Women want right to go topless in public, take case to state's Supreme Court

I think recent history shows nothing is simple. Why is this thread still going? What is so important about showing breasts that it brings such ire among you women? Freakishly strange......

 

I've seen women go gaga over a bare breasted man.
I myself even admire the breast area of a woman.
It's just men don't get sexually assaulted and neither should women.

And for you other folks, getting an erection isn't sexual assault.

 

Yes and once they became unisex all the new buildings are having to build completely separate private rooms for each person, at addition cost, and sometimes with increased wait times to even get into the restroom because there aren't enough stalls.

 

This is about being allowed to.
And I doubt women at least those with some breast size, will run around gym class without support. It would be like a male not wearing a jock support.
Doesn't go very well.

 

I don't think I said getting an erection was sexual assault. Check again. I said touching someone man or woman and getting and erection sure seems like it would be sexual assault. Why can't you folks read?

 

it's not that much additional cost for new buildings, would be more for older building.... but if people fight it in the courts, the law is on their side, unless we agree to separate but equal in some areas, could add that to the constitution

our hospital is already designed that way, it's actually efficient as you do not have to have the same number of stalls in two bathrooms, if you had 4 stalls in each, could change it to 4-6 unisex doors with stalls

how many planes have mens and womens rooms... it works there too

 

You would have to ask a woman.
But it is their god given right to do so, if a man can do so.

 

Yes, wanting the same freedoms as males, in this case, is childish and immature. Try a mirror.

 

It's either a God given right, or it's not. Doesn't matter about the man here, in the line of reasoning you're arguing.

 

God given right? I thought you were atheist.

This isn't about wanting the same freedoms as males. You've been duped.

 

Seriously. This whole thread is sad. I'm glad I came here and stirred them up. I didn't mean to do that, but I learned a great deal. I'm thankful for that.

 

You get a lot wrong it seems.

Ask the women this thread is about, it's exactly about the same freedoms.
And, your personal attacks you keep throwing out is a reflection on you. Look in the mirror.

 

You stirred nothing up, but showed you can't deal with women's boobies without assaulting them.

 

like a plane....

because both males and females can use each stall though, it can actually reduce the wait too as if more females need the restroom at a given times or males, all are avail at all times

 

Except in reality, once you have both genders using the same facilities, they're going to separate the toilets into their own individual rooms. That's going to take up more space and cost more, so there are probably going to be fewer toilets in many cases. Building a completely separate private room is a lot more expensive than building another stall.

That's going to be all the new buildings, of course.
The old buildings they're just going to turn the men's bathroom into a gender neutral one, while women will still have their own.

 

No. Female breasts are sexual objects unless there is a baby attached to one.

 

Yes I have: a law based on that opinion is dangerous to free expression. It sets the precedent that we can ban anything that people find offensive, arousing or inciteful. It endangers the right to free speech, religious practice, political activism, public awareness campaigns... to name a few. All of these make people uncomfortable and indeed incite violence on occassion. Thats no reason to ban them.

 

So are male breasts, at least to some.

Feet are even sexual objects to a larger minority of folks than I really find comfortable...

 

not really, you lose that large space in front of the stalls and it gets broke down into smaller rooms, you might go from a total of 10 stalls to 4-6, but it actually works our well
we see this on planes and I see it at our hospital as well

 

When you have a real door and walls that reach to the ceiling, people generally don't want to be confined to that small of a space when they're sitting on the toilet. From what I've seen, the size of each one of these private rooms takes up the same space as 3 stalls, and I'm sure substantially more expensive as well. There's also the thickness of the wall to contend with.

You have to ask yourself why they didn't have private rooms before, if it was so easy.

Oh it's certainly doable (in new constructions) but it's going to substantially raise the costs in some situations.


Interesting article you might want to read: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...demn-arts-centres-unisex-lavatories-jq9mswjsp
Looks like going gender neutral has meant longer wait times for women. (and women also have smaller bladders than men, meaning they have to go more frequently)

 

Blond hair, blue eyes, and a pretty smile are sexual objects also.
Probably why Muslim women have to be covered head to toe.

 

That reminds of that thread two or three weeks ago "She tempted me with her eyes"

 

The New York Supreme Court has a lot of power in Europe then?

 

I would imagine having had sex before would help understand my point...

 

Dude. Get real. Lol.

Context.