Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

[Chessmistress]

Sorry, I'm not convinced, I still agree with her

You can't ask women to stand up to piss because our vagina makes it difficult to impossible for most women to do without the aid of tools. You can sit down. Men who don't sit weird me out.
ALso, I didn't know you had urinals in every house, small restaurant, etc. Because they aren't everywhere. If you find yourself in a restaurant or store that doesn't have a urinal, do you go hunting for the nearest walmart so you can validate your manhood by standing up to piss?

Personally, I'm more tolerant than her: even if I think that males should sit down, too, I couldn't care less about what they do within their bathroom.
But no way that most women will accept the presence of urinals within our bathroom, and, obiouvsly, unisex bathrooms would be even our bathrooms, not just only meant for males.
Meh, in fact within campuses unisex bathrooms should be even mainly meant for women rather than for males: it's not discrimination, it's just fairness due girls are 60%-65%, and boys just only 35%-40%.

[Apollinis]

Sorry, I'm not convinced, I still agree with her

You can't ask women to stand up to piss because our vagina makes it difficult to impossible for most women to do without the aid of tools. You can sit down. Men who don't sit weird me out.
ALso, I didn't know you had urinals in every house, small restaurant, etc. Because they aren't everywhere. If you find yourself in a restaurant or store that doesn't have a urinal, do you go hunting for the nearest walmart so you can validate your manhood by standing up to piss?

Personally, I'm more tolerant than her: even if I think that males should sit down, too, I couldn't care less about what they do within their bathroom.
But no way that most women will accept the presence of urinals within our bathroom, and, obiouvsly, unisex bathrooms would be even our bathrooms, not just only meant for males.
Meh, in fact within campuses unisex bathrooms should be even mainly meant for women rather than for males: it's not discrimination, it's just fairness due girls are 60%-65%, and boys just only 35%-40%.

You have yet to demonstrate that installing a urinal, possibly behind a partition to prevent mutual discomfort, which would free up more cubicles for men and women in the process, would be inherently inconvenient or "oppressive" towards women.

Even by your standards, this is some impressively terrible argumentation.

[Galloism]

Checked.
It seems, on the contrary, that the overwhelmingly majority of males vigorously shake their penises after pee.

There is a difference between standing at the urinal and giving your penis a shake post-pee, which is common and unobtrusive, and walking around the bathroom waving your dick about, which virtually no-one does.

But how else am I supposed to mark the bathroom as my territory to keep other males away?

[Galloism]

It's called lifting the seat. And somehow, pee manages to get on the seats in womens' restrooms, too, so I doubt these men would somehow lern 2 aim instead of just making a mess.

Anyhow, no urinals, no deal.

The complaints from women about how men should sit also rubs me the wrong way. If a similar complaint were made about women, I doubt we'd hear the end of it.

You can't ask women to stand up to piss because our vagina makes it difficult to impossible for most women to do without the aid of tools. You can sit down. Men who don't sit weird me out.
ALso, I didn't know you had urinals in every house, small restaurant, etc. Because they aren't everywhere. If you find yourself in a restaurant or store that doesn't have a urinal, do you go hunting for the nearest walmart so you can validate your manhood by standing up to piss?

It weirds me out that some men would voluntarily sit when they can stand.

I don't like touching anything more than necessary in a public bathroom. I use a paper towel to turn off the sink. I open the door with my foot. When touchless faucets and automatic doors with motion sensors started being put in, I thought that was about the greatest thing ever.

If you have a urinal that flushes itself, an automatic faucet, automatic soap dispenser, and automatic door, you don't have to touch anything. Ladies and gentlemen, that is the best public restroom in the world.

[Ifreann]

There is a difference between standing at the urinal and giving your penis a shake post-pee, which is common and unobtrusive, and walking around the bathroom waving your dick about, which virtually no-one does.

But how else am I supposed to mark the bathroom as my territory to keep other males away?

[Val Halla]

Btw, I just avoid public bathrooms personally.

[Ifreann]

Btw, I just avoid public bathrooms personally.

It's certainly easier not to touch anything in there if you never go in there.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I don't use males' bathroom, so I cannot be familiar at all.
The sound of urine is unrelated with sexual harassment.
Males waving their dick after pissing "virtually never happens"? Really? It doesn't sound realistic.

Then perhaps you should not be stating with authority that what your opinion is, actually represents truth. As I have stated before, men are not the animals you seem to think they are. I can state this with authority given that the vast majority of friends I have had over my lifetime have been men. Growing up, even in teenage years, I often almost had them 'forget' I was a girl because we were all so comfortable with one another's company. You'd be surprised what I know about men, how they think, how they act, all of that.

