Protesters clash over transgender rights at Koreatown spa

[Revoltingest]

Okay some study I did comes to mind.

A person's private parts is generally considered their main sexual characteristic.

A person's appearance is their secondary sexual characteristic.

So yeah. If I were to try to aim at your line of thought, and not LGBT+ politically correct descriptions, they're half mixing it, half not. If it's a pre-op transgender woman, they're putting two people together with different sexual characteristics, but the same secondary sexual characteristics.

My advice to anyone transitioning....
Be cognizant of one's current status, & the possible
reactions to one's level of openness about it.
Some situations are best avoided.

 

[Meow Mix]

That's one way I see this going....we all just get used to seeing breasts, penises, and such. Of course that would mean "indecent exposure" would no longer be a crime, even when it involves minors.

I don't know that society is willing to go there at this point.

I wonder how exhibitionists would react? Would they like their fetish now being accepted, or would it take away the thrill?

Oh yeah, I can’t speak to what society’s willing to accept. Women still get yelled at for just trying to feed their babies. I can’t take my shirt off at the beach to avoid a tan line (ha, not that I don’t just immediately go from pasty white to crisp red).

It just seems to me like the sexualization of bodies by society is the problem. Context should matter in my opinion. I am attracted to women, but I don’t stare or ogle in locker rooms or dressing rooms because there’s no sexual context there.

Hell I used to work at a strip club, which is innately sexual, but in the dressing room it’s just not. Context should matter.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

My advice to anyone transitioning....
Be cognizant of one's current status, & the possible
reactions to one's level of openness about it.
Some situations are best avoided.

Yeah. There are some young women that really get in trouble there. Some of us older "women" know things like we have to be really careful and disclose that we're transgender to men. There are transgender women out there that go on a date, don't tell the man, then he freaks out and does something violent when he finds out. And if such a thing happens, his lawyers will use the Gay Panic Defense and he'll be out in several years.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah. There are some young women that really get in trouble there. Some of us older "women" know things like we have to be really careful and disclose that we're transgender to men. There are transgender women out there that go on a date, don't tell the man, then he freaks out and does something violent when he finds out. And if such a thing happens, his lawyers will use the Gay Panic Defense and he'll be out in several years.

Aye, avoid the Crying Game scenario.

 

[Meow Mix]

Again, not a parent, but seems like a parent could still protect their kids from pervs by adding to their explanation:

“what’s that?”

“that’s a penis. Some people have those, your dad has one, it’s normal for people to have those. But if anyone shows you this on purpose or is paying attention to you while they show this, that’s not normal and you need to find another adult.”

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh yeah, I can’t speak to what society’s willing to accept.

I think that's what it comes down to. If seeing various body parts becomes no big deal, then a man walking around a park with his junk out isn't a crime and doesn't even elicit a reaction.

Women still get yelled at for just trying to feed their babies. I can’t take my shirt off at the beach to avoid a tan line (ha, not that I don’t just immediately go from pasty white to crisp red).

Yep. That's why I don't think we're near a point where seeing genitals is widely accepted.

It just seems to me like the sexualization of bodies by society is the problem. Context should matter in my opinion. I am attracted to women, but I don’t stare or ogle in locker rooms or dressing rooms because there’s no sexual context there.

Hell I used to work at a strip club, which is innately sexual, but in the dressing room it’s just not. Context should matter.

The problem is (at least as I see it) is how do we tell? When a cis-gender man walks around a playground with his pants down, we immediately think of it as obviously wrong. But when a transgender woman walks around a locker room similarly, we don't think of it in the same way. But how do we know? Maybe the trans woman really is getting a thrill from doing that? Maybe the guy in the park has his pants down for a reason that's not related to sex or the nearby children?

Do we ask and take their word for it? Do we base it on arousal (if aroused it's bad, but if not it's okay)?

This can get really complicated and weird, really fast.

 

[Stevicus]

To be clear, are you okay with a person knowingly exposing their penis to underage girls?

If we're talking about a flasher or a sex offender exposing themselves on the street, no I'm not okay with that. If it's something that happens inadvertently or due to a wardrobe malfunction or in a locker room where people are changing, that's a different matter. I know that if I go into a locker room, there's a very strong possibility that I might see someone in the buff.

I don't think it's reasonable for someone to knowingly enter a locker room and then complaining that they saw a naked person.

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, not a parent, but seems like a parent could still protect their kids from pervs by adding to their explanation:

“what’s that?”

“that’s a penis. Some people have those, your dad has one, it’s normal for people to have those. But if anyone shows you this on purpose or is paying attention to you while they show this, that’s not normal and you need to find another adult.”

I've been told repeatedly that "that's not normal" is a hate phrase that assumes what is and isn't "normal".

 

[Jose Fly]

If we're talking about a flasher or a sex offender exposing themselves on the street, no I'm not okay with that. If it's something that happens inadvertently or due to a wardrobe malfunction or in a locker room where people are changing, that's a different matter. I know that if I go into a locker room, there's a very strong possibility that I might see someone in the buff.

