segregation, where's the line?

Well, I think one rapist, for example, is too many. How about you?

I don't think one rapist justifies segregation. Otherwise we'd have a separate bathroom for homosexuals in order to protect men from rape.

The problem is sharing your bathroom with strangers of the opposite sex, especially when you're on your own.

I fail to see how segregated toilets protects women from rape. There is no invisible magical barrier that keeps men out, a rapist can quite easily walk in if they want to. Which is exactly what they do.

If anything, unisex bathrooms will actually protect people from rape, since you're less likely to be alone with a single stranger at any one time.
 
Last edited:
I don't think one rapist justifies segregation. Otherwise we'd have a separate bathroom for homosexuals in order to protect men from rape.



I fail to see how segregated toilets protects women from rape. There is no invisible magical barrier that keeps men out, a rapist can quite easily walk in if they want to. Which is exactly what they do.
good points..


If anything, unisex bathrooms will actually protect people from rape, since you're less likely to be alone with a single stranger at any one time.
lol, i'm sorry, the word "gang ...." came to mind:roflmao:
 
I don't think one rapist justifies segregation. Otherwise we'd have a separate bathroom for homosexuals in order to protect men from rape.
Which really wouldn't work since homosexuals do not have identifying badges, usually. Futher a homosexual rapist - a much, much rarer breed out there than the het male version - can be far less confident that they can overpower someone. Whereas the het male rapist generally can overpower a woman. Or the one who simply wants to expose his dick or perform something short of full out rape is less likely to be beat up than the homosexual trying these things on some random man in a bathroom.
I fail to see how segregated toilets protects women from rape. There is no invisible magical barrier that keeps men out, a rapist can quite easily walk in if they want to. Which is exactly what they do.
But then they are immediately out of place. In a unisex bathroom they can hang out until a woman is alone. The can scope and scan. They can simply piss and leave if the situation is not condusive - there are several women together in the bathroom. With segregated bathrooms, the guy stands out instantly. The women will be on the defensive directly - hands on mace, ready to scream, perhaps emerging from the bathroom and immediatly approaching a security guard about 'some guy' if he's walked in on a couple of women, for example. Of course it does not completely protect women, but it makes a significant difference.

You know even having a gate that opens by hand, but has private property written on it, lowers break ins significantly. Why? because even though the criminal can easily open the unlocked gate, once they are on the other side, where they are not supposed to be, they are exposed directly to suspicion. Clearly they have made decisions to cross a boundary and are suspect. And burglars dislike this kind of immediate exposure that would up the ante of their lying and excuses instantly.
 
Which really wouldn't work since homosexuals do not have identifying badges, usually.

That could be rectified.

Futher a homosexual rapist - a much, much rarer breed out there than the het male version

1. Speculation.

2. Not relevant to the point I was addressing. James R originally claimed that segregated sex toilets existed because 'too many men couldn't control themselves'. I asked him how many constituted 'too many'. He replied with 'one rapist being to many'.

According to that logic, even ONE homosexual rapist is 'too many', and therefore they should have their own toilets. Whether they are less numerous than heterosexual rapists is incidental.

- can be far less confident that they can overpower someone.

Supposition that arises solely from gender stereotypes. I could counter with the gender stereotype that men would be reluctant to hit a woman in self-defense, thus giving the woman a greater opportunity to overpower them. Or that a man would not regard a woman as a threat until it was too late.

Either way, rapists tend to be armed, therefore making ones physical strength moot.

Or the one who simply wants to expose his dick or perform something short of full out rape is less likely to be beat up than the homosexual trying these things on some random man in a bathroom.

Premise 1: Men are more likely to overpower rapists.

Premise 2: Rapists are more common in segregated female toilets.

Conclusion: Allowing all men into the female toilets would increase the likelihood of rapists being overpowered, therefore decreasing the risk of rape.

You just gave me the premises I need to support my viewpoint.

But then they are immediately out of place. In a unisex bathroom they can hang out until a woman is alone.