They're much less catty and prone to pettiness than women I've encountered. They tend to get to the point, and not clue in to the circular hints and expectations women have of reading their minds, or just 'knowing' what they want, need, etc. They have feelings. They're more easily hurt than you seem to think, but do a better job of covering it up. And they don't just sit around all day comparing dick sizes, and waving them about in the urinals. People who go in there to talk and gossip and spend extra time tend to be women. Talking to people through the stalls? Women. On phones? Women. Leave the toilets a mess? Women. I don't suppose I should go on?

The point is that you have a horribly biased view. You keep saying that this is the norm for feminists in the areas you've stated. A heads up? That still does not mean 'the majority of women and their opinions'. Its been my experience that a good many feminists (not to insult the folk out there not being misogynistic darlings) have a serious disconnect with the concept of men, let alone men in general. If not outright dislike, or hate, for whatever reason. They have a decided agenda. And I have not seen it as 'equality' so much as "All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others." Points for reference recognition.

If we're to get anywhere with things, what we primarily need is education, acceptance, and the taking down of some of the taboos we've developed socially. I have respect for privacy. I don't have an issue with it. I think there is much to be said for some basic sense of modesty. I don't think that people necessarily need to be deprived of those things. But I do think there is room for compromise, so that we can better accommodate as many of us as possible, while at the same time, actually offering some equality to the equation. None of it has to be at the expense or comfort of anyone else. Not if its done right.

It is a pity we have such a history of doing things wrong, admittedly - but that doesn't mean we need to lock ourselves into that.

[Dyakovo]

Btw, I just avoid public bathrooms personally.

My job makes that impossible... Not that using a public restroom was ever something that bothered me.

[Galloism]

Btw, I just avoid public bathrooms personally.

My job makes that impossible... Not that using a public restroom was ever something that bothered me.

Technically, you could carry a roll of toilet paper and poop in the woods.

Might be a hassle, though. Also, may violate certain littering laws. Also other laws.

[Sanctissima]

My job makes that impossible... Not that using a public restroom was ever something that bothered me.

Technically, you could carry a roll of toilet paper and poop in the woods.

Might be a hassle, though. Also, may violate certain littering laws. Also other laws.

Eh, free fertilizer.

It's a public service, really.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

My job makes that impossible... Not that using a public restroom was ever something that bothered me.

Technically, you could carry a roll of toilet paper and poop in the woods.

Might be a hassle, though. Also, may violate certain littering laws. Also other laws.

I haven't had to do that since backpacking out into the wilderness. I think we've generally evolved past that where we're able. Thank $deity. You guys do have a benefit over us in the pissing department at least. Much easier to go behind a bush when there's no facilities available. Trying to manage in the back of a horse trailer when in the middle of BFE is not my idea of fun. Been there, done that, would not do again if avoidable. >_<

[Ifreann]

My job makes that impossible... Not that using a public restroom was ever something that bothered me.

Technically, you could carry a roll of toilet paper and poop in the woods.

Might be a hassle, though. Also, may violate certain littering laws. Also other laws.

It'd certainly put off the bears.

[Galloism]

Technically, you could carry a roll of toilet paper and poop in the woods.

Might be a hassle, though. Also, may violate certain littering laws. Also other laws.

Eh, free fertilizer.

It's a public service, really.

Given the state of US prescription usage, may cause contamination of the plants which could go up the food chain.

Also, extremely happy/passive bears that don't really care about anything.

[Cinnabarra]

Whenever the men's bathroom is full, I go to the female one if there are less people (Or if there's nobody there if we're talking about a fast-food store or gas station).
Women probably do the same.If everyone has only access to one set of bathroom, it'd be very crowded inside.Some places might not be able to afford a bigger space.

See, I didn't even talk about genders there.Just practicality.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't have to 'trust' that fact (indeed, you've clearly not read my contributions in any other history-related threads if you think that's what I'm doing) - I just have to look at the physical evidence (communal bathrooms that could accommodate literally a hundred people), and look at the anecdotal evidence (like Martial describing people sitting there for hours socialising).

Based on the physical evidence, the expectations of a toilet facility, and the anecdotes describing how people behaved there... there's just no reason to assume that these were rape factories.

http://www.bigeye.com/sexeducation/romanempire.html

Sometimes on the wedding night, the husband would not sleep with his new bride but arranged to sleep with another woman.
The Roman state wanted fertility among mothers. Widows were not allowed to remarry. Husbands went out of their way to keep their own wives locked up like slaves. They deprived their wives of a life outside the home. It was forbidden for wives to possess money. The legal age for marriage in Ancient Rome for a woman was age 12, whether she had reached puberty or not.
Virginity upon marriage was valued. Roman men were allowed to engage in adultery, but their wives were not. Female sexuality was entirely defined in their patriarchical value: sex with wives for legitimate children and procreation of a man's children and prostitutes, concubines and slaves for a man's sexual leisure, rape for power over any woman.

