Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.

I am a "parent and a father".... and I disagree with you.

As others have pointed out, we in the US have some really absurd notions of what is considered decent. While not entirely directly related, I see a lot of the same crowd arguing against public breastfeeding of infants. Really? It's a boob. It's a food source. Get the feth over it.

Last year we went on vacation to Germany to visit family. While there we visited lakes, public pools, and theme parks.

The lakes, with minimal public changing facilities, had people either change in one of the snail-things that I have previously posted (it's what I used) or just change right there on the beach. Almost all kids changed out of their swimsuits out in the open.

At the pool they had communal locker rooms with individual stalls to change in as well as the snails. Kids usually still just changed out in the open on the lawn surrounding the pool. Places with saunas had man/women/kids nude while using the sauna and walking around the sauna facilities.

At the theme parks they had water features for kids to play in. We had our 2 year old daughter strip naked right then and there out in the open, put on a swim-diaper, and play in the water. After she was done she stripped naked out in the open again, dried off, and changed back into her clothes. Every other parent did the same with their child.

The last time we vacationed in Italy people were nude on the beach and nobody cared.

The problem isn't nudity and who sees what. The problem is that we have a population that thinks nudity = sex and nudity = bad.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Until the day when someone is totally fine being in a totally co-ed shower room then they are a little hypocritical about supporting trans issues in locker rooms and shower rooms.

It's not hypocritical to recognise that society's attitude towards something needs to change, even if one hasn't yet managed to make that change oneself...

 insaniak wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Until the day when someone is totally fine being in a totally co-ed shower room then they are a little hypocritical about supporting trans issues in locker rooms and shower rooms.

It's not hypocritical to recognise that society's attitude towards something needs to change, even if one hasn't yet managed to make that change oneself...

I've never been a fan of the "one rule for thee, another for me" line of logic.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Apparently the majority of women and many of us men who feel that we would rather not change and shower with trans individuals are not allowed to feel uncomfortabl. We just need to suck it up.

I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.

I have already met "your side" half way by stating individual chamging room and insiviidual showers would be fine.

But no....not good enough for you.

So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.

In an effort to dial it back a bit and understand where you are coming from, I have a question. I'm not trying to be overly pedantic or make fun or be condescending, I'm asking in good faith.

Imagine the situation we are talking about: A parent and child goes into a locker room to change. There is someone else in the locker room changing. The parent and child momentarily see the person's genitals during the act of changing. The person finishes and leaves. The parent and child change and leave. For the sake of discussion, we can imagine that in one case, the biological sex of the person whose genitals are seen is the same as the parent and child, and in the other case, the biological sex of the person is the opposite.

In either case, what is the major concern that you have with this situation? That the parent and the child's day will be ruined by this inadvertent viewing? That the child's life will be ruined? That the child will be confused and ask a question? That the child will be curious and ask a question? Or something else? Does it vary, based on the type of genitals seen?

I will admit, from my point of view it is very difficult for me to see what the problem would be with the situation I described, so I am legitimately curious as to why it seems like such a problematic situation for you. Where does your concern or worry lie? Or am I mischaracterizing your concern and there is something else that you are worried about?

If anyone else feels similarly and wants to chime in, feel free as well.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Until the day when someone is totally fine being in a totally co-ed shower room then they are a little hypocritical about supporting trans issues in locker rooms and shower rooms.

It's not hypocritical to recognise that society's attitude towards something needs to change, even if one hasn't yet managed to make that change oneself...

I've never been a fan of the "one rule for thee, another for me" line of logic.

I'm not saying that people should hold themselves and other people to different standards. I'm saying that preconceptions instilled over the course of a lifetime can take time to change, even when someone recognises that they need to change.

The fact that someone refused your noble offer to shower with them doesn't mean that they don't recognise that nudity taboos are silly... it just means that they were put off by your offer to shower with them.

My wife and I work opposite shifts. Which means that quote often I am the person doing stuff with my toddler. She loves the pool and we often go to the YMCA to swim. After we swim, we go to the changing rooms and change. Our Y has a men's locker room, a woman's locker room, and a family locker room where the lockers are out in a communal area with individual changing rooms with showers in them. My daughter sees me naked while we change, just as she sees me naked when she watches me go to the bathroom at home. At no point have I ever been concerned about what she sees. I am more concerned that we life in a society where there might be people watching me go into a changing room with my toddler who think that I might be up to something.

 Hordini wrote:
Does it vary, based on the type of genitals seen?

Yes. It does vary by anatomy.