They don't do this in a segregated sex bathroom? How hard is it to stand outside the bathroom (or hell, even in a cubicle) and wait until your target is alone? As I see it, segregated sex bathrooms give, at best, a false sense of security.

The can scope and scan.

They can do this even when toilets are segregated.

With segregated bathrooms, the guy stands out instantly. The women will be on the defensive directly

TOO LATE! She's already been overpowered and raped. And thanks to the segregated nature of the bathroom, the chance of someone stumbling in to prevent the rape was decreased by 1/2 (maybe more, if we accept your gender stereotype that men are more likely to overpower a rapist).

Of course it does not completely protect women, but it makes a significant difference.

How do you know? Do you have some sort of scientific article which shows a significant difference?

You know even having a gate that opens by hand, but has private property written on it, lowers break ins significantly. Why?

Logic fallacy. We aren't discussing break ins, we are discussing rapes.
And I'd speculate that rapes would have a greater incidence in secluded areas (such as private properties) rather than in more densely populated areas (eg. on a busy street) where everyone can see what you are doing.

James R said:
There's not just one rapist in the world, mordea. Wake up.

But you said that just one rapist was 'too many', implying that one rapist is all that is needed to enforce some form of social segregation.
 
It's like morality. Or our invented concepts of it.

Imperfect. Based primarily on basic wants and not necessarily complete or total logic.

Round and round you go-- and in the end, it's not really about the most rational or logical argument.

It's simply that most folks seem COMFORTABLE with segregated restrooms.

If I grew up in a society in which bathrooms were coed, I'd probably be accustomed to it and comfortable with that. If that society had then asked if Open Stalls in those coed bathrooms would decrease segregation- I might be uncomfortable with women actually being able to watch me pee as opposed to having that stall door as a barrier...

Some men are uncomfortable with the idea that a homosexual might be in the same restroom as them. Some women are uncomfortable with the idea that a homosexual might be in the same restroom as them.
But not enough people are uncomfortable with it and it would be a very difficult task to ID homosexuals- so it's not really worth bothering with. Most people that are uncomfortable with it seek out public restrooms that have locks on the doors or dash in when no one is in there or wait til they get home.
 
mordea:

Really ... why do you bother posting rubbish? Five minutes thought could cure that problem, rather than opting for the knee jerk every time.

mordea said:
Doreen said:
Futher a homosexual rapist - a much, much rarer breed out there than the het male version

1. Speculation.

Suppose 10% of the population is homosexual, and that your sexual orientation does not affect you inclination to become a rapist. On the population statistic alone, heterosexual rapists are 10 times as prevalent as homosexual ones. Obvious, no?

2. Not relevant to the point I was addressing. James R originally claimed that segregated sex toilets existed because 'too many men couldn't control themselves'. I asked him how many constituted 'too many'. He replied with 'one rapist being to many'.

According to that logic, even ONE homosexual rapist is 'too many', and therefore they should have their own toilets. Whether they are less numerous than heterosexual rapists is incidental.

Suppose there was 1 rapist in the world. Would it be sensible to argue that all toilets should therefore be segregated, even if we make the silly assumption that the only reason for segregation is protection from the one crime (rape)? Brain on, mordea. Think a little.

Now, return to my original statement: "Too many men can't control themselves". I never mentioned one. In fact, to anybody who thought about it for more than 2 seconds, it was obvious that by "too many", I meant "many". Want to quibble some more? Want to try to score a few more lame points? Ok, over to you.

Supposition that arises solely from gender stereotypes. I could counter with the gender stereotype that men would be reluctant to hit a woman in self-defense, thus giving the woman a greater opportunity to overpower them.

You think that a would-be rapist would be reluctant to hit a women who fought back? Really? I mean, really? Nuh, not really... Surely you're not really as silly as you make yourself out to be.

Premise 1: Men are more likely to overpower rapists.

Premise 2: Rapists are more common in segregated female toilets.

