Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    There is already a pornography topic going on in this Conference.
    
    BTW, I know you're in England, but have you ever met Dorian Kottler? :-)
    
    And, you really ought to stay out of Men's toilets, anyway.
      
    Alan

    I think a small act of subversion might be in order here:  remove the
    name plates from the men's and women's rooms and reverse them,
    attaching them very firmly in their new places, and wait for the
    reactions.  I think "artistic" expression of this kind only works when
    it can be sniggered at in private.  Alternately, I suppose one could
    try to remove the doors, or go in with flash cameras and take pictures
    for the local rag.
    
    Briana

    Personally I think it's pretty inappropriate, but if the management
    supports it, the only thing you can do is decide to no longer support
    the restaurant with your patronage.....
    
    -Jody
    

    Reply to .1, Who is Dorian Kottler?  I don't see anywhere in the base
    note that says the noter was in the mens toilet.
    Read the note, know your reply.
    
    I know that I would not want my 5 year old son going into the men/
    boys room and seeing this, he will in good time (much to my dismay).
    A FAMILY restaurant is just that, Keep the %&*# where it belongs,
    in the adult porn shops and behind closed doors that children
    cannot enter.
                               Cathy
    

*gasp*  We wouldn't want a young boy seeing what a naked woman looks like!
Lord knows he hasn't seen one yet.

Anyway, I think having such a thing in a family restaurant is inappropriate.
If you don't like it - stop going to the restaurant.  You can even write them
a letter to *tell8 them why you won't be patronizing their restaraunt anymore.

I don't know about in England, but in the US nudity, and especially the
*partial* nudity you describe is not considered pornographic.

I think there are worse things a young boy could be exposed to than women
in knee high leather boots and stockings.  If you are so concerned about
what he is exposed to, I sure hope you don't take him to see Arnold 
SChwarzenager (sp) movies - those are a lot more harmul than partially
clad women.

D!

    Re: .5
    
    > Reply to .1, who is Dorian Kottler?
    
    You're probably new to this Conference. Dorian is - how shall I
    discreetly put it - a Crusader against what she considers Pornography
    in all its forms, shapes, sizes.
    
    If she believes something is pornographic, then everyone else is supposed 
    to, also.
    
    >                                      I don't see anywhere in the base 
    > note that says the noter was in the mens toilet.
    
    My comment was meant to be somewhat humorous. Obviously, you missed it.
    
    However the base note author *did* seem to have detailed knowledge of
    the restaurant's Men's toilets. 
    
    I mean, I don't have any ideas what might be on the walls of the Women's 
    toilets in the restaurants I frequent. (Well, my wife has told me she's 
    seen "If you're looking for 12 inches, call Chuckie at 555-3333." As far 
    as I know she hasn't called Chuckie yet). :-)
    
      Alan               

    In re: .6
    
    I think you missed this one by a mile, D!  It is certainly an
    overgeneralization that nudity is not considered pornography in the
    U.S.  Just ask Jesse Helms, among others.  In any case, that is
    irrelevant; being non-pornographic is beside the point.  The described
    pictures are not there because of their artistic merits; if they have
    some, they should be out in the dining room.  It has nothing whatever
    to do with maintaining anatomical ignorance in young boys, either, but
    rather an attempt to avoid encouraging them to automatically associate
    the female figure with urinals.  It sounds clearly degrading and
    insulting, and shouldn't be tolerated.  I would probably  demand to see
    the manager on the spot, and throw a fit.  If that didn't work, I would
    organize a picket line.  I suspect those pictures could be gone with an
    hour's work, at most.
    
    		- Bruce

    
    re .7:
    
    >> Reply to .1, who is Dorian Kottler?
    
    >You're probably new to this Conference. Dorian is - how shall I
    >discreetly put it - a Crusader against what she considers Pornography
    >in all its forms, shapes, sizes.
    
    >If she believes something is pornographic, then everyone else is supposed 
    >to, also.
    