My 12yo daughter would not (and does not) have questions about changing with other females.

Call me old fashioned, christian, out dated, a relic, a fossil...whatever....but I believe that children (under 18)are already so over exposed to sex in our western culture (perhaps even eastern, but not sure).

They are having sex and sexuality FORCED upon them everywhere they go in all manner of media.

About the only places that you don't see it on tv are Nickelodeon, Cartoon network, and PBS. And even then, they have TeenNick.

Anyways....

I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.

I feel that exposing developing kids to the genitalia of the opposite sex before they are mature enough mentally, socially, and behaviorally is opening them up to a pandora's box of things that kids should not have to start dealing with, considerimg all the other crap that they are dealing with in the first place.

A 2yo changing on the beach is one thing. A 12yo girl who is developing into a young woman is completely different. They are already experiencing insecurities anout their changing body, so why make things more comolicated or harder for them and make them change in front of developing boys (who may claim to feel like a girl)....?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
My wife and I work opposite shifts. Which means that quote often I am the person doing stuff with my toddler.

*Toddler*

Huge difference between that and a tween/teen.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.

Do you commonly choose sexual partners from amongst random people you encounter in locker rooms?


That's a serious question. You seem to viewing 'nudity' and 'sex' as the same thing.

A 2yo changing on the beach is one thing. A 12yo girl who is developing into a young woman is completely different. They are already experiencing insecurities anout their changing body, so why make things more comolicated or harder for them and make them change in front of developing boys (who may claim to feel like a girl)....?

Because the main reason the 12 year old is feeling insecure about her body is that you've spent the previous 12 years teaching her that her body is something that needs to be hidden away, and thus something to be ashamed of.

There is a fine line between modesty and shame.

Relapse wrote:

How many people here look at nudie magazines?

... nudie magazines? What is this, the early 90s?

 insaniak wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Until the day when someone is totally fine being in a totally co-ed shower room then they are a little hypocritical about supporting trans issues in locker rooms and shower rooms.

It's not hypocritical to recognise that society's attitude towards something needs to change, even if one hasn't yet managed to make that change oneself...

I've never been a fan of the "one rule for thee, another for me" line of logic.

I'm not saying that people should hold themselves and other people to different standards. I'm saying that preconceptions instilled over the course of a lifetime can take time to change, even when someone recognises that they need to change.

The fact that someone refused your noble offer to shower with them doesn't mean that they don't recognise that nudity taboos are silly... it just means that they were put off by your offer to shower with them.

OR.......they absolutely refuse to consider EVER showering with men in a coed setting. If that is the case then yes, they are hypocrites.

you. You have no idea what I am teaching my daughter or son or how I am raising my kids.

Maybe you should take an adolescent psych class and learn about the mental, physical, behavioral and hormonal changes that they go through instead of trying to paint me with your idiotic brush.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.

I feel that exposing developing kids to the genitalia of the opposite sex before they are mature enough mentally, socially, and behaviorally is opening them up to a pandora's box of things that kids should not have to start dealing with, considerimg all the other crap that they are dealing with in the first place.

I think this quote illustrates the root of the issue, if I am understanding you correctly. Would it be correct to say that you feel that any exposure to the opposite sex genitalia would be a problem, even if it is a non-sexual context (such as while changing)? Or does context matter? I'm thinking most teens will have, at the very least, seen an image of genitalia in a health textbook at school, and quite possibly online as well. How much does the context matter? Or does it not matter to you when it comes to genitalia?


To be clear, I'm not trying to goad you or paint you with any brush. It's pretty obvious that there are a significant amount of people in this country who feel similarly to you, and I think it would be helpful if both sides fully understood where each other was coming from, rather than just ascribing some negative quality, ill intent, or general buffoonery to those on the other side.

For a MOD, I'm going to have to say that sounded suspiciously like an attack on someone's personal beliefs, parenting ability, and possibly religion. Can MODs ban themselves?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.

I feel that exposing developing kids to the genitalia of the opposite sex before they are mature enough mentally, socially, and behaviorally is opening them up to a pandora's box of things that kids should not have to start dealing with, considerimg all the other crap that they are dealing with in the first place.

I think this quote illustrates the root of the issue, if I am understanding you correctly. Would it be correct to say that you feel that any exposure to the opposite sex genitalia would be a problem, even if it is a non-sexual context (such as while changing)? Or does context matter? I'm thinking most teens will have, at the very least, seen an image of genitalia in a health textbook at school, and quite possibly online as well. How much does the context matter? Or does it not matter to you when it comes to genitalia?

