Traditionalizing pressure from gay families in S.F.:
The evidence is anecdotal so far, and very preliminary, but it appears that gay (and straight) families in San Francisco are starting to complain about the hyper-sexualized atmosphere of the Castro. Public displays of sexuality that would have gone unnoticed just a few years ago are now being contested. I've gathered some of the evidence of the trend here.
Jesus, every time I turn around there's a half-naked woman slumped over some object that's being marketed to men. If there were even the tiniest hint of balance in public displays of sexuality - of any variety - heterosexuals would drop dead from shock.
Dale, you also seem to assume that gay and straight families are "starting" to complain. How do you know there hasn't always been a few complaints here and there (surely, this must be true)? If you’re going to illogical cite to anecdotal evidence to support your argument, at least make sure it actually supports your argument -- i.e., that there is a trend of increasing complaints.
In any case, there are cheaper and safer neighborhoods in the Bay Area for families to live in. What's next: residents of the East Village complaining about how family-unfriendly it is?
Market Street isn't in the Castro; it's the edge of it. Go down Castro street. And yes, it's sexualized. Men out for the evening wear very little clothing, and what they wear is overly suggestive of various kinds of..predilections, shall we say. They shout and scream and each other. They pick up strangers on the street. Most of the stores on the streets sell plainly sexual objects. And often, you will see men having sex on the street in the Castro.
But yes, there are now families in the Castro. Call it the gentrification of Dolores Park and Noe Valley bleeding into the Castro. Largely, it's gay couples with children rather than straight. There are still a tiny tiny number of children in SF, but the irony is that there are more in the Dolores Park/Noe Valley/Castro area than in any of the other main interior parts of SF. Why? Because of the houses there, unlike the apartments in most of the rest of the interior. (I am not claiming moreso than the Sunset, etc.)
Apparently you've never had the experience to the over-sexualized "Boystown" neighborhood of Chicago or the Warehouse district of Minneapolis.
Those complaining are, quite obviously, homophobic rightwing Christian extremist Bush Republicans.
Get a few cherry bombs and a slingshot, and you can have great fun...
I've been visiting the Castro for over ten years, and have never, ever seen anything remotely like this. Maybe in some dark corner at 3 in the morning, or in the middle of the vast crowd on Halloween... but not "often".
There is one notorious alley (Ringold) which sees a good bit of public sex in the wee hours of the morning. But you have to go looking for it. It's not like you're going to stumble across it accidentally.
Dale, do you think gay couples becoming more "traditional" (i.e., Christian) is a good thing?
"Traditional" and "Christian" are not synonyms.
Not here and there. I lived there in the 80s. The conduct was open, in the streets and parks (literally), and in your face. It was carnival 24/7. Complaints about obscene public conduct in the Castro, Polk, and Buena Vista were rampant, and only the AIDS scare really prompted conduct reform.
I can't speak for Chicago, but nowadays the Warehouse district in Minneapolis is more notorious for street crime and nightclub violence than for public debauchery, gay or otherwise. And to think the Twins want to build their new ballpark right next to it!
A few years back, there was a celebratory party for the new stadium initiative passing, at which a naked woman chains a naked man down, cuts patterns into his back, and then urinates on the wounds. All sorts of important political figures were there, including the chief of police and several county supervisors when this "entertainment" started.
San Francisco is filled with sickness.
An inflatable sheep? That's probably the best idea for a gag gift I've ever heard. Clayton, do you recall the name of the store?
If more people visited areas like the Castro district or Hillcrest in San Diego, they wouldn't have such a Will and Grace view of homosexuals.
With that said, I have no sympathy for someone who knowingly moves into a red light district (or fails to research the neighborhood before moving) and then complains about the neighbors.
I completely agree. A lot of liberal enthusiasm for homosexuality is because the only homosexuals they know are judges, lawyers, and others with enough sense not to expose the seamy side of gay life to straight society. Live in the Bay Area for a while, and you get to see an uncensored view of it.
Yeah, there are gay male couples that have been together for 20 years--but there's an awful lot of gay men for whom "long-term relationship" means that they go back to an apartment, instead of exchanging fluids in a public restroom, or on the beach at Fire Island, or the Russian River.
How long were you even in SF? Have you ever been to any other big city (notice that the smell and homeless situation were incredibly similar to that of SF)? Also, you mention Robert Noel and Marjorie Knoller, those were incredibly sick individuals and everyone from SF knew it and said so. That is why there was the sudden cry to prosecute them. News reports of the Castro are the epitome of modern muckracking.
The "seamy side of homosexuality" that people have referred to is also a bogus argument. What about the "sex cruises" that straight people go on (one of my wife's coworkers goes on at least 2 a year)? Or the trips to South East Asia to have sex with 12-14 year old girls. Does all of this mean that straight people are all deviants too? Of course not, it means that, just like every other group of people, there are some in the group that are sick.
Also, the reason that very few people with kids live in central SF is because of the cost. Anyone who has the joy of being a parent knows that it is expensive to be one. The fact that studio condos here usually start at half a million dollars is fairly cost prohibitive. So many people- like me- choose to live in the East Bay and commute into the city.
Yes, there are other big cities with big homeless problems. San Diego, at least the last time I was there, was not too different (although perhaps because less crowded, it seemed less severe). I've spent a few days recently in New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago. None of them were free of homeless people, but San Francisco seemed to have a much more severe problem (again, perhaps because of density). San Franciscans seem to take some pride in how severe their homeless problem is--sort of, "Isn't this cool! We have people who are so unconventional that they don't even have regular homes! How bohemian!" It is a city awash in people who think the "La Wie du Boheme" (or whatever the title of the song is in Rent) is something to be proud of.
