the perceived attitudes of gay people in one city seems arbitrary and illogical, much like passing gun laws based on our impressions of people who carry guns in Camden.