Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

mutantdevle · 2017-11-05 17:46:21

*There is no tldr for this thread; if you don't want to read it then tough. Also, I marked the thread [NSFW] because the OP contains words that some might not consider appropriate for work and the thread is likely to discuss things that would not be either.

I highly doubt any of you have different toilets for different genders within your own home, so why do we have this separation in public? Of course, you will know and trust the people you'd share a toilet within your own home but unisex public toilets are something that I think we should think about. Personally, I think ALL public toilets should be unisex. Now to most, that may seem like a wild prospect that you would probably perceive as never working. But I think unisex toilets would have great benefits to society as long as they functioned and were designed correctly.

First of all, unisex toilets should not have urinals, obviously. I have literally no idea why they even exist because they are just so bad of an idea. I almost never use urinals due to how stupid and exposed they are. When using a urinal, you have to pray that no one else wants to use one at the same time. There are very few things more awkward than having to urinate with your **** almost fully visible at the same time another man is urinating with their **** almost fully visible; ESPECIALLY if you have to stand next to each other. I don't mind seeing a **** in the right circumstances, but I have no desire to see one in the corner of my eye both whilst myself and they are urinating. And then once you're finished, now what? Do you stand there and wait for it to finish dripping? Do you twirl it around a bit to dry it off? Do you just tuck it back into your underwear and hope it doesn't stain to much? Just because you are using a urinal instead of a proper toilet doesn't mean your **** gain magical drying powers. Toilet roll is still needed but obviously urinals don't have it and there'd be no way to expose of it if they did. And don't even get me started on the urinals that are basically just 1 long gutter in the floor... like wtf? Urinals shouldn't even exist in normal men's toilets so naturally they definitely shouldn't exist in unisex ones.

Since the separate space of men's and women's restrooms would be combined to become 1 larger room, this leaves more space for toilets; and without urinals, this leaves a lot of space for a multitude of cubicles. In a unisex toilet, cubicles should be given more privacy. Why the hell do some cubicles have space under and above the walls of them? I assume it's for air ventilation but there are so many other ways you can achieve that. The walls and doors of all cubicles should extend all the way from the floor to the ceiling. That way no one is getting or throwing anything under or over the cubicles. When the user of a cubicle unlocks the door and exits the cubicle, better funded public toilets should trigger an automatic flushing mechanism. Because walking in on a toilet that hasn't been flushed is probably the most traumatising site most of us will experience. Of course, there should be some mechanism in place to detect if the toilet has already been flushed to prevent water from being wasted; but a double flush probably isn't that bad anyway. I also see no reason why some of the bigger restrooms cannot have bigger cubicles to allow for disabled access; I have always found it a bit unfair and derogatory that the disabled are separated off from the rest of society to a single cubicle that is unisex anyway.

A standard hand washing and drying system is fine for a unisex toilet and no changes would really be needed; except maybe have different sinks and different heights? Preferably there would be a mirror above the sinks as they are always useful for making sure you don't look like a complete mess. Proper bins would also be needed in unisex toilets (not those tiny plastic ones that are mostly used for paper towels). When I first found out that, in most cases, only female toilets had bins I thought it was a bit unfair. I then found out the reason only female toilets have bins and still thought it was unfair because bins are useful and I highly doubt the only thing that gets thrown in those bins is sanitary items. Ideally, these bins would lead directly to a disposal shute rather than having to be manually emptied but I don't think this would be a necessity. The 2 reasons for this would be that some people are not comfortable with what they see when they put something in the bin and others may look in bins intentionally because they are disgustingly creepy. Speaking of creepy people, I also think it would be advisable to have CCTV in the more well-funded restrooms (no cameras that can see in the cubicles obviously) for additional security. Of course, some toilets won't have them. But if you think you are any less safe in a unisex public toilet without CCTV than you are a segregated toilet without CCTV then you obviously don't consider that there is nothing physically stopping someone of the opposite sex going into the toilet and that even people of the same sex can be harmful to you.

So that's how I think the ideal public toilet should be laid out and designed, but some of you may be confused as to why I think we would even need unisex toilets. What's so bad about having separate toilets as there are now? First of all, I do think there is a money saving aspect involved with building new public toilets. Obviously, it's going to cost money to convert current public toilets to the standards listed above but when building toilets for the first time they would, in theory, be cheaper. This is because you do not have to build separate rooms and instead can either have 1 bigger room or just not have the 2nd room at all. It's always annoying when men's and women's toilets are in 2 different places and are not too near each other, but with unisex toilets, that problem does not exist. So not only can it be cheaper (to an extent) but they would also be more convenient to everyone.

