Why single sex spaces

"Its not helping anyone"

It was pointing women out to the realities that when inevitably all public toilets become mixed sex that men view doors as optional and if we have an issue with that we need to stop using the toilets.

Re. single sex spaces, why has MN taken down the aibu thread about a man in the women's toilet? They said "it's not helping anyone" WTF does that mean? How can they know that?

I personally don't want men to be allowed into women's toilets but am happy to discuss with others, debate and disagree, and be disagreed with. I don't care if people call me names or whatever, just want to have the discussion. Why the fuck are we not allowed to talk about it on here?

'Sex has a lot of potential in any society to cause problems. Not just sexual violence but unwanted or unsupported pregnancies, sexual jealousy, adultery, spreading disease including to infants, children without parents, etc. So we structure sexuality in order to try and keep it all within bounds society can support. Part of that is around expectations about behaviour and privacy in sexualised contexts.'

I did read it more than once! Can you explain this bit as I clearly have not understood what you're getting at.

IME toddlers are more than happy to squat and have a crap (poop?!) in their nappy anywhere!

Many don't like toilets because they're too high and big. You can buy those seats that go over to minimise the fear/ danger of them falling in!

Happy to use potty wherever though!

I'm sure that any perceived danger will create a stress response that inhibits bodily functions.

It's also partly about social norms though. Lots of people in our culture have trouble toileting with other people around, much less doing something like shitting in a room with another person there. When I was in university I used to go to the toilet in the night because I found it impossible with some girl in the next stall to me, or even potentially coming in next to me. But some other cultures have also had communal toilets. So the stress in that case is caused not necessarily by danger as such so much as stress brought on by social norms being violated. Which I think maybe the body perceives as danger even when the mind knows it isn't.

Lobsternapkin - 2 relatives (both male) find it difficult to go to toilet when anyone else is in the room (eg brushing teeth). I could see this being evolutionary - in that opening bowels/passing urine are times when we aren’t fully alert to attackers. perhaps having attention on us, fires our stress response?

Some women might find that male attention brings on a similar stress response due to the assault risk or psychological things like embarassment/shame. Attention from women may elicit less stress - because of lower assault risk OR the fact that the women have the same body parts/periods etc - so less embarassment (knowledge that the other person also experiences the same things).

This is just speculation - I don’t have evidence for this, but I could see it as plausible.

'Sex has a lot of potential in any society to cause problems. Not just sexual violence but unwanted or unsupported pregnancies, sexual jealousy, adultery, spreading disease including to infants, children without parents, etc. So we structure sexuality in order to try and keep it all within bounds society can support. Part of that is around expectations about behaviour and privacy in sexualised contexts.'

I think I'm not getting this.

Single sex spaces where they (used to exist) are not 'sexualised contexts' for anyone except creepy weirdos, invariably male.

Women and girls are not nearly as likely at all. If heterosexual. To see men's toilets etc as 'sexualised contexts'.

Interestingly some men DO see these spaces for men as (potentially) sexualised contexts- some facilities are fairly well known for that purpose.

While women gay straight bi just. Don't. I mean never say never but women just don't tend to pull other women and fuck in the cubicles etc.

And I mean. A bunch of 6yo girls changing for swimming can surely never be seen as a sexualised context. Yet there are men who would be keen to be in there with them.

It would also be good to understand what you mean by society structuring sexuality. I can think of some things but they don't quite fit.

Women have never ever harassed me, grabbed my ass, cat called me, raped me, raped my friends, pressured me into sex acts.

Men have.

So I feel safer with women.

This is why we need single sex spaces.

If you live in a place where no one wears clothing on top, then being bare on top isn't an especially sexual signal nor does it usually trigger a sexual response. In another society seeing someone's knee or angle might be risque and sexually exciting.

I agree that trying to reduce single sex spaces to the assault risk is not taking into account important elements. Lots of us don't want to change with people who are perfectly safe - our fathers, say. Because it would be embarrassing.

