The biggest argument for “bathroom bills” was destroyed by this study

[Toni]

From the perspective of the building owner, cheaper to install and maintain, uses less water, theoretically easier to clean. Also tends to allow quicker in/out for the men who use them.

Doesn't matter to me if a builder chooses to use all stalls. I just don't see a mix of both as a problem either.

I guess it bothers me that there are special accommodations for males that are not/or similar are not available to women, and that there is an unequal distribution of resources.

I understand that it is cheaper. I could argue about easier to clean, given what I've seen left in urinals but hey.

Well the provision of urinals means that men who only need to pee don't occupy a stall that women are lining up for, so the distribution of resources is not really that inequitable.

Certainly there should not be as many urinals as there are stalls; The numbers of each should be allocated to roughly equalize wait times between men and women, while minimizing both.

Many architectural guidelines and standards fail to do this, and instead go for the allocation of equal floor area, or equal numbers of (stalls plus urinals), but neither of these simplistic rules is really fair - Provision of equal space, in particular, is hugely unfair to women, and is the reason why the line for the ladies is almost always longer than for the men at large venues.

A balance between urinal and stall provision that both minimizes wait times and equalizes them for both genders would imply somewhere in the order of 3 stalls or more, for every one urinal position.

Based on what data?

 

[Toni]

Again, there is NOTHING wrong with seeing someone naked. One would think that religionists would be happy with this return to Eden? They are so weird.

---

Your religion's unhealthy obsession with sex, that leads you to conclude a sexual motive for any instance of human nakedness, is truly vile and depraved. .

And THAT is indeed the rub (if you'll pardon the pun). I recall a child being at our house when a very minor incident of "nudity" happened - i.e. a male child was changing in the bathroom and the door was not closed. He was around the corner, and no one could see him, it was just clear that in there was a half naked boy, who continued to participate in the conversation as he changed out of his swimsuit.

The expression on one of the girl-child's faces was so interesting, she was clearly thinking ALL ABOUT naked boy because she had been raised to think nudity = sexuality. While the rest of the kids were like, "yeah, I totally loved that book, too!" She had been raised in this creepy destructive way that even the knowledge that someone was changing in another room created sexual tension. I felt bad for her, burdened with such a harmful and destructive predatory doctrine. She was overwhelmed by the twisted doctrine.

Not necessarily. Some people are just more shy about their bodies and the bodies of others. Among my siblings, I was seen as rather outrageous because nudity didn’t bother me. Among my children, a couple were similarly free spirited and the others were much more shy about nudity. In the same way, some people are more outgoing while others are more introverted. Shyness is something else altogether. A lot of personality is inherited. It is no more acceptable or desirable to make a child feel ashamed of their feelings of shyness than it is to make them feel ashamed of their bodies. I’ve watched parents try to insist that their child be more outgoing than the child actually is. Such attempts undermine rather than foster self confidence, whether it is speaking in public, approaching strangers, or exposing or being exposed to nudity.

 

[Rhea]

Well the provision of urinals means that men who only need to pee don't occupy a stall that women are lining up for, so the distribution of resources is not really that inequitable.

Certainly there should not be as many urinals as there are stalls; The numbers of each should be allocated to roughly equalize wait times between men and women, while minimizing both.

Many architectural guidelines and standards fail to do this, and instead go for the allocation of equal floor area, or equal numbers of (stalls plus urinals), but neither of these simplistic rules is really fair - Provision of equal space, in particular, is hugely unfair to women, and is the reason why the line for the ladies is almost always longer than for the men at large venues.

A balance between urinal and stall provision that both minimizes wait times and equalizes them for both genders would imply somewhere in the order of 3 stalls or more, for every one urinal position.

Based on what data?

There's some good data on this out there, and a recent study about how square-foot equality is not equality of service in bathrooms.
A good input on this is that 3 bathrooms be built, and two go to ladies' rooms unless there is a particular crowd that changes the dynamic (e.g. NASCAR) and then you re-label.