Another reason would be to solve the whole transgender issue. It is very much debated topic of whether you should use the gendered toilet you identify with or the one you were born as. Then there is the issue of if you identify as neither gender or a non-binary gender. Which toilet do you use then? And what do you do if you're a hermaphrodite? With unisex toilets, this problem also does not exist. Everyone can use every toilet regardless of their gender identity or how they were born. One of the main reasons people think you should always use the toilet that corresponds to the sex you were born as is that they are not comfortable with sharing a restroom with someone of the opposite sex. With unisex toilets you are forced to do this. I do not think that would be a bad thing. Forcing people out of their comfort zone like this will teach them that someone's gender identity has literally no impact on how you or they use the toilet. Over time people would become more comfortable with sharing restrooms with the opposite sex and this problem will gradually begin to fade.

Finally, I would like to see all segregated toilets become unisex for the primary reason that they are segregated. Most people will agree that segregation is not okay but for some reason we allow it when it comes to your sex and gender. You may argue that this is because there are major physical differences between men and women but I would have to disagree with that being a reason to segregate the genders. I'd personally like to see gender segregation removed from wherever it exists; not just in toilets. This includes things such as changing rooms, showers, dorm rooms, etc. This may also seem completely ridiculous but allow me to explain. In things like these, the main problem you may see is obviously that you would be exposed in front of one another. To this I ask why does it matter what gender you are exposed in front of? Surely being exposed like this is not a pleasant experience no matter what gender or sex you are in front of. I've never enjoyed having to get changed or shower whilst surrounded by people of my own sex. Removing this segregation can be done in 2 different ways. You can include everyone or isolate everyone. In the cases of showers and changing rooms, I think it would be better to isolate everyone. Showering sections and changing rooms should be small and isolated from one another for 1 at a time usage like toilet cubicles are. Whilst toilet cubicles have and always will be isolated the restroom itself should be for everyone. This is what true equality would be in its safest environment without segregation. The more we can do to reduce the differences between sexes and genders the better and I'd hope to see a day that these distinctions between sexes are reduced to just simple biology and are not affected by societal expectation. That's not going to happen anytime soon but I honestly think that unisex toilets would be a step in the right direction to accepting gender identity and reducing the fears and taboos of the opposite sexes.

So what do you think about unisex toilets? Do we need them? Are they safe enough? Would they be too PC? Would you be comfortable with sharing a restroom with someone of the opposite sex? I'm interested to see what everyone's thoughts on this are.

Emma333, soniiiety

Harmonious · 2017-11-05 19:29:04

I actually have to disagree here. Unisex bathrooms that lock and can only seat one person at a time are fine, but if you're suggesting for restrooms to house multiple genders simultaneously, that's begging for sexual harassment. I don't trust the general public enough to maintain proper respect and distance whilst in the same restroom as those of opposing genders.

My workplace has a unisex bathroom that seats one person. There's literally no difference between it and a family restroom, except customers give me weird looks when they hear we have a unisex bathroom. I close bathrooms everyday to clean them, and several people have asked me "Is that really okay?" when I redirect them towards the unisex restroom while I clean their gender's restroom. I don't think the public is ready for unisex bathrooms to become the standard. I like the unisex better than the men's room myself, though. It's more private.

▼Kinda irrelevant

My main point I guess is that sexual harassment and rape will become easy.

Onjit

Slabdrill · 2017-11-05 19:38:37

Devlin wrote:

First of all, unisex toilets should not have urinals, obviously. I have literally no idea why they even exist because they are just so bad of an idea. I almost never use urinals due to how stupid and exposed they are. When using a urinal, you have to pray that no one else wants to use one at the same time. There are very few things more awkward than having to urinate with your **** almost fully visible at the same time another man is urinating with their **** almost fully visible; ESPECIALLY if you have to stand next to each other. I don't mind seeing a **** in the right circumstances, but I have no desire to see one in the corner of my eye both whilst myself and they are urinating. And then once you're finished, now what? Do you stand there and wait for it to finish dripping? Do you twirl it around a bit to dry it off? Do you just tuck it back into your underwear and hope it doesn't stain to much? Just because you are using a urinal instead of a proper toilet doesn't mean your **** gain magical drying powers. Toilet roll is still needed but obviously urinals don't have it and there'd be no way to expose of it if they did. And don't even get me started on the urinals that are basically just 1 long gutter in the floor... like wtf? Urinals shouldn't even exist in normal men's toilets so naturally they definitely shouldn't exist in unisex ones.

