I'd say it's pretty damn gay to have your office in a burger joint mens washroom.
Then there's the rest stop washrooms.... there's a big ball of weirdo wax for ya.
Protecting the Innocence of Children
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Then there's the rest stop washrooms.... there's a big ball of weirdo wax for ya.
"Dad...is the bearded lady helping him with his constipation? He said something about "pulling out".
I guess my question is. . . if naughty-bits flashing, or sex acts, or solicitation are illegal in public washrooms, aren't they already equally illegal regardless of the genders of the perpetrator and the victims?
And if they're not illegal, why is this just coming up now? Is the moral or legal wrong of these acts dependent upon genders involved? In other words, for the dimmer sparks, is it WRONG to wave your dick at an 8-year-old girl, but OK to wave your dick at an 8-year-old boy?
And if they're not illegal, why is this just coming up now? Is the moral or legal wrong of these acts dependent upon genders involved? In other words, for the dimmer sparks, is it WRONG to wave your dick at an 8-year-old girl, but OK to wave your dick at an 8-year-old boy?
well, you did just ask the question
and.... you also said 'victims'.
is that a concession of sorts?
"De Almighty says to quit changin' de subject and answer de fockin' question."
Stephen, Braveheart
obviously neither is appropriate
even if you're a 7 year old boy your 'rents ought to give you a talkin' to.
eta: to clarify^ I mean a 7-year-old doing the 'waving'
Washroom technoligy (if that's what you call it) has changed quite a bit over the last few years. A while back you started to see Men's, Ladies and Family washrooms. I guess it was so mom could take little Johnny (or vise-versa) in there as not to bother others.
The other day, I was in a resturant and there was no Men/Ladies. The sign had both genders and was a single user washroom. Something like that seems to be the way of the future. Be a heck of a lineup at the hockey game though.
The other day, I was in a resturant and there was no Men/Ladies. The sign had both genders and was a single user washroom. Something like that seems to be the way of the future. Be a heck of a lineup at the hockey game though.
But are they illegal?
Every once in a while down in these parts, you hear about somebody being arrested for being in the "other" washroom, usually women who got sick of the queue for the women's room. They get arrested for "suspicion of indecent exposure" or "disturbing the peace" or some other bullshit "crime" because I'm aware of no law that forbids mere presence in a washroom designated for the other sex. And they generally get released and swept under the rug, and the cop gets an introduction to reality, because as I mentioned earlier, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sex-segregated washrooms are every bit as unlawful as race-segregated washrooms, and nobody wants that headache.
Point is, if this is such an all-fired threat to the decent, honest, Gawd-fearin', hard-workin', right-thinkin' Children of Canada, why hasn't presence in an "other" washroom been a criminal offense for decades? Indecent exposure and sexual assault are, regardless of gender.
That's the ultimate question. If a person goes into any washroom, uses the facilities as intended, and leaves, there's little to no exposure of the naughty bits, so what's the big deal? If that person does something "inappropriate," it's been illegal for decades, so what's the big fat hairy deal?
Clarification unnecessary. Whatever your role in this little dwama (or even if you've never been in such a dwama) if you're a 7-year-old boy your parents better damn well suck it up and give you a talkin' to.
The locker room is a lousy place to receive Sex Ed teaching.
sorry man, but I gotta ask another question first. you being a lawyer might know the answer, but I surely don't, though I can give it a shot.
so if someone is in the customer or public space of a business - let's say a restaurant, because I think they're legally required to have restrooms - and there are places that are 'out of bounds' or 'employees only', like the kitchen for example, and a customer, without any owner or employee permission, goes into the kitchen and gets told to leave that area but does not leave and the police are subsequently called, is that person, that violator, not then subject to trespass laws? I would think the answer is 'yes'. Therefor, the same trespass laws can apply to the bathroom that the owner/proprietor does not give you permission to use based on your apparent gender when one for your apparent gender has been provided.
Nothing to do with the subject, but.......lol
oh... 7 may have been when the dwama began
lol
and any 7 year old worth his salt will do his best to see moms 'n dads don't find out
OK, how ‘bout multiple user genderless public washrooms…but at LEAST TWO Walls (to be inclusive, and so one gender (of 72, or men) doesn’t block the one wall, set up like the following:
Or this:
But including Fire Axes (‘cuz they’re cool) and Tazers (because there’s water in washrooms)…and surveillance by A.I. that will loudly narrate any brawl or melee in the voices and speech patterns of Fran Descher, Joe Rogan, Mechelle Voepel, Howard Cosell, the legendary Frankie McDonald…. Simultaneously!!!
This would make the various multiple genders, ages, races, species, etc…(sorry if I’ve missed any sub-sects of anything) the least of anyone’s problems in any public washroom…in the spirit of both Mad Max and Monty Pythons Flying Circus?
Or this:
But including Fire Axes (‘cuz they’re cool) and Tazers (because there’s water in washrooms)…and surveillance by A.I. that will loudly narrate any brawl or melee in the voices and speech patterns of Fran Descher, Joe Rogan, Mechelle Voepel, Howard Cosell, the legendary Frankie McDonald…. Simultaneously!!!
This would make the various multiple genders, ages, races, species, etc…(sorry if I’ve missed any sub-sects of anything) the least of anyone’s problems in any public washroom…in the spirit of both Mad Max and Monty Pythons Flying Circus?
OK, first. . . yes in the general case. The owner of a property may limit the "license" granted to visitors in any (lawful) way the owner chooses, and violation of those limits is trespass.
The operative word here is "lawful." There are ways that, by law, an owner may not limit the license the owner grants. When the place is a "place of public accommodation," it is unlawful to impose any limit for the sole reason of race, religion, sex, national origin, Vietnam veteran status, or age (over 40). That's why "White" and "Colored" washrooms and seating sections are unlawful, and technically "Men" and "Women" washrooms and seating sections are unlawful. Some customary exceptions exist, such as sex-specific washrooms and "ladies' night" discounts, but if challenged, they are unlawful, though any DA or judge with sense enough to pour piss out of a boot (sadly a diminishing percentage of the total) will return the paperwork with an instruction to "make it go away."
The ban on discrimination in the Civil Rights Acts is, indeed, a limitation on your perfect freedom to do as you please with your property. It's one that we have decided is worth it. You are free to disagree if you choose.