It sounds unreasonable to you that in such society rapes and sexual harassments could have been a little unreported?
That's sarcasm.

You can't prove your complete speculation about one thing, by posting a link about something entirely different.

That's not how sources work.

(Also, when you're relying on 'The Big Eye' for your sources, you're obviously lacking any credible source, anyway. I don't like to 'poison the well', but if the only evidence you can find is on a site that suggests everything from the Holocaust, to moon landings, to the Aurora shooting are hoaxes... you're scraping the bottom of the barrel).

[Galloism]

http://www.bigeye.com/sexeducation/romanempire.html



It sounds unreasonable to you that in such society rapes and sexual harassments could have been a little unreported?
That's sarcasm.

You can't prove your complete speculation about one thing, by posting a link about something entirely different.

That's not how sources work.

(Also, when you're relying on 'The Big Eye' for your sources, you're obviously lacking any credible source, anyway. I don't like to 'poison the well', but if the only evidence you can find is on a site that suggests everything from the Holocaust, to moon landings, to the Aurora shooting are hoaxes... you're scraping the bottom of the barrel).

Chessmistress has scraped the bottom so hard, the bottom is now missing, and she keeps on scraping. She's about to run into liquid rock related issues.

[Neutraligon]

Whenever the men's bathroom is full, I go to the female one if there are less people (Or if there's nobody there if we're talking about a fast-food store or gas station).
Women probably do the same.If everyone has only access to one set of bathroom, it'd be very crowded inside.Some places might not be able to afford a bigger space.

See, I didn't even talk about genders there.Just practicality.

Unisex bathrooms and combining bathrooms are not the same thing. Most likely the only thing that would change in most buildings would be the sign on the door.

[Chessmistress]

http://www.bigeye.com/sexeducation/romanempire.html



It sounds unreasonable to you that in such society rapes and sexual harassments could have been a little unreported?
That's sarcasm.

You can't prove your complete speculation about one thing, by posting a link about something entirely different.

That's not how sources work.

(Also, when you're relying on 'The Big Eye' for your sources, you're obviously lacking any credible source, anyway. I don't like to 'poison the well', but if the only evidence you can find is on a site that suggests everything from the Holocaust, to moon landings, to the Aurora shooting are hoaxes... you're scraping the bottom of the barrel).

I used the first link I have find, without problems because I already know that was the situation of women under Romans.
Rapes were common, and never punished.

However it seems to me that it's useless debating with you on such argument: I think you would negate the correlation regardless the source provided.

Under Romans rapes were extremely common, women treated as objects = rapes within public toilets were unreported and extremely common, just like in other places.
The only smart and logical thing a person can say opposing my view is: "but that doesn't prove public toilets increase the chance of rape, just because under the Romans rapes were extremely common and totally unreported".
It seems that people had just lost such chance, preferring negate historical evidence...

It weirds me out that some men would voluntarily sit when they can stand.

I don't like touching anything more than necessary in a public bathroom. I use a paper towel to turn off the sink. I open the door with my foot. When touchless faucets and automatic doors with motion sensors started being put in, I thought that was about the greatest thing ever.

If you have a urinal that flushes itself, an automatic faucet, automatic soap dispenser, and automatic door, you don't have to touch anything. Ladies and gentlemen, that is the best public restroom in the world.

Former boyfriend said the same.
He also removed the seating table from the WC of the house we shared, exactly as reaction to the fact I told him he should pee sitting down, and there was absolutely no way to restore it.
Combining this personal experience to the overreaction to the proposal of Left Party in North Sweden, I reached the conclusion that that battle cannot be winned.

[Grave_n_idle]

I used the first link I have find, without problems because I already know that was the situation of women under Romans.

That's not how evidence works.

Saying you 'know' something, then presenting a terrible AND irrelevant source is not considered 'evidence'.

However it seems to me that it's useless debating with you on such argument:

It probably is, you're really not up to it.

...I think you would negate the correlation regardless the source provided.

I'm just going to point out, again - your source doesn't need to be 'negated' - because it wasn't evidence of the claim you made.

Under Romans rapes were extremely common, women treated as objects = rapes within public toilets were unreported and extremely common, just like in other places.

Claiming that rapes were common and women were treated as objects - even if true - doesn't mean rapes in toilets were 'extremely common'.

The only smart and logical thing a person can say opposing my view is: "but that doesn't prove public toilets increase the chance of rape, just because under the Romans rapes were extremely common and totally unreported".

Nonsense. The 'smart and logical' thing to do it point out your source doesn't back your claim.

It seems that people had just lost such chance, preferring negate historical evidence...

You not presenting anything is not the same as other people 'negating' what you claim as 'historical evidence'.