Conclusion: Allowing all men into the female toilets would increase the likelihood of rapists being overpowered, therefore decreasing the risk of rape.

Stranger rape tends to be a one-on-one thing. It's something offenders do when there's only themselves and their victim present. Think about it. How many stranger rapes have you heard about where there were a whole lot of uninvolved men standing around?

Brain on. Consider for 5 seconds. You can do it. I believe in you.

But then they are immediately out of place. In a unisex bathroom they can hang out until a woman is alone.

They don't do this in a segregated sex bathroom? How hard is it to stand outside the bathroom (or hell, even in a cubicle) and wait until your target is alone?

If you're a male loitering around outside a female public bathroom, you don't think you'll attract attention (let alone if you walk in)? Really? I mean... really?

With segregated bathrooms, the guy stands out instantly. The women will be on the defensive directly

TOO LATE! She's already been overpowered and raped.

You think rape takes just a couple of seconds, do you? Really?

And I'd speculate that rapes would have a greater incidence in secluded areas (such as private properties) rather than in more densely populated areas (eg. on a busy street) where everyone can see what you are doing.

Rapes most commonly happen in the home. Rapists are most commonly people the victim knows well (or thinks she knows well).
 
Maybe I'd like to think better of my gender than to think that "Too many men couldn't control themselves."

What? Women never get off looking at a guy? I know TOO many Women that would contradict that claim!

"But a Woman can't really rape a guy."

You know... Over in Europe and many other countries around the globe (I'm in the USA), nudity is quite a bit less inhibited than here.

Yet... Men aren't jumping all the women over there.

The "Rape claims" are a silly issue to raise.
RAPISTS commit rape- NOT MEN.
 
Suppose 10% of the population is homosexual, and that your sexual orientation does not affect you inclination to become a rapist. On the population statistic alone, heterosexual rapists are 10 times as prevalent as homosexual ones. Obvious, no?

No. Your conclusion relies on a whole lot of conjecture.

Suppose there was 1 rapist in the world. Would it be sensible to argue that all toilets should therefore be segregated, even if we make the silly assumption that the only reason for segregation is protection from the one crime (rape)? Brain on, mordea. Think a little.

That's *exactly* the point I was making.

Now, return to my original statement: "Too many men can't control themselves". I never mentioned one. In fact, to anybody who thought about it for more than 2 seconds, it was obvious that by "too many", I meant "many".

By many, you meant one or more.

James R said:

mordea:
Well, I think one rapist, for example, is too many. How about you?

You think that a would-be rapist would be reluctant to hit a women who fought back? Really? I mean, really? Nuh, not really... Surely you're not really as silly as you make yourself out to be.

Um, no. That wasn't what I said.

Stranger rape tends to be a one-on-one thing. It's something offenders do when there's only themselves and their victim present

Which is what I have already said. You are supporting my point of view.

If you're a male loitering around outside a female public bathroom, you don't think you'll attract attention (let alone if you walk in)? Really? I mean... really?

No, you likely wouldn't.

You think rape takes just a couple of seconds, do you? Really?

Which is what I have already said. You are supporting my point of view.

Rapes most commonly happen in the home.

Which is what I have already said. You are supporting my point of view.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'd like to think better of my gender than to think that "Too many men couldn't control themselves."

Yeah, it's blatant sexism. You might as well argue in favour of racial segregation because 'Too many blacks can't control themselves'.

But don't you worry. If anything, I'll be the one who is demonised and threatened with punitive action.


Just to summarise, my main contention on this thread is that unisex bathrooms could plausibly decrease the incidence of rapes, as individuals would less likely be alone at any one time. The window of opportunity available to commit a rape would likely be *halved*.
 
