Here's a question I've wondered about for years regarding public toilets.

[MoonRiver]

In Europe and elsewhere, as I've observed through extensive travels, many toilets are totally enclosed. Why don't we have those kind of toilets here? Privacy issues are far beyond the minimal risk of being accosted by perverts. It's just plain better to have total privacy when "doing one's business."

[NC_Nurse]

1. Money.

Expensive stores have them, like Nordstrom's.

[MoonRiver]

3. But in Europe they're everywhere.

They can't be THAT expensive.

[Katherine Brengle]

39. So is free healthcare and college.

We're cheap as all hell.

[hlthe2b]

2. Era of the Restroom Attendent should be brought back...

Still exists in more genteel parts of Europe...

[MoonRiver]

6. Except that they usually charge.

I do not like that concept, especially when one hasn't got a total understanding of the currency!

[kenny blankenship]

20. Psst. "Genteel"

[hlthe2b]

25. That was an unfortunate misspell, wasn't it....LOL.

Corrected.... and thanks :thumbsup:

[Katherine Brengle]

41. I agree. I don't think people would be nearly as disgusting as they are in public restrooms

if there was an attendant.

That said, those jobs tended (and still tend where they still have them in the US) to go to those on the lowest end of the food chain, which totally sucks.

[hlthe2b]

45. It will never come back to any extent...

because we've lost the era when the "human" interaction was considered expected and worth the expense. So sad... Rather than have nice clean facilities with an attendant (who hopefully pulled in reasonable salary and tips), we are paying police officers to monitor the squalid environment that invites vandelism and both criminal and other undesirable behavior.

[sanguinivorous]

59. Ugh...

..that's just disturbing.

I HATE restroom attendents!

[napi21]

4. Actually, I think it has to do with sanitizing. In SOME public facilities,

they litterally hose the whole place down. Look some time for the drain in the floor.

[Buns_of_Fire]

23. True. It DOES make it easier to sanitize the place.

When I cleaned terlets as part of my job at the time (yes, I've done that too) we used to (1) sweep up the miscellaneous detrius left by the slobs (of both sexes), (2) pour a gallon or two of industrial-strength Lysol on the floor, and (3) just squeegie it down to the drain(s). And yes, when appropriate, we literally just hooked up and hosed the whole damned thing down.

Made it sorta like a sauna with overtones of poo and disinfectant.

[kenny blankenship]

5. They don't enclose them because that would encourage anonymous sex

More privacy, more opportunity for lewdness.

[TahitiNut]

7. Europe still had unisex lavatories last time I was there, too.

In particular, on the Left Bank of Paris in the most historically famous restaurants. I never had a problem with that.

I suspect, of course, that the historical value of the buildings themselves and both the cost of construction and the difficulty of preservation has a lot to do with not changing over. Nonetheless, the priorities seem to have been amenable.

[LisaL]

11. Unisex bathroom is all US needs for the full happiness.

Right. Please.

[noamnety]

12. I have a problem with it

when the stalls aren't completely enclosed.

I might have a problem with it anyway because men (see sig*) are pigs, and feel it's their god given right to intrude into women's privacy in every way possible, including installing video cameras in bathroom stalls.

Apparently, judging from other threads here, some of them also feel it should be legal to watch through the stall cracks to assess whether the person peeing has potential for sticking their penis into.

I'd rather not be in display for self-entitled assholes when I pee.

*No offense to the men who would not do that sort of thing. But it only takes one, not the majority of them, to fuck up your life.

[LisaL]

13. I would have a problem with unisex toilets

even if the stalls were completely enclosed. Let men tap their feet in their own male only toilets, please.

[noamnety]

35. I don't care where they tap their feet.

That doesn't invade my privacy.

I have stomped on the face of a male who stuck his fucking head under my stall door once.

(That probably affects my opinion of unisex bathrooms somewhat.)

[Toasterlad]

24. I Think Your Safe.

I understand your concern because women (see *) are hysterical, pervert-obsessed prudes, who feel that everyone is out to look at their hoo-has. However, given that probably 99% of your public peeing will presumably be in women's only bathrooms, I think you're safe from piggy men looking in at you. Although you SHOULD carry around one of those windshield sun-glare protectors to put over the stall while you're peeing to stop those ubiquitous spying cameras.