I don't think it's reasonable for someone to knowingly enter a locker room and then complaining that they saw a naked person.

That could be seen as you saying that taking one's kids into locker rooms, public pools, etc. can possibly be equivalent to taking them to a park flashers are known to frequent. In both cases, it's "your kids are likely to see a penis here, so if you're not okay with that you probably shouldn't come".

 

[Meow Mix]

I think that's what it comes down to. If seeing various body parts becomes no big deal, then a man walking around a park with his junk out isn't a crime and doesn't even elicit a reaction.


Yep. That's why I don't think we're near a point where seeing genitals is widely accepted.


The problem is (at least as I see it) is how do we tell? When a cis-gender man walks around a playground with his pants down, we immediately think of it as obviously wrong. But when a transgender woman walks around a locker room similarly, we don't think of it in the same way. But how do we know? Maybe the trans woman really is getting a thrill from doing that? Maybe the guy in the park has his pants down for a reason that's not related to sex or the nearby children?

Do we ask and take their word for it? Do we base it on arousal (if aroused it's bad, but if not it's okay)?

This can get really complicated and weird, really fast.

I agree with most of what you said, but I don’t think it’s that complicated. Playgrounds are obviously not nude zones. Right now we already have basically designated nude zones in locker rooms, spas, beaches, and so on. But I don’t know what to do when and if it is gray area.

Sometimes I like the de jure/de facto distinction: where there is a law on the books but rarely enforced. It becomes the judgment of a hopefully reasonable enforcer and judge whether to do something at that point. Then I guess we have to depend on them being reasonable which is a whole other problem. So, I guess it is mildly complex.

 

[Meow Mix]

I've been told repeatedly that "that's not normal" is a hate phrase that assumes what is and isn't "normal".

When talking about involuntary things, yes. We shouldn’t say what’s normal and not regarding things like how someone’s body looks.

Voluntary behavior like sexually flashing children, no. (In my opinion re: using the term “normal” or “not normal”).

I think reasonable people should be able to tell if someone in an appropriate setting like a spa is doing so because they are at a spa or because they are trying to focus on children.

Like in my example conversation, tell the child that if someone is nude like this and paying a lot of attention to you — get away.

 

[Jose Fly]

I agree with most of what you said, but I don’t think it’s that complicated. Playgrounds are obviously not nude zones. Right now we already have basically designated nude zones in locker rooms, spas, beaches, and so on. But I don’t know what to do when and if it is gray area.

Right....is a playground by a beach a nude zone? A public pool? The adjacent kiddie pool?

To be a bit silly, are we going to have signs up that say, "Designated Naked Area; Anything Goes"?

Sometimes I like the de jure/de facto distinction: where there is a law on the books but rarely enforced. It becomes the judgment of a hopefully reasonable enforcer and judge whether to do something at that point. Then I guess we have to depend on them being reasonable which is a whole other problem. So, I guess it is mildly complex.

History shows that as we break down barriers, especially sex-related ones, there will always be people who seek to push the envelope as far as they can. That doesn't mean we can't ever remove barriers of course, but it means we need to be thoughtful in doing so. Usually when a norm or barrier comes down, it creates new risks that need to be accounted for.

I acknowledge that I'm likely influenced by my age (mid-50's) and having raised two daughters. If I'm honest with myself, I would rather my wife and I not have had to take all sorts of precautions and measures whenever we went to the YMCA, public pool, beach, etc. to keep them from seeing male genitilia. And I'm not sure what we'd have done if they had.

 

[Jose Fly]

When talking about involuntary things, yes. We shouldn’t say what’s normal and not regarding things like how someone’s body looks.

Yep.

Voluntary behavior like sexually flashing children, no. (In my opinion re: using the term “normal” or “not normal”).

Please don't take this the wrong way, but what do you think is the effective difference between "sexually flashing children" and knowingly strolling past them with your junk out?

I think reasonable people should be able to tell if someone in an appropriate setting like a spa is doing so because they are at a spa or because they are trying to focus on children.

A lot of exhibitionists aren't so obvious as the stereotyped "flasher" as depicted in comedy skits. Recently a nearby city reported about one that was just sitting on a park bench with his pants down. He wasn't "focusing" on anyone; he just got a thrill out of being exposed around other people.

Like in my example conversation, tell the child that if someone is nude like this and paying a lot of attention to you — get away.

What if they're just sitting on a bench?

 

[Meow Mix]

Right....is a playground by a beach a nude zone? A public pool? The adjacent kiddie pool?

To be a bit silly, are we going to have signs up that say, "Designated Naked Area; Anything Goes"?


History shows that as we break down barriers, especially sex-related ones, there will always be people who seek to push the envelope as far as they can. That doesn't mean we can't ever remove barriers of course, but it means we need to be thoughtful in doing so. Usually when a norm or barrier comes down, it creates new risks that need to be accounted for.

