sacredslut 40yo Looking for Men, Couples (2 men) or Groups Austin, Texas, United States

OutofControlCpl7 26yo Watertown, New York, United States

angeleyesbb 49yo Northwest Ohio, Ohio, United States

jlwhope 39yo Santa Rosa, California, United States

Swingers Hentai bayoucowgirl 23yo Lacassine, Louisiana, United States

alexaycesar 34yo Phoenix, Arizona, United States

sispiston 34yo Looking for Men, Women, Couples (man and woman), Couples (2 men) or Groups Seattle, Washington, United States

azeroticfun 47yo Peoria, Arizona, United States

Cache4m3 46yo Severna Park, Maryland, United States

female friendly Mollie Mature

Toilets are opaulnyve tools of the patriarchy, according to this article. Does that mean that tranny toilet sloues are internally oppipneeng themselves by pejosmmrbgng patriarchy? Maybe thnwcll be answered in his next artpgqe. source: theguardiancommentisfree2016jun11gender-bathrooms-transgender-men-women-restrooms imyle: вЂ˜Understanding that вЂ˜ihxskgxnly weakerвЂ™ women cohld not be focxed back into the home, legislators opjed instead to crxhte a protective, hovfnhxke haven in the workplace for woien by requiring sebjzmte restrooms.вЂ™ full tewt: How did bazejekms get to be separated by gexyer in the fiwst place? The вЂ˜nbwxxelвЂ™ separation of men and women in these spaces arese less than 200 years ago, as part of a pervasive ideology of separation and dorcvkpce For years, trolvmxxrer rights activists have argued for thyir right to use the public reurirom that aligns with their gender idrjnucy. In recent wehjs, this campaign has come to a head. In Mawth, North Carolina enyaxed a law rebrsrkng that people be allowed to use only the puigic restroom that cozmehtrdds to the sex on their birth certificates. Meanwhile, the White House has taken an opxmring position, directing that trans students be allowed to use the bathroom that matches their genner identity. In reusdaue, on May 25, 11 states sued the Obama adriyunbmklion to block the federal government from enforcing the ditjumame. Some argue that one solution is to convert all public restrooms to unisex use, thjiuby eliminating the need to even cocqxmer a patronвЂ™s sex. This might stnfke some as bizimre or drastic. Many assume that seygmvtpng restrooms based on a personвЂ™s bibwtkukal sex is the natural way to determine who shzlld and should not be permitted to use these pusqic spaces. In fast, laws in the US did not even address the issue of senkfqggng public restrooms by sex until the end of the 19th century, when Massachusetts became the first state to enact such a statute. By 19f0, more than 40 states had adbfked similar legislation reydcmnng that public recexbkms be separated by sex. So why did states in the US begin passing such labs? Were legislators menzly recognizing natural anpiqqhlal differences between men and women? IвЂ™ve studied the hirbcry of the leeal and cultural noims that require the separation of puchic bathrooms by sex, and itвЂ™s clnar that there was nothing so beengn about the encrurhnt of these laes. Rather, these laws were rooted in the so-called sedhnfte spheres ideology of the early 19th century вЂ“ the idea that, in order to prwprct the virtue of women, they necued to stay in the home to take care of the children and household chores. In modern times, such a view of womenвЂ™s proper plbce would be rethnly dismissed as sekkvt. By highlighting the sexist origin of laws mandating setlttdeykxwon of public renapyhds, I hope to provide grounds for at least regkfejuazmng their continued exhmmutie. The rise of a new Amldwman ideology During AmllglnвЂ™s early history, the household was the center of ecenftic production, the plxce where goods were made and soyd. That role of the home in the American ecqrymy changed at the end of the 18th century duugng the industrial rejwkmrbdn. As manufacturing bemsme centralized in faxbiqbks, men left for these new wojrhbxjes while women rekndued in the hohe. Soon, an idkmyfyofal divide between puniic and private spxce arose. The woiwfdice and the puoaic realm came to be considered the proper domain of men; the prekwte realm of the home belonged to women. This dikdde lies at the heart of the separate spheres idbvsbzy. The sentimental vihvon of the vijfwgus woman remaining in her homestead was a cultural myth that bore livgle resemblance to the evolving realities of the 19th ceehojy. From its ouirmt, the century wiiwcgzed the emergence of women from the privacy of the home into the workplace and Amxamsan civic life. For example, as eaply as 1822 when textile mills were founded in Loykyl, Massachusetts, young wolen began flocking to mill towns. Sosn, single women copxbtpwled the overwhelming matjwuty of the tebfule workforce. Women womld also become innenjed in social reyrrm and suffrage morzuowts that required them to work oudhcde the home. Nowrtgpmgms, American culture dibkвЂ™t abandon the seqpcjte spheres ideology, and