*If I say "women" please figure out the context. "Women" is not "all women." Generalizations are not all inclusive. If it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply

[noamnety]

34. I look at it this way:

In one famous survey, 51% of college men said they would rape if they were certain they could get away with it.

I figure, given that statistic, it's reasonable to assume 51% of those same men would watch a woman remove her pants without her consent if they were certain they could get away with it.

You can attempt to equate women who are potential (and in real life, frequent) victims to men who are criminals by calling the potential victims hysterical prudes (for not wanting to be victims, I guess, and for knowing the statistics).

But victims are not equivalent to criminals. Not even if we use angry language to describe them both.

[Toasterlad]

44. And Potential Criminals Are Not Criminals.

I'm not going to argue with your statistics. I'm just going to point out that I think you have every reason to feel safe in a women's restroom. Admittedly, as a man, I don't spend much time in them, but that's kind of my point. Why are you worried about men watching you in a women's bathroom?

And, as a man (a gay man, admittedly) with more than a passing interest in porn, I can assure you that the legend of the spy cam is greatly exagerrated.

STRAIGHT GUYS WHO DON'T WANT THEIR BUBBLES BURST, STOP READING RIGHT NOW.

All those "hidden camera" sites are fakes. The girls know they're being watched, they're paid to get naked (and do other stuff), and they're all just acting.

OKAY STRAIGHT GUYS, START READING AGAIN.

I really think you've got nothing to worry about.

[noamnety]

47. Can you go back and look at the post I was responding to initially?

I wasn't talking about feeling safe in a women's restroom. I was specifically addressing the concept of switching all public restrooms to unisex rooms - and saying that with completely uncontrolled access by thousands of men in the unisex bathroom, it's unrealistic to expect that NONE of them would be assholes and install a camera, given that half of college men at least in that one survey said they'd commit a sex crime if they knew they could get away with it.

I don't have the stats anymore on me, but when I was in grad school, at one point I was studying privacy issues, and the stats on men controlling surveillance cameras was similarly appalling, with huge percentages of them using the cameras not to detect crime, but just spending their days zooming in on women's breasts and asses. It's not the exception, it's the rule.

Again, in terms of surveillance, it's the sort of crime where one idiot results in thousands of victims, sometimes every female in a middle school, for instance.

http://www.notbored.org/camera-abuses.html

[Toasterlad]

48. Ah. No Wonder We Weren't Getting Anywhere. My Bad.

Obviously, a unisex environment would be a different situation, and I certainly would not poo-poo (no pun intended) your anxieties in that case. I still think that "men are pigs" bit was out of line, though. :spank:

Re: the surveillance study: where exactly were these men zooming in on breasts and asses? If they had them installed in women's locker rooms or showers, that would certainly be problematic, but if they're just zooming in on random women on the street, well, that's tacky, but not really a big deal, IMHO. Or is this like department store dressing rooms? In the latter case, we're all kinda in the same boat: you never know who's on the other end of the camera, or what might give them their jollies. I just try not to think about it.

[noamnety]

49. Well, there you go

"if they're just zooming in on random women on the street, well, that's tacky, but not really a big deal, IMHO."

Men have the right to zoom in electronically on women as the "sex class" and women are not considered victims at all, and have no right to get upset if they are used in this way. That would fall into the "men are self-entitled pigs" message I was trying to present. As long as the women don't find out (as long as the men can safely get away with it), some/a lot of men will do incredibly piggish things.

Anyway, if we were miscommunicating on the bathroom scenario, that would explain a lot. :)

[Toasterlad]

51. I Don't See How Women Are Being Treated Unfairly In That Situation.

Not to get off on a tangent, but people walking around are, quite simply, fair game, looks-wise. As a gay man, I "objectify" men just as straight men "objectify" women. Is it wrong for the straight men and not for me? Or are we both wrong for "objectifying" anyone?

It seems to me that women have the same opportunity in this situation. If you're going to tell me that women never sit around and just check out guys walking by, I'd be a) shocked and b) sorry for them. There's nothing wrong with appreciating the physical beauty of another human being, as long as you're not invading their privacy. If the women we're talking about are out in public, well, as I said, you can call it tacky, but I don't think it's morally wrong, and I know it's not illegal. I would be totally on your side in a case where a woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy, as I believe the law goes...like, in a restroom or a locker room.