Sex has a lot of potential in any society to cause problems. Not just sexual violence but unwanted or unsupported pregnancies, sexual jealousy, adultery, spreading disease including to infants, children without parents, etc. So we structure sexuality in order to try and keep it all within bounds society can support. Part of that is around expectations about behaviour and privacy in sexualised contexts.

Note generally-

Before, some, and loads after WiSpa. People arguing that a penis is just a bit of skin. Prudishness is a bad thing. The uptight view of nudity is bad. Pointless. It should be normal for everyone irrespective of sex age etc to be around each other naked.

Each time something happens a new argument comes out...

Tbh I would be ok in a nudist place. Not included to rush out and book one. They have certain norms they stick to. I think many don't accept single men, maybe other stuff. Pretty sure zero tolerance for dodgy behaviour (at least the ones I've read about do this stuff).

Point is that those there do not do it for sexual reasons. Going to leer is not what's going on.

In the wider world? Hahahaha.

There's also the point that sexual abuse would be easier, much easier. Like the gymnastics coach who could access girls bodies inappropriatly even while others there, do to incredibly skimpy leotard and it's his job to touch their bodies wherever he 'needs' to 'correct' posture or something.

I really don't think that if everyone went around naked all the time, the prevalence of sex offences would go through the floor.

I have seen it argued before - and almost always using women and girls as the focus.

That if only we would stop hiding our bodies away, men and boys wouldn't do lots of this stuff because they could see our bodies anyway.

The suggestion I've seen elsewhere is that essentially we do it and the men and boys will lose a load of pervy behaviour. Timescales while we are naked and before men stop have never been given.

And if it's about nudity. Then why the interest in filming us pissing and crapping? Do we need to do that in public as well? And I can't see how it relates to sexual assault, indecent exposure, enjoying making us feel threatened/ uncomfortable etc.

Clothing has a load of reasons for being worn, and a lot of variation.

The norms change over time with a variety of drivers.

Climate
Practicality
Comfort
Fashion
Religion
Culture
Rules from those in power
To show status

To argue that we don't go around naked because of 'elementary self respect and dignity' is a very strange statement.

Even when you see pics from the past etc of people in warmer climes they as far as I can remember have their genitals covered in some way. To reduce possibity of accidental hurty things happening.

Humans have no innate sense of dignity, why would we? We are animals. Mammals. We adopted clothes not because we felt 'undignified' however many 10s of thousands of years ago! And self respect?! Bizarre. Sounds like something a v religious person, or a stern Victorian would think!

What about the orgs charities etc campaigning for decent female facilities in various situations for the safety of women and girls?

I think I posted a link earlier. Can post again and more if needed.

It's got nothing to do with prudishness etc and everything to do with rape, sexual assault, voyeurism, intimidation etc from men.

Be interested to read. Without that and what the arguments contrained are, little point in discussing.

In societies where there are no safe separate facilities for women, women get raped and assaulted in much higher numbers than they do here. I support charities that provide safe lavatories and washing facilities and the evidence is that it makes it safer for women.

All this stuff about clothing and beaches and culture seems to me to derail the thread. All over the world cultures divide facilities that involve nakedness and vulnerability by sex once they are developed enough to offer public facilities. Even Scandi countries: I speak as a woman who caused outrage in a Finnish sauna by assuming that we would be naked. The beach culture of bikinis is highly sexualised and huge numbers of people aren't comfortable with it and don't participate in it. Many of us will have had horrible experiences of being eyed up by every passing man in Speedos.

I absolutely agree with cuck00soup: stop wondering why single-sex facilities exist and focus on why so many men are so anxious to breach women's boundaries.

I would feel uncomfortable being naked in front of any adult male except my partner. Irrespective of their age and sexuality.

Because I know I can't tell the difference between predators and non predators. So I react as if they are all predators.

Unfortunately I've met multiple predators and know that they wear masks of innocence.

I won't share with males in enclosed spaces when in a vulnerable state of undress because I feel unsafe.

I don't want to be 'cured' of feeling unsafe because unfortunately I know for a fact that in some of those occasions I am unsafe.

It’s the Chesterton’s Fence argument. Don’t remove safety barriers before you understand why they were put up in the first place.

