Cottaging ... how were things back then for other toilet users?

[Gettingmadderallthetime]

I followed a rabbit hole (POW candidates for GE) that took me to this interview with Emily Thornberry. In this interview with pink news in 2020 she talks about her work as a barrister defending gay men accused of public indecency in toilets. She was obviously very effective at this. It made me think though ... Led me to think about objections to the presence of trans women in female toilets nowadays. Is this the same sort of 'joke' to ET and others trans allies feel they would make now? During the years when cottaging was prosecuted did anyone speak out about the impact of this activity on others - those who wanted to go to the toilet. I assume toilets were removed from service because of this. Some users will have had unpleasant experiences and I wonder whether this was a consideration at all. Other users in this case being men. To my view toilets are not places for sex or sexual gratification. There seems to be no consideration (then or now) for those who want to just use the toilet and be safe and private in doing so.

Yes, I realise that the police entrapped gay men then. This ruined lives. There were presumably some men who were caught in this net who were just using the loo?

'There was a time when the Metropolitan Police was absolutely fixated with cottaging.They used to hang out in cottages, they used to lie on roofs, they used to drill holes in walls of toilet doors and this sort of thing; sit and wait for gay men and then arrest them, and then they’d be taken to court. I basically developed a practice of representing gay men charged with gross indecency.

Basically, what I used to do was just make the jury laugh, because it was so ridiculous.

Here we were at a crown court in front of a jury with a judge and everything else, and they were charged with gross indecency. And it would be the same police officers would always turn up because you had to volunteer for it.
So you get the same police officers again and again, and I remember they would see me coming, and you could hear them saying, ‘Oh, God, I got that b*h again,’ because they knew the way I would be cross-examining them and I would be playing it for laughs.

I would say things like, ‘So, you say he was “masturbating furiously”, could you explain to the jury what that means?’And of course the police officer would just say, ‘Uhh!’ And I’d say, ‘Well, I’ve got some newspaper here, if I roll it up, would you like to show us?’ Once the jury cracked, once the jury starts to laugh, we knew that they were never going to get convicted.

But it was the only way to deal with this. It was ludicrous that people were being persecuted in this way, it seemed to me, and frankly, it had to be shown up to be ludicrous.

And that’s what we used to do.

I had absolutely no compunction of doing this. And the judges just didn’t know where to look – but you had to do it. You just had to take the mickey.'

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/12/emily-thornberry-labour-leadership-contest-lgbt-rights-boris-johnson-trans/

Having sex in bushes in a park is having sex in public.

It might not be a particularly pleasant thing to say but I don’t think men are particularly vulnerable. If there’s some dodgy behaviour in the toilets they’ll just finish up as soon as they can and leave.

The men who cottage aren’t walking around with their dicks out or stripping off in the cubicles - they’re mostly just standing at the urinal and waiting to get a reaction. I’d also argue that “curiosity”, for want of a better word, is much more common amongst straight men than people realise and sometimes a sideways glance is what they’re looking for.

I agree it’s unpleasant.

I strongly believe the crux of a lot of the sexual problems faced by women from men comes from men not knowing what it’s like to be penetrated. For women, sex is a much more intimate act which opens them up to vulnerability that men just can’t comprehend.

Yet another way in which men's activities tighten the urine leash on women. We can't dive behind a tree.

You can’t just take this user’s word that this is the reason the toilets were closed.

Public toilets have closed everywhere, all over the country - even in the small towns and villages where cottaging wouldn’t happen.

What do you think having fully enclosed private toilets (seeing as that seems to be on all the new toilet designs, including single sex designs), will have on behaviour in toilets?
(Question to everyone)

I'm closer to the Afterlife than any glitzy club now alas. That was back in the 80s 😂

Apparently so. I only found out recently. Not sure if its true, I was told he used his middle name when he appeared in front of the beak

The whole point is that men are still using public toilets for sexual encounters, as PP have pointed out. This is a present-day problem, when homosexuality is (thankfully) legal.

@TempestTost: As far as whether promiscuity is in itself a problem, historically it certainly has been, because it drives STIs, not only the rate of such infections but also how quickly they mutate. This ultimately affects the whole population including children.

The idea that the historical elevation of monogamy and virginity were simply prudishness is very much an idea that comes from an age when not only birth control, but also antibiotics, are easy to get.

One of the common problems of human societies is how to contain the male sex drive in such a way that it doesn't negatively affect society as a whole, either by procreating indiscriminately, through violence towards women, spreading disease, or create violent competition among males.

There have been different approaches to that and some have allowed much more liberal sexual behaviour, but typically to the detriment of women and children. It's not ultimately just a problem of individual freedoms.

This is so true, and tends to be ignored by people who want to look progressive. Women and children pay the price.

The toilets in knutsford on the heath were used. Early one summer morning someone drove a JCB onto the heath and took out the side wall of the building. Problem was solved.

It's going to be a problem in cases where there's concern that someone might be ill on the other side of a solid bolted door, isn't it?

Well yes and no. All the new designs will be able to be opened from the outside. So if someone has collapsed and their body has wedged the door shut, then even if the door normally opens inwardly you are supposed to be able to do something (remove a pin?) so that it will open outwards. Which means you wouldn’t be able to use a cubicle as a refuge but useful for an emergency.