And yes, we were definitely miscommunicating on the bathroom thing, and the fault was entirely mine. :blush:

[noamnety]

53. Well you wouldn't go right up to a stranger on the street,

bend way down and stare closely at his crotch, would you?

If that's wrong, why is it okay to do it with an optical zoom from a distance?

[Toasterlad]

54. The Difference is the Intrusion.

Say I had REALLY super good eyesight, and could make out every detail of a guy's package from 20 yards away, whereas someone else would need to zoom in with a camera lens to see it up close. Would both of us be equally guilty of some moral offense?

The reason I wouldn't go up to a guy on the street and bend down and examine his package is a) I'm an ass man and b) it would be intrusive. It would be BOTHERING him that I would be so rude and invade his personal space. His feelings about my "objectifying" him are irrelevant; I would be guilty of making him unnecessarily uncomfortable.

Watching others from a distance, in public, with or without electronic aid, is NONintrusive, and, I believe, hurts nobody. People are entitled to walk down a public street unmolested, but they are not entitled to not be seen and appraised. That's just human nature.

[noamnety]

55. Okay, stay with me here

"The reason I wouldn't go up to a guy on the street and bend down and examine his package is a) I'm an ass man (LOL!) and b) it would be intrusive. It would be BOTHERING him that I would be so rude and invade his personal space. His feelings about my "objectifying" him are irrelevant; I would be guilty of making him unnecessarily uncomfortable."

What if you were running a surveillance camera, from a distance ... and then you ran into the guy later and said "hey, I just spent an hour zooming in on your crotch back at the surveillance camera."

What would you expect their reaction to be?

[Toasterlad]

56. I'd Imagine He'd Be Pissed (I Myself Would Be Flattered)

But see, that comes back to intrusion. It's INTRUSIVE to tell the guy you've been zooming in on his crotch. It's the same as going up to him in the street and staring right at it. It's making him feel unnecessarily uncomfortable.

He has a right not to be accosted by me, but he does not have a right to his image, as long as I don't attempt to exploit it financially. For that, I'd obviously need to get his permission, and probably pay him. But, like the man said, "looks are free". Watching him does him no harm at all.

[noamnety]

58. That intrusiveness is how women feel

when we know it's happened to us. And it does happen to us, and a lot of us find out about it afterwards. (You can count me in that group - thank you very much, co-workers. And - it was an entire group of male coworkers, not "one bad apple"). It doesn't suddenly become piggish if and only if the woman finds out.

It's not okay to spy on people without their knowledge. That's pretty basic stuff. If you know they'd be pissed off if they found out, that's a clue you're doing something wrong, no?

Heck, think how pissed off people get about the eavesdropping bill. We're pissed even if we don't know specifically that it's our phone calls being recorded, even if all they record is a cell phone call that we even made in public.

[Toasterlad]

60. Nope, Can't Agree.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think "spying" is fair. Spying implies an expectation of privacy on the part of the spyee. When you're walking down the street, you have no expectation of privacy. You may not know others are watching you through a telescope, but you know you're being seen. You know you don't have the freedom to be CANDID; you are putting on a publicly acceptable face. Presumably, you are not picking your nose, or popping a zit; you most likely have made sure that all of your private areas are covered, and that the image you're presenting of yourself is the image you want people to see. You are not in a private setting, and you know it. You cannot be spied upon; you expect to be seen.

It is disingenuous to suggest that just because a person would react negatively to finding out that another person had been watching them, that the watcher has done something wrong. If I were sitting in a bar and my crack was showing for the better part of an hour, and I didn't know it, but the people behind me were laughing and giggling about it, they would not be "wrong". What would be "wrong" is if one of them got up, poked me in the crack, and then told me that they had been watching it for the better part of an hour.

That actually happened to me Friday night. I was pissed.