I acknowledge that I'm likely influenced by my age (mid-50's) and having raised two daughters. If I'm honest with myself, I would rather my wife and I not have had to take all sorts of precautions and measures whenever we went to the YMCA, public pool, beach, etc. to keep them from seeing male genitilia. And I'm not sure what we'd have done if they had.

Hard to find anything to disagree with here.

Societal change would probably have to start with parents and that’s a pipe dream in the first place, so any top-down change is probably the only real option even if less ideal than bottom-up.

Then again, change does happen, even if it’s a bit slow. Breastfeeding in public is losing some of its taboo for instance.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yep.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but what do you think is the effective difference between "sexually flashing children" and knowingly strolling past them with your junk out?


A lot of exhibitionists aren't so obvious as the stereotyped "flasher" as depicted in comedy skits. Recently a nearby city reported about one that was just sitting on a park bench with his pants down. He wasn't "focusing" on anyone; he just got a thrill out of being exposed around other people.


What if they're just sitting on a bench?

Well, we can’t really know if someone is being very passive about it I guess.

I already gave the example of me, a lesbian woman, being in the same locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. as other women and understanding this is not a sexual context, so it’s not arousing.

But suppose for someone else sought this out because it was arousing to them. That’s already possible right now and there’s not much that can be done about it unless they behave inappropriately.

So I guess the “passive arousal” thing is just going to exist for some people no matter what. If they act on this and especially towards children then the problem should be recognized and severely dealt with.

 

[Meow Mix]

I wouldn’t know what to say about visible arousal either.

What do men do in men’s locker rooms right now if someone is visibly aroused? (i’m actually curious here, this isn’t rhetorical. Anyone?)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What do men do in men’s locker rooms right now if someone is visibly aroused?

It'd be hard to say, but men sometimes play around and slap each other with towels.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, we can’t really know if someone is being very passive about it I guess.

I already gave the example of me, a lesbian woman, being in the same locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. as other women and understanding this is not a sexual context, so it’s not arousing.

But suppose for someone else sought this out because it was arousing to them. That’s already possible right now and there’s not much that can be done about it unless they behave inappropriately.

So I guess the “passive arousal” thing is just going to exist for some people no matter what. If they act on this and especially towards children then the problem should be recognized and severely dealt with.

That's why I brought up the nearby case of the man sitting in the park with his pants down. According to the story, he didn't talk to anyone or do anything other than just sit there with his pants down. He was arrested for indecent exposure, and for exposing himself to minors (there were kids in the park), and if convicted he will be placed on the sex offender list.

I wouldn’t know what to say about visible arousal either.

What do men do in men’s locker rooms right now if someone is visibly aroused? (i’m actually curious here, this isn’t rhetorical. Anyone?)

I've only ever seen that happen in middle school, a time when boys get erections for no apparent reason. Of course since it was middle school, the reactions were quite juvenile and homophobic.

I've never seen it in an adult setting.

 

[Kooky]

When I went to school at the age of 6-7, I recall that we had co-ed dressing rooms where boys and girls would dress together. For some reason this was never made out to be a big deal.

This was not in America, mind you. Around here, we also have nudist beaches where children can also go with their parents, and that's never been made out to be a big deal either, as far as I can tell.

And it's also not uncommon for women to go topless on regular beaches here (in fact, these days, it seems to me that police are checking whether women don't look too dressed, i.e. Muslim, at regular beaches, but that's a different issue entirely of course).

 

[Stevicus]

That could be seen as you saying that taking one's kids into locker rooms, public pools, etc. can possibly be equivalent to taking them to a park flashers are known to frequent. In both cases, it's "your kids are likely to see a penis here, so if you're not okay with that you probably shouldn't come".

I wouldn't say they're equivalent. One would be a criminal action directed at an individual for any number of possible reasons. That's a sex crime. If they're in a locker room changing clothes, then it's not directed at any individual and most likely no intent to commit any harm.

Here's another example, perhaps a closer equivalency to what we're talking about. I sometimes like watching blooper videos, and they had one video where a reporter was doing a live interview in a sports locker room (don't recall the team, sport, or league, but it's not important). Anyway, during the interview, another player had walked in view of the camera. Due to the camera angle, the player's face was not visible, you could only see below the waist, but everything below the waist was visible, if you get my meaning.

It was an accident; I'm sure the sports reporter wasn't intending to do a porno. The player may not have seen the camera or knew that it was on. I think the TV station still had to pay a fine, but it was clear that it was unintentional and inadvertent.

Maybe it's not something one would expect or want to see on TV, but accidents can happen. Would it be traumatizing to younger children? I can't really say. I'm not a psychologist, but my guess is that if a kid saw it, they'd probably think it was funny. Even adults think it's funny. I think it's funny, because I think bloopers are funny, even if most of them aren't that shocking.

Of course, there's also the question of whether they should be bringing in cameras to sports locker rooms in the first place. I still remember the hullaballoo back in the 70s when the male players got upset that a court order forced them to allow women reporters in the locker room. Of course, the media turned it into a big circus, as they are often wont to do.