Palademon said:
Twilight_guy said:
Male and female restrooms are another one too, although I'm not totally sold that its a necessity only that in my society its a necessity.
See, to me this gets complicated.
How do you divide people by gender for restrooms and changing rooms, when in our modern society we are aware of sexualities other than heterosexuality? Makes more sense for restrooms if you have urinals, but otherwise people could easily use the same place.
It seems natural to have privacy based on gender, because genders and different and we feel naturally comfortable around people of our gender sometimes, and you feel you can't be objectified or looked at, but there's probably going to be people uncomfortable with homosexuals or bisexuals using the same areas.
And the worst thing about mentioning this is I can't help but end up sounding like a bigot even though I personally don't mind it.
I'm just jealous of the lesbians.
For changing rooms, yes, it?s necessary to have gender-separate ones. Fact of the matter is that we
do live in a heteronormative society. Unless you?re really paranoid, no-one really thinks about whether or not someone?s gay unless they know their sexuality or they say it (and why would anyone announce that they?re gay in a changing room anyway)? It?s understandable if men would be distracted, for lack of a better word, if numerous women are undressing around them. Imagine how embarrassing it would be trying to both hide the fact that you?ve got a hard-on and change into your clothes when sexual arousal signals are sounding off all over the place.
But for just toilets, that?s?just not a sexual place at all. I can see why they exist, but they?re not
that important. You go in, you piss/shit, you wash your hands, you dry them, and walk out. You?re not in there for that long, and it?d be pretty obvious if you were peeking over a cubicle door to check out a woman peeing (and as far as fetishes go, urolagnia?s in the minority). My secondary school installed unisex toilets a couple of years ago, and there?s been no trouble. They pretty much consist of all cubicles with sinks inside, and driers outside. The toilet rooms themselves, though, are pretty small, as far as they go.
Lieju said:
Relish in Chaos said:
Which double standards do you think are necessary? I was just thinking about how female-on-male sexual harassment is often used as a topic of humour for sitcoms, but if it wasn't funny to so many, it wouldn't be used, would it? So I'm not sure whether or not it's bad for them to use it, even if it is a double standard, perhaps based on its rarity.
It might be funny to people, but it doesn't mean it's right. People used to think Minstrel shows were pretty funny.
I am of the opinion that you can make fun of anything, even sexual harassment, but if the joke is 'this is funny because it's female-on-male', that's not okay.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I've changed my mind now.
I recently watched a
Looney Tunes cartoon where, on the contrary, it was male-on-female sexual harassment that was being played for laughs, but it was Pepé Le Pew, a skunk with an exaggerated French accent, trying to court Penelope Pussycat, a female cat whom he mistook for a female skunk because white paint fell on her.
So I?m not sure whether or not they?re saying that it?s alright because they?re anthropomorphic animals, or it?s just, ?Who cares, it?s a cartoon and there?s obviously no actual sex anyway.? Either way, I think it was pretty old.
EDIT: Yes, it's called
For Scent-imental Reasons, it's from 1949, and they did a role-reversal at the end when they had a smitten Penelope chase after a blue-painted (and presumably odourless) Pepé.