 

[Rhea]

The expression on one of the girl-child's faces was so interesting, she was clearly thinking ALL ABOUT naked boy because she had been raised to think nudity = sexuality. While the rest of the kids were like, "yeah, I totally loved that book, too!" She had been raised in this creepy destructive way that even the knowledge that someone was changing in another room created sexual tension. I felt bad for her, burdened with such a harmful and destructive predatory doctrine. She was overwhelmed by the twisted doctrine.

Not necessarily. Some people are just more shy about their bodies and the bodies of others. Among my siblings, I was seen as rather outrageous because nudity didn’t bother me. Among my children, a couple were similarly free spirited and the others were much more shy about nudity. In the same way, some people are more outgoing while others are more introverted. Shyness is something else altogether. A lot of personality is inherited. It is no more acceptable or desirable to make a child feel ashamed of their feelings of shyness than it is to make them feel ashamed of their bodies. I’ve watched parents try to insist that their child be more outgoing than the child actually is. Such attempts undermine rather than foster self confidence, whether it is speaking in public, approaching strangers, or exposing or being exposed to nudity.

I understand shyness.
It is not the same as being excited/amazed/intensely curious/guilty for feeling any of those.
She was trying so hard to not look at the bathroom door with a smile that said "oh I want to look so much!" I felt for her being made to think this was so revolutionary. Of course my reaction was to gently steer future changers to close the door and say nothing of it. But it was very interesting to know that the male body was a matter of mystery and secrecy and guilt and taboo to her.

It's the difference between feeling bad when a kid's shorts fall and feeling "OMG I SAW A PENIS!!!1!!!!" about it.

 

[Toni]

The expression on one of the girl-child's faces was so interesting, she was clearly thinking ALL ABOUT naked boy because she had been raised to think nudity = sexuality. While the rest of the kids were like, "yeah, I totally loved that book, too!" She had been raised in this creepy destructive way that even the knowledge that someone was changing in another room created sexual tension. I felt bad for her, burdened with such a harmful and destructive predatory doctrine. She was overwhelmed by the twisted doctrine.

Not necessarily. Some people are just more shy about their bodies and the bodies of others. Among my siblings, I was seen as rather outrageous because nudity didn’t bother me. Among my children, a couple were similarly free spirited and the others were much more shy about nudity. In the same way, some people are more outgoing while others are more introverted. Shyness is something else altogether. A lot of personality is inherited. It is no more acceptable or desirable to make a child feel ashamed of their feelings of shyness than it is to make them feel ashamed of their bodies. I’ve watched parents try to insist that their child be more outgoing than the child actually is. Such attempts undermine rather than foster self confidence, whether it is speaking in public, approaching strangers, or exposing or being exposed to nudity.

I understand shyness.
It is not the same as being excited/amazed/intensely curious/guilty for feeling any of those.
She was trying so hard to not look at the bathroom door with a smile that said "oh I want to look so much!" I felt for her being made to think this was so revolutionary. Of course my reaction was to gently steer future changers to close the door and say nothing of it. But it was very interesting to know that the male body was a matter of mystery and secrecy and guilt and taboo to her.

It's the difference between feeling bad when a kid's shorts fall and feeling "OMG I SAW A PENIS!!!1!!!!" about it.

Being excited/amazed/intensely curious, and vaguely embarrassed or ashamed seems fairly normal a reaction especially for a kid who didn’t expect to see their friend’s sibling unclothed. Even more so if it were a single gendered set of siblings and/or the family norm was to be covered up. The kid may not have been naturally very shy but perhaps her family was. She may or may not be accustomed to casual nudity within her own family but it is not a stretch to think that she did not expect to se a partially nude boy at her friend’s house. It would be normal for her to be curious, excited, a little embarrassed at her interest. Especially if she felt a bit of a crush on the boy.

This is true whether or not her family is religious or what religious beliefs they follow.

 

[Lion IRC]

What a surprise.
Folks scrambling to disavow and clarify that there actually ARE instances where a child "merely viewing" a naked adult (and vice versa) might result in moral harm.