Last edited:
every disabled toilet i have ever seen is unisex and to be honest im glad male and female toilets are seprate because women take forever in the toilet. just look at the lineups for the female toilets at events like the show.

as for unisex dorms when i went to the uni camp they had one small male bedroom, one small female one and 5 large unisex ones
 
btw, the genital argument is interesting. under Australian law transgender are legally entitled to use the bathroom of there assumed gender no matter what genitals they have. its a criminal offence to stop a transgender going into say the female toilets
 
uh, while i DO have replies to the rest of you i couldn't help myself on this one:
Yeah, it's blatant sexism. You might as well argue in favour of racial segregation because 'Too many blacks can't control themselves'.
i'm sorry, but you can't compare sexual and racial segregation in that manner, males and females are different, that is a fact. and that fact has considerable implications. black and white people are equal, if a person was born white or was born black he can live the life of the other color easily, as i said they are equal, simple things like melanin concentrations in the skin and probably hints of different body and cultural structure can in no way be compared to the differences between males and females and what results of them, mainly what we care about here is sexual attraction... no equivalent to that naturally exists between white and black people
 
i'm sorry, but you can't compare sexual and racial segregation in that manner, males and females are different, that is a fact.

It is also a fact that statistically speaking, blacks and whites are different. Indeed, the incidence of black against white rape is much higher than white against black rape.
 
Some men are uncomfortable with the idea that a homosexual might be in the same restroom as them. Some women are uncomfortable with the idea that a homosexual might be in the same restroom as them.
Actually it's been established that women are generally NOT uncomfortable with the concept of female homosexuality. Both men and women have a primal fear of being sexually assaulted by A MAN. Neither men nor women are particularly afraid of being assaulted by a woman. A man will say, "Hang on a minute, honey, while I get these shoes off," and a woman is likely to laugh it off or walk away, but not to scream or call the cops. Look at all the women-kissing-women scenes in movies and TV, and both Jill Sobule and Katy Perry sang songs titled "I Kissed a Girl." Man-kissing-man scenes are extremely rare, even in milieux like Mafia movies where it's a ritual under certain circumstances. Imagine how a song about a guy kissing another guy would be received!

One of the reasons women (at least here in the USA) are so comfortable around gay men is that there's less reason to keep their guard up. (Obviously not zero reason because men will be men and some of us will screw--literally--anything.)

You think that a would-be rapist would be reluctant to hit a women who fought back?
Women have told me that the way to fight back is verbally rather than by returning violence. One avoided being raped because she had dated a man of the same ethnicity as the rapist and knew how their mothers talked to them. She affected that demeanor and jargon, and the guy became ashamed and impotent. It would be a little more difficult with American men of standard northwestern European culture because we aren't as respectful of our mothers, but I'm sure it's worth a try.
Rapes most commonly happen in the home. Rapists are most commonly people the victim knows well (or thinks she knows well).
Here in the Washington region I'd say the second most common scenario is still in the home, but by breaking and entering. It's often someone who has been stalking the victim and knows her habits. Third is probably in a parking lot at night, especially lying in wait in the victim's car--a good reason for these new radio-controlled locks that are really hard to pick. Fourth is simply risky behavior, like walking down a deserted street in the middle of the night. Some women just get off work late, can't afford a car or a taxi, and have no one to call. And of course because they're most likely to be poor they're most likely to live in the riskiest neighborhoods.
You know... Over in Europe and many other countries around the globe (I'm in the USA), nudity is quite a bit less inhibited than here. Yet... Men aren't jumping all the women over there.
Don't get me started on Christianity. Oh crap, you already did.;) The Religious Redneck Retard Revival has not hit Europe, so Christianity is still on the decline there as it was here 40 years ago. People do not suppress major parts of their personalities in obedience to its draconian morality standards. Sexuality is less inhibited and men don't walk around as frustrated as they do here. They still have rape, of course, because rape is primarily a crime of violence and power, not a crime of sex. But the average European guy with a few too many drinks is not going to be overwhelmed by lust at the sight of an unclothed female body the way his American counterpart will be, because he's probably had some fairly recently. Even if not, he probably knows some woman he could call up right then to hook up with.