I use urinals when they're available because I don't really care about other people's opinions of me and I find they work well enough for taking a quick ****. When i pee, the urine sorta flies all ofer the place, which a urinal catches much more easily than a toilet when standing, and i don't always like sitting on the toilet seat. Using the toilet also takes longer than using the urinal. (I'd say female bathrooms should have urinals too (they should still work fine, no?), but I don't know anything about that subject and there might be an actually good reason they don't have them or an equivalent.)

Devlin wrote:

Since the separate space of men's and women's restrooms would be combined to become 1 larger room, this leaves more space for toilets; and without urinals, this leaves a lot of space for a multitude of cubicles. In a unisex toilet, cubicles should be given more privacy. Why the hell do some cubicles have space under and above the walls of them? I assume it's for air ventilation but there are so many other ways you can achieve that. The walls and doors of all cubicles should extend all the way from the floor to the ceiling. That way no one is getting or throwing anything under or over the cubicles. When the user of a cubicle unlocks the door and exits the cubicle, better funded public toilets should trigger an automatic flushing mechanism. Because walking in on a toilet that hasn't been flushed is probably the most traumatising site most of us will experience. Of course, there should be some mechanism in place to detect if the toilet has already been flushed to prevent water from being wasted; but a double flush probably isn't that bad anyway. <snip>

AFAIK, the main reason for cubicles having space around them is that it's cheap and makes the cubicle walls not break when under pressure due to the expansion when heated. Auto-flush is something that's really annoying because sometimes it flushes when i'm still on the toilet. And I don't mind an unflushed toilet (if it doesn't have poop in it) as much as a toilet with urine on the seat (and i think most people share the same opinion).

Devlin wrote:

A standard hand washing and drying system is fine for a unisex toilet and no changes would really be needed; except maybe have different sinks and different heights? Preferably there would be a mirror above the sinks as they are always useful for making sure you don't look like a complete mess. Proper bins would also be needed in unisex toilets (not those tiny plastic ones that are mostly used for paper towels). When I first found out that, in most cases, only female toilets had bins I thought it was a bit unfair. I then found out the reason only female toilets have bins and still thought it was unfair because bins are useful and I highly doubt the only thing that gets thrown in those bins is sanitary items. Ideally, these bins would lead directly to a disposal shute rather than having to be manually emptied but I don't think this would be a necessity. The 2 reasons for this would be that some people are not comfortable with what they see when they put something in the bin and others may look in bins intentionally because they are disgustingly creepy. <snip>

Wait, what do you mean by bins? I haven't heard of these before.

<hr>

I support everything I didn't say anything about.

Emma333 · 2017-11-05 20:11:33

Slabdrill wrote:

(I'd say female bathrooms should have urinals too (they should still work fine, no?), but I don't know anything about that subject and there might be an actually good reason they don't have them or an equivalent.)

1st problem is having to take down pants till knees
2nd problem is we pee downwards so we'd have to stand very weird and close to the urinal and then still have a chance a little bit pee will get on the floor or your pants

jkdrip wrote:

My main point I guess is that sexual harassment and rape will become easy.

I think the best way to avoid sexual harassment is to normalize things perverts perve about.

Devlin wrote:

This includes things such as changing rooms, showers, dorm rooms, etc. This may also seem completely ridiculous but allow me to explain. In things like these, the main problem you may see is obviously that you would be exposed in front of one another. To this I ask why does it matter what gender you are exposed in front of? Surely being exposed like this is not a pleasant experience no matter what gender or sex you are in front of. I've never enjoyed having to get changed or shower whilst surrounded by people of my own sex.

Kind of this. By normalising exposure to nudity of the other gender and having to use the same toilet you remove the kind of perverse stigma it has now. Also I don't know if it's a difference between country and culture but I would not be scared at all of sexual harassment in unisex toilets. The amount of people who would harass someone is so small and it could happen anywhere, you don't have to go to a unisex toilet to be harassed.
And to add to that, I don't believe the solution to sexual harassment would be to isolate women, because that would be symptom solving which get's us basically nowhere until we isolate women 100% from men and then we'd still have sexual harassment from other women, and men would get it from other men.