Instead of asking women to defend their reasons for wanting single sex spaces, we should ask why men are so keen to invade them.

And it's recognised as a risk by multiple orgs including major global ones.

Eg

'Refugee camps tend to have too few bathrooms, which are often mixed and unprotected, making them hotspots for sexual attacks on women and girls. While there are no hard statistics, reported cases include German guards at a reception center peeping at women in the bathrooms and attempted rapes at bathrooms along the refugee trail.'

qz.com/692711/the-radically-simple-way-to-make-female-refugees-safer-from-sexual-assault-decent-bathrooms/

That was near top. Loads of hits including amnesty etc.

This is why women and girls need single sex things.

Your OP asked why single sex. This is why.

Comfort with mixed sex nudity is a totally different topic. And not the reason for men being creepy etc in enough numbers to mean women and girls from say 12 up have generally experienced it often multiple times.

The risk of men doing creepy stuff and worse is surely the whole point though.

Neither men nor women in the UK want to have mixed.

Most men are not horrible and would find it v embarrassing.

A couple points towards the end I really don't agree with-

'And what is perceived as a sexual signal won't be the same everywhere. So those map on to norms.''

This is about single sex spaces. A major reason for women and girls to have them in certain circs is because of the fact that there are a good amount of creepy/ pervy/ predatory men about and most are interested in women and girls.

Sexual signals? Dodgy men aren't interested in 'signals'. Although plenty like to think that eg a schoolgirl with a rolled up skirt is loudly broadcasting come and get me, to any and all men in the area...

'As long as women and men are together there's always the possibility of sexual frisson. '

This is about single sex spaces. To make the point- 14 yo girl getting changed for swimming in a mixed sex area and all other occupants are male. Range of ages. I imagine there would be a certain amount of sexual 'frisson' but in a specific way...

Additionally see post about Finland. Home sauna with family. Sisters uncles grandma in laws etc. Mixed nudity does not inevitably = sexual 'frisson'.

'It's inconvenient to those who want us to have a sort of sexless civil society, but it's the truth whether we like it or not. '

Who wants that? People in the UK have plenty of sex! There are plenty of ways to pull without going to s place with naked men and taking all your clothes off

'There are ways to keep that somewhat under wrap through social norms too. But when people are doing things like undressing in a society where nudity is more private, the only way to totally desexualise that is to have sex segregation.'

Hmmm. Just thinking. Plenty gay clubs (or used to be) where it was pretty... Full on. Hardly dressed/ naked. Sex acts just around the place etc.

Surely it's not the nudity itself but the context?

And the fact is male behaviour like voyeurism, indecent exposure, and so on. It's one sided isn't it. I can't imagine many women would put a camera in a bog to get footage of men having a shit. Because they find that sexually exciting.

This equation is not equal.

Single sex spaces protect women and girls. It can be argued back and forth about the cultural stuff etc.

In the end though. Globally women and girls are the target of iffy/ awful sex related behaviour. So. We need our spaces in certain circs.

Is it, usually?

Overall, societies where women wear very little, men also tend to wear very little. The ones where women wear a lot, men also tend to wear a lot.

There are some cultures where women are hidden in some way, be it clothing or by restricting their movement to the home. But that's not really most societies. And then in a few like ours there is the desire to make women available to look at as sexual objects which does seem to be very tied to consumerism. But that isn't most societies either.

Clothing has in the past been very labour intensive and expensive to make, so it's often been very practical for the vast majority of people, and often male and female clothing has been very similar in basic form because it's what does the job and can be made efficiently.

I think there is always capacity in males for sex offences, that is true in many mammals. But sexual response is in part learned, so what triggers it isn't going to be the same everywhere. And what is perceived as a sexual signal won't be the same everywhere. So those map on to norms.

As long as women and men are together there's always the possibility of sexual frisson. It's inconvenient to those who want us to have a sort of sexless civil society, but it's the truth whether we like it or not. There are ways to keep that somewhat under wrap through social norms too. But when people are doing things like undressing in a society where nudity is more private, the only way to totally desexualise that is to have sex segregation.