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/

Oh give over with your tone policing and scolding. It's perfectly acceptable on a feminist discussion group to discuss men's sexual entitlement and their selfish dominance of public spaces to the detriment of others.

If it's central to gay culture, then it shouldn't be. As a society we have agreed standards of behaviour, and you don't get to break those because you used to be oppressed and you think your group should be able to live outside the norms.

I don't even buy the argument that it used to be necessary due to oppression. As others have said, lesbian women managed without it.

To be fair, it was never illegal to be a lesbian but I agree with what you have written. I heard a gay man talking about the Aids crisis once and he said that one of the worst consequences (in addition to contracting a disease presumably) was that it meant the end of spontaneous sex without condoms or fear of consequences. I don't think it had even occurred to him that women have never really had this!

Oh my goodness.
Please stop saying "scolding" to other women just for having a different opinion,it's misogynistic and unpleasant.

Lesbian women and gay men had completely different issues historically. Being lesbian wasn't a crime. Men have never seen lesbians as a threat in the same way as gay men.

Male sexuality can cause problems, but cottaging is not a huge one. Personally I think red light districts are worse, and the infestation of porn on the Internet.

The topic of this thread does have undertones of homophobia. Give over on trying to shut up women with a different opinion to you. She made a valid point perfectly politely.

If we are doing history: having epilepsy meant you were shunned, or experimented on and weren’t allowed to marry. You were sterilised. You were locked up. It wasn’t until fairly recently you were allowed to marry in this country. In some countries it’s still not allowed.

Yet now you are to go out to work and not have reasonable adjustments like toilet designs to make your life safer. And the governments source of the evidence for full enclosure was not to do with safety.

Doesn’t matter what your sexuality is, 1% have epilepsy and for many it is uncontrolled, particularly for women around their period. It can start at any point of life and only if you have 2 or more seizures are you able to be diagnosed. 80 people are diagnosed will epilepsy each day. Theres an average of 9 children with epilepsy in every secondary school. And before seizures there’s often confusion so there would be an inability to pull an alarm cord.

Toilet design should be about safety. Wanting complete privacy shouldn’t override that. Governments should work on the ‘what ifs’. I have never had a situation where I needed a seatbelt but I am glad the government says you’ve got to wear one. The absolute most vulnerable time in anyone’s life the government has made more dangerous by these toilet designs. I very much doubt there was the need for the government to think about legislating toilet design if it wasn’t for male behaviour.

On the one hand I like the fully enclosed design because I can easily deal with my mooncup using the sink next to the toilet. But I don't like the long corridor with men's enclosed rooms on one side and womens on the other. I feel it would be so easy for a man to push a woman in to one, lock the door and assault her. I'm always on my guard when walking onto those types of loos. I try to use the nearest one to the front so I don't have to walk down the corridor. It's not safe imo.

Thank you for all the responses. I definitely feel better informed. What I have taken from this discussion so far is ...

• There are parallels in the way that people who object to not-the-usual activity in toilets run the risk of being ridiculed now as then. There should not be ANY intact man in the women's toilets however they identify (this of course means that some would say I am transphobic). I am starting to see why men's loos being a safe space for TW could be quite an uphill struggle though. They aren't always a safe space for men.

• There seems to be general assumption by those who have not encountered the problem (then or now) that it may not exist/or if it does its trivial and can be shrugged off. Some amazing anecdotes from those who have been involved in places where this goes on currently, suggesting that its perhaps more prevalent (perhaps because more discreet) than I imagined.

• The police - who we often are accused to turning a blind eye to the bad behaviour of men - are seen as having manufactured or exaggerated complaints, and thus made life unnecessarily worse for gay men, in days when gay hook ups were not legal. That toilets are still used for hook ups suggests that this does not work as a policing approach and/or that sex in toilets is a turn on for some men and a strong urge. (FYI I now have noted that the 2003 Sexual Offences Act allows sex in public places providing its discreet and not observed by more than two others. But there are legal consequences for sex in toilets - either gender).