Slabdrill, mutantdevle, N1KF, soniiiety

Tomahawk · 2017-11-05 20:32:32

Give it 10 years or so until extreme political correctness is the norm, then it'll be offensive not to use unisex toilets instead of those archaic, evil "segregated" toilets.

That's ofc disregarding the fact that unisex toilets would be less space-efficient because men and women use toilets in different ways. Male public toilets should maximise the number of urinals/cubicles per square unit for a quick in-and-out, whereas women's toilets (especially in office buildings) need additional considerations such as larger mirrors and more counter-top space for handbags, make-up etc., as well as not needing urinals.

mutantdevle · 2017-11-05 21:38:20

jkdrip wrote:

My workplace has a unisex bathroom that seats one person. There's literally no difference between it and a family restroom, except customers give me weird looks when they hear we have a unisex bathroom. I close bathrooms everyday to clean them, and several people have asked me "Is that really okay?" when I redirect them towards the unisex restroom while I clean their gender's restroom. I don't think the public is ready for unisex bathrooms to become the standard. I like the unisex better than the men's room myself, though. It's more private.

The public not being used to it is exactly why I would want it to be imposed by government rather than just something it would be nice for people to do. People are not used to unisex toilets but if they are forced to use them then they will gradually accept them. The more they use them the more they'll realise there is nothing wrong with them.

jkdrip wrote:

From my experience, men have worse restroom manners than women. Men **** on the seat, don't unclog their toilet (even though there's a plunger in their stall), MOAN WHEN THEY **** (seriously this is disgusting, why do people moan?), and leave toilet paper all over the place (so do women, but I've noticed it to be noticeably more common among men). Granted, I don't clean when there's women in the women's room, so I can't tell if they moan, but I like to imagine they don't. Women are also HORRIBLE about waiting to use the bathroom until I'm done cleaning in there. For about every 4 women that interrupt my cleaning to go to the toilet, 1 man does the same (only counting when I close both genders).

I would have liked to say that men and women are just as bad when it comes to leaving toilets in a disgusting state. However, due to your job you clearly have more anecdotal experience than I would so I trust your opinion on this. I've never heard about the moaning thing though, that just seems really bizarre.

jkdrip wrote:

My main point I guess is that sexual harassment and rape will become easy.

Sexual harassment is going to happen regardless. The only way you could ever prevent that is making sure no one ever encounters anyone else. You don't need to be in a toilet to be sexually harassed. As for rape that would be just as easy in any toilet. There is nothing more to stop a man from walking into a female toilet and raping someone there than if the toilets were one and the same. You also forget that women can rape women and men can rape men. Your points about sexual harassment and rape are exactly why I'd recommend security cameras in more well-funded toilets. Unisex toilets would not be encouraging rape or sexual harassment at all because both of these things can happen anywhere and anytime. That's not to say that these issues aren't important; because they most definitely are. It's just that I do not think the fear of these types of things should prevent us from implementing things that can potentially progress the mindset and acceptance of society.

Slabdrill wrote:

I use urinals when they're available because I don't really care about other people's opinions of me and I find they work well enough for taking a quick ****. When i pee, the urine sorta flies all ofer the place, which a urinal catches much more easily than a toilet when standing, and i don't always like sitting on the toilet seat. Using the toilet also takes longer than using the urinal. (I'd say female bathrooms should have urinals too (they should still work fine, no?), but I don't know anything about that subject and there might be an actually good reason they don't have them or an equivalent.)

Female urinals are definitely a bad idea. They have nowhere near as much control over in what direction they urinate. If you think you have problems with trying to urinate without it flying everywhere then you have no idea what it's like to urinate out of a vagina.

Slabdrill wrote:

AFAIK, the main reason for cubicles having space around them is that it's cheap and makes the cubicle walls not break when under pressure due to the expansion when heated. Auto-flush is something that's really annoying because sometimes it flushes when i'm still on the toilet. And I don't mind an unflushed toilet (if it doesn't have poop in it) as much as a toilet with urine on the seat (and i think most people share the same opinion).

