| MandoMan |
04-26-2023 05:18 AM |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pairadocs
(Post 2211545)
Like many other topics we "chat" about on here, when two or more separate issues are discussed simultaneously, it gets difficult to follow. There are legitimate, contrasting, differences between those who prefer to live on a golf course and those who would never consider it. However, on the topic of public indecency laws, it should not matter if an individual lives on a golf course, by a walking trail, ball diamond, or tennis count, they fact that a male, or a female, has an incontinence condition should not result in the law being applied by qualitative consideration. Once a society starts down that path, equality of justice takes another blow. If one is excused from public indecency laws (urinating in public) because they are on a public or private golf course, should a tennis player or softball player in a public park then be excused from the law by stepping behind a tree, or even equipment shed, in the park to urinate instead of walking to the restroom facilities ? So, no, in a civilized society we do not accept a variety of excuses for public urination, it's gross, actually destructive to the fiber of a society (even though some would consider it no different than spitting on the sidewalk), and rather done on the side of the road (which we have probably all witnessed) while "pretending" to examine an auto by putting the hood up, it's illegal because it is offensive. At the very least, citizens should have a right not to be exposed to such crude people, but we know some have no sense of decency and probably never will.
|
Actually, I don’t find discrete public urination “gross” or “crude” or “offensive,” tree or no tree. The same goes for public breast-feeding from an exposed breast. These are normal bodily functions, and it is a warped society that sees them as shameful. I recall the motto of the Order of the Garter in the UK: “Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense” (which translates as “shame to him who thinks it evil,” or more clearly, “If no offense is intended, shame to him who thinks an act evil.”). That doesn’t mean I want it done against the wall of my house or on my lanai, but on a golf course in an emergency doesn’t bother me. I realize there are public decency laws, and I follow them, but some laws were made because of prudes who complain, not because of public health. Oddly, there is much better reason for not allowing public urination in cities (as with a ban on public spitting), yet cities are not generally required to have and maintain a lot of public facilities for this sort of thing. There have been several articles in the New York Times this year about the need for such things in New York.
Paris began installing ****oirs on the streets in 1830, and at one point there were over 1200 of them. These were generally partly open and male only. The feet and torso of the users were exposed. All but one has been replaced by unisex, fully-enclosed units rather like our porta-potties. In London these days you can find plastic portable units for four men, completely exposed from behind. I’ve attached a photo below.
We are not talking here about public exposure of the sex organs for the purpose of shocking people. That’s significantly different. If people are offended by the sight of someone urinating a hundred feet away, however, I would say they have their own problems they should deal with. |