I notice that society has already begun trending back towards Puritanism. Mobs with pitchforks going after people for their "inappropriate" behaviour.

 

[bilby]

What a surprise.
Folks scrambling to disavow and clarify that there actually ARE instances where a child "merely viewing" a naked adult (and vice versa) might result in moral harm.

Really? Where (other than your fevered imagination) is this happening? Would you care to quote anyone (other than you) in this thread who has said that there actually ARE instances where a child "merely viewing" a naked adult (and vice versa) might result in moral harm? Because I suspect you can't - without distorting their words, or taking them out of their clear context.

In fact, I don't think anyone else in this thread so far has even accepted that such a thing as 'moral harm' even exists. Being sexually abused or exploited is not 'moral harm', it's psychological (and often physiological) harm.

Catching a glimpse of a naked person is neither pshychologically nor physiologically harmful, though it may trigger psychological symptoms in someone who has been routinely psychologically abused by adults who want to inculcate unreasonable feelings of guilt in them in order to better control them.

What the fuck even is 'moral harm', other than "not behaving the way Lion IRC's church demands"?

I notice that society has already begun trending back towards Puritanism. Mobs with pitchforks going after people for their "inappropriate" behaviour.

LOL

Says the person who wants nudity to be considered sexual behaviour, and something to which children should never be exposed. FFS, religion really does always get everything backwards.

 

[laughing dog]

What a surprise.
Folks scrambling to disavow and clarify that there actually ARE instances where a child "merely viewing" a naked adult (and vice versa) might result in moral harm.

Children do not naturally fear body parts - as anyone who has had children understands. Children can be taught fear and loathing about a body part - usually by ignorant religionists and the like.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yeah, yeah.
"Give me the child for the first seven years and...."

#gender-whisperers #rainbow-agenda

 

[phands]

What a surprise.
Folks scrambling to disavow and clarify that there actually ARE instances where a child "merely viewing" a naked adult (and vice versa) might result in moral harm.

Children do not naturally fear body parts - as anyone who has had children understands. Children can be taught fear and loathing about a body part - usually by ignorant religionists and the like.

This is the perfect illustration of how debased and debasing religion is.
There is zero wrong with nudity/nakedness, and religion seems terrified of sex, so it twists everything into a grotesque parody, bends kids' minds and then tries to claim the moral high ground.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, yeah.
"Give me the child for the first seven years and...."

#gender-whisperers #rainbow-agenda Catholic priests

FIFY

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Of course, we all knew already that these "bathroom bills" were never about protecting the public in the first place. It's just more "small government" conservative bigotry.

You've got to persecute someone. Blacks aren't legal game anymore.

If I'm ideologically set to need bogeymen and enemies I'll find them no matter what. It's all just about fear and hate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are watching TV with your kids. You're feeling frisky so you wife gives you a blow job.

No problem, kids can figure it all out..right?

1) Different matter entirely.

2) In the old days that's how we evolved. Why do you think it would be harmful?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What Loren said.

We have several nightclubs / restaurant with unisex bathrooms, and that is exactly how it's done.

I’m not sure why urinals are necessary.

We've been over this before. They're more efficient use of space.

 

[bilby]

You are watching TV with your kids. You're feeling frisky so you wife gives you a blow job.

No problem, kids can figure it all out..right?

1) Different matter entirely.

2) In the old days that's how we evolved. Why do you think it would be harmful?

The entire concept of non-communal/private bedchambers didn't really exist in Northern Europe (and its colonies) prior to the widespread adoption of the domestic chimney in the 16th and 17th centuries. For all of the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages, and for all but the very wealthiest Romans, all of the Saxons, and but the very wealthiest nobles through most of the Medieval period, almost everyone slept in communal halls, and children grew up seeing adults naked, and seeing them having sex. There is no evidence that this led to any harm whatsoever.

Indeed, prudishness about nakedness really didn't take off until the urbanization of the 19th century made it possible for the first time for most people to live in a way that they could reasonably choose to avoid seeing other humans naked.

