DeletedUser
it would have but why give him another excuse to be in there?
it would have but why give him another excuse to be in there?
DeletedUser
And now for my blunt honest opinion. This damn society is way too caught up on sexuality. I was in a McDonald's recently in the Carolinas, and an overweight african-american 40+ year old woman, who was working there cleaning the tables got all upset and flustered when she looked out in the parking lot to see a young couple in their bathing suits. She started blabbering on about how, "they better not be coming in here dressed like that! You watch, you watch! We'll drag 'em out and make them put on clothes!"
I felt like saying, "if it was you in that bathing suit, I could see why. Damn but you're an eyesore!"
Anyway, the U.S. is incredibly prudish. In Brazil, women walk around topless on the beach. In many places of Africa, public exposure is common place. In many countries, sexuality isn't such a damn big deal as it is in the U.S.. It's the mere fact we make it a big deal that it becomes such a problem, because well over half the population thinks they're depraved (when they're not), and a butt-load have become depraved because of all the taboos attributed to sex, the human body, and perky nipples.
Place bathrooms outdoors. Let people piss and crap in public. Other countries do it, what's our problem with that? In fact, what's our problem with male/female body parts, "looking (aka: peeping)," being attracted to the opposite sex or even taking photos of men/women dressed scantily in public? If you're out there, be it mental photos or physical photos, you're out there. Everyone needs to just stop being so damn uptight, so damn prudish and insecure about their own sexuality.
"Yo babe, I'm looking at you like a piece of meat. You mind?"
I felt like saying, "if it was you in that bathing suit, I could see why. Damn but you're an eyesore!"
Anyway, the U.S. is incredibly prudish. In Brazil, women walk around topless on the beach. In many places of Africa, public exposure is common place. In many countries, sexuality isn't such a damn big deal as it is in the U.S.. It's the mere fact we make it a big deal that it becomes such a problem, because well over half the population thinks they're depraved (when they're not), and a butt-load have become depraved because of all the taboos attributed to sex, the human body, and perky nipples.
Place bathrooms outdoors. Let people piss and crap in public. Other countries do it, what's our problem with that? In fact, what's our problem with male/female body parts, "looking (aka: peeping)," being attracted to the opposite sex or even taking photos of men/women dressed scantily in public? If you're out there, be it mental photos or physical photos, you're out there. Everyone needs to just stop being so damn uptight, so damn prudish and insecure about their own sexuality.
"Yo babe, I'm looking at you like a piece of meat. You mind?"
DeletedUser
Incorrect. That someone sometime may try to exploit a legal loophole does mean that ANYONE would. There must be millions of laws that I am not even remotely tempted to circumvent and walking into a female washroom is one of them. I guess we've all done it once or twice in our lives by mistake and the overwhelming reaction is of embarrassment. That seems normal to me.
Occasionally society throws up abnormalities in behaviour, but I think these are probably covered by existing laws already. It's a storm in a teacup imho. Instead of freaking myself out over what I imagine may result from a legal change I take the line "try it - see what happens and if it's no good then put it back the way it was". It's not as if human lives are at stake here.
btw thx for the rep
DeletedUser
Simple answer, no.
If I wanted to "check out babes," I would find far more to "check out" at the beach. But I find it disturbing, and rather telling, that you think many would be inclined to do this in the first place. So tell me Gizmo, would you walk into the opposite gender's bathroom if there were a legal loophole to exploit? If so, why? If not, why not?
DeletedUser
no I will not. because I"m not some sick person. but even if there are 1/100 or 1% of the people that would do it I still believe that they should not be given that loophole to exploit.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser1121
You are making this issue way to big Gizmo.
Lets see what will happen if someone does want to try the loophole.
When someone walks in and gets arrested, he needs to prove he has a gender issue.
Otherwise he will get a fine or jailtime (don't know the penalty America has put on this).
So he will need to go into a psychiatric program to determine if he is in fact having a gender issue.