    Alan, really, I feel you're not being fair to Dorian.  I've not
    seen her tell other people what they should or shouldn't think.
    I *have* seen her state what *she* thinks with strong conviction,
    but not what *you* should think.  Just because you don't happen to
    agree with Dorian is no excuse to mistreat and misrepresent her in
    notes.
    
    

>    I'm surprised that no one has brought up that Great American men's room
>    tradition...

Why?  Is there objection to it?  In this day and age of Safe Sex, I think
condom vending machines are the best thing going next to sliced bread.
*My* gripe with condom vending machines isn't that they *are* in many men's
lavs, but that they *aren't* in many women's.  Fortunately, I understand
that more and more of those vending machines are being put in the restrooms
of *both* sexes.

Yay!

D!

[RPI has condom vending machines in the Union restrooms of both sexes.
Hurrah for RPI!]

Re:   <<< Note 207.6 by TLE::D_CARROLL "The more you know the better it gets" >>>
        -< Ask them to put up male pix in the female lav! Fair's fair. >-

    I don't think that's appropriate, either.  "Fair's fair" would dictate
    that *both* male and female pics be displayed in *both* bathrooms.

    (Only) male pics for women and (only) female pics for the men smacks
    of compulsory heterosexuality, and I think it's inappropriate for a
    restaurant to be making assumptions or judgements about a person's
    sexual preference.

    Pics of both in both bathrooms (preferably the same ones everywhere)
    would at least treat men and women equally.  Then the pics would at 
    least be *equally* inappropriate everywhere - an improvement over the
    current system which I find, yes, objectifying and degrading.  I don't
    think I'd feel nearly as strongly if men were given equal wall space 
    in both bathrooms, and the male and female pictures equivalent and 
    intermixed.  There wouldn't be the same issues of dominance or 
    disrespect which make pictures like that seem so objectifying and 
    degrading.

    In any case, no restaraunt with pinups in the bathroom is a "family
    restaurant" in the traditional sense of the phrase.

	Sharon

        -< Ask them to put up male pix in the female lav! Fair's fair. >-

>    (Only) male pics for women and (only) female pics for the men smacks
>    of compulsory heterosexuality, and I think it's inappropriate for a
>    restaurant to be making assumptions or judgements about a person's
>    sexual preference.

You're right, of course. I was joking (I should have included a smily but
titles aren't allowed much space) but looking at it seriously, it is of
course inappropriate to assume the restroom users are of one preference or
the other (even if it *is* a "family" restauraunt.)

I suppose, if we use Kinsey's numbers, the most fair thing to do would be
to put up 10% male pictures and 90% female pictures in the men's room, and
vice versa in the women's room.  

:-)

>    In any case, no restaraunt with pinups in the bathroom is a "family
>    restaurant" in the traditional sense of the phrase.

It does strike me as very *odd* that a self-proclaimed "family restaurant"
would do something that many, if not *most*, people would consider *un*family
oriented.  Sort of like putting a singles bar in a Ground Round.  Weird,
but that's their business.


(re; Pornography - I was speaking froma legal sense.  Nudity is not consider
obscene.)

D!

    
    
    I too think it is gross that this type of garbage is in a Family 
    restaurant.  If it offends you that much then stop going there.
    
    To the base noter:
    
    Isn't it common practice for some newspapers in England to have
    a calender girl on the front page or near the front on a specific
    day of the week?  I vaguely remember someone mentioning this.
    If memory serves me, the women are dressed only in lingere??
    
    
    Also, just curious, but how did you find out about these pixs in 
    the mens room?
    
    
    Michele

    NOTE TO MODERATOR - please retitle this topic to 
    
    
    " the interfering busybody note "
    
    
    If a restaurant wishes to display pictures that are within the law
    then they should be free to do so. If you don't like it don't go
    - sorry for the lavatorial pun !
    
    
    As for organising picket lines etc ..... The US has fought two world
    wars to defend democracy against mob rule. Who are we to impose
    our views on others through mass hysteria ?
    
    Surely the health of our ailing planet, poverty and the drug problem
    make render this topic insignificant.
    
    
    
          
    DejW

    re: .15 (DejW)
    
    I'm uncomfortable with some of what you're suggesting.
    