The point is, it was the intrusiveness of the woman that was wrong. What she said and did embarrassed me. I do not fault her for giggling over my crack (I've been that juvenile myself). I fault her for involving me in her nonsense. Had she and her friends merely looked and laughed, I'd have been none the wiser. No harm, no foul. Also, this woman did not poke me in the crack and tell me about it maliciously, she actually thought I'd be good-natured about it; she thought she was letting me in on the joke. She was, of course, very drunk. So, of course, was I, which is probably why I WASN'T good-natured about, as I normally would have been.

Interacting with people means that you will be seen. You have no right to your image as they see it, unless they attempt to exploit it financially. Thats just the way it is.

[noamnety]

62. It's not really something to "agree with"

My reaction isn't up for debate, any more than yours is. I think it makes more sense to acknowledge that we have different reactions, than to say you "don't agree" with my reaction.

When women find out they have been surveilled, with cameras zooming in on their asses or breasts, often they're upset and feel violated. Even IF they were walking around in public. I wish men could accept that instead of denying it.

There's a difference in viewpoint in general I think (that part can be up for debate, but yours and my reaction follow what the pattern I'm claiming, for what it's worth) where women feel it's an invasion of privacy and offensive, and men feel it's their right to do it.

It's sort of like going under anesthesia for an operation. Women want to know they aren't being groped - even if they are unconscious and not injured in the process, and would not find out. "None the wiser" isn't the standard for women, but it does seem to be the male standard for testing whether behavior is considered acceptable and polite.

[Toasterlad]

63. I Meant the Definition of Spying.

That's what I don't agree with.

Yes, it's obvious you view the matter differently than I do. I would never claim that your reaction is "false"; you're obviously entitled to your own feelings on the matter, as am I. I have no doubt there are men who'd agree with you, and I'm sure you'd concede there are women who'd agree with me. It's a matter of personal morality, like so many things not covered by law.

Women (or men) can choose to be upset and feel violated if they find that someone has been watching them walk down the street, or they can accept that no actual harm was done to them and move on. Any harm that has been done to them is literally only in their minds. They can embrace the harm and feel victimized, or they can reject it and move on. They have complete control over this process. Call me insensitive, but I will not feel sorry for a woman who finds out someone has been staring at breasts. There are people with REAL problems out there, women (and men) who have been SERIOUSLY hurt, physically and mentally. I'm not terribly worried about someone finding out "He was staring at my hiney!"

[noamnety]

65. You said you were pissed

when it happened to you in the bar, but you didn't refer to yourself dismissively as "embracing the harm."

[Toasterlad]

66. I WAS Pissed. I Got Over It.. Now, It's Just an Amusing Story to Share.

I'm not saying that people don't have right to their feelings. I'm saying they have a choice about how to deal with it. They can dwell on it, or they can release it. I don't see how it could do anyone any good to remain angry about something so trivial as someone looking at them when they did not know they were being looked at. As I said, if they were in a locker room situation, or somewhere else where they could expect reasonable privacy, that would be a different matter; morally AND legally wrong. But just watching people on the street, naked eye or electronic enhancement: I don't find that situation wrong, morally OR legally.

[noamnety]

68. Did you see the polls I posted a while ago related to that?

The polls were interesting on their own, but the comments was where you could really learn the difference between women's experiences on the street, and men's. And I think it's a window into why the reactions are so different - from a very young age, we learn what it is to be the recipients of unwanted sexual attention, and it's often associated very strongly with molestation. there's a threat aspect we learn, in other words, before we are even old enough to fully process it. That doesn't appear to happen to the same degree (with exceptions, always) with men:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6214423
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6213376

[Toasterlad]

69. Those Polls Predate Me.

I was into just the Top 10 Idiots for a long time before I got suckered into the forums. I didn't become a member until June of this year.

That is a rather excellent point about women receiving unwanted sexual attention at an earlier age. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend of mine, where I told her it wasn't fair that she could walk into a bar and leave with pretty much any guy she wanted (and she can - she's VERY sexy), but that she never took advantage of that. I told her that frustrated me as a gay man, how she always had the option of sex, but rarely took advantage of it. She said that besides the moral considerations, and the fact that women generally don't have the sex drive men do, there was a safety concern; she wouldn't feel safe just taking home some guy she didn't know, she'd be pretty much at his mercy if he turned out to be psychopath. That is probably glaringly obvious to you, but it honestly had never occurred to me: as a large, physically-intimidating man, I rarely worry about my safety when interacting with people. It really was a revelation to find out that women have that in the back of their minds ALL THE TIME.