Which will take months.. Just to have a 5 minute peak. Like HS said, there are better places to have a peak at a woman.. It just isn't worth the time. Or do you think they will just let you go when you say "Hey, you can't put me in jail, i have a gender issue." You are the one that has to show that you in fact have it and need to come with evidence for it.
Lets see what will happen if someone does want to try the loophole.
When someone walks in and gets arrested, he needs to prove he has a gender issue.
Otherwise he will get a fine or jailtime (don't know the penalty America has put on this).
So he will need to go into a psychiatric program to determine if he is in fact having a gender issue.
Which will take months.. Just to have a 5 minute peak. Like HS said, there are better places to have a peak at a woman.. It just isn't worth the time. Or do you think they will just let you go when you say "Hey, you can't put me in jail, i have a gender issue." You are the one that has to show that you in fact have it and need to come with evidence for it.
DeletedUser
you must not get it with all this PC stuff going on that even if a cop does arrest said person he will be charged with a hate crime no matter what. because common sense dictates that first a person has to call the police for the police to come. and then determine if said person needs to be arrested. you know like the police officer that was doing his Job when he arrested the guy who was breaking into his own house. (there was a big deal made over it. Obama invited both of them to the white house for a "beer summit")
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
And you think this law would change that? Of course not, you just said it... "no matter what."
DeletedUser1121
Yep, that pretty much killed this discussion
DeletedUser
This is so true. The US is ridiculously prudish. It wasn't that long ago that women couldn't show their ankles
Imagine! If our society decided that it was taboo to look at arms - then this could easily become a discussion about perverts who push up their sleeves in public. The first thing our society has to do is calm down. If you take a person out of their clothes you have a naked animal. Most animals are comfortable in their own skin. Clothes have the realistic purpose of protection from the elements- but we have added the odd idea that they should also protect us from view. We are the odd ones with our strange customs and taboos that have us squirreled away in little cubicles hiding our natural selves.DeletedUser
DeletedUser
Men | Women & Gays
I can honestly see the abuse occuring constantly. Number one, people will more than likely not be very tolerant of the change. Number two, as stated before, bathroom rape isn't uncommon... A sex offender posing as a homosexual could gain entry to a womans bathroom, and anyone inside could be at risk of assault.
I can honestly see the abuse occuring constantly. Number one, people will more than likely not be very tolerant of the change. Number two, as stated before, bathroom rape isn't uncommon... A sex offender posing as a homosexual could gain entry to a womans bathroom, and anyone inside could be at risk of assault.
DeletedUser
Then there's already apparently no trouble gaining access to those high security ladies' rooms.
Well, I take that back, it would help a lot if a man was able to enter wearing a dress. It would be much easier to make sure there was only one person in the room.
DeletedUser
Really? Bathroom rape isn't uncommon? Any statistics to back that claim? And where does this law change these "alleged" statistics?
Right here, you are making the horribly erroneous assumption that homosexuals are sex offenders. Get out of here with that crap.
Anyway, for this discussion, the proper argument should be: if you have male organs, you go to the male-designed bathroom. If you have female organs, you go to the female-designed bathroom. If you have both, you can go to either. U.S. society is not ready for shared bathrooms, it is not ready to accept a person with a penis in a women's group access bathroom, it is not ready to accept a person with a vagina in a men's group access bathroom.
The issue here is that the U.S., their society, is not ready for rational thought (as demonstrated by David's last post).
DeletedUser
Well, #1. There's individual stories of rape of both boys and girls in bathrooms. I'm taking up time to defend against the next quote, so here is my source, take it or leave it. http://www.snopes.com/crime/prevent/rape.asp
Get out of here with that crappy crap. You missed my point ENTIRELY. What I was saying was this: A heterosexual sex offender could POSE as a law abiding Homosexual to gain entry to WOMEN'S bathrooms. Maybe it is my fault that I didn't further elaborate, as I was a bit occupied and wanted to check into the forum to see what all I'd missed, hince my short as john-rogers replies.