    � -< Worry about something important ! >-
    
    Who are you (or I, or anyone of us) to say what is an important
    issue for another person?  If you feel this topic is unimportant
    then fine; so be it.  Why not just skip to another that you do
    find compelling rather than cast this judgement about someone
    else's priorities?
    
    � NOTE TO MODERATOR - please retitle this topic to 
    � " the interfering busybody note "
    
    Playing by your rules, wouldn't I be within rights to ask you
    to change the title of your reply to the same?  Why is the base
    note author's concern being a "busybody" and yours not?
    
    � As for organising picket lines etc ..... The US has fought two world
    � wars to defend democracy against mob rule. 
    
    It seems to me that legal picket lines are in fact one of the kinds
    of freedom of expression for which we nominally fought those wars.
    It appears that you're suggesting that such picket lines are the
    equivalent of "mob rule".  Is that your intention?
    
    � Who are we to impose our views on others. . .
    
    Ironic words considering your imperatives to the author.
    
    � . . .through mass hysteria ?
    
    Are you now equating legitimate protest with "mass hysteria"?
    
    � Surely the health of our ailing planet, poverty and the drug problem
    � make render this topic insignificant.
    
    Perhaps for you and, yes, perhaps for me, too.  But who are we
    to declare what's significant for another?  After all, anyone
    can go that route if they approach it right.  For instance, a
    holy person might walk up to you or me and declare that "our
    ailing planet, poverty, and the drug problem" are insignificant
    topics when compared to the spiritual state of the universe.
    
    Perhaps it's better all around to let each person decide what's
    important to her or him.  I think that in doing so, it validates 
    your right to make decisions for yourself.
    
    Steve

    
    	RE: .16  Steve Mallett
    
    	Hear, hear!!!  Well said!
    

    But Pinkys is NOT a family restaurant....
    ID is required for admittance. 
    
    Just because .0 decides to never take her children to that particular
    restaurant again, doesn't stop OTHER families whose parents do not know
    what is lurking in the men's room(;-), from going. 
    
    This is the age old argument. If you don't want your kids to hear that
    music, don't let them listen to the radio. If you don't want them to
    watch sex shows, don't let them watch TV. If you don't want them
    seeing naked women pictures, feed them at home. 
    
    I think that if this is indeed a family restaurant, then they are
    showing extremely poor taste and total lack of social responsibility. 
    
    -c- 

     RE .0  
    
    THE LAST TIME THAT I WAS IN CALENDARS RESTURANT IN READING IN ENGLAND
    THERE WAS AT LEAST 5 PICTURES OF SCANTILY DRESSED MEN ON THE WALLS
    OF THE LADIES TOILETS. I DONT KNOW WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN REMOVED,
    I VERY MUCH DOUBT THAT, OR WHETHER THE AUTHOR OF THIS NOTE REALLY
    DOESNT TAKE THAT MUCH NOTICE OF HER SURROUNDINGS. I THINK THOUGH
    THAT LIKE MAYBE MOST PEOPLE SHE REALY DOESNT TAKE THAT MUCH NOTICE
    OF WHAT IS ON THE WALLS.
    
    DI

    re: .20 (DI)
    
    �                       -< PAY ATTENTION >-
    � I DONT KNOW WHETHER THEY (pictures of men in the ladies' room)
    � HAVE BEEN REMOVED, I VERY MUCH DOUBT THAT, OR WHETHER THE AUTHOR 
    � OF THIS NOTE REALLY DOESNT TAKE THAT MUCH NOTICE OF HER SURROUNDINGS. 
    � I THINK THOUGH THAT LIKE MAYBE MOST PEOPLE SHE REALY DOESNT TAKE 
    � THAT MUCH NOTICE OF WHAT IS ON THE WALLS.
    
    Perhaps it's you who isn't paying attention.  From .0:
    
    � Needless to say, the women's toilet is unadorned with pictures of any
    � kind. 
    
    Before you accuse others of not taking notice, you should take
    more notice yourself.
    