I still think that people have a choice as to whether or not to "embrace the pain" when they feel violated, but I will absolutely concede than it would be more offensive to women and, thus, harder to deal with, because they have been exposed to so much unwanted scrutiny for so long. Thanks for the insight; I truly appreciate it when someone pushes me to look at something from a different angle. :thumbup:

[depakid]

57. "famous survey?"

Care to cite that one- or are you just blowing off a little steam?

[noamnety]

64. For those who don't feel like googling

"The same issue of Ms. carried the following statistics:

25% of college women in one survey experienced rape or attempted rape. Of these 84% knew their attackers. But only 5% notified the police.

15% of the college men in another study admitted they had forced a woman to have sex; 51% of college men in a third survey said they would rape if they were certain they could get away with it."

http://www.eurowrc.org/06.contributions/1.contrib_en/27.contrib.en.htm

I've seen the original study cited more directly several times in the past, but frankly I'm not up at the moment for the permutations of googling that would get me back to the original citation. If anyone else knows it off the top of their head or has the reference handy, please feel free to jump in.

[depakid]

67. From an issue of Ms. Magazine?

Since I have no way to actually analyze the purported survey, I can only add that my experience with people on campuses on the left coast has been a whole lot different than that.

[TahitiNut]

42. Well, the fact of the matter is ....

... that piggishness is neither exclusive to one gender nor universal within either gender - nor is the prurient interest in your (or my) anatomy.

I DO see a societal need for individual privacy (not 'group' privacy) but the simplistic segregation according to nominal gender has possibly exacerbated both the 'war between the sexes' and the pervasive homophobia (big and small) in our society. Individual Toilet Closets may be the ideal choice within a common facility but such a change would, of course, provoke an enormous reaction ... if only because of the kind of 'thinking' we've seen regarding Craig.

The more we invest in the pretense that all things sexual are defused by group segregation, the more we marginalize GLBT people, at least by inference. I'd guess it also heightens the mythology of the 'dangers' inherent in any mingling of the sexes, even to the point of exacerbating gender inequity (e.g. burkas).

[whistle]

8. In the 21st Century there is no such thing as total privacy

[YellowRubberDuckie]

9. In some of the new restaurants here, they have what you describe...

For example, when they built the new Olive Garden, they put in those kind of stalls. They're really nice and large.
Duckie

[dflprincess]

15. Some department stores have them as well

- at least in the ladies' rooms. Some also have lounge areas off the bathroom area with comfortable chairs or couches - very nice for nursing mothers.

[orpupilofnature57]

10. The alter of greed ,is a bigger need than privacy.

[BlooInBloo]

14. You mean for guys pissing? Urinals seem like enough privacy to me.

[MoonRiver]

16. Well, being a woman, I don't do urinals.

That's a whole other discussion, lol.

[BlooInBloo]

17. oops (blush)

[MoonRiver]

22. No problem, you couldn't have known!

:hi:

[cgrindley]

18. Such stalls are just really cheap hotel rooms

I've been in a few toilet stalls in NYC that were easily nicer than my house and a whole lot cleaner. Like those at the W say... if the stall doors went all the way down... all you'd have to do is go in at about 10, when Olives was still hopping, make your way through the lobby and up the stairs to the public toilet in the mezz level. Lock yourself in, curl up.... nighty night.

[MoonRiver]

21. So you think stalls are exposed a bit to keep out the homeless?

That's an angle I would have NEVER thought of. :wow:

[cgrindley]

74. Well, it's certainly one of many good reasons

1. stop people shooting up

2. stop people having sex

3. stop people sleeping

4. make it easy to check if someone's dead or sick in there

5. makes it harder to be pushed into a stall and privately mugged or killed

[Toasterlad]

19. Other.

I believe the reason that most stalls don't go all the way to the bottom is so you can tell without "disrupting" someone (i.e. knocking) that the stall is occupied. They are very practical for that purpose, and need no improvement.