I doubt the little money they save from having a bit less material is significant enough to be an excuse for a lack of privacy. There are many ways around the expansion issue such as using different materials and perhaps having a very small gap between the floor and roof that paper could only just fit through. But I have seen many cases where cubicles do reach all the way from the floor to the roof and I never see any signs of damage on them. And the auto-flushing only activates when you open and unlock the cubicle door, I doubt you'd still be in the toilet when opening the door :3

Slabdrill wrote:

Wait, what do you mean by bins? I haven't heard of these before.

Most female cubicles will have bins inside them to dispose of sanitary items such as sanitary and tampons.

Emma333 wrote:

Kind of this. By normalising exposure to nudity of the other gender and having to use the same toilet you remove the kind of perverse stigma it has now. Also I don't know if it's a difference between country and culture but I would not be scared at all of sexual harassment in unisex toilets. The amount of people who would harass someone is so small and it could happen anywhere, you don't have to go to a unisex toilet to be harassed.
And to add to that, I don't believe the solution to sexual harassment would be to isolate women, because that would be symptom solving which get's us basically nowhere until we isolate women 100% from men and then we'd still have sexual harassment from other women, and men would get it from other men.

I fully agree here. Nudity being normalised is something I would very much like to see occur but we are unfortunately a very long way away from it. It's good that you're not scared of sexual harassment because, as you say, it isn't as common as some may think it is. The idea that a lot of men are perverts and rapists is something that is unintentionally promoted by many modern feminists which creates a whole negative stigma towards men. Some people may put across the point that unisex toilets will just be putting people in an environment where they can be harrased more easily. I would not agree with such a statement as chances are someone who would harass you in a unisex restroom is just as likely to harass someone anywhere else.

Tomahawk wrote:

Give it 10 years or so until extreme political correctness is the norm, then it'll be offensive not to use unisex toilets instead of those archaic, evil "segregated" toilets.

I can't tell if this point is serious or not

Tomahawk wrote:

That's ofc disregarding the fact that unisex toilets would be less space-efficient because men and women use toilets in different ways. Male public toilets should maximise the number of urinals/cubicles per square unit for a quick in-and-out, whereas women's toilets (especially in office buildings) need additional considerations such as larger mirrors and more counter-top space for handbags, make-up etc., as well as not needing urinals.

Being male or female is not a consistent factor with how you use the toilet. Many women would appreciate being able to go for a quick in-and-out and I'm sure many men would appreciate the extra counter-top space. With unisex toilets, both sexes will be able to have both. (Unless you mean urinals being the quick in-and-out method in which case I doubt the few extra seconds it takes to enter and exit a urinal will have much of an impact on the time you spend in the toilet). I did mention mirrors in the thread and I have seen them in men's toilets. I remember one of the toilets in my school had a large mirror above the sink and I would only ever use that toilet because of it. I also see no reason why we cannot sacrifice a few sinks for the extra countertop space. You may not think you'd need it as a man but it would have its uses such as putting your drink down when washing your hands or having a place to put your rucksack whilst you look for something inside it. I do not think unisex toilets would be less space efficient as the efficiency you have stated above assumes stereotypes about the genders and the lack of urinals could easily make way for more cubicles, sinks and countertops.

Slabdrill, soniiiety

N1KF · 2017-11-05 21:52:44

Devlin you keep bugging me with your semicolon abuse. Semicolons should only be used if both segments of the sentence work as their own sentences; this is an example of how they work.

Devlin wrote:

The more we can do to reduce the differences between sexes and genders the better and I'd hope to see a day that these distinctions between sexes are reduced to just simple biology and are not affected by societal expectation.

While I agree with most of your post, I have to spare my woot because of this part. I'm hesitant to support any social movement that disposes of an idea that's existed for all of humanity. Thousands, if not millions of years have kept up the idea that women are suited for caretaking and men are suited for providing. Unfortunately though, these ideas have led to lots of irrelevant discomplégarbulated junk.

Maybe it's because I have little social or romantic interaction, but I find that little about my gender ends up being relevant in my everyday life. Personally, I think that people make a way too big stink about gender. They feel limited because of silly gender roles. I acknowledge my gender, yet at the same time, I don't relate at all to those who are genderfluid or reject gender altogether.

However, the most universal two gender roles mentioned above seem to be fading away. The motivation for women to be motherly and men to be fatherly is getting weaker. On television nowadays you'll rarely see a competent father, as they have to be the lovable goofball. Women have a bit more freedom though I guess. While fortunately humanity has improved a lot on gender, the usual romanticist inside of me is scared to see genders fade away for the sake of fairness. I'd rather see a different way of approaching that if possible.