I could have said that.
Smar'd:donkey:. You misinterpreted it, thus defeating the purpose of providing me as a statistic.
DeletedUser
Hehe, your source discredits your claim.
lol, you do realize the ridiculousness of your statement, right? A homosexual "sex offender" would enter a "same sex" bathroom facility. Permissions already exist, so if you want to argue the issue of "opposite sex" bathroom facilities, you'll need to demonstrate there's more (per capita and in ratio comparative) same-sex bathroom-related sex offenses being committed than opposite-sex bathroom related sex offenses. Why? Because it's already legal for a heterosexual/homosexual/anysexual sex offender to enter a same-sex bathroom facility. So, to argue your erroneous claim, you'll need to demonstrate that legalizing entry into opposite-sex bathroom facilities would result in more sex offenses committed in bathroom facilities. And, catch being, you can't. Not because the statistics are not available (your earlier link indicated where you can find those statistics), but because those statistics demonstrate incidents in bathrooms happen no more often than anywhere else that is private and/or secluded. If a public bathroom is well lit, in a well-trafficked area, and closed at times there is no traffic, windows of opportunity will have been reduced substantially. But denying a change to this law will have "no" impact on the issue, nor can you demonstrate, statistically, that a change in this law will result in increased sex offenses in bathroom facilities, because the statistics don't agree with your assertions.
To add, you're saying a heterosexual "sex offender" would pose as gender-reversed to legally enter an "opposite sex" bathroom facility for the purposes of performing rape upon a person of the opposite sex, which is just plain silly, since they're entering it in the first place to violate the law.
Let's cut to the chase here --- if a person is going to commit a crime, he doesn't need permission to enter a particular area just to commit that crime. Let's put it another way: If he enters that bathroom, posing as having a gender identity issue, so he doesn't get arrested for entering the bathroom of the opposite sex, and then commits a crime that would result in him being arrested, what's the point? Why the hell would he care about obtaining permission to enter a bathroom of the opposite sex since he's there to commit a crime that would get him arrested in the first place?!??!?!?!!?!
C'mon David, get back to thinking things through.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Since Hellstromm already said a big part of what I think on the subject, I'd just like to clarify something. There is a difference between being homosexual and being trans-gender. If one of the perverts mentioned would be willing to dress like a member of the opposite sex in order to get a peek at someone in the bathroom, there's nothing stopping them from doing it now and they may already be there.
I personally wouldn't feel a lot more comfortable having a member of my own sex "peeking" at me under a bathroom door than I would a member of the opposite sex. I just don't see the likelihood that "normal" men (whatever that means) would suddenly dress up like women to be able to enter a women's bathroom and risk being seen by friends or coworkers and being labeled by them. It's about people who live as a member of one sex when they were born the other (or who have the body parts to be either), not about some bearded guy putting on a dress or a bit of lipstick to use as a pass.
I personally wouldn't feel a lot more comfortable having a member of my own sex "peeking" at me under a bathroom door than I would a member of the opposite sex. I just don't see the likelihood that "normal" men (whatever that means) would suddenly dress up like women to be able to enter a women's bathroom and risk being seen by friends or coworkers and being labeled by them. It's about people who live as a member of one sex when they were born the other (or who have the body parts to be either), not about some bearded guy putting on a dress or a bit of lipstick to use as a pass.
DeletedUser
Just an antecedent; I'm changing "RAPE" to "Sexual ________" (harassment or assault) because it's a broader term. You're more likely to get away with being a peeping tom than rapist, and that supports my argument better. I jumped on a powerboat and fell off; I'm on a steamer now and happy.
I read through it before posting, and just said "to hell with it." Mistake I know.
Hellstromm. Let me restate the topic because you're not getting me here:
Caps are for stressing the words. Not yelling them. Just so you know I no mad.