That's the way it was here in the late 1960s and early 70s. You'd go to a party, meet a gal, and then just walk through the house until you found an empty room--or a big room in which another couple (or two) was already doing it. Today only teenagers do that. And they never remember the condoms.

It would be interesting to take a poll. I wonder how many of our European male members know for sure that they could get laid tonight if they wanted to, versus the percentage of the American guys. Especially men over 25.
every disabled toilet i have ever seen is unisex and to be honest im glad male and female toilets are seprate because women take forever in the toilet. just look at the lineups for the female toilets at events like the show.
In some American arenas they turn some of the men's rooms into ladies' rooms at events like concerts where there are more women in attendance than at a sporting event. At other venues I've seen gals simply line up with the guys at the men's room, and we just let them go in and use the stalls. The guards just look the other way. They can't really see what we're doing at a urinal from behind, so we just stifle our modesty out of kindness. Frankly it helps keep the men's room a little more civilized, if you've ever been to a concert with a bunch of drunken oafs so you understand what I'm talking about. It's worth the tradeoff in modesty.
btw, the genital argument is interesting. under Australian law transgender are legally entitled to use the bathroom of there assumed gender no matter what genitals they have. its a criminal offence to stop a transgender going into say the female toilets
They just had a huge fight about that in Maryland. I forget how it ended but I'm pretty sure the TGs lost. Basically the public felt it was better for one man who thinks he's a woman to be embarrassed by an entire bathroom full of men, than for an entire bathroom full of women to be embarrassed by someone they regard as simply a man in drag.

Still, the bottom line is that if you're an expert at cross-dressing, do all the correct cosmetic stuff, and have the discipline to always talk in a falsetto, you'll get away with it because literally nobody will know. This is why TG people invariably relocate to a new city where nobody will recognize them from their old life.
Indeed, the incidence of black against white rape is much higher than white against black rape.
And you don't think this might just have a little something to do with resentment over two hundred years of discrimination and outright slavery? When our ancestors could not only toss them out of swimming pools and restrooms but could actually LYNCH them and get away with it? As a Moderator I normally try to maintain a polite tone out of respect for my office, but in this case I'll have to agree with James, my Noble Leader. You are maybe just a tiny bit dense and probably even slept through some really important classes.
 
fr, firstly the male to female ratio is irrelivent, evem with twice the men there will still be a massive line for the female toilets

secondly on "civillisation" at a recent public duty i had to treat 2 women ib the female toilets. one in the sink are and one who collapsed ON the toilet and wraped herself around it and from this i learned that the "womens is cleaner" thing IS A MYTH. not pleasent in the least
 
fr, firstly the male to female ratio is irrelivent, evem with twice the men there will still be a massive line for the female toilets
Ladies use restrooms for things other than as a restroom;)

secondly on "civillisation" at a recent public duty i had to treat 2 women ib the female toilets. one in the sink are and one who collapsed ON the toilet and wraped herself around it and from this i learned that the "womens is cleaner" thing IS A MYTH. not pleasent in the least

Working for years as a plumber, I can vouch for this...
Across a 9 county area in the Austin area and a 4 county area in Dalls/Ft Worth area, womens restrooms are much more vandalized and dirtier than mens.

I admit, I had a stereotype of my own that assumed they would be cleaner. That was quickly erased.

Restrooms where teenage girls congregate are the WORST. Not only do they trash them disgustingly, they are very destructive, ripping towel holders off walls, disassembling toilets and things I cannot mention on a forum without being repulsive...
 
I wouldn't feel safe in a unisex dormitory. Sure most males aren't rapists, but most doesn't equal all.

And I would feel very endangered in a unisex toilet in most places. Pissed guys seem to think it perfectly fine to put their hands all over you, assume you are joking when you push them away and tell them to back off, and only come to their senses when you attempt to blind them with your fingers (yeah I did this)...and this is in a crowded social venue. Now translate that to a toilet where there may or may not be people around to regulate things.
 
Back
Top