...what was this topic about again? Oh yeah, unisex restrooms. They should be more socially accepted in my opinion. Yeah.

mutantdevle · 2017-11-05 22:10:05

N1KF wrote:

Devlin you keep bugging me with your semicolon abuse. Semicolons should only be used if both segments of the sentence work as their own sentences; this is an example of how they work.

I know how they work you silly. But yes I do agree that upon rereading I see cases where I should have used a comma instead. I don't really proofread my writing a whole lot.

N1KF wrote:

While I agree with most of your post, I have to spare my woot because of this part. I'm hesitant to support any social movement that disposes of an idea that's existed for all of humanity. Thousands, if not millions of years have kept up the idea that women are suited for caretaking and men are suited for providing. Unfortunately though, these ideas have led to lots of irrelevant discomplégarbulated junk.

I don't believe any good has come from any gender stereotypes or societal expectations of gender. Both men and women can be good at caretaking. Both men and women can be good at providing. There is nothing a man can do that a woman can't unless you are referring to the biological things that can be done. Just because a higher frequency of men do something compared to women, or vice versa, doesn't mean should always expect this frequency. I also really dislike the idea of not doing something because it has always been a certain way. This way of thinking is something that I just feel holds us back.

Slabdrill

Harmonious · 2017-11-05 22:45:34

Devlin wrote:

jkdrip wrote:
My main point I guess is that sexual harassment and rape will become easy.
Sexual harassment is going to happen regardless. The only way you could ever prevent that is making sure no one ever encounters anyone else. You don't need to be in a toilet to be sexually harassed. As for rape that would be just as easy in any toilet. There is nothing more to stop a man from walking into a female toilet and raping someone there than if the toilets were one and the same. You also forget that women can rape women and men can rape men. Your points about sexual harassment and rape are exactly why I'd recommend security cameras in more well-funded toilets. Unisex toilets would not be encouraging rape or sexual harassment at all because both of these things can happen anywhere and anytime. That's not to say that these issues aren't important; because they most definitely are. It's just that I do not think the fear of these types of things should prevent us from implementing things that can potentially progress the mindset and acceptance of society.

Yes, sexual harassment and rape will happen regardless. However, merging 2 sexes into 1 restroom will encourage it. By making unisex the standard bathroom, you are now in the same place that the other sex gets undressed, and it's in private. That's an easy way to rape or assault someone without any consequences (since many rapes go unreported). Also, while looking up stuff I strolled along this. Males pretending to be transgender never occurred to me before. Yes, unisex is different from transgender, but here's the issue: Unisex will make it even easier for people to get close to those they want to exploit. You don't have to pretend to be transgender to get in them.

I didn't forget that women and men can harass/rape their own gender. However, it's much less of an issue because gays are a minority. According to Wikipedia, 10.2% of women and 5.1% of men say they have been raped. So, it's much more common for women to be raped. Heterosexual rapes are also significantly more common (I admit it is difficult to find evidence for this, however I base this off of homosexuals being a minority). Many men opt to use the urinal instead of a stall, so if somebody were to rape a man in the men's room and a 3rd party were to walk in, the rapist would be in trouble. So, male homosexual rapes should be quite rare (although the Wiki also says many male-male rapes in prison go unreported). In the ladies', however, there are only stalls. In the privacy of a stall it would be significantly easier to threaten the victim if they attempt to get help if a 3rd party were to enter. For this reason I consider it wise for women to go to the bathroom in groups.

Installing cameras in restrooms is an invasion of privacy and is illegal.

Undoing social stigmas, stereotypes, and generalizations is less important than being safe.

▼100% Irrelevant Edit

soniiiety

XxAtillaxX · 2017-11-05 23:00:59

jkrip wrote:

From my experience, men have worse restroom manners than women.

I've seen the exact opposite, the women's washrooms are much filthier, including but not limited to improper disposal of pads and tampons.

jkrip wrote:

f you're suggesting for restrooms to house multiple genders simultaneously, that's begging for sexual harassment.
...
My main point I guess is that sexual harassment and rape will become easy.

No, it doesn't - not any more than wearing a bikini or a short skirt is begging to be sexually harassed or raped. I'd like to believe that the police would be capable of handling and preventing that more effectively than merely having a second room.
I'd say that segregating people based on gender only helps breed the societal issues that can ultimately sometimes manifest themselves in this way.

jkrip wrote:

However, merging 2 sexes into 1 restroom will encourage it. By making unisex the standard bathroom, you are now in the same place that the other sex gets undressed, and it's in private.