However, the big thing is that you could be collapsed or being assaulted and no one would know because they can’t see you. And the doors are supposed to have ‘acoustic properties’ to deaden noises.
From my research, girls and women get pushed/followed into private cubicles in public spaces. It doesn’t seem to happen so much for men but there seems to be men on this thread and other viewpoints so I wondered how others saw this panning out in terms of antisocial behaviour.

I wouldn’t go to the ladies and force open a toilet door that was locked and had no gap, as I wouldn't know what/who was in there. I would just ignore it if there was an option of using another cubicle. But I don’t know what others would do.

It's grim, but then a lot of men are so obsessed with sex it's frankly disturbing and I certainly don't limit that to gay men.

I don't go for the 'poor men so marginalised they had to fuck in public toilets' argument. There were gay saunas, gay pubs and clubs, personal ads and gay communities - not to mention their own flats/houses they could have sex in. Most telling of all lesbian women of the time were not going around claiming public toilets as shag pads. It was free and convenient and the men enjoyed the risk and the thrill of it - and they still do which is why it still continues.

It's a very different issue to the trans women in women's toilets issue but I think it demonstrates the same level of male entitlement, self absorption and complete lack of consideration for others.

yep, this. Really sad to see a thread like this here. As I understand it, most men who weren't after clandestine sexual encounters in a time of prohibition of any sort of homosexual activity or display at all, weren't 'bothered' - by which I mean, I don't think they were approached. Gay men who were up for sex knew who they were looking for. And yes, that might mean that some loos were known to be 'out of bounds' to men who 'just wanted to pee'.

I think the main reason cottaging remained a thing after homosexuality was because of the old associations of anonymity and secrecy.

But this isn't our battle, is it? I'm seeing more and more statements on this board that are adjacent to homophobia. And no, that's not all right even if not all gay men are supporting us in our fight to retain our own spaces.

I want men out of women's toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, sports and other categories. I will NOT analogise gay men with trans-identified men who invade these spaces.

@GlomOfNit Not homophobic to object to sex in toilets or public. Maybe years ago when it was illegal yes, but not now. Gross. Other men and boys should be able to use the toilet without this. Stop making excuses for men. “Sad “ indeed.

It's male entitlement 101. Using "being gay was illegal" to justify lewd acts in public places is the cottaging-specific version of "look what you made me do".

@MaidOfAle Exactly! I’m fed up of us centring men and their desires. Outdoor and public place sex and cottaging (not historic but present day ) and trans women in women’s toilets - it all boils down to male entitlement and/or their sexual desire.

Not here for an argument. Just want to keep
everyone safe in toilets. I saved a young girl’s life precisely because I saw her hand sticking out of a toilet door gap so knew she had collapsed and by the colour of her hand that she needed instant attention. My research for the new government toilet designs source lead down a path which is detailed on this thread earlier. I know the new designs will lead to deaths and injuries because people won’t know if someone needs help.

I have a straight male friend who was propositioned and assaulted in a public loo. He didn't report it as he was told everyone knew it was for hook ups. He didn't though. Too often men just expect to have access to sex and ignore the consequences for others.

👏

I used to work in a very nice (new) office building which had separate toilets.

I don’t want to call them cubicles because they were more like separate rooms. Each “room” had a toilet, sink, bin and hand dryers.

There were still signs on the door for women and men, but I assume there were no differences in the facilities. There were five on each floor so each floor would alternate a 2 or 3 split between the sexes.

I really liked them but safety wasn’t a concern as there were not many people on our floor.

@Waterloooo thanks these are more like the ‘universal design’ that can be substituted for single sex toilets. The problem with this design is it is fully enclosed. So if someone has a heart attack/stroke/collapses from heat exhaustion, illness or spiking etc no one would know. In fact none of the designs stipulate door gaps which will be used in any toilet refurbishments or new builds in non domestic situations from October. In the U.K. around 1% of people have epilepsy, plus someone has a heart attack every 5 minutes, plus someone has a stroke every 5 minutes. And enclosed toilets could be the only option in the future, so it will affect a lot of older people who are frail too. These enclosed designs were designed to be used for all where the footfall was really high in an open atrium so there was safety in numbers and hopefully someone would notice. Though no safety analysis has been done on them and you are at a disadvantage if there’s not many people passing by. Disabled toilets are currently where a lot of assaults happen as the perpetrator can’t be seen. It’s a mess. I could go on about ventilation, drug taking, inability to mop effectively etc.

It’s clear the politicians don’t understand the new designs won’t be better for women. Or men. They haven’t thought it through.

And you reach the root problem: men's feeling of entitlement to sex.

So if someone has a heart attack/stroke/collapses from heat exhaustion, illness or spiking etc no one would know.

But isn’t that true of any lockable room?

No. Not of the usual style of public toilets we have today, because if the occupant is on the floor then anyone going into the toilet block would see them. Like I did. Because of a safety hygiene gap between the floor and the door. It’s well documented that people feel weird/nauseous/confused before they collapse so head to the toilet cubicle. The gaps save lives and prevent assaults.

80% of spiking incidents happen in bars and clubs, mainly to women.thats where I saw a girl I didn’t know - she had gone to the toilet and choked on vomit and her skin was blue. I would guess it was too much alcohol? I wouldn’t have seen her if she was in a fully enclosed toilet cubicle. It didn’t matter if the door was locked - it would appear locked as the body had fallen against it. We went over the top of the door to get inside and pull her away from it. The new toilet designs are enclosed from floor to ceiling, that’s why they are openable from the outside.