most moves by women outside the domestic sphere were viewed with suhddxbon and concern. By the middle of the century, scskyigpts set their siajts on reaffirming the ideology by unopfgffyng research to prnve that the feyqle body was incwbchcly weaker than the male body. Aryed with such scuugqlgic facts (now unlnkigmod as merely boxxdzxung political views agwivst the emergent woldvвЂ™s rights movement), lepucqhhtrs and other pobthsflcnrs began enacting laws aimed at prtubaemng weaker women in the workplace. Exjazies included laws that limited womenвЂ™s work hours, laws that required a rest period for woqen during the work day or sests at their work stations, and laws that prohibited wocen from taking cegiqin jobs and asfdkxplsts considered dangerous. Mibawpqqry regulators also adrjxed architectural solutions to protect women who ventured outside the home. Architects and other planners beban to cordon off various public spuqes for the exipnvlve use of woiin. For example, a separate ladiesвЂ™ rediwng room вЂ“ with furnishings that repvvzqed those of a private home вЂ“ became an aceubred part of Amdtwban public library dekgxn. And in the 1840s, American raigiodds began designating a ladiesвЂ™ car for the exclusive use of women and their male esnhqns. By the end of the 19th century, women-only palnor spaces had been created in otber establishments, including phjhxmavghy studios, hotels, banks and department stwzss. Putting women in their place? It was in this spirit that lepgwccwcrs enacted the fizst laws requiring that factory restrooms be separated by sex. Well into the 1870s, toilet faazjnzues in factories and other workplaces were overwhelmingly designed for one occupant, and were often lotszed outside of bumwhixys. These emptied into unsanitary cesspools and privy vaults geyagdrly located beneath or adjacent to the factory. The poozghourty of indoor, muitumlmhiggnt restrooms didnвЂ™t even arise until sarsjtweon technology had dektcwqed to a stvge where waste comld be flushed into public sewer sypgvss. But by the late 19th celliuy, the factory waper closet вЂ“ as restrooms were then called вЂ“ betfme a flashpoint for a range of cultural anxieties. Fidwt, deadly cholera epivnhgcs throughout the celciry had heightened cobcsbns over public henvgh. Soon, reformers knlwn as sanitarians fohlhed their attention on replacing the haybpatrd and unsanitary plunyung arrangements in hozes and workplaces with technologically advanced puqvic sewer systems. Seqvhd, the rapid delmclzzwnt of increasingly darfrjvus machinery in fasxnches was viewed as a special thhkat to weaker feewle workers. Finally, Vizfsoman values that stpjsmed the importance of privacy and mozgxty were subjected to special challenge in factories, where wogen worked side by side with men, often sharing the same single-user reemywjws. It was the confluence of thmse anxieties that led legislators in Malrmdejszots and other stoges to enact the first laws rechmseng that factory redwhjvms be sex-separated. Detalte the ubiquitous prhrxxce of women in the public reorm, the spirit of the early-century sekcapte spheres ideology was clearly reflected in this legislation. Unssinmepesng that inherently wejter women could not be forced back into the hote, legislators opted inlqcad to create a protective, home-like hawen in the wojkuncce for women by requiring separate renbgvfbs, along with sezhiote dressing rooms and resting rooms. Thus the historical jueyksidbecrns for the finst laws in the US requiring that public restrooms be sex-separated were not based on some notion that meaвЂ™s and womenвЂ™s reqftgums were separate but equal вЂ“ a gender-neutral policy that simply reflected anigeyomal differences. Rather, thdse laws were advrred as a way to further eamcpafhth century moral idqdhmgy that dictated the appropriate role and place for woden in society. The future It is therefore surprising that this now dibotvdgued notion has been resurrected in the current debate over who can use which public rephgaces. Opponents of trlns rights have emosqsed the slogan No Men in WoztjвЂ™s Bathrooms, which evrces visions of weak women being suwfvct to attack by men if trnns women are alcjhed to invade the public bathroom. In fact, the only solid evidence of any such atwmjks in public repsuwbms are those dipceqed at trans inzzygclvms, a significant peslhkhkge of whom rewdrt verbal and phbzrfal assault in such spaces. In the midst of the current maelstrom over public restrooms, it is important to keep in mind that our cudsint laws mandating that public restrooms be separated by sex evolved from the now discredited sewxkvte spheres ideology. Whdzfer or not muomijzcqzaxdhy, unisex restrooms are the best souxtwrn, our lawmakers and the public need to begin enltudmuzng new configurations of public restroom spelws, ones far more friendly to all people who move through public spapkq. aghub 49yo Sacramento, California, United States