Um... I know that already. Problem is, how often do you see same-sex bathrooms utilized? In most urban areas, there's male|female bathrooms. The law deals with being able to enter a bathroom of the gender you identify with most. As I said, it'd be easy to lie.
IF the law is passed, and a sex offender wants to enter a 'female' bathroom, do you think the first thing he's going to think is 'lets get in there rape!'? Nope. Why else is he going to pose as homosexual? The only reason is so that he can claim that he identifies with the female gender over the male gender, and therefore be logically allowed to enter a 'girls only' restroom. He could easilly gain access without any cause for alarm to average women inside.
In simpler, easier cartoonish terms, think of episode Petard, of Family Guy. Despite the unrealism of the episode, I'm going to state that a sex offender... Or male in general... Could instead of stating a disability as in this cartoon episode, state that he identifies with the female gender and gain access to the female-only bathroom. So, what can you do in a female bathroom and get away with? It's not that hard to think of what kind of harassment can occur. The probably most common way could be being a peeping tom. Despite the vivid language of calling a guy a '', he may as well be.
Does it have to be a sex offender? No.
Joke. Anywho!
My flaw: Should have called it sexual harassment/assault from the start rather than rape. Rape was too specific.
I am aware of that.Hehe, your source discredits your claim.
I read through it before posting, and just said "to hell with it." Mistake I know.Hellstromm. Let me restate the topic because you're not getting me here:
So. Who says you can't lie about it? I could easilly say I identify with women and back it up with something I pull out of my... RIP Ryan Dunn.
Moreover, I never mentioned a HOMOSEXUAL SEX OFFENDER, I mentioned a HETEROSEXUAL SEX OFFENDER. A STRAIGHT DUDE WHO'S A SEX OFFENDER. And he PRETENDS to be gay, re-worded, he CLAIMS HE IDENTIFIES WITH the FEMALE gender. Therefore, he can gain access to a FEMALE RESTROOM.A homosexual "sex offender" would enter a "same sex" bathroom facility. Permissions already exist, so if you want to argue the issue of "opposite sex" bathroom facilities, you'll need to demonstrate there's more (per capita and in ratio comparative) same-sex bathroom-related sex offenses being committed than opposite-sex bathroom related sex offenses.
I'm not talking about same-sex bathrooms, nor are they a part of the argument.
Caps are for stressing the words. Not yelling them. Just so you know I no mad.
Um... I know that already. Problem is, how often do you see same-sex bathrooms utilized? In most urban areas, there's male|female bathrooms. The law deals with being able to enter a bathroom of the gender you identify with most. As I said, it'd be easy to lie.
I corrected my error, and I am no longer saying rape. It's broader now!
I guess I can try...
IF the law is passed, and a sex offender wants to enter a 'female' bathroom, do you think the first thing he's going to think is 'lets get in there rape!'? Nope. Why else is he going to pose as homosexual? The only reason is so that he can claim that he identifies with the female gender over the male gender, and therefore be logically allowed to enter a 'girls only' restroom. He could easilly gain access without any cause for alarm to average women inside.
In simpler, easier cartoonish terms, think of episode Petard, of Family Guy. Despite the unrealism of the episode, I'm going to state that a sex offender... Or male in general... Could instead of stating a disability as in this cartoon episode, state that he identifies with the female gender and gain access to the female-only bathroom. So, what can you do in a female bathroom and get away with? It's not that hard to think of what kind of harassment can occur. The probably most common way could be being a peeping tom. Despite the vivid language of calling a guy a '', he may as well be.
Does it have to be a sex offender? No.
How'd you know I got that woman pregnant!?C'mon David, get back to thinking things through.
Joke. Anywho!
My flaw: Should have called it sexual harassment/assault from the start rather than rape. Rape was too specific.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Changing the word doesn't change the argument. For the purposes of this argument, a sex crime is a sex crime. Also, I recommend you reread my earlier post, as your arguments clearly demonstrate you didn't understand what I wrote.