• I would imagine that no police would want to ever stake out a toilet, perhaps for hours (either gender) given the past history (and the ambience of toilets in general). FWIW I am sure ET was not the only barrister to use the tactic of ridiculing any police testimony. Given that she mentions it was the same police each time (as they had to volunteer) it could be that those who volunteered were particularly vigilante-like about cottaging. But I imagine that there were bona fide complaints from the public too, I wonder what happened when/if they testified.

• Men do seem to be the common factor here (their sexuality leads them into strange places and behaviours). I don't think that its only homosexual men either. I know of an example in our town when a young girl went to the toilet in a pub/restaurant and came upon a heterosexual couple 'at it'. Larger toilet cubicles, low traffic and floor to ceiling doors in that pub may have made it more desirable as an impromptu bedroom. (No suggestion that this any transperson was involved - but there was a bloke and it was in the ladies). Sound insulated doors will stop you hearing sex noises which may be a good thing (discretion) or bad thing (unawareness of risk).

• It feels like the same problem for the users who just want a loo. These are what my post was about. They must run the risk, develop tactics to deal with it or find another solution. At least men wanting a pee may be able to find a bush. Or a shop doorway (ugh). I suspect that older men who want a pee urgently (thinking prostate problems) will just press on and do it. But it can't be pleasant and its hard to argue that its necessary. And there are less public toilets around nowadays (for whatever reason).

Further reading: Terrence Higgins Trust site: 'The Sexual Offences Act 2003 made changes to previous laws in England and Wales governing sexual behaviour. Sexual activity in public toilets is still an offence but sex in other public places isn’t, unless it’s witnessed or there’s a reasonable chance at least two members of the public might see what’s happening. In this case you could be charged with outraging public decency.' So elsewhere in public you need an audience, but in public toilets its verbotem regardless.

Thinking back, it was a bit of an issue when I was young, but the biggest impact was that public loos were often closed at night, largely (presumably) for this reason. And the use of public loos was very much more common then. Public loos almost seem a thing of the past now, like phone boxes.

This lack is a real problem. Shops, pubs, restaurants in the UK have never agreed to allow non-patrons to use their facilities and sometimes have notices up saying so. I think sex in toilets may be one reason for the lack but another is cost - for some reason public loos are not seen as a priority, but for women (and esp with children) they are an absolute necessity to any trip out. When abroad I have found that the lack of public loos (or usuable ones - think India, for example) is a real problem for women (and many British women are unhappy asking to use a loo in a restaurant where they are not eating, for example).

Also, back then, the fact that juries were reluctant to convict, as ET says, surely doesn't necessarily mean that they thought such behaviour was A-OK, more that police entrapment (and poor-value use of police time) was worse.

Oh, absolutely, @Grammarnut ! I've been to India a couple of times (quite some years ago); it's not the kind of place you want to be caught short in!

Last weekend I was at Wembley for the rugby league Challenge Cup Final. It crossed my mind (although I didn't bother in the end) to post a photo on MN of the mahoosive queues for the women's loos at half-time! This, despite the fact that I know building regs have been updated in recent years to proportionately increase the number of women's loos. Considering how new the stadium is, it seems they still haven't got it right.

I don't think gay men (or anyone) should be having sex in public toilets, so I'm not going to condone that. That isn't homophobic, unless you think it's fine when straight people do it and are only bothered about gays. Interesting that in her last update the OP mentions a straight couple copping off in a toilet, this is the only sex in a toilet I've ever seen- the toilets have never been public though, it's always been at a drunken function like a wedding reception so in a pub or hotel.

One thing often ignored, is that there is a difference between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour- more 'straight' men than we might like to think indulge in the latter, and unlike an out gay man they can hardly take another man home, so it's no surprise to me that cottaging still goes on (plus of course some gay men who get off on sex in public).

On the issue of ET in particular- frankly our legal system is adversarial and if I was ever accused of a crime I'd want my defence barrister to play every trick in the book. I refuse to criticise another woman for being good at her job and I don't think that the defence barrister is there to assist the prosecution or ensure a fair outcome- their role is to defend their client to the best of their ability.