I didn't know that restrooms are dressing rooms, isn't it more appropriate to undress in a stall if you need to? Is it common for people where you live to undress in the restroom like that?
It's important to note that children (of both sexes) use either restroom as well accompanied by their parent, and they don't need to see nudity either.

mutantdevle

Harmonious · 2017-11-05 23:39:59

Zumza wrote:

jkrip wrote:
f you're suggesting for restrooms to house multiple genders simultaneously, that's begging for sexual harassment.
...
My main point I guess is that sexual harassment and rape will become easy.
No, it doesn't - not any more than wearing a bikini or a short skirt is begging to be sexually harassed or raped. I'd like to believe that the police would be capable of handling and preventing that more effectively than merely having a second room.
I'd say that segregating people based on gender only helps breed the societal issues that can ultimately sometimes manifest themselves in this way.

I'm not trying to say that unisex would somehow make it the fault of one gender or another. I'm saying that, from the perspective of a horny teenager, raping whoever the hell I want will become much easier. Most of the work is done for my horny self, after all. She's alone in a restroom, there are no cameras (bc that's illegal), and she's separated from the public. And, do you honestly expect security to be around any restroom ever? Even if there were, the security would be at the busier restrooms, but the crimes would be happening at ones with minimal traffic.

Zumza wrote:

jkrip wrote:
However, merging 2 sexes into 1 restroom will encourage it. By making unisex the standard bathroom, you are now in the same place that the other sex gets undressed, and it's in private.
I didn't know that restrooms are dressing rooms, isn't it more appropriate to undress in a stall if you need to? Is it common for people where you live to undress in the restroom like that?
It's important to note that children (of both sexes) use either restroom as well accompanied by their parent, and they don't need to see nudity either.

You're exaggerating my words. In order to **** or ****, a woman will have to expose her urethra/anus. Just knowing that's exposed will set horny teenagers off. **** and **** are also kinks and will set somebody out there off (not me i promise). Children are exceptions because they either need to be taught how to use the restroom or are too scared to use it without their parent. [Another irrelevant: I once made a kid cry because I was cleaning a restroom and he was scared of me. Poor kid.]

I'm only being realistic here. Merging restrooms will encourage rape and sexual assault. Give me evidence to deny that instead of saying "genders shouldn't matter" (which is not my argument).

soniiiety

mutantdevle · 2017-11-05 23:54:52

jkdrip wrote:

Yes, sexual harassment and rape will happen regardless. However, merging 2 sexes into 1 restroom will encourage it. By making unisex the standard bathroom, you are now in the same place that the other sex gets undressed, and it's in private. That's an easy way to rape or assault someone without any consequences (since many rapes go unreported). Also, while looking up stuff I strolled along this. Males pretending to be transgender never occurred to me before. Yes, unisex is different from transgender, but here's the issue: Unisex will make it even easier for people to get close to those they want to exploit. You don't have to pretend to be transgender to get in them.

Any restroom that isn't busy and has no CCTV can be entered by anyone at any time without consequence. People don't need to pretend to be transgender, they can just stroll in when no one is there and hide in a cubicle until someone comes in alone. If someone wants to rape or sexually harass someone then they are going to try and do it regardless. Unisex toilets would have no impact on that. The idea that unisex toilets encourage rape and sexual harassment is basically like saying leaving 2 people on their own together will encourage rape and sexual harassment. There are so many situations in which you could be raped or sexually harassed just by being on your own. Unisex or non-unisex toilets wouldn't change this.

jkdrip wrote:

I didn't forget that women and men can harass/rape their own gender. However, it's much less of an issue because gays are a minority. According to Wikipedia, 10.2% of women and 5.1% of men say they have been raped. So, it's much more common for women to be raped. Heterosexual rapes are also significantly more common (I admit it is difficult to find evidence for this, however I base this off of homosexuals being a minority). Many men opt to use the urinal instead of a stall, so if somebody were to rape a man in the men's room and a 3rd party were to walk in, the rapist would be in trouble. So, male homosexual rapes should be quite rare (although the Wiki also says many male-male rapes in prison go unreported). In the ladies', however, there are only stalls. In the privacy of a stall it would be significantly easier to threaten the victim if they attempt to get help if a 3rd party were to enter. For this reason I consider it wise for women to go to the bathroom in groups.