Why would you call people that have sex with animals "sick"? Isn't that awfully narrowminded and puritanical of you?
How about when those of us who have passed through the Castro open our eyes? Sorry, but the news reports I see of the Castro seem to be pretty cleaned up compared to what I used to see there.
I have no memories of seeing those groups marching in straight pride parades. Why is that? Because straight people don't make excuses or defend child molestation--instead, we passed laws that made a criminal offense to travel to a foreign country for the purpose of child prostitution.
There are all sorts of reasons not to live in San Francisco. It has always had a rough side. When my family moved there in 1958, we lived in an apartment south of Market. My older sisters were absolutely shocked by what they saw in the junior high: guys attacking each other with knives, girls cutting each other with broken bottles.
Well, at least the straight people have enough consideration to take their cow orking offshore.
I have no doubt that he did see an awful lot of homeless people because Hastings is right next to Civic Center and that was long been a place where the homeless congregated -- it's relatively empty at night now because of heightened law enforcement and other efforts to "clean the place up". The homeless situation in SF is also improving under our liberal mayor, with all sorts of liberal programs to help the homeless -- programs Clayton would no doubt dislike.
LOL!
I've never met someone who takes pride in our homeless problem. Indeed, to the contrary, San Francisco more than most cities tries to do something to help the homeless (which, of course, only attracts more homeless people here).
Where in the report is the 'hedonism' suggested as a reason for the higher rate?
Are you talking out of your ass again Clayton?
Is the meth problem in rural states due to the fact that we in rural areas live a more hedonistic lifestyle?
You are grasping at straws to justify your hatred towards gays.
What are the substance abuse numbers for the country as a whole? You might to be careful on this; meth and Viagra are consumed by a rather wild gay party crowd in many big cities, producing a very high STD rate. The meth causes erection problems; the Viagra solves that problem; the meth causes stupid actions like unsafe sex.
In any case, the high substance abuse rates of the homosexual community are well established.
Hatred. No. I am tired of seeing the whole society and its laws restructured so that damaged people don't have to confront their damage.
I lived in the SF Bay Area for ten years, leaving less than 2 years ago. Of those ten, I lived in SF proper from 1995-1999 and 2002-2004. In between I lived in the South Bay, the Peninsula, and the East Bay.
San Francisco may not have homeless activists who "take pride" in their homeless problem, but they actually do have activists who have legally ensured that it is IMPOSSIBLE to force a homeless person out of the filth and into a shelter or assisted living. They have activists who have buoyed up the drug and crime infested shanty towns. They have activists, judges, and politicians who have made sure that it is basically impossible to stop giving cash payments to addicts.
You can tell me that SF is cleaner in the last two years--I wouldn't be able to disagree, as I have no data--but no one was even trying to clean up Polk Street or Van Ness or Mission at 16th before. There it was common for me to watch junkies buy heroin from RVs. It was common for me (as in, occurred MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK) to watch them shoot up in front of the church at the corner of Sacramento and Van Ness. It was common for me (again, MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK) to see men walk around and defecate in public.
re: my claim about often seeing men having sex in the Casto in public: by "often", I mean that I'd say on average, one in 4 weekend Saturday nights, I'd see men having sex with men on the street next to the Hot n Hunky. You may not think that's often, but I do.
As for sex in public, frankly, I don't really see what the problem is. I've been to France and all over Asia, and there public sex isn't considered such a big deal. Maybe if Americans got over their prudery of the human body, and embraced the naturalness of sex, then maybe all our therapists could pack their bags....
Are you talking out of your ass again Clayton?
Yes.
Cramer seems to know more about what homosexuals do than more than a few of us homosexuals. Having observed some of his rantings and ravings off and on over a few years, he seems to have a fixation on homosexuals. It makes one wonder why.
Mr. Cramer,
Have you ever met or known a homosexual who was living a life that you respected? You seem so biased here.
Is there not one homosexual law professor, or homosexual family person, that you have come to know and respect? If not, then I think the problem is with you.
We are here (respectable homosexuals, religious homosexuals, parenting homosexuals). Some of us respect our straight friends, family and co-workers and simply want equal rights to what heterosexuals have in society, no more and no less.
I've read you enough to know you think this is greedy, and probably immoral in your view. Like you have some duty to deny these rights, it makes me laugh at all the scholarly noise here.
Mr. Cramer: No one cares what your personal views are. You have no power over us. And you can't be truly enjoying your freedoms much if you keep coming here to comment on homosexuals pursuit of theirs. You are a silly silly little man. Silly. Little. Really.
You impress your views on your own family; leave American society out of it. Here, you're entertainment, not intellectual, not reasoning. You have sexual fears; you sputter and spout, but convince no one.
Let's see... After the first time, you went back again on a Saturday night. Then the second time ... third... fourth... You must have liked what you were seeing to keep going back for more. Did you ask to join in, or maybe shoot some pictures to get you through the weekdays?
Say, do you commonly visit highway restrooms too?
Well, I wouldn't think so, no. Just for the record, Clayton: what would YOU call them?
raj, Just--took you guys long enough!
Just got around to reading this today...
Seriously though, if you don't like what you're seeing in the street of a gay area on a Saturday night, why go back again, again, and again (4 times he says) just to be offended? To see if they had "cleaned up their act" ??
Just suggesting that being curious -- 4 times over -- might account for his being offended. Nothing at all wrong with that though...