One problem with the vice squads of old that I remember was that they tended to accuse gay (and sometimes straight) men of cottaging when no such thing was occuring. A bit like how gay clubs used to get raided on any flimsy premise. They also used tactics akin to entrapment. No wonder juries ended up finding them laughable.

I don't think gay men (or anyone) should be having sex in public toilets, so I'm not going to condone that. That isn't homophobic, unless you think it's fine when straight people do it and are only bothered about gays.

I completely agree. This is something that we sometimes see in Pride displays etc., with people wearing very sexualised clothing/virtually naked in a public place with lots of children all around.

Nobody should be doing this, regardless of their sexuality or identity.

‘There is a none too subtle correlation between heteronormative masculinities and the territorialisation of public facilities through the spread of dung’

Not in my extensive experience as a heterosexual man. I have no idea what circles Cavanagh moves in, but this is not normal behaviour for men.

Cottaging and use of public toilets (and woods) for sexual activities is one of the (several) reasons homosexuality was seen as inherently bad. Obviously homosexuality being seen as bad also fed into the cottaging culture. Dogging, and to some extent swinging, have very similar reactions from people, so the repulsion at cottaging wasn’t only a matter of homophobia in my opinion.

So, Em, if Labour grts into power and makes self ID etc a breeze for any man who fancies putting on a skirt and lippy, then going into the womens' toilet or changing room and 'masturbating furiously' what the fuck can we women, the boring cunty ones, do about it?
Because be in no doubt, using the womens' bogs is a big part of their validation and they find it very exciting. Yes, that exciting.
I can vividly remember a long thread on Twitter/X of selfies posted by men showing exactly what they like to do in the Ladies. Masturbation was one of the milder activities. There isn't enough eye bleach in the world....

My experience of male loos:

Most of the closures are due to vandalism and anti-social behaviour. Idiots trash the facilities built for their benefit and the councils run out of money to fix them, especially given the cuts since 2010.

I've seen graffiti where the writer offers to "suck hard cock for cash" or otherwise advertise their willingness to meet up/boast of their proportions, and a phone number. I've no idea if these are serious, or just crude humour.

Men normally do their business and leave quickly but now and then there'll be a man hanging around inside for no apparent reason, sometimes slowly combing their hair as if to give a pretext. On one occasion I encountered such a man - he didn't approach me in the loo but when I sat on a bench not far away in the park he lurked behind a bush then strolled over and initiated innocuous conversation. After a while he left. If he was cruising it was a mild encounter. I'm sure worse happens but so far I've not encountered it.

There was a gay bar in town at the time so why someone would risk arrest or assault when there was somewhere safe and welcoming mystified me

why someone would risk arrest or assault when there was somewhere safe and welcoming mystified me

Because for some gay men, there's a thrill in the danger/risk?

The toilets outside my work place were used by male prostitutes for transactional sex not really casual hook ups. The police carried out raids due to soliciting rather than offensive acts.
What was interesting was that the men they caught using the facilities were often married heterosexual/ bisexual men. I don’t think it was so popular with the overt gay scene.
I remember having a talk with my son as a young teen about how to deal with being propositioned in toilets. He thought it was funny but now as a young adult it has happened to him once or twice.
I think the younger generation have had much more exposure to the whole gay/lesbian scene and know more about gender than we ever will. DS says he just politely declines, it’s no big deal and he has the same problem with girls and women ( he’s a good looking lad). He did get propositioned by an older woman ( nearly my age😂) while on holiday. He said that he found that much harder to deal with. He didn’t really know what to say or do.
I can understand the historic use of public toilets, but with such an inclusive modern world is it really necessary.

all I can say is: male sexuality is a foreign country, they do things differently there!😱

But there have always been places where the public toilets are like a regular room much like in a house. That's just most useful in a smaller kind of place like a cafe.

I'm not sure it's totally reasonable to imagine we can control every scenario where someone might collapse. Lots of people live alone and there is a very good chance it will be at home.

I don't like the tiny rooms that are basically cubicles because they are too small and suffocating, I'd rather have some gap, and I think the attempt to get rid of that in banks of toilets is for stupid reasons. But I don't find the safety argument that compelling outside of certain special settings.