[Conscentia]

Under Romans rapes were extremely common, women treated as objects = rapes within public toilets were unreported and extremely common, just like in other places.

Claiming that rapes were common and women were treated as objects - even if true - doesn't mean rapes in toilets were 'extremely common'.
[...]

It should also be noted that even if rapes were common in Roman toilets, it would not mean that the lack of sex segregation is to blame.

[Ostroeuropa]

Claiming that rapes were common and women were treated as objects - even if true - doesn't mean rapes in toilets were 'extremely common'.
[...]

It should also be noted that even if rapes were common in Roman toilets, it would not mean that the lack of sex segregation is to blame.

The underlying implication is sexism all around.

Oh so men just go rapecrazy around women because it's how they are?
Then why are we jailing them for it? Jesus ladies, wear your hijabs, and guys, you're inherently dangerous and sexual predators, try to remember it.


Suppose you prove that in desegregated bathrooms in the past, rape was common.

So what are you suggesting exactly.
That raperage can overcome men and women should have to hide themselves from men as a result?

Um.
Ok.

It's all so fucking stupid.

Hey, hey guys.

Know why some muslim men force muslim women into hijabs against their will?

Internalized misandry. They're trying to overcome their inherently predatory nature. It's nothing to do with women being oppressed at all.
(Just pointing out another example the disgusting shit that you can believe if you utilize an oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic instead of a dualistic view of how sexism works.)


As i've previously pointed out, If you go around insinuating that men just can't stop raping people because of their nature, what you're essentially implying is that a woman is raping a man by forcing him to rape her.
She has removed his ability to not consent to the sex by causing raperage.

Well, what's the alternative here.
Implying that it's not men in general, but SOME men who have this happen to them? Hardly better.
Implying that a committed and decided rapist will obey gender segregation taboos? Laughable.
All it is is a slur on both genders with a number of horrifying implications.

MEANWHILE, IN UNIVERSE 13-B.

Kenfucky Congressman proposes transphobic elevator bounty.

"As we all know, LIBRULZ are trying to make it so our segregated elevators will be desegregated and anyone can use whatever elevator they feel like.
This is inviting the wimminz to be raped in those cramped elevators by dastardly menz.
We all know it's completely ludicrous to suggest that you could regularly have men and women in a small compartment like that, nearly touching eachother, without the males breaking out into raperage.
This isn't like bathrooms, where everyone just does pisses and shits that would obviously turn people off from fucking, especially with the smell and the constant traffic in and out, this is serious business. Elevators don't allow new people to enter them for several floors sometimes! That's more than enough time to fit in a quick raping.
We expect rape to rise by 11,000% if this decadent behaviour is not stopped.
I propose that any man wearing a wig or whatever who tries to enter the womens elevator be fined twelvety billion dollars and jailed for attempted rape.
And I guess we gotta also charge women wearing ties or whatever, but nobody cares about that so shh."

I'm sure it's only a coincidence that bathrooms are thousands of years old and came about in humanities infancy when shit like Cooties was thought to be real, but Elevators are a modern invention where gender segregation would be laughed at as a proposal. You'd have to be a wacko, right?
It's obviously a coincidence.
Nobody could possibly believe that if elevators came first we'd have Hers and His elevators and laugh just as hard at those people proposing gender segregated bathrooms.
After all, bathrooms are large. There is very little chance of people touching eachother and being overcome with raperage. Unlike those tempting and crampt elevators. No, such an eventuality is unthinkable, surely.

[New Benian Republic]

Exactly, I think that the mere presence of urinals WITHIN AN UNISEX BATHROOM would be a form of very light sexual harassment for us.
Most women would be very uncomfortable viewing urinals, and males using these things.

Then those women need to grow the fuck up.

I just got back and was having a bad day but seeing this post by Drradd lady made me laugh.

[Immoren]

My job makes that impossible... Not that using a public restroom was ever something that bothered me.

Technically, you could carry a roll of toilet paper and poop in the woods.

Might be a hassle, though. Also, may violate certain littering laws. Also other laws.

That's why you also carry e-tool in addition to paper.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Solution: Unisex cups.

I am just going to add that women's bathrooms aren't pretty either. While it seems evident that many males do not know how to aim, apparently -at least in public- neither do women. If you think urinals are a form of sexual harassment, how would men feel about bloody tampons in those little trash bins in the stalls? Yeah... that exists.

My one biggest concern is someone using a unisex bathroom to assault someone, but I fear that in gender-specific bathrooms as well anyway. It's more of an ongoing paranoid fear. I hate public bathrooms. Some drive-in horror movie that my mom accidentally caught the tail end of when I was young where a woman got horribly chainsawed in a restroom. /lifelong trauma