As an aside, I have NEVER seen so much bandwith devoted to something as huge of a non-issue as public restroom sex. Seriously. Have any of you ever even HEARD two same-sex people going at it in a restroom? Contrary to popular opinion on this board, no one wants to see your winkie. Relax.

[MoonRiver]

26. What I'm talking about is not sexual behavior.

I, personally, would like more privacy when doing my business in the public toilet. One gets more privacy in other countries, and I was wondering why we don't have the same conditions here. I've been observing this long before any of this idiocy regarding sexual encounters in the toilets became a main stream media frenzy.

[Toasterlad]

30. How Much More Privacy Could You Want?

Unless someone deliberately looks in through the cracks at you, which is unlikely in the extreme, Craig not withstanding, no one knows who you are or what you're actually doing. Sounds like you have toilet issues, my friend. No offense.

[MoonRiver]

31. Whatever friend.

Most people, not including you of course, desire total privacy when "doing their business." But maybe that's just a gal thing. :eyes:

[Toasterlad]

33. Seriously, No Offense.

I hate public restrooms myself, and avoid them whenever possible. However, when necessary, I don't think a full-length door stall would alleviate my feelings of vulnerability, which are more linked to the, er, noises involved than any visibility issues. However, since women use stalls for EVERYTHING, I'm guessing that noises aren't your paramount concern.

[qdemn7]

52. I'm a 50 yr old SWM

Been in many a public toilet in my life, and NEVER, and I mean never, seen or heard anyone having sex. Gay or straight. I'm not a party-person, so that may have something to do with it.

[trudyco]

27. Where in the world do you live? All the women's bathroom stalls

I've been in are completely enclosed. Only the men's aren't sometimes.

[LisaL]

28. No, where do you live? I have yet to see a completely enclosed

stall around here.

[JVS]

70. I didn't make the claim, but perhaps the poster is referring to the fact that...

men's rooms sometimes have the doors removed from the stalls.

Where I went to college there was a bathroom that was notorious for people "cruising". Administration decided that they could combat this by taking away the doors to the stalls of the two long rows of stalls. The urinals were off in another area, and people generally avoided using those doorless stalls and would find places on other floors to go number 2. One time my room-mate was stricken by the runs and had to use a doorless stall. Some creep moved to a stall across and one over from him kept peeping and waving his penis as he jerked off

[MoonRiver]

29. You've been in both men's and women's stalls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I live in the wonderful USofA. Been all around the country, and all around the world, for what THAT'S worth.

[Captain Hilts]

40. Huh? there is space above and below the dividers in most women's bathrooms. nt

[garybeck]

32. It's a SAFETY issue.

I have been told it is because children can get locked inside bathroom stalls too easily and they need to be able to get out if they can't unlock the door.

I'm sure it's a liability issue too... imagine if there is a fire and the door was stuck.

[noamnety]

37. That's fine for a foot gap

but it doesn't explain why we can't make doors that fit the stalls instead of up to an inch gap on either side.

Most people wouldn't want to use a dressing room in the center of a department store (instead of a separate dressing area) if the doors had an inch-wide gap at the hinges.

[high density]

50. Yeah...

I was in a stall once where it locked but would not unlock. I crawled out the bottom.

[garybeck]

71. There actually is a standard minimum gap that is required... n/t

[Withywindle]

61. And on the flip side...

...a favorite prank when I was a kid was to go in each stall, one by one, lock them and crawl out underneath.

So they'd all be locked. :evilgrin:

[UTUSN]

36. Because Halliburton doesn't have the contract yet!!1 n/t

[Captain Hilts]

38. It helps air circulation. nt

[Sanctified]

43. I could only imagine the smell of opening the door to a toilet that is totally enclosed. Yuck! n/t

[AZBlue]

46. The only places I find totally enclosed bathrooms are in expensive restaurants and hotels/resorts.

Has to be the money.

[orleans]

72. if stalls are sealed off top to bottom who are you gonna ask to hand

you some t.p. when you realize your stall doesn't have any.

(so it happened to me once, maybe twice. i remember the first--and possibly only--time my friend or mom was right next to me. but i did have to reach under to grab it.)

[Raine]

73. They should cause for one thing for women

with the bottom open like that it's easier for a thief to reach in and grab your purse while you are sitting there occupied taking care of business. :-(