I highly doubt that those statistics from Wikipedia are correct. It's basically saying 1 in 10 women and 1 in 20 men have been raped. That sounds like a ridiculous statistic to me. Of course, more women are raped than men but it's definately much lower than that, especially when you consider that most people don't come forward about it. And just because homosexual rapes are a minority it doesn't mean we can ignore them. Furthermore, if anything unisex restrooms would reduce the chances that people will get away with rape as someone is more likely to walk in. Additionally, if CCTV was operational within the restroom it would make rape almost impossible to get away with as you would be seen entering the same cubicle as someone else. Also just as many women will go to the toilet together with unisex toilets as they do now; that won't change. As a side note, I don't think we should be enforcing the idea that women should always travel in groups. All this does is promote fear and encourage women to be afraid of men as well as infringes on their independance.

jkdrip wrote:

Installing cameras in restrooms is an invasion of privacy and is illegal.

It isn't illegal (at least not in my country). I even googled it just to make sure. CCTV cameras are allowed in restrooms (and changing rooms) under the conditions that it is made clear that CCTV is operational within the restroom (through signs) and that it does not view inside cubicles or towards urinals. CCTV in unisex restrooms would be hugely beneficial for making people feel safer. Since there are no urinals and cubicles would be fully closed off, the cameras can safely view the entire restroom.

jkdrip wrote:

Undoing social stigmas, stereotypes, and generalizations is less important than being safe.

I strongly believe there is not much safety risk to unisex toilets, especially ones with cameras. I'd also argue that social stigmas, stereotypes, and generalizations themselves can make people feel unsafe or put them in environments where they are not safe.

jkdrip wrote:

I'm not trying to say that unisex would somehow make it the fault of one gender or another. I'm saying that, from the perspective of a horny teenager, raping whoever the hell I want will become much easier. Most of the work is done for my horny self, after all. She's alone in a restroom, there are no cameras (bc that's illegal), and she's separated from the public. And, do you honestly expect security to be around any restroom ever? Even if there were, the security would be at the busier restrooms, but the crimes would be happening at ones with minimal traffic.

I'm really hoping that anecdote isn't a serious thought... but like I say above, CCTV in restrooms is not illegal. Restrooms that are too small and remote to have their own CCTV would probably be those low budget disgusting one's that literally anyone can walk into anyway.

jkdrip wrote:

You're exaggerating my words. In order to **** or ****, a woman will have to expose her urethra/anus. Just knowing that's exposed will set horny teenagers off. **** and **** are also kinks and will set somebody out there off (not me i promise).

I don't know about you, but I don't really know anyone who gets off on imaging **** leaving someone's anus. Besides, it's not really exposed if it's in a fully enclosed cubicle. You can never stop someone imaging these kinds of things exposed. There is nothing that can ever stop anyone from imaging things. Thousands of people are using the toilet right now; no one is getting off on that. And even if they are then I'm not too sure what the problem is. Sure, I wouldn't want someone to take sexual pleasure by listening to me urinating. But I can't stop that if they do and if I never know what they are doing then I will never be affected by it.

jkdrip wrote:

I'm only being realistic here. Merging restrooms will encourage rape and sexual assault. Give me evidence to deny that instead of saying "genders shouldn't matter" (which is not my argument).

There is no more evidence to suggest unisex toilets will encourage rape than we have to suggest it won't simply because it hasn't been tested. Personally, I'd argue that unisex and non-unisex public toilets have the same impact on rape. If you want to reduce that then we'd have to remove public toilets as a whole. At least with unisex toilets there is more chance of someone walking in on time to stop it.

soniiiety

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2017-11-05 17:46:21

Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#2 2017-11-05 19:29:04

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#3 2017-11-05 19:38:37

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#4 2017-11-05 20:11:33

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#5 2017-11-05 20:32:32

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#6 2017-11-05 21:38:20

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#7 2017-11-05 21:52:44

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#8 2017-11-05 22:10:05

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#9 2017-11-05 22:45:34, last edited by Harmonious (2017-11-05 22:48:45)

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#10 2017-11-05 23:00:59, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2017-11-05 23:04:34)

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#11 2017-11-05 23:39:59

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

#12 2017-11-05 23:54:52

Re: Unisex public toilets [NSFW]

Board footer