    Steve

Re .7 -
    
>    You're probably new to this Conference. Dorian is - how shall I
>    discreetly put it - a Crusader against what she considers Pornography
>    in all its forms, shapes, sizes.
    
>    If she believes something is pornographic, then everyone else is supposed 
>    to, also.
    

Gee, Alan, you left out the part about how since I find porn so 
objectionable, I must be some kind of a prude & hate sex, and also my nose 
is too big, plus my feet smell.

I'd say you're slipping,  ;-)

Dorian

> Gee, Alan, you left out the part about how since I find porn so 
> objectionable, I must be some kind of a prude & hate sex, and also my nose 
> is too big, plus my feet smell.

Dorian, if your feet do smell, I can't detect it wafting across the road
from PKO2 to PKO3. 
    
> I'd say you're slipping,  ;-)

Well, it's my last 8 days here at DEC. I guess I'm mellowing. :-)
    
  Alan

    
    Ummmm....
    I haven't read the whole string, so someone might have mentioned
    this, but there were "tasteful" "provocative" pictures of men in the
    women's toilets at Calendars last time I was there....
    
    'gail                          

    Re: .24
    
    > I haven't read the whole string, so someone might have mentioned
    > this, but there were "tasteful" "provocative" pictures of men in the
    > women's toilets at Calendars last time I was there....
    
    Well actually, the basenote author managed to ignore that aspect.
    
      Alan                         

    re: .25
    
    Well, actually, go read the basenote.  She said specifically that there
    WERE NONE.  
    
    That's not ignoring.  
    
    At the time SHE visited the family restaurant, there were pictures in
    the men's room and no pictures in the women's room.  
    
    Pam
    
    
    P.S.  My only real experience with this type of situation was in a wild
    place called Molly Murphey's House of Fine Repute in Oklahoma City, OK. 
    There were extensive collages of men in the women's room -- I assume
    the same in the men's room.  With a name like that, I wasn't surprised
    or bothered by it.  The collages of men I saw were on "pinup" level,
    not "pornography" level -- I don't know about the collages of women.  

        <<< Note 207.26 by CADSYS::PSMITH "foop-shootin', flip city!" >>>
                       -< well, actually, you're wrong >-

    
>    At the time SHE visited the family restaurant, there were pictures in
>    the men's room and no pictures in the women's room.  
    
A question.. 

did SHE visit the 'family' restaurant ?.. or was this second hand reporting

From .0

>    Last month it was brought to my attention that the men's toilet in Calendars
>    restaurant, Reading, England

Not  "When we when out for a meal" (or such) but rather 
"brought to my attention"  (which could refer to just the 
"men's toilet" or the whole thing)

    Re: .26
    
    Well, actually, I did read (and re-read) the basenote.
    
    Clearly the basenote author and Abigail are at odds with each other
    about the contents of the Women's toilet.
    
    Since Abigail has stated she was actually there, while the basenote author 
    makes claims of "reports", I tend to believe the eyewitness account.
    
    Of "reports" are made Urban Legends.
    
      Alan 

>    Clearly the basenote author and Abigail are at odds with each other
>    about the contents of the Women's toilet.
 
Hey, the base-note said "Calendars" was a restaraunt *chain*!  Why are we
referring to the "tiolet" in the singular?  Seems very possible that they
went to *different* Calendar's restaurants, and the women's room at each
were decorated differently.  They could *both* be right and accurate.

D!

    well, maybe I'm a prude or something, but here's the opinion of the mom
    of an 8 yr old girl and a 6 yr old boy.
    
    I don't think that sexually suggestive photos of either sex belong in
    either bathroom of any *family* restaurant.  What goes in barrom or
    adult-oriented places is another story, but .0 is about a family place.
    
    Now, I don't expect to protect and shield my kids from all evil, harm,
    swear words, sexually im/explicit stuff, war, pestilance, or disease.
    But it's my job as a parent to try to raise caring, joyful, confident
    human beings, and part of that is to use my judgement about when to
    expose them to different things on that list (insofar as I have any
    control over that exposure).  I base such decisions at least partly on
    what I think they can understand at a given age.  And I don't generally
    think that young children understand, or are really capable of
    understanding, adult sexuality.  I don't think anyone will try to argue
    that the photos described are there for the kids!
    