Well, the courts don't seem to see much of a difference, even without it being a sexual nature. Recently in the news a high school football player got cheeky. He had the tip of his penis out the top of his pants during the team photo for the yearbook. No one noticed unit after the book was issued. He is now being charged with dozens of counts of dissemination of indecent material to minors (one for each book given to an underage person), even though there was nothing sexual about it.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
you. You have no idea what I am teaching my daughter or son or how I am raising my kids..

No, I don't. And my comment possibly came across seeming a little more directly aimed than it was intended to be. The 'you' I was referring to there was more of a generic thing that aimed specifically at you.

Because to some extent, I suspect that most of us actually do this to some extent, whether because of our preconceptions about modesty and sex, or simply in an effort to keep our children safe in a world where other people will take advantage of our children if they put themselves out there...


Our society has some screwed up ideas about nudity and how best to deal with that is something that every parent is going to have to figure out for themselves. My apologies if I came across more harshly than I intended.

 cuda1179 wrote:
For a MOD, I'm going to have to say that sounded suspiciously like an attack on someone's personal beliefs, parenting ability, and possibly religion. Can MODs ban themselves?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.

I feel that exposing developing kids to the genitalia of the opposite sex before they are mature enough mentally, socially, and behaviorally is opening them up to a pandora's box of things that kids should not have to start dealing with, considerimg all the other crap that they are dealing with in the first place.

I think this quote illustrates the root of the issue, if I am understanding you correctly. Would it be correct to say that you feel that any exposure to the opposite sex genitalia would be a problem, even if it is a non-sexual context (such as while changing)? Or does context matter? I'm thinking most teens will have, at the very least, seen an image of genitalia in a health textbook at school, and quite possibly online as well. How much does the context matter? Or does it not matter to you when it comes to genitalia?

Well, the courts don't seem to see much of a difference, even without it being a sexual nature. Recently in the news a high school football player got cheeky. He had the tip of his penis out the top of his pants during the team photo for the yearbook. No one noticed unit after the book was issued. He is now being charged with dozens of counts of dissemination of indecent material to minors (one for each book given to an underage person), even though there was nothing sexual about it.

That's not really the same as changing in a locker room though, is it?

 cuda1179 wrote:

Well, the courts don't seem to see much of a difference, even without it being a sexual nature. Recently in the news a high school football player got cheeky. He had the tip of his penis out the top of his pants during the team photo for the yearbook. No one noticed unit after the book was issued. He is now being charged with dozens of counts of dissemination of indecent material to minors (one for each book given to an underage person), even though there was nothing sexual about it.

Actually, that's a prime example of context mattering.

He got in trouble because he flashed himself in a public setting, and that setting was one that would result in minors seeing it. The ridiculous thing about that is that if he had simply had his tackle out in a locker room, it would have been fine legally, even if those same minors had been in the room.


The fact that he was doing it specifically for the titillation makes a difference, but it would be less of a difference if we didn't all have these massive hang-ups drummed into us about any sight of a penis being a traumatic experience.

Just out of curiosity, and just Devil's advocate here and not being serious.

Hypothetically let's say there is a private health club that disagrees with anti-trans inclusion laws. Is there anything that necessitates them having their facilities labeled "male" and "female"? What if they had custom signs that said "have a penis" and "lack a penis"? Could they then force this issue despite the law?

 insaniak wrote:
You seem to viewing 'nudity' and 'sex' as the same thing.

That really is the crux of the issue here.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
you. You have no idea what I am teaching my daughter or son or how I am raising my kids.

Maybe you should take an adolescent psych class and learn about the mental, physical, behavioral and hormonal changes that they go through instead of trying to paint me with your idiotic brush.

Yes because one class makes you understand absolutely everything.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
You seem to viewing 'nudity' and 'sex' as the same thing.

That really is the crux of the issue here.

Correct.

There is nothing sexual about nudity in and of itself. Until that mindset changes, this will always be an issue.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I feel that exposing developing kids to the genitalia of the opposite sex before they are mature enough mentally, socially, and behaviorally is opening them up to a pandora's box of things that kids should not have to start dealing with, considerimg all the other crap that they are dealing with in the first place.

Right then. Looks like it's time for me to copy and past this post from the last thread we had on this subject, because, as per normal, people are being idiots.



See that person? That person has a vagina. You are saying that you want him to be in the changing room with your daughter.

This person also has a vagina. You're saying that he should be in the changing room with your daughter as well.

And you're saying that this person


She should be in the men's changing rooms?