It's a modern phenomenon that has become so widely adopted that people assume it is natural or traditional.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sorry. I mixed up the quote/story. (My bad)
The story about Mr Weinstein isn't even relevant.

Bilby was talking about the 'harmlessness' of exposing your genitals to children.

"exposing your genitals to children" - A claim you still have not supported and is therefore, rightfully, ignored.

I don't have to support anything.
bilby certainly didn't support the emphatic CLAIM that indecent exposure is harmless to children.

And what's your evidence that it's harmful to children?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From the perspective of the building owner, cheaper to install and maintain, uses less water, theoretically easier to clean. Also tends to allow quicker in/out for the men who use them.

Doesn't matter to me if a builder chooses to use all stalls. I just don't see a mix of both as a problem either.

I guess it bothers me that there are special accommodations for males that are not/or similar are not available to women, and that there is an unequal distribution of resources.

I understand that it is cheaper. I could argue about easier to clean, given what I've seen left in urinals but hey.

Yeah, your unhealthy obsession with nobody else being able to have something you don't.

 

[phands]

I don't have to support anything.
bilby certainly didn't support the emphatic CLAIM that indecent exposure is harmless to children.

And what's your evidence that it's harmful to children?

He doesn't do evidence - he's religious.

 

[laughing dog]

From the perspective of the building owner, cheaper to install and maintain, uses less water, theoretically easier to clean. Also tends to allow quicker in/out for the men who use them.

Doesn't matter to me if a builder chooses to use all stalls. I just don't see a mix of both as a problem either.

I guess it bothers me that there are special accommodations for males that are not/or similar are not available to women, and that there is an unequal distribution of resources.

I understand that it is cheaper. I could argue about easier to clean, given what I've seen left in urinals but hey.

Yeah, your unhealthy obsession with nobody else being able to have something you don't.

. It is obvious from Toni's post that urinals are part of the unequal distribution of rest room resources. There is not unhealthy about wanting an equal distribution of restroom resource. In fact, given that women tend to naturally take more time in the rest room, it makes sense that they have more restroom facilities.

But I guess an unequal distribution of bathroom resources is ok with you as long as it favors your gender.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I understand shyness.
It is not the same as being excited/amazed/intensely curious/guilty for feeling any of those.
She was trying so hard to not look at the bathroom door with a smile that said "oh I want to look so much!" I felt for her being made to think this was so revolutionary. Of course my reaction was to gently steer future changers to close the door and say nothing of it. But it was very interesting to know that the male body was a matter of mystery and secrecy and guilt and taboo to her.

It's the difference between feeling bad when a kid's shorts fall and feeling "OMG I SAW A PENIS!!!1!!!!" about it.

Being excited/amazed/intensely curious, and vaguely embarrassed or ashamed seems fairly normal a reaction especially for a kid who didn’t expect to see their friend’s sibling unclothed. Even more so if it were a single gendered set of siblings and/or the family norm was to be covered up. The kid may not have been naturally very shy but perhaps her family was. She may or may not be accustomed to casual nudity within her own family but it is not a stretch to think that she did not expect to se a partially nude boy at her friend’s house. It would be normal for her to be curious, excited, a little embarrassed at her interest. Especially if she felt a bit of a crush on the boy.

This is true whether or not her family is religious or what religious beliefs they follow.

You didn't understand her--nothing was exposed. The boy was around a corner, just not behind any barrier.

- - - Updated - - -

What a surprise.
Folks scrambling to disavow and clarify that there actually ARE instances where a child "merely viewing" a naked adult (and vice versa) might result in moral harm.

I notice that society has already begun trending back towards Puritanism. Mobs with pitchforks going after people for their "inappropriate" behaviour.

No--you tried to include things we never intended to be included.

We were talking about simple nudity, not sexual behavior directed at the child. You brought up sexual situations, we said that's not what we were talking about.

Since you can't distinguish nudity from sex I see your problem.