Lesbian women and gay men had completely different issues historically. Being lesbian wasn't a crime. Men have never seen lesbians as a threat in the same way as gay men.

Yes, and the reason for that is because lesbians aren't typically interested in the things that make unrestrained male sexuality problematic for society, like anonymous public sex.

I've always found the obsession of some straight men with lesbians rather odd. Remember when "Coat me in chocolate and throw me to the lesbians" was a meme? What is sexy about women who expressly disowned male sexuality? I always found that hard to understand. But nowt so queer as folk, I suppose.

We can’t control every scenario where someone could collapse. But why not enable those who do have that vulnerability to be able to live their lives as fully as possible by good design? Just as we have pavements with raised markers on for blind people. And seatbelts in car design for all of us just in case.

Michael Mosley saved a lady who collapsed (and she went on to have 2 children) because when she collapsed, she was in a corridor at the BBC not in an enclosed toilet. She was visible. Emilia Clarke, the actress, went to the toilet when she felt ill at the gym (like we all would) and collapsed but luckily the woman in the cubicle next to her rescued her quickly. These are two well known examples involving young women, but thousands and thousands of people collapse every day. There are lots of stories of people being found dead or injured in public toilets precisely because that’s where you go when you feel ill and the physiological changes that happen to the body when you go to the loo. Plus the drugs and self harm that occur in private spaces.

Yep lots of people live alone at home and will die as no one sees them unfortunately. My Dhs friend was alone when he had a TIA last month but his wife found him on the bathroom floor when she came back from the shops, in time, and he is making a good recovery and now out of hospital.

When there’s the opportunity to save life or prevent serious injury by keeping a simple design that been effective in the past - why not? There are defibrillators on our local sports hall wall but if the hall toilets get a refurb, there could be someone collapsed a few metres away but not visible. The new single sex ambulant designs for frail people have a hand rail but full height doors, so not great for falls in older people.

There are also thousands of rapes in this country and these enclosed designs hinder safeguarding . A very young girl was raped in one of the UKs busiest stations with hundreds of people going past and it was in the disabled toilets (no visibility). There is at least one reported rape every school day inside british school premises. These 2015 figures were before many schools made their toilets mixed sex and enclosed but it stands to reason that the places all these are occurring is unlikely to be visible. Safeguarding relies on visibility for things like quick fire evacuations too.

The problem with no gaps isn’t the occasion of the one in the cafe where you are likely to be with someone or people would notice. It’s that every toilet in a public place could be enclosed. None of the governments 4 designs specify gaps. So places of work, gyms, shopping centres. Places where you may be on your own unnoticed for too long. Places where disabled people and those with health conditions (known and unknown) will be using regularly. So it’s these mundane, normal settings that most need to be safe.

You may not find the argument compelling enough as you may not have ever had to revive people like I have? It focuses the mind. There are thousands of incidents of drink spiking. 80 new people diagnosed with epilepsy every day (1% of the population have epilepsy). There are 100,000 people having strokes and another 100,000 taken to hospital with heart attacks each year. There are around 7.6 million people living with a heart or circulatory disease in the UK. There are 5 million with diabetes. Plus all the other conditions which occasionally lead to collapse such as those in pregnancy. Altogether, these aren’t insignificant numbers.

@Keeptoiletssafe thank you for posting. I hadn’t even thought about this! It makes the existence of single sex toilets even more important.

Unfortunately it affects all toilets, including single sex. ‘Document T’ details the toilet design legislation that will come in to force in October. The toilet designs are dangerous for everyone but in particular, disabled people, medically vulnerable, women and girls.

There are 4 toilet designs:

• A Ambulant universal - full height door and full height floor to ceiling partitions

• B Universal - full height door and full height floor to ceiling partitions

• C Single sex ambulant - profile diagram shows full height door and no door gaps, no partition gaps

• D Single sex - no profile diagram, no mention of door or partition heights, AND can be designed as Type A or B ie fully enclosed for single sex use

None of the designs specify a door gap at the bottom of the door or at the top. Because the design source was ‘gender-neutral’ toilets where privacy was seen as critical. They have carried that design over to all without analysis.