Do you see the issue with your argument now?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.

Why are you assuming that your kids will take interest in the opposite sex? What if they turn out to be gay? How can you justify opening Pandora's box of naked same-sex people and risking the possibility that they will have to deal with their same-sex attraction before they are ready?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, the courts don't seem to see much of a difference, even without it being a sexual nature. Recently in the news a high school football player got cheeky. He had the tip of his penis out the top of his pants during the team photo for the yearbook. No one noticed unit after the book was issued. He is now being charged with dozens of counts of dissemination of indecent material to minors (one for each book given to an underage person), even though there was nothing sexual about it.

There's a huge difference between the two:

Flashing people involves bringing nudity into a context where the people seeing it don't expect nudity. In fact, the whole point is to surprise/shock/horrify/etc them with the unexpected nudity. They don't want to see it, they can't avoid it, and it's really funny/sexy to make them look.

Locker rooms involve nudity in a context where nudity is expected. If you go into a locker room you expect to see naked people showering, and brief glimpses of parts of naked bodies when people are changing clothes. Nobody is trying to shock an unwanted observer, they're just naked because they're doing something that requires their clothes to be off. And if you don't want to see naked people changing or showering you're free to stay out of locker rooms.

Now, I should add that facing criminal charges for a stupid prank like this is obviously ridiculous, but it's very clearly two different situations.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

Maybe you should take an adolescent psych class and learn about the mental, physical, behavioral and hormonal changes that they go through instead of trying to paint me with your idiotic brush.

I have taken that class (and a few others related). All things being equal, sexual trauma generally occurs after the first sexual encounter, and it doesn't happen just because "the kid wasn't ready". As weird as that sound, children and young adolescent have naturally a much more carefree approach to nudity and sexuality than adults.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

Maybe you should take an adolescent psych class and learn about the mental, physical, behavioral and hormonal changes that they go through instead of trying to paint me with your idiotic brush.

I have taken that class (and a few others related). All things being equal, sexual trauma generally occurs after the first sexual encounter, and it doesn't happen just because "the kid wasn't ready". As weird as that sound, children and young adolescent have naturally a much more carefree approach to nudity and sexuality than adults.

Not to mention the fact that sexual trauma is, in the vast majority of cases, inflicted on the victim by someone they know, and not a random stranger in a bathroom or locker room.

Are these images works of art to be viewed by anyone of any age, or are they indecent and pornographic?

Views on that have been somewhat divided over the years. Quite a lot of people have taken exception to David.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 dogma wrote:
What is strange to me is that there are troughs, actual troughs, at Wrigley into which men urinate next to children. No one has a problem with this, apparently.

Luckily, I have thusfar avoided having to pee into a trough, not being a fan of either baseball or particularly seedy bars. I've heard they're pretty damn gross, though.

Troughs are reasonably common in the UK, especially in older buildings. They are usually OK as long as they are cleaned reasonably often; otherwise (and I am not sure how people are this bad at aiming, but most of them are in pubs so that may have something to do with it...) the floor is often not the cleanest so you have to pee long distance if you don't want to track wizz around with your shoes...

See, I just have an innate problem with a multi-million dollar stadium offering me the same style of facility as my local county fair where 10-year old carny kids are walking around smoking. I don't have a problem being in a stall next to a transvestite who's pooping, or peeing in a trough next to other dudes, but c'mon, man. If you are charging 5 bucks for a pepsi that's half full of ice to screw me over, at least use some of that money to buy a couple of urinals.

This just in- most of the guys I know are far too busy demolishing the plumbing in a bathroom to be preying on women. If anything, the audio/nasal disaster is the true assault on the opposite gender.

 d-usa wrote:

The problem isn't nudity and who sees what. The problem is that we have a population that thinks nudity = sex and nudity = bad.

That's basically what I was saying... the "common line" in American thought, is a really fethed up view on nudity. We apparently need to live in fear of who's peeing next to us, who may be changing near us, and heaven forbid, a woman uses her breasts for what evolution intended them for!!

My time in Germany was quite similar to yours, only, because of my own aversion to beaches and water, we didn't go to many beaches I seriously cannot tell you how many times my daughter was breastfed in the open, in public when we were there. She absolutely HATED being covered up, no matter what the temperature was outside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.

.

So... it's not OK if they take an interest in the same sex, or view the same sex as a potential sexual partner... Well, can't say I'm surprised there.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

So... it's not OK if they take an interest in the same sex, or view the same sex as a potential sexual partner... Well, can't say I'm surprised there.

Never said that, thanks!