    Also, I want my children to learn about sexuality as a non-exploitive
    activity, as something that is part of caring.  I don't think that
    porn, soft, hard, or fuzzy, fits in with that goal.
    
    So I object to the idea of posting such photos in the loo for two
    reasons: 1) it exposes kids indiscriminately, regardless of age, to
    material they may not be ready to understand; 2) it removes my option
    to use my own judgement of when/what is appropriate for my young kids,
    and unnecessarily, too.  And in a setting where I would not necessarily
    have expected it to occur.
    
    (The rest of this is sort of rambling.  But I shortened it
    considerably.)  As illustration:  My daughter
    will actually be 8 in a week or so.  A couple of months ago she asked
    me what causes AIDS.  So I told her, people get AIDS in one of two
    ways. First, I explained to her about sharing needles, and how AIDS can
    go from one person to another in the blood,... you get the rest.
    Then we got to sex.  Well, she already knows about the sperm and egg
    cells, and how a baby grows and is born through the vagina.  So I
    reviewed all that, and then asked, "did you ever wonder how the father
    gets the sperm cell into the mother to join with the egg cell?"  Folks,
    it was almost comical, the look on her face.  She thought about it a
    minute, abstractedly, and then looked at me and said, "no, how *does*
    the sperm cell get from the father into the mother?"  And I told her
    that the father's penis has 2 uses, the other is to deliver
    the sperm, and he gets them into the woman by putting his penis in the
    mother's vagina.  WELL. She thought about that one, and from the look
    on her face was thinking about her brother, with whom she still bathes. 
    Then she burst out laughing.  She thought it was the most hysterically
    funny idea she had ever heard.
    
    My friend's daughter is 10, and had the same question, and got
    substantially the same answer.  This girl also has a younger brother,
    and her reaction was "Eeeewwww!  Yuuuukkkkk!  And *you* did that
    _two_whole_times_!?!?!?!?!"
    
    So I don't think either of them is ready for sexy pix on the bathroom
    walls.  Save that for the grownups, who can appreciate it!

    
    re the last couple
    
    there you go, let's blame the the basenoter and derail the subject...
    she obviously doesn't know what she's talking about
    
    

I thought a little about why I thought the idea of sexy pics in the b-room
bothered me. I think it's because society is clumping taboos, and enforcing
each by putting them together. 
	Mez

    Maia, I realize that you, also, have strong views on what you perceive
    to be "Pornography."
    
    However, we seem to be discussing "pornography" in many different
    places in this Conference.
    
    We could probably start another basenote on "pornography" in the 
    Dimwitties pancake chain.
    
    Still another could raise the subject "Should the Pillbury dough-boy
    be fully clothed?"
    
    We already had a *perfectly* good conversation going on in the
    "official" pornography note.
    
    It appears that the people who are derailing the topic are those who
    persist in putting in multiple basenotes on the same subject.
    
      Alan

    Perhaps, Al, this is because pornography is not a small, easily
    pigeonholed topic.  If it were, we probably wouldn't bother to
    discuss it at all.
    
    							Ann B.

    Is that the reason, Annie?
    
      Alan

    Pornography has many different aspects.  If all the different
    discussions of general/specific pornography, and why it's there, and
    how we feel about it, and how we think it affects us were in ONE topic,
    it would be so scattered and non-focused that I feel none of the
    specific aspects would be thoroughly explored or discussed.  Look at
    them as chapters in a complete work, if you wish.  But I feel this
    topic is entirely valid in its own right, as are the others.  I think
    the basenoter felt the same way.
    
    -Jody
    

    This was the first note that I have posted to notes and, in general, I am 
    pleased at the response. I have read some interesting points of view
    and suggestions upon which I intend to act. 
    
    I would like to clear up a few points which appear to have caused some
    confusion:
    
    The base note was not a second-hand report. I have visited the
    restaurant in question several times recently. It was only on this
     occasion, however, that a male dining partner informed me of the 
    "decoration" in the men's toilet.
    
    I was interested to learn that similarly styled pictures of men were
    once in the women's toilets, as, in a letter of complaint to the manager I
    requested that just such pictures be hung, to be fair.
    
    The reason for the title of the base note was to draw people's attention to the 
    the issue, which I thought would have got lost in the note about
    pornographt that already exists.
    
    To conclude:
    
    I had hoped for a rather more intellectual debate on the topic. I do
    not expect everyone to have the same ideas on pornography as I do,
    that's why I asked for opinions. These types of pictures may not
    legally be called pornographic, but they do not portray women's body's
    positively, in my opinion. I would not call them tasteful either.
    Rather, they use deliberately provocative imagery to get a quick, cheap
    reaction.
        

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.  I thought that suggestive
picture were only posted in the men's bathrooms in bars.  Silly me.

For me, the problem is not when these pictures are posted in *men's* bathrooms,
but when they are posted in bathrooms used by boys, too.  I happen to like
erotica (which is what this seems to be), but as another noter said, I want
control over what I expose my son to, and this is not a place I would have
expected to have to be careful of.  

If/When I experience this myself someplace, I will go to the manager and
explain that I am offended and why, and ask that the pictures be removed.  If
the pictures are not removed, then I will not do business at that restaurant,
and I will tell people why. 

         Carol

It just occured to me...I would hate to see a little girl who was the 
victim of sexual abuse by a man, go into a "woman's" bathroom and face
pictures of naked or semi-naked men in suggestive poses.  It could 
really freak her out.  I wish people would *think* before they put up
photos like that.  It could really perpetuate damage to some children.

         Carol

    I am more concerned about my young son being exposed to violent scenes
    in movies than photos of naked people or people making love.  If he
    went into a restaurant and saw a photo of a naked woman (horror of
    horrors) I would hope that my wife and I have done a good enough job
    teaching him respect for other people so that he wouldn't be warped
    for life having viewed the naked woman.  Your points about nude photos
    being degrading is well taken, however in my opinion its in the eye of
    the beholder.    Jeff

    We can only shield our children from so many things in life. My point
    is that children are going to see dirty pictures, and they are going to
    see movies and people being hurt (maybe in person).  The parents job in
    part is to teach the kids how handle the inevitable things which have a
    potential negative impact on them.  I would not choose to have my son
    see nude photos in a restroom, but, if it happened I would try and keep
    things in perspective.  A word to the manager, perhaps, a picket line
    in front of the restaurant?, I think thats a bit much. I would rather
    spend my energy trying to limit some of the ecological problems humans
    have caused on this Planet, but, each must expend their efforts toward
    the issues they have a problem with.  

    Calendars Restaurant chain replies, at last:
    
    "I am pleased that you wrote as your letter re-inforced the decision we
    had already taken to change all the pictures in all of our units.
    
    As of Monday 18th June, they are being replaced by pictures of film
    actors and actresses, which we feel are much more in keeping with the
    image we want to portray."
    
    I am glad that this decision has been taken and perhaps some attitudes
    in society are changing even though at a painfully slow rate.
    
    What depresses me most at times is that although I am lucky to live at
    a time when freedom and rights are already mine as women before me have
    fought for them, and even given their lives for them, there is still
    such a long way to go before this patriarchal society really changes
    and is no longer such a hard and painful one to live in just because
    you are born female. I do believe that women are still, even in the
    so-called civilized world, born into a subordinate position. I realize
    of course this is a just another symptom of a cruel world.
    
    In reply to those who say they enjoy erotica and nudity - so do I!
    I find the naked human body beautiful, the male and female. There
    are some wonderful artists who represent the naked body
    with beauty and dignity. I would never object to Rodin's "The Kiss", or
    any of Lucien Freud's work. To me, these are works of art and show human
     nudity with respect. I have seen some great erotic works by
    photographic artists as well. They photograph the naked body without
    having to resort to gimmicks that perpetuate society's attitude that
    it's acceptable to